What's new

Meet Iran's suicide UAV with 2000km range

Multiply the cruise speed by the endurance. Its cruise speed is 111km/h and it has an endurance of around 24 hours. What's the total displacement?
Fair enough. Although that's debatable. The average cruise speed of ScanEagle is reported to be about 90 km/h and its endurance is reported to be 20 hours. That would reduce the answer to 1,800 kilometers. I have a problem with using average numbers though. It gives you a ballpark, but that's it.

It's basic mathematics that anyone can do by doing a quick research. Nothing rigorous about it.
But your initial post does not mention anything about the speed or the endurance of Arash. And since endurance and displacement are related, when you doubt one of them, the other is under question too.
 
Fair enough. Although that's debatable. The average cruise speed of ScanEagle is reported to be about 90 km/h and its endurance is reported to be 20 hours. That would reduce the answer to 1,800 kilometers. I have a problem with using average numbers though. It gives you a ballpark, but that's it.

The manufacturer of the system i.e Boeing have declared its endurance to be 24+ hours. So it is probably even longer. Check their website:


But even if we used your data, which are the lowest available for ScanEagle (probably for an older version) you can see you would still get a large figure for a UAV that size.

But your initial post does not mention anything about the speed or the endurance of Arash. And since endurance and displacement are related, when you doubt one of them, the other is under question too.

Those information have not been released yet so I could not post them. But I think we agree 2000km is easily doable for it. Regarding the 4000km variant, we can await for more official information but as far as I am concerned there are no limitations. It's a matter of whether Iran needs those ranges. Iran could target Diego Garcia with them but that's not a necessity given Iran certainly has missiles with those ranges which it has not declared for political reasons.
 
The manufacturer of the system i.e Boeing have declared its endurance to be 24+ hours. So it is probably even longer. Check their website:


But even if we used your data, which are the lowest available for ScanEagle (probably for an older version) you can see you would still get a large figure for a UAV that size.
Yeah, you're right. Although, the link you posted does not mention its average cruise speed. So, maybe it has a higher endurance with a lower speed? But your point is valid.

Those information have not been released yet so I could not post them. But I think we agree 2000km is easily doable for it. Regarding the 4000km variant, we can await for more official information but as far as I am concerned there are no limitations. It's a matter of whether Iran needs those ranges. Iran could target Diego Garcia with them but that's not a necessity given Iran certainly has missiles with those ranges which it has not declared for political reasons.
Yeah. I mentioned it earlier that 2,000 kilometers is doable and logical. It's the 4,000 kilometers figure that seems hard to believe. I think we'll have to wait for more information and photos.
 
Yeah, you're right. Although, the link you posted does not mention its average cruise speed. So, maybe it has a higher endurance with a lower speed? But your point is valid.

Yeah. I mentioned it earlier that 2,000 kilometers is doable and logical. It's the 4,000 kilometers figure that seems hard to believe. I think we'll have to wait for more information and photos.

It is odd they have not put the speed on that site, but here they have posted it:

Screen Shot 2021-01-10 at 22.49.47.png


They have given a range from 92km/h to 111km/h.

Frankly I am not very engrossed about the 4000km variant. The 2000km ranged version has enough strategic value. My hope is they will create to necessary facilities to produce 100's of these per annum if needed. UAVs will play more and more important roles in the future, especially these swarm suicide systems.
 
Since one of the members is showing a negative attitude, it doesn’t mean we have to ignore some of his/her valid points, especially the scientific facts.
The uplift force generated by the wings acts against the downward gravity force. Therefore, for the smaller wing spans, more powerful engines (=more fuel consumption) is required to maintain the speed of the object above the stall speed and reach to the target range. Without enough lift (uplift) force, no flying object can continue flying for a long distance, unless the horizontal force pushes the object. Put it simply, if you hold a pen in your hand and drop it, it will drop right there. But, if you throw it, it will drop farther. Real world example: Most non-combat lethal accidents for military aircrafts with small wings such as Star-fighter, Blinder, and early Fishbeds occurred during the landing time when the pilots had to maintain their landing speed above certain figures set by the manufacturer.
Of course for Kian or Arash (or whatever name they give it) the solution is flying at high altitude along with using a powerful piston engine to reach to 2,000 km range. What is bizarre here is that during the previous Drone exercise, they announced its range was 100 km. How the hell it has been increased to 2,000 now?
The other valid point I read in this topic is the time factor. Even if this drone can reach to a 2,000 km range, such mission will take at least 10 hours! Therefore, we can conclude it is a good fit for fixed targets only.
 
Since one of the members is showing a negative attitude, it doesn’t mean we have to ignore some of his/her valid points, especially the scientific facts.
The uplift force generated by the wings acts against the downward gravity force. Therefore, for the smaller wing spans, more powerful engines (=more fuel consumption) is required to maintain the speed of the object above the stall speed and reach to the target range. Without enough lift (uplift) force, no flying object can continue flying for a long distance, unless the horizontal force pushes the object. Put it simply, if you hold a pen in your hand and drop it, it will drop right there. But, if you throw it, it will drop farther. Real world example: Most non-combat lethal accidents for military aircrafts with small wings such as Star-fighter, Blinder, and early Fishbeds occurred during the landing time when the pilots had to maintain their landing speed above certain figures set by the manufacturer.
Of course for Kian or Arash (or whatever name they give it) the solution is flying at high altitude along with using a powerful piston engine to reach to 2,000 km range. What is bizarre here is that during the previous Drone exercise, they announced its range was 100 km. How the hell it has been increased to 2,000 now?
The other valid point I read in this topic is the time factor. Even if this drone can reach to a 2,000 km range, such mission will take at least 10 hours! Therefore, we can conclude it is a good fit for fixed targets only.
Arash is based on Kian. Kian has two sizes, smaller Kian-1 and bigger Kian-2 which are visible in the below picture, and also there is both propeller and Jet engine variant of them. (so there are 4 variants of Kian)

13981001182224554191884910.jpg



There is no paradox in published info, just low clarification.
 
Iranian Long range radars are capable of updating the pre defined path for drones. When a drone as small as ScanEagle as brother Philosopher pointed out, could Fly for 20 hours and almost 2000 KM then why not a big suicide drone such as the Iranian one? Other factors such as wingspan, drag etc leave them to our scientists.

There is a big point in the words of the Army general that everyone missed is that Army indirectly announced existence of a precise 4 thousands KM radar. I suspect it belongs to IRIAF and/or Army.

In the recent exercise, the mentioned drone flew for almost 1500 KM and successfuly hit its target precisely.
 
The uplift force generated by the wings acts against the downward gravity force. Therefore, for the smaller wing spans, more powerful engines (=more fuel consumption) is required to maintain the speed of the object above the stall speed and reach to the target range. Without enough lift (uplift) force, no flying object can continue flying for a long distance, unless the horizontal force pushes the object.

This has already been addressed multiple times. As I demonstrated, the Arash, relatively speaking has what we call low aspect ratio and that is a useful parameter to help it fly at low speeds, especially at lower altitude where parasitic drag is higher. I posted articles on this topic that people could read. More-ever, generally speaking, such "nap of the earth" systems tend to have very high wing loading compared to high altitude systems, this is to minimise wing surface and consequently drag, which again is higher at low altitude.

Regarding the absolute wing area of this system, i.e whether it is too small or too large, you can only determine that aerodynamically via objective testing i.e wind tunnel etc. This is not something you can comment on by just looking at the system. Therefore any claims that its wings are too small is aerodynamically illiterate.


Of course for Kian or Arash (or whatever name they give it) the solution is flying at high altitude along with using a powerful piston engine to reach to 2,000 km range.

False, again. Flying at high altitude is a not a solution, that only defeats the mission plan of this system, and also counters the very reason they have designed its wings to be the way it is.

What is bizarre here is that during the previous Drone exercise, they announced its range was 100 km. How the hell it has been increased to 2,000 now?

There is nothing bizarre here, the day they unveiled the system (1-2 years ago) they stated the range was 1000km. Things develop, this is a natural progression in the military sector. What we also know now is that there are multiple variants of this system, some even used a loitering system/bombs.

The other valid point I read in this topic is the time factor. Even if this drone can reach to a 2,000 km range, such mission will take at least 10 hours! Therefore, we can conclude it is a good fit for fixed targets only.

And the same comment can be made for long ranged cruise missiles, which are faster but mostly still subsonic at the end of the day. So your "valid point" is nothing more than a truism.
 
This has already been addressed multiple times. As I demonstrated, the Arash, relatively speaking has what we call low aspect ratio and that is a useful parameter to help it fly at low speeds, especially at lower altitude where parasitic drag is higher. I posted articles on this topic that people could read. More-ever, generally speaking, such "nap of the earth" systems tend to have very high wing loading compared to high altitude systems, this is to minimise wing surface and consequently drag, which again is higher at low altitude.
Admitting to valid points others make is not a shame. Actually it is a sign of work ethics and honesty, and in contrast to how your mindset is formed it will add credit to you as a senior member as well as a hardworking moderator for Iran-related topics.

Are you trying to negate the fact that ‘wing’ was devised to generate uplift for the flying objects? Do you know why all aircrafts have wings? Aspect ratio, as the name suggests is just a ratio! Numerator and denominator of a ratio can be independent parameters. Force divided by the area is called pressure. So what? Does Force lose its fundamentals, importance and application because a ratio called Pressure is there? What are you trying to get at by denying simple facts?

False, again. Flying at high altitude is a not a solution, that only defeats the mission plan of this system, and also counters the very reason they have designed its wings to be the way it is.

Your statement is false, as usual. I don’t know about you, but I learned in high school about Newton Law of Attraction: The force of attraction between two masses is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers.
For low uplift objects with weak engines, we need to offset the attraction force by maintaining a big enough distance above the ground (when aircrafts such as F-104 or TU-22 are landing, they cannot do it because eventually they want to ‘land’. Too many pilots have lost their lives for not properly controlling their landing speed, and hitting the ground due to attraction force).
Interestingly enough, in none of the released videos so far Arash flies at low altitude, and the reason is clear. Arash was originally designed as a target drone. It cannot fly at very low altitude like jet-powered cruise missiles.


There is nothing bizarre here, the day they unveiled the system (1-2 years ago) they stated the range was 1000km. Things develop, this is a natural progression in the military sector. What we also know now is that there are multiple variants of this system, some even used a loitering system/bombs.

There is indeed a bizarre thing here, and it is you adding one 0 to 100 in my post to forge a 1,000 km range for the old version of Arash (Please listen and watch the Video below @ 1:54) couple of months ago, Arash’ range was mentioned to be 100 km as a suicide drone during the Zulfiqar-99 exercise, which makes complete sense considering its size and its root design (Kian) as a target drone. Now, how the hell they could increase its range by a factor of 20 to 40? Unless the new drone only uses the same name as the old one. Maybe, in future they unveil the new one.
Please don’t get me wrong! A drone with a piston engine (low flying speed - high fuel efficiency), flying at high altitude (low fuel consumption), and a small warhead (more internal fuel) can easily fly for more than 1,000 miles, with too many real examples. But, this cannot be the same drone whose range was 60 miles only few months ago.

 
Last edited:
Admitting to valid points others make is not a shame, especially when you are wrong like this case. Actually it is a sign of work ethics and honesty, and in contrast to how your mindset is formed it will add credit to you as a senior member as well as a hardworking moderator for Iran-related topics.

You claim they made valid points and I explained why they were wrong. So just focus on discussing the facts.

Are you trying to negate the fact that ‘wing’ was devised to generate uplift for the flying objects? Do you know why all aircrafts have wings?

This is a straw-man argument, at no point did I claim wings were not related to lifts etc.

Aspect ratio, as the name suggests is just a ratio! Numerator and denominator of a ratio can be independent parameters. Force divided by the area is called pressure. So what? Does Force lose its fundamentals, importance and application because a ratio called Pressure is there? What are you trying to get at by denying simple facts?

Aspect ratio is critical to this discussion as it explains the reason why the wings are the way they are. The numerator and denominator in the above ratio relate to the wing length and man chord length, this is not qualitatively similar to pressure. You're engaging in highly erroneous analysis. The above ratio's importance in this discussion is the ratio itself. This does not mean the numerator and denominator parameter are wholly irrelevant but we're discussing the matter in a specific context. Below I explained the topic in more detail.



1610425833053.png



Arash has a relatively low aspect ratio and some UAVs likes predator have long aspect ratio. Both have their own benefits such as lower induced drag vs parasitic drag. Induced drag is higher at low speed and higher altitude.



A system like Arash will not be flying at higher altitude, certainly not during most of its all flight path. Another advantage of using a high aspect ratio is to help create a STOL, however this does not apply to Arash given it utilises assisted launching, i.e it does not require runways.

With regards to the speed, low aspect ratio in Arash are useful given it is relatively slower:



Low aspect ratio: the design

1- more useful internal volume

2-can fly slow


Link to article:


Another important factor to note is something called wing loading which I explained to you in previous post.

Given the design requirement of Arash, i.e use as a suicide UAV which spends most of its time flying at lower altitude and lower speeds, it is a matter of incorrect aerodynamics to claim it should use "larger wings" or it must fly at high altitude. What aspect ratio you use depends on many factors such as mission design, practical needs such as storing UAVs in launch containers i.e compactness, shape of the UAV etc. Thus you cannot refute the range of a system solely by looking at the wing size/flight altitude. To understand those exact details, you need objective tests such as wind tunnel testing etc.


Your statement is false, as usual. I don’t know about you, but I learned in high school about Newton Law of Attraction: The force of attraction between two masses is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers.

You're misapplying basic physics. The only force of attraction here that is relevant is gravity, however, how does this in anyway counter any of my statements to you?

For low uplift objects with weak engines, we need to increase the distance i.e. flying at high altitude to offset the attraction force (when aircrafts such as F-104 are landing, they cannot do it because eventually they want to ‘land’. Too many pilots have lost their lives for not properly controlling their landing speed, and hitting the ground due to attraction force).

Your argument is fallacious because it is based on the assumption that Arash's engines are too "weak" to maintain lift at the altitude is is designed for. Do you have any data to support your claim or is it another mere pseudo-aerodynamic assumption?

Interestingly enough, in none of the released videos so far Arash flies at low altitude,

What videos? Post some and then given a proper analysis.

and the reason is clear. Arash was originally designed as a target drone.

Source for this claim?

It cannot fly at very low altitude like jet-powered cruise missiles.

This has already been refuted.

There is indeed a bizarre thing here, and it is you adding one 0 to 100 in my post to forge a 1,000 km range for the old version of Arash. Few months ago, Arash’ range was mentioned to be 100 km as a suicide drone during the Zulfiqar-99 exercise, which makes complete sense considering its size and its original design as a target drone. Now, how the hell they could increase its range by a factor of 20 to 40? Unless the new drone only uses the same name as the old one. Maybe, in future they unveil the new one.


As I explained when Arash's other family called Kian member was unveiled last year, they had a 1000km range.

Iran unveils Kian reconnaissance and attack drone
“This drone can undertake any drone missions we entrust it with … it can fly more than 1,000 km [620 miles] and find its target with precision,”


As another member showed above, there are other variants of this UAV family, including shorter ranges ones.

Please don’t get me wrong! A drone with a piston engine (low flying speed - high fuel efficiency), flying at high altitude (low fuel consumption), and a small warhead (more internal fuel) can easily fly for more than 1,000 miles,

This has already been addressed. Flying at high altitude would go against the mission plan of these systems and make them much more susceptible to detection. Furthermore, you have provided absolutely zero data to suggest this UAV cannot reach the stated ranges whilst flying at low altitude. I have already explained why flying at low altitude is not mutually exclusive with the relatively long ranges you're seeing.
 
Last edited:
Speaking of accuracy without US GPS:

View attachment 705212

Kindly see the Iranian UAV thread for the first ever Drones with AA missile, long range bomber UAVs, etc.

Kindly remember, who initially invented UCAVs.

You are teaching Pierre Currie what Radium is.

Why 2000km? :D :D:D

In other words, Diego Garcia is within reach.

Murica the cowardly bully better stick to goat herders .:pleasantry::pleasantry::pleasantry:

But come to think of it, Murica did not have much success of even that as we seen in Afghanistan. Or Somalia

:omghaha::omghaha::omghaha:
 
The problem is, they did not even detect or try to engage the targets. PAC-2 is claimed to be able to be used against cruise missiles and UAVs:

View attachment 705337


Here is the scenario, these UAV temporarily wiped out 50% of Abqaiq capacity, and bare in mind these were a small scale attack. The Patriot cost per missile is lets say 1 million per missile (some say more), compared to to the damage caused, it would be cost effective to down the UAVs. However no such thing occurred, meaning they simply would not even detect them. Not a single UAV was downed.

Just imagine what would happen if instead of few dozen UAVs, they had to deal with a few hundred. This is why ingenuity always trumps hardware in the hand of the inept. These people have spent 100's of billions and yet could not protect one of their most important facilities from a dozen or so UAVs. Now they will try to play catch up, but they will get there because their adversary i.e Iran is always many steps ahead in terms of ingenuity.
Some call it the Middle East’s “Pearl Harbor.” :


"...The best way for Biden to appreciate the new Middle East is to study what happened in the early hours of Sept. 14, 2019 — when the Iranian Air Force launched 20 drones and precision-guided cruise missiles at Abqaiq, one of Saudi Arabia’s most important oil fields and processing centers, causing huge damage. It was a seminal event.
The Iranian drones and cruise missiles flew so low and with such stealth that neither their takeoff nor their impending attack was detected in time by Saudi or U.S. radar. Israeli military analysts, who were stunned by the capabilities the Iranians displayed, argued that this surprise attack was the Middle East’s “Pearl Harbor.”
They were right. The Middle East was reshaped by this Iranian precision missile strike, by President Trump’s response and by the response of Israel, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to Trump’s response..."
 
You dont understand the fact. US Israel west or Russia China have the capability to design and develop technology that it wants... on the other hand Iran can only desire such technology and is not capable of fullfilling its desire simply because its lack of technical advancement in such field. its very fanboyish to believe that just because Iran needs something it will achieve it..
BM, cruise missiles are relatively easy for Iran to obtain since it can access such technology from China and Russia which are its primary source of military technology. It can not achieve 2,000 km suicided drone technology because none of other technologically advanced nation have such a thing.
Just like if you want to be a weight lifter you would always lose in heavy weight category as a light weight. I hope you got my analogy.
Which powerful nation would not want to have a drone that can sneak up 2000 km inside enemy territory and destroy important enemy's military installments. Israel which is technically advanced then Iran has been working on suicided drones for decades and if they cant achieve 2000 km range then so cant Iran.
2000 km that's absurd
 
They were right. The Middle East was reshaped by this Iranian precision missile strike, by President Trump’s response and by the response of Israel, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to Trump’s response..."
"Middle East’s Pearl Harbor " Very true statement....Not only because of how the Iranian attack was planned and executed in almost 100% accuracy but because:

1- It rendered ineffective and null Saudi strategy of exporting oil from Red sea port via bypassing Persian gulf. They spent billions on the pipeline and its defence.

2- It shattered again the myth of US patriot and radar system as an effective and fool proof AD system;

3- It shattered the Arab belief that the US will go to war with Iran for the sake of "Arab" security...American soldiers will not die to protect any Arab no matter how rich.

4- It demonstrated to Israel that when pushed, Iran is not afraid to engage in military confrontation with the west (they demonstrated that again by missile bombardment of US base in Iraq).

5- This one is my favorite..It demonstrated that the Iranian weapons work..simple and in your face for all to see.
And now Arabs think they need a new "Protection" and Israel is offering it..imagine a colony that needs protection herself offering it to others.:cuckoo:

I say the best protection and the least expensive is " Be nice to Iran".
 
Last edited:
2000 km that's absurd

Just because someone does not have the capacity to understand how something is done, it does not mean it is absurd. Moreover, we have posted the background information regarding these systems and their long range dozens of time here already, but it would appear expecting people to read is overestimating their capabilities.
 
Back
Top Bottom