Meet Owj: Iran’s First Indigenous Fighter Jet Engine

[Blue In Green]

It is already 3700 units and is growing fast to fulfill 5000 units in couple of years..

I guess I'm a little confused about air defense installations go, does that mean Iran has 3,700 air defense sites? Or 3,700 separate units that have there own air defense system that they use? Like 1 unit will use the s-300. Another the mersad and so on etc, etc...

 

[scythian500]

I guess I'm a little confused about air defense installations go, does that mean Iran has 3,700 air defense sites? Or 3,700 separate units that have there own air defense system that they use? Like 1 unit will use the s-300. Another the mersad and so on etc, etc...

These 3700 has different types of AA systems in them. Some of them are short range POINT DEFENSE systems that protect a very sensitive facility or city and some are long range systems that overlap tens of these smaller units. So, there 3700 air defense circles. Some are 10 km in range, some are hundreds of kms. Of course it does not mean 3700 single free stand systems like a simple Zu-23 unit.

For example, Bushehr Nuclear Power plant has three 3 short, medium and long range AA layers covering it. It has different types of AA systems in it yet is counted as one point defense.

Iran already is covered by air defense clouds %100 but it is still improving fast as they want an assured all in one approach for all skies.

Btw, Iranian national air defense system is an integrated network and is very advanced comparing to Iran-Iraq war time or even comparing to 10 years ago or even 5 years ago and but will be even more sophisticated in 2 to 3 years when new Iranian projects are coming into service.

 

[asad71]

Masha Allah! Allah be praised.

 

[husseinibnali]

These 3700 has different types of AA systems in them. Some of them are short range POINT DEFENSE systems that protect a very sensitive facility or city and some are long range systems that overlap tens of these smaller units. So, there 3700 air defense circles. Some are 10 km in range, some are hundreds of kms. Of course it does not mean 3700 single free stand systems like a simple Zu-23 unit.

For example, Bushehr Nuclear Power plant has three 3 short, medium and long range AA layers covering it. It has different types of AA systems in it yet is counted as one point defense.

Iran already is covered by air defense clouds %100 but it is still improving fast as they want an assured all in one approach for all skies.

Btw, Iranian national air defense system is an integrated network linked by 3 different systems that if one is disconnected the other one becomes on line and one of them (that could be the first or the last option) is solid state and non-penetrable.

The system is a miracle and swiss watch comparing to Iran-Iraq war time or even comparing to 10 years ago or even 5 years ago and will be an Apollo level precision and strength in 2 to 3 years when new Iranian projects are coming to service.

I didn't understand the last 2 paragraphs,could you please explain more!
Why one of them would be solid state and impenetrable and not all systems!
Apollo level precision and strength?!
Thinking about Iranian air defense makes me dizzy!

 

[scythian500]

I didn't understand the last 2 paragraphs,could you please explain more!
Why one of them would be solid state and impenetrable and not all systems!
Apollo level precision and strength?!
Thinking about Iranian air defense makes me dizzy!

I did not understand it myself...it must have a meaning anyway!

 

[Oldman1]

If you see my next post, you would see I do not hold this view.

Of course they have learnt something, but MC 2002 was designed to be the most comprehensive and complex war game ever conducted, costing $250 million. That was the biggest learning opportunity they ever had and they blew it.

LOL! They didn't blew it. Who was the opposition that made them beat them in the exercises? Was it an Iranian general that participated in those exercises or someone else? You didn't think the U.S. military hasn't been developing new weapons and tactics to deal with small boats and ballistic missile ships? As well as the old doctrine of firing cruise missiles to take on carrier groups which have practice for many decades since the start of the Cold war against the Soviets.

Ok then, can you provide any proof (statements or quotes) of any official since then acknowledging that the US has a lot of work to do?

Maybe dealing with small boats in vast numbers is one good example.

 

[AmirPatriot]

LOL! They didn't blew it. Who was the opposition that made them beat them in the exercises? Was it an Iranian general that participated in those exercises or someone else? You didn't think the U.S. military hasn't been developing new weapons and tactics to deal with small boats and ballistic missile ships? As well as the old doctrine of firing cruise missiles to take on carrier groups which have practice for many decades since the start of the Cold war against the Soviets.



Maybe dealing with small boats in vast numbers is one good example.

The LCS? Puh-lease. That's been derided for its high cost and limited capability. Besides, FAC swarms are only 1 part of the navy's doctrine.

 

[That Guy]

Is that meant yo be a slight? Because attempting to slight Iranians over the IRIAF is a pathetically futile task.

Tell Van Ripper that.

A slight? No. It was meant to establish common ground nothing more. You can take it how you will.

And I stand by my statement that Iran can only do so much with its missiles. You cannot win wars relying only on a few elements, which the enemy can eventually easily counter.

If you're going to reply to me, at least make a comment worth replying to and not some hocus pocus.

Preeetty sure you replied to me first.

An integrated ground based air defence can easily deal with the carrier groups and their "anti-missile" techs won't do much when you have thousands of air defence points scattered across a country 4 times the size of Texas with alot of tech designed to doop anti air systems such as use of long wavelength frequency hoping system, including mobile OTH radars, the Americans will not know where most these air defence points are till its too late and by the time they find out, the mobile system would have moved, hence the term mobile. And this is not even taking into account that their so called carrier groups will be sitting ducks within the range of Iranian offensive missile capabilities.

That's where strike aircrafts, and missile shields come in, they'll be able to take care of a vast majority of the missile threats. US forces literally train for such scenarios constantly, because a lot of their enemies have the same capabilities that Iran does, if not better(such as China).

Airforce has its good uses obviously, but to claim it will provide that much of a better form of defence than a heavily integrated ground based AD unit is folly.

Again, strike aircraft, with AGMs specialize in taking out ground based Air defense systems. One of the reasons why the F-22 and F-35 (and other developing LO fighters) were developed was because there was a need for a safe and effective method of destroying enemy SAMs, radars, and other high value ground targets, deep within enemy territory.

@gambit am I right or am I wrong?

 

[arashkamangir]

LOL! They didn't blew it. Who was the opposition that made them beat them in the exercises? Was it an Iranian general that participated in those exercises or someone else? You didn't think the U.S. military hasn't been developing new weapons and tactics to deal with small boats and ballistic missile ships? As well as the old doctrine of firing cruise missiles to take on carrier groups which have practice for many decades since the start of the Cold war against the Soviets.



Maybe dealing with small boats in vast numbers is one good example.

still lack quantity and fall short when it comes to range and real life maneuvering high speed targets equipped with jammers.

 

[Blue In Green]

War's comming soon boys, let's see who was right when the first shots pop off. Then we'll debate the small minute details later lol.

 

[arashkamangir]

War's comming soon boys, let's see who was right when the first shots pop off. Then we'll debate the small minute details later lol.

Highly unlikely. A bunch of irrational clowns could start something but it will end with a proportional response.

 

[mohsen]

That's where strike aircrafts, and missile shields come in, they'll be able to take care of a vast majority of the missile threats. US forces literally train for such scenarios constantly, because a lot of their enemies have the same capabilities that Iran does, if not better(such as China).

train to die you mean!

One of the reasons why the F-22 and F-35 (and other developing LO fighters) were developed was because there was a need for a safe and effective method of destroying enemy SAMs, radars, and other high value ground targets, deep within enemy territory.

and one of the reasons the following one was developed was ...

and the reason Hizbollah drone flied 400km above Israel and NATO warships before being identified visually near dimona was ...
and the reason that Israel never published the wreckage footage was ...
and the reason the recent Hizbollah drone evaded 2 patriot missiles and one air to air missile was ...

 

[Blue In Green]

Highly unlikely. A bunch of irrational clowns could start something but it will end with a proportional response.

Yeah, lol I meant it satirically.

 

[scimitar19]

@mohsen
why haven't they shown wreckage of drone??

and the reason that Israel never published the wreckage footage was ...

 

[gambit]

If you're going to reply to me, at least make a comment worth replying to and not some hocus pocus.
An integrated ground based air defence can easily deal with the carrier groups and their "anti-missile" techs won't do much when you have thousands of air defence points scattered across a country 4 times the size of Texas with alot of tech designed to doop anti air systems such as use of long wavelength frequency hoping system, including mobile OTH radars, the Americans will not know where most these air defence points are till its too late and by the time they find out, the mobile system would have moved, hence the term mobile. And this is not even taking into account that their so called carrier groups will be sitting ducks within the range of Iranian offensive missile capabilities.

Airforce has its good uses obviously, but to claim it will provide that much of a better form of defence than a heavily integrated ground based AD unit is folly.

Do not think that just because you use the words 'integrated air defense' it means you know what you are talking about. Am saying this gently.

The concept of an integrated air defense is relatively new. It did not exist in WW II, not in the Korean War, and relatively experimental in the Vietnam War. Air defense have always existed to defend against aircrafts, but the responses were not coordinated and the individual units had poor communication with each other. To put it simply...What integration did was to put an area under the unified command of a single commander, from personnel to hardware.

By the time of Desert Storm, Iraq's integrated air defense system rivaled that of Moscow's. It was better than what North Viet Nam fielded under Chinese design and built in the Vietnam War. We blinded Iraq's integrated air defense commanders in the first hour, crippled it in the first day, and essentially rendered it impotent by the 4th. Yes, Iraq had mobile radars as well. Those crews learned that to transmit any longer than one second is to invite death.

https://defence.pk/threads/ten-propositions-for-modern-air-power.472753/

Tell Van Ripper that.

Just because Van Ripper did it, does not mean Iran can replicate what he did. For starter, Van Ripper knew US combat doctrines and was able to exploit weaknesses.

This is where you are wrong. Seriously wrong. The idea of a 'war game' or exercise is to stress everything related to the focus of the exercise. Stress to the point of breaking, if necessary.

For example...If the focus of the exercise is transporting heavy equipment to the front line, you stress the maintenance people. You virtually 'kills' them. Place them under cards, meaning they are now 'dead' and ineligible to contribute to their unit's operations. Now their trucks and/or aircrafts that have maintenance problems will go longer unrepaired and yet the goal of transporting X amount of tanks and ammunition still must be met.

Another example...If the focus of the exercise is to deal with numerical superiority, then you give permission to the 'bad guys' to regenerate as much tanks, ships, or fighter aircrafts as needed. When the defense, the 'good guys', finally failed, you now know where the weak points are.

What Van Ripper did was in no way indicative that we learned and changed nothing. Least of all, that Iran can count on US to be static so that what happened is available on the Internet for Iran to assuredly can defeat the US Navy. I have said it before that the US military is the most self critical organization in the world. We change while it is appearing that we do not. Then when the time comes, people get embarrassed real fast when they underestimated US. Like your Iran did for Desert Storm.