Qaher F313 l News & Discussion

[VEVAK]

stealth cruise missile is more a marketing term by the arms industry. A cruise missile is already hard to detect because it flies low and is small in size.

Stealth cruise missiles just attempt to reduce the RCS of the cruise missile even further by design.

It’s nothing out of Iran’s capabilities.

In terms of stealth you can use imaging rather than radar for mapping to reduce radio emotions to an absolute minimum
For Iran they can hide the engine inside the airframe to further reduce RCS
The use of RAM coating will also further reduce your RCS

I guess you could potentially make your Missiles EMP prof and deploy Small EMP warheads on some of your missile to go off over specific areas

OR you could stack some of your missiles with flairs and decoy by creating large amount of firework over a targeted area that would create hell on their optical sensors

You can also deploy jammers on some of your missiles to protect against radar guided SAM's

There is a wide range of tactics and countermeasures you can use on a 20ft long 20in in diameter cruise missile

But for cruise missiles the most important thing is intel! Intel as to what the safest rout is! Knowing exactly where enemy SAM's & Aircraft are located! Knowing exactly what type of defensive systems protect the rout you plan on flying!...
Without appropriate data and the use of appropriate tactics, countermeasures and subsystems your subsonic cruise missiles will be relatively easy to shoot down

Fact is for subsonic cruise missiles to be a major factor in Iran defense doctrine they would need to be mass produce and deployed in very high numbers

 

[TheImmortal]

In terms of stealth you can use imaging rather than radar for mapping to reduce radio emotions to an absolute minimum
For Iran they can hide the engine inside the airframe to further reduce RCS
The use of RAM coating will also further reduce your RCS

I guess you could potentially make your Missiles EMP prof and deploy Small EMP warheads on some of your missile to go off over specific areas

OR you could stack some of your missiles with flairs and decoy by creating large amount of firework over a targeted area that would create hell on their optical sensors

You can also deploy jammers on some of your missiles to protect against radar guided SAM's

There is a wide range of tactics and countermeasures you can use on a 20ft long 20in in diameter cruise missile

But for cruise missiles the most important thing is intel! Intel as to what the safest rout is! Knowing exactly where enemy SAM's & Aircraft are located! Knowing exactly what type of defensive systems protect the rout you plan on flying!...
Without appropriate data and the use of appropriate tactics, countermeasures and subsystems your subsonic cruise missiles will be relatively easy to shoot down

Fact is for subsonic cruise missiles to be a major factor in Iran defense doctrine they would need to be mass produce and deployed in very high numbers

The reason we haven’t seen them part of the defense doctrine is because Iran doesn’t have the technology to keep the cruise missile viably accurate vs BMs.

Without a dedicated location technology (GPS/GLONASS), the cruise missiles would be easily suspectible to spoofing/jamming by an adversary. Iran cannot rely on GPS/GLONASS during war time as that is not a viable option.

The best it can do is have radar/communication stations in friendly territory to give the cruise missile(s) continuous course updates. Relying on terrain mapping alone would make the cruise missile less accurate and thus defeat its purpose.

Even during the Syrian war, Russian CMs demonstrated accuracy issues and they had GLONASS to constantly update the CM.

What Iran should focus on is bulding a hypersonic quasi-cruise missile. The missile would be two stages....warhead and body. The cruise missile would carry no fuel, instead it would use a special type of engine that mixes the chemicals in atmosphere to create fuel.

Thus the quasi cruise missile would launch and rise into the upper atmosphere where it achieve supersonic speeds using its engine.

Upon reaching close to the target <250 KM, it would provide last minute course corrections and the warhead would seperate from the body, the warhead would than (with its reduced RCS) glide to the target using gravity to go from supersonic to hypersonic speeds.

the warhead could even be equipped with a gyroscope that comes online upon separation to provide course corrections during final seconds.

The issue with such an idea is wether Iran could even build such an micro engine with its current engine technology and if it WERE to be able to build it...how much would it cost per unit. If too expensive, then Iran would just stick with BM technology.

Right now the only countries working on hypersonic vehicles are Russia, China, and US and all these vehicles differ from the one I mentioned in that they are meant to be Very long range 6000KM+ And carrying nuclear warhead.

Iran’s would only need to be 2500KM and be able to carry non-nuclear EMP warhead (with option for nuclear in the future).

The thinking is Iran would use these to disabled electronics over HVT (military bases, command and control centers, etc)

 

[gambit]

What Iran should focus on is bulding a hypersonic quasi-cruise missile. The missile would be two stages....warhead and body. The cruise missile would carry no fuel, instead it would use a special type of engine that mixes the chemicals in atmosphere to create fuel.

That is amazing. Must be a different set of physical laws.

 

[VEVAK]

The reason we haven’t seen them part of the defense doctrine is because Iran doesn’t have the technology to keep the cruise missile viably accurate vs BMs.

Without a dedicated location technology (GPS/GLONASS), the cruise missiles would be easily suspectible to spoofing/jamming by an adversary. Iran cannot rely on GPS/GLONASS during war time as that is not a viable option.

The best it can do is have radar/communication stations in friendly territory to give the cruise missile(s) continuous course updates. Relying on terrain mapping alone would make the cruise missile less accurate and thus defeat its purpose.

Even during the Syrian war, Russian CMs demonstrated accuracy issues and they had GLONASS to constantly update the CM.

What Iran should focus on is bulding a hypersonic quasi-cruise missile. The missile would be two stages....warhead and body. The cruise missile would carry no fuel, instead it would use a special type of engine that mixes the chemicals in atmosphere to create fuel.

Thus the quasi cruise missile would launch and rise into the upper atmosphere where it achieve supersonic speeds using its engine.

Upon reaching close to the target <250 KM, it would provide last minute course corrections and the warhead would seperate from the body, the warhead would than (with its reduced RCS) glide to the target using gravity to go from supersonic to hypersonic speeds.

the warhead could even be equipped with a gyroscope that comes online upon separation to provide course corrections during final seconds.

The issue with such an idea is wether Iran could even build such an micro engine with its current engine technology and if it WERE to be able to build it...how much would it cost per unit. If too expensive, then Iran would just stick with BM technology.

Right now the only countries working on hypersonic vehicles are Russia, China, and US and all these vehicles differ from the one I mentioned in that they are meant to be Very long range 6000KM+ And carrying nuclear warhead.

Iran’s would only need to be 2500KM and be able to carry non-nuclear EMP warhead (with option for nuclear in the future).

The thinking is Iran would use these to disabled electronics over HVT (military bases, command and control centers, etc)

WRONG! Modern mapping technology + Modern processing power + Modern sensors + Modern digital avionics allows for even Iranian INS on a subsonic platform to get within 1km (at ranges above 1000km) of any target with simple rudimentary data like Speed, Altitude, Heading,... + factoring in the earth rotation...
Add to that Optical or Radar imaging for course correction & terminal guidance and your looking at CEP's under 20 Meters
(Fact is if your INS can get you to within a CEP of even 5km of a target your terminal guidance should easily be able to do the rest using imaging software the tech behind it is really not that complicated for a country like Iran)
GPS by the most part simplifies and reduces launch time using less skilled personal but it is NOT a necessity!
What is a necessity is having accurate data for mapping, targeting, enemy defenses....


And yes I would like Iran to have scramjet technology too but currently it is NOT realistic!
For fuel efficiency to make sense on a scram jet engine you would need to reach speeds above Mach 7 within the earths atmosphere where there is sufficient amount of oxygen to burn!
Meaning not just your engine but your entire airframe needs to be made out of high cost materials and maneuvering at those speeds is practically impossible for Iran so they would lack any kind of accuracy on an extremely high cost platform

For ranges within 300km Ramjet's moving at sustained speeds of Mach 3 at lower altitudes make more sense but for Iran we already have the Fatteh class missiles that move at those speeds.... Although Fatteh class missiles are far easier to detect from long ranges they are more than sufficient for targets within 500km and there isn't really much need in mass investment in R&D and mass production of a high cost system for fixed targets within that range
at least not until Iran develops industrial 3D printers that can mass produce such systems relatively quickly at relatively low cost using more advanced composites


I think the money would be much better spent on wider diameter missiles equipped with a PBV & at least 4 or more MIRV's with high accuracy

 

[gambit]

stealth cruise missile is more a marketing term by the arms industry. A cruise missile is already hard to detect because it flies low and is small in size.

Stealth cruise missiles just attempt to reduce the RCS of the cruise missile even further by design.

It’s nothing out of Iran’s capabilities.

No, it is not. You do not know what you are talking about.

When I was on the F-111, the Soviets feared us flying out of England. The F-111s from Upper Heyford and Lakenheath specialized in low altitude near Mach flight. Soviet engineer Adolph Tolkachev confirmed for US that the Soviets had no realistic defense against the F-111. For that, in every arms reduction talks, the Soviets always asked US to remove the F-111 from England. And we always told them to STFU.

While flying low altitude offers protection from Soviet radars, it also limit the jet's own radar view. It is the laws of physics, that radar is line-of-sight (LOS) limited.

http://members.home.nl/7seas/radcalc.htm

This is why the cruise missile is rigged with as much sensors and predictive algorithm as possible to compensate for that limitation.

Satellite and mapping assists are wonderful additions, but nothing is better than an active radar, even if the radar's operation is momentary for flight path update purposes.

Here is what you do not understand about the TACTICS of fighting against a seeking radar.

Flying at low altitude is radar AVOIDANCE, meaning you do not enter the radar scan beam.

Low radar observable is radar COUNTERMEASURE, meaning even if you are in the radar scan beam, you would be difficult to assess as a target.

The F-111, the cruise missile, and the B-1 uses the radar avoidance tactic.

So if we can make the cruise missile 'stealthier' that would offer the weapon a new tactic -- a higher flight altitude.

When you are flying at hilltop level, or even lower, a 5 km 'look ahead' is good. If you ascend merely a few meters enough to give you a 10 km look ahead and still be relatively difficult to detect by radar, that would be excellent.

Flying low altitude gives you two options:

- Terrain Following (TF)
- Terrain Avoidance (TA)

My F-111 can do only TF, and I know what it feels like under hard TF.

Terrain Following is up/down, meaning you fly as the mountain slopes.

Terrain Avoidance is more fuel and time consuming because the mountain's size is always greater in distance than the slopes, and no mountain is regular in terms of features. TA flight is to be minimized when possible.

A higher flight altitude while being 'stealthy' offers less of TF and TA.

So without risking revealing any flight tactics that are still critical to combat success, I will say that you are wrong about the 'stealth' cruise missile.

 

[TheImmortal]

That is amazing. Must be a different set of physical laws.

So engineers are trying to develop lightweight, “air breathing” hypersonic vehicles that can travel at rocket-like speeds while taking oxygen from the atmosphere, as a jet engine does, rather than having to carry it in the form of fuel oxidants.

One way to do it is to use fuel injectors that protrude, at an angle, into the supersonic airstream. They generate small shock waves that mix oxygen with fuel as soon as it is injected. This mixture can be ignited using the energy of bigger shock waves entering the combustion chamber. Another approach is being developed at the Australian Defence Force Academy. In a process known as “cascade ionisation”, laser blasts lasting just a few nanoseconds rip electrons off passing molecules, creating pockets of hot plasma in the combustion chamber that serve as sparks

https://www.economist.com/news/tech...-building-vehicles-fly-five-times-speed-sound


I should clarify that I meant no oxidants, current stage hypersonic vehicles seek to get oxygen from atmosphere rather than carry them.

Either way, it doesn’t make a difference on wether Iran should begin R&D on hypersonic vehicle technology as it has multiple applications including space program.

 

[TheImmortal]

No, it is not. You do not know what you are talking about.

When I was on the F-111, the Soviets feared us flying out of England. The F-111s from Upper Heyford and Lakenheath specialized in low altitude near Mach flight. Soviet engineer Adolph Tolkachev confirmed for US that the Soviets had no realistic defense against the F-111. For that, in every arms reduction talks, the Soviets always asked US to remove the F-111 from England. And we always told them to STFU.

While flying low altitude offers protection from Soviet radars, it also limit the jet's own radar view. It is the laws of physics, that radar is line-of-sight (LOS) limited.

http://members.home.nl/7seas/radcalc.htm

This is why the cruise missile is rigged with as much sensors and predictive algorithm as possible to compensate for that limitation.

Satellite and mapping assists are wonderful additions, but nothing is better than an active radar, even if the radar's operation is momentary for flight path update purposes.

Here is what you do not understand about the TACTICS of fighting against a seeking radar.

Flying at low altitude is radar AVOIDANCE, meaning you do not enter the radar scan beam.

Low radar observable is radar COUNTERMEASURE, meaning even if you are in the radar scan beam, you would be difficult to assess as a target.

The F-111, the cruise missile, and the B-1 uses the radar avoidance tactic.

So if we can make the cruise missile 'stealthier' that would offer the weapon a new tactic -- a higher flight altitude.

When you are flying at hilltop level, or even lower, a 5 km 'look ahead' is good. If you ascend merely a few meters enough to give you a 10 km look ahead and still be relatively difficult to detect by radar, that would be excellent.

Flying low altitude gives you two options:

- Terrain Following (TF)
- Terrain Avoidance (TA)

My F-111 can do only TF, and I know what it feels like under hard TF.

Terrain Following is up/down, meaning you fly as the mountain slopes.

Terrain Avoidance is more fuel and time consuming because the mountain's size is always greater in distance than the slopes, and no mountain is regular in terms of features. TA flight is to be minimized when possible.

A higher flight altitude while being 'stealthy' offers less of TF and TA.

So without risking revealing any flight tactics that are still critical to combat success, I will say that you are wrong about the 'stealth' cruise missile.

Your post makes no sense as you sat and talked about the F-111 (not sure why that applies in the current context) then you sat and described how a modern day cruise missile works which again thanks for pointing out the obvious points that were irrelevant to the conversation.

Apparently you mis-understood me, I said modern day cruise missiles are already “stealthy” in many ways including some that you already mentioned (flying low, radar avoidance).

But specifically looking at the modern day cruise missile and finding ways to make it even more “stealthy” by designing the missile even further to have a reduced RCS is another thing entirely.

Anything else that is algorithmic upgrade relating to Tactics and radar accordance could be added to a modern day cruise missile as well. But certain design changes in the appearance of the missile (coating of missile/shape of missile/location of engine, etc) is what Is now being touted as “stealthy”.

 

[N_Al40]

Old videos from 2013, but give a unique behind the scenes insight into the inner workings of the F-313

 

[WordsMatter]

This thing will never fly... propaganda for internal consumption.

 

[gambit]

Your post makes no sense as you sat and talked about the F-111 (not sure why that applies in the current context) then you sat and described how a modern day cruise missile works which again thanks for pointing out the obvious points that were irrelevant to the conversation.

Apparently you mis-understood me, I said modern day cruise missiles are already “stealthy” in many ways including some that you already mentioned (flying low, radar avoidance).

But specifically looking at the modern day cruise missile and finding ways to make it even more “stealthy” by designing the missile even further to have a reduced RCS is another thing entirely.

Anything else that is algorithmic upgrade relating to Tactics and radar accordance could be added to a modern day cruise missile as well. But certain design changes in the appearance of the missile (coating of missile/shape of missile/location of engine, etc) is what Is now being touted as “stealthy”.

I will try to explain it again...

Radar detection is line of sight (LOS) limited, meaning the higher you fly, the further you can see, so when you fly low altitude to avoid radar, you also limit your own radar view. That was why I brought up the F-111. The cruise missile is in the same LOS limit situation and that is why it is loaded with mapping memory and satellite assisted navigation technologies.

You essentially said that below the cruise missile already 'stealthy' under a narrow tactical situation -- low altitude -- making the weapon form 'stealthy' is a marketing gimmick. That is the wrong approach to tactics.

Radar avoidance is not really 'stealth'. It is what the word mean, to avoid being in a state and/or a location.

Being form 'stealthy' is the object of low radar observability, meaning even if you are in the radar beam, it is difficult to assess you. In many tactical situations, you cannot avoid radar detection. F-117, F-22, F-35, and B-2 pilots trains to avoid radar whenever possible. Being form 'stealthy' does not give license to ignore the EM threat, no matter how far away or how weak.

When the aircraft is in auto TF flight, the flight is essentially REACTIVE in nature. It means if the TF radar detects a rise in terrain feature, it sends a pitch up command to the flight controls computer (FCC) which then sends a pitch up command to the flight controls surfaces. The aircraft reacts/responds to terrain.

If you want to have a PREDICTIVE flight, either you look ahead or you have precise maps of your planned flight paths. If you look ahead and actually 'sees' (radar or visual) the mountain to be higher than your planned altitude limit, then you enter a TA path. You fly around the mountain. A predictive flight path can be achieved with memory maps, but it also limits your options precisely because all you have is memory.

A higher flight altitude, no matter how brief, can give you options for unexpected mission obstacles, such as the enemy moved an air defense missile battery and your ECM module just picked up its radar transmissions. Mountains do not move. Missile batteries does move and move unexpectedly.

So making the cruise missile form 'stealthy' is not a marketing gimmick. It is a genuine evolution of the weapon platform. It allows the aircraft to fly at higher altitudes when tactically feasible. It does not matter if the aircraft if manned (F-111) or autonomous (cruise missile), the ability to look ahead is ALWAYS useful and flying at a higher altitude helps in that regard.

 

[Stryker1982]

WRONG! Modern mapping technology + Modern processing power + Modern sensors + Modern digital avionics allows for even Iranian INS on a subsonic platform to get within 1km (at ranges above 1000km) of any target with simple rudimentary data like Speed, Altitude, Heading,... + factoring in the earth rotation...
Add to that Optical or Radar imaging for course correction & terminal guidance and your looking at CEP's under 20 Meters
(Fact is if your INS can get you to within a CEP of even 5km of a target your terminal guidance should easily be able to do the rest using imaging software the tech behind it is really not that complicated for a country like Iran)
GPS by the most part simplifies and reduces launch time using less skilled personal but it is NOT a necessity!
What is a necessity is having accurate data for mapping, targeting, enemy defenses....

So is this something Iran can truly achieve using the Soumar platform?

How will they be able to direct the cruise missile towards its target without the use of satellites that would take pictures of the target for the cruise missile to match its own image too for course correction? Could one even use google maps satellite to provide the recon that the missile needs to correct its trajectory?

 

[TheImmortal]

I will try to explain it again...

Radar detection is line of sight (LOS) limited, meaning the higher you fly, the further you can see, so when you fly low altitude to avoid radar, you also limit your own radar view. That was why I brought up the F-111. The cruise missile is in the same LOS limit situation and that is why it is loaded with mapping memory and satellite assisted navigation technologies.

You essentially said that below the cruise missile already 'stealthy' under a narrow tactical situation -- low altitude -- making the weapon form 'stealthy' is a marketing gimmick. That is the wrong approach to tactics.

Radar avoidance is not really 'stealth'. It is what the word mean, to avoid being in a state and/or a location.

Being form 'stealthy' is the object of low radar observability, meaning even if you are in the radar beam, it is difficult to assess you. In many tactical situations, you cannot avoid radar detection. F-117, F-22, F-35, and B-2 pilots trains to avoid radar whenever possible. Being form 'stealthy' does not give license to ignore the EM threat, no matter how far away or how weak.

When the aircraft is in auto TF flight, the flight is essentially REACTIVE in nature. It means if the TF radar detects a rise in terrain feature, it sends a pitch up command to the flight controls computer (FCC) which then sends a pitch up command to the flight controls surfaces. The aircraft reacts/responds to terrain.

If you want to have a PREDICTIVE flight, either you look ahead or you have precise maps of your planned flight paths. If you look ahead and actually 'sees' (radar or visual) the mountain to be higher than your planned altitude limit, then you enter a TA path. You fly around the mountain. A predictive flight path can be achieved with memory maps, but it also limits your options precisely because all you have is memory.

A higher flight altitude, no matter how brief, can give you options for unexpected mission obstacles, such as the enemy moved an air defense missile battery and your ECM module just picked up its radar transmissions. Mountains do not move. Missile batteries does move and move unexpectedly.

So making the cruise missile form 'stealthy' is not a marketing gimmick. It is a genuine evolution of the weapon platform. It allows the aircraft to fly at higher altitudes when tactically feasible. It does not matter if the aircraft if manned (F-111) or autonomous (cruise missile), the ability to look ahead is ALWAYS useful and flying at a higher altitude helps in that regard.

Instead of talking about how the F-111 is stealthy, explain how the new super duper missiles that US fired (which depending on who you believe some were shot down by Soviet Union) are stealthy?

If you decided to actually read on the missile it is considered stealthy because of its design profile ie RCS and none of the reasons you mentioned about your experiences with the F-111.

 

[gambit]

Instead of talking about how the F-111 is stealthy, explain how the new super duper missiles that US fired (which depending on who you believe some were shot down by Soviet Union) are stealthy?

If you decided to actually read on the missile it is considered stealthy because of its design profile ie RCS and none of the reasons you mentioned about your experiences with the F-111.

I can see that my post 760 is beyond you. Sorry, but I cannot simplify any further without watering down the technical and military points contains within.

 

[VEVAK]

So is this something Iran can truly achieve using the Soumar platform?

How will they be able to direct the cruise missile towards its target without the use of satellites that would take pictures of the target for the cruise missile to match its own image too for course correction? Could one even use google maps satellite to provide the recon that the missile needs to correct its trajectory?

I wouldn't trust google earth for military targets Iran is interested in!
Iran can potentially utilize google earth to create it's own map & utilize various tactics to update it with more accurate data
Iran has a large UAV program, Can easily deploy a good amount of low life span imaging sats in a very short time and various other means of getting that info depending on where the targeted location is located

Getting accurate data for terminal guidance shouldn't' be a problem for Iran but getting data on where enemy defenses are is!

 

[VEVAK]

Instead of talking about how the F-111 is stealthy, explain how the new super duper missiles that US fired (which depending on who you believe some were shot down by Soviet Union) are stealthy?

If you decided to actually read on the missile it is considered stealthy because of its design profile ie RCS and none of the reasons you mentioned about your experiences with the F-111.

I can see that my post 760 is beyond you. Sorry, but I cannot simplify any further without watering down the technical and military points contains within.

No known platform on the planet is truly invisible to any kind of detection and you both know that!

RQ-170, B-2, F-117,... are all stealth designs but that doesn't mean they are undetectable!

And even the U.S. is fully aware that stealth by it's self is not sufficient and they need to utilize a combination of various tactics and countermeasures to have the desired effect
Today without the utilization various tactics, decoy's, jammers, EMP,... stealth aircraft weather they be fighters or cruise missiles are not sufficient to penetrate modern air defenses in any meaning full way!

And ground skimming TF & TA only work if you know exactly where every air defense system from AAA to SAM to airborne sensors.... is located! And that data is of far more value than the ability to skim closer to the ground!
As for Cruise Missile sooner or later that missile will need to get within visible range and line of site of defensive systems protecting high value targets and there is no way around that either!

Today technologically we are at a point where Tanks are being equipped with defensive equipment that can protect themselves against ATGM's so I don't care how low to the ground your cruise missiles are flying because processing power has reach a point that once you get close to a high value target with a relatively low speed platform all bets are off!

In Iran's case I would worry more about mass production in vast numbers and utilization of blitz tactics to overwhelm enemy defenses
And I could care less about ground skimming because without intel on enemy defenses the lower you fly to the ground the higher your chances of getting intercepted by lower cost systems!

SAM aren't cheep and NO ONE has an unlimited supply so if it was up to me I would mass produce cheaper low RCS cruise missiles in vast numbers that fly at higher altitudes and I would utilize cheaper tactics to disrupt optical & radar sensors during terminal guidance!