It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Vedomosti: Russia to supply Iran with Tor M-1 air defense systems

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 07:35 AM
link   
This is my first post here



MOSCOW (AP) - Moscow and Tehran signed an agreement providing for Russia to provide Tor M-1 air defense systems to Iran, the Vedomosti business daily reported Friday.

The newspaper cited an unidentified manager at a military-industrial enterprise as saying Russia would provide Iran with 29 Tor missiles systems that had originally been manufactured on orders from Greece.

The Rosoboronexport state arms export agency said it had no information on the reported deal.

While the conventional weapons deal would not violate international agreements, Moscow can expect a heated reaction from the United States, the newspaper predicted.

"I expect that Russia's decision to supply the complexes to Iran will meet a negative reaction from the West, but this criticism will be of a political rather than legal character," Vedomosti quoted Konstantin Kosachev, the head of the parliamentary foreign affairs committee, as saying.

The Interfax news agency said that Russian and Iranian officials had signed contracts in November for more than US$1 billion (¤850 million). Citing an unnamed source in the Russian military-industrial complex, Interfax said up to 30 To-M1 air defense systems would be sent to Tehran in 2006-2008.

Interfax said that the Tor-M1 system could identify up to 48 targets and fire at two targets simultaneously at a height of up to 6,000 meters (20,000 feet).
......

aawsat.com...



well, another reason why Israel shouldn't attack iran's nuke facilities.


btw, why iranians don't just buy the new s400 package?




posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 07:42 AM
link   
Whether the Iranians acquire the Tor M-1 or the S-400 systems, apparently, the expression wild weasel has been forgotten? The tactics and application of "wild weasels" are very much still viable, credible, and effective today and no matter the anti-air system.


as posted by proprog
well, another reason why Israel shouldn't attack iran's nuke facilities


Be assured that the Israelis have a number of "wild weasel" aircraft and the training to apply such. When Israel gets remotely ready to take action, if deemed necessary, the only thing that will stop them is Washington. Definately will not be the threat posed by those Tor M-1 or S-400 systems.





seekerof

[edit on 2-12-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 08:29 AM
link   
well, the question is whether the risk is worth it.
If these new systems prove to be as good as their specs on the paper,
then we are talking about f15 and f16s technology proliferation.

from what I've seen from the previous threads about iranian capabilities, iranians have shown to be pretty good at reverse-engineering.
not to mention, they could sell the shot birds to China and Russia for let's say 100 mil bucks. not quite sure, but I remember iranians selling a few of their F14's to Russia back in 90s.

They could take the ISRAELI pilots as hostages, force them to take their clothes off,torture them, ..., u know, with all that live from Iranian TV available worldwide through sats. Arab world, having ABU GHARIB PRISON ABUSES in mind,
will go crazy about this one.


This post is not about whether israel is going to attack iranian nuke facilities or not, but this is a very clear indication it is not going to be a piece of cake,
it certainly complicates any air strike plan.

RESPECT

[edit on 2-12-2005 by proprog]


Sep

posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Dear Seekerof,

Please forgive my ignorance regarding the subject, but may I ask what is the longest range "Wild Weasel" in the possession of Israel. Does Israel have the ability to deploy these weapons from Israel soil? What are some ways, if any, that Wild Weasels can be intercepted by Iran? Thanks for you time in advance.


Sep

posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by proprog
not quite sure, but I remember iranians selling a few of their F14's to Russia back in 90s.


That was a rumour that turned out to be false



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sep
Dear Seekerof,

Please forgive my ignorance regarding the subject, but may I ask what is the longest range "Wild Weasel" in the possession of Israel. Does Israel have the ability to deploy these weapons from Israel soil? What are some ways, if any, that Wild Weasels can be intercepted by Iran? Thanks for you time in advance.




Wild Weasel isn`t a weapon its a mission type :


SEAD (pronunciation: see-add), or Suppression of Enemy Air Defences operations are military actions to suppress enemy surface-based air defences (SAMs and AAA) primarily in, but not limited to, the first hours of an attack.

The weapons most often associated with the mission are Anti-radiation missiles (ARMs) such as the American AGM-88 HARM and British ALARM. However an SEAD mission can be anything which damages or destroys a component of an air defence system, for example a Paveway LGB is not a SEAD-specific munition but when used to destroy a radar antenna it achieves the objective of Suppression of Enemy Air Defence.


There are ways to counter Weasel missions - the usual is a `bait and switch` , where you have a transmitter or rather a fake transmitter and powered down (or IR SAMs and guns) the transmitter switchs on and off and waits for the planes to approach

it then shuts off and another one comes on then the incoming aircraft continue to the original target then get hit from a different direction



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sep
Please forgive my ignorance regarding the subject, but may I ask what is the longest range "Wild Weasel" in the possession of Israel. Does Israel have the ability to deploy these weapons from Israel soil?


You are not ignorant, Sep, far from it. You are quite an intelligent individual.


Harlequin answered some of your questions.


As for the Israeli capability to do such a mission or air missions to Iran: it has been inaccurately mentioned in related topics concerning Iran and Israel and a possible Israeli airstrike, that Israel did not possess aerial refueling capabilities, thus would have to use land refueling provided from speculative airfields in Iraq and/or elsewhere. As I mentioned, such speculation was inaccurate, for the Israeli air force has aerial refueling capabilities.


...and Iran, Israel, and Turkey have aerial refueling capability.

Center for Nonproliferation Studies: Fixed-wing Combat Aircraft Deployed in the Middle East

Further backed by this source:
Israel Aircraft Industries Delivers A B707-300 Aerial Refueling Aircraft to Israel Air Force (2001)

Also bear in mind that the Iranian Shahab-3 missile has been asserted to have a range from 850 to 1250 miles, plus or minus. This puts Tel Aviv/Israel within targeting range. As such, compare the distance from Iran to Israel or vice versa to the link given for "Fixed-wing Combat Aircraft Deployed in the Middle East," and those aircraft that are listed for Israel.

Example, the F-15 can be equipped as a "wild weasel" or for "wild weasel" missions. The five type F-15s the Israeli air force uses are F-15 A/B/C/D and the F-15I. The ranges cited for them is from 4,500 to 5,750 km., well within striking and return distance depending on airstrike route and/or the varied national air spaces they would have permission to fly thru. Permission is not a necessity, which would undoubtedly depend on the critical nature of such an Israeli airstrike in direct respect to the urgency of Israel's determined national security. An Israeli air force aerial refueling is a viable alternative option, in respect to a possible or considered Israeli airstrike on Iran.

As a side note, and being merely speculative, I am doubting an Israeli airstrike on Iran, especially after the successful testing of the Israeli ARROW anti-air defense system, targeting and intercepting a Shahab-type or like missile.






seekerof

[edit on 2-12-2005 by Seekerof]


Sep

posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 10:09 PM
link   
Thank you both Seekerof and Harlequin for replying,



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 10:16 PM
link   
You are most certainly welcome, Sep.
Anytime I can help, though I may not always be accurate or correct, I will endeavor to help or assist the best I can.



seekerof



posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 04:33 PM
link   
I think there is a huge gap in western understanding when it comes to Russian rocket technology wich really should have dissapeard after Vietnam.

S-300

Profile of Russian S-300 System.

After 43 Years, Russian Missile Defenses Still Ready for Anything.

And apparently there is something special enough about the S-300
US set to buy Russian missiles

And if anyone wants to spend some time on the issue go here and try convince me that Russia does not in fact currently have a very efficient and effective ABM system consisting of upwards of 13 000 missiles ready to fire.

Stellar

[edit on 4-12-2005 by StellarX]



posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 05:03 PM
link   
Not quite related but must say...

Seekerof it is so good to see some objective ___ free posts from u.

Just please keep them coming
.



posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
And apparently there is something special enough about the S-300
US set to buy Russian missiles


There is no doubting the effectiveness or efficiency of past Russian SAMs, the ones that have been tested in combat situations. What is in dispute and contested is the continued claims put forth on their being so effective and vaunted. What is also in dispute and continually contested is the hype surrounding the S-400. You know, much like some say concerning the over-hyping of the F-22 and stealth technology?

At any rate, after reading that 2001 BBC article you linked concerning the US proposal to buy some S-300s, perhaps one of the real reasoning behind such a proposal was so to compare [reverse engineer] designs? Perhaps even to find out if what was found and presented by a well-established member within the realworld aeronautical community presented was true, here:
S-300 = Patriot ?



"These (Soviet) intelligence victories continued until recent times with the KGB stealing the U.S. Patriot anti-missile technology on which the Soviets based their modern version, the S-300, which it now exports to any buyer for hard currency."







seekerof

[edit on 4-12-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
What is in dispute and contested is the continued claims put forth on their being so effective and vaunted.


Well there should not be any need for that as everyone who has been following Soviet rocket development would have ,imo, noticed....


What is also in dispute and continually contested is the hype surrounding the S-400. You know, much like some say concerning the over-hyping of the F-22 and stealth technology?


I am not one to go into hyping untested technology as at least one of my threads would indicate! As far as i am concerned the S-400 is not a giant leap forward but considering the allready potent nature of the weapon that is probably not required. I think their just working on the ABM capability as the S-300 varients can bring down planes without much further thinkering. The F-22 is very much out there when it comes to innovation and hyping it would probably be premature as you rightly state.

Wonder-weapons, or not?


At any rate, after reading that 2001 BBC article you linked concerning the US proposal to buy some S-300s, perhaps one of the real reasoning behind such a proposal was so to compare [reverse engineer] designs?


The US also tried to buy varients of the Sunburn a decade or so ago so they are clearly after Russian missile technology in my opinion.


Perhaps even to find out if what was found and presented by a well-established member within the realworld aeronautical community presented was true, here:
S-300 = Patriot ?


I have no objection to the reality of Russian stealing American intelligence ( that's what intelligence agencies are supposed to ideally manage) and technology and then seeing how they can best employ it with their native production bases or weapons systems. I will however argue that the Russians have been ahead in rocket engineering, since at least the late middle 50's, and that that would probably in part explain the huge gap in effectiveness between the two missile sytems/programs as was shown in the first gulf war...

So in closing i believe that for whatever reason the Russians Anti air missiles system are superior to American one's ( not i am sure due to a technology gap as such) and that the American is now trying to buy back some of these missiles to see what developmental track the Russians are going into.

In that link i provided earlier there is alot of information on early Russian success with BM interception showing that Russia was still ahead in the mid 60's and. It's a lead i believe they have widened extensively in the last few decades....

Stellar

[edit on 5-12-2005 by StellarX]



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 03:21 PM
link   
Bravo to Iran

playing its cards right and putting up more of a defence against imenent attack from Israel or the USA

better going down with a fight then none at all



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 04:21 PM
link   
isreal makes me sick hypocrates they want to be the only nation in the area with nukes, missiles and ability to counter anything they are playing a dangerous game of Bully Thy neihbors they will get burned. I wont fill sorry for them one bit as they are the bullies on the block thinking they can attack whoever they want and to get away with it. PLis how are the Palistianian consentration camps going? Nothing like repeating what others did 60+ years ago but they are getting away with it. sickening.

Oh yeah fight a war vs bottles, mortors, rockets and rocks vs tanks, jets, artillery, missiles...etc oh yeah thats a fair fight.

Isreal has been bully its own people and the nations of the area for far to long and they are threating Iran now cus they dont want anyone else to be a nuclear power in the middle east. I actually hope Isreal is stupid enough to try to repeat what they did to the Iraq plant on the Iranians for if they do I feel maybe a suitcase mushroom cloud or two will appear over the night sky of Isreal.

THe sale of the missiles could be a ploy to provoce the ultra aggressive nature of Isreal into doing something foolish.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 08:20 PM
link   
The day Israel declared itself a nation, every surrounding arab nation declared war on them. Since then they have fought off not only several major wars, but also a harsh terrorism campaign that no country has ever had to deal with, and in the mist of this, the arab nations continue to say the destruction of Israel is the key goal. They are also getting nukes, but that doesnt connect...


Israel, throughout its history has simply defended itself, and yes, its cards arent clean, but neither are Irans...

And to be quite frank, I'd trust Israel more than Iran with nukes.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 10:53 PM
link   
Proprog,

The Tor-M1 (SA-15 Gauntlet)-

www.fas.org...

is a radar command guided SAM roughly similar to the British Seawolf VL or the FrancoGerman Roland-3. There is some suggestion that an M2 model may shift to ARH homing but given the types _low level, SHORADS_ intended use against helos, missiles and and PGM's, I rather doubt if the Russian electronics have what it takes to accomplish the handoff in clutter or against high rate 'diver' targets.

Indeed, the Gauntlets limited ceiling of about 20,000ft and total slant of about 35,000ft mean it is only a true threat to aircraft commiting to conventional attacks with dive toss from a popup (The Al Tuwaitha profile) or LGB using P-2 class weapons (which have altitude/Mach and birdie limits for direct acquisition) that effectively require target overflight in the designation wheel.

Any attack using weapons such as Pyramid (Israeli Walleye clone) or Guillotine (Israeli P3/GBU-24 clone) and _particularly_ those based on the Delilah EO (BQM-74 Chukar cum AGM-136 Tacit Rainbow clones) and Popeye 2/3 (AGM-84E/H clones) would completely out envelope the Gauntlet's ability to reach out as much as up and threaten the shooter. In this, the ancient I-HAWK systems are actually more of a medium altitude shutdown capability than the Tor while it should be fairly simple to just saturate the goalkeeper function (SA-15 limitiation of two active engagements at a time vs. 10-15 Mach .96 closing Delilah that are only spotted some 2-4 miles out as they cross the local cluttergate/horizonline...)

However; the reality of life is two fold:

1. The USAF will not just turn around and bend over so that the IDFAF can fly through Iraq. Nor will Saudi and Jordan and Bahrain/UAE deliberately ignore the transit of aircraft.
2. In an attack condition wherein you cannot afford a SINGLE engagement by threat air, the F-16DI's Sufa's (Blk.50+ with the camel back tanks) would not provide enough operational freedom to make the 750nm radius required.
Indeed, even in the 550nm radius 1981 raid, Where the F-16A's dumped all but their centerline tanks and came home 'clean', at _high level_, they landed with between 400 and 1,200lbs of fuel. Barely enough to light the burner, once.
3. The F-15I Ra'am, which won the IDFAF interdictor contest against the original F-16ES on the basis of the F-15Es ability to launch from the bottom of the Sinai Peninsula and reach targets in Northern Greece on a hi-lo-lo-hi radius of about 900nm, including a 50nm segment at Mach .9 and 200ft while carrying 12 Mk.82 class weapons and 2 610 gallon tanks. Should be able to make legs while carrying the large Popeye under wing. However; it's internal EW suite is most likely NOT as capable of precision emitter location system triangulation and attack as the big-spine dedicate F-16D's with their EL-2340 mod installations. It also cannot carry AGM-88 HARM.
4. The latter may or may not be critical because the Israeli doctrine for SEAD is based on the use of decoy (Samson/TALD) airlaunch drones, along with ground launch optical systems (Mastiff and Scout at one point, now probably Heron [Predator Equivalent] or similar) to get the threat radars to light off and make an optical geolocation fix. After which they launch standoff weapons (again both air and ground are available) to put 'iron on the antenna'. Rather than trusting to volley fire rocket-ARM to kill blinking/decoy/arm pit protected weapons (if the signal is spoofed or goes off air, the missile may not hit) they kill the SAM itself. 100-170mph Drones take too long to make radius and would be far to vulnerable at low level to try a radar masked approach. Even as the Iranians have /already/ made clear their ability to hit MQ-1 class systems at medium level when they shot down a Predator malingering around Busheyr a couple years ago.
Ideally, you would use a mix of Delilah AR and EO weapons and an F-16DI to perform loitering lethal-decoy (missile carries target emulator signal tapes and a signature enhancer) and EO (TV seeker + warhead) linked attacks while the EW suite triangulated from a long standoff (20miles or more). But without the drones to give 'two eyes on target' confirmation, there would still be a lot of wasted ordnance. But again, it is unlikely that the Sufa could make target. Particularly without 600 gallon tanks which would effectively limit the number of stations which were available for mission stores to 'both pylons today I tell'ya!' an extreme degree.
The F-15I cannot perform the ELS ferret as much as weasel mission and, particularly if it is carrying wing fuel or Popeye, it will sterilize it's wing pylon shoulder AAM stations and be forced to employ the CFT long rail as a mount for Sparrow or AMRAAM. Which means that their availability for ANY A2G weapons would be equally limited. It should also be noted that with massive over-load conditions on gas (upwards of 15,000lbs for the LGPOS, more like 30 for the Mudhen) that NEITHER jet will be handling worth a damn. The CFT in particular make the F-15 handle like a bus on roller skates.
This is what happens when you buy into the U.S. 'package system' of hi-lo mixed supporting airpower, only to discover that your target is further away than you can lug the 'Weasels' to allow the cow bombers to do their job, safely.


ARGUMENT:
The Israeli's tested a 1,500nm sublaunched cruise weapon over the Indian Ocean in 2000. According to some rumors, they even detonated a small yield nuke which was detected 'because cloud cover was less than expected' (here we are you Islamic b*st*rds, take a really good look at what could happen). Particularly with the dispersal of the Iranian nuke program over /at least/ three suspect mining, refinement and weaponization sites, along with the proliferation of Hard Target Smart Fuzing/Multi Event Fuzing (floor, void, floor, void counters) on BROACH type warheads, that is how I would expect them to 'handle' a crisis so far away for which the direct action intimidation, kidnap and murder of French techs was no longer an option.

Alternatively, if they have the option, the could go with Jericho-3 as a CBM. After Iraq plastered Israel with SCUDs the Arabs and Persians could hardly 'mind' if the Israelis did a tit for tat with a conventionally armed IRBM, provided it was a precision kill. And given that Arrow really works, any response in kind by Iranian Shahab would likely be laughed off (Iranian guidance tech probably cannot hit individual hard targets like the TEL barns on the Zachariah hills or the Dimona site, OTOH, Israeli gee whiz, using star tracker and GPS if not RADAC, can likely score make a 100m CEP or better, even after 815nm which I believe is what the Jericho 2 is good for...).

CONCLUSION:
Busheyr is basically a show piece distraction for the IAEA and possibly a 'once lit, always ready' backup plan as far as I can tell. If the Iranians are going for the (most expensive, hardest to productionize but ultimately more efficient) gas-diffusion method, they don't /need/ a reactor pool to enrich to weapon grade material. Similarly, by avoiding the eggs-in-one-basket problem that the Iraqi's made a living bullseye of themselves with as a function of dispersing their conversion and production efforts across Natanz, Ardekan and Isfahan-

www.globalsecurity.org...

They multiply the total number of aimpoints required to sterilize their total program (at this late date) beyond the reasonable expectation (IMO) of any ONE, discrete, (they took 8 F-16s to Al Tuwaitha with 6 F-15 escorts IIRC) raid to handle.

As is, with perhaps 24 F-15Is and 50 F-16DIs. Of which half of the force would need to be strictly configured to 'support mission' (OCA BARCAP/Escort and SEAD/DEAD), they could hit, on average, 12X4 and 25X2 point targets with heavy structural kill munitions. Divided by the three principle sites with the required BIA overlap sureties on misses and failed weapons, this would be about 25-30 DMPI's per site.

At a 50% munition success rate _before target defense attrition_, that's 12-15 hits.

Not enough.

And if (by some minor miracle) it worked once, it would never do so twice while the Iranians (if they were smart) would be before the UN screaming for quite justified sanctions which the U.S. would have no choice but to go along with if they wished to retain any kind of moral standing as 'more than a Jewish whore' within the Security Council.


KPl.


LINKS-
F-16I
www.israeli-weapons.com...

F-15I
www.israeli-weapons.com...



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Raideur
The day Israel declared itself a nation, every surrounding arab nation declared war on them. Since then they have fought off not only several major wars, but also a harsh terrorism campaign that no country has ever had to deal with, and in the mist of this, the arab nations continue to say the destruction of Israel is the key goal. They are also getting nukes, but that doesnt connect...


Israel, throughout its history has simply defended itself, and yes, its cards arent clean, but neither are Irans...

And to be quite frank, I'd trust Israel more than Iran with nukes.



The first bold statement - the USA sponsered IRA did a much worse job than what is going on in Israel - NORAID? they bought bombs and guns for the IRA to blow up babies with.


The second bold part - Iarael has also , and repeatildly called for the nuclear destruction of Iran - so is it a case of tit for tat or did israel start it?



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 04:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by proprog
btw, why iranians don't just buy the new s400 package?


Because it's not up for sale, to anyone.

Why? Because it's without a doubt, by far the most advanced air defence system ever designed.

And selling it to a country such as Iran will have obvious implications for Russia, from the US.



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 11:20 AM
link   

The Iranian air defense will get the Russian surface-to-air missile system Pechora-2A in the second quarter 2006, the Russian site Grani.Ru writes citing the source in the Federal Service on Military Technical Cooperation. A draft contract is prepared and approved by Russia and Iran. System Pechora-2A provides air target range 2,2-23,6 miles and elevation from 22 yards to 12,4 miles tearing along 435 miles a second. In September this system was successfully tested on the one of the firing range in the Middle East against fighter F-16. During the modernization Pechora-2A was instrument with new electro-optical system, which allows to determine and to dwell the air targets also in the night conditions. The protection facilities against active jamming and blind smart missiles are droved in. According to the source, the Iranian party nails its colors to the mast in relation to revival of the talks on S-300 delivering. The source noted, that Russia is going to continue the cooperation in the strengthening Iran’s aircraft defense.
www.axisglobe.com...


Iran will receive Pechora-2a systems as early as April. it will certainly boost iranian air defence against any israeili attack on iranian nuke facilities since it has been tested against a F-16.
(I remember we had a long discussion here about where the f-16 came from). Tor m1 and pechora 2a are all part of the contract approved by iran and russia. iranian mig 29s will be upgraded and fast missile boats will be supplied all part of 1 bln $ contract signed between Iran and Russia.


I have no doubts, the talks on s300 is a cover for s-400 sale to iran. iran is believed to possess as many as 4 s-300 systems according to several reports, 2 defending Tehran airspace.


RESPECT



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join