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.

 

New Iranian made AA missile

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 02:14 PM
link   
The reports are very unknown about this but it can be used on both navy ships and can be laucnhed from vehicles....






[edit on 27-2-2006 by Mehran]

[edit on 27-2-2006 by Mehran]

[edit on 27-2-2006 by Mehran]




posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mehran
The reports are very unknown about this but it can be used on both navy ships and can be laucnhed from vehicles....






[edit on 27-2-2006 by Mehran]

[edit on 27-2-2006 by Mehran]


nice one. you got a name for this and range or if its radar or infrared guided?



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Judging from its very small size I'd say its range is fairly limited, probably an IR guided SAM, maybe radar guided but not likely.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Judging from its very small size I'd say its range is fairly limited, probably an IR guided SAM, maybe radar guided but not likely.


thats what i used to think until i saw a picture&specs of the chinese qw-3/anza-3 missiles they can go upto 15km and thats quite far this missile looks quite similar in size but i dont think its I.R guided from the looks of the missile tip.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 04:32 PM
link   
When I first saw the missile I thought that its range could not exceed 7-8 miles, 8 miles is approximately 15 seconds worth of fuel going Mach 2.5. If its not IR guided then its probably a radar guided SAM, it seems a bit small to me to have it own radar so it could be guided by a ground based radar but its hard to tell from just a picture.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 04:45 PM
link   
It's radar guided. There's no opening for an IR seeker in the nose. 15KM isn't a bad range for a vehicle launched missile, but it would be fairly easy to stay out of range of it since they have to turn the radar on to shoot. That's always been the problem with radar guided missiles.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 07:54 PM
link   
Thats tiny! and as for 15km range - well storm shadow and the like is sure going to spoil your day even before the radars pick up the attacking aircraft.

Nice find though



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Im assuming this is a SAM becuase it reports being launched from ships, although this is an awefully tiny SAM.

Iran might be better sticking with the proven flying telephone pole.



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by iqonx
thats what i used to think until i saw a picture&specs of the chinese qw-3/anza-3 missiles they can go upto 15km and thats quite far this missile looks quite similar in size but i dont think its I.R guided from the looks of the missile tip.


The Chinese QW series are MANPADS systems and wouldn't have a range anywhere near 15 km. If it is a QW-3 copy, per your words, it would have a maxiumum range of 5-6km.



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 12:43 PM
link   
I think it must be the Misagh 2 -

www.defensenews.com...

"Iran’s defense minister launched the domestic mass production of a new shoulder-fired air defense missile Feb. 5, a development presented as a major boost for the Islamic republic’s armed forces.
The defense ministry said in a statement faxed to AFP that the Misagh 2 missile was “capable of tracking and destroying aerial targets that fly at low altitudes and in the blind spot of radar systems”.

And

www.defencetalk.com...

"The ministry said the "advanced missile" could also be used for "electronic warfare""

Some sources suggest it uses imported Chinse technology, others that it's a Stinger derivative. Either way, it could make life hazardous in the tactical arena and force the air support up higher than is desirable.



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 01:17 PM
link   
I came aross the Misagh 2, but it seems the shape of the missile is different than the one shown. For a start the Misagh 2 has a blunt nose, then again it might be a new nose cone.





posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Just a guess, but judging from the top photo, the rocket is related to the parachute flare/pyrotechnic device, and is not the new AA missile. I suspect it was just displayed at the same show; and of course it may contain a payload such as chaff to deter air attacks, hence the confusion.



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Mehran,

Interesting. Please do me a favor and consider calling it an S2A or 'SAM' rather than what I presume 'AA' or Anti Aircraft missile was intended to convey.

That said, it was only a matter of time, given the way they are going with MICA and Adder (and we are flying over 20K to drop IAM), before someone woke up and decided to send VSHORADS systems to 18,000ft and Mach 3 or more.

And that is what this system looks like. A two stage weapon _too large_ to be hamhanded around on a shoulder. And thus fitted to a rugged naval mount.

Interestingly, if it is a QW-3 clone, it might be more a case of 'favor in kind' (or at least trade) as the Vanguard system is supposedly based on the SA-16 Igla. Yet the third generation (Qian Wei -3) is supposedly 'dual mode' LCG _and_ IR.

While the Russian system is not (Though I think the SA-19 is)

In any case, back in the 80's, the Iranian's got their hands on some RBS-70 (quite the scandal, caused a Swede exporter or Bofors guy to be murdered in his home, supposedly) and it was found to be the most dominant weapon on the battlefield /because/ it was 'unjammable' (no warning signals to the airframe RWR either) and had a very high topend and max effective range for a period S2A system (about 12,000ft altitude and 20-22,000ft total slant).

Largely because of the aerodynamic shape.

In a war driven by artillery in which the HAWK could hardly deploy close enough to make a difference, for awhile, the RBS-70 was quite the bogey man.

>>
The reports are very unknown about this but it can be used on both navy ships and can be launched from vehicles....
>>

What continues to interest me are the potential relevance of 'EW use' and 'Radar Blind Spot' wordings as these present the possibility of a mode more akin to RAM.

In that you have a system which can /potentially/ track a CM radar altimeter if not active seeker threat (AShM at sea) on inbound missiles which are technically below the horizon on FAAD/Sector type systems until after launch.

This would, to an extent, explain the ogival shape to the nose rather than a simple conical taper as with most CG weapons (Rapier, Starburst, Blowpipe).

Even as it would, to an extent, justify the notion of this (heavy = expensive and limited coverage area) weapon as a lofted system or one intended to be used on aircraft or missiles passing through constricted approaches to targets (i.e. where you 'know' a threat is, by observation and geographic precondition, and are not necessarily firing blindly into the dark so much as down into a cued target lane).

If it works, and if it truly has a 15km range (launch team outside the FOV of even an overhead drone) it might even be /more/ dangerous as an anti-comms-node killer, given we are so incredibly reliant of 2EOT relay via FAC/TACPs and battlefield networking systems.

I must admit, the presence of the large dark band (PifPaf collar or a secondary RF fuze?) and the apparent segment breakline but no forward controls is rather bizarre.

Anyway, here's some other pages which might give more of a clue as to where things are bound to be headed for more conventional VSHORADS-

big5.china.com...

www.taiwantp.net...

home19.inet.tele.dk...

p098.ezboard.com...

CONCLUSION:
While, if true, it certainly does pose a lot of questions as to the 'sudden sophistication' of seeker engineering; the two that most intrigue me are whether AA-ARM guidance, if truly present, is accurate enough to home on it's own or whether a secondary mode (SA-6 IR say) is available either on-missile (frangible cover) or as a second round tethered to the first. It would also be interesting to note what kind of boost-terminal profile the weapon has in terms of crossing angle snap-to-track performance on threats close in or at the edge of the envelope.

Out to sea the obvious answer to beating the inner air battle zone is very high speed to get across a largely open horizon, even as you also maximize standoff from conventional OAB (FORCAP and SM-2, Aster or SA/N-6) type threats.

But inland, I would think you would need to have a very special weapon to keep the terrain profile matching heights as low as they are today in a supersonic or hypersonic weapon.

Indeed, if this Iranian missile /could/ defeat an all-out missile attack (20+ shots on 4 targets is less than five each) on sheer numbers of shooters if nothing else, one wonders whether we could deny the efficacy of this by 'switching bands' ourselves as with the AGM-129 LIDAR. To retain TRN elevation mapping as a means of route nav and obstacle avoidance on a short horizon. Or if we simply have to abandon the low penetration option altogether now.

Certainly, if our CM (and the Israelis) have suddenly gone from 'radalt or GPS dual channel assured redundancy' being vulnerable to an Iranian 'spoof the local signal on the GPS with microjammers /then/ attack the radalt as the missile switches over' as a kind of combined arms approach to denying us a critical first-penetration (unmanned) rollback option.

Or worse a solo precision-strike anti-WMD capability.

Things could get bad. Maybe even force a rushed switch to aeroballistics.

Obviously, a decent cruise system will navigate on pure inertial for a fair distance without getting too sloppy (and this may explain the latest generation of SCALP/JASSM weapons preference for brilliant target-mapping IIR seekers) but my understanding is that at least the first generation DSMAC required a fairly precise optical (perspective) corridor to lane into.

Having to go extended distances before recapture-correcting for nav certainty while generating 'unlikely' target approach avenues with a subsonic weapon could make for a lot more exposure to semi-conventional (AAA with a smart fuze) or other-exotic (AHM with an optimized anti-CM seeker).

Resulting in mission planning headaches (BTOTs and so on) to say the least.


KPl.



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by iqonx
thats what i used to think until i saw a picture&specs of the chinese qw-3/anza-3 missiles they can go upto 15km and thats quite far this missile looks quite similar in size but i dont think its I.R guided from the looks of the missile tip.


The Chinese QW series are MANPADS systems and wouldn't have a range anywhere near 15 km. If it is a QW-3 copy, per your words, it would have a maxiumum range of 5-6km.


sorry i meant to say anza-3/ and the chinese qw-4 not qw-3.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join