I'm trying to digest all this, amazing info.

I really don't know what to make of it so I'm trying to compare it. How much threat would you guess Iran holds to U.S. air compared to say Syria? Would you say Syria has more SAM than Iran?

Also would you say that the Rapier is better than the Syrian SA-3? They both hold 4 missles so it would be hard guess which holds more weight.

So I leave my questions to the expert on this issue since personally I wont be a fool and claim knowledge on a subject I am just now diving into.

Also planeman, do you work for the U.S. government?

Originally posted by Techsnow
I'm trying to digest all this, amazing info.

I really don't know what to make of it so I'm trying to compare it. How much threat would you guess Iran holds to U.S. air compared to say Syria? Would you say Syria has more SAM than Iran?

Also would you say that the Rapier is better than the Syrian SA-3? They both hold 4 missles so it would be hard guess which holds more weight.

So I leave my questions to the expert on this issue since personally I wont be a fool and claim knowledge on a subject I am just now diving into.

Also planeman, do you work for the U.S. government?

Hi, thanks for the encouragement. Syria is an interesting comparison since although it has far more SAMs than Iran its SAMs are decidedly outdated. I'd say Syria poses about an equal threat to US in an air-strike or invasion scenario - which in terms of air defenses amounts to not a lot. In the middle east I'd rank the overal might/effectiveness of the various air defense networks (not including fighter aircraft) like this:

1. Israel
2. Saudi Arabia
3. Eygpt
4. UAE
5. Iran
6. Syria
7. Bahrain/Kuwait

Certainly if you compare Iran to saudi Arabia or Egypt, the capability gap is huge. When Eygpt acquires its Patriots it'll overtake Saudi-Arabia. Israel is only marginally ahead although they develop some absolutly incredible SAM systems.


Rapier Mk 1 versus SA-3, hmmmm... SA-3 has better range and altitude, I'd go for SA-3. If you entered the updated Pechora II (SA-3) into the equation and also the Rapier Janeus (sp?), well.... difficult. The SA-3 is more comparable to the Hawk SAM than the Rapier.

[edit on 13-7-2006 by planeman]

SA-3 is much more dangerous than Rapier. The simple fact that you can fly over a Rapier battery at 15k+ feet and merrily pickle off as many JDAM and LGB as you want means that the system is too old and ineffective to worry anything other than Helo's. And you'd hope by the time the chopper guys are flying around that every Rapier system will have been smacked anyhow. SA-3, as planeman indicated, has much better range and altitude, but suffers from one fire control channel, the same limitation in both the SA-2 and SA-5. Until Iran boosts their air defence force with some SA-10/20, and decent numbers of 4th gen+ fighters, the question isn't so much if the US will get air dominance, but when.

Good effort again Planeman. Congrats on the WATS as well, first time someone I voted for has won. Keep up the good work!

3. Improved-Hawk


Capability: On paper the MIM-23B Improved Hawk SAM system is quite capable but in Iranian service it is suffering from lack of spares/support and is deployed with only a few launchers per battery limiting its effectiveness. The Hawk has an effective range of about 40km and a maximum altitude of about 50,000ft.

Deployment
Iran bought the Improved-Hawk SAM from US before the revolution. Although there are some reports of local manufacture of missiles, the general view is that the Iranian Hawks suffer from spares and support problems. This view is supported by the reduced number of launchers seen per position suggesting that the system is operating at half-strength or below.

Some Hawk missiles have been converted for use as air-air missiles for Iran’s ageing fleet of F-14A Tomcat fighters. It is also possibly been converted into an air-ground missile.

Iran still employs the original fixed sites making these assets vulnerable to preemptive strike.

1. SAM battery south of Tehran: (3 launchers)
This is an original fixed site pretty typical of Hawk. Note the symmetry.


2. SAM battery at Mehrabad Air Base (3 launchers)


3. Cluster of Hawk SAM positions around Bushehr (6 launchers)


4. Hawk Battery at Bandar Abbas (5 launchers)

5. SA-5 “Gammon”


Capability : Extremely long ranged, the SA-5 poses a very real threat to slow moving aircraft especially maritime patrol aircraft (P-3 Orion etc), AEW aircraft, transports, high-slow bombers (B-52) and larger UAVs (Global Hawk, Predator). Global Hawk is particularly vulnerable if it gets within range because it lacks defensive aids and agility. B-52s probably have sufficient defensive systems to ignore the SA-5 most of the time.

But the SA-5 is not effective against faster aircraft and its fixed sites are relatively easy to strike, particularly with cruise missiles. I would expect the SA-5 batteries to be nullified very rapidly in a conflict situation.

It should also be noted that the Iranians deploy the SA-5 with only two launchers (each has only one missile) compared to 6 missiles for other SA-5 operators. This under-strength limits the ability of the Iranian SA-5 to engage anything other than single targets.

Google Earth evidence
Because the SA-5 batteries are co-located at air bases most positions can be found on google earth.

1. Bushehr Air Base (2 launchers)


2. Bandar Abbas Air Base (2 launchers)


3. Shahrokhi Air Base (2 Launchers)

Iqnox,


You make some familiar points and arguments. I personally think that Iran's capability to maintain Hawk and Rapier is slightly exagerated by the pro-Iranian forumites.

The argument that Iran might have hundreds of extra launchers which she can whip out in times of trouble is not all that credible. SAM batteries like Hawk require extensive infrastructure even when redeployed away from fixed sites.

Crew need training etc. And if it's in someone's garden shed then it's not ready for operation and the crew aren't practicing. Radars need to be elevated to get good coverage, particularly of low altitude threats. That means building radar position ramps (as seen in the google earth imagery) or a major modification to provide a mast mounted radar which there is no evidence of. Hawk SAM batteries generally need a search radar plus towing vehicle, a fire control radar plus towing vehicle, a command shelter (often towed, could be a tent but either way needs a vehicle to move it), generators (perhaps three) plus towing vehicles, reload vehicles, cable vehicles, towing vehicles for the launch trailers etc.

There is no doubt about it, Iran does deploy many Air Defenses to fixed positions many of which are easily found on Google Earth. These positions aren't all fakes, or if they are then Iran is even less defended than it appears, not the other way around.

As for the Hawk being locally produced. I don't doubt that. But radars, command encoders etc etc are all system critical components which are less easy to reverse engineer. I haven't seen any reports that Iran has intergrated new radars or replaced the command components - in fact if they undertook such a modification they might as well start from scratch.

And if Iran is so successful in reverse engineering the Hawk why has it started license producing the generally less capable HQ-2 (SA-2) system? - it doesn't really make sense. Then again the HQ-2 seems less frequent on Google Earth than you would expect if it was truly being produced in huge numbers. In fact there are more empty HQ-2 sites than active ones visible.

Re HQ-7, do you have any photographic evidence of the system in Iranian service? Is it shelter mounted or self-propelled. And again, in capability terms the HQ-7 fills the same role as Rapier - which goes against the concept that the Iranian Rapier fleet is as healthy as you infer.








[edit on 14-7-2006 by planeman]

Originally posted by planeman
Iqnox,

The argument that Iran might have hundreds of extra launchers which she can whip out in times of trouble is not all that credible. SAM batteries like Hawk require extensive infrastructure even when redeployed away from fixed sites.

actually it is credible. the old version of the SA-2 which is larger, heavier then the Hawk takes less about 30-45 minutes to fully deploy and get ready to fire. The newer SA-2 with wire free comms take less then 30 minutes the hawk takes even less then those. Ask any one who has served int he American forces they will also tell you that the improvedHawk missile system is fast to deploy no longer then 35 minutes to get fully ready when you have a SAM team setup the system.

Originally posted by planeman
Crew need training etc. And if it's in someone's garden shed then it's not ready for operation and the crew aren't practicing. Radars need to be elevated to get good coverage, particularly of low altitude threats. That means building radar position ramps (as seen in the google earth imagery) or a major modification to provide a mast mounted radar which there is no evidence of. Hawk SAM batteries generally need a search radar plus towing vehicle, a fire control radar plus towing vehicle, a command shelter (often towed, could be a tent but either way needs a vehicle to move it), generators (perhaps three) plus towing vehicles, reload vehicles, cable vehicles, towing vehicles for the launch trailers etc.

Actually the Iranians have teams ready with missile systems just incase of war this is common practice for all countries. you would be very surprised at how fast teams can come to a location and setup a whole sam battery no matter how complicated the system is. SAM teams do drills regularly and they can setup in minutes.

Also about the part where you claim radars need to be elevated thats not exactly true. The modern way of using SAM batteries is to Shoot and scoot so you don't have fixed positions anywhere. You come setup, use your EO,IR scanners and when you see something turn on your radar if you get a lock you then shoot and then turn off the system and move on.

A whole team will shoot and scoot with there SAM system. Fixed positions for SAM's are a WW2 technique in the modern battle field if you have a fixed or even semi fixed position you will be dead before you can even turn on your radar.

take a look at china they have the one of the largest quanitity of SAM missiles and S-300 systems you will ever see but do a Satellite image view of there country and you won't even see 1/100th of there SAM systems becuase of the ways they are employed around the country with also cammo nets on tops.

Originally posted by planeman
There is no doubt about it, Iran does deploy many Air Defenses to fixed positions many of which are easily found on Google Earth. These positions aren't all fakes, or if they are then Iran is even less defended than it appears, not the other way around.

Actually you cannot see a SAM system if it is covered correctly with cammo nets and other cammo.

think about it if you can find those site sure as hell american intelligence has also found those sites. Iran would not leave non-cammo SAM site's out in the open even a cammo net and other cammo could cost no more then $15 why would they leave a million dollar SAM system in the open without $15 worth of cammo?

These sites are designed as bait for cruise missiles and bombers.

Originally posted by planeman
As for the Hawk being locally produced. I don't doubt that. But radars, command encoders etc etc are all system critical components which are less easy to reverse engineer. I haven't seen any reports that Iran has intergrated new radars or replaced the command components - in fact if they undertook such a modification they might as well start from scratch.

Actually it wouldn't be that difficult to reverse engineer systems for a hawk system. Iran has shown good understanding of many different systems and the Hawk isn't any more advanced then some of the other technology that Iran has manufactured.

Originally posted by planeman
And if Iran is so successful in reverse engineering the Hawk why has it started license producing the generally less capable HQ-2 (SA-2) system? - it doesn't really make sense. Then again the HQ-2 seems less frequent on Google Earth than you would expect if it was truly being produced in huge numbers. In fact there are more empty HQ-2 sites than active ones visible.

Thats becuase Hawk and SA-2 serve 2 completly different purposes. The purpose of Hawk is to engage medium range/altitude aircraft while SA-2 is emplyed to engage drone's, bombers and UAV's this is evident from the Iranian SA-2 brouchre that advertises the iranian SA-2 for sale :



As you can clearly read(its a bit blurry but you can still see) it says that it is designed for High RCS targets such as Reconnaissance flights and bombers while the Hawk is a medium range general purpose missile for anti aircraft use eg.. fighters, UAV's, bombers etc...

The SA-2 missile airframe means that it is not agile in the air so it can only engage non manuverable aircraft for example like the U2 while the Hawk is more adapt at moving and turning faster and also has a shorter minimum range in which it can engage targets.

Originally posted by planeman
Re HQ-7, do you have any photographic evidence of the system in Iranian service? Is it shelter mounted or self-propelled. And again, in capability terms the HQ-7 fills the same role as Rapier - which goes against the concept that the Iranian Rapier fleet is as healthy as you infer.

The HQ-7 first of all has a more advanced radar and electronics which can detect object with lower RCS and is more immune to radar jamming making the system superiour to the Rpaier. Also another benafit of the HQ-7 over the rapier is that the missiles are self contained in firing tubes meaning the missiles are maintanance free for longer then the ones on the Rapiers.

Here's a picture of the HQ-7 that Iran has it is on for sale to forign countries and it can be seen in the export advertisment from Iran :

I ran out of charecters(Max = 6500) in the above post.

Anway you can see yourself from the pictures above which are taken from the Iranian export catalog which is the offical catlog for the Iranian industry clearly shows that Iran has the Hq-7 for sale/export to other countries.

Hey!!! look how close my artist's impression is in terms of the shelter used. like Rapier this is a towed system intended for point defense of fixed sites rather than of mobile formations (army).

Shoot and Scoot isn't so much the "new way" to do it, it's more what you do to conserve your air defense assets when you are completely dominated by your enemy, hoping for a few lucky shots to sweeten the bitter pill of defeat. Notice how US Patriot Batteries didn't scoot and shoot around Kuwait as the Alies advanced.

I'm not anti-Iran and I can't be bothered with a heated debate. most of what you say is grounded in truth, you just interprete it in a way that suites your world view. Whilst you list the merits of the HQ-2 about how it's suited to high flying high RCS targets, I read between the lines which is that it's not suited to most other modern targets - it's role is only different to the Hawk because it can't do as much. If Iran was producing Hawk batteries to the extent you infer then the HQ-2 wouldn't be needed.

Well, Iran would stand a more credible chance if Russia hadn't cut off the negotiations for S-300MPU-1. Iran doesn't have the capability to reproduce systems of that quality, but now I wonder, if the rest of the iranian projects aided by russians are at a stand still.

Sa-2 and Rapier seem like no threat to high alittude bombing, which will likely take them out, opening airpace for helos and low flying aircraft supporting should invasion take place.

Looks like Iran without those needed S-300 is now quite frankly is in a tight position, they should stand down, and at least have some credible defense if they really intend to have nuclear power (or bombs, whatever their intentions).

I tend to agree, without an SA-10 like system, the credibility of the air defence system is in question. Some newer generation Flankers wouldn't hurt as well! While SA-2 has a high altitude capability, it suffers due to the low manoeuvrability of the Guideline missile, the single fire control channel, and the limited counter-EW capability (even with some of the newer upgrades that are around). The SA-15 is a great buy though, a very capable system indeed.

SA-15 is great at what it does but not high altitude. I agree with the above two posters.

I'm surprised Iran isn't bugging China for HQ-9/FT-2000 or KS-1. The latter is pretty decent IMO.

I have heard that the KS-1 is not too bad. HQ-9 would certainly be useful as a strategic SAM system. FT-2000 probably still has some development and testing to go, but if it produces what has been claimed, then the Chinese will be a great source of quality air defence capabilities.

You raise an interesting point Planeman, in that it is interesting that the Iranians haven't engaged the Chinese as closely as one would expect. I wonder why that is? Maybe they view the Chinese product as inferior to the Russian and Western systems they operate? A hangup from the days when they used to get US support?

Thanks for the clarification on SA-15, that was exactly what I meant. For manoeuvre support, SA-15 will be great. There is still more Iran will have to do to beef up their air defence capabilities.

I think that the Iranian's intend to use their SA-15s for point defence of strategic assets such as the nuclear facilities. They'll be a massive improvement over the current Rapier, Crotale and AAA defences but they are hardly a show stopper which they could be if it was a war of manoeuvre warfare where US/Alied close support aircraft needed to fly low to ID and engage targets.

Of curiosity, some Iranian nuclear facilities are surrounded by rings of AAA emplacements which appear to be SINGLE positions of twin-23mm AAA with a crew shelter (often a Blue roofed shed) and no apparenmt radar facilities although there are some Skyguard (or similar) dotted around. The Skyguard radars and/or the Rapier/Crotale units may offer some general target info to the AAA but it is at the final crux aimed by eye - not very sophisticated and points to an adversary less dangerous than many would claim.

That's quite true for a single AAA piece, but I guess the plan is to provide barrage or curtain fire around the key assets. I know in Iraq there was a layer of AAA from 14.5mm up to the bigger 100mm+ systems around key targets, with the bigger systems having staggered altitude fused rounds, the intent being to put up a wall of lead that you had to fly through. The radars would cue the threat axis and distance. The problem these days of course is that stand-off weapons allow aircraft to remain outside the effective range of AAA. The munitions still have to get through the AAA though, but this is obviously cheaper than risking a multi-million dollar aircraft.

As for flying low, I think I talked about this in another thread, but the low altitude VID days are gone. With ROVER kits, improved sensors, and more precise weapons, no-one should be busting the tacfloor except in the most dire of circumstances. The low altitude environment is simply too dangerous, especially with SA-18-like systems out there. Even with MAWS and DIRCM on board.

None of this is in disagreement with your point though, I was just providing some additional thoughts. The fact is, given a capable expeditionary air capability against the Iranian Air Defence System, I wouldn't expect too many surprises with regards to the outcome.