New Iranian made SAM to enter full production.

Yeah.. I remember this rapier SAM bit wr.t. stealth..(not sure if it was the B-2 itself)
I also read it somewhere on ATS..
NR why don't you U2U Waynos..
I'm sure he can give you the required info..

rapier aquiring a B-2 ???

which variant of rapier , when , where and under what conditions - and a cite might help

as rapier has various optic guidance options - its quite possible thet they aquired and tracked a B-2

but by the same criteria TOW could aquire the B-2

>>
I can post the source but its in farsi again through mehr news. The sam can fire up to 3 missles at once and has its own radar tracking its target down, have a look.
>>

Really pretty pathetic. The SA-10 can engage six with two missiles per and while it is a huge weapons system, it is also wooden-round sealed and generally very mobile with something like 5 minute stop to shooting interval and displacement.

It also has the Clam Shell and tower Flap Lid to make lolo a pretty hairy eyeball squeeze, even for cruise weapons operating at 30m or so.

OTOH, HAWK while originally designed as a medium/low gapfiller to NIKE, is actually only marginally functional in this area.

It still has to be sited in and 'registered' almost like a survey exercise (though I hear TPS-59 helps) and while LASHE and the CWAR upgrade give you two HAWKs with a third channel /theoretically/ available for the optical adjunct, it is still a fairly clumsy multitarget capability.

HAWKs also don't like to be moved, built up. They have an incredibly noisy signals environment and they are relatively slow and low ranging for the size of the weapon.

The radar is an MPQ-50 PAR or IPAR (I honest forget the widgets which differentiate the two) which is pulse-only with some pseudo-3D built in to the scan gating and fair range, out to about 100km and in theory it should be able to cross hand to the SA-5 Gammon which is on the rail in the middle picture (multiple boosters on a bigger HAWK configuration is a dead giveaway).

The irony then being that you have a 150-200km weapon 'overlapped' with a 40-50km weapon using a radar that is really optimized for neither. Given I originally thought the radar was a Bar Lock, I suppose it could 'confuse' the RWR threat library a bit. But so what.

ALL CONVENTIONAL SAMS ARE STUPID.

Because, by design, they are effectively willing to trade one site for one radar and place the LOS and slant restricted latter in direct or RF link proximity with the launcher, deliberately creating a null zone around the site and making it necessary to decamp the entire battery when displacing to a new location. Furthermore, once fired, those weapons are going to hit or miss. On one throw of the dice. And the window to do so before destruction or bypass of MEZ is dictated by the length of the guidance period vs. the initial detection threshold.

Given the CAVU normality of weather in Iran, along with the mountainous border rims, it makes absolutely NO sense to take the 'Hitler and his Nachtajgercorps' approach to warfare in which the enemy has to be ontop of you before you can shoot him down while his HARM VI or equivalent can INS/GPS loft to a quickbolt autonomous attack profile from 60-80nm (or 15-20 at low level) or more.

And so it will always be. Anytime you put one ACQ/FC radar behind a SAM battery of 20 or more missiles which are utterly dependent on it to be more than fireworks displays. And then try to face off with 70-200 inbound airframes and cruise missiles, 20% of which are SEAD dedicated.

Because THE RADAR becomes the schwerpunkt decision point by which rollback is decided.

So take the radar out of the question.

Use big range tracking cameras on trucks (and presurveyed hardpads) and acoustic systems with buried FO network trunking to provide depth-collated cross tracks. And then, based on cue, throw out random but heavy 'mine field' curtains of Mirach 100 or Tu-243 clones (also off trucks) to sweep through the strike lanes _at altitude_ using intelligent optics and hunting datalinks to coordinate pack attacks over a 30-60 minute viable flight window and perhaps 300nm downrange travel.

i.e. carrying the acquisition and engagement if not surveillance apertures with you in massively redundant numbers.

If a turbo-SAM misses, they likely have the energy to perform extended reattack chase and at a million bucks each, they are a helluva lot more 'stackable' effective compared to that billion dollar S-400 battalion in the Russian sales window. Go ahead and shoot down a dozen with AMRAAMs the defense will reform and dogpile the empty-rail remainder while the moronic 'boost slide' hypersonic weapons are just beginning to come up on their one pass, one chance, pure rocket shot.

Again, if only because while your (radar+rocket) SAM is TOF'ing out to the target (or ITALD), the HARM is doing the same at your radar and a U.S. airstrike master plan will trade one site for 2-3 weasels.

As to the other missiles, the one looks like a copy of Crotale or the Saudi/Egyptian 'Shahine' (the launcher more than anything) derivative which just goes to show you that not even the French can whore war without being severely wedgied by 'secondary export' rule breaking.

And the Rapier sales gimmick has either a conventional (Blindfire) radar or IRST/ladar (Darkfire/2000/Jernas) type volume track system to back up the basic passive EOCG.

Especially given the latter Of course it can 'track' a B-2 at an airshow. The question is whether it can see one at 50,000ft dropping a JDAM some 12-15nm downrange. At night.

The immediate answer being not damn likely because it's a lowlevel system with power, sector and bandwidth biased scans (to save it from eating an ARM) in the high X or Ku range, neither of which have the ERPs to reach up that high.

And even if it could see the damn thing, what the heck is it going to do about it? Rapier has an effective ceiling slightly lower than Rolands 15K and a total slant of under 25,000ft. I wouldn't be at all surprised if a B-17G couldn't 'stay above the threat floor' of a Rapier.

The real sadness is that we are no longer feeding and advancing ourselves as a living society moving away from war but living day to day on the 'chinese food principle' of prostituting it through foreign sales to socially adolescent nations in the desperate hope that they will start something that we can end for 'leveraged resource' strategic trades.

That kind of moral idiocy only pays back in blood in the end.


KPl.

I can post the source but its in farsi again through mehr news. The sam can fire up to 3 missles at once and has its own radar tracking its target down, have a look.

when i said that i meant it can only fire all three of its missiles at once and i dont know how many targets it can track so you must have mistaken me on it.

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
rapier aquiring a B-2 ???

which variant of rapier , when , where and under what conditions - and a cite might help

as rapier has various optic guidance options - its quite possible thet they aquired and tracked a B-2

but by the same criteria TOW could aquire the B-2

It was an F-22 actually, if it can pick up a f-22 it can definatally pick up a f-117 or B-2

Good to hear this topic is back, i certainly do think Rapier is a awsome SAM and is one of the underrated out there. We made this one and i think its very similiar to SA-18....

Originally posted by Senser

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
rapier aquiring a B-2 ???

which variant of rapier , when , where and under what conditions - and a cite might help

as rapier has various optic guidance options - its quite possible thet they aquired and tracked a B-2

but by the same criteria TOW could aquire the B-2

It was an F-22 actually, if it can pick up a f-22 it can definatally pick up a f-117 or B-2

It depends on what kind of exercise and in what conditions. More than likely the story is bull but if it is real I would suspect that the aircraft flew right through the radar cone. Also, F/A-22s have not been deployed in Europe yet so the missile system would have had to be in the United States. Traditionally stealth aircraft such as the F-117 and B-2 fly around the radar cones to increase their chances of not being detected.

Originally posted by NR

Originally posted by Denied
They are massive...!!
Im no weapon expert, would they bring down a isreali jet?

If a SA-3 brought down a stealthy F-117 and a SA-6 bringin takin on F-16C than your dam right this thing will bring any Isreali jet to the ground!! it has a good powerfull radar also, so yes chances are any jetfighter coming close to it will probably get toasted.

A good powerful radar-how nice. Israeli "wild weasels" will love to follow it down to the source. Ask Syria just how effective they are. There last conflict with Israel, they lost SSOOO many radar sites-with missiles or not, they actually had to turn the radar off to prevent losing all radar sites.

That aside, nice looking missiles.

A good powerful radar-how nice. Israeli "wild weasels" will love to follow it down to the source. Ask Syria just how effective they are. There last conflict with Israel, they lost SSOOO many radar sites-with missiles or not, they actually had to turn the radar off to prevent losing all radar sites.

That aside, nice looking missiles.

What did Syria had that was so powerfull than? and why are you going back to the 60's? how bout you compare them now... a country that has thousands of SAMS is very hard to beat just ask that country you guys fought in which was Vietnam and everyday your jetfighters would be knocked out. N.V. in my opinion back in its day was definatley SAM city but Iran has alot of them which are very hard to find and dont forget decoys which can easily fool any pilot....

Get a few ARM, HARM or KH-31P or YJ-91 and SAM sites can be taken care of. YJ-91 locks on to a radar from 200+ km away and heads for it at mach 3, with target location memorization capability to strike radars after they've been turned off. YJ-91 was developed for Taiwan SAM radars and PARs.

all of those sams look like relics of the vietnam war and the f22 had its radar spoting box on so that the radars could track them this already has been discussed in another thread.

I hope Isreal doesnt do anything stupid like attacking Iran and I hope that they arent underestimating Irans ability. The idea of a suitcase nuke going off in Isreal is not something I want to see.

Originally posted by Char2c35t
all of those sams look like relics of the vietnam war and the f22 had its radar spoting box on so that the radars could track them this already has been discussed in another thread.

I hope Isreal doesnt do anything stupid like attacking Iran and I hope that they arent underestimating Irans ability. The idea of a suitcase nuke going off in Isreal is not something I want to see.

Israel cant beat Iran.. how can they do it? we have tanks with ERA that can fight in night/day, we have our jetfighters that can do it night/day and our navy is pretty powerfulll so we'll still win. Anyways i'm going to give it a chance and post another sam we made which is called Sayad-1 and its a copy og HQ-2 which it will say in farsi....

Originally posted by NR

Originally posted by Char2c35t
all of those sams look like relics of the vietnam war and the f22 had its radar spoting box on so that the radars could track them this already has been discussed in another thread.

I hope Isreal doesnt do anything stupid like attacking Iran and I hope that they arent underestimating Irans ability. The idea of a suitcase nuke going off in Isreal is not something I want to see.

Israel cant beat Iran.. how can they do it? we have tanks with ERA that can fight in night/day, we have our jetfighters that can do it night/day and our navy is pretty powerfulll so we'll still win. Anyways i'm going to give it a chance and post another sam we made which is called Sayad-1 and its a copy og HQ-2 which it will say in farsi....

So does Israel. They have the best tanks and fighter jets in greater number. Almost every tank has ERA and can fight at night as you say and every fighter can fight at night as you also say.

what posseses people to believe that war between iran and isreal is worth discussing ???

you are discusing tanks - look at a map - nither side has the cabability to make a ground forces invasion

isreal no longer has the capability to make a conventional military attack on iran

if isrea; was " back to the wall " under iranian bombardment by missile - they would reply with nukes

if isreal used nukes EVERYONE else in the ME would go ape on them

everyone looses

So does Israel. They have the best tanks and fighter jets in greater number. Almost every tank has ERA and can fight at night as you say and every fighter can fight at night as you also say.

*cough* F-14 *cough* aim-54 pheonix missile.... anyways you really cant say israel would win a air war against iran both are very good pilots among the best so it would be very long before we see who wins. I also want to see Zulfiqar-3MBT come into action

Originally posted by NR
*cough* F-14 *cough* aim-54 pheonix missile.... anyways you really cant say israel would win a air war against iran both are very good pilots among the best so it would be very long before we see who wins. I also want to see Zulfiqar-3MBT come into action

Sure, those 25-30 year old relics will be quite effective against the well maintained and state of the art Israeli Air Force. Iran has been hanging their hat on the F-14/Phoenix myth long enough. Their ability to maintain F-14's ended the day the Harris engineers destroyed the VAST Systems in Iran.

The battle was lost then, maintenance capability, parts, support, sevice life.

Dismissed.

Sure, those 25-30 year old relics will be quite effective against the well maintained and state of the art Israeli Air Force. Iran has been hanging their hat on the F-14/Phoenix myth long enough. Their ability to maintain F-14's ended the day the Harris engineers destroyed the VAST Systems in Iran.

The battle was lost then, maintenance capability, parts, support, sevice life.

Dismissed.

what 25-30 year old relics? most of your jetfighters are still from 30 years ago and way back, we added new parts to our F-14's and re-engineered Aim-54 missile. Were also 75% self sufficent in F-14 and soon enough we'll be making our own.


Dismissied.


[edit on 4-11-2005 by NR]

its not what you have got - its what you do with it

i cannot remember where [ an alternate history forum i think ] - but i read a break down of the isreali vs egyptian airfoces - and the consensus there was that the IAF f-16s would win almost every engagement against the egyptian F-16s

same for the merkerva vs M1 tanks

the punchline was that against US units with identical kit - the isrealis would win by luck alone or loose by the narroest of margin

its not what you have got - its what you do with it

i cannot remember where [ an alternate history forum i think ] - but i read a break down of the isreali vs egyptian airfoces - and the consensus there was that the IAF f-16s would win almost every engagement against the egyptian F-16s

same for the merkerva vs M1 tanks

the punchline was that against US units with identical kit - the isrealis would win by luck alone or loose by the narroest of margin

Oh really? most of the time Israelis were fighting mig-21, during the 8 year war we were fighting almost every single soviet fighter out there and we still won. See this is why people use that as a excuse for Israel but they were just mig-19 and mig-21. If you knew about the war we were in you would know IRIAF pilots are twice as much better than IAF pilots.

[edit on 4-11-2005 by NR]

ah - so the fact that a second rate airforce [ iran ] rather unsurprisingly proved itself superior to a 3rd rate airforce [ iraq ] proves what exactly ?

iran did not fight EVERY soviet A/C type - and the migs you dismiss as inferior - were the same ones that the vietnamese used to good effect

all you are doing is reguritating hubris