Author Topic: "Bavar373" is the name of Iranian S-300 style airdefence system (Read 15584 times)

Rakhsh786 · « **Reply #50 on:** September 22, 2011, 09:03:23 PM »

Quote

and s-300 pum2 is from 99. so it is not old tech.

So it won't be outdated in 3 to 4 years either (contrary to your initial assessment), will it?

A little khod-bavari won't hurt, my friend.

aryana · « **Reply #51 on:** September 22, 2011, 09:08:55 PM »

but iran cant produce the latest variant. that is what im saying.

ban ki moon · « **Reply #52 on:** September 22, 2011, 09:27:30 PM »

Quote from: aryana on September 22, 2011, 08:56:37 PM

ok i admit us has this tech. but iran can not simply produce that becuase first iran does not have this version and iran has less advanced technology than russia. and s-300 pum2 is from 99. so it is not old tech.

its PMU2!!!

aryana · « **Reply #53 on:** September 22, 2011, 09:36:36 PM »

whats the diffrence.
but i admit. thanks.

Eagle2009 · « **Reply #54 on:** September 22, 2011, 10:09:06 PM »

Personally, I don't think there is any doubt that Iran got their hands on some S-300 variant, likely sometime in the last 5 years. Do I think this "Bavar373" will really be better than the S-300PMU variant Iran ordered from Russia? Probably not, but that depends on a lot of factors.

For example, if the system is actually an indigenous design that has no connection to the S-300, then I would bet it would be inferior to the S-300PMU based China's experience trying to develop an indigenous long range SAM the HQ-9. Originally, the HQ-9 was going to look more like the Patriot in concept and appearance but because of delays in rocket engine technology (original HQ-9 missile had two stages instead of one with the 5V55 of the S-300 and was much larger and bulkier) they choose to adapt Russian technology to finish the HQ-9's development and developed a system largely equal to the system they were importin from Russian in the first place, and it still took them the better part of a decade.

If the system is a reverse-engineered S-300PMU2, then it's likely its development would be shorter and how close it could be to completely would all depend on when Iran got its first access to the S-300 technology. I think Iran could achieve such a feat in less than a decade considering the missile and radar technology we know they have. If enough funds were provided, and they got their first look at the technology in say 2005/2006 I think it's quite feasible they could test a clone system within 2 years.

Another possibility is Russia giving Iran the "blueprints" for the S-300PMU2 which would certainly quicken the pace of reverse-engineering but I personally don't find that very likely.

Also, I personaly believe the claim in the reports of Iran's system fixing "flaws" with the S-300PMU to be pure propaganda. There are no real "flaws" to any of the S-300PMU models. A flaw would be some kind of drawback to the system. For example, take the Patriot System. The missiles have good range, it uses a very good radar system, but it has a flaw in that it still uses towed Launchers, not fully mobile ones making the system more vunerable to attacks by Anti-Radiation missiles than the S-300. The S-300PMU has no such "flaw". Are there possible improvements to it's range and accuracy? Sure, but if that's the critera then every SAM in the world is "flawed". Having room for improvement is no flaw, it is a fact of life.

Rakhsh786 · « **Reply #55 on:** September 22, 2011, 11:44:35 PM »

Quote

S-300PMU2 (...) If enough funds were provided, and they got their first look at the technology in say 2005/2006 I think it's quite feasible they could test a clone system within 2 years.

Indeed, Iran certainly has the required technical capacity to reverse-engineer a system like the S-300 PMU-2.

Quote

There are no real "flaws" to any of the S-300PMU models. A flaw would be some kind of drawback to the system.

From Iran's viewpoint, the Russian system has one major flaw, namely the mentioned fact that NATO and the zionist apartheid regime are familiar with it. This flaw can be adressed by modifying the system, which is exactly what Iranian officials said they did.

The bottom line of this discussion is that no matter how one twists it, the acquisition of S-300 systems by Iran, and the subsequent development of modified / upgraded variants, was and is a game changer, which strengthens the Islamic Republic's already succesful deterrence against its foes.

Eagle2009 · « **Reply #56 on:** September 23, 2011, 03:19:59 AM »

And even then, by having direct access to the S-300s, they now know how the system actually works and regardless of any modifications you make to the system, it is still fundamentally a S-300PMU based design and therefore makes it more vunerable than it was before. And the only way to really change that would be to completely redesign the system (including new radars and missiles) just as the Russians did with the S-400. Why do you think the S-400's performance envelope overlap with the late model S-300s? It's because the Russians knew the secrets of the S-300PMU would get out and they wanted a similar system but with completely new systems so any knowledge of the S-300PMU their potential enemy has will be largely worthless against the S-400.

However how vunerable a S-300PMU based system is now that other nations have gotten to test themselves against it is unknown. I doubt the S-300PMU will become as vunerable as the SA-6 did after the 1973 War in which the Israelis learned a good deal about the system the hard way and thanks to that the SA-6 became largely irrelevant after that war simply because of how advanced and complicated the system is in the first place. Iran can make alot of fairly minor modifications to the S-300PMU to try and erase some of that damage done but there is only so much you can change before you are radically changing the system and delaying the deployment of the system in the first place. But if that's the path Iran wishes to move in, that's fine, but I think it would be better to have the system operational as soon as possible and make modifications later.

Ich · « **Reply #57 on:** September 23, 2011, 06:32:26 AM »

Image removed! No need to repost such a large and non related image to just reply.............Catsoo

A little khod-bavari won't hurt, my friend.

Yes, it always sounds like "mimimimimimimimimimi"

Catsoo · « **Reply #58 on:** September 23, 2011, 01:42:47 PM »

Quote

Also, I personaly believe the claim in the reports of Iran's system fixing "flaws" with the S-300PMU to be pure propaganda. There are no real "flaws" to any of the S-300PMU models. A flaw would be some kind of drawback to the system. For example, take the Patriot System. The missiles have good range, it uses a very good radar system, but it has a flaw in that it still uses towed Launchers, not fully mobile ones making the system more vunerable to attacks by Anti-Radiation missiles than the S-300. The S-300PMU has no such "flaw". Are there possible improvements to it's range and accuracy? Sure, but if that's the critera then every SAM in the world is "flawed". Having room for improvement is no flaw, it is a fact of life.

Eagle,

I disagree with how you arrived at your conclusions. If Iran does have a unit of this technology then she is qualified to make such statements simply because the rest of the world (except other owners) does not have any hard/hands on information.

There are credible reports that IRIAF has been conducting classes for its personnel on how to operate S-300 nearly from 2005.
What that means is that even if Iran did not have any hardware at its disposal, Iran had plenty of technical information.

I have no proof if Iran's claims are credible or not but Iran is in a position to make claims like what we have read recently.

Lastly, bear in mind that the electronics field is always on hyper drive in terms of technology of evolution. It would be common sense to accept some parts of the system can be 'upgraded' with new hardware and even software. This is a no brainer!

Catsoo

nomad · « **Reply #59 on:** September 23, 2011, 01:51:24 PM »

Making a system from first principles is always easier than copy making . Plus the enemy has no info about it at all . What is needed is a little imagination . Does anyone think that the enemy does not know the frequency of S300 radar ? Or how to jam it ? This system is sold to many countries and is a compromised system , same as all imported technology for radar and electronics etc .

Ich · « **Reply #60 on:** September 23, 2011, 02:14:33 PM »

Israel spent a lot of money in greek for "fighting against S-300" (buying the frequences and test the own missiles against it). They thought that Iran will get some S-300 from Russia...so they fail...again...loser...

reza18 · « **Reply #61 on:** September 23, 2011, 06:07:10 PM »

What a load of warped logic??? I really don't get this line of thinking. It often goes like this; If Iran copied it from the Russians then it's inferior to the Russian design..If they copied it from the Chinese then it's even more inferior..NONSENSE!!! What if they copied it from the US?? Will that make it superior, then???

I mean, come on guy!!! What kind of inferiority complex logic is that? Most people in the "third world" have this way of thinking..They always look down on themselves and worship things made in the west..I really don't blame them as this is the result of constant subtle brainwashing over the years.

Funny thing is, the same people in the West who make fun of Iranian military systems are the very people who scream blooooood when Iran unviels new missile and weapons system..If Iranians systems weren't that effective, the west wouldn't be imposing sanctions on Iran to prevent them from developing such systems in the first place...

Eagle2009 · « **Reply #62 on:** September 23, 2011, 06:29:55 PM »

Catsoo,

I guess I don't understand your point. I never said Iran had no right to make such statements about the S-300 having "flaws", just that the term "flawed" in my mind represents a major deficency in the system and I know of no such deficency in the S-300PMU models.

Are there limitations to the S-300PMU in terms of range and accuracy? Of course but as I said if that's true than ALL SAMs in the world are "flawed". Just because a SAM system has a little room for improvement doesn't make it "flaw". A flaw would be something fundamentally wrong with the system like the example I gave for the Patriot having too little mobility.

Now you could say the original S-300P model was "Flawed" because it used older Radio Command guidance and was just as immobile as the Patriot. Those are flaws. There are no flaws of that kind with the S-300PMU and if there was I doubt it would be a secret, too many nations operate the system and all they can ever do is praise it's impressive abilities. For example if such "flaws" existed in the S-300PMU family the Chinese would have funnelled more money towards procurement of the HQ-9 instead of buying the S-300PMU.

So my problem is just with the language used and I believe the statement claiming Iran fixed "flaws" with the S-300 are purely meant to aggrevate the Russians for not selling Iran the system in the first place and try to make the look bad.

the8march · « **Reply #63 on:** September 23, 2011, 06:46:04 PM »

Wasn't it that Iran aquired s300 from belarus?

I believe that if Iran has a version of the s300 then it can build a better one... CAN ... If they employ the enough resources ... Intelligence, scientific and Industrial ... And it seems that they have been working on the design for some time ... And i guess production will take its few years as well ... This is a logical time scale for some research work to improve the system ... However i think that such systems need lots of testing and optimization ... Building such complex systems is a process that starts now and ends only when the Bavar4xx is designed

Eagle2009 · « **Reply #64 on:** September 23, 2011, 06:54:13 PM »

Reza18,

Except I only used the term Inferior IF this "Bavar737" was a purely indigenous development not related to the S-300PMU at all. I base this on the troubled development of the HQ-9 in China who arguable at the time they started that program were ahead of Iran today in terms of rocket motor design and radar technology, though now that I think about it a bit more Iran may be fairly close to where the Chinese were at the time in those two fields. But regardless, the Chinese attempt to develop an indigenous long range SAM ultimately failed and they choose instead to use the S-300PMU as a template for their design and it still took them the better part of a decade. That was my point. IF this was a completely indigenous program they I would be skeptical as to how well it would turn out and how fast it could be developed.

However that point is generally mute because I don't think there is much doubt it will be a S-300 based system because of the fact it will apparently use very similar equipment (primarily a nearly identical radar system as paraded last year). So because it will likely be a S-300 based system, it wouldn't likely have quite as troubled and protracted development as the HQ-9 had in China.

And I NEVER said if Iran reverse-engineered the S-300PMU that it would inferior to the original Russian product. Nor did I ever say that if they reverse-engineered the HQ-9 would it be inferior to the original product.

YMJ · « **Reply #65 on:** September 23, 2011, 07:07:14 PM »

Quote from: reza18 on September 23, 2011, 06:07:10 PM

What a load of warped logic??? I really don't get this line of thinking. It often goes like this; If Iran copied it from the Russians then it's inferior to the Russian design..If they copied it from the Chinese then it's even more inferior..NONSENSE!!! What if they copied it from the US?? Will that make it superior, then???

EXACTLY!

Which we ARE! We have some of their best AA missiles!

Eagle,

Can you compare the technology used in AA missiles, US made, to the patriot missiles/system or other US made AD system.

I want to see how much of the technologies of the two systems overlap. From this we can get a picture of Iran's true capabilities.

Eagle2009 · « **Reply #66 on:** September 23, 2011, 07:08:33 PM »

the8march,

That is one of the rumors, and I think a likely one. If so then Iran's claims of it being superior to original Russian product could be true because the version it was rumored Belarus sold Iran was the older S-300PT variant. The PT variant was being phased out of service in Belarus because of the deployment of newer Russian S-300PMU variants and therefore it's makes good sense Iran would try to purchase these older models from Belarus.

And IF that's true, than there are alot of improvement Iran could make to it that would justify the language they used in the original report.

The S-300P/PT were "flawed" in that they didn't use the Track Via Missile guidance system that later models used and instead of being launched a trully mobile launcher, their missiles were carried by a towed launcher like the US Patriot system.

And I have always thought this explained the appearance of those Mock-up launchers from a few years back. Think about it, if Iran got their hands on the older PT variant and they choose to make it fully mobile like the PM/PMU variants then that would explain why their launcher looked so different from the one the Russians primarily use.

So following this train of thought, Iran acquired the S-300PT from Belarus sometime after 2005. When it became clear to Iran that their order for the more advanced S-300PMU-2 was in jeopardy of not being delivered (something they likely realized when they first ordered it in 2007), they decided to try and develop their own PMU equivalent using the PT technology they already had as a starting block. If so, then I have no doubt Iran has the necessary technology to improve upon the PT variant and solve its "flaws" and make a very capable SAM system. The result would be a system that is similar to the PMU in concept but not technically based directly upon it. That's been my theory for some time anyway.

the8march · « **Reply #67 on:** September 23, 2011, 07:12:38 PM »

The chinese are mostly 99.99% Copy-Paste people... This is now carved into their culture to the extent that they lost their innovative thinking... They are happy if they copy a foreign product ... So sick ... Iranians are different ... Free people can innovate ... People with Islamic thinking work day and night ... They have goals to reach... This has an effect on time scales...

I would not compare Iran to china

YMJ · « **Reply #68 on:** September 23, 2011, 07:13:44 PM »

Quote from: Eagle2009 on September 23, 2011, 06:54:13 PM

Iran may be fairly close to where the Chinese were at the time in those two fields. But regardless, the Chinese attempt to develop an indigenous long range SAM ultimately failed and they choose instead to use the S-300PMU as a template for their design and it still took them the better part of a decade. That was my point.

Exactly what is holding Iran back?

I don't really buy into that," since the Chinese took a decade to reverse engineer it" (in the times where information technology was not as developed), "Iran will take longer".

Can you at least explain the technical reasoning behind your point? I'm interested to know. Nothing is really holding Iran back to design an AD system more superior to the S-300. I'm sure you also think so as well. Iran can 'DESIGN' a system more superior to S-300. You, however, believe it would take Iran 10 years from today to make it?

I wouldn't be surprised if Iran showcased it in less than a year!

Eagle2009 · « **Reply #69 on:** September 23, 2011, 07:23:46 PM »

the8march,

I think that's a horrible stereotype for China's defense industry that while true decades ago was true, is hardly the case today and one I have personally disproven on multiple occasions here at the IMF so I won't derail this thread talking about it here except that it's more like "Cut and Paste" in that they cut away the flaws of the original designs and paste their own technology to improve it (such as the J-11B), combined with a growing number of 100% domestic designs as well.

YMJ,

I am not sure what you are asking for exactly, could you clarify?

YMJ · « **Reply #70 on:** September 23, 2011, 07:32:15 PM »

Eagle,

Whats not clear?

Eagle2009 · « **Reply #71 on:** September 23, 2011, 07:37:30 PM »

YMJ,

For example, that's look at rocket engine technology. At the time the Chinese started the HQ-9's development, the most advanced SAM they had was the KS-1 which is similar in technology to Iran's HAWK-based designs. Because of this, China's 1st attempt at developing a missile for the HQ-9 used similar rocket engines which were so bulky in compared to the missiles used by the S-300 (called the 5V55) that the missile had to have two stages to achieve similar range as the single stage 5V55.

Iran's more advanced domestic SAM to date is the Shahin design which uses similar engine technology to the KS-1 so I expect Iran would encounter similar problems of trying to design a compact and powerful enough engine design for a 5V55 class missile without direct access to it. Now I have proposed in the past that the rocket motor used by the Nazeat-10 rockets could be used for such a development since they are of similar size and range but I am not certain how well that engine design would translate to a SAM. It is possible though that Iran could use this technology to develop a roughly similar class missile to the 5V55 but that is alot of assumptions on my part which is why I have only suggested that idea cautiously.

Another area is radar. We know Iran has phased array radar technology as evidence by the rather large "flat" radar we saw at an exhibition some months ago. What we don't know is how new that radar really was. If it was a prototype radar than we can't be sure Iran has learned enough about phased array radars to build one as compact and as high performance as the Tombstone. If that radar we saw is not new than it's possible Iran more experience in Phased arrary radars than we thought and they could be close enough to develop a compact radar like the Tombstone.

Those are the only real problems areas I see for Iran developing an entirely indigenous long range SAM. Because there is so much uncertainty about how far along Iran really is in these two fields these are only my best guesses. You know I don't like assuming too much about such uncertainties and prefer to go with the "safest" bet which I know looks like understating things.

However I think it's likely Iran did get access to at the very least the S-300PT which make both of my aforementioned obstacles mute because having to both the Tombstone radar and 5V55 missiles allows Iran to drastically shorter the development of a properly modern long range SAM (as I described in my previous post).

Eagle2009 · « **Reply #72 on:** September 23, 2011, 07:38:54 PM »

YMJ,

I meant your previous question about Air to Air missiles, I wasn't sure what you were asking for exactly.

Rakhsh786 · « **Reply #73 on:** September 23, 2011, 07:58:11 PM »

I don't buy blanket assessments such as the contention that Iran "needs more time" than China to succesfully design and manufacture a modern long-range SAM system similar or superior to S-300 PMU-2 in performance and with different specifications unknown to the enemy. Iran doesn't have as many defense projects as China, also China's main priorities lie elsewhere, so Iran will likely have allocated a greater share of its resources to this particular project. As far as technological capabilities are concerned, I don't see Iran lagging behind China in the specific areas related to this development. It is therefore very conceivable, and even probable, that Iran developed its indigeneous, state of the art long-range SAM system in less time than China.

@Eagle2009, I hope you realize that all your speculations about Bavar-373 are based on the single term "flaws", which amounts to a botched effort unless you verify the original Farsi word(s) used by the official. Your elaborations also seem to erroneously assume that "flaws" cannot be employed in a subjective nor in a relative sense, and that it must necessarily refer to technical bits and pieces. Basing oneself on purely technical considerations in disregard of the contextual realities doesn't make sense.

mamdali · « **Reply #74 on:** September 23, 2011, 08:30:15 PM »

Unfortunately, Eagle is repeating his astonishingly ossified and fact free argument. Please refer to:

http://www.iranmilitaryforum.net/index.php?topic=7711.msg71368#msg71368

It is obvious Eagle simply cannot imagine Iran of 2011 outpacing China of decades ago. This has less to do with Iranian ingenuity and more with the simple notion of geometric progress and easier access to information. It doesn't take a particularly bright mind to see that.

Additionally, to say that any defense system is 'without flaws' borders on hallucination. And that's what Eagle has said explicitly and repeatedly, although he's trying to wriggle out from under it with a hail of loose commentary, as with most of his more 'incredible' statements.

Mamdali