Iran Military Forum

I still don't know what to think of this system, how about you guys? Is this better than the Samavat? Is it even cheaper? Wouldn't 4 automated zu-23-2s in the same area be better than this?

I know we've suggested a number of other radars that the unidentified one associated with the Mesbah can be compared to, but I don't think anyone's mentioned how similar it looks to the Chinese engagement radar associated with the FB-6A and (and by extension, the US's TWQ-1).

It has very similar characteristics including being composed of multiple independent rows of plates (9 rows on the Mesbah vs 12 on the FB-6) with the "ridges" running the length of the rows. Notably though, the Mesbah's radar has oversized plates and a smaller H:L ratio compared to the FB-6.

The thing is though, I can't find any information about either radar; I can find barely a mentiion at all that TWQ-1 avenger even used a radar, and those are just usually in reference to comparing it to the FB-6.

" The FB-6A turret comprises 8x FN-6 SAMs that have a maximum range of 5.5km. It also employs a machine gun according to a Poly brochure, but this could not be seen in the accompanying photo of the system. Its tracking system comprises a TV camera, a thermal camera and a laser range finder. The tracking system is able to detect a 2m square target out to 10km.

Now I see a problem with these specs and any "anti-cruise missile" ability. Most cruise missiles like the Tomahawk are thought to RCS of <0.5 meter squared, while this system states a 10km range against a 2 meter squared target. This suggests the Chinese radar was definitely not designed from taking out cruise missiles. Now this doesn't mean the Iranian radar isn't designed for such a task, just that this somewhat similar Chinese radar appears not to have been.

If i understood correctly the tracking system is optical... So for distances closer than 10km it can detect smaller targets ... At its range, 5.5km, the object will be 1m... What u mentioned about Tomahawk is the RCS (radar cross section) which is in most cases smaller than the real ( optical) area ...
It is also not clear what do they mean by detect... Is it real detect or identify? And in which optical system, IR or visible? In the IR you could detect a hot object even if it is smaller than a single pixel... In the visible you can easily use bigger more magnifying optics..

so this system is practicaly useless.

but planes can target it from 120 km with anti radiation missiles.

what other systems do you mean?

the8march,

The article about the FB-6A does seem to say it's an Optical system except one thing. The fact that the description states "RCS" indicates they much be talking about a Radar system. Optical (whether CCD or IR) wouldn't use that term not would they refer to targets measure by square meters, only radars measure target size by square meters and use the term "RCS".

In the case of the Mesbah-1, a HARM missile will continue to the target even if the Mesbah's radar is turned off and the optical system used instead. The HARM is designed to "remember" the intended target and continue towards it even if the radar is switched off. Only if the Mesbah-1 system knows ahead of time HARM-armed aircraft are approaching would it's electro-optic system be of use.

In other words, in any scenario in which the Mesbah-1 uses it's radar and there are HARM-equipped aircraft in the area, the Mesbah-1 is in great danger.

I am also quite skeptical that the AA guns linked to the Mesbah-1 could even hit a HARM missile. The HARM is a small target no matter what kind of guidance system you use (whether radar or IR/CCD).

I have to concur with Eagle on the subject of the Mesbah-1's effectiveness. Each piece of equipment is only as useful as the sum of it's parts.

It's actually somewhat unique in terms of modern VSHORAD because it's static; the emphasis in most modern systems is on  mobility since this translates into survivability against weapons like the HARM. Iran however has based it's AD-network around "islands" of relatively short-ranged systems like the HAWK and HQ-2 entrenched in semi-hardened facilities supported by handfuls of 23 and 35 mm guns on concrete pads.  For better or for worse, the Mesbah-1 fits in pretty well with this strategy.

There's no point in making the Mesbah-1 comparable to the SA-15 or SA-22 in terms of mobility because anything they'd be tasked with protecting wouldn't be moving that fast anyway. The role of the Mesbah-1 within Iran's IADS network is to protect air-defence bases from the inevitable SEAD/DEAD which would be directed their way, which, as Eagle pointed out, just happened in Libya. Thusly because mobility can't be utilized, everything has to be invested in making sure cruise missiles and PGMs can't get through. We've already seen this strategy to some extent utilized in wargames surrounding strategic sites which utilize waves of radar-guided AAA. It's actually antithetical to much of the grand strategy utilized in Iran's naval and ground warfare doctrine which emphasizes mobility and passive evasion (for instance, look at AShMs) which I think is extremely odd. Then again, it does fit in well with the idea of localized defence nodes that are independent of larger networks for protection.

This explanation puts a couple of things I've been thinking about in regard to the Mesbah-1 in a different light:

I was rather surprised that the radar and EO system were mounted in separate vehicles since in most modern systems they're mounted coaxially. Putting it on a separate trailer means another truck to tow it, another generator, more time spent setting it up/taking it down, and so on. Even the Skyguard has an integrated EO/radar trailer. Likewise, I've been wondering where the engagement radar is. Most of the radar-guided AAA systems I can think of off the top of my head use both an engagement and acquisition radar but we have only seen one here and I'd wager it's a general search radar because of the way it's mounted and traverses. Interestingly the same is true for the Samavat (though since we only ever saw one picture of it's radar it can hardly be called conclusive). Maybe the optical system is the primary engagement device rather then simply a backup in case of jamming as is the case for many VSHORAD devices today. In this light, putting them in separate trailers makes perfect sense because mobility isn't expected anyway, and separating the components adds in redundancy to SEAD/DEAD that would be absent if they were both co-located. Permanent passive engagement means that even in event of a successful HARM strike the Mesbah can remain in the battle with just the EO device.

---

With regard to the identity of the radar, I've been doing some more fishing around and a number of radars that have the same basic configuration of antenna with long horizontal plates arrayed in a column, are given this characteristic shape by using planar array waveguides. (I'm thinking particularly of the 9S18M1, pictured here). It might be what we're looking at here in the case of Mesbah. I just wish I could dig up information on how the FB-6 actually functions.

But, gennarally , it had been always a quastion , why do Iran make their domestical air-defence system like samavat,mersad,sayyad, or even FM-80 , fully self propellant mobile?
fortunately recently a report was published about mobilizing ( or increasing mobility) of S-200.

That's something I've always wondered as well since mobility is one of those things that represents a significant shift in capability. I was thinking about this subject when the Shalamcheh showed up recently - Iran's appearing to be investing a good deal of effort in keeping the HAWK-platform relevant but they haven't pursued mobility. It's not an issue of capability since we know Iran produces or has imported in great number the requisite heavy trucks (MAN, Kamaz, Mercedes-Benz, Iveco), and has a wealth of experience putting components inside containers to go on the back of these trucks (Noor/Zelzal/Shahab, the containerized Spoon-Rest).

(I think consolidating the multiple radar's of a HAWK battery would be a good first step toward this process. This is one of the reasons phased array radars are so important - they allow a single unit to broadcast both a wide search pattern and a narrow tracking beam simply by shifting a few tiny antenna on the face rather then having to use an entirely different radar system)

Perhaps it's a legacy of an air defence system that has always been structured this way. I've read that Iran deployed their SAMs in largely the same manner during the Iran-Iraq war with relatively limited deployments of HAWKs to the front. But this still doesn't explain why they haven't changed it in the 20+ years since the war ended.

Maybe the IRIADF just doesn't view it with the same importance we do. I guess the question is why when it's been demonstrated so many times that it is important. What does the IRIADF know that we don't?


btw, do you happen to still have the link about the S-200?

Iran calls Electro-optical systems on Mesbah-1 as "Safat-1 Tracking Electro-Optical System". It seems this system is an independent system that can be integerated with other air-defence systems.

http://www.aja.ir/portal/Home/ShowPage.aspx?Object=News&CategoryID=f7d36395-588c-496a-983f-379f6fcae43f&WebPartID=c997cbc2-e1fb-4ffc-9360-99122e25e385&ID=5b0bd0bc-4b7f-433b-a3d2-1c560e1b2f5b

Thanks.

The Sadat reminds me of the Sadid series made by IEI.

The correct spelling of it is SaFat.

but excuse me , Im not sure , is the electro-optical used on Mesbah-1 is the same Safat-1 or not. I guess it is.On mentioned article they named it as an independents system.
I think i have read somewhere about using Safat-1 alongside Samavat but i cant find it.and electro-optical system of Samavat and Mesbah-1 seems different

Electro-optical system used on Samavat:

Here's some pictures that might help:

2) Here's the same system, or one very close to it in a more finished state, and mounted on a truck in IRIADF colors and paraded in conjunction with Oerlikon guns. It has a similar set-up to the Mesbah system, with the same type of traversing mechanisms and the way the EO devices are mounted on arms with a top and bottom mounting brackets.

thanks Ayyash.
I guess your second picture is Safat-1, beacuse the article That I posted in reply #69 and talks about Safat-1, actually introduces equipments paraded last year.