Author Topic: Iran inaugurated production line of "Dehlavieh" anti armor weapon (Read 22121 times)

1979Change · « **Reply #125 on:** July 08, 2012, 05:06:08 AM »

Quote from: RG on July 08, 2012, 04:29:56 AM

As I mentioned in other thread, the idea of using synchronized guidance control, to fire two or more ATGMs simultaneously on a single spot on the target, is a good idea to use Iran's previous generation ATGMs (500mm-700mm penetration) against modern MBTs.
But the use of a precious ATGM to defeat the Active Protection system when a cheaper solution (Precursor Missile) is available, doesn't sound like a good idea.

Cheers.

It is called economic of scale.
99% of the time, the major part of the cost per unit, is the manufacturing, development, research costs. Materials and man power to produce each missile is not that much. The countries like Russia sell these missiles at high prices to recover the development and research and manufacturing process costs.
If you exclude these costs, which is case of local productions is already paid by Iran, the cost of additional missiles are lower than designing or integrating a second type into the system.

I do not think additional Kornets that Iran will produce will cost more than $2000 erach. One more thing, the laser guidance system is so accurate that can hide the second missile effectively behind the first one so the countermeasure system see them as a single threat.

Still the single missile should be tested against Israeli system before Iran modify a launcher to use two of these missiles.

PS, if you look at the body of the tube that house the missile, there is a data link. These missiles are already made to be launched by electronic commands. Connecting two or more missiles to launch together is like piece of cake.

mustavaris · « **Reply #126 on:** July 08, 2012, 05:37:08 AM »

I have no idea how one could push the price tag that low... considering that the known prices for high quality artillery shells (incl.fuses) is four digit number in dollars.

What comes to "hiding" behind the other missile - not possible. See how the missiles fly (and why they do so..). Besides, the modern radars MW-radars are way too accurate.

The remote command for missiles is an ancient thing: been in large scale use since the 1970s.

omedAFG · « **Reply #127 on:** July 08, 2012, 07:41:06 AM »

Is the Toophan better or the Dehlavieh?

mustavaris · « **Reply #128 on:** July 08, 2012, 08:05:24 AM »

It is of newer generation and not wire guided... so it should be better. But on the other hand, there are situations where wire guidance could be better too... But as a rule of the thumb; never warheads are better, never missiles are better and laser guidance is better than wire...

maydayfire · « **Reply #129 on:** July 08, 2012, 08:21:55 AM »

Dehlavieh

Kornet-E

the whole launcher system seems to be smaller than the Kornet-E

M-ATF · « **Reply #130 on:** July 08, 2012, 08:54:47 AM »

Quote from: maydayfire on July 08, 2012, 08:21:55 AM

Dehlavieh

Kornet-E
the whole launcher system seems to be smaller than the Kornet-E

I'm not sure but I think launcher of Dehlavieh that is seen in above image isn't complete, and likely some parts of it hasn't been attached to it. But despite that, there are still slight differences between launcher of Dehlavieh and Kornet-E( in addition to lack of that big optical device of Kornet-E launcher on Dehlavieh launcher).

----
Edited:

I think they have used image of a complete launcher on this banner, so most likely I was wrong and that big optical device on Kornet-E launcher isn't available on Dehlavieh launcher.

Numbers · « **Reply #131 on:** July 08, 2012, 09:30:21 AM »

Quote from: 1979Change on July 08, 2012, 03:27:39 AM

The system that Israel says will stop missiles against tanks still need to be proven effective, but the countermeasures nevertheless is already invented by Russians with shoot and forget and double missile launch.

Infantry that operates Kornet ATGM still needs Precursor Missile because it lowers the weight of ATGM, making it more mobile when carried by Infantry. The desired solution is when 1 Infantry soldier carries 1 ATGM. And 1 ATGM can destroy 1 Tank.

"Double missile launch" doubles the cost and weight of carried ATGM and perhaps can only be done by launch from vehicle. While Infantry can not synchronise the "double missile launch".

Keep in mind that it is Infantry that needs mobile tank killer the most. So that Infantry can hide in terrain and launch ATGMs from hidden positions.

Precursor Missile is very useful technology and should be implemented to combat Israel Merkava Tanks equipped with active defence system.

Numbers · « **Reply #132 on:** July 08, 2012, 09:34:07 AM »

Quote from: mustavaris on July 08, 2012, 05:03:15 AM

Kornets are not miracle weapons, like we already saw in Lebanon. Years ago.

But Kornets Anti Tank Guided Missiles (ATGMs) shot by camouflaged Infantry have destroyed multiple Israel Merkava Tanks. Clear victory on behalf of "camouflaged long range" ATGMs.

mustavaris · « **Reply #133 on:** July 08, 2012, 11:42:00 AM »

Only one Merkava was destroyed by Kornet. Typically when hit by those anti-tank weapons, there was no penetration, and when penetration occured it killed one person (average result) and put the tank out of action, but excluding a few, they all returned to service and a token were operational after being penetrated.. What those missiles (and RPG-29s) did, was that they challenged the superior firepower of Israeli troops, limited their operations and killed many infantrymen. Just like in so many other conflicst, the typical target of ATGWs was not a main battle tank, but an enemy concentration/firing position or lighter vehicle. Far more Israeli infantrymen died because of anti tank weapons than tankers. And if we are talking about Merkavas alone, it is also worth of knowing that by now Merkava IVs are far more numerous and more and more of the Israeli vehicles have APS.

Quote from: Numbers on July 08, 2012, 09:34:07 AM

But Kornets Anti Tank Guided Missiles (ATGMs) shot by camouflaged Infantry have destroyed multiple Israel Merkava Tanks. Clear victory on behalf of "camouflaged long range" ATGMs.

IronHorse110 · « **Reply #134 on:** July 08, 2012, 11:44:34 AM »

You can practically use this against anything. Is that correct?

mustavaris · « **Reply #135 on:** July 08, 2012, 11:47:19 AM »

That optical device is 1PN79-1 thermal sight... very essential. The system in picture has just sight-tracker mounted.

Quote from: M-ATF on July 08, 2012, 08:54:47 AM

I think they have used image of a complete launcher on this banner, so most likely I was wrong and that big optical device on Kornet-E launcher isn't available on Dehlavieh launcher.

mustavaris · « **Reply #136 on:** July 08, 2012, 11:51:55 AM »

I do not know what kind of warhead this Iranian missile has, but the Russian missiles are effective in anti-personnel use (unlike some light anti-tank rockets out there). They tend to be powerful enough to be able to take out bunkers, light vehicles are toast too due to raw explosive power and so forth. It would be odd if the Iranian missiles were not like that too. In typical modern conflicst 40 - 60 % of the ATGWs are used against something else than armoured vehicles. The reach (when comparing to other infantry weapons) and the accuracy (needed to hit moving vehicles) make them ideal for many purposes. And for example in Chechnya Russians used them to take out snipers, machine gun positions, entrenched enemy positions in general and so forth.. and in Lebanon Hezbollah also put the thermal imagers into great use. In relatively cold night of that region, engines and humans light up like lanterns..

Quote from: YMJ on July 08, 2012, 11:44:34 AM

You can practically use this against anything. Is that correct?

mustavaris · « **Reply #137 on:** July 08, 2012, 11:55:50 AM »

In a way; modern ATGWs are to tankers what snipers and mines are for infantrymen... They rarely get you, but mere chance of being hit by one (or a fear of that) seriously limits your options, hinders your movement, distracts you from your main mission.. and might even get you killed. MANPADs are similar... very seldom lucky enough to actually score a hit, but despite of that, extremely cost effective and useful. And all of those four: great for asymmetrical warfare.

maydayfire · « **Reply #138 on:** July 08, 2012, 06:21:04 PM »

Quote from: mustavaris on July 08, 2012, 11:42:00 AM

Only one Merkava was destroyed by Kornet. Typically when hit by those anti-tank weapons, there was no penetration, and when penetration occured it killed one person (average result) and put the tank out of action, but excluding a few, they all returned to service and a token were operational after being penetrated.. What those missiles (and RPG-29s) did, was that they challenged the superior firepower of Israeli troops, limited their operations and killed many infantrymen. Just like in so many other conflicst, the typical target of ATGWs was not a main battle tank, but an enemy concentration/firing position or lighter vehicle. Far more Israeli infantrymen died because of anti tank weapons than tankers. And if we are talking about Merkavas alone, it is also worth of knowing that by now Merkava IVs are far more numerous and more and more of the Israeli vehicles have APS.

What are your sources on this? I have read reports that far more many tank men have died.

Lur · « **Reply #139 on:** July 08, 2012, 07:37:08 PM »


Iran Military Introduces New Laser Guided Missile - Irã Lança Mísseis Antitanques Guiados a Laser

RG · « **Reply #140 on:** July 08, 2012, 07:54:17 PM »

Quote from: Numbers on July 08, 2012, 09:30:21 AM

Infantry that operates Kornet ATGM still needs Precursor Missile because it lowers the weight of ATGM, making it more mobile when carried by Infantry. The desired solution is when 1 Infantry soldier carries 1 ATGM. And 1 ATGM can destroy 1 Tank.

That's right, one shot one kill. Kornet can kill a modern MBT but a Precursor Missile can't, so I rather to sacrifice a small missile to open the way for the ATGM.
As you said it's easier and cheaper to carry a lighter smaller (around 4-5kg) Precursor Missile to defeat the Active Protection for the Kornet than depleting your ammo by using a Kornet to make way for another Kornet.
How ever cheap the manufacturing of "Dehlavieh" could be for Iran, a smaller simpler Precursor Missile would be much much cheaper.

Quote from: Numbers on July 08, 2012, 09:30:21 AM

"Double missile launch" doubles the cost and weight of carried ATGM.

That's why in that video the manufacturer was advocating for using ATGM to defeat the Active Protection to make way for the second ATGM, so they can sell more.

Cheers.

the8march · « **Reply #141 on:** July 08, 2012, 08:35:48 PM »

Quote from: mustavaris on July 08, 2012, 11:42:00 AM

Only one Merkava was destroyed by Kornet. Typically when hit by those anti-tank weapons, there was no penetration, and when penetration occured it killed one person (average result) and put the tank out of action, but excluding a few, they all returned to service and a token were operational after being penetrated.. What those missiles (and RPG-29s) did, was that they challenged the superior firepower of Israeli troops, limited their operations and killed many infantrymen. Just like in so many other conflicst, the typical target of ATGWs was not a main battle tank, but an enemy concentration/firing position or lighter vehicle. Far more Israeli infantrymen died because of anti tank weapons than tankers. And if we are talking about Merkavas alone, it is also worth of knowing that by now Merkava IVs are far more numerous and more and more of the Israeli vehicles have APS.

During a war this kind of discussion is not relevant .. To penetrate a Merkava you have to attack it from specific angles which is not always possible ... However during a war such as with israel, it is better to disable a tank than to destroy it ... They need immense work to evacuate a disabled tank ... And do you know what they did? They destroyed some tanks themselves

The most important thing about the kornet was its range of 5 km... And ease of using it ... War head comes later ... But as we know, war heads made in Iran destroyed many Israeli tanks as well...

This Iranian missile is a great step ... As we know that Russia will not always supply Kornets ... Iran still needs a Javelin like missile to have all the possible anti tank missile variants

mustavaris · « **Reply #142 on:** July 08, 2012, 11:21:48 PM »

What I have written is exactly what is essential in war. When talking about war, killing and destroying are overrated.

Quote from: the8march on July 08, 2012, 08:35:48 PM

During a war this kind of discussion is not relevant .. To penetrate a Merkava you have to attack it from specific angles which is not always possible ... However during a war such as with israel, it is better to disable a tank than to destroy it ... They need immense work to evacuate a disabled tank ... And do you know what they did? They destroyed some tanks themselves

The most important thing about the kornet was its range of 5 km... And ease of using it ... War head comes later ... But as we know, war heads made in Iran destroyed many Israeli tanks as well...

This Iranian missile is a great step ... As we know that Russia will not always supply Kornets ... Iran still needs a Javelin like missile to have all the possible anti tank missile variants

mustavaris · « **Reply #143 on:** July 08, 2012, 11:24:57 PM »

There are various sources all over the Internet. Double digit number of tankers diedindeed, but the exact figures are blurred. They also lost men without penetration at all.

Quote from: maydayfire on July 08, 2012, 06:21:04 PM

What are your sources on this? I have read reports that far more many tank men have died.

mustavaris · « **Reply #144 on:** July 09, 2012, 03:33:13 AM »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4794829.stm

"But a significant proportion of Israeli casualties have been among tank crews.

Hezbollah has also used its anti-armour weapons to bring down buildings around sheltering Israeli troops, again causing multiple casualties. "

http://defense-update.com/analysis/lebanon_war_3.htm

"The IDF employed several hundred tanks in combat. According to official reports, about ten percent were hit by various threats. Less than half of the hits penetrated. In overall assessment, the potential risk to crewmen would have been much higher, if the tank would be of a conventional design. A colonel commanding an armored brigade, which bore the brunt of battle, mentioned in an interview that during the war that hundreds of antitank missiles were fired on his unit and in total only 18 tanks were seriously damaged. Of those, missiles actually penetrated only five or six vehicles and according to statistics, only two tanks were totally destroyed, however, both by super-heavy IED charges."

Mustavaris: later it was confirmed that one of the totally destroyed tanks was taken out by Kornet but they obviously thought initially otherwise because of the total devastation caused by ammunition explosion and following fire that engulfed the vehicle....

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3297431,00.html

"Fifty Israel Defense Forces tanks were damaged during the 34 day war in Lebanon, 30 soldiers and officers from the corps were killed and more than 100 were injured, including two battalion commanders. These are the statistics from the recent conflict. "

"Another depressing statistic: Twenty-two tanks sustained hits that penetrated their steal armor (in ten of the tanks, there were 23 fatalities; in the rest, severe damage was caused to the vehicle). Forty-four percents of the tanks hit by missiles had their armor penetrated. During the first Lebanon War, this happened to 47 percent of the tanks and in the Yom Kippur war, 60 percent. "

1979Change · « **Reply #145 on:** July 09, 2012, 03:41:33 AM »

Quote from: mustavaris on July 09, 2012, 03:33:13 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4794829.stm

"But a significant proportion of Israeli casualties have been among tank crews.

Hezbollah has also used its anti-armour weapons to bring down buildings around sheltering Israeli troops, again causing multiple casualties. "

http://defense-update.com/analysis/lebanon_war_3.htm

"The IDF employed several hundred tanks in combat. According to official reports, about ten percent were hit by various threats. Less than half of the hits penetrated. In overall assessment, the potential risk to crewmen would have been much higher, if the tank would be of a conventional design. A colonel commanding an armored brigade, which bore the brunt of battle, mentioned in an interview that during the war that hundreds of antitank missiles were fired on his unit and in total only 18 tanks were seriously damaged. Of those, missiles actually penetrated only five or six vehicles and according to statistics, only two tanks were totally destroyed, however, both by super-heavy IED charges."

Mustavaris: later it was confirmed that one of the totally destroyed tanks was taken out by Kornet but they obviously thought initially otherwise because of the total devastation caused by ammunition explosion and following fire that engulfed the vehicle....

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3297431,00.html

"Fifty Israel Defense Forces tanks were damaged during the 34 day war in Lebanon, 30 soldiers and officers from the corps were killed and more than 100 were injured, including two battalion commanders. These are the statistics from the recent conflict. "

"Another depressing statistic: Twenty-two tanks sustained hits that penetrated their steal armor (in ten of the tanks, there were 23 fatalities; in the rest, severe damage was caused to the vehicle). Forty-four percents of the tanks hit by missiles had their armor penetrated. During the first Lebanon War, this happened to 47 percent of the tanks and in the Yom Kippur war, 60 percent. "

This ^^ is only cheap attampt to save the reputation of Markava tank.

Everybody knows that Israel has lost 53 tanks in 2006. Get your propaganda elsewhere!

Liverpool Forever · « **Reply #146 on:** July 09, 2012, 04:10:45 AM »

This is good,but Iran needs ATGMs with "fire and forget" capability

mustavaris · « **Reply #147 on:** July 09, 2012, 04:13:24 AM »

Nope. Around that figure was hit and put out of action through the conflict (40 - 70 depending on the sources). They never lost dozens of Merkavas, dozens were put out of action for some time.. and that means anything between few hours of field work to factory overhaul before the tank was again ready for service. But of course you are free to count those as "lost"... whatever suits you:) This is also the general agreement among defence professionals and their journals.

But if buying into Hezbollah propaganda makes you feel better, go for it. It is only you to whom such might have negative consequences.

1979Change · « **Reply #148 on:** July 09, 2012, 04:14:42 AM »

Quote from: Liverpool Forever on July 09, 2012, 04:10:45 AM

This is good,but Iran needs ATGMs with "fire and forget" capability

The rocket itself can work in that mode. Iran needs only to develop a launcher that controls them automatically. Iran even can purchase the launcher from Russia, but best option is to reverse engineer it.

parsipride · « **Reply #149 on:** July 09, 2012, 04:48:55 AM »

Congrats to Iran even though it seems like a licensed production
His speech is for domestic audience the USrael know this is a Copy/ license production
I think this is some ting Iran has had and it's timing the release with build up in the Persian gulf