Author Topic: Iran unveiled "Basir" smart laser guided munitions (Read 5730 times)

Pasdar · « **Reply #75 on:** February 02, 2012, 11:19:10 AM »

Aspahbod, maybe you want to put them side by side. Because even like this they look like very different projectiles to me.

reza18 · « **Reply #76 on:** February 02, 2012, 12:25:47 PM »

There's nothing wrong with making copies..It's how good your copies are..Copying a technology isn't like photocopying a paper document.

If a country's able to copy another countries technology, it shows the level of sophistication possessed by said country...The Zionist like to make fun of Iranian technology - in fact they claim Iranian technology is WW2 era systems. Yet they're scared to death of Hezbollah missiles(Most of them Iranian made) and complain about how it affects their operational plans.

In fact, the the field of technology, every country copies something from somewhere...

Aspahbod · « **Reply #77 on:** February 02, 2012, 12:40:31 PM »

Quote from: the8march on February 02, 2012, 11:04:34 AM

The Chinese seems to be an exact copy... Iran probably made an intelligent copy with changes/imporvements

Why would Iran do that? Krasnopol has much better range than Basir. That's why we wanted to buy them.

M-ATF · « **Reply #78 on:** February 02, 2012, 02:49:23 PM »

Quote from: Aspahbod on February 02, 2012, 12:40:31 PM

Why would Iran do that? Krasnopol has much better range than Basir. That's why we wanted to buy them.

Iran unveiled different types of munitions and Iran also didn't officially announce any range for her laser guided munitions. That anti-ship type we see in images that range of it is 20 km is different than Krasnopol like one and I think it has heavier warhead (As you know It also uses different seeker and guidance system too, and It has different design and it seems it uses bigger fins )

Aspahbod · « **Reply #79 on:** February 02, 2012, 03:23:10 PM »

Quote from: M-ATF on February 02, 2012, 02:49:23 PM

Iran unveiled different types of munitions and Iran also didn't officially announce any range for her laser guided munitions. That anti-ship type we see in images that range of it is 20 km is different than Krasnopol like one and I think it has heavier warhead (As you know It also uses different seeker and guidance system too, and It has different design and it seems it uses bigger fins )

This doesn't make any sense. If I had a Krasnopol, I'd have copied it completely so I won't need to bother myself with aerodynamically engineering the new round. Also all the round are the same. That "thing" in the nose of the round is probably a cover. That's why we don't see it in the animation or in the poster. This is also the same for Krasnopol. Look at this:
http://www.wallpaper1080hd.com/Picture/allimg/c110608/130JXX5W250-4O57.jpg

farbod · « **Reply #80 on:** February 02, 2012, 03:27:00 PM »

This is for the guy above me

Iranian defence minister said this was fully design and made in Iran. so I dont think its an russian one.

M-ATF · « **Reply #81 on:** February 02, 2012, 06:06:40 PM »

Quote from: Aspahbod on February 02, 2012, 03:23:10 PM

This doesn't make any sense. If I had a Krasnopol, I'd have copied it completely so I won't need to bother myself with aerodynamically engineering the new round. Also all the round are the same. That "thing" in the nose of the round is probably a cover. That's why we don't see it in the animation or in the poster. This is also the same for Krasnopol. Look at this:
http://www.wallpaper1080hd.com/Picture/allimg/c110608/130JXX5W250-4O57.jpg

I got what you say , but I still think those are two different types.
I checked Krasnopol specification, most of sources reported it 20 km and there were few sources that had reported it 25 km.

WUDANGMASTER · « **Reply #82 on:** February 02, 2012, 06:56:34 PM »

Quote from: Catsoo on January 30, 2012, 03:25:14 PM

It just crossed my mind a "What if?"! What if this shell can be deployed from small Iranian Fast Attack Boats? With a range of 20Km, these types of shells are far more deadlier and accurate than the current small Caliber Katusha rockets currently employed by these boats.

Catsoo

Problem lies in the recoil that a small craft would not be able to handle.

Ayyash · « **Reply #83 on:** February 02, 2012, 07:31:32 PM »

The similarity to the 2K25 Krasnopol is far too great to assume that it is merely a product of coincidence, especially with the talks of sales from Russia to Iran. While there are differences in the body of the round and the stabilization section, these are all 'small potatoes' compared to the guidance and control mechanism which is identical to the 2K25 (the Chinese round is, itself, a copy of the 2K25). Designing the former would be relatively easy once the technology was transferred for everything else. For instance, once you've taken out the laser-guidance, you're left with an artillery shell and pop-out fins similar to what you would find on an unguided rocket.

I mentioned earlier how the pointed part of the projectile may have been discarded in flight; while it doesn't look like a conventional ballistic nose-cone, I'm pretty sure that it is because I've now seen multiple sources indicate that this is how the Krasnopol operates as well.

The listed ranges match up. The Russian export catalog describes the 2K25 has having a range of "3-20 km" while the poster in the video indicates a range of 20 km for the Basir.

M-ATF · « **Reply #84 on:** February 02, 2012, 07:58:07 PM »

Quote from: Ayyash on February 02, 2012, 07:31:32 PM

The similarity to the 2K25 Krasnopol is far too great to assume that it is merely a product of coincidence, especially with the talks of sales from Russia to Iran. While there are differences in the body of the round and the stabilization section, these are all 'small potatoes' compared to the guidance and control mechanism which is identical to the 2K25 (the Chinese round is, itself, a copy of the 2K25). Designing the former would be relatively easy once the technology was transferred for everything else. For instance, once you've taken out the laser-guidance, you're left with an artillery shell and pop-out fins similar to what you would find on an unguided rocket.

I mentioned earlier how the pointed part of the projectile may have been discarded in flight; while it doesn't look like a conventional ballistic nose-cone, I'm pretty sure that it is because I've now seen multiple sources indicate that this is how the Krasnopol operates as well.

The listed ranges match up. The Russian export catalog describes the 2K25 has having a range of "3-20 km" while the poster in the video indicates a range of 20 km for the Basir.

I agree with you too, But I think these are two different types :

Pasdar · « **Reply #85 on:** February 02, 2012, 08:37:23 PM »

It's the guidance back-end system that receives the sensory data about a particular wavelength it's programmed to perceive. The back-end itself calculates trajectory adjustments and conveys adjustments to either (depending on design choices): (1) the actuators controlling the fins, (2) thrusters, or (3) main thruster vector adjustments.

The above is the important technology itself and everything else, like its design being a particular way, looking Chinese, Russian, Martian, is absolutely irrelevant. It might as well be in a box. The difficulty is the above, not its looks.

Ayyash · « **Reply #86 on:** February 02, 2012, 09:12:22 PM »

I have to disagree with you Pasdar. The bottom of the projectile is relatively rudimentary. The fins are for stabilization and aren't actually controlled. The only other component of this portion is a small booster. All the brains of the Krasnopol is located in the front.

This is what the export catalog has to say:

Quote

Krasnopol CLGPs include two sections, with one of them housing warhead, booster and stabiliser assembly, and the other being the guidance package with nose fairing, autopilot and homing head. Prior to firing, both sections are joined via a fast-screw joint. Nose fairing, which is discarded in flight, is designed to protect optics from damage and soiling.

the8march · « **Reply #87 on:** February 02, 2012, 10:23:42 PM »

Some info about the american system M712 Copperhead.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/m712.htm

Catsoo · « **Reply #88 on:** February 03, 2012, 03:04:48 PM »

We should see this technology on Iranian attack helicopters, UCAVs, SU-25s and even attack boats soon.

Catsoo

ZamZam · « **Reply #89 on:** February 03, 2012, 03:24:09 PM »

If iran can make this then surely they have
something similar to SOF laser marker

mamdali · « **Reply #90 on:** February 03, 2012, 04:36:44 PM »

I'd also like to comment about the 'costs' of this system. The fact that EXISTING systems can be relatively easily converted significantly REDUCES the potential cost of fielding these. There isn't a need for new firing systems or new rounds of artillery. Juxtapose this with brand new development, manufacturing, and deployment of these not to mention the training that is required for field forces for the new end to end system, then the cost is actually very low. Merely comparing the cost of a dumb round with a smart one is an incomplete cost analysis. Given that, I'd like to hear why this system is 'costly'? Obviously each smart round is more expensive, but overall deployment is far cheaper.

Mamdali

Aspahbod · « **Reply #91 on:** February 03, 2012, 05:34:29 PM »

This tech can surly be used for an Anti-tank missile too.

russelsm · « **Reply #92 on:** February 13, 2012, 02:30:38 PM »

I think we will see air launched laser guided bombs.

Catsoo · « **Reply #93 on:** February 27, 2012, 02:53:24 PM »

How Basir became to be! (in Farsi)

http://www.mashreghnews.ir/fa/news/97915/%DA%AF%D9%84%D9%88%D9%84%D9%87-%D9%87%D8%A7%DB%8C-%D8%A8%D8%B5%DB%8C%D8%B1-%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86%DB%8C-%DA%86%DA%AF%D9%88%D9%86%D9%87-%D9%87%D9%88%D8%B4%D9%85%D9%86%D8%AF-%D8%B4%D8%AF%D9%86%D8%AF-%D8%B9%DA%A9%D8%B3

Catsoo

the8march · « **Reply #94 on:** February 27, 2012, 03:42:49 PM »

Quote from: Catsoo on February 27, 2012, 02:53:24 PM

How Basir became to be! (in Farsi)

http://www.mashreghnews.ir/fa/news/97915/%DA%AF%D9%84%D9%88%D9%84%D9%87-%D9%87%D8%A7%DB%8C-%D8%A8%D8%B5%DB%8C%D8%B1-%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86%DB%8C-%DA%86%DA%AF%D9%88%D9%86%D9%87-%D9%87%D9%88%D8%B4%D9%85%D9%86%D8%AF-%D8%B4%D8%AF%D9%86%D8%AF-%D8%B9%DA%A9%D8%B3

Catsoo

any important points to translate?

mustavaris · « **Reply #95 on:** February 27, 2012, 06:27:06 PM »

Who cares if it is based on Russian tech or not? [excl. Russians if their immaterial rights got spanked] If Iran can manufacture those in significant numbers it will provide them with good PGMs that would solve a lot of trouble I can imagine them having with their conventional artillery.

mustavaris · « **Reply #96 on:** February 27, 2012, 06:31:57 PM »

Laser guided munitions tend to be very expensive, but they are also used against targets that have high value - both in terms of money and tactical relevance. This really boils down to way the artillery is used and the skill level and other equipment besides the doctrine. Due to our doctrine, equipment and high precision artillery Finnish military does not use laser guided PGMs. They simply do not have place in our service, but if you want to give traditional massed artillery capability to strike pin point targets, real AT capability and/or ability to be used in sudden and accurate first strike missions in combination with sneaky FOs... these are the way to go.

Quote from: mamdali on February 03, 2012, 04:36:44 PM

I'd also like to comment about the 'costs' of this system. The fact that EXISTING systems can be relatively easily converted significantly REDUCES the potential cost of fielding these. There isn't a need for new firing systems or new rounds of artillery. Juxtapose this with brand new development, manufacturing, and deployment of these not to mention the training that is required for field forces for the new end to end system, then the cost is actually very low. Merely comparing the cost of a dumb round with a smart one is an incomplete cost analysis. Given that, I'd like to hear why this system is 'costly'? Obviously each smart round is more expensive, but overall deployment is far cheaper.

Mamdali

Ich · « **Reply #97 on:** February 27, 2012, 08:19:29 PM »

This ammunition is also good in asymetric warfare when you almost have only one shot to succseed bevor the artillerie is destroyed.

mustavaris · « **Reply #98 on:** February 28, 2012, 08:51:32 PM »

TBH; I do not buy into this.

Quote from: Ich on February 27, 2012, 08:19:29 PM

This ammunition is also good in asymetric warfare when you almost have only one shot to succseed bevor the artillerie is destroyed.

Numbers · « **Reply #99 on:** March 03, 2012, 03:57:09 AM »

To protect coast line with Laser Guided Artillery rounds it is necessary to have Tower with 25 meters height.
Than distance to horizon (or skyline) will be around 20 kilometers.

Enemy ships coming closer than 20 kilometers will be detected and targeted by Laser Beam Tower.

In my opinion small patrol boats can not have 25 meters height Towers due to increased Radar Cross Section of the boat.
Unless Tower is made of Plastic and has triangular cross sections (on front and back of Tower) to reflect Radar Beam to the sides.

Below is the picture that indicates Iran wants to deploy Laser Beam Towers to guard Iranian coast line.