Author Topic: Ghader missile delivered to IRIN and IRGCN (Read 2236 times)

M-ATF · « **on:** September 28, 2011, 12:44:11 PM »

During a ceremony Qader missiles were delivered to IRIN and IRGCN.
DM , Ahmad Vahidi announced this missile is anti-ship and anti coastal facilities and can be launched from sea, land and air.

He also responsed to this quastion has Iran this capability to build Aircraft-carrier and said every thing armed forces need we can produce for them but now our priorities is another thing.

he also talked about presence of Iran in free waters and said this is right of all countries and IRI has programmefor that too.

Quote

در حاشیه جلسه هیأت دولت عنوان شد
وزیر دفاع:نیازی به ایجاد «خط سرخ» بین ایران و آمریکا نیست

خبرگزاری فارس: وزیر دفاع درخصوص تخلف روسیه در موضوع موشک‌های اس300 تصریح کرد: در این‌باره پیش پرداخت‌هایمان را از روسیه پس گرفتیم اما ادعای خسارت داشته‌ایم که این ادعا به داوری ارجاع شده است.
خبرگزاری فارس: وزیر دفاع:نیازی به ایجاد «خط سرخ» بین ایران و آمریکا نیست

به گزارش حوزه دولت خبرگزاری فارس، سردار احمد وحیدی وزیر دفاع و پشتیبانی نیروهای مسلح که ظهر امروز چهارشنبه در حاشیه جلسه هیأت دولت با خبرنگاران گفت‌وگو می‌کرد، به تحویل حجم انبوهی از موشک‌های کروز «قادر» به نیروی دریایی ارتش و سپاه به مناسبت هفته دفاع مقدس اشاره کرد و گفت: این موشک‌ها ضد ناوچه، ضد ناو و ضد تاسیسات ساحلی و از زمین، دریا و هوا قابل پرتاب است.

وی در پاسخ به سوالی درباره تخلف روسیه در موضوع موشک‌های اس300 تصریح کرد: در این‌باره پیش پرداخت‌هایمان را از روسیه پس گرفتیم اما ادعای خسارت داشته‌ایم که این ادعا به داوری ارجاع شده است.

وزیر دفاع همچنین درباره حضور ایران در آب‌های آزاد اظهار داشت: حضور در این آب‌‌ها برای همه آزاد است و جمهوری اسلامی ایران در این زمینه برنامه دارد و در گذشته نیز در آب‌های آزاد حضور داشته‌ایم.

سردار وحیدی در پاسخ به سوال دیگری مبنی براینکه آیا ایران بنا دارد ناو هواپیمابر بسازد، گفت: توسعه توان دریایی از برنامه‌های ماست و در این حوزه هرچه نیروهای مسلح بخواهند در برنامه‌ها داریم اما اکنون اولویت‌های ما چیز دیگری است.
وی همچنین در پاسخ به این سوال که نظر شما در مورد پیشنهاد آمریکایی‌ها برای ایجاد خط تلفن سرخ بین ایران و این کشور گفت که : ما در منطقه نیاز به برقراری این خط نداریم.

وزیر دفاع با بیان اینکه خروج نیروهای فرا منطقه‌ای از منطقه و عدم دخالت از سوی آنها در مسائل منطقه باعث می‌شود که تنشی در منطقه ایجاد نشود، اظهار داشت: آنها می‌گویند خط سرخ داشته باشیم، برای این که اگر تنشی به وجود آمد، حل کنیم. در صورتی که ما معتقدیم اگر آنها نباشند در منطقه تنش ایجاد نمی‌شود.

سردار وحیدی همچنین تاکید کرد: آنها موظف هستند در عبور از تنگه‌ی خلیج فارس به تمام سوالاتی که نیروی دریایی ما از آنها می‌پرسد، پاسخ دهند و آنها تحت اشراف اطلاعاتی نیروی دریایی ما هستند.

www.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=13900706000918

M-ATF · « **Reply #1 on:** September 28, 2011, 12:52:12 PM »

Iran Equips Army, IRGC Naval Forces with New Anti-Ship Cruise Missiles

TEHRAN (FNA)- The Iranian Defense Ministry supplied large numbers of a newly produced powerful ant-ship cruise missile to the country's Navy and the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) to boost Iran's naval defense power.

During a ceremony attended by Iranian Defense Minister Brigadier General Ahmad Vahidi, the Defense Ministry delivered the Qader (Mighty) anti-ship cruise missiles to the Army's Navy and IRGC's naval force.

Addressing the ceremony, also attended by Iranian Navy Commander Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari and Commander of the IRGC Naval Force Brigadier General Ali Fadavi, Vahidi said that Iran has managed to mass-produce the missile in the shortest time possible.

He stressed that production of the missiles showed that the Iranian Defense Industries are able to satiate the Iranian Armed Forces' missile needs.

As regards the features and specifications of the new missile, Vahidi said Qader is an anti-ship cruise missile with a range of 200km and enjoys a short launch time and is able to hit all naval vessels, including frigates and warships, as well as onshore enemy targets.

Tehran launched an arms development program during the 1980-88 Iraqi imposed war on Iran to compensate for a US weapons embargo. Since 1992, Iran has produced its own tanks, armored personnel carriers, missiles and fighter planes.

Yet, Iranian officials have always stressed that the country's military and arms programs serve defensive purposes and should not be perceived as a threat to any other country.

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9007040361

Lur · « **Reply #2 on:** September 29, 2011, 01:18:25 AM »


Iranian Navy recieved mass-produced Ghader anti-ship missile 2011 موشک کروز قادر	Small \| Large

Catsoo · « **Reply #3 on:** September 29, 2011, 02:55:21 AM »

I never understood the radical maneuver in its flight path by C-805 and now Ghader. To me, it does not seem logical. The flight pattern is similar to a SAM than an ASHM.

Catsoo

stormbringa · « **Reply #4 on:** September 29, 2011, 01:57:50 PM »

it's the booster that flies up to the air after separation. the missile continues on in straight line. at 1:37 in the upper right corner and at 1:55.

the8march · « **Reply #5 on:** September 29, 2011, 02:43:33 PM »

Quote from: stormbringa on September 29, 2011, 01:57:50 PM

it's the booster that flies up to the air after separation. the missile continues on in straight line. at 1:37 in the upper right corner and at 1:55.

Yes its the booster that goes upward and shows strange maneuvers due to instability. The missile then cruises to some height to get the radar signals. I am not quite sure about the end phase. I read once that it has to fly close to the water and hit the ship on the side. However the one used in the Lebanon war was hitting the ship deck from the top.

Eagle2009 · « **Reply #6 on:** September 29, 2011, 10:40:07 PM »

the8march,

The C-802/Noor is indeed design to at the terminal phase of the flight to "hit the deck", by flying less than 10 meters above the water to minimize it's likelihood of being detected by the defending vessel's defense systems.

The Hanit incident however needs to be explained. The reason the C-802 that targeted the Hanit hit so high was reportedly because of what it was homing in on: a crane. On the Saar-5 class corvette/frigates there is a crane attached to the Helipad used to aid the helicopter usually assigned to the Saar 5. This crane was left out and exposed and not in the hangar. Thanks to the stealthy shape of the Hanit, when the C-802 approached it, it homed in on the largest radar signature: the crane. This is why there was so little damage done to the Hanit. While originally reported to have hit near the waterline, the images that became available of the damaged Hanit show it clearly exploded ABOVE the helipad not actually impacting the hull. IF the C-802 had hit the waterline and exploded, the Hanit would be at the bottom of the Med. Sea, not returning to port under it's own power. Even it hadn't exploded and just impacted the vessel, the damage would have been more severe.

EDIT- Sorry for the multiple edits, I had to rechecks to images of the damage to be sure.

Lur · « **Reply #7 on:** September 30, 2011, 02:43:26 AM »

Eagle I thought it was a kowsar that hit the hanit not a noor?

Chinese government sources have stated that the missile was not a C-802/Noor. The Hanit did suffer major damage to its steering and some to its engine from the missile hit, and had to be removed from the area, but the damage was lighter than initially feared. Using hits by the Harpoon missile — which has a warhead approximately 1.5 times larger than the C-802, and is generally considered able to cripple a corvette-sized vessel with a single hit — as a reference point, it seems likely that the missiles used by Hezbollah were not Noor missiles, and were the smaller Kowsar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowsar

parsipride · « **Reply #8 on:** September 30, 2011, 03:34:24 AM »

Eagle,

I like to hear your thoughts on this cruise missile , is it a game changer ? Can it strike air craft carriers as the reporter states at the end of the video

Eagle2009 · « **Reply #9 on:** September 30, 2011, 07:55:20 AM »

Lur,

I too for a time thought it was a C-701 that hit the Hanit but the fact the Chinese denied it was a C-802 is meaningless. The Chinese likely didn't want one of their missiles connected to such a public incident.

However when you look at images of the damage done to the Hanit, there is no way the tiny 29kg warhead of the Kosar could do that. An explosion of that kind above the landing pad would have been rather minor, and certainly wouldn't have cracked the landing pad itself and destroy the hangar's crane (notice it is absent in the after images of the Hanit) along with it. The damage looks much more consistent with the 165kg warhead of the C-802 exploding above the landing pad.

Parsipride,

While I think the Qader is a good development (in terms of capabilities and performance), I don't see it as a game-changer. Its range is still too short to reach across the entire PG at it's widest (allowing the US 5th Fleet to stay out of it's range of fire). The missile is still subsonic, still uses radar guidance (meaning it can be jammed). A real "game-changer" would be adding an IR sensor to the design (as seen in Taiwan's HF-2 anti-shipping missile), allowing it to bypass most vessel's electronic protection. To be fair, this is just an improved Noor missile and should be treated as such, not some brand new weapon system.

the8march · « **Reply #10 on:** September 30, 2011, 08:50:47 AM »

Eagle2009,

I have several points about the C802 and the Lebanon War 2006.

1. Three C802 were used during the war. Two were shot at Hanit. One hit it. The other was hitting a trade ship 60 km away. The third missile was shot close to beirut at a Sa'ar 4.5 that was near Tyre some 100 km away. Israel denied this, however reporters and Hezbollah confirmed the ship being hit. The radar showed other ships were heading to help it. A fourth small patrol boat was sunk using a Kornet missile most probably. There is a video about this.

2. Prior to the hit, the Hanit was around 10-15 km away from the shore. At these distances its not possible to talk about small RCS and stealth. The RCS becomes an important factor at longer distances. You have a gain at the radar receiver by d^4. So at these short distances its possible to detect the ship. During the day it was possible to see it with normal binoculars as i used to do. I also dont believe that the countermeasures of the ship were at standby as Israel claims. They were simply too close.

3. Fact is, the missile hit the crane and the deck. However I cannt really say that it was homing specifically on the crane. Would be the best missile ever if it can detect the crane, home on it and hit it from a 10 km distance

. Thats too much precision i guess. I am also not sure (i dont know) if such a small target as the crane would be resolved by the missile radar. This also doesn't mean that if the crane was not there the missile would have not found the ship.

Now having wikipedia as a reference:

4. The missile in the end phase switches its own radar. This means that it will be looking at the ship from the top from close distances. The ship is by no means stealth from these angles.

5. According to wikipedia too, "When approaching the target, the missile dives to hit the waterline of the ship to inflict maximum damage". I also expect an anti ship missile to do so. But I think this stage didn't work well. Thats why we had the hit on the deck. Or maybe the missiles produced by Iran are not programmed to do so? different versions?

6. Its right that the Hanit didn't sink. but the damage was not small as you mentioned. Israel tried to downplay the damage and even said that the ship was repaired in one month. However it took some (5-6) months before it was displayed and entered service in a ceremony. The commander of the Israeli navy talked about ordering the ship to return with its own power. The ship actually needed help and was accompanied by other ships... but its a matter of pride for those people... he said he insisted that it gets back with its power... anyway.. he was fired after that.

Eagle2009 · « **Reply #11 on:** September 30, 2011, 08:11:46 PM »

But you are still missing my main point..

When you look at the images of the damage done to the Hanit (and there are plenty of them), it is FAR too much to have been caused by the tiny 65lb warhead of the Kosar if it had denotated over the deck. The damage was more extensive then the Israelis original claimed (though it did make it back home under its own power) which proves it had to have been a C-802.

And actually the C-802 can easily be used at such short ranges (actually the reports I read say the vessel was closer to 20km away). If fact if fired at such a short range the C-802's seeker can go active immediately and that would give it enough accuracy to hit the target.

Indeed though it didn't home in on the crane specifically but the section of the ship that the crane was at. The crane being exposed raise the RCS of the rear of the ship, hence why the C-802 homed in on that part of the ship.

Also those reports of a Saar-4.5 being hit are unfounded with no evidence existing to prove it ever happened. The Saar-4.5 is less advanced than the Saar 5 and therefore it makes no sense to hide the fact one of your lesser advanced ships was hit but tell the world your most advanced vessel was hit. Also if this impact supposedly happened at such a distance, it is impossible the reporters could even know. They would have had to be near the vessel at the impact to confirm so the reporters testimony is worthless.

Most importantly, if a Saar 4.5 was hit by a C-802 it would have sunk, period. The Saar 4.5 is only 450 or so tons displacement, where as the C-802 can sink a vessel many times that size.

So as I said, since there is no ZERO proof of any such hit, and the fact that said vessel would have been sunk and no Saar 4.5s have gone missing, such reports are completely bunk as far as I am concerned.

the8march · « **Reply #12 on:** October 01, 2011, 02:25:14 PM »

Quote from: Eagle2009 on September 30, 2011, 08:11:46 PM

Also those reports of a Saar-4.5 being hit are unfounded with no evidence existing to prove it ever happened. The Saar-4.5 is less advanced than the Saar 5 and therefore it makes no sense to hide the fact one of your lesser advanced ships was hit but tell the world your most advanced vessel was hit. Also if this impact supposedly happened at such a distance, it is impossible the reporters could even know. They would have had to be near the vessel at the impact to confirm so the reporters testimony is worthless.

Most importantly, if a Saar 4.5 was hit by a C-802 it would have sunk, period. The Saar 4.5 is only 450 or so tons displacement, where as the C-802 can sink a vessel many times that size.

So as I said, since there is no ZERO proof of any such hit, and the fact that said vessel would have been sunk and no Saar 4.5s have gone missing, such reports are completely bunk as far as I am concerned.

Eagle2009,

I never said that the missile is Kowsar. I also believe its a C802. So there is no difference on this point.

Concerning the Sa'ar 4.5, i disagree with you on the way of the analysis. I am not sure how well you followed the kind of wars between Hezbollah and Israel. But in general, Israel never admitted anything unless it was filmed. There were many instances in which israel denied an accident, only to admit the next day after the video came out. The problem that day that the visibility was not that good and ship was far from the shore due to lessons learned from the Hanit case. I referred to the reporters because they confirmed seeing the launch of the missile taking place. Second, Hezbollah never lies in these matters. Specifically when their Leader confirms something has happened. You cannt state any incident in which this was false. The fact that ships headed to the Sa'ar to help it is documented in radar images however still not revealed.

On the other side, no one really expects Israel to confess that they had another ship hit! With all the defense systems they have on the their ships? This would be a catastrophe for their industries. Getting hit by a missile you know by now that your enemy had? This is beyond their Ego. As simple as that. They also didn't confess losing the boat (filmed). They didn't confess loosing a Sikorsky helicopter although i saw the remains myself. These incidents took place close to the end of the war. This was the last thing Israel wanted to hear or say.

Anyway, i know that these are not solid proofs. But one has to analyse the whole situation with the right background information.

Fact is, the C802 was able to isolate the israeli navy from actively participating the war as they used to do in 1982, 1993 and 1996. They used to control the whole shore with just the canons they have. These days are over.

YMJ · « **Reply #13 on:** October 01, 2011, 03:02:03 PM »

the8march,

You make very solid points brother!

Of course the Israeli's would deny they got hit twice, not only is it a matter of ego but psychologically the Israeli's are paranoid and scared. Their population in general. If they admit they are defenseless against Hezbollah weapons at sea, their population would go into a hysteria even with all their propaganda networks at work.

M-ATF · « **Reply #14 on:** October 01, 2011, 04:25:14 PM »

the8march

Thanks for intresting points of 33 days war.

I have always wondered is it possible to open a route from sea or under the sea to Gaza?Is it possible to equip Hamas with submarines?Once they can recieve enough weapons to open a route from sea or under the sea to outside world and can defend it then they can be supplied from that path and then they will be stronger day after day.

According to recent reports by commanders of IRIN, Iran is working on submarine-launched version of anti ship missiles, if i remember properly they said the projects will be finished around 2 years .

Im very intrested to see Hezbollah equiped with Ghadir or even Ghaem sumbarines that can launch anti ship missiles. Its very intresting to see use of Persian Gulf missiles against Israels warships.

But I believe most likely Israel will not start any other war against Hezbollah

Catsoo · « **Reply #15 on:** October 01, 2011, 04:50:22 PM »

M-ATF,

You will not see Lebanon acquiring subs for another couple of decades, at least. The reason is simple, infrastructure does not exist and will not mostly because it can not be protected. The best defence for Lebanon is smart weapons such as what has been supplied to HZ already. I would obtain more air defence which seems already in place.

Catsoo

maydayfire · « **Reply #16 on:** October 02, 2011, 01:29:39 AM »

another good article by mashregh

http://www.mashreghnews.ir/fa/news/69681/%D9%82%D8%A7%D8%AF%D8%B1-%D8%AC%D8%AF%DB%8C%D8%AF%D8%AA%D8%B1%DB%8C%D9%86-%D9%85%D9%88%D8%B4%DA%A9-%D8%B6%D8%AF-%DA%A9%D8%B4%D8%AA%DB%8C-%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%B9%DA%A9%D8%B3

Ayyash · « **Reply #17 on:** October 02, 2011, 02:44:44 AM »

Quote from: Catsoo on October 01, 2011, 04:50:22 PM

M-ATF,

You will not see Lebanon acquiring subs for another couple of decades, at least. The reason is simple, infrastructure does not exist and will not mostly because it can not be protected. The best defence for Lebanon is smart weapons such as what has been supplied to HZ already. I would obtain more air defence which seems already in place.

One "submarine" that might fit the bill is the North Korean semi-submersibles that we know Iran at least has a handful of. These could conceivably be transported to Lebanon/Syria in either shipping containers or on aircraft, or even on large trucks and driven across Turkey. They don't need any special infrastructure like drydocks - they're essentially very large speedboats when talking about the trailers needed to tow them and inlets to hide them. I'd also wager that the training required is minimal compared to a real submarine but I'm not basing that on anything besides intuition.

The pair of 324 mm torpedoes isn't much when talking about Iran's position in the Gulf vis-a-vis total war, but when talking about a much smaller area of operations against a navy with much less presence then the USN I wouldn't be surprised if they could deliver a few quick strikes of opportunity especially if the Israeli navy wasn't expecting it, like what happened with the AShM.

North Korea, not necessarily Iran, might offer the best model here for Hezbollah though. North Korea seems to prefer using their submarines as infiltration craft to deliver commandos. Hezbollah has done boat raids before and deployment of small combat units deep inside Israel would have significant affect on Israel.

This is actually one of the major shifts in Hezbollah strategy that I think has occurred in the wake of the 2006 war away from complete defense toward the use of tactically (if not strategically) offensive operations as well.

Eagle2009 · « **Reply #18 on:** October 02, 2011, 04:12:33 AM »

the8march,

Except there was never any photographic or video evidence of the Hanit being hit until after the war. So "visibility" has nothing to do with it. You can't "see" out to sea 100km from the coast, the curvature of the Earth prevents it. So again, it is literally impossible for any reporter to be able to confirm a missile hit ANY vessel at such a range themselves. And seeing a missile being fired hardly confirms a hit. It only confirms a missile was fired. I never said no such attack occured, I am saying no evidence exists that it succeeded.

And your references to supposed radar images is rather puzzling since as you state these supposed images haven't been released. Therefore we can't even be sure they exist.

Further, you seem to keep forgetting the most important point of all. A Sa'ar 4.5 class missile boat can't survive a hit from a C-802. There is no denying this, the vessel would have been sunk in minutes no matter where it was hit. If the missile impacted, the ship would have sunk, period. Since no Sa'ar 4.5s are "missing", no such hit could have occured. The Sa'ar-5 likely wouldn't have even survived if the C-802 had impacted where it was supposed to (at the waterline), there is no way a vessel a third it's size could have survived such a hit.

And you will have to forgive me for not talking Hezbollah's word for it, but their claims are irrelevant to me without actual evidence. And during the 2006 War Hezbollah made many claims about Israeli losses that they provided no evidence for (including the supposed loss of a F-16 and 3 Apaches). Without evidence such claims are just that, claims. Hezbollah is hardly the only ones that do such things, it happens in every war (usually on both sides). And it doesn't mean such claims are all false, but without even providing any evidence to back up such claims, they should all be treated with suspicion.

the8march · « **Reply #19 on:** October 02, 2011, 08:25:12 AM »

Eagle2009,

The hit of the Hanit was broadcasted LIVE on the TV during a speech of Nasrallah.


hezbollah shooting on israeli warship ins hanit2	Small \| Large

Concerning the Saar4.5 i gave the points i have. As to what happened to it i dont know. Could be that it sank. could be damaged. Could be that missile hit top of it ... all possibilities are open. The main point is that the Iranian weapon systems proved to be able to change the facts and drive the israeli navy far from the shore and render it useless.

As for what you named as claims of Hezbollah. The group didn't claim to shoot down an F16. This was merely an analysis of a reporter. An F16 was hitting a Zelzal type missile during trasport. The missile was hit, it flew and burned then fall on the ground. Some reporters thought that a missile was shot from the ground to a plane ect ... this was cleared after an hour or so.

The thing with the Helicopters. Hezbollah said they shot a couple. Israel admitted loosing 2 or 3 Apaches for technical reasons or hitting power lines or hitting each other! The use of the Apaches during the war is not as one might think. Like those videos where it comes out from behind the trees

. They use to fly really high and mostly at night and only in certain areas. Their use is very limited. As i said, i saw the remains of a Yasour heavy transport. I also saw the remains of several UAVs. Some shot and some really intact falling to technical reasons.

the8march · « **Reply #20 on:** October 02, 2011, 08:49:56 AM »

Quote from: M-ATF on October 01, 2011, 04:25:14 PM

I have always wondered is it possible to open a route from sea or under the sea to Gaza?Is it possible to equip Hamas with submarines?Once they can recieve enough weapons to open a route from sea or under the sea to outside world and can defend it then they can be supplied from that path and then they will be stronger day after day.

Im very intrested to see Hezbollah equiped with Ghadir or even Ghaem sumbarines that can launch anti ship missiles. Its very intresting to see use of Persian Gulf missiles against Israels warships.

As i wrote once, Israel reported that they have detected an unknown small submarine close to lebanon. So could be that there is something there. However i dont believe that there is a big need for it. Concerning Gaza, there are easier ways to change the balance there. Could be already changed. Israel has seized a ship few months ago with antiship missiles from Iran (C704).

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

parsipride · « **Reply #21 on:** October 02, 2011, 02:58:01 PM »

This means IRI had decided to arm and train Hezballah with more anti missile ships and has already done

k_Alavi · « **Reply #22 on:** October 02, 2011, 04:31:18 PM »

^^^Quite interesting. The manuals are in Farsi! Also notice the date, 1389/1/15, seems brand new. Though probably they have analyzed it to the last screw by now...

aryana · « **Reply #23 on:** October 02, 2011, 04:46:07 PM »

poor china . it got all its secret in open now.

nomad · « **Reply #24 on:** October 02, 2011, 05:37:54 PM »

This I think shows again that Islamic Iran is making great progress . If it is deployed against an enemy with carriers , then protecting from air attack ( shore based system ) is important . If used on a ship then this can have low RCS . The same with plane . Against enemy without carrier and long range missile it is more effective . If I could I design version of this and other missiles for our friends in Lebanon and Syria .This version would be the cheap and nasty version , able to be produced local and with local material and tools . This plan is better than sending them physically there . As it is becoming more hard .