Iran Military Forum

Eagle.

You took my post wrongly. I disagreed with you regarding the photo you submitted not your previous points in this topic. I should have separated my second paragraph from the first more clearly as it was general info for all readers. Regarding the photo you submitted, I am 100% sure that it does NOT have a 140 meter resolution (140 m per pixel) at its current size. That is for sure. It should have been downsized/downsampled before release as one can calculate the pixel/meter quite easily. I don't challenge the authenticity of the picture as I don't have much info about it.

My personal opinion on the topic being discussed is that images with 150 m resolution is not enough for targeting an aircraft carrier as resolution is not the same as identification! (aircraft carrier vs. oil tanker)

My personal opinion on the topic being discussed is that images with 150 m resolution is not enough for targeting an aircraft carrier as resolution is not the same as identification! (aircraft carrier vs. oil tanker)

Yes,150 meters per pixel resolution satellite camera is useless for military purposes. You can not distinguish Aircraft Carrier from Oil Tanker at 150 meters per pixel resolution. You might also easily lose 1 pixel x 1 pixel of ship information in background clatter.

You need 5 meters per pixel resolution Thermal camera Spy satellite for both naval (Aircraft Carriers) and ground (Air Bases) detection.

AK,

I understand your point but all I can tell you is the sources of the image, the Federation of American Scientists, gives the sources for the photo as being from the CIA and the time stamp in the file name (which includes the name of the satellite and date image was taken) are accurate. I can only base my opinion of the images authenticity on the information available and it points at being accuate.

YMJ,

I am not entirely sure what you are asking.

YMJ,

Altitude generally does affect the resolution of a camera, even in space but how much it affects it varies greatly. For example, if the camera equipment is modern enough, or uses more advanced equipment like SAR then the altitude could vary perhaps a hundred of kilometers or so without affecting the resolution. But generally if the camera is in some form of LEO, the resolution shouldn't change dramatically I wouldnt't think. So yes, if the resolution is good enough, you can magnify the image to find the intended target just like you can when you use Google Earth but that requires quite high resolution to first locate the possible target and positively identify it (as AK and Numbers have pointed out).

So considering the publically announced resolution of the Rasad I of 150 meters, I don't think it could have been used for such a test. Now it's possible the Rasad's resolution is better than what they publically stated but that is pure speculation. You may think it too much of a coincidence but I don’t. The events were weeks apart and the satellites short life and poor resolution, to me, contradicts any idea of military use.

Now since Iran likely didn't have the needed space assets for such a test, they would have to find another way to locate the intended target.

Now here is where it gets tricky..Since this was a military test, I think it's logical the targets position was pre-determined and as such aiming the missiles at the intended targets would have been much easier than trying to find a target in an actual conflict. First, Iran would use some sort of long range radar (preferably an OverTheHorizonRadar) to first search and get the general position of the intended target. Second, Iran could have used either manned aircraft (such as the P-3F or F-27) fitted with long range optics systems (since using radar would warrant unwanted attention) or a UAV or some sort to locate the intended target.

Now the Chinese are apparently more inclined to rely on Imaging satellites for getting the most up to date tracking information on possible targets and using UAVs as a secondary role, whereas Iran would at the moment be forced to rely on UAVs for such information which makes the effort a bit more difficult but still doable.

However, the true linchpin for any Anti-Shipping Ballistic missile system is the Maneuverable Warhead. You can have all the other elements but without a MaRV (which differs from a MIRV) it is almost all for nothing since no boost phase guidance system in the world is likely accurate enough to hit a moving naval vessel. You could fit such a missile with a sub-munitions or “cluster” warhead to compensate but the damage done to the vessel will be considerably less than a direct hit with a unitary HE warhead, though the vessel, if hit, would be out of action for a short amount of time.

Now I believe Iran in theory has the ability to develop such a warhead since the Fateh-110 has maneuvering fins and the Shahab-3/Sejil have separating warheads. They ‘simply’ need to combine the two technologies with a proper terminal guidance system and you have a functional and long range ASBM in IMO.

"Pars 2" satellite with resolution of 5 meters will be launched in the next 4 years by Iran. 150 meters resolution satellite is definetly not enough to detect military targets.

http://www.iranmilitaryforum.net/index.php?topic=9276.msg83517#msg83517

Numbers,

First, I know what MIRVs are, I only referenced them so to prevent any confusion between a MaRV and MiRVs . What I was talking about is a Maneuvering Re-Entry Vehicle which is different form MIRVs in that the later has multiple warheads whereas the MaRV has just one warhead.

Secondly, I am not sure "gases" are more efficient compared to fins INSIDE the atmosphere. Such gas would be the only logical guidance system when the warhead is still in space but in the atmosphere the most efficient system from the information I have read over the years is fins. If that wasn't the case the use of fins in MaRVs wouldn't be so prevelant. The Pershing II, DF-15, DF-21C/D are all believed to use such fins on their warheads for terminal phase guidance and for a good reason.

Now it's possible using gases for terminal phase guidance may be superior in terms of accuracy, but they are almost certainly more complicated in operation and it's likely fins are simpler, cheaper and therefore IMO more efficient.

Regardless, that doesn't change the overall point I was making. To date, close up shots of the Shahab-3 and Sejil warheads prove they have no terminal guidance since no fins are visible and no ports for "cold gases" are visible either.

But IMO fins are the best way to go since we know Iran already has experience in that field and is likely the cheaper and simply method of terminal course correction.

Actually since none here knows exactly what's happening in the Iranian military today, this is all speculations.

NightStrike,

Jam what exactly? OTHRs are difficult to jam because of how the radars work (long wavelengths) so that's likely out the question. The problem with OTHRs is they are very vunerable to attack because they are normally large fixed sites making them completely immobile.

Jamming the missile however is large impossible since it doesn't have anything TO jam. If the missile uses a EO/IR seeker, you can try using flares but it's next to impossible to hide the massive IR signature of a large surface combatant. A combined EO/IR seeker is virtually Jam-proof.

If the missile used Passive Radar guidance, in theory you could jam it or simply turn off the radars of the targetting vessel but the problem is the vessel targeted likely won't KNOW it's been targetted. If fired at a battlegroup, each individual vessel only knows one of them is being targetted and turning all their radars in such a situation is inpractical and no likely.

So overall, a long range system like the Chinese DF-21D in theory can work because it is quite cost effective compared to any other attempt to take out an aircraft carrier. If you try to take out a carrier with surface vessels or aircraft you have to get through the escort vessels around it. If you try to sink a carrier with a submarine, you have to contend with one or two SSNs that escort each carrier. Using a medium range ballistic missile is much easier since to date there is only a small number of ABMs available throughout the fleet to protect against such missiles. Even then, the SM-3 was designed to take out a more conventional target and while a new variant to take out maneuvering warheads is on the way (end of the decade or so), it still good odds that if you fire multiple missiles at a single carrier, one of them is going to hit or come damn close even with the best protection.

The only flaw with such systems is the assets that make it work. For example, as I pointed out before, if you take out the OTHRs that are used for such a system effectively cripples it. Because without the OTHR, you wouldn't know where to look for the carrier with satellites or UAVs beside guestimating it's likely location. In other words, with the OTHR, you would have to locate the carrier another way (such as submarine shadowing, Long Range UAV coverage, etc). The only elements of the system, such as the satellites and UAVs can be compensated for and while accuracy will likely fall if one of them is taken out, the system will be accurate enough to make the US Navy very cautious. So taking out the OTHR is the only real effective defense against a long range ASBM and relaying on ABMs is not a proper solution.

So in summary, I think such a system is very dangerous and very achievable with the right technology and while it does have a few weaknesses, overall it is an effective deterant which is the whole point isn't it?

Jamming the missile however is large impossible since it doesn't have anything TO jam. If the missile uses a EO/IR seeker, you can try using flares but it's next to impossible to hide the massive IR signature of a large surface combatant. A combined EO/IR seeker is virtually Jam-proof.

Eagle2009,

I agree EO/IR missile guidence is completely Electro Counter Measures (ECM) proof.

I also agree that without Over The Horizon Radar (OTHR) you need long range Stealth UAV, with vertical take off capability. Then you can scan the sea with Infra Red Thermal camera installed on that Stealth UAV.