Author Topic: Qiam-1 is now being deliverd to IRGC. (Read 9160 times)

YMJ · « **Reply #50 on:** May 24, 2011, 08:36:41 PM »

Quote from: Mr-Babak-S on May 24, 2011, 05:17:13 PM

Significance of dimensions:

1. To see if it is just another Scud knock off
2. To compare range (fuel) and warhead etc.

Oh..

well then let me clarify so there isn't any confusions;

it is another scud knock off.

It's not like in the last 30 years the US hasn't been killing itself to try and get anyone in the top 100 conqour results.

Its not like chemical weapons were not used on us and we were helpless.

Personally as an Iranian, let them think its another scud knock off.

If i actually had any say in the design, i would say make it as much as you can similar to the scud or another easily made missile, just so you throw of their predictions of its capability.

comandantecarlos · « **Reply #51 on:** May 24, 2011, 09:18:58 PM »

I think this development is important. Because it easier to transportable, faster to start, small blip (RCS) in flight.

Eagle2009 · « **Reply #52 on:** May 24, 2011, 10:07:11 PM »

I wouldn't call it a "Scud Knock-Off" personally.

Fundamentally, yes it is a Scud variant. However the modifications made to it make a much more dangerous missile IMO. Currently, the basic Scud-B/C is more of a political weapon then a military one simply because of its poor accuracy (unless fired in MASSIVE numbers at a single target(s).

The Qiam-1 however has likely solved the accuracy problem to some degree (IMO it probably has a CEP of <300 meters), and because of its separating warhead it will likely be somewhat more difficult to intercept by ABMs. It's also likely because of it's smaller warhead (500-600kg?) it likel has a greater range than the Scud-C/Shahab-2 it was designed from, so I would guess it has a range of ~700km. This makes it the perfect median between the Shahab-2 and Shahab-3 in terms of range.

But it's basis in the Scud is actually something of a good thing not just for Iran but also their ally Syria who is also a massive operator of the Scud family. Because it is still fairly similar to the Scud-C/Shahab-2 it will be quite easy and cheap to produce compared to a brand new design of similar size and class (such as the claimed single-stage counterpart to the Sejil reported by some), as evidenced by the images they just published.

This means while Iran works on more advanced Medium range BMs, they can produce the Qiam-1 as something of a stop-gap and also transfer the technology to Syria to greatly increase the lethality of their massive inventory of Scuds.

And as I said before, when compared to the many variants of the Scud over the years, the Qiam-1 is no doubt the 2nd best variant ever designed in terms of all all ability.

There are still problems of course, due to its Scud Heritage. The fact it's liquid fuelled makes it dangerous to fuel, takes longer to fuel then a similar range Solid-Fuel ballistic missile.

M-ATF · « **Reply #53 on:** May 25, 2011, 12:58:04 PM »

another intresting point to me is its TEL,it seems iran has used a new Shahab-3/Ghadr-1/Sejil style TEL not scud TEL.

M-ATF · « **Reply #54 on:** May 25, 2011, 02:42:40 PM »

again i was confused more.

I found another image of Scud missile, i estimated length and diameter of it by the same way that i estimated dimensions of Qiam-1.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/Scud_Launcher.jpg

results of my estimation was around 10.9 m for length and 85cm for diameter. it means i have around 3% error.

if we estimate 9 m length for qiam-1 and we have 5% error it means length of Qiam-1 is 9.5 m and even if we have 10% error , length of it is 10 m

Eagle2009 · « **Reply #55 on:** May 26, 2011, 03:32:29 AM »

That's why estimation is such a problem when it comes to such things!

An estimate for that Scud-B in the image of a 10.9 meter length is pretty close. The length of a Scud-B with a conventional warhead is just under 11 meters (10.96 if I remember properly) whereas a Scud-B fitted with a Soviet nuclear warhead is closer to 11.2 meters (the measurement mentioned on most websites these days in error).

Indeed the TEL is a semi-trailer based system not unlike the Shahab-3/Sejil TEL. Actually a similar semi-trailer based TEL has been seen carrying Shahab-1/2 missiles in the past so it's not necessarily a new TEL.

For whatever reason, for the time being Iran prefers to construct Semi-trailer based TELs instead of the more mobile MAZ based ones. I personally don't think this tread will last though since Iran's wide variety of terrain makes a more mobile TEL more logical. Cost has been brought up in the past as to why Iran favors these more simple TELs but I am not so sure. The MAZ-543 is rather inexpensive to build and reverse-engineer for that matter so I see no real cost problem.

M-ATF · « **Reply #56 on:** May 27, 2011, 01:14:05 PM »

Quote

Actually a similar semi-trailer based TEL has been seen carrying Shahab-1/2 missiles in the past so it's not necessarily a new TEL.

do you have any picture of that?

Quote

For whatever reason, for the time being Iran prefers to construct Semi-trailer based TELs instead of the more mobile MAZ based ones. I personally don't think this tread will last though since Iran's wide variety of terrain makes a more mobile TEL more logical.

there is a picture of Maz based TEL that seems is an Iranian made version of it:
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Mr-Babak-S · « **Reply #57 on:** May 27, 2011, 03:01:46 PM »

Quote

If i actually had any say in the design, i would say make it as much as you can similar to the scud or another easily made missile, just so you throw of their predictions of its capability.

What if you wanted greater range and needed more volume / radius for the added fuel?

Quote

The fact it's liquid fuelled makes it dangerous to fuel, takes longer to fuel then a similar range Solid-Fuel ballistic missile.

Hmmm, I wonder if there is a way to fuel it while moving it on a trailer (with the fuel on the same trailer or on a truck driving adjacent to it).
If planes can fuel in mid flight, why can't missiles be fueled while being driven to another location?

Eagle2009 · « **Reply #58 on:** May 27, 2011, 08:21:14 PM »

M-ATF,

Except that MAZ like TEL has never been seen again except on that parade in 2003. No one is even sure it was a real TEL or just a mockup of some sort. It also could have been a prototype but the fact it has never been seen against suggests it was not pursued.

See image below for what is claimed to be a Semi-trailer based TEL carrying a Shahab-2/Scud-C.

Mr. Babak-S,

The difference is the fuel used by Scuds is FAR more dangerous than jet fuel. The fuel is toxic enough that it requires the men fuelling the missile to wear chemical gear. That and remember the Scud has a two part fuel mixture, with kerosene in one tank and nitric acid in the other (that later the more dangerous to handle). Fuelling the missile first and then moving it cross country is an accident waiting to happen, and there is little chance of surviving such an accident either if you are within a football field or so.

So yes while jet fuel is relatively dangerous, it is nothing compared to the fuel and oxidizer used by the Scud.

M-ATF · « **Reply #59 on:** May 28, 2011, 08:57:01 AM »

Eagle
I know photographer of this photo. be sure ,It isnt a semi-trailer TEL, it is a MAZ 543 TEL of Shahab-2 which was shown in an exhibition in Baharestan Square of Tehran in Holy defence week last year.
it is a MAZ TEL, see this images:

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

--
i think that Maz like TEL of Shahab-2 is a prototype too, but mock-up , surely no. why should they build mock-up of such big truck with some differences? its not logical and i cant find any reason for it. it is easy for Iran to buy Maz from counrties like north korea or Belarus even buy license of production of it from North korea. i think the reason that they didnt pursue it is the same reason that they preffered such semi-trailer TELs, maybe easier hiding them due to more similarity with non military trucks , it is possible to cover these smei-traile with same covers of those non-military trucks.

Eagle i think youre right about length of conventional warhead scud-b's (10.96 m). do you have a source for it?

Eagle2009 · « **Reply #60 on:** May 28, 2011, 06:15:06 PM »

M-ATF,

Thanks for the correction on the TEL. I have seen an image of a semi-trailer TEL used for the Shahab-1/2 before I just can't remember where it is.

Though I totally disagree about the logic of a semi-trailer launcher for a Scud-sized missile. They may be able to be hidden better, but they seriously lack mobility in comparison.

Here is one of the sources Jochen gave me for the true length of the Scud-B with a conventional warhead. The site needs translated but when you look down the page you will see the three different warheads for it. The 8F44 was the designation for the Conventional Warhead and has a length of 2650mm. Now you will notice on the main page it states the Scud-B is 11.164 meters long but remember that the Soviets never intended for their Scuds to have conventional warheads but tactical nuclear ones. Now below the 8F44 warhead you will see the other designs. The next one is the 269A 10 kiloton warhead which has a length of 2870mm, a difference of 220mm from the 8F44 warhead. Therefore the Length of a Scud-B fitted with the conventional 8F44 warhead is 10.944 meters.
http://www.rwd-mb3.de/pages/8k14.htm

Lur · « **Reply #61 on:** May 29, 2011, 06:07:50 AM »


Qiyam1 missile delivered to Iran Army اصاروخ قيام1 تم استخدامه الفعلي لدى الجيش الايراني	Small \| Large

Pasdar · « **Reply #62 on:** May 29, 2011, 04:33:44 PM »

Shahab-1

Shahab-2

shahab · « **Reply #63 on:** May 29, 2011, 04:40:27 PM »

Regarding the lack of use of MAZ or MAZ like TEL - the question should be - why Iran is NOT put its Shahab 3 / Ghadr / Sejil on such TEL, such as the one NK showed with a Nodong.

AS for the Qiam that was launchd from a semi trailer TEL, one must remember that on 2010, the missile was in the experimental phse and NOT operational; Furthermore, I don't think Iran has a lot of MAZ TEL's and a compromise was probably made in regard to cost (of building them) vs. availability and manuvarability of the TEL.

Pasdar · « **Reply #64 on:** May 29, 2011, 05:15:43 PM »

If cost was an issue, then why on earth would the current ones we've seen be used on shahb1s and 2s? So obviously it has nothing to do with cost.

Ayyash · « **Reply #65 on:** May 29, 2011, 08:38:02 PM »

Small sidetrack back to the dimensions.

I was rereading some articles and found this excerpt from the first page of the "Iran's SSMs" thread.

It's an interview with Uzi Rubin:

Quote

IW: What is the diameter of the current solid fuel missile?

UR: The same as the diameter as the liquid fuel missile: 1.25 meters.

The most important dimension of a missile is its diameter. The production line is geared to this diameter. If you change the diameter of a missile by even by a couple of inches, you have to redo much of your infrastructure. So, once you have a diameter you stick to it. This is especially true for missiles on mobile launchers, because if you change the diameter, you have to make significant changes to the launcher as well. So, the diameter of Iran’s solid fuel missile is 1.25 meters, which is the same as the space launcher and the same as the Shahab-3 missile. This diameter was inherited from North Korea. The North Koreans did the trick of enlarging, or scaling up the Scud. So it makes sense that the solid fuel missile has the diameter of the Shahab, which came from North Korea, and of the launcher of the Shahab, slightly adapted, and that it has two stages with the same diameter.

It provides circumstantial evidence and explanation as to why there is probably no change in diameter.

mamdali · « **Reply #66 on:** May 30, 2011, 01:48:10 AM »

Quote from: Ayyash on May 29, 2011, 08:38:02 PM

Small sidetrack back to the dimensions.

I was rereading some articles and found this excerpt from the first page of the "Iran's SSMs" thread.

It's an interview with Uzi Rubin:

It provides circumstantial evidence and explanation as to why there is probably no change in diameter.

I'm not an engineer, but thinking about this more I can't help but disagree. A great counter-example is car manufacturing where vehicles of different dimensions are produced without, it seems, a new manufacturing plant. Missiles, in my opinion, are dimensionally much simpler than cars. Additionally, since they are not manufactured at the same 'mass' scale as cars I would think there is more room for change in design, I believe the dominant factor in dimensional variance is aero-dynamic variance, which means more prototypes, payload, testing, and time. Actual 'mass' manufacturing seems to pale in comparison. I'd like to hear the opinions of an engineer about this, Of course I may be wrong.

Mamdali

M-ATF · « **Reply #67 on:** May 30, 2011, 02:31:30 AM »

Quote from: Ayyash on May 29, 2011, 08:38:02 PM

Small sidetrack back to the dimensions.

I was rereading some articles and found this excerpt from the first page of the "Iran's SSMs" thread.

It's an interview with Uzi Rubin:

It provides circumstantial evidence and explanation as to why there is probably no change in diameter.

you know Mohammad Hosein, yes?
He took photos of last year exhibition in Baharestan square, he says he has seen Shahab-2 and Qiam-1 from 20 cm distance and believes diameter of Qiam-1 was less than Shahab-2 diameter.

Quote

تجربه بنده از حضور در 20 سانتی متری قیام و شهاب، اینه که قیام قطر کمتری نسبت به شهاب داشت.

I dont say he is right or not, i just quoted his remarks

Ayyash · « **Reply #68 on:** May 30, 2011, 03:17:01 AM »

Quote from: M-ATF on May 30, 2011, 02:31:30 AM

you know Mohammad Hosein, yes?
He took photos of last year exhibition in Baharestan square, he says he has seen Shahab-2 and Qiam-1 from 20 cm distance and believes diameter of Qiam-1 was less than Shahab-2 diameter.

I dont say he is right or not, i just quoted his remarks

Yes, I remember those pictures well. The thing about it is that the only other Shahabs on display in that same exhibit were two Shahab-3s. One of them was on a TEL, and the other was laying down behind the Qiam; and the Shahab-3 is indeed larger in diameter then the Qiam or Shahab-2.

Hossein may be talking about something that's not in the pictures though.

M-ATF · « **Reply #69 on:** May 30, 2011, 05:16:01 AM »

Quote from: Ayyash on May 30, 2011, 03:17:01 AM

Yes, I remember those pictures well. The thing about it is that the only other Shahabs on display in that same exhibit were two Shahab-3s. One of them was on a TEL, and the other was laying down behind the Qiam; and the Shahab-3 is indeed larger in diameter then the Qiam or Shahab-2.

Hossein may be talking about something that's not in the pictures though.

the Iamges in reply#58&59 in previous page of this topic are Shahab-2 images of that exhibition photographed by Mohammad Hossein.

but i ask again from him to know has he talked about Shahab-3 or Shahab-2?

Ayyash · « **Reply #70 on:** May 30, 2011, 07:57:01 AM »

Quote from: M-ATF on May 30, 2011, 05:16:01 AM

the Iamges in reply#58&59 in previous page of this topic are Shahab-2 images of that exhibition photographed by Mohammad Hossein.

but i ask again from him to know has he talked about Shahab-3 or Shahab-2?

Ah, thanks for the clarification, I assumed he was talking about a different display.

Eagle2009 · « **Reply #71 on:** May 30, 2011, 11:51:20 PM »

M-ATF,

I believe the images Ayyash thought you were talking about were the ones last year that first showed the engine section of the Qiam-1. In those images there was a Shahab-3 in the same shot.

However there is little logic reason for the Qiam-1 to have a smaller diameter than the Shahab-2 because of one factor: Engine. It is almost impossible to decrease the diameter of the Shahab-2 and still use the same engine simply because of the dimensions of the engine and the fuel pump system. Therefore that would mean the Qiam-1 would need a completely new engine. There is no reason to develop a missile that is only slightly smaller in diameter than a Scud. More so, even if it was possible to shrink the diameter of the missile and still use the engine, the decrease would have to be minute or else as I stated before a totally different engine would have to be used. Also the entire engine section (not just the nozzle), every detail is 100% identical to the Scud.

Also for clarification, the Qiam-1 should have the same diameter as both the Shahab-1 and Shahab-2 since they both have the same diameter.

Most likely, it is simply the optical illusion of the Qiam-1 not having any fins that makes it "look" smaller in diameter than the Shahab-2. Only if the diameter was drastically different could it be noticed without being measured.

comandantecarlos · « **Reply #72 on:** May 31, 2011, 06:34:30 AM »

I think you're mistaken. A virtually identical Qiam Shahab2-3. The fins are fixed all of them, so control may not be. Can someone show a picture which has been recorded in the wings? Shahab without fins = Qiam

comandantecarlos · « **Reply #73 on:** May 31, 2011, 06:55:29 AM »

The control system is faster. Substantially improved response time. The fins are not necessary. The Shahab missiles are not directed to the fins.

parthenon · « **Reply #74 on:** May 31, 2011, 10:04:59 AM »

What is it with you guys?!

Instead of "it must be a Scud derivative, so the engine must be the same, so let's spend weeks 'proving' (by examining lots of distorted pictures) that the diameter is also the same" instead of thinking "Hey, it certainly LOOKS smaller (hence this discussion in the first place!) maybe it's powered by a DIFFERENT ENGINE".

Furthermore, there's a consensus I believe that the tri-cone SEPERATES (it's also my opinion). I'm no rocket scientist (literally !) but what would actually happen "aero-mechanically" when two bodies of completely different size, weight and aerodynamics seperate at hypersonic speed ?