Iran Military Forum

This technology is essential.
Mining the Persian Gulf should be a last resort.
There are plenty of very high-tech mine-sweepers deployed in the Persian Gulf. It is unreliable in the case of aggression toward Iran's sovereignty.
The ability to take out enemy ships at range without mines is essential.
 

Great Pics:









it seems its very accurate,
other pics of "Khalij Pars" (persian Gulf) missile:
http://www.farsnews.com/imgrep.php?nn=8911181144

Video Clip:
http://www.farsnews.com/media.php?nn=8911181225

It's clearly based on a Fateh-110, but look at the nose section. The Fateh-110 has a tapered tip on the nose of the warhead but this missile does not. I dont want to jump to conclusions but it looks like a Electro-Optic seeker.

Now since it is based on the Fateh-110, we know it doesnt have the range compared to China's attempt to build an anti-carrier missile, but it also doesnt need to be as complicated because of its shorter range.

Here's how I believe such a missile works:

1. Recon assets (UAVs, satellites, etc) take images of the intended target
2. Said imagery is stored in the missiles onboard computer
3. Missile is fired, onboard INS takes the missile towards the general location of target
4. Onboard TV seeker than attempts to match the stored image with live images taken by the missile's seeker

More or less, its called Electro-Optic Correlation. The Soviets tested a version of a Scud with such a system and the Iskander is claimed to be available with a similar seeker.

When it comes to accuracy, the EO guided Scud variant (Called the Scud VTO) was claimed to have a CEP of 50 meters, which I think is reasonable to assume for this Iranian missile, maybe better, which is in theory good enough to hit most large naval vessels.

But there is a problem with this system, it's very difficult to use against a moving target. This is because if the intended target was moving when it was photographed, there is a decent chance the even using GPS the missile's INS will take it too far off target for its TV seeker to be able to 'see' it because of the limit of the seekers boresight.

This problem would be even worse if the target was imaged stationary but begins to move afterwards and could be some distance away from its original location and even further out of the missile seekers field of view.

These are some of the same issues the Chinese are trying to work out with their DF-21D though theirs is even more complicated and designed to deal with moving targets (to a degree).

Personally, I am very impressed by this but I dont think its quite a "carrier killer" just yet. Due to limitations of space for the needed electronics and limitations in TV seekers (such as unable to use them at night), I think this weapon is more oriented at hitting a stationary target. Still though, a very serious development indeed!

Eagle could the UAV doing the recon stay in contact with this type of missile? and if yes then could it be used to try and guide in the missile to the general location of the target so that the on board guidance systems can then take over?

M-ATF,

I did read that through translation but its pretty vague on how it does this. The only way I know to compensate for a moving target when using such a seeker on a ballistic missile is having an onboard system that can calculate an predicted distance the target could go in a certain time to make up for it. This is possible but it still a computer guessing where the vessel will be, and while it may not seem a serious problem, you have to remember most naval vessels can cover almost 1km per minute and say this missile takes 3 minutes to reach the target, the intended target could now be nearly 3km away from its original position where it was imaged (and where its exact GPS location was likely established) and whether that is too great for the boresight (the field of view for a seeker) to compensate for I dont know.

Then again, most agree even the Chinese will likely fire their DF-21D in salvos (several missiles per target) because relaying on a 1 missile 1 kill is not smart.

DarkOmen,

I am not sure. A datalink would be the technology needed which Iran likely has but there are too problems I see. First, using a datalink at such a range is possible but you need a big antenna on the UAV to be able to properly transmit the information. Second problem, I dont know if the trajectory of a ballistic missile is good for keeping a solid-link between a UAV even with a powerful datalink.

Also, for the UAV to be used in the way you suggest, it would have to stay in visual range of the target which is not likely since a UAV would likely be detected and shot down if it was to 'hang around' too long. It would make more sense to use a UAV to take some images and move on, hanging around is dangerous and if such a UAV was fitted with the equipment I mentioned earlier it would not be a cheap UAV to simply let get destroyed.

Username,

Those Roman numerals are not likely related to the missiles name but designation of one of the missile's control surfaces.

Now that I look more carefully, I also see Roman Numeral II in a couple of places.  Therefore you may be right.

But there is a problem with this system, it's very difficult to use against a moving target. This is because if the intended target was moving when it was photographed, there is a decent chance the even using GPS the missile's INS will take it too far off target for its TV seeker to be able to 'see' it because of the limit of the seekers boresight.

you have to remember most naval vessels can cover almost 1km per minute and say this missile takes 3 minutes to reach the target, the intended target could now be nearly 3km away from its original position where it was imaged (and where its exact GPS location was likely established) and whether that is too great for the boresight (the field of view for a seeker) to compensate for I dont know.

can they guide missile with radar (the range is not very long) online til the final phase then independent seekers of missile find the target and correct its direction to the target?


they say it is smart . so i think they havent build this missile to use just against stationary targets.

they say it locks on target just on final phase, i think final phase is just some seconds befor collision with target, now compare the speed of missile and naval vessel in this stage ( naval vessel just has some seconds to escape from missile) and consider that missile has locked on targets ( and they say it is smart) , so likely it can change its direction on this stage too.

If its an "Electro-Optic seeker" will a simple smoke screen by the target simple confuse the rocket?

i cant see any sign of an Optical seeker:



notice to the nose of missile, it seems material of the nose is different than the body , like nose of aircrafts in front of their radars. so it is possible that it uses a radar seeker not optical

M-ATF

The bluntness or flatness of the missile's nose is I think the dead giveaway its EO guided not radar. If it was radar guided it would still retain the sharp nose cone shape seen in the original Fateh-110.

The possible use of a radar seeker would good as well, though which would better would very much depend on how advanced the radar seeker is.

I never meant to suggest this was designed to only hit stationary target, simply that its not likely they designed it for 1 missile 1 kill. In other words, its likely designed for multiple missiles to be fired at a single target to ensure the hit. Most 'experts' agree even the Chinese DF-21D (which is likely to use TV, IR, and SatNav for guidance) will likely be fired in Salvos.

doesn't an EO seeker need to a transparent surface on the nose?

Video sequence:

IR Iran's Persian Gulf missile: long-range supersonic anti-ship guided missile	Small | Large

Range: 300 km
Warhead: 650 kg
Guidance: inertial first phase and most likely ir/TV guided for terminal phase
Speed: supersonic (mach 3 max)
Attack mode: vertical (top-down)

(Above information taken from video caption)

Other available video source (video is identical):

Iran launched super sonic stealth Persian Gulf misiile	Small | Large

Hmm, Mach 3, that's actually pretty slow