Author Topic: "Khaleej Fars" (Persian Gulf) ASHM (Read 33030 times)

the8march · « **Reply #275 on:** February 27, 2012, 09:57:41 AM »

Sobaka, my comment was a just a bit of humor ... all my respect to everyone here

1. I asked you before in one my posts if you can tell me about terminally optical guided SRBM? I dont know any and have not seen any video of a direct hit... I would like to see such a thing and know how it is actually guided

2. You and others mentioned the Chinese anti ship SRBM.. is there any video showing such a system hitting the target? how can you be sure that it is accurate? i mean even if you can see control surfaces this does not mean that it is functional without some videos and trials

3. Concerning the Khaleej Fares. I understand your doubts, However we have a video, We have a some close up shots of the guidance showing the IR detector. We have seen several missiles. We know that Iran never lied about its missiles...as there is no need to do so... the capabilities Iran has is much more than what we know, so why would they make fake missiles?

4. You didn't answer my question about the Fateh missile? how is it then guided? why would the control surfaces work for Fateh but not for the Khaleej Fars?

jfb · « **Reply #276 on:** February 27, 2012, 03:18:06 PM »

@Sobaka

You are skeptical because you assume that the missile behaves like the ones that you know. You mention the fins (aerodynamic stress of re-entry) but the missile is not launched at a distanc eof 1,000 km, so even if win resistance is higher at an altitude under 50 km, I don't see why it would be impossible to keep the missile under such an altitude. You mention the "decade of development and testing in Russia", but nobody knows when Iran did start to devellop this, nor how many failed tests preceeded that one. By the way I could not find a picture of the fins of a DF15D , it would be better if I wish to compare...

Now the other option is hard to believe too. I remember once, I read a few years ago an accusation that a footage from Iran regarding a test for a weapon was an old footage published by China before. I could not find back the source this morning but if the Iranian army had some trouble to get a sucessfull test on time, or either if it didn't want to publish a real footage and a media outlet decided to fill the gap with an old footage that one is possible. In the present case however we talk about a footage that is obviously iranian and it would not only involve a large number of conspirators (planting explosives, mobilizing a crew, sacrifying a ship) but also producing several missiles that are shown on TV. It's too big. I know that you didn't claim that it was a hoax, you could call it a "mystery", but even if it goes against your own assumptions from an engineering point of view the other option doesn't make sense. Again I'm not saying that you claimed that the test was a hoax, rather some king of mystery.
But remove some free assumptions from your mind, like the altitude/ceiling because you seem to base yoru objections on hypothesis like that.

Numbers · « **Reply #277 on:** February 29, 2012, 06:31:52 AM »

Quote from: jfb on February 24, 2012, 02:23:56 PM

Second ships are moving targets, there is no point to take a picture and ask a missile to match a picture/pattern 30 minutes later. The distance between the ships can vary greatly within 30 minutes.

Read my post above.

Why 30 minutes? Why not 1 minute launch after UAV detects the target ship?

UAV can be used by Khaleej Fars shore launcher crew.
UAV and Khaleej Fars can be paired into one single "Missile and UAV" platform.

mamdali · « **Reply #278 on:** February 29, 2012, 06:57:22 AM »

Quote from: Sobaka on February 27, 2012, 07:13:01 AM

From your comment I assume that you know what Russia has or does not have in its short-range missile inventory, and you know all about Russia's research and development activities. If further assume that you know the technical details of Iskander and Tochka and other systems that have not been publicly revealed. Funny, I do not recall seeing you at any of our test-ranges or design bureaus.

I have tremendous respect for Iran's missile and nuclear engineers; they have developed some remarkable systems while under international sanctions. The Safir satellite carrier rocket is an excellent example. Iran has extracted every bit of performance possible from the liquid propellant engines it has access to (which, by the way, are of Russian design from the late-1950s, early-1960s). This is an achievement worthy of praise.

But, despite such achievements, one must also take into account the technical difficulties of creating a terminally-guided ballistic missile. I have no idea if the video showing something impacting and detonating a ship is authentic or not. I do know what is required to accomplish such a mission; I designed, tested and produced such a missile. And the simple fact is that from what I know about the Khalij-Fars it lacks the subsystems needed to successfully and reliably hit a ship at sea. Maybe they are hidden from view; this is possible, though I think it unlikely, as it makes no sense to add unneeded mass to the missile to hide the existence of such component; the added mass would significantly degrade the range-payload capabilities of the missile. I am also puzzled by how quickly Iran has "developed" the capability. It required more than a decade of development and testing in Russia and many dozens of test launches. Similarly, it took the Chinese almost two decades to develop comparable capabilities, and countless launches. Am I to believe that Iran has done it with only a few test shots and in a comparably short amount of time? Maybe , maybe not.

In the end, all I am saying is that I am skeptical. If further evidence comes forth, beyond a single video and official pronouncements (I remember the Soviet days and the statements coming from official sources, an experience that leaves me wanting when if comes to 'government sources of information') I would be more than happy to admit that my skepticism was improperly placed. But until then, I will wait for more information before confirming a capability.

Finally, I thoroughly enjoy this and other debates on this forum. There are many knowledgeable and insightful comments and commentators, all of whom enrich every readers minds. With this in mind, please view my inputs as intellectual challenges to help all of us achieve the wisdom we all seek.

Sobaka-jan, we've heard the argument before that this and that country took X years to develop Y. The main flaw of those arguments and yours is that, today, because of far FAR better and faster access to information, development times are VERY compressed. Many smart people discount the validity and impact of this factor to their own detriment. If it took Russia 10 years to develop a decade old or more system, Iran can EASILY beat that in today's information environment and with less 'tests'. To conclude, your argument is based on a seriously flawed premise. I submit my argument is so strong that the burden falls on you to show why accelerated development would not, in fact, be the case rather the other way around. I know little about missile systems, but I know a thing or two about other types of systems and this demonstrably holds true. Plus accelerated development is a demonstrated fact and tomorrow it will be even faster. Today this acceleration is palpable over only 2-3 year timeframes. And BTW, I'm not referring to some cheap Kurzweilian prediction but these facts do remain, nonetheless.

Mamdali

jfb · « **Reply #279 on:** February 29, 2012, 11:28:49 PM »

@ Numbers

Quote

Read my post above.

Why 30 minutes? Why not 1 minute launch after UAV detects the target ship?

UAV can be used by Khaleej Fars shore launcher crew.
UAV and Khaleej Fars can be paired into one single "Missile and UAV" platform.

I gave 30 minutes as an hypothesis, 1 minute would also be an hypothesis, it takes some times but the key point is not there. Whatever is the time between the photo and the moment where the missile reaches the ships, they are not in the same position. If your UAV took a picture of 3 ships in row and a US early warning radar communicate with the ships to tell them that some missiles are coming, they can adopt a random path, change their direction to make it more difficult for the missile. So when the missile reach the spot he may find just one ship instead of 3, and if the sole ship there is not the one that correspond to the picture, let say a destroyer instead of a carrier, the algorith will say "that's not the target!". But it's too late for the missile to search elsewhere, the missile has fallen too much.

The algorithm to detect a contrast, a change of colour, is much simpler than the algorithm to detect a specific shape. For ground targets (Iskandar) or for targets like tanks (Javelin) you have no choice except than matching a predefined pattern. On the ground, if you wish to target a building, you need to take a picture of the building to distinguish from the remaining objects around. For the Javelin its the samething, you don't want your missile to hit a tree or a building but a tank. But for an anti-ship missile, what do you have around your ship? Water, just water with a uniform temperature. So why would you bother yourself to feed the computer with the image of a ship? The sole goal should be to seek a spot, any spot which has a different colour than the surrounding background, regardless of the shape or size of the spot. No need to store an image for this. In addition when you seek to match a pattern, you have to make a projection, if the UAV took a picture at 55 degrees and your missile has an angle of 75 degrees he would need to use some matrix to compute what would be the shape of the desired ship with this new angle. It's just a useless complexe task. And if the ship has turned by 90 degrees during those 3 or 4 minutes (detection-arrival) to fool the missile and the latest one see the rear rather than the side of the ship, it's even worst. Pattern recognition is not so easy if the target isn't identical, no computer can emulate perfectly a human brain a recontruct always well.
But as I said it's more than likelly an infrared seeker that will look for a zone where the temperature is not the sea temperature.

Numbers · « **Reply #280 on:** March 02, 2012, 04:41:01 AM »

Quote from: jfb on February 29, 2012, 11:28:49 PM

So when the missile reach the spot he may find just one ship instead of 3, and if the sole ship there is not the one that correspond to the picture, let say a destroyer instead of a carrier, the algorith will say "that's not the target!". But it's too late for the missile to search elsewhere, the missile has fallen too much.

The algorithm to detect a contrast, a change of colour, is much simpler than the algorithm to detect a specific shape.

The sole goal should be to seek a spot, any spot which has a different colour than the surrounding background, regardless of the shape or size of the spot. No need to store an image for this. In addition when you seek to match a pattern, you have to make a projection, if the UAV took a picture at 55 degrees and your missile has an angle of 75 degrees he would need to use some matrix to compute what would be the shape of the desired ship with this new angle.

Yes, you are correct.

Image Recognition requires some programming to rotate picture of the ships once missile arrives at 30 kilometers distance from target.

From 30 kilometers Missile will see all 3 ships (in 3 minutes arrival time). Once rotation calculations are performed Missile can hit exactly below waterline of target ship.

Only "Image Recognition and Rotation" algorithm will allow Missile to hit ship below waterline, directly into ship's engine or into Aircraft Carrier's Aircrafts compartment.

So programmers should write "Image Recognition and Rotation" algorithm. If you know mathematics it is not that hard.

maydayfire · « **Reply #281 on:** April 23, 2012, 05:03:14 PM »

Quote

نسخه چاپيارسال به دوستان
سردار فدوی:
معادلات دشمن را با موشک "خلیج فارس" تغییر می دهیم

خبرگزاری فارس: فرمانده نیروی دریایی سپاه گفت: موشک "خلیج فارس" به نوعی متفاوت با روال معمول بوده و می تواند معادلاتی که دشمن روی آن حساب می کند را تغییر دهد.
خبرگزاری فارس: معادلات دشمن را با موشک "خلیج فارس" تغییر می دهیم

به گزارش خبرگزاری فارس، سردار علی فدوی فرمانده نیروی دریایی سپاه پاسداران انقلاب اسلامی درخصوص دستاوردهای این نیرو در تأمین امنیت مرزهای آبی کشورمان به تحویل تعدادی از شناورهای "تندر" به یگان منطقه سوم نیروی دریایی سپاه اشاره کرد و گفت: این شناورهای موشک انداز سالهاست که مورد استفاده قرار می گرفتند، اما با تجهیز شدن به موشک های بومی و سیستم های کنترل آتش تولید داخل برای انجام مأموریت به یگان مربوطه تحویل شد.

وی افزود: توانمندی کارشناسان نیروی دریایی سپاه به منظور "اورهال" شناورها و سیستم های موشکی ساحل به دریا و سطح به سطح به اندازه ای است که چرخه تولید آنها در داخل این نیرو صورت می گیرد.

فرمانده نیروی دریایی سپاه با اشاره به سخنان رابرت گیتس در آکادمی نیروی دریایی آمریکا مبنی بر شکست استراتژی ناوهای هواپیمابر تصریح کرد: وزیر دفاع سابق آمریکا طی سخنانی تاریخی در این آکادمی که معتبرترین مرکز علمی آمریکاست، شکست استراتژی چند ساله آمریکا که بر پایه شناورهای بزرگ ناو هواپیمابر بود را در برابر قایق های تندرو اعلام کرد.

وی خاطر نشان کرد: قایق های تندرو اصطلاحی کامل و عام بوده و با انواع مختلف قدرت آتش موشک و اژدرهایی که بر روی آن سوار می شود معرفی می شوند. این شناورها سرعتی نزدیک به 60نات و ابعادی غیر قابل قیاس با ناو هواپیمابرداشته و قابلیت نصب موشکی که 100 متر بر ثانیه در زیر آب حرکت می کند، دارد.

سردار فدوی اذعان داشت: ایران بعد از روسیه دومین کشوری است که به این مقدار سرعت موشک در زیر آب دست یافته و آمریکایی ها پس از صرف هزینه ای بالغ بر 20 میلیارد دلار طی 15 سال نتوانستند به این سرعت برسند همچنان که پس از فروپاشی شوروی نیز طرح سرقت اطلاعات این موشک با روش های جاسوسی نتوانست برآیندی جز رسوایی و دستگیری جاسوس آمریکایی داشته باشد.

وی تأکید کرد: جمهوری اسلامی ایران اکنون موشک هایی با برد بیش از 200 کیلومتر را به صورت کاملاً بومی با قابلیت نصب بر روی قایق های تند روی داخلی در اختیار دارد.

فرمانده نیروی دریایی سپاه موشک های "خلیج فارس" و "حوت" را دارای قابلیت های بالا و منحصر به فردی خواند و تصریح کرد: موشک "حوت" به عنوان سلاحی که معرفی آن در تاریخ رزمایش های دریایی بیشترین انعکاس را داشت و تمامی مقامات رسمی کشورهای مختلف، آمریکایی ها و همچنین رسانه ها و خبرگزاری های مرجع در جهان به آن پرداختند؛ موشک "خلیج فارس" نیز موشک جدیدی است که متفاوت با معمول می تواند معادلاتی که تا به حال دشمن روی آن حساب می کند را تغییر دهد.

وی با یادآوری سالهای پایانی جنگ تحمیلی و حضور آمریکایی ها در منطقه خلیج فارس گفت: آمریکایی ها زمستان سال 65 به بهانه عدم امنیت برای عبور انرژی از خلیج فارس به دریای آزاد، ناوهای زیادی را به این منطقه آوردند.

سردار فدوی اضافه کرد: در اوایل سال 66 با ورود نیروی دریایی سپاه به عرصه دریا، تعداد ناوهای جنگی آمریکا در خلیج فارس به 86 فروند رسید که با وقوع جنگ نفکش ها آمار کشتی های مورد اصابت قرار گرفته در سال 67و66 بیش از آمار کشتی های مورد اصابت در شش و نیم سال دیگر جنگ بود.

وی تصریح کرد: در زمستان سال 66 و پس از مقابله به مثل ایران با هدف قرار دادن 140 کشتی در برابر کشتی هایی که عراق به کمک آمریکا مورد اصابت قرار داد، پنتاگون اعلام کرد که همه کشتی های خلیج فارس تحت حمایت آمریکا هستند اما پس از آن نیز 50 کشتی مورد اصابت موشک های جمهوری اسلامی ایران قرار گرفت.

فرمانده نیروی دریایی سپاه در پایان بزرگ ترین دستاورد سپاه پاسداران انقلاب اسلامی را پاسداران شجاع، مؤمن و متخصص دانست و تأکید کرد: در حالی که توان نظامی آمریکا دریا پایه است، این توانمندی نمی تواند در برابر قدرتی که بر مبنای اتکا به خدا و نیروی لایزالی که انسان های با ایمان و جان بر کف در اختیار دارند کارآمد باشد.

http://farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=13910204001549

Immortal · « **Reply #282 on:** April 24, 2012, 07:54:06 AM »

Persian Gulf missile will spoil enemy tactics: Iran Cmdr.

Iran’s indigenous Persian Gulf missile enjoys a unique design which is capable of rendering enemy tactics ineffective, says the naval commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC).

“The Persian Gulf missile functions differently compared to the common trend and can alter the equations that the enemy counts on,” Fars news agency quoted Rear Admiral Ali Fadavi as saying on Monday.

In early 2011, Iran started the mass-production of the anti-ship missile which is designed to destroy targets and hostile forces at sea.

The supersonic projectile, which carries a 650-kilogram warhead, is immune to interception and features high-precision systems.

Rear Admiral Fadavi made a reference to the expertise of the IRGC specialists in overhauling missile systems and vessels, and pointed out that the force’s ‘extensive’ technical know-how has enabled Iran to manufacture such systems domestically.

He also noted that Iran possesses the technology to launch superfast anti-submarine rockets which can travel at the speed of 100 meters per second under water, making the country second only to Russia in possessing the technology.

The Iranian commander added that the US has not developed such subsonic underwater weapons despite spending more than USD 20 billion over 15 years to achieve the know-how.

The remarks came two days after the IRGC added the domestically-designed and manufactured Tondar-class vessel to its naval fleet in Persian Gulf.

In recent years, Iran has made great achievements in the defense sector and gained self-sufficiency in essential military hardware and defense systems.

The country has repeatedly made it clear that its military might is merely based on the state's defense doctrine of deterrence and that it poses no threat to other countries.

http://presstv.com/detail/237809.html

maydayfire · « **Reply #283 on:** July 01, 2012, 12:50:14 PM »

http://farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=13910411001071
/مشروح/ رگباری از موشک بر سر پایگاه های فرضی دشمن در رزمایش پیامبر اعظم۷
استفاده از بمب افکن های بدون سرنشین و خبرهای جدید از موشک بالستیک رادار زن
خبرگزاری فارس: سردار حاجی زاده گفت: از برنامه های رزمایش موشکی، احداث پایگاه‌های مشابه با پایگاه‌های کشورهای فرامنطقه‌ای است که بناست با شلیک موشک‌ها به آنها فرماندهان ما بتوانند میزان دقت و اثرگذاری موشکها را بسنجند.

به گزارش خبرنگار دفاعی خبرگزاری فارس، سردار امیر علی حاجی‌زاده فرمانده نیروی هوا فضای سپاه در نشست خبری که عصر امروز یکشنبه به منظور اعلام برگزاری رزمایش پیامبر اعظم 7 صورت گرفت، اظهار داشت: رزمایش موشکی نیروی هوا فضای سپاه با نام "پیامبر اعظم 7" از روز دوشنبه به مدت سه روز آغاز خواهد شد.

وی افزود: در این رزمایش موشک‌های دوربرد، میانبرد و کوتاه برد از اقصی نقاط کشور به سمت هدف از پیش تعیین شده شلیک می‌شوند.

حاجی‌زاده ادامه داد: این رزمایش در ادامه رزمایش‌های سالیانه سپاه محسوب می‌شود و تفاوت عمده آن با دیگر رزمایش‌ها احداث و ایجاد پایگاه‌های مشابه با پایگاه‌های هوایی کشورهای فرامنطقه‌ای در دل کویر است که بناست با شلیک موشک‌ها به داخل این پایگاه‌ها شرایطی ایجاد کنیم تا فرماندهان و متخصصین ما بتوانند میزان دقت، اثرگذاری کلاهک‌ها و سنجش سامانه‌ها را انجام دهند.

فرمانده نیروی هوا فضای سپاه در ادامه تصریح کرد: برابر روال سال‌های گذشته در هر سال دستاوردهای جدیدی داریم که امسال موشک‌های قیام که از دو سال پیش کار تحقیقاتی آن به پایان رسیده با تحویل گیری تعداد انبوه آن و سازماندهی آن در یگان‌های مختلف به صورت انبوه در این رزمایش شلیک می‌شوند.

حاجی‌زاده تاکید کرد:‌ همچنین موشک‌های ضد شناور خلیج فارس نیز در این رزمایش شلیک می‌شوند و بهبود بخشی سامانه‌های زمینی و بخش‌های موشکی از ویژگی‌های رزمایش پیامبر اعظم 7 است.

وی در خصوص مکان برگزاری این رزمایش اظهار داشت: ده‌ها فروند موشک از استان سیستان گرفته تا استان‌های دیگر به سمت هدف واحد در کویر سمنان شلیک می‌شوند.

حاجی‌زاده در خصوص تهدیدات استکبار جهانی علیه ایران اظهار داشت: هر گونه تهدید و شرارت آنها را در صورت اجرا، محکم، قاطع، کوبنده پاسخ می‌دهیم و اگر اقدامی علیه ما صورت بگیرد، موشک‌های زمین به زمین ایران همچون صاعقه بر سر آنها فرود می‌آید.

فرمانده نیروی هوا فضای سپاه در خصوص رشد علمی ایران در حوزه نظامی گفت: با توجه به تلاش متخصصین ما در این حوزه دیگر نیازی به کپی سازی و مونتاژ مجموعه‌ها نداریم. امروز متخصصین ما ایده‌ها را تبدیل به محصول می‌کنند و ما صادر کننده برخی محصولات هستیم.

وی در بخش دیگری از این نشست خبری اظهار داشت: در آینده خبرهای بیشتری در خصوص تولید موشک بالستیک رادار زن توسط متخصصین بومی کشورمان خواهیم شنید که اکنون مراحل تحقیق آن را طی می‌کند.

حاجی‌زاده تاکید کرد: با این موشک می‌توانیم هر مرکز تشعشع کننده راداری را مورد هدف قرار دهیم.

فرمانده نیروی هوا فضای سپاه اعلام کرد: سرعت این موشک بالستیک رادار زن چندین برابر سرعت صوت است و تا برد 300 کیلومتر را پوشش می‌دهد.

حاجی‌زاده در پاسخ به سؤالی در خصوص پهپاد RQ170 اظهار داشت: اطلاعات زیادی از این سامانه به دست آورده‌ایم و همه هاردهای مربوط به آن کاملا کدشکنی شده و اطلاعات آن کاملا استخراج شده و هیچ ابهامی در آن نداریم.

وی با بیان اینکه بخش‌های مختلف این پهپاد برای ما فاش شده است، گفت: ما در حال بهره برداری از آن هستیم و رابطه ما با این پهپاد مثل این است که در یک کتابخانه را باز کرده‌ایم و به قفسه کتاب‌ها رسیده‌ایم.

حاجی‌زاده در پاسخ به این سؤال که آیا RQ170 جاسوس خوبی برای آمریکا بود یا خیر،‌گفت: جاسوس خوبی بود ولی در حق آمریکایی‌ها خیانت کرد. آخرین فناوری که آمریکایی‌ها داشتند روی آن پیاده کرده بودند و در اختیار سازمان سیا بود.

وی افزود: ما هنوز صحبتی از تجهیزات جاسوسی که بر روی این پهپاد نصب بوده، نکردیم. این تجهیزات کاملا پیشرفته و به روز است و شاید تا زمان دسترسی به آن از وجود آنها اطلاع نداشتیم و این شامل دیگر کشورهای پیشرفته نیز می‌شود.

فرمانده نیروی هوا فضای سپاه در خصوص محدوده عملیات این پهپاد گفت: پایگاه آن قندهار بوده و ما اطلاعات کامل آشیانه‌ای که در آن بوده را داریم. این پهپاد بیشتر بر علیه اهداف در داخل پاکستان و حتی ترور بن لادن استفاده شده است.

حاجی‌زاده در بخش دیگری از نشست خبری در خصوص هدف قرار دادن جنگنده ترکیه توسط سوریه گفت: جنگنده ترکیه خط هوایی و پدافندی سوریه را شکسته و از آن عبور کرده بود و به آب‌های سوریه نفوذ کرده بود.

وی افزود:‌ این جنگنده از نقطه‌ای وارد شده بود که صهیونیست‌ها از آن در سال 1986 برای حمله به تاسیسات شمال سوریه استفاده کرده بودند و با عبور از آن منطقه سوریه را بمباران کردند.

حاجی‌زاده ادامه داد: طبیعتا سوری‌ها روی این منطقه حساسیت داشتند و واکنش پدافند سوریه واکنشی طبیعی است البته ما از کشته شدن خلبانان ترک خوشحال نیستیم ولی اتفاق طبیعی بود و واکنش دولتمردان ترک ابتدا طبیعی بود ولی بعد احساس کردیم می‌توانند از آن موقعیت استفاده و بهره‌برداری‌های غیر فنی کنند.

وی در پاسخ به سؤالی در خصوص طرح‌های تحقیقاتی شهید تهرانی‌مقدم گفت: خیلی از طرح‌هایی که ما رونمایی و تولید می‌کنیم، محصولات کار، فکر و ایده شهید تهرانی مقدم بوده مثل موشک‌های خلیج فارس و قیام و طبیعتا بسیاری دیگر از این موارد در میانه راه است و هر وقت این پروژه‌ها به اتمام برسد، اطلاع رسانی می شود.

فرمانده نیروی هوا فضای سپاه همچنین در خصوص سپرهای دفاع موشکی ترکیه و کشورهای حاشیه خلیج فارس گفت: کارهایی که در ترکیه ومنطقه خلیج فارس می‌شود، پیش از اینکه هدف اروپا باشد بحث دفاع از رژیم صهیونیستی است و ما شکی در آن نداریم.

وی افزود: با گذشت زمان و تغییر فناوری‌های دشمنان ما هم بیکار ننشستیم و تلاش می‌کنیم پشت هیچ سدی گیر نخواهیم کرد.

حاجی‌زاده در پایان با بیان اینکه نگرانی جدی در خصوص این موضوع نداریم، گفت: موشک بالستیک رادار زن زمین به زمین ما توانایی مقابله با آنها خصوصا گنبد آهنین را دارد.

فرمانده نیروی هوا فضای سپاه همچنین اعلام کرد: بمب افکن‌های بدون سرنشین سپاه در روز آخر رزمایش حضور و مورد استفاده قرار خواهند گرفت.

انتهای پیام/

This means that the above version of the khalij fars shown before is most likely not an active radar seeker but a passive radar seeker to hunt down naval (moving) or static ground-based radars. (why didnt I think of this before?) As I pointed out before in this thread, an active radar seeker does not quite make sense for a ballistic missile since it has a top-down attack mode and the high angle of attack makes it pick up so much clutter that is very hard to distinguish from target (or unless it is a SAR radar which even in this case the speed of travel compared to its trajectory profile makes it very hard to reconstruct the target).

gwoprisko · « **Reply #284 on:** July 01, 2012, 02:37:37 PM »

I'd like to weigh in on the Time To Develop Issue.. . .

Those who believe Iran can develop a missile with a terminal guidance package far faster than Russia developed their package
10 years ago, are correct for several reasons:

1. The development team knows it can be done.

2. The development team has several examples to choose from, including AAMs like the Phoenix and AGMs like Hellfire Brimstone and the like, and can source prints and/or missiles to examine

3. Intelligence regarding ship movements in real-time is gatherable via UAVs, SSKs, Hydrophones, and OTH RADAR

4. Upload of targeting info to the missile can be done using satellites

5. Given Time of flight on the order of 10 minutes, and data that is 5 mins old at time of launch, a ship traveling at 35 knots can have moved no further than 9 nm, and given satellite fed positional updates to the missile, by the terminal phase of flight, said ship can have moved no further than 1 minute or 1000 m, with course and speed known.

6. Ships suffer from inertia and turning radii. It is impossible to turn a large ship quickly, and such a ship's turning radius is on the order of miles thus a missile can predict the position of such a ship to within a few hundred meters at the point terminal guidance kicks in.

7. Terminal guidance can be a combination of RADAR, visual, and thermal signature to defeat jamming.

INDY

gwoprisko · « **Reply #285 on:** July 01, 2012, 02:44:03 PM »

Regarding the maneuverability of KF.. . .

The video I saw, was of a missile which completed a figure "S" turn for the express purpose of confusing missiles which calculate position of launch using ballistics. The turning radius was less than a mile. From this it appears the missile is sufficiently maneuverable to correct it's point of impact.

INDY

gwoprisko · « **Reply #286 on:** July 01, 2012, 02:48:03 PM »

Sobodka's purported video of the KF test, was of an entirely different test. The vessel he shows was not the one destroyed
in the KF test.

INDY

gwoprisko · « **Reply #287 on:** July 01, 2012, 02:56:40 PM »

The assumption that a missile which flies beyond the atmosphere will tumble, if true, would have made the first generation of such missiles useless. Such a missile can be spin stabilized, if nothing else. Of course, the CG location is critical to the performance of such a missile.

Regardless, the test shown, shows a missile moving toward it's target nose first. This means that the problem has been solved.

Let's move on.

INDY

Sobaka · « **Reply #288 on:** July 01, 2012, 02:58:14 PM »

Quote from: gwoprisko on July 01, 2012, 02:44:03 PM

Regarding the maneuverability of KF.. . .

The video I saw, was of a missile which completed a figure "S" turn for the express purpose of confusing missiles which calculate position of launch using ballistics. The turning radius was less than a mile. From this it appears the missile is sufficiently maneuverable to correct it's point of impact.

INDY

I have not seen the video showing a "figure S" trajectory during re-entry, or if the KF flies a depressed trajectory and does not climb above 75km (or there about), during the descent phase. But I do wonder how the KF makes such a maneuver with only small (and thin' flimsy) fins located far in-front of both the center of pressure and center of gravity.

But I am open-minded and might alter my views after seeing the video.

Ich · « **Reply #289 on:** July 01, 2012, 05:37:40 PM »

Quote from: maydayfire on July 01, 2012, 12:50:14 PM

This means that the above version of the khalij fars shown before is most likely not an active radar seeker but a passive radar seeker to hunt down naval (moving) or static ground-based radars. (why didnt I think of this before?) As I pointed out before in this thread, an active radar seeker does not quite make sense for a ballistic missile since it has a top-down attack mode and the high angle of attack makes it pick up so much clutter that is very hard to distinguish from target (or unless it is a SAR radar which even in this case the speed of travel compared to its trajectory profile makes it very hard to reconstruct the target).

This makes sense to me. The targets will be illuminated by long range radar from iranian soil or by F-14. Maybe the passiv radar seeker is good enough to analyse the reflected radiowaves from targets which are broadcasted by radio- and tv-stations.

gwoprisko · « **Reply #290 on:** July 01, 2012, 09:46:30 PM »

As I specified above, the KF executed a complex "S" turn maneuver shortly after liftoff to confuse ballistic countermeasures.
If it can maneuver on lift off using it's fins, it can maneuver during descent. Granted, the fins are not sufficiently large to
permit a "glide" maneuver, but given it's descent from 100 km, that's hardly necessary.

Were KF entirely ballistic until 20 km altitude, 20,000m, 60,000 ft, and were it's descent angle 60 degrees, an adjustment of 15 degrees over 5 km distance would change the impact point by more than 5 km. The atmosphere is sufficiently dense at 100,000 ft, 30 km for maneuvering, and a 15 degree course change initiated from this altitude would change the impact point more than 7 km.
Given the velocity of the missile is mach 5, time of flight is 3 minutes. Updating the position just prior to launch means a final position, course, and speed update within 5 minutes, assuming 2 minutes are necessary.

Given the target is a warship traveling at 35 knots, the final position update is made within 5 min of impact, said ship can travel 5.3 km assuming it maintains course and speed. Should it radically maneuver, the distance will be less, in some cases, much less. The algorithm driving the missils should force the ballistic trajectory to overfly the circle of possible positions, advanced along the COA at the SOA, to reduce downbound corrections. Given the delay between last known position and expected TOI. Ie: assuming a 5 minute delay, the ballistic arc should over fly midway between the known and assumed positions by 6 km to permit the missile altering course by up to 15 degrees ( 5 km ), which is sufficient to strike the vessel, even should the vessel execute an emergency 180 degree turn at time of launch.

Given the above, large fins are not necessary, and may I point out the fins shown appear similar in proportion to those on an AIM-9X, which is very maneuverable.

INDY

gwoprisko · « **Reply #291 on:** July 01, 2012, 09:49:19 PM »

Since warships almost always have their RADARs on, It would make sense for KF to be a HARM missile.

INDY

maydayfire · « **Reply #292 on:** July 01, 2012, 10:03:11 PM »

Quote from: Ich on July 01, 2012, 05:37:40 PM

This makes sense to me. The targets will be illuminated by long range radar from iranian soil or by F-14. Maybe the passiv radar seeker is good enough to analyse the reflected radiowaves from targets which are broadcasted by radio- and tv-stations.

why do you need reflected waves from a third party when the target including warships are emitting lots of radar radiation? This is the whole purpose of anti-radiation missiles.

maydayfire · « **Reply #293 on:** July 01, 2012, 10:06:07 PM »

Quote from: gwoprisko on July 01, 2012, 02:44:03 PM

Regarding the maneuverability of KF.. . .

The video I saw, was of a missile which completed a figure "S" turn for the express purpose of confusing missiles which calculate position of launch using ballistics. The turning radius was less than a mile. From this it appears the missile is sufficiently maneuverable to correct it's point of impact.

INDY

which video are you refering to? please give link

gwoprisko · « **Reply #294 on:** July 01, 2012, 10:24:19 PM »

It was the initial video given on this thread. That video shows the target ship filling the entire screen, It shows a helo
hovering overhead and filming the target from above. It shows two launches of the missile, and the initial maneuver
is clearly visible above the TEL. It clearly shows no fire aboard the target, and it clearly shows impact of the missile.

Apparently, it was a copy of a film from Iranian TV.

INDY

maydayfire · « **Reply #295 on:** July 01, 2012, 10:36:37 PM »

Quote from: gwoprisko on July 01, 2012, 10:24:19 PM

It was the initial video given on this thread. That video shows the target ship filling the entire screen, It shows a helo
hovering overhead and filming the target from above. It shows two launches of the missile, and the initial maneuver
is clearly visible above the TEL. It clearly shows no fire aboard the target, and it clearly shows impact of the missile.

Apparently, it was a copy of a film from Iranian TV.

INDY

that is the noor/ghader cruise missile not the PG ballistic missile.

Ich · « **Reply #296 on:** July 02, 2012, 07:34:03 AM »

Quote from: maydayfire on July 01, 2012, 10:03:11 PM

why do you need reflected waves from a third party when the target including warships are emitting lots of radar radiation? This is the whole purpose of anti-radiation missiles.

Maybe i think they can switch of their radar as soon as they get echo from KF and then do full speed with ship in another direction.

maydayfire · « **Reply #297 on:** July 02, 2012, 07:54:09 AM »

Quote from: Ich on July 02, 2012, 07:34:03 AM

Maybe i think they can switch of their radar as soon as they get echo from KF and then do full speed with ship in another direction.

they would never turn off their radar because they dont know what is coming at them and cant tell for sure if it is a KF with optical seeker or passive radar, so they will try to intercept the missile and to intercept the missile they will need their radars on. i.e. it is riskier for them to turn off the radar and hope it is KF with passive radar seeker than it is for them to try to intercept the incoming missile regardless of the type of seeker.

Ich · « **Reply #298 on:** July 02, 2012, 07:59:16 AM »

Quote from: maydayfire on July 02, 2012, 07:54:09 AM

they would never turn off their radar because they dont know what is coming at them and cant tell for sure if it is a KF with optical seeker or passive radar, so they will try to intercept the missile and to intercept the missile they will need their radars on. i.e. it is more risker for them to turn off the radar and hope it is KF with passive radar seeker than it is for them to try to intercept the incoming missile.

Hmm, they dont know what is incomming? So Iran does a very good job in psychologic warfare

Immortal · « **Reply #299 on:** July 02, 2012, 08:29:42 AM »

Quote from: maydayfire on July 02, 2012, 07:54:09 AM

they would never turn off their radar because they dont know what is coming at them and cant tell for sure if it is a KF with optical seeker or passive radar, so they will try to intercept the missile and to intercept the missile they will need their radars on. i.e. it is riskier for them to turn off the radar and hope it is KF with passive radar seeker than it is for them to try to intercept the incoming missile regardless of the type of seeker.

KF missile flies too low to be intercepted by anti-ballistic missiles