New Iranian SAM system (...maybe)

According to RIA en.rian.ru... Iran has publically anounced a new SAm system. Doesn't sound very special in terms of capability, but could be just about any SAM system out there.

TEHRAN, March 16 (RIA Novosti) - Iran has developed a new mobile air defense system capable of launching simultaneously two ground-to-air missiles, state-run television reported Friday.

In a continuous effort to provide adequate protection to its key military and oil production facilities, the Islamic Republic has been seeking to either upgrade or develop its own air defense systems or to import advanced weapon systems from its traditional suppliers of military equipment, including Russia.

The new Iranian system is designed to destroy multiple air targets in all weather with high precision, the TV report said.

Image that's on the article, not sure if it's an accurate depiction of the SAM, might be a 'stock' missile photo img.rian.ru...

Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 2/5/2007 by Mirthful Me]

American Stealth figheters and UAVs are able to slip past the SAM systems. What is the tracking on the Tor M-1? Radar or infrared. I think American stealth is more refined than our capability at reducing infrared signatures. It is dual mode gun and missile I presume. All Russian Sam systems are not that reliable, the most reliable one was the SA-125 in vietnam?? i believe, and even then they had to fire a ton of missiles to get a single hit, and fighter tactics evolved to out manuver the missiles. We have learned to defeat the SAM system.

The_Professional, don't be so dismissive of Iran's SAM systems.

In 1999 the Serbs downed an F117A Stealth fighter and it's remains were sent to the Almaz Central Design Bureau in Russia where they were subjected to extensive testing. From that knowledge they developed anti-stealth capability for Russian SAMs.

Almaz engineers developed the S-300PMU-2 SAM which can down a stealth airfcraft at 60nm.

Almaz has sold this system also known as the SA-10E to both China and Iran.

That is a tremendous assumption without real proof. The f-117 was brought down by missiles that were ripple fired. While they did bring it down, the missile did not radar lock the f-117. It was just exremely lucky. There was no radar lock, therefore stealth was not defeated.

The remains were eventually bombed. It was rumored that russian engineers came to inspect the remains, but they didnt go anywhere.

Would you care to provide a source of info where you got the "the s-300 can bring down stealth aircraft from 60nm" claim?

EDIT: AHAHAHA not only that, but the F-117 was downed in 1999. The S-300PMU-2 was developed and introduced in 1997.

www.globalsecurity.org...

Funny how they can develop an anti stealth system from a stealth aircraft you claim they recovered, that hadnt been downed yet. Do russian engineers have time machines?

psh. I hate claims like those.



[edit on 2-5-2007 by BlackWidow23]

Giving the Serbs and the Russians the benefit of the doubt here, even if they had recovered any form of stealth tech from the F-117, that's still only 1st generation, maybe 2nd generation stealth. Aircraft like the F-22A are 3rd generation Albeit, much more advanced.

With the changing times changes the technology involved. I do not believe an S-300 has the capability (on it's own) to down a stealth aircraft. At least not at that range.

Shattered OUT...

C&C sams got destroyed so easily... are these the same style?

Blackwidow23, your post fits perfectly my definition of a nitpicker. You have a totally closed mind.

www.newsmax.com...

So what if the S-300PMU-2 missile system was developed two years earlier ?

Have you never heard of hardware and software upgrades ?

When the Lockheed C-130J first came out it was severely limited in short field performance and LAPES because the fly by wire software was not written. Not until last year did Lockheed issue a software upgrade to permit LAPES missions.

You only see what you want to see, which begs the question if you know all the answers what are yoyu doing wasting your time here. Should we all adoringly sit at your feet whilst you tell us all you know ?

Since you don't know as much as you think you know (and lack the grace or humility to admit it) then read this about the SA-10 Grumble and please do educate yourself:

www.softwar.net...

By the way, this new wonderful SAM system turned out to be two Igla MANPAD tubes on a steel frame attached to the back of a Jeep fired by a guy. LOL.

So uhmm, gunson, can you find anymore sources that state the same thing that softwar did? This is the first I've ever heard mention of the Russian's "testing" a new anti-stealth missile on an American bomber plane in Serbia.

Shattered OUT...

Uh well unlike some, I have the guts to put my own name to what I say. I don't hide behind acronyms. Nor am I very impressed by those who when they run out of logical arguments, turn to addressing me condescendingly.

In a recent post about North Korean nukes someone else who clearly knew more than me, contradicted me. I didn't pout my lips and go into a huff about it. I listened and learned.

If that's the first you've ever heard of this F-117A being used for research, or abilities of the SA-10 (E version) , then get reading, cos there's heaps more commentary on it from multiple sources if you just Google. I welcome your acknowledgment however that you haven't read very widely on the topic.

The F-117A's wreckage can't have been destroyed very effectively by the bombing which you allege, because you can also find photographs of fairly intact wreckage, including the distinctive canopy glass in it's frame at other online sites.

The Russians replicated the Stealth construction on a series of Russian test aircraft to trial target aquisition for their missile systems.

The Serbs knew the F-117A was coming because they had a spy at the NATO airbase at Aviano who warned them of it's route. It is no assumption that the Serbs shot it down. It is a known fact.

One of the reasons that the F-117 is retiring is because of high maintenence stealth technology. I'm afraid I'm going to have to nitpick again.

There are a few reasons why I dont believe the 60 miles away claim:
1. Its tested on first generation stealth
2. The first generation stealth crashed and burned. Most of it was damaged by fire. And than it was bombed, it simply wasnt bombed promptly. Damaged first generation stealth.

Do I believe that the S-300PMU-2 can shoot down a damaged, 1st generation stealth aircraft from 60 miles away? Sure. Do I believe that it can shoot down a 3rd generation F-22, F-35 or B-2? No.

These aircraft have radar signatures that are so small that they are indistinguishable from background noise. If Iran has enough missiles to shoot down every little mosqito in the sky, than I'm sure it can hit a stealth plane. By the time the S-300PMU-2 detects a B-2 or somesuch, there is already a bomb on its way.

Now please consider what you are claiming:

Russian engineers CLAIM that they have developed technology into the S-300PMU-2 that can shoot down a stealth aircraft from 60nm away, and they have this data from tests run on a damaged, 1st generation stealth aircraft that has been bombed, hit by a SAM, crashed, rained on, burned, and everything else. And they think it can hit a stealth aircraft. My point is that by the time the russians picked it up, it had lost a significant portion of its stealth characteristics. That like asking someone to write a paper on JFK without access to more than a page of information on him.

While you do have a big elaborate looking post, it is filled with mostly personal attacks and it lacks what I have been arguing all along. PROOF. We claimed that the PATRIOT missile could intercept 90% scud missiles. We were wrong. There was no proof.

Do you have a link to something other than a claim? A test perhaps? We need proof, not just a claim. Claims mean nothing.


An I must venture off topic to set something straight:

You should probably attack the post, not the poster. It doesnt prove your points, it just makes people angry.

As a matter of fact I did do some research on russian SAMS, for two weeks in fact, I had a project I was doing on it. And so far, the only credibly anti-stealth SAM system is the S-400 due to information exchange with other radars.

If you can provide some proof I will be glad to stand corrected. As it stands now though, there is none.

I am here to learn just as you are.

No technology is invincible, stealth included. Stealth does not mean complete elimination of radar/IR signature, but making it as small as possible, thus making detection (not to mention tracking) a difficult job. As we all know, F117 was shot down above Serbia eight years ago, using old SAM system (SA-6 or, more likely, SA-3). Yeah, Serbs had a mole in the allies HQ, and he informed them about flight routes of allied aircraft, including F117, thus enabling Serbs to set up an 'ambush' for F117. On March 27th 1999. the Nighthawk was shot down and crashed in Serbia. It was badly damaged in the crash, but far from being completely destroyed.

F117A Crash site video

Crash site wasn't bombed, at least not in time to prevent Serbs from retrieving the remains. (fact is, you can even see some of the remains of F117 in a museum in Belgrade). Since Serbia has very strong ties with Russia, it is safe to presume that some of the remains (ones the Russians found interesting) were sent to Russia for research, thus partially compromising US stealth program.

Russia Offers India $8 Billion Weapons Deal

I know these are old news. Also, I don't belive all I read (and neither do you, wich is good). But this is enough to arise suspicion that F117 remains are indeed used for radar/SAM/anti-stealth system development. And there is also this new Russian S-400 SAM system. It is claimed (by Russians, of course) that it's more then capable for dealing with the stealth. Is it really? I don't know, nor does anybody here; we can only speculate, because we don't have enough data (if ANY indeed correct data at all!). I personally don't belive that S-400 is capable of dealing with stealth aircraft like the 'ordinary' ones, but I do belive it poses much bigger threat to stealth then any other SAM system (we've already seen and early generation stealth airplane being shot down by practically vintage SAM) But, once again, the fact is we don't really have much FACTS about this S-400 system (or about the Stealth program, either), because these facts are classified material (and educated guesses, thoughts, beliefs etc are by no means facts).

The bottom line is - if you get over-confident considering your capabilities, and under-estimate your foe, you're opening a door to disaster. Even most advanced systems have their Achilles' feet.

I dont deny it. The S-400 is very innovative for a certain reason:

It, in a way, sets up multiple advanced radars all looking at a patch of the sky from different angles. It therefore has a higher probability of "radar-ing" a higer RCS portion of the aircraft, like the back for instance. It uses all of these pictures to accurately track where the aircraft is. It has a higher probability of being able to track and destroy it.

The S-300PMU-2 does not have this ability as far as I know, if someone wants to correct me on this feel free. I am going to do some research on the S-300PMU-2s specific radar and than I can better determine its anti-stealth capabilities.