Iran Air Defense Systems

Any body can make a copy of anything, but there are copies and there are copies.

The Chinese have a copy of the S-300, but it is not an exact copy and while cheaper than the original it doesn't seem to be selling better so one would expect it is not a good copy.

This Iranian "copy", if it really exists will likely not be as good as the Chinese copy let alone the original, and that is not a slur against the Iranians.

The Chinese had the advantage of having lots of Russian S-300s in service so they at least had something in their possession to actually copy.

In comparison the Iranians have spec sheets and photos they might have taken when examining the system when they made their initial order.

If they really could make S-300s as good as the original why would they waste money trying to buy the original? Why would they complain and take Russia to court when the sale was blocked by UN sanction?

At least their military's PR machine is world-clas, because nothing about their air defense capability is (OK, except for the Tor-M1Es, but they're largely irrelevant from a strategic AD standpoint). If they'd just STFU and import a bunch of HQ-9 batteries, or if Russia would stop being stupid and export the S-300PMU-2s, they'd see a quantum leap in capability.

The problem for Russia is that she is not the world dominant superpower that simply does what she likes and to hell with all the rules they expect everyone else to follow to the letter otherwise they will punish them... know who I am talking about...

Very simply the Russians are abiding by the UN sanctions... if Iran simply bites the bullet and lets US spies to find coordinates and precise targeting information for their publicly revealed nuclear technology facilities those sanctions will be lifted and they can buy the air defence system they need to defend their facilities from US and Israeli attack.

The biggest shame in the matter is that France has not gone in and given them nuclear weapons technology like they did for the Israelis.

The main problem in the EU is that Germany is a dominant force and still feels guilt over WWII and its treatment of the Jews... and the problem with that is that Israeli jews are the zionist extremist nutters and should not be taken to represent all jewish people on anything, just like extremist christians don't speak for christianity, extremist muslims... etc etc etc.

No they aren't (or, yes they are, but they're taking it out of context).

How dare they! That is soo NATO of them!!

I believe the Iranians are taking the Russians to the UN world court over this, but I also read that the Russians have refunded Iranian money, so even if they get the go ahead to sell they might not sign a new contract.

Iran did sign the NPT. If it wants to take away the world's legal leg to stand on, simply withdraw. Or, I don't know, comply with it's treaty obligations.

The problem is that only the US and Israel claim they are not complying with their obligations.

It seems accusations and suspicions are sufficient for some countries.

Withdrawing from the NPT means they cannot openly have Russian assistance with civilian reactor production and support.

Wait...does that mean the US has to let Iran "steal" plutonium?

Yeah... they need to send agents pretending to be Israelis to get it and the US would give it to them and pretend to look the other way...

Anything Israel has to say should be ignored until it also signs the NPT if you ask me. Otherwise it has no real business being in an NPT-related discussion.

I totally agree, but that doesn't stop them digging their oar in when the US says something.

I personally think Iran is trending towards nuclear weapons, but that the rest of the world has no leg to stand on unless it can actually prove it.

I think the US is pushing them into a corner every chance they get, so why wouldn't they want a get out of jail free card that is a nuclear weapon?

Israel has constantly said it only needs nukes in case its neighbours get nukes, so Israel should not actually care if Iran gets nukes.

The US should not care either as it has rather more nukes than Iran will ever have, and much more importantly it has the means to deliver them anywhere it wants.

If Israel and the US want Iran to renounce nuclear weapons why don't they do the same?

Perhaps if the US didn't practise regime chance and have troops in countries all around Iran then Iran might not feel so threatened and might have some faith in the UN.

Unfortunately the UN is a tool used by the US to rubber stamp its invasions when it is convenient, and an org it completely ignores at other times when it suits.

It is amusing when the US criticises the UN as being useless... when its actions make it so.

they're apparently too stupid to try and order the HQ-9 from the Chinese.

Or perhaps they have tried it and it isn't as good as what the Russians are offering?

Iran does not need a City Defence SAM like S-300 , if any thing else its a liability for them to procure small numbers of S-300 , as if S-300 is some magic solution to all ills that aid their Air Defense.

S-300 can be used to defend a city, but there is little difference between a system that can defend a city and one that can defend an underground nuclear complex, or an above ground civilian nuclear reactor.

What Iran needs is a large number of bread and butter mobile sam like SA-11/17 , deployed in large numbers it has decent range and altitude and can take out range of targets from SRBM to PGM. Plus mobility is the key to deal with advanced adversary like Israel or others as Kosovo has shown so effectively.

An Israeli attack will be over a long range and will compose a large number of strike aircraft and a lot of escort fighters to protect those strike aircraft. Other support assets will likely include inflight refueling aircraft and jammers/SEAD aircraft.

With S-300 the job of the Jammers and SEAD aircraft suddenly becomes much bigger, so instead of 4-5, they will need 10-20, which means more fighters to cover them and more inflight refueling aircraft.

The point is that the presence of the S-300 might make the force required too big to be worth using and they might have to change tactics.

Deeply buried targets means cruise missiles launched from subs will be useless, though they could be coordinated as part of the attack to try to weaken the air defence before the strike package gets there... at the cost of alerting them. Of course an attack in a particular area might distract more than it alerts.

S-300 is like an aircraft carrier for a group of ships... it means that you can reach out and get the missile launchers as well as shoot down the missiles... it is not just missiles that can fly 200km to hit targets, it is radar and support equipment that can detect targets and threats at that range...

I really do not know why Iran Military Commanders act so dumb not to understand this basic fact , they would have been much better shape today if they had gone for lic production model of SA-11 or 17 then the magic S-300 system that eventually never came till the end.

Keep in mind Irans history... Russia has invaded Iran, and is not really best buddies, though they appear to be a supporter at the moment.

Also I am sure Iran wants to spend money on infrastructure like civilian NPP to improve growth and development rather than weapons.

I would have thought that the Su-35 would be an ideal replacement for the Irainian F-14s and Mig-29SMTs for the F-4s, and even Yak-130s for F-5s.

Of the countries of the world that are threatened by cruise missiles I would think Iran would be an ideal export customer for Mig-31BMs as well... even if they only buy a dozen and use them to direct Mig-29SMTs to intercept incoming cruise missile threats.

Licence produce Kornets and Igla-S...and more importantly get Russia to build them an oil refinery so they can produce their own fuels instead of exporting crude oil and importing petrol and diesel and other fuels.

Perhaps Im mistaken but I think remember reading somewhere in Shean blog post about Iranian idea of storing S-300 missiles in ground based VLS, correct me if Im wrong.

Now that is something I didn't think about. If you have a fixed site you want to defend you can certainly adapt SAMs and systems for the role.

Most ARMs rely on the fact that SAMs and radar antennas are soft vulnerable targets, so they don't have to be precisely accurate. The AS-11 for example has a 150kg HE Frag warhead so even if it doesn't directly hit the targets antenna the force of the blast and the fragments should blow it over and break multiple components.

If the target is buried deep in a mountain range then protecting your vertical launch SAMs in vertical silos would be a simple and cheap way to ensure they are protected. More importantly you could build a large underground complex that includes a reload facility for the SAMs so 50-60 launch silos might be visible, but you could have hundreds of missiles ready to fire or load and fire and have a few dummy systems on the surface to distract the enemy and also to explain the radar and communications sources.

You could mount radar antennas in cliff faces with an array of decoys 200m further down the face.

Another advantage is that the initial excavation at the site will reveal the original lab or facility being defended, but building SAM launch and sensor positions all over the place will make determining where the actual target is much harder. Traffic of people and supplies and missiles to the SAM locations will help mask supplies and people traffic to the target.

Remember even the best bunker buster conventional weapon still has to be aimed at the bunker itself, and under dozens or hundreds of metres of granite you can't just find its precise location from a satellite... you will find entrances and ventilation shafts, but to prevent weapons, or indeed blast entering the facility all those shafts will never be straight and you really don't know how long they will be either.

BUK can take care of any aircraft threat at range and altitude of 45 and 25 km , Unless Israel can fly higher then that.

But that is the problem... the aircraft will be using weapons with flight ranges of more than 45km so it will not be engaging the aircraft... it will be engaging the weapons released by the aircraft.

Not suggesting BUK is bad... especially if it is operating in optics mode using data from other systems, but BUK is part of the puzzle... and S-300 is another piece that makes an air defence much more capable.

There was a famous russian proverb mentioned by some Admiral (Gorshkov) or a great gun designer ( Mikhail kalashnikov ) "Best is the Enemy of Good Enough" that so well applies to Iran , in the hope of getting the best they forgot what was good enough for them

I think the better proverb for this situation is "Don't put all your eggs in one basket".

A layered air defence system is rather better than one that relies on one system or another.

The combination of long, medium, and short range systems in addition to aircraft is always the best solution.

BUK could replace the HAWK, and S-300 could replace S-200...

Years had to pass since Russia regained Irans trust and that Tor-M1/Pechora-2A upgrade was the first contract signed after Russia fiasko.

With the US being so pig headed about the European ABM system I think Russia... under Putin, will be less likely to bow to US and Israeli pressure.

The promise of Israeli toys is pretty moot when they only offer old and obsolete UAVs, and the US promise of a reset is clearly only to reform Russians actions to suit the US and not vice versa.

The point isn't so much that they must have the S-300 or something roughly analogous like the HQ-9, it's that they need something modern, period.

Exactly. Their older systems had limited numbers of guidance channels and could only handle one or two engagements at a time. To defeat an old SAM system just fire four cruise missiles against it at once and at least one or two will get through because the system will be tied up engaging the other missiles.

That is not so easy with S-300, and with the S-300s extra range it greatly reduces your options as regards to stand off weapons, so either you put your planes at risk, or you use heavier, larger longer ranged weapons... which are more expensive and require larger and more expensive launch platforms.

In other words attacks become harder and more expensive and less likely to succeed.