Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Iranian Short-Range SAM - "Oghab"
What does he said? My OCR isnt good enough.
(08-31-2019, 08:48 PM)Ich Wrote: What does he said? My OCR isnt good enough.

Here's the original article if you want to Google translate it.موشکی-است

The main points are that Oghab was designed with some looks at Tor-M1, but it can't be said it's a full copy. And Oghab uses both gun and missile systems.

I think they've made some sort of copy of the Tor missiles and VLS but with indigenous radars and a cheaper wheeled TELAR instead of the tracked version of Tor-M1 that Iran has.
نه شرقی، نه غربی، جمهوری اسلامی
On different kinds of AAA in comparison to missile systems:

The threat of swarm saturation, but slow suicide drones like the Harpy series can be confronted economically by systems like Derivatsiya-PVO 57mm and Irans Sarir 100mm system based on KS-19.
In a saturation scenario where numbers count, you don't want to spend a mach 3 guided missile, capable to intercept >mach 2 targets on something in the kinematic class of a Harpy.
Benefit here over systems like the Pantsir 30mm gun is that you can engage at longer ranges of course. This benefits the area under protection of this economic AAA component as well as the numbers of engagements possible until the targets come too close.

Iran would use its Sarir gun system with a single round, where the target is very slow and not maneuvering or concentrate the fire of a 4 gun battery, one shot each, on a single target with all rounds arriving at around the same time.
The latter was a concept followed by Iran in the later 2000's, where thermal cameras had become affordable enough to be used to control a Sarir battery. The goal back then was simultaneous automated firing and reloading against Tomahawk class cruise missiles. A concentrated burst of the whole battery would kill the CM target at a affordable cost.

The Derivatsiya-PVO 57mm system tries to follow this concept and make up lower destructive power shells with its relative high rate of fire. The mobility requirements of Russia, simply do not allow a static Sarir-like concept. The Derivatsiya-PVO needs to make up the destructive power difference of 3kg 57mm vs. 15kg 100mm round and the non-simultaneous arrival of the shells at target via a higher rate of fire and more rounds spend.

4 simultaneously arriving Sarir 100mm shells were apparently assumed to create a large enough kill circle against a low maneuvering target in Tomahawk class to allow a high PK at >6km distance.
The 57mm systems higher ROF allows the arrival of shells at still relative short interval to allow a equivalent kill circle to the 4-shell battery Sarir at maybe 25 shells.
More importantly: While Irans Sarir system needs a static 4 gun battery to achieve that performance, the Derivatsiya-PVO 57mm can approach it with its single mobile vehicle layout. Plus the amount of ready to fire rounds is several times larger than that of a Sarir battery.

If requirements on armor and mobility are as high as with the Russian Derivatsiya-PVO, economy gets affected.
I don't know the exact assured kill sphere that the KS-19 100mm shell creates but it may be sufficient to assure a kill against a maneuvering <200km/h suicide drone with a single shot (30m?).
This would be the economic requirement to confront "expandable"suicide drones, a simple shell with an electronic time fuse.

Chinese have already developed a more mobile 76mm large caliber concept with high ROF and large magazine. But an ideal AAA concept to allow necessary economy performance would be a 3-barrel rotary canon variant of the KS-19 on a heavy off road truck chassis. The benefit would be that 4-gun Sarir battery would be shrinkend to a single mobile vehicle. Barrel cooling, recoil force and overall weight would be the obvious hurdles here.
The AHEAD concept on larger caliber rounds could also be a solution that requires lower ROF.

In general, the higher the kinematic performance the lower the effective envelope of an AAA system. So where a Pantsir 30mm gun has its lowest envelope at around 1-1,5km against a crossing, maneuvering supersonic target, very good for self defense of the system itself, the Sarir/KS-19 100mm system achieves 3-3,5km in that worst case target scenario. This allows protection of larger areas and earlier attack cycle to counter mass-saturation scenarios.
There are always key static targets that require protection, such as the Konteyner OTHR-B or airbases.
(09-10-2019, 06:15 AM)PeeD Wrote: On different kinds of AAA in comparison to missile systems:
Great post, thank you for sharing.

Could you write something about the lessons Iran can learn from Syria's experience in dealing with Israeli/US attacks and how to confront them?
One lesson is that you can't have sufficient Pantsir everywhere. Its a high cost, high capability system.
Even if Pantsir is available in the area under attack, you just need enough targets to deplete its 12 missiles.
After that the 30mm guns engage at too low distance to be able to defend against a high number of inbound targets.
So a sulution was to replace some of the 12 missiles with 3 miniature missiles each, that have sufficient performance against low kinematic performance and subsonic targets.
Another solution would be a Sarir-like AAA component that simply engages at longer ranges and saves the missiles.
The radar systems on the Pantsir are so high performing, that a accurate classification of all targets is possible as you need to know which targets can be killed by which component.

Another lesson is that the enemy uses low kinematic performance weapons in high numbers --> there has been no technological leap in this area and there is not a foreseeable one.
Launching a missile against a Delillah, in the class of the mach-2 interception capability, high speed Pantsir missile is not a efficient approach.
What they are doing is decreasing the radar and IR signatures to allow for a subsonic weapon to go trough.
We also saw somewhat desperate solutions by the Israelis such as turning guided artillery rockets into supersonic stand-off weapons as well as BM-simulating air launched rockets into heavy supersonic missiles.

The conclusion is that a Pantsir class high performance missile system is needed, but has to go along with a AAA component that engages at longer ranges. Adding to that would be softkill communication/GPS jamming against low cost drones or that proposed very low price miniature missile. But instead of that missile which benefits from the expensive advanced Pantsir radar system, I would use such a radar to guide a 100mm AAA round to its max. possible kinematic range of ~10km. Dispersion of the burst currently allow engagements at 3-6km depending on the speed and maneuverability of the target.

So I like to hear that the Oghab system is a missile-only system to which a AAA component will be added in future. Using the Pantsir performance class radar of the Oghab missile component, a slaved, separate 76/100mm AAA component with a guided round would allow true areal protection at low cost.
Iran has not yet proven good design capabilities on artillery guns but I hope to see that approach instead of a land-based Kamad CIWS.
Good to see you here PeeD. To expand on your ideas:

The 2 separate systems would be the best idea and allow for each system to be tailored to the desired role.

One would be a mobile, missile-only system similar to the Tor, which seems to be the Oghab that Iran is developing, the other is the 100 mm Sarir that we already have.

Sarir would be used to defend static installations like airbases from drone swarms and glide bombs, typically of little threat to air defence systems. That way Sarir can afford to be static. Oghab would also be placed at airbases to protect them from cruise missiles.

But because Oghab is a mobile system, it can tag along with most medium and long-range systems to protect them from anti-radiation missiles and standoff munitions. And if every sector is defended by long-range air defence systems, glide bombs won't be an issue either as their launch platforms won't be able to get close enough to release their bombs.

Separating these subsystems into their own systems reduces system complexity and allows each separate system do its job more effectively. The Sarir can be properly configured to engage slower targets, while Oghab does not need an integrated gun and will therefore be better designed to accommodate the radar and missiles, enabling it to carry a larger missile load.

Pantsir is favoured by export customers for its versatility, but we shouldn't forget that it is descended from the Tunguska, which was mainly an army air defence system against aircraft and especially low flying helicopters. That's why the 2A38 guns on the Tunguska (the same ones used by Pantsir) have such a high muzzle velocity of 900 m/s. They were designed to hit American attack helicopters (who'd popped up above the horizon to fire their ATGMs as per NATO doctrine) before they dipped down out of sight. The missiles were developed with a similar role in mind.

Drones are not really a threat to air defence systems yet, but in future something like a mobile 57 mm system can be developed to protect against them too. It's best if this is mounted on a separate vehicle so as not to interfere with the missile vehicle, but still slaved to the missile TELAR. After all there should be a group of missile launchers and gun systems, not just one solitary vehicle.
نه شرقی، نه غربی، جمهوری اسلامی
The huge Tor-M1 can only carry 8 missiles because they ad the radars are on a turntable. Morfey layout eliminates this constrain: only the single radar is on a turntable.
Irans Oghab almost certainly has that same basic layout that allows for 24 and more missiles.
No heavyweight turntable also reduces maintenance and complexity.
However a heavy turntable is needed for a AAA component.

As you said, with the two components on separate systems, each can perform better.

Iranian calculations and simulations seems to have shown that the fragment lethality of each 100mm round, creates a sufficiently large kill-sphere that 4 simultaneous explosions of the shells would in turn create a large enough total kill-sphere (on average) to make up for time time of arrival issue of long distance AAA.
In other words: At the time of the shot, till the arrival of the rounds at the predicted target location in about 8 seconds, that target could have maneuvered in random directions, plus wind-errors. The higher the speed of the target the larger the sphere necessary to ensure a kill.
Statistics seems to have shown that a 900km/h Tomahawk can be killed by 4 simultaneously arriving 100mm shells with a sufficiently high PK.
So the 8 seconds nominal travel time of the shell would be either reduces to 4s if the target is strongly maneuvering, or fast. It could also increase to 12 seconds if it is not maneuvering at all or very slow.
I like the IRGCs 100mm heavy shell approach, but the Artesh Oghab system may go for small caliber 35mm as AAA component (probably with AHEAD like fusing).

If the 4 100mm shell at the same time statistic value of the Sarir is robust, it would certainly be worth it due to the area protection quality of the concept. The cost per round issue just adds up because many prop-drones would probably only need a single dumb 100mm shell at 3km to be killed.

So let my make a wish: A 3-barrel rotary 100mm gun in a twin configuration for 6-round near short-interval bust and automatic 60 round magazine for each rotary gun.
A difficult mechanical design but it would pack the whole Sarir battery into one vehicle (Zafar truck).
Equipped just with a thermal/optical system, it would slave to the Oghab radar.
The Oghabs AESA then could be used to track the round and wind-correct the second shot/salvo.
Another, more elegant approach would be to create a high-G rated steering system that is cost effective and guide the 100mm round via an AESA beam uplink. Such a system could use the kinematic reserves of the 100mm gun to allow a protected area of 20km diameter (@10km). The arrival time of an unguided 100mm shell to 10km would probably be more than 15 seconds and way too much to compensate with several simultaneous detonations.
So a 4-6 dumb round bust may be still cheaper than a guided round at max. 6km and a Tomahawk speed class target but its well possible that beyond that, a guided round becomes more economical. Hence is these next-gen SHORAD systems already pay the costs of an AESA radar for the missile component, they could also be used to command guide a large caliber AAA round.
Very tight tolerances and QC for the guided round (cost) and general possibility of jamming would be the downsides here. However munitions and drones seldom have own or support jamming when that close to the target.

Quote:But because Oghab is a mobile system, it can tag along with most medium and long-range systems to protect them from anti-radiation missiles and standoff munitions. And if every sector is defended by long-range air defence systems, glide bombs won't be an issue either as their launch platforms won't be able to get close enough to release their bombs.

Important detail and basically right, but they may do pop-up maneuvers, release their glide weapons and dive back below the radar horizon. That is a concept that Israelis apparently did in Syria with SDB equipped F-15.
The Bavar-373 or S-300 can't kill targets at their max. 200km range if it is below 2km altitude. This is an inherent problem of SAGG/TVM/SARH.
The missiles are fast (~2-3 minutes till full range) and the launch random, but this still enough for a pop-up weapon release and dive scenario. Of course as glide weapons have usually ranges well below 100km, those engagement times will drop down to a minute and less. That will decrease the release altitude (--> effective range), so much is true.
Alone forcing the opposing airpower to fly at below 2km altitude when still 200km away from the target has severe impact on range/payload performance.

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Iran made long range Early Warning System radar admin 5 3,279 09-01-2019, 04:34 PM
Last Post: Persian Gulf
  S-300 in Iranian Service AmirPatriot 3 3,091 05-19-2018, 07:13 PM
Last Post: TruthHurtz

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)