Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

U.S. Confirms Iran Bought SA-20 Missiles

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • U.S. Confirms Iran Bought SA-20 Missiles

    U.S. Confirms Iran Bought SA-20 Missiles

    Posted by David A. Fulghum at 12/10/2008 10:10 AM CST

    “The Iranians are on contract for SA-20,” says a senior, U.S. government official. The U.S. and Israel now face a “huge set of challenges in the future that we’ve never had [before]. We’ve been lulled into a false sense of security because our operations over the last 20 years involved complete air dominance and we’ve been free to operate in all domains,” he adds.

    Other senior officials independently confirm that Iran will get the Russian SA-20 strategic SAM system, irrespective of Kremlin protestations to the contrary. Tehran’s deployment of such a system would mark a step-up in capability, and considerably improve the country’s ability to defend its controversial nuclear facilities where the West remains concerned that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons capability.

    The proliferation of so-called double-digit surface-to-air missile systems – such as the Almaz Antey SA-20 (S-300PMU1/S-300PMU2) – poses an increasing threat to non-stealthy aircraft, and will force changes in tactics and operational planning. The SA-20 has an engagement envelope of up to 150 kilometers; and Iran may be signed up for the S-300PMU-2 variant of the system.

    Russia could use Byelorussia as the route for a sale, allowing it to deny any direct involvement, says a U.S. official. It would likely take the Iranian armed forces some time, as much as 22 months, to become proficient in the operation of the SA-20, however, any deal would almost certainly cover training support of the system in the interim. Analysts suggest ships delivering the missiles and the training, support and assembly areas could become targets.

    The SA-20, and even more so the SA-21 Growler (S-400) which is now entering service, pose an increasing problem for mission planners using conventional strike aircraft. While low observable aircraft offer greater latitude for operations, they are not totally immune to air defenses.

    The Lockheed Martin F-22 with its all-aspect, -40 dBsm radar cross-section signature can operate within the engagement envelope of the SA-20 and SA-21. But the Lockheed Martin F-35 with its -30 dBsm signature, which is not all-aspect stealth, is at greater risk. The rear quadrant of the F-35, particularly around the tailpipe area, is not as stealthy as the F-22.

    The Northrop Grumman B-2, because of its aging stealth design, also has limitations in the amount of time it can spend within the range of double-digit systems since small signature clues can become cumulative and offer a firing solution. The U.S.’s next-generation bomber program is aimed at developing a low-observable platform capable of operating irrespective of the threat from systems of the SA-21 class.

    More capable point defense systems – that would likely be used to protect SA-20 sites, for example – are also being introduced into the region. Syria is getting the SA-22 Greyhound (KBP Pantsyr), which uses a vehicle-mounted combination of cannon and missiles intended to provide defense against aircraft, helicopters, precision-guided munitions and cruise missiles.

    New threats – involving advances in commercially available electronics – continue to rapidly mutate in the area of secure communications and command and control.

    Recent pictures of the interior of a new Chinese surface-to-air missile command and control vehicle show two Inovo laptops and the commander of the integrated air defense system talking on a Blackberry. In the battery’s briefing vehicle, there’s a VOIP connection. These are all good, cheap commercial products.

    With reporting from Douglas Barrie
    http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...StampAscending
    "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

  • #2
    I was just about to post this. With some S-300 sites going to be in Iran, looks like a cruise missile strike is becoming more favorable?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by erik View Post
      I was just about to post this. With some S-300 sites going to be in Iran, looks like a cruise missile strike is becoming more favorable?
      Keep dreaming. I am not counting on Obama being able to make any radical changes to US foreign-policy but i am hopeful that he will initiate some meaningful changes and will be more resistant to certain lobby groups than some of his predecessors at the White House have been.

      If Israelis want to go to war with Iran i hope that Obama will be wise enough not to follow their criminality.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by 1980s View Post
        Keep dreaming. I am not counting on Obama being able to make any radical changes to US foreign-policy but i am hopeful that he will initiate some meaningful changes and will be more resistant to certain lobby groups than some of his predecessors at the White House have been.

        If Israelis want to go to war with Iran i hope that Obama will be wise enough not to follow their criminality.
        What makes you think Israel needs Obama's help. Israel is the only nation which is fully awake to Islamic extremism. How many wake up calls does the west need. 9/11,the attack on Australians in Bali, on Spaniards in Madrid, Russians in Belsan,on Britons in London and now in Mumbai. Israel is portrayed as the villan when it defends itself. It has every right to do so. It should be commended for it's restraint. It will not need assistance when it takes out Iran's nuke facility. It is as if a higher power is protecting Israel. There is nothing criminal about defending against a nation which has sworn to destroy it.

        Comment


        • #5
          S-300 is still a defensive weapon and Iran has every right to acquire such systems to defend itself. It's not like the privilege to defend itself is appointed only to Israel, wherever you like it or not.

          Comment


          • #6
            Thinking the US has already proved their strategy without the F-22 or the F-35 when it comes to dealing with these missles in very much the same way simular SAM's were dealt with during the opening of the Gulf War. It proved no problem for the strategy the US employed so there is no reason to believe Israel couldnt do it either. The Iraqi's were rather shocked at the outcome.:))
            Last edited by Dreadnought; 23 Mar 09,, 20:19.
            Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

            Comment


            • #7
              This is pretty much the exact reason we developed the EA-18G, isn't it?
              "There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge

              Comment


              • #8
                I am no expert,

                But I presume the idea of SAM (or anything else) is not really to protect, but rather to make the enemy think twice and forcing to re-formulate its strategy. In short, to make it difficult. And before a new plan is formulated and counter-measured is made, another small problem appears. In the meanwhile, defense contractors are getting lucrative contracts.

                Sort of like Normany, where the German raised the bets by making fortifications forcing the SHAEF (or whatever name it had back then) to
                re-evaluate and rev-up it plans, and it went on and on ... until the power that had a sustainable higher industrial output in the long term prevailed.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I believe the Iranians also need the Ukrainian Kolchuga-M systems. That would increase their anti-aircraft capabilities almost up to necessary level.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Grees View Post
                    S-300 is still a defensive weapon and Iran has every right to acquire such systems to defend itself. It's not like the privilege to defend itself is appointed only to Israel, wherever you like it or not.
                    Unlike Iran, Israel has not sworn for Iran's destruction. Every nation has the right to live in peace. The right to defend itself if attacked. The ultimate weapon's of defence now being developed will be a surprise for many of us. The fact that Iran has been howling for Irael's destruction is an attack, it shows restraint on Israel's part. Oh I ain't Jewish by the way. I can't help but admire this little modern day Sparta. Those that choose to attack it in future are in for a surprise.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      What makes you think Israel needs Obama's help.
                      Then they should give us back our aid money.

                      It is as if a higher power is protecting Israel. T
                      My tax dollars...
                      To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by chlensoe View Post
                        I believe the Iranians also need the Ukrainian Kolchuga-M systems. That would increase their anti-aircraft capabilities almost up to necessary level.
                        Why? The Koluchaga is only an Early Warning detection measure. They can't use it to actually target planes. If you come in on EMCON it is nothing to worry about.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Georgie View Post
                          Unlike Iran, Israel has not sworn for Iran's destruction. Every nation has the right to live in peace. The right to defend itself if attacked. The ultimate weapon's of defence now being developed will be a surprise for many of us. The fact that Iran has been howling for Irael's destruction is an attack, it shows restraint on Israel's part. Oh I ain't Jewish by the way. I can't help but admire this little modern day Sparta. Those that choose to attack it in future are in for a surprise.
                          They both have the right to arm themselves as they see fit. By aquiring nukes i believe Israel has forfeited its right to complain against Iran aquiring its own. This whole 'do as i say not as i do' attitute is responsible for many of the problems in the Mideast. Im no fan of either country, i respect the Israeli military capacity and at the same time i respect the Iranian governments ability to develop a decent enough military industrial complex to carry it through at a time that most countries would not do business with it.

                          At the end of the day Iran has not directly attacked Israel once so far and in reality has no capacity or reason to do so. Say Iran attacks Israel, succesfully even... what benefit do they gain from it? You cant invade it, the rest of the Arab world may give you lip service but i cant see Iran gaining primacy over the Arab countries even if it does smack down Israel.

                          In reality Iran knows that the only thing it would gain by attacking Israel with nukes is nukes in return. I have had the debate many times with people on this site and i stand by my belief that funnily enough Iran does have a somewhat rational government that sees that attacking the Israel will give no benefit to them and only end in disaster. What they say for public consumption to their own people or scream to the rest of the world in media soundbites is probably not what they talk about diplomatically even to the west, nor what they discuss in their internal meetings.

                          I would be happier if Iran spent its money on S400 batteries as opposed to funding Hezbollah. The batteries are purelly defensive and cannot hurt any country outside its borders. Hezbollah on the other hand is the one foreign policy tool that Iran can use to effectively hurt Israel.

                          Also on another note... this concept of Israel being protected by a higher power has no place on a military discussion board. Believe what stories you wish but unless you can show me pictures of Gods Armored Divisions then well keep discussion to Israels earthly defences...
                          Last edited by chakos; 24 Mar 09,, 08:08.
                          The best part of repentance is the sin

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Grees View Post
                            S-300 is still a defensive weapon and Iran has every right to acquire such systems to defend itself. It's not like the privilege to defend itself is appointed only to Israel, wherever you like it or not.
                            The S-300 is not just a defensive system. its range allows it to project power across the Persian Gulf and over that of neighboring countries.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by chlensoe View Post
                              I believe the Iranians also need the Ukrainian Kolchuga-M systems. That would increase their anti-aircraft capabilities almost up to necessary level.
                              Iran has the Kolchuga for all the good it will do them.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X