Sunday, November 10, 2013

Sayyad-2 surface-to-air missile serial production inaugurated

Iran publicly unveils serial production of Sayyad-2 ("Hunter-2") "medium" range SAM

 
Production Sayyad-2 appearance resembles enlarged SM-1/RIM-66 Standard variant

Launcher appears inspired by MIM-104 launch canister design

 
MODAFL, IRGC and IRIADF present at inauguration ceremony

Prototype Sayyad-2/launcher during testing in 2011

Below: Iran TV video stills of Sayyad-2 production, including subassemblies and components
 

Video:

Photos: Iranian Students' News Agency
Video: Islamic Republic of Iran News Network

27 comments:

Anonymous said...

@Mr. Pyruz, I agree with you. Its a scaled up version of the RIM-66 Standard Missile and the box launcher bears close resembelance to the PAC-2 launcher. This system looks the most sophisticated SAM Missile System produced by Iran till date. The range seems to be aleast 80 kms. Moreover, it uses modern digital technology. Pertinently, this system could very well be part of an evolving Bavar-373 Sam based on box launchers. Great achievement and a technological milestone. Regards-Abbas.

Anonymous said...

Correction, a few missiles are displayed without any sense of their capabilities and iranians being the liars they are call it a production line.

One good thing about a military attack on iran is that when these piece of crap weapons and their other 1960s technology fail government propogandists in an or of iran will have little influence over the few suckers who fall for this nonsense.

Piruz Mollazadeh said...

Eh, this looks more like a long-range system.

B.M.A said...

OH! what a waste of words !.Well, a good try !! keep on dreaming Baby!

reader said...

I know nothing about missile technology but cannot help but to notice the quality by which various components of the missile carrier truck were designed, manufactured and put together. Gone those days when the components of the older missile carrying trucks looked as if they were salvaged from a scrap metal yard and welded together by an amateur welder.

Anonymous said...

Yeah nice try. That is why Bibi and his preceding prime ministers have been on an empty saber-rattling posture for close to a decade instead of going it alone as they claim they're so apt in doing. The Iranian arsenal is indeed so antiquated and easy to bypass or destroy that it has effectively deterred two attempts of the man to convince his top brass in mobilizing the air force against Iranian airspace since 2010 and got severely criticized for presenting attack simulations devoid of any Iranian defenses. Although a part of me would like to see how well the F-16I would perform against non-existent, outdated Iranian air defenses and air defense squadrons, I still prefer hoping about a final accord on the nuclear dossier, when the P5+1 finally sidelines French foreign minister Fabius' dirty work for the Likud gov't.

Anonymous said...

Well 9:11 and 1:55, if the Iranian air force and military are so strong, and if you are such an Iranian patriot -- then why aren't you in Iran serving in those "high quality" organizations and defending the country to whom you have pledged your allegiance?

I'll tell you why, because you know modern western F15s and F16s would utterly massacre this junk, and any poor forcibly conscripted victim who is forced to man them. The U.S.'s army of 30 years ago destroyed Iraq, a country which destroyed Iran's military of 30 years ago, which is essentially the same military (same ships, same planes, same garbage) it has today.

Anonymous said...

Blog authors, any news on this apparent Iranian mafia (likely revolutionary guard I imagine) hit on an Iranian economic minister? I wonder what permit he denied to whom, probably rejecting large bribes on principal, to get killed like this.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/11/10/334060/iranian-official-murdered-in-tehran/

Anonymous said...

what is important on paralementary deputy of Indutry minister that you believe IGRC killed him ?
it could be a private feud or thousand another reason

Anonymous said...

Because the revolutionary guard is now an economic mafia. They probably wanted something from him.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous November 10, 2013 at 3:49 PM
And if you`re such a western "patriot" why arent you off fighting in one of the nato armies in Afghanistan?,or perhaps the terrorist mek or jundallah is more your style.Saddam didnt destroy anything,he spent most of the war on the defensive and just to survive he had to bankrupt his nation and draft every man of fighting age he could find and that was with the support of the west,the soviets and the arabs.Irans military of today is nothing like the untrstworthy pro shah creation of the 70s.If iran was as weak as you claimed then what are the usraelis waiting for?,neither of those two seem eager for a fight with iran.There is nothing "junk" about this system,it looks to be a modern and capable system that uses as a basis the same missile that the us navy uses for air defence on its ships,tho it looks like the iranians have modified it somewhat,personally I cant wait to see the complete system,radars control van etc..,all in all quite a surprise that iran has pulled from its hat

Anonymous said...

Serving is not the point. No matter the government in place, considering the current "Detente" oriented context, NO ONE can decently support a warmongering retard such as Bibi gesturing non-stop in his hysteria to derail talks no matter what, making his true intentions clear to everyone with eyes open including in Iran where a traditional sympathy he once had is plummeting in every regard possible since the negotiations and his attempts at sabotaging it started.

The Iranian military actually destroyed much of the Iraqi army in less than 1 year after the war started and pushed them back to their border soon after, reverting the siege in the process, it is the other way around. Notably during Operation Morvarid after which 90% of the Iraqi navy was sunk, Some documentation wouldn't hurt. It was only after the war dragged on because of Khomeini's stubbornness that the embargo imposed by the same countries arming Saddam to the teeth started to have its toll on Iranian forces.

1991 Iraq absolutely hadn't recovered from 8 years of deadly fight with Iran and was crippled by an abysmal war debt (which originally influenced the dictator into attacking Kuwait). A coalition of the world's most powerful militaries PLUS a massive Pan-Arabic contingent contributed to the rapid fall of Iraq's poorly led, trained and motivated conscripts. It has NOTHING to do with 80 F-16I Sufas coming to Iran from one distant front with a tiny strategic depth, with little to no critical support from the AWACS, JSTAR, and jamming strategic planes, and the fact that they will have a very narrow room to maneuver considering they will almost have exhausted their combat radius when they finally get deep into Iranian airspace, AND have to deal both with an extensive air defense network combined with significant numbers of air defense squadrons. That offsets a lot of their purely technological advantage, if they ever get there. Every American, Russian and European expert asked on the issue tends to agree with that assertion. I advise you do some reading to give you insight on your flawed Iran/Iraq comparison, http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-SAM-Effectiveness.html,

A relevant quote from that article : "While Serbian SA-2, SA-3 and SA-6 batteries were largely ineffective due to the use of standoff jamming, anti-radiation missiles and stealth, they also proved vastly more difficult to kill due to smart use of mobility, camouflage and emission control. A single SA-3 battery, commanded by then LtCol Zoltan Dani, downed an F-117A and an F-16C, and damaged another F-117A. Serbian SA-6 crews, following the same hide, shoot and scoot doctrine, mostly survived the war. The Serbian SAMs and radars were largely of the same vintage and subtypes, as those used by the Iraqis and Syrians. The fact that NATO forces were unable to quickly kill off the Serbian SAM batteries forced continuing and ongoing sorties by NATO support jamming and defense suppression aircraft, driving up the cost to drop each bomb delivered several-fold. NATO forces launched 743 AGM-88 HARM anti-radiation missile rounds for very little damage effect – around one third of the number used to cripple Iraq’s much larger air defense system in 1991." ==> now this is facts, not propaganda, and not from a pro-regime source, quite the contrary.

You wanna bash people disagreeing with you on a military subject ? do some reading first. I for one don't write stuff out of my a$$ but rather when I know for certain many different circles of educated individuals on the subject agree with it beforehand, otherwise called "doing research". That's the difference between a factual analysis and propaganda.

Now get back to your Iran/Iraq analogy and enjoy a not-coming Israeli strike on Iran.

-A

Anonymous said...

All those pictures testify that all previous statements about the Bavar designs come to reality.
It has been anounced that the design should be completed during this year.

The photos show, that erecting system of launchers created by electro mechanical (or hydraulic and pneumatical systems) can be adopted, after minor modifications, in the Bavar's design..

I still believe that Russia will fulfil its previous obligations, and beside of that, the Iranian scientists are gaining extraordinary proficiency, for the future, in attempting to create their own derivatives of other countries' systems.

A-F

Where is Mat, what is a reason of his resent absences?
I hope that the Zionists haven't hijacked him....and me.

Anonymous said...

"And if you`re such a western "patriot" why arent you off fighting in one of the nato armies in Afghanistan?"

Because they don't need me there at this time, drones are blowing terrorist scum away via remote control, and as you know your hero Osama had his head blown off as well, as did Saddam and his two sons. Any other questions, you terrorist sympathizer?

Anonymous said...

"The Iranian military actually destroyed much of the Iraqi army in less than 1 year after the war started and pushed them back to their border soon after, . . . "

Then what were those Iraqi tanks and soldiers doing pounding into Iran in 1988 and forcing the country to a complete surrender? Why do Iranians need to lie to themselves? Go read up on how Iraq utterly destroyed Iran at the end of the war, and then look at what the U.S. (of 30 years ago) did to that Iraqi army.

Anonymous said...

Excellent post A as usual. Thanks.
The reality is that the Israelis can not do the job, without the help of the Americans and that is why Bibi is lobying so hard at the moment to kill a win-win situation deal between the 5+1 and Iran.
He is making a fool of himself.
The Iranians who dislike the regim should take a look at what is happening in Libya and Syria and Iraq and stop wishing for a military strike on Iran.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous November 10, 2013 at 8:48 PM, it's clear why such a western "patriot" like Anonymous November 10, 2013 at 3:49 PM is not off fighting in one of the nato armies in Afghanistan. As a typical warmonger, he is more of a lead from behind kind of "patriot", ready to fight to the last drop of other people's blood.

Anonymous said...

An excuse from Anonymous November 11, 2013 at 12:08 AM.

Anonymous said...

AnonymousNovember 11, 2013 at 12:11 AM,

"Then what were those Iraqi tanks and soldiers doing pounding into Iran in 1988 and forcing the country to a complete surrender?"

Well too bad you didn't bother reading my post properly before retorting that, I addressed the element you pointed out one sentence later. I'll simply copy paste whatever parts you missed to answer you, since it isn't worth the effort of redacting things twice considering the attention you pay to the exchange.

"Notably during Operation Morvarid after which 90% of the Iraqi navy was sunk, Some documentation wouldn't hurt. It was only after the war dragged on because of Khomeini's stubbornness that the embargo imposed by the same countries arming Saddam to the teeth started to have its toll on Iranian forces." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Morvarid

Now I'll add operation Kaman 99 which occurred a mere 24 hours after the initial Iraqi attack on Iran, which rendered nearly all of Iraqi air-force bases unusable for weeks right after the start of the war and reduced its efficacy by an estimated 55%, by hitting them very hard with close to 200 F4s and 60 F-14s covering them and taking part in the operation. The only saving grace was the complicity of almost every Arab nation around, minus Lybia and Syria, in sheltering the bulk of the Iraqi fighter planes during that attack. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Kaman_99

Also, check out the IRIAF deep strike on the main strategic bomber base called "H3" into Iraq, where a formation of only eight F4s managed to take this base by surprise in a brilliantly planned attack, and destroy dozens of planes readying to bomb Tehran with full force. The Iraqi air-force never fully recovered from that operation, just like its navy never regained any real combat capability after Operation Morvarid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_H3

"Go read up on how Iraq utterly destroyed Iran at the end of the war"

It never happened, most IRIAF planes where grounded and sheltered due to an internationally imposed embargo and the lack of spares they induced, that is why Iran retained most of its planes after the war. Iraq was itself in a very bad shape and wasn't able to push back much into Iran without Western/Soviet/Arab/MKO support which was pulled after the final ceasefire. But granted, as I previously said, Khomeini's obsessive stubbornness with reaching Baghdad led to a catastrophic situation for Iranian troops at the end of the war. If it wasn't for him, Iran would have stopped right at its borders in 81 after repealing Iraqi forces, and had accepted the war reparations package offered by Saudi Arabia. A tragic mistake and a one of his many crimes against Iran if you ask me.

"and then look at what the U.S. (of 30 years ago) did to that Iraqi army. "

Read again the passage I pulled from the 1999 NATO Serbian campaign, and which you forgot to read as well, which annuls such comparison. Iraq is not a viable example to study American military effectiveness, despite their mass media tirelessly trying to portray it as such. But even assuming we can refer to the 91 gulf war as a valid base, are you implying that Israel has the means to project the equivalent of combined Arab and NATO forces against Iran all alone by itself ? what's the point of this comparison anyway ? Iraq did absolutely not have any real means of tit-for-tat retaliation to US strikes, hadn't replaced the bulk of its equipment and re-trained fresh troops and pilots, whereas Iran has a widely acknowledged arsenal numbers close to a thousand MRBMs and SRBMs with a demonstrated ability to devastate US interest and bases in close vicinity, a well-trained air-force and growing operational capability over the years thanks to Russian, Chinese and Indian support throughout the past decade.

-A

Anonymous said...

AnonymousNovember 11, 2013 at 12:08 AM
I see that you`re a firm believer in and practicer of western double standards and hypocrisy ie "Do as I say,not as I do"

Anonymous said...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_equipment_manufactured_in_Iran

Basrawi said...

-A


"Iraq was itself in a very bad shape and wasn't able to push back much into Iran without Western/Soviet/Arab/MKO support which was pulled after the final ceasefire."

Thats is a dishonest statement, one which is not grounded in reality.

It is a fact that Iran got defeated both militarily and even in a political sense against Iraq. The strategy of "the final victory" (toppling of the Baath party) failed monumentally. The grand plan of Khomeini envisioned Iranian troops conquering and holding Iraqi land (Karbala, Basra etc) for an indefinite time and the creation of an autonomous clerically ruled Shia state in southern Iraq, those things never materialized hence Iran failed in all of its objectives.

Iraq forcefully ejected the Iranian occupiers in 1988. Iraq replaced Iran as the gulf superpower and would have stayed in that position if Saddam had just refrained from taking that fateful risk of wasting the Iraqi military in Kuwait.

Furthermore there was nothing of significance standing in their way had they made the decision to drive towards Khoramshahr or any other city or town in Khuzestan. IF they thruly wanted they could have easily rolled through Khuzestan and even past Ahwaz. Read the USMC documents which were written after the war. Surprisingly, in 1988 Iraq could have achieved on the battlefield what they had tried, but failed to do in 1980. This time around Iran could have done nothing to stop them or evict them. In one of the last operations, the Iraqi military made a push, into Iran towards the town of Dehloran where they captured three quarters of Iran's remaining armor!

Iran had only 200-300 tanks left at the end coupled with a few hundred thousand poorly motivated and extremly demoralized troops, versus Iraqs 5000 and a million men under arms!

Anonymous said...

Basrawi,

there is noting dishonest with my statement, no it is not grounded in reality, hence the word "catastrophic" I used right before you posted to qualify the posture of the Iranian troops at the end of the war. And I explained why indeed they couldn't stop Iraq pushback to the areas they controlled. Iran's armed forced had to deal with the growing pressure the total international emgbargo had imposed on its equipment (tanks, planes, artillery pieces, helicopters) during the whole war. Where Iraq could simply ask and get whatever of its units replaced instantly whenever they got destroyed by Iran, the Iranians had to pay 10-folds some black market dealer to give them a fraction of what they needed, and that excluded much of the high-tech equipment they needed direly on the battlefront such as fighter planes or tanks or helos.

Thus, past 1987, their army become more and more inept at fighting, not because they were non-existent but rather because they couldn't man their equipment !

Throughout your ENTIRE post you stick on talking bout the few Iraqi military successes of the whole war that occurred less than months before the final ceasefire and where Iran was undergoing the attrition effect at its peak and was getting pounded by the thousands with freshly transferred chemical weapons from the US and Germany, whereas it initially managed to rapidly push back the invading Iraqi forces bluntly and proficiently in merely a year after they got attacked totally by surprise and with the support of the combined US, European, Soviet and Arab logistical and financial machines. Look up the spectacularly well planned and executed operations I mentioned, and that inflicted never seen before causalities to a middle-eastern army since 67. They all happened in a situation were the conflict was totally rigged in Saddam's favor from the very onset of the conflict.

"Iraq forcefully ejected the Iranian occupiers in 1988. Iraq replaced Iran as the gulf superpower and would have stayed in that position if Saddam had just refrained from taking that fateful risk of wasting the Iraqi military in Kuwait. " ==> a totally wrong statement, Iraq didn't attack Kuwait out of adventurism just like that. It was suffering the effects of a massive war debt their economy couldn't handle. Ultimately repealing the exhausted Iranian forces the Iraqis paid a unsustainable price and their economy was on life support during the whole end of the war which they weren't able to pay after the conflict. Saudi Arabia and other Gulf state refused to pardon the generated debt when Saddam asked them, and he was left with no other options than to look for fresh sources of income. Taking control of neighboring oil fields was clearly one fast and relieving option in the eyes of the dictator.

There was nothing super-powerful with post-war Iraq, there you are simply dreaming. Its economy and infrastructure was at least as much devastated as Iran's, notably because of the war of the cities. Saudi Arabia was holding them by the balls with close to 100 Billion+ war debt accumulated in regards to both the West, around 40 billion, and the Gulf States for roughly the same amount. A debt they couldn't cope with at all, plus an economic loss more or less equivalent to Iran's whereas its size and population were less. Only the massive military and financial aid they received from abroad changed the balance of power dramatically in Iraq's favor on the long run, which started the war with roughly a balanced number of units, suffered crushing defeats in the first year of the war and got repelled to the border faster than anyone would have expected, even got its main oil terminal taken from them, whereas it outnumbered Iran by a factor of 1 to 3-4 at the end of the war, doesn't that look strange to you ? Did these tanks , artillery units and fighter planes just appeared from nowhere and came from Saddam's prowess in doing black magic and summoning them from the sky ?

-A

Anonymous said...

http://globalfirepower.com/countries-listing-middle-east.asp

http://globalfirepower.com/countries-comparison-detail.asp?form=form&country1=Saudi-Arabia&country2=Iran&Submit=Compare+Countries

http://globalfirepower.com/countries-comparison-detail.asp?form=form&country1=Iraq&country2=Iran&Submit=Compare+Countries


http://globalfirepower.com/countries-comparison-detail.asp?form=form&country1=Iran&country2=Afghanistan&Submit=Compare+Countries

http://globalfirepower.com/countries-comparison-detail.asp?form=form&country1=Iran&country2=Pakistan&Submit=Compare+Countries

Basrawi said...

A

The main point of my argument which i intend to unveil now, one which you naturally want to avoid, is that Iraq was on the defensive for much of the war, if you didn't notice. Therefor It doesn't look strange at all. The major international support which Iraq was enjoying seemed comprehensible in light of the Iranian onslaught. It's quite understandable why Iraq was given backing - to stave off an invasion of its territory. Besides, Iran hadn't done itself any dividends by declaring itself the enemy of America and the rest of the Western countries, back in 1979.

In Maj 1982 (Liberation of Khoramshahr), Iran could have remained the "victim" in the world communities eye's if it had just agreed to the UN sponsored cease-fire resolution, which by the way, Saddam was ready to sign on to. Iran's decision to prolong the conflict turned them into the aggressor whilst Iraq became the victim.

The Ayatollah regime successfully verified the fears and suspicions of the international community (that existed before the outbreak of war) that they were indeed set on spreading their revolutionary ideas thru ought the region, by first of all, extending their influence into Iraq and to put a clergy inplace of the one that was ruling at the time. Literally disclosing the same plans and intentions that they were keeping on the low when they came to power after the ousting of the Shah.

Saddam's decision to order a full-scale military assault into Iran was based on fears and predictions that Iran would, if left alone, invade Iraq about 4 years down the road, post 1979. I'm not making any excuses for him, neither do i dwelve into "magic thinking", just stating objective and recognized analysis.

Anonymous said...

WOW, very nice makes me proud to be Iranian.

Anonymous said...

Basrawi,

I don't want nor need to avoid anything, i consider your analysis incorrect, and thus disagree with you, learn to accept that. Iraq attacked Iran without any justifiable provocation to speak of, whatever arguments you chose to bring here to justify Iraq becoming some sort of absurd "attacking victim" is pure speculation even if debatable, since there is no way to ever verify that, simply because technically speaking, your dear Iraq attacked Iran first with major backing from outside powers willing to kill the Revolution while it was at its inception, and not the opposite, a fact that you seem to be utterly unable to see as it is. Iran had freshly undergone nothing less than a Revolution, no matter how you position yourself towards it politically, when Saddam quite conveniently chose to attack it, since in the eyes of the former dictator, it was the right moment to strike the country at its weakest, since both him and his backers erroneously thought that Iran couldn't handle a rapid invasion of its territory, let alone repel it. Quite unsurprisingly though, you seem to be a proponent of the pre-emptive strike doctrine, a concept that has done marvels in regulating world order lately, and ironically, having Iraq itself as its biggest victim. Khomeini was already on the verge of collapse just mere months before Iraq attacked and his ruling clergy was ailing dangerously, Morsi style. But, the surprise war provided him with the opportunity of his life to crack down on internal dissent and strengthen his position again to the top of the country. Contrary to what you claim, he welcomed such an attack and even called it "the best god-given gift to the Revolution" in his memoirs. Of course, it allowed him to believe in his grandest ambitions of controlling the main spots of riches of the Midde-East and make his unrealistic dream of establishing his madness of a global Shia Empire over the region a reality. Saddam's aggression was as relieving at home as as it rendered him dangerously bolstered to move forward with his most delusional goals, and drag with him an entire generation of young men & women to death, and not the other way around as you seem to believe. And these, in turn, are facts. Documented ones. And not whatever "could haves" that never happened and that you use and the pillar of your argumentation. Like stating that Iraq was a regional superpower after its "victory" against Iran, it was something that technically, didn't exist, for the reasons I quoted above in my first reply. Again, documented, with figures and facts. Will you also say now that Saddam acted in pre-preemptive self-defense in attacking Kuwait's oil fields, sir ? I'm asking since poor Saddam's Iraq seems to be blatantly unable at being guilty of anything.

I find it amazing to see you perceiving Iraq has a country with every right to enjoy international support to "stave off an invasion"on its own soil, considering it was the initial aggressor in this affair, and brought whatever consequences of the conflict on itself by trying to take pieces of land from a country that did nothing to trigger it beforehand. And note that Iraq's support, notably Arab backing started with its initial war effort in invading Iran (through sheltering much of its air force before Iran's first massive counterattack), not Iran invading Iraq after repelling its forces to the border, don't try to distort that with your "objective and recognized analysis".

"In Maj 1982 (Liberation of Khoramshahr), Iran could have remained the "victim" in the world communities eye's[...]" ==> isn't that exactly what I said in response to your first post by condemning what I repeatedly called Khomeini's "obsessive" ambitions with Baghdad ? can you please take the time to read my answer with the attention I give yours instead of repeating your claims one post to the other, notwithstanding what I may have said to address them ?

-A