Sunday, August 23, 2015

Public unveiling of Fateh-313 short-range ballistic missile

On 22AUG15 during Defense Industry Day in Tehran, a ceremony was held at IAIO to publicly unveil the Fateh-313 ("Conqueror-313") short-range ballistic missile.

This is the first unveiling of new Iranian ballistic missile technology since the signing of JCPOA. It follows Iranian parliamentary and military official calls for ballistic missile exercises, presumably intended as a show of force in defiance of JCPOA sanctions-related compromises and UNSC resolution restrictions agreed upon by the Rouhani administration.

Claimed range for the 6th generation solid-propellant Fateh-series SRBM is 500 km, giving the new variant an intended comparable range and sought-after accuracy of Iskander-M (NATO: SS-26 Stone) mobile SRBM system.

Fateh-313 appears to be feature composite materials, providing a lighter weight than previous variants. MODAFL claims the new variant"runs on combined solid fuel using a domestically-designed sensor" and has "been previously test-fired and successfully hit targets". MODAFL further states the Fateh-313 is intended for serial production.

Partially raised erector beam of Fateh-313 moble TEL, obscured by camouflage netting

For comparison purposes: a 4th generation Fateh-110 SRBM; imagery published in Iranian media in August 2012


VIDEO:

Photos: MODAFL and Fars News Agency

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

A conventional military threat to Iran by its neighbors isn't foreseen in any near future especially so with the recent nuclear agreement .So why is Iran spending so much time and money developing capabilities that could be rendered ineffective in future conflicts ?
I think Iran's defense doctrine and military posture is totally flawed and misguided .It seems that their main military objective is to thwart a U.S.-led military attack .Iran is not expected to prevail in an confrontation with U.S. under any given circumstances , instead it should focus on real threats to its security that emanates from Taliban in Afghanistan, ISIL in Iraq or Al-Qaeda in the Persian Gulf region .Ironically there is a remarkable over-lap between Iranian and American security objectives in those areas .Frankly , I think Iran should devout more resources to terrorist-hunting UAV/UCAVs than ballistic missiles .

Alborz said...

no
better focusing on Threat from US/Israel.
to defeat the US(Isreal is not too diffcult. we see their low performance in
Vietnam Iraq , Afghanistan,.. Gaza.

the so mighty UIS Arme lost most of the conflicts after WWII

Anonymous said...

President Rouhani stated that we can only negotiate with others if we will be strong (militarilly) and independent.....

And it is you Anon at 8:00 AM, that you are totally flawed......., your previous comments that Russia is only talking (without senses) are the proofs of that.

+A

Anonymous said...

Well, regardless of the conflicts you mentioned ,my point was that it's extremely unlikely for Iran to survive a military confrontation with the U.S.
Israel is not a threat to Iran and it has ample capabilities to defend itself .

Anonymous said...

The video test doesn't show good accuracy probably because it was rushed into test without proper calibration. But generally speaking after last month announcement of laser gyro development one was expecting a better IMU/INS sensor and better accuracy. Now this missile with composite skin (same approach Raytheon has taken for its cheaper missile systems) and compound solid fuel is a significant step towards cheaper and more accurate tactical system.

Anonymous said...

Iran's conventionnal missile development efforts at aimed at one thing and can be summed up in two words that constitutes the core of its defense doctrine : strategic deterrence. Whuch basically means having enough capabilities to inflict unacceptable or hardly acceptable short and mid-term damage to an enemy's military and civilians assets of significance within its reach in order to deter this greater foe from undertaking an effort at going forward with a first strike option. It is tied to the concept of asymetrical warfare in which Iran has put a great deal of thought and produced litterature in the past couple decades, which underlines the absence of a need to actually win an unwinnable war by being able to avert it from starting. More than a thousand Fateh-class SRBMs, and hundreds of Sejil-2 / Ghadr-F class IRBMs + hundreds of C802/803 launchers deployed along the PG shores are perfect for that job since they can respectively wreak havock in neighboring GCC airbases and petrochemical infrastructure with a required flight time of less than 3 minutes which will augment the effectiveness of saturations attacks along with cheap decoys against ABM systems, that are renowned for not having been tested in such massive scenarios anyway to this day. This capability has been keeping the IDF at bay for years despite a strong and declared apetite to deal with the iranian nuclear program the Osirak way. Without fear of heavy retaliation on its vital infrastructure from Iran's missile forces, Israel would have had no more hesitation to score a blow with Tehran than it ever had in dealing with its enemies in history. Osirak in 1981 then Syria in 2007 must come as an indication to their perception of restraint. For the same reason you do not see a similar concerted effort by the GCC at pulling a Yemeni-style campaign against it. Qatar's sole major airbase for example wouldn't last a day with their negligible strategic depth and close proximity to Iran which make their few concentrated assets within reach of litterally everything Iran has to launch. Likewise Iran would suffer inevitable damage to its own forces and infrastructure in IDF/GCC airstrikes no matter what, and of course would lose any war of attrition against the American military machine. But my point is precisely that : If there is no immediate conventionnal threat to Iran as you say it is largely because of a strategic balance existing today between potential actors that prefer to rely on proxy battles on foreign land to settle the score which each other rather than to enter a frontal war against one another. The US for its part needs Iran more in a troubled and AQ/IS plagued Mid-East than it can afford to turn it into a 1.6 million km sq. battefield and antagonize the brunt of its 75M population. Even the Bush admin didn't make its move when vocal warmongers like Ahmadinejad were in power and America saw the peak of its expansionist policies in the region while not about to suffer a financial crisis or a trillion dollar debt.

-A

Anonymous said...

Dear Anon 06:56
We don't want to spend all day reading your comments : keep them short . thanks .

Anonymous said...

Dear anon 3:51, what you do with your time or your opinion of my style are none of my concern I'm afraid. So either you can come up wih a viable counter-argumentation to address my points, or you can spare us such futile interventions in the future. It's not like there are lenghty,mature debates occuring on this blog every once in a while. Thanks !

PS : Mr. Uskowi, I am surprised such post got past moderation, was it voluntary ?

-A

Anonymous said...

Anon 3:51, if you do not like somebody's opinion and/or feel unable to answer it, refrain from making things personal like you just did. For the sake of your own dignity.

Anonymous said...

AnonymousAugust 23, 2015 at 5:26 PM
Well said,also your August 23, 2015 at 6:56 AM is 100% correct,well said again!

Anonymous said...

At Anon 5:26, If you can punctuate it and leave a line space between paragraphs or at least make paragraphs you may have more readers. I gave up reading it after first few lines. I guess that is the reason it passed through moderation. You better follow good writing style.

Anonymous said...

Anon 1:47,

Funny it seems I have more vocal supporters than you have on that exchange alone even by your standards. Again, you're free to do whatever you may like with your time or my post, not my problem. And if you're really looking for a fanclub on a political blog I think you need your head examined, and fast. That was me thinking I still had a chance at finally getting back on topic and see you behave like a grown up. You really did bring this to that level, congrats to you. Say no to drugs and have a good life, little troller.

-A

Anonymous said...

At A - :) I tried to help you as it seems you didn't know why it passed the moderator :) It seems you take yourself too serious and do not fancy the truth. I think who ever read your last post and post @6:56 and my post to you @1:47 and this one would know what to think.

Anyway, despite what you said nobody questioned the content only the way it was written and that also because you raised the question @5:26 (I didn't read all as I said , it is not well written anyway) . You are so full of yourself, even when Anonymous :)

Anonymous said...

@3:51 try finding which one of even this pages responses is from me . Moderator knows as he sees IP addresses. Without knowing that accusing people as troller and on drugs just shows what a character you have. I expected more from you as I have read your other posts. You seem very arrogant but I am sure this encounter has put its mark where it is necessary.

Anonymous said...

At anon 8:17,

time trying to play smart and get real for a second - had you agreed even in part to anything I had said initially, you would have refrained from trying to disqualify it in the cheap, condescending way you did in the first place, and reactions to it apart from mine illustrated people's displeasure with that soon after. You didn't like my views hence your attempt at taking it down the easy way, plain and simple. Indeed, replying to this thread several times to this day certainly took you longer than reading my post several times over, so time was never an issue to you. You fool no one with that either. Pointing out these facts, and calling on you to behave as a gentleman and instead contribute to the kind of mature topics of discussion that this place is intented to host has hardly anything to do with arrogance, it was rather merely a call for decency that you are totally unable to hear, quite unsurprisingly so considering your take on debates in general it seems. At least I can say I tried.

Like every regular participant here, I have detractors and supporters, both quite vocal. And you would know that yourself already, had you ever really read any of my previous posts as you falsely claim. But so far, nobody has ever come close in persisting in such obstinate, unintelligent attempts to distract attention from my core arguments and resort to childplay to counter it. What you insist on doing is beyond pathetic in that regard - judging the form rather than the content shows how intellectually inept you are.

Naturally, I tend to react when disrespected by people I have never attacked in the first place, like anybody would do, it's as simple as that. That doesn't make me "so full of myself" or "taking myself too seriously". I have enough people around me in and outside of this blog to remain assured of my capacity to produce analysis, no need to worry for me, or my style for that matter I swear :-)

And I'm glad to see you came to your own help at 8:23, but I'm afraid I usually only speak once to one and the same person in a single discussion. Nice try though !

Cheers,

-A ;-)

Farbod bigdeli said...

What are you talking about? How on earth did you come to the conclusion it does not show good accuracy? There is no visible target in the video.