IRIAF F-4E Phantom II alongside upgraded air-launched Qadr and Nasr missiles
Formal unveiling of Project Dowran: air launched Nasr (C-704 variant) and Qader (extended range C-802/3 variant). Claimed ranges are 35 km and 200 km, respectively, with latter claimed GPS assisted.
Abbas Dowran was an IRIAF fighter pilot, KIA and hero of the Imposed War (1980-88). He received his flight training at Columbus AFB (CBM / KCBM), a USAF base located in Mississippi, USA.
Video:
Photo: MODAFL
Why are they building air-to-air missiles when they don't even have a capable air force?
ReplyDeleteQader and the smaller Nasr are anti-ship cruise missiles (variants of Chinese C-802 and C-704 respectively). The post here is about the ability of the Iranians to mount these ASCMs on F-4 Phantoms, still the workhorse of Iranian air force, and now they can be launched from airplanes, extending their range and accuracy. What Defense Minister Dehqan is announcing in this video is huge for the country's air/missile force.
DeleteThat's not what I meant. I don't care how upgraded those F-4s are, modern air-defense systems will make it difficult for them to get close enough to U.S or allied vessels to fire without the whole operation being suicidal.
DeleteMaybe they're readying the missiles for Iran's national fighter jet.
On entire naval battle groups supported by airborne sensors , yes, even a standoff attack would prove difficult for any non-stealth fighter, again would it be a F-4 or a F-16/16/18 makes no difference, in such a scenario only weapon systems and electronic self defense suit really count. Japan and Turkey still use their F'4s in the support role,Iran is not alone in this case. For targetting isolated ,smaller groups of mid-sized vessels (which is basically what the neighboring navies are comprised of) an upgraded F4 supported by larger coastal radars and a 200km range missile is more than decent deterrence. And you have to consider it integrated into a larger apparatus in the Persian Gulf. In a total war where these assets would be involved, they wouldnt be alone, there is a belt of hundreds of 300km range ground based qaders already deployed on the PG shores, with newer quasi-ballistic Fateh 110s (aka Khalij Fars) with demonstrated pinpoint ability against 1000-ton vessels, added as once another layer of sea denial weaponry. Considering their strenght, GCC and israeli navies are not survivable in a combat deployment in the PG as it is Those air-launched missile are just another difficulty.
DeletePiruz MollazadehSeptember 27, 2013 at 5:18 AM
DeleteThats why they have 200km stand off range,as it stands iran can target any ship within 200-300kms of irans coastline with its existing ground launched anti ship weapons,throw in air launching and you can hit or deter naval targets well out into the indian ocean,you can also hit land based targets well beyond irans borders.The next step for iran should be supersonic air launched antiship or land attack cruise missiles
I see
DeleteThe Phantom F4 radar signature is as large as the Titanic !
ReplyDeleteYes !!!! So is the majority of Israel's older 250+ F-16s !!!!
DeleteAt least Israel has 250+ F16s and 200 F15s !! At best Iran has 40 to 60 F4s and 20 to 25 F14 flying coffins with 1970s worn out air frames and unreliable engines. And remember, Iran isn't the only one with ballistic missiles.
DeleteAnon 9:29 AM
DeleteI agree.Those people who think to compare an high tech air force with a thired rate air power like Iran's need their head examined. I suppose if Iran had bi-planes in their arsenal it would be the best air force in the world. Laughable!
Wrong :-) it has 20 (TWENTY, no 200) or so F-15s dude, get your numbers checked. And something like 100+ F-16I, the only F-16s out of its 350 or so fighers of that type not as worn-out as Iran's F-14s, and able to bomb targets as far as Iran (barely). None of them is able to go to Iran and back, it isn't supposed to be their attack fleet, and is only designed for air superiority within its own borders until they are phased out. They cannot carry precision air-to-ground weaponry either. And what's the relation to our topic there ? we talk anti-ship capabilities and you go on a mathematical comparison of the countries' raw inventories as if they were about to fight in a vacuum all at once, disregarding every contextual consideration in the process, this is not serious.
DeleteBut let's have it your way : most sources estimate Iran's operational fleet comprised of 45-60 F-14s (depending on sources), 35 Mig-29s, 60+ F-4s, and 30+ Su-24s since 2006 (mostly confirmed by available literature). Before that, the state of the IRIAF was quite appalling, with like 7 F-14s and 20 F-4 flyable at any given time. I will be the first to say. Indian, chinese, and russian courtesy of "near- zero hour" air-frame & engine maintenance and internal systems upgrades, not to mention Iran's own growing aerospace capabilities. A more than capable fleet if used in a defensive posture together with a robust air defense net in the event Israel finally does it alone, which I doubt since Rouhani got elected. Of their Sufas, Israel can barely send 80 to Iran considering their limited tanker fleet (google it, you'll have plenty of open source documentation stating that exact number), and this with little to no room for maneuver over Iranian territory if anything goes wrong, and it WILL go very wrong, trust me, their top brass knows better, hence its persistent hesitation and two canned attempts by Netanhyahu to go it alone since 2010.
Finally, yes, Iran IS the only country in the ME with such a massive and diverse ballistic arsenal. Israel is reported to have 40 or so Jericho ICBMs, logical since they are supposed to be fitted with nuclear warheads. In a conventional capacity, they represent a negligible strategic asset, and their industrial capacity to produce them is of no compare to Iran, which in turn can put great harm on industrial and military targets in the event of an all-out war with its several hundreds-strong solid and liquid-fuelled MRBMs with a CEP acknowledged globally at <300m (contrary to the start of the decade, where most of their long range inventory of Shahabs were "city busters" with kilometric precision, useless for anything other than pounding civilian areas randomly, like Iraq did during the missile wars with Iran).
Iran's whole doctrine has rightfully been based on concentrating their capabilities through these delivery vectors since the inception of the indigenous armament project, and with reason, since developing a homegrown fighter fleet is resources and time greedy as hell, let alone procuring the needed tech, a gigantic task it cannot even pull nowadays. Iran will eventually get there in the coming decade, it will come to fruition but the missile and air defense programs get top funding priority every year, which has been largely successful in deterring the Israeli Air Force from unilateral airstrikes so far. Remember, Tel Aviv is a few minutes away from any western part of Iran for a ballistic missile. They have an undiable technological edge fighter-wise, but they will be the ones attacking, without critical support their Iranian counterparts would enjoy defending their home base with both ground and air assets.
PS : considering the number of air accidents related to engine failure, Israel and Iran are almost on par, with 2 or 3 occurrences reported for each since 2007 if my memory serves me right.
Iran has more F-14s, at least 48. It also has MiG-29s and Mirage F1s.
DeleteAnon 4:32 PM.......Wrong. Looks like you need your figures checked out dude. Israel has 83+ F15s and 330+ F16s. Where did you get the 20 F15s from?
DeleteIran is nowhere on par with Israel as regards losses because Israel can easily replace those losses where Iran can't.
And also don't forget Iran can't maintain the constant combat turn around of their air force due to shortage of spares,unrealible and old engines and air frames.
Also when it comes to missiles traffic flows both ways.
These are sad truths.
There is little comparison between israel and irans missile forces,the israeli forces number in the tens at most as israel follows western doctrine of small numbers of missiles for the delivery of nuclear weapons,irans force numbers anywhere from the low hundreds right up to a couple of thousand.The iranians would use their missiles to carry out long range attacks instead of using their airforce which is mainly defensive in nature,tho it can certainly carry out offensive operations if needed.The israelis could use their missile forces to attack iran but considering the size of iran and the small size of israels missile force it would be a waste,they would also run out long before iran did.In any missile exchange most of the traffic would be flowing in israels direction,throw in the tens of thousands of rockets from Hezbollahs arsenal and you get an idea of the sort of "traffic" israel would have to deal with,under those circumstances one can see why the israelis would rather that the us would do all the dirty work of fighting iran
DeleteSeptember 27, 2013 at 6:38 PM,
Deletemy bad, lack of precision on my post ! I only counted the specific type of F-15s able to go to Iran and back, the F-15I "Ra'am", just like their F-16I "Sufa" counterparts, and that indeed makes 25 them. They definitely do NOT possess 200 of those birds, contrary to the initial post I reacted to though my friend, all versions included. Agreed for the ability of the IDF to easily replace those birds thanks to their superpower patron and provider. For the "missile traffic" both myself and September 28, 2013 at 12:10 AM did the job of explaining our point. Yes it flows, but not with the same volume. At all. Iran's MRBMs targeting major IDF airbases by the dozens if not hundreds with a 300m CEP on a small number of concentrated airbases in Israel and its tiny strategic depht, is a prospect their top brass doesn't want to hear about, as i previously said, which prompted them to stop Bibi from ordering a strike twice since the couple of past years already.
what navy would F-4's be able to fly against?
ReplyDeletethe Iranian planes would cease to exist if sent out against a carrier group of the USN.
however, if Iran is attacked by Somalian pirates the F4s would do well.
Basically any regional navy, considering that what matters in an anti-ship operation is the ability of the pilot to fly its fighter close to the sea in the ingress phase and be able to evade through supersonic speed on the digress phase. 200km is a significant distance, even modern naval radars have hard time picking up a fighter-sized target at that range, a F-16, F-15 or F-4 matters little, none of them have been designed with stealth in mind anyway, so your claim against the F-4 is void, let alone that it isnt the only platform that will ultimatly carry it. Plus, iranian fighter school have ample successful combat record to teach their cadets. Ask the Iraqis what was left of their navy after operation Morvarid. And the IRIAF used 20km range Mavericks to do the job. You will say now is 2013. Yes, thats why they now use 200km range sea skimming jam-resistant missiles in place of short range ATGMs. Ask the crew of the Israeli Hanit frigate if you still doubt their effectiveness. Now granted, the USN is a beast to go head on against,but it would be the case for any airforce short of China or Russia.
DeleteA.
AnonymousSeptember 27, 2013 at 6:24 AM
DeleteWell said,this gives the iranian air force the ability to target naval vessels well out into the indian ocean,in addition these weapons also have some land attack capability as well,not to mention that these can also be deployed from the su24 and f14 fleets.The iranians already have a pretty potent antiship capability and this just increases it further
The Argentinians with less capable assets sunk and damaged British navy ships, never understimate your enemy specially one that can fight back.....
DeleteAnon 6:24 AM---
Deletethe USN isn't dependent on their ship-borne radars as I expect that you know. they have eyes way overhead that track air traffic over Iran.
Which did not prevent intrusions of basic Iranian drones which returned with close-up clips of USN carriers since 2006. But I am well aware of their "eyes in the sky", and I mentioned it in another post in this page (i.e. "AWACS"). That is why I said taking on the USN would be a hard task for "any" airforce, Iran and even Israel included, short of Russia and China and their massive and advanced offensive anti-ship means. The belittling tone of some other posts brought me to remind of a few realities here that's all. I focused the strategic value of this news on its implication for REGIONAL navies, and I started my first post as such, I invite you to re-read. With such an asset, and upcoming longer-ranged versions we are sure to see in the future, it will indeed pose a growing interdiction zone for USN ships as well, without drastically changing the balance of forces in that particular field. In the event of a (now fortunatly distant) total war , Iran's best bet would be to target and pound nearby US regional ground bases and the USN 5th fleet in Bahrein, which is in range of 90% of its missiles, short, mid and longer ranged.
DeleteA.