Strategypage, for making up stories that somehow bolster the otherwise shrinking credibility of our defense establishment.

What would Israel do without you? You're true friends! Mmmuah!

Russia sold the C-300 to Cyprus in 1998, but Greece ended up with them to settle a dispute between Cyprus and Turkey (a long story?). Although the S-300 systems the Iranians have are of more recent design, the Greek systems provided the Israelis with practical experience in dealing with the S-300.

A quick google says S300PMU-1 missiles source:

 

"http://geimint.blogspot.com/2008/05/cypriot-missile-crisis.html"

 

 

 

Well, it doesn't really matter in the overall picture, since Iran doesn't have any S-300 SAMs.

DJim appears to be right - we were able to pin-point a number of SA-10 sites in China and they do have clearly defined construction characteristics.  I have done a survey of Iran and found no such sites at this point.  The only SAM sites I can find are SA-2 sites like this one below at Bandar Abbas.

 

It is possible that the Iranians have not constructed such sites and are using strictly mobile SA-10 systems.  However, this appears to be unlikely given the experience we have with the PLA and the organized nature of a Soviet style IADS.

View Larger Map

Thanks, Softwar.  To be fair, I'd call the Iranian IADS more of a western-style IADS than a Soviet-style IADS.  We built it for them back in the 1970s, and they have always emphasized fighter intercepts more heavily and looked at SAMs primarily as point-defenses moreso than the typical Soviet-styled IADS.  Granted, they do have some S-200 (SA-5) batteries that give thin strategic-level area coverage over primarily around Tehran, the western, and the Gulf coast areas of their country. 

 

As I've said before, I do not doubt that they'd like to get S-300, and that it appears that they are trying to get S-300, and that they may well at any time convince the Russians to finally sell them S-300.  I'm just saying "show me the magery."  C'mon, these guys love a parade, and they love to try to show off everything they can in order to look big and tough.  Figure the odds of finally getting some S-300 and then not parading them through the streets or at least showing them in training on Iranian TV?

 

Topographically, isn't Iran very difficult to defend at medium to low altitude for long ranged SAMs? Look at this...

 

h*tp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/Iran_topo_en.jpg/250px-Iran_topo_en.jpg

 

If the air threat has the capability for low altitude terrain following flight, then long ranged SAMs will have a tough time finding targets in all that. It almost makes sense to have a more fighter and point defense centric IAD it seems. They do have some SA-5 in significant numbers near Tehran though and along the coast....

 

h*tp://maps.google.com/maps?ll=35.305266,51.144758&z=15&t=h&hl=en

 

h*tp://maps.google.com/maps?ll=35.201054,48.655671&z=14&t=h&hl=en

 

h*tp://maps.google.com/maps?ll=35.385425,53.739783&z=15&t=h&hl=en

 

h*tp://maps.google.com/maps?ll=35.650862,51.511841&z=15&t=h&hl=en

 

h*tp://maps.google.com/maps?ll=32.786306,51.816036&z=15&t=h&hl=en

 

h*tp://maps.google.com/maps?ll=28.953448,50.818606&z=17&t=h&hl=en

 

h*tp://maps.google.com/maps?ll=27.250449,56.390763&z=16&t=h&hl=en

 

...OK, taking a look at the sites here are my conclusions. These sites are located near key military or civilian infrastructure. Most of those located DEEP within Iran. So any attacker, aka the Iraqis, would necessarily need to flight higher altitude flight profiles due to the short ranges of the Soviet era Iraqi fighters and bombers in the interest of fuel economy and for lack of low altitude flight capability. This would give the SA-5 a chance to exploit its long range to cause attrition on the attackers prior to interception and destruction by the Iranian Air Force fighters. The sites near Tehran cover almost all high altitude along the Iraqi border to Tehran with multiple overlapping coverage. It's clear the system is designed to counter Iraq threats to the west.

 

There is a small gap in the South West but that is made up for by fighters and shorter ranged SAMs. Coverage picks up again over Kuwait and covers almost the entire coastline, most of the Gulf especially near the Iranian shores, all of the Strait of Hormuz, leaving only a small ~100 mile empty stretch of cost uncovered in the South East. Long Range SAM density is considerably lighter in these areas however and do not enjoy the overlapped coverage. It seems that the Iranians are set up to rely even more heavily on fighters in these regions.

 

I'm not sure exactly what there EW coverage is like but again any ground based system will be challenged by the terrain. S-300 would add the element of mobility and survivaability to the equation.  Not to mention a SAM with a higher pk, ECCM and multiple target engagement capability. IIRC it's 6 targets engagesm simultaneously per battery. 

 

-DA

 

 

Thanks for the sites, DA.  I wouldn't call anything about Iranian SAMs "dense."  The first thing I note about the SA-5 sites is how each one only has two launchers.  Something about the one on the edge of the east side of Tehran spells "missile maintenance facility" to me (for one thing I didn't see any radars), leaving (if I'm right) six sites with twelve rails.  By comparison, the four Syrian SA-5 sites have that many at each site, plus they all overlap in coverage.  These Iranian sites are so spread out (naturally, since Iran is a very large country) that--as you wisely bring up, DA--I'd guess they only overlap to some extent at high altitude.  There undobtedly are huge holes in the coverage at lower altitudes.  I'm sure it does not even require terrain following at 200ft using the LANTIRN nav pods to sneak in, either.  The same goes with their EW radars.  Even at high altitude they probably don't caover the whole country, and at low altitude (and by that I mean a few thousand feet, not jsut a few hundred feet)... fuhgetabotit, there are gaps you could drive a BUFF (or even a few dozen) through.

 

Concur. IMHO, the problem with Iran is not getting through the SAMs. It's the MANPADS and guns at the targets and maybe along the way. But modern tactics largely counters that. The USAF or USN would have a field day bombing Iran. Their fighters are equally outclassed. The problem with bombing Iran for the USA is how to capitalize on it? If they are willing to endure it, we will run out of things to bomb. At some point it would take troops in the ground to force the issue and we just don't have room on our plate for that. Not to mention that Iran can actually retaliate regionally and perhaps beyond in ways that arent easy to counter as we have painfully learned. S-300s will add a more deadly SAM. But the same things that work against the SA-5s will hinder it too and all it will do is delay the inevitable. For Israel however, it could matter. Especially if they cant overfly Iraq or Saudi Arabia. 

 

The IDF/AF is already working with a much smaller number of planes and dedicating more to SEAD/EW or even losing a few to more effective S-300 fire would negate some of the effectiveness of their attacks for lack of mass and persistence at targets requireing precise delivery of GBU-28. IOW, if you have 100 plane strike package on a one time raid, how many can you afford to dedicate to SEAD/EW? How may can you lose in the vicinity of the target area and still complete the mission? It's not an unsolvable problem obviously. But an expensive one however it's handled. I know how I'd do it if planning was up to me, Shhhhhhhhh....;)

 

 

-DA

why no mention of the 29 batteries of TOR M1's that Iran recieved in the last year or so?  are you forgetting these and what effect will they have on the equation?

 

link

If you read carefully, shorter range defenses are mentioned. However this was a discussion about long-range strategic systems. The TOR system does significantly increase the local point defense capability of Iranian air defenses. I would say that it's a lot like the U.S. Navy's sea ram system except land-based. While it cannot by itself stop a determined attack by large numbers of aircraft, it could inflict casualties and mission kill against the attacking force unless carefully considered during the planning phases. For the United States Air Force or United States Navy this is a mere nuisance for which there are many means available to deal with it.

 

For the Israeli Air Force however, this could be a significant challenge. First of all, Israel only has a limited number of aircraft that can carry the much heavier ordnance necessary to defeat some of the hardened targets. Those aircraft may have to enter the engagement envelope of the TOR system to deliver their munitions. Not only that, the munitions themselves might be vulnerable on their way down to their impact points. This has the potential to negate the effectiveness of the attack especially since the Israelis are too far way to sustain a bombardment. The challenges are significant but not insurmountable.  Either through special operations, electronic warfare or significantly stepped up defense suppression missions. They will however carry a vastly increased operational risk to any Israeli Air Force operation.  The greatest unknown in making this assessment however is the electronic warfare domain. If the system is compromised, the Israeli jets could fly in and out like they did in Syria and Iraq before that. If not, things could get very bloody messy. There just isn't any real way to make the assessment in open sources prior to something actually happening. My opinions this, the Israelis would not strike unless they were reasonably certain of a reliable countermeasure.

 

 

 

-DA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K330_Tor">link" target="_blank">link

Just for clarification, I believe it's 29 launch vehicles, which I think are normally deployed at something like 4 or 5 to the battery.  But then, as we've seen with at least the SA-5, Iran doesn't always stick to convention with their deployment doctrine.  Here are a couple threads where they are briefly discussed.  There are other threads that mention them, as well.

 

Thread 2

 

Also If Israel were going to strike, wouldn't they count on American assistance? Also hasn't the US sold /going to sell Israel Tomahawks? With the US spotting for the Israelis, the TLAM's would be right on target. I can't imagine an airstrike without TLAM's as a percursor.

 

Flyingarty