Page 102 of 204 FirstFirst ... 25292949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110112152202 ... LastLast
Results 1,516 to 1,530 of 3050

Thread: Islamic Republic of Iran Armed Forces - Official thread

  1. #1516
    Member philM.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    135

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Piggy View Post
    Well, laser detector seem's to be on the mast at the back end of the turret.
    Since I am not fammiliar neither with technical nor tactical procedures of Shtora system, so this would be pure speculation; positioning of Shtora device in line with main gun enables engagement of firing post (if sufficient time) and exposes turrets front arc, which is heaviest armour on tank. Assuming that Iranians have done their homework, finding out that big amount of Iraqi armoured forces were engagged on the move in the coloumns, such (off-axis) placement of the jammer is plausible. Furthermore, glassy apearance of the box surface very similar to the heat transient ceramics directs my thinking in the Shtora copy way. But it could be of course also stove with ceramics-plate for entire crew (after debacle with Qaher I am no longer sure about anything presented by Iranians-so goal is achieved).
    Laser detectors usually are boxy objects with some kind of optics which are placed around a tank or i.e. ship and cover certain parts, like their "field of view". A central laser detector of that size mounted on a pole would be very unusual at least.

    Whilst your argument on the off-axis emplacement is a good one, there would be a serious tactical problem with this: The shtora system and that's the one we compare it to, has a very small area it can effectively jam of just a few degrees up and down so it has to be aimed straight at the launcher of a missile. With the Shtora system this is described to happen manually, so here you would have to turn the side of the turret towards the threat after recognising an attack.
    Well, at least in German Army it would be a common procedure to immediately turn IN on the threat and open fire with all you've got to maybe cause the shooter or helicopter to get into cover and loose his aim. Basically turning away from the threat just doesn't seem to be a good idea in any combat situation.

  2. #1517

    Default

    Most of Eastern laser detectors are constructed in a way that several laser beam detecting sensors are placed radial (with a certain angle of view) so entire radius is covered. Also direction is therefore covered. Regarding use of Shtora, you've answered by yourself with german procedure. But this is very likely the way it would happened on Euro-Asian battlefield. SACLOS (3-Dot aiming and guiding technique), which could be jammed if fourth signal appears (Shtora type) in its sight is mainly used on older types of ATGW (TOW-older versions, HOT, AT-4,-5...). First, this technique is superseeded by IIR sensors in missiles like Spike or laser guidance. And second, in deserts I would rather be on safer distance (more than 3km) from targets-so TOW, AT-5 are weapons of choise (since price could be also limiting factor). From that point, Iranian intent is to survive (very likely air) attack and not to be engaged in. But, these are mere speculations.

  3. #1518
    Cousin Belkie AIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,589

    Default

    Or it could be just a box pretending to be something else. Not unheard of from Iran.

  4. #1519

    Default

    What is the name of trucks on previous page ?

  5. #1520
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Russia
    Posts
    1,292

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AL-Khalid View Post
    What is the name of trucks on previous page ?
    Neinava

    Attachments Pending Approval Attachments Pending Approval

  6. #1521
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by philM. View Post
    Laser detectors usually are boxy objects with some kind of optics which are placed around a tank or i.e. ship and cover certain parts, like their "field of view". A central laser detector of that size mounted on a pole would be very unusual at least.
    Iranian FCS are based on Fotona EFCS-3 design. Slovenian company offers detectors similar to Iranian ones, although not identical.
    http://www.fotona.com/en/non-medical...rning-systems/
    Closeup of Iranian detector:

  7. #1522
    Member philM.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    135

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mattin View Post
    Iranian FCS are based on Fotona EFCS-3 design. Slovenian company offers detectors similar to Iranian ones, although not identical.
    http://www.fotona.com/en/non-medical...rning-systems/
    Closeup of Iranian detector:
    Thanks mattin, I was totally unaware of that system. I only knew the russian ones and the ones on our patrol-boats from Rheinmetall.

    @Piggy:

    Again, you made a good point. I'm interested if in the future there will be some information on that "boxes"...

  8. #1523

    Default

    You can find plenty of Laser warning systems on the internet. Similarity, as mattin stated for slovenian detector could hold the water, however there are also similar chinese, pakistani or ever british products of the same purpose. I do not have any info as mattin apparently does regarding export of slovenian LIRD to Iran. But it is true, that in past Fotona sold EFCS to Iran. If LIRD was in that package, I do not know-strange that "copy" has appeared only now.

  9. #1524
    Senior Member Surenas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    7,646

    Default


  10. #1525
    Senior Member Surenas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    7,646

    Default






  11. #1526
    Senior Member Surenas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    7,646

    Default


  12. #1527
    Senior Member Surenas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    7,646

    Default

    How the Shah of Iran saved Grumman and the future of the F-14. Really nice read:

    http://theaviationist.com/2013/02/11.../#.URvjcKXLByY

  13. #1528

    Default F313

    diagram of F-313 layout. Cool plane. I think the plane is a subsonic light strike aircraft. And with limited thrust and performance and only very rudimentary avionics. Like no radar. Maybe no cannons. And the wings are really thick with no leading edge moving parts.

    Also the cockpit is not pressurized and looks understrength and radar transparent which isn't good, like a light aircraft.
    Attachments Pending Approval Attachments Pending Approval

  14. #1529
    Senior Member Surenas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    7,646

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ich View Post
    diagram of F-313 layout. Cool plane. I think the plane is a subsonic light strike aircraft. And with limited thrust and performance and only very rudimentary avionics. Like no radar. Maybe no cannons. And the wings are really thick with no leading edge moving parts.
    What about its engine?

  15. #1530

    Default

    From the intake size I think it is a J85 non-afterburning like on the Tazarve trainer

    Tazarve:
    Attachments Pending Approval Attachments Pending Approval

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •