Iranian Missiles | News and Discussions

[TallGuy]

It looks like an intercontinental ballistic missile

i am telling you they are putting anti satalite killer vehicles in orbit - they need atleady 4-5 at anygiven time - once TP-III starts they want to degrade millitary comms and recon satallites out of order.

 

[jauk]

If there’s any truth to this, given the country is very large , Iran either can’t hide it from satellites or doesn’t want to:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Immortals]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Hack-Hook]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

I serriously doubt it is less than 10-15km of altitude

 

[Hack-Hook]

Other explanations: satellite disintegration (last night a Starlink satellite disintegrated in SW USA skies) , meteor, US black project (ie Aurora), UFO.

sattelite disintegration , you see several different size burning parts

 

[Immortals]

sattelite disintegration , you see several different size burning parts

Problem with satellite disintegration is the plasma burn was too long. No satellite can withstand that heat as long as it did and no video shows it’s completely breaking apart,

This what satellite disintegration looks like (starlink)

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

And satellite re-entry’s are typically done over water not east to west of Iran/Azeribajian. Lastly, whose satellite was it? No one has claimed responsibility, usually space agencies or the corporation in charge declare it especially if it’s going to happen near/over land of another country.

It looks like a HGV + rocket booster test. What you see “falling” off is a mixture of coolant and debris from the heat shield of the rocket booster after kicking starting the HGV to supersonic speed.

Most of these HGV tests end in disintegration once the thermal stresses exceed the metallurgy of the HGV. Could simply have been a Fatah-2 test as a warning to Israel/US.

 

[Persian Gulf]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Immortals]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[StrategicBear]

With ICBM tests taking priority now, will TP3 be cancelled?

 

[Shawnee]

Jangavar, says it looks low and subsonic ergo a cruise missile.

This is not low and not slow.
An engine I have never seen so far. Even in SLVs.

Either ICBM or a very heavy warhead equaling ICBM.

 

[Mehdipersian]

With ICBM tests taking priority now, will TP3 be cancelled?

No
ICBM tests are for America

 

[Han]

I made it clear that being a PBV, it is designed to carry submunitions/clustered warhead OR can be used for MIRV. Nowhere I said it currently carries MIRV although Amir Hatami claimed that. I refuse to believe anything until I see it. Why I think it can be a contender to carry MIRV from Iranian arsenal, the diameter of 1.5+ m which not even Sejjil has. For sejjil to carry MIRV, they will have to use the SLV version of Sejjil with a MIRV bus like the Satellite-Bus in Zoljaneh SLV. Saying this, it won't be very smart to think that a country that can deploy Multiple Sat-Buses thrusted by TVCed-kickoff stages cant deploy MIRVed warheads.

CEP is irrelevant for a PBV deploying submunitions or MIRV. They do post-separation corrections (PSC) and then open their mouths towards enemies to release bomblets. They are designed to take out large areas like AD installations, airfields, soft bunkers, aircrafts parked in the open etc.

My take is that only a few K-1/2 exist because of a simple reason, an MaRV for an accurate strike at 3000 KM is useless so IRGCAF moved to K-4 PBV (K-3 probably was just a prototype designation) which I believe will now be produced in numbers considering Iran is now actively engaged in targeting Israeli AD batteries/radars so PBV like K-4 deploying submunition is something we may see attacking THAAD.

I watched footage of K-4 its an attitude control system on its RV, not a PBV but it can be considered a crude PBV.
@Immortals was claiming wings are necessary for MARV, No, thrusters can also do what wings can, though its unknown if iran has worked on such miniature propulsion. if a country has achieved attitude control for exo course correction, it shouldn't be difficult for it to develop, smaller thruster for RV.

 

[jauk]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Persian Gulf]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Immortals]

@Immortals was claiming wings are necessary for MARV, No, thrusters can also do what wings can, though its unknown if iran has worked on such miniature propulsion.

This is not correct at all.

A thruster exclusive approach is extremely challenging as the [iranian] warhead has limited time and space onboard for such a system. First, you would need a thruster with a very high thrust to weight ratio to overcome the challenging aerodynamic forces (Mach 6+) acting upon the warhead. Where as fins work alongside said forces a thruster would be working against such forces. And need I tell you those forces are quite immense as the atmosphere becomes denser and the plasma shroud and shockwave grows.

You cannot adjust in upper atmosphere since air is too thin and limited ability to predict final atmospheric conditions, so a small error can throw the warhead off much further than a smaller error at a lower altitude.

Later on the atmosphere becomes too dense and control of warhead becomes even harder as the shockwave/plasma is greater around the warhead.

More engineering challenges include the weight of propellant needed and space it takes up inside the warhead, sensor limitations in a plasma environment, delays from onboard computer to actual thruster output, and the extremely short time you have for adjustments. A slight miscalculation can increase thermal stress and lead to warhead disintegration.

So I have to disagree strongly, thrusters only cannot do what a winged warhead can do and certaintly not a warhead the size of the typical Iranian BM carriers.

So taking a K-4 warhead and trying to add a sometime of thrust vectoring system that can accurately provide enough thrust to offset course deviations AND the severe aerodynamic forces acting upon it is impractical for terminal guidance of an Iranian conventional warhead and unnecessary for a nuclear one.

I cannot think of a single BM in existence today that does that and does it at a reasonable cost.

Even China’s “carrier killer” DF-21D uses a finned MarV. Russia’s Avanguard - also has fins on its glide vehicle.

So I am curious what ballistic missile you are referring to that has already overcome these engineering challenges?