Iran's indigenous UAVs

Iran Shahed-171 (simorgh) UCAV flight test پهپاد شاهد-۱۷۱ (سیمرغ)







Iran IRGC "Shahed 129" UCAV in southeast borders of Iran combat reconnaissance پهپاد شاهد ۱۲۹

Iran UCAV interception of U.S UCAV in Syria رهگیری هواپیمای بدون سرنشین آمریکا توسط پهپاد ایرانی

Iran Khatam al-Anbia air defense airborne UAV unitsآشیانه پهپادهای پدافند هوایی خاتم الانبیاء

Iran 4th Innovative UAV Design Competition IUDC, Kalaleh چهارمين مسابقات پهپاد دانشجويي كلاله

Iran Mohajer 6 UCAV & Qaem long range smart bomb ایران پهپاد تهاجمی مهاجر ۶ / بمب نقطه‌زن قائم

The Iranian UAVs are causing more and more fears in Israel

According to the TTU newsletter in the material "Israël: empêcher l'Iran de sevier de l '" aérodrome "syrien", Israel at any cost decided to prevent Iran from using Syria as a launching pad for UAVs, and direct confrontation is not ruled out. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has already taken various measures.

What is even more alarming, Tehran acknowledged that at least seven of its servicemen were killed on April 9 during an Israeli strike at the T4 airbase near Homs. Among the dead is a senior IRGC officer, who, according to Israeli intelligence, is a specialist in the field of UAVs. For the first time, Tehran openly acknowledged the human losses caused by the activities of the "Zionist enemy".



UAV Hamaseh Iranian production

After a while, Israel began to assert that the Iranian UAV with explosives, taken off from the T4 airbase in February of this year, was shot down after the invasion of Israel's airspace. An important detail - this statement was made two months after the operation, which can serve as a recognition that the Israeli UAVs are presented not only as a means of reconnaissance, but also as a real shock weapon that can be used for revenge for a strike on T4.

Israeli intelligence is showing increasing interest in Iranian UAVs. According to the representative of the Ministry of Defense of Israel, "their UAVs are not as perfect as ours, but they are not bad and can be effective." In recent years, Iran has been transferring its UAV to its allies in Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon (for the Hezbollah movement). One of them - Hamaseh with a mass of 440 kg can carry useful loads in the form of electronic systems and missiles and has a range of 200 km.

According to the Israeli military, "the Iranians have proved that they have UAVs for percussion problems, although these vehicles do not have the accuracy they are talking about." According to him, the threat from the penetration of [UAV] and their attacks on "strategic facilities" such as military bases, power stations, ports, is such that Israel believes that these UAVs deployed in Syria or Lebanon are a "legitimate" goal.

Military intelligence believes that Iran is limited by the lack of a satellite system that allows data to be transmitted in real time. The use of intelligence can only be carried out after the UAV is returned to the base, and this leads to a loss of time.

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3174858.html

Iran Exhibition of Defense Achievements, Authority_40 / 2019
Shahed_171 UCAV/ Simorgh /U.S RQ_170 / Shahed_129 UCAV

Iran's first wide-body jet combat drone UCAV dubbed Khodkar

Iran Shahed_129 UCAV real-time" images from 1000s kilometers away using satellite systems, Satcom test , and strike

Iran IRGC_AS UCAVs exercise combat missions in carried out from more than 1,000 km away, dubbed Ela Beit ul-Muqaddas-1

Shahed_129, Iranain RQ_170, UCAV

IRGC Holds Massive Drone Exercise over Persian Gulf
https://tn.ai/1968900

I have asked before , what is range of say a carrier based plane like F18 or new drone , with minimal payload and maximized fuel / refuelling programme , to achieve longest flight from shore . They need this to keep out of range of our drones and missiles hitting the launch platform . A mathematical routine , probably computerised needed to predict optimal and semi - optimal refuelling points . These solutions will give range of aircraft carriers from shore . Position of refuelling air tankers . Our drones / planes and missile ranges then need to be fixed accordingly .

nomadski wrote:
I have asked before , what is range of say a carrier based plane like F18 or new drone , with minimal payload   and maximized  fuel / refuelling programme , to achieve longest flight from shore . They need this to keep out of range of our drones and missiles hitting  the launch platform . A mathematical routine  , probably computerised needed to predict optimal and semi - optimal  refuelling  points . These solutions will give range of aircraft carriers from shore . Position of refuelling  air tankers . Our drones / planes and missile ranges  then need to be fixed accordingly  .

F-18 hi-lo-lo-hi profil is around 560km range. With normal payload I assume like some air to air missile and two or three small bombs. No payload and full load of fuel makes the fighter useless.

F-35 should be around that data too.

Drones should have longer legs but far less armement and lower speed.

Having long range air def systems on the shores will oblige them fly even lower thus making them have smaller range. 150-200 pantsir on the coast should allow iran intercept lot of missiles launched by US navy. 20 s-300 will make the hornets fly low and oblige the carrier to come closer.

Antiship with 700km should allow them a safety zone to attack US carriers. But they need more bombers like su-34.

In flight refueling is hard to do if you don't have a land base where to put your refuel tankers. Su-35 with r-37 would deal with them in the air. Or even the f-14 with improved phoenix missiles could be a solution.

Drone refueling is very limited as one drone can refuel maybe one f-18 and it takes place on the carrier.

Thanks . Got it . But emergency runways made of fabrics or steel mesh are already in use . They can be put on any land mass near coast of Africa or islands in Indian Ocean . Tankers can fly out several times . So this will create places where refuelling takes place . We can assume at most three refuelling pit stops . Any greater number may render operations , too costly and impractical .

This will create lines of contact . Where fighters are being loaded and short on fuel . With a defenceless fat tanker to protect . These lines of contact should resemble something like following the contours of land . This will prove good hunting grounds for our subs and planes . But we must have the capability without reliance on refuelling air tankers or supply ships or carriers . A weak point in long range attack . A heavy cart for your horse to carry .

Iran Fotros class ( Hemaseh ) Mohajer 6 & Karrar UCAV with Yasin, Balaban Satellite guided Bombs, and Qaem 5,9 missiles

ECM version of the Shahed-129



https://dambiev.livejournal.com/1622911.html

Iran Army Navy chief Rear Admiral Hossein Khanzadi: Sejil twin jet powered UCAV drone with Maximum speed : 1000km/h designed for IRINavy
Designed to be launched from ships with Parachute landing *Equipped with 100km range glidebombs
https://tn.ai/2148399

Iran Army Navy Vertical launching and Landing (VLL) surveillance UAV drone for warship

Army Navy Hybrid UAV

Iran Army Navy equipped new generation Shahed-129 UCAV ( Simorgh) drone
https://en.isna.ir/news/98091611615/Homegrown-combat-drone-Simorgh-joins-Iran-s-Navy

Transfer of UAV batches for the Air Force and Iranian Air Defense Forces

Reconnaissance-strike version of the Ababil-3 UAV with guided bombs Ghaem-1





Jet UAV Karrar.



Target drones. White is a well-known Iranian copy of the MQM-107A, and the red ones seem to be their upgraded version with a new engine.







https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3998902.html

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.tasnimnews.com/en/news/2020/04/26/2251602/irgc-ground-force-to-get-fotros-drone/amp


A quick opinion about using UCAV in air to ground operation in battle conditions. While using UCAV against terror groups based on land, lacking in any air defence or jet fighters, may prove to be cheap and effective and useful. Their use against ground targets or Tanks, in real battle conditions, against an opponent with air defence and fighter jets, may not prove as useful. Since enemy armour will have air cover by jets and be accompanied by SAM mobile system. Therefore a large and slow reusable UCAV platform, will be hit and destroyed by SAM or by  manned jets, before getting into range to use ATGM against top attack against armour.

Their use can only be validated if enemy jets are neutralised by our own SAM and our own fighter jets and their mobile SAM  is also taken out, allowing our UCAV access to enemy armour. However if these UCAV were small and numerous and disposable and autonomous. And could be launched in large numbers, then enemy jets or SAM could not intercept all, and they will destroy enemy armour. So existing  UCAV firing existing ATGM, should be turned into small kamikaze drones or launched by ground troops near the target by mico drones.

However their use is most valid as air decoys or air Radar or air to air UCAV, based on lower costs and effectiveness against enemy fighters and bombers. As has been done. At sea, their use is also valid, as long as they can remain hidden from ship sensors and  attack at high speed during final stage. By discarding propellers and wings and igniting Rockets. Or similarly morphing into torpedo and dive into sea, to attack ship.

The problem is that for ten different war type scenarios there will be ten different weapons that would work best... the problem is that a weapon that works best in one situation might be worse than useless in 7 or 8 of the other war situations.

The problem is that without knowing what type of conflict we are talking about it is too hard to say this or that is a good idea for certain.

And then of course even if you get it right the situation might change... your enemy might adopt a different strategy and buy new weapons based on the systems you have.

Sometimes you might get luck... your enemy sees your formidable ATGM potential and decides against wasting money on MBTs and instead goes for lighter more mobile vehicles. Well ATGMs can still take out point targets at extended ranges so you could modify your missiles from HEAT warheads designed to penetrate 1m or more of armour then perhaps redesign it to punch a fist sized hole in thinner armour and then blow plasma or thermobaric material into the cavity to burn and suffocate the contents... would work on armour and would work on bunkers and buildings...

I think medium and high flying larger drones will be useful for monitoring the battlefield, while smaller drones carried by troops can work down to the squad level in finding targets.

If they can get 152mm artillery shells going 170kms then a vehicle or two around the place should give all weather day night support capability most soldiers crave... being a top attack munition it should be fine even for heavy armour.

I think drones have a role to play but much of the time they will be looking for targets and sharing a picture of the battlefield with various units... and of course marking targets for precision attacks.

Regarding enemy air power... well whether you are using manned air support or unmanned this is something you have to deal with either way.

Having specialist drones designed to take out dedicated air defence systems would be important for drones as it is for manned aircraft... just because unmanned drones are expendable does not mean you throw them away... when destroyed they stop performing their function... unless they are suicide drones of course.