Iran TOR M1A SAMs VS US missiles

You think a strike mission will have only 1 Wild Weasel escorting it? There will be at least two, and one can go down and attack you while the other keeps an eye open for anyone turning on their SAM radar.

As I said earlier: if I can get you to turn off your radar, then that is the whole job of SEAD! No radar: no SAM firing!

Click to expand...

The whole process can be repeated plenty of times. Assuming this is only one Tor-M1 it would still be capable of outlasting. It would not be as simple as finding it, shooting it, and killing it. With two it would become a game of cat and mouse that would ultimately leave the cat with no claws.

Only difference is that the Tor-M1 radiates a signal that is detectable for miles around. If you pickup that signal, you know where the system is, and you can therefore go ahead and suppress it!

Click to expand...

You don't know where the system is if it keeps moving.

Vlad Plasmius said:

The whole process can be repeated plenty of times. Assuming this is only one Tor-M1 it would still be capable of outlasting. It would not be as simple as finding it, shooting it, and killing it. With two it would become a game of cat and mouse that would ultimately leave the cat with no claws.



You don't know where the system is if it keeps moving.

Click to expand...

so what you are suggesting is turning on and off the radar on the move. Wouldn't it defeat the purpose of anti air and turn it into missile attraction (wasting other people missiles)

ahho said:

so what you are suggesting is turning on and off the radar on the move. Wouldn't it defeat the purpose of anti air and turn it into missile attraction (wasting other people missiles)

Click to expand...

Also, the Tor-M1's missile is guided by command guidance, meaning that the the launch platform has to guide the missile to the target. This is common with most SAM systems, but it means that the targeting and fire control radar has to stay online to guide the missile to the target, meaning that it becomes a target for a SEAD attack. Very few SAM systems use alternative guidance systems, such as Track-via-missile (TVM), which is used by the Russian S-300 (and it variants and its copies) and American Patriot, or very recently, active radar guidance, only used by two systems based off the AIM-120 AMRAAM, the Norwegian Advanced Surface to Air Missile System (NASAMS) and SLAMRAAM.

Burma (now Myanmar) has 46# of Tor M1a SAMs and others radar control airdefence missile systems from Russia.(It is shown at Wekipedia web site).
Iran is a rich country so they can build Nuclear facilities and they bought 700million dollar worth SAMs but these SAMs are really expensive for burma.
Sometime,I think that wikepedia web site data may be wroung for burmese armed forces hardware data.

ahho

so what you are suggesting is turning on and off the radar on the move. Wouldn't it defeat the purpose of anti air and turn it into missile attraction (wasting other people missiles)

Click to expand...

It could, but this is assuming the Tor-M1 don't just intercept the HARMs, rather than trying to avoid them. With 3 or five of these systems stationed around a target SEAD would be rather useless. Even against a single system it would be rather useless. The two HARMs could be intercepted by the Tor-M1. It could then direct its radar to it next target.

However, it can keep its radar off as well, only activating it in certain circumstances. One possibility is having one Tor-M1 be like the spotter, positioning itself in good cover and illuminating a target and shutting radar off and scuttling off before it can be tracked. The other Tor-M1 would then move in and take out the target, should a HARM be launched against it the other Tor-M1 could turn on its radar and shoot down the missile.

One by itself might be susceptible to SEAD, MIGHT, but two would be able to avoid it with relative ease.

Pointblank

Also, the Tor-M1's missile is guided by command guidance, meaning that the the launch platform has to guide the missile to the target. This is common with most SAM systems, but it means that the targeting and fire control radar has to stay online to guide the missile to the target, meaning that it becomes a target for a SEAD attack.

Click to expand...

True, but the distances are small and the speed great. The radar might have to stay on for half a minute before being able to turn it off.

bomber said:

Burma (now Myanmar) has 46# of Tor M1a SAMs and others radar control airdefence missile systems from Russia.(It is shown at Wekipedia web site).
Iran is a rich country so they can build Nuclear facilities and they bought 700million dollar worth SAMs but these SAMs are really expensive for burma.
Sometime,I think that wikepedia web site data may be wroung for burmese armed forces hardware data.

Click to expand...

I'd agree. I put a lot of thought into that two word comment so good job I wrote this second sentence which is also second line. Now we all happy.

I did some effort to research and track down Burmese military mainly on Google Earth and internet sources. I have found inaccuracies in Wikipedia but on the whole it is an excellent resource.

Vlad Plasmius said:

ahho
Pointblank



True, but the distances are small and the speed great. The radar might have to stay on for half a minute before being able to turn it off.

Click to expand...

All I have to do is to hang right outside your missile's range (the SA-15 Gauntlet's max range is 12km), and with my Maverick's and HARM's, I can pick at your launcher with my longer range Mavericks (the AGM-65 Maverick has a range of 27km) and my HARM missiles (which has a range of 48km). I can paint you with my radar and warning reciever to find you and by using my laser designator, I can continue to hang just outside your missile's range, and lob missiles at you.

All I have to do is to hang right outside your missile's range (the SA-15 Gauntlet's max range is 12km), and with my Maverick's and HARM's, I can pick at your launcher with my longer range Mavericks (the AGM-65 Maverick has a range of 27km) and my HARM missiles (which has a range of 48km). I can paint you with my radar and warning reciever to find you and by using my laser designator, I can continue to hang just outside your missile's range, and lob missiles at you.

Click to expand...

True. So very true. the US has excellent stand off weapons. One more thing...Have your E/A-6B jam the systems...They will simply not work as advertised.

Pointblank said:

All I have to do is to hang right outside your missile's range (the SA-15 Gauntlet's max range is 12km), and with my Maverick's and HARM's, I can pick at your launcher with my longer range Mavericks (the AGM-65 Maverick has a range of 27km) and my HARM missiles (which has a range of 48km). I can paint you with my radar and warning reciever to find you and by using my laser designator, I can continue to hang just outside your missile's range, and lob missiles at you.

Click to expand...

A rather simplistic view again. You could do this all the time in theory, but there are other factors that might prevent you from loitering around just outside missile range. The Tor would hopefully be deployed with the S-300, and could receive information from this when to turn the radar on when you are in range. That would prevent you from locating it before it is too late. You could also mimic the SA-2 / Zsu-23-4 combo. The best evasive maneuver for the SA-2 is a violent dive. This brings you down into Spaag territory. The S-300 would probably get you to go in low as well.
I`m not saying the Tor would win, but there will be losses on both sides. Thats the nature of war.

Popeye:
No systems work as advertised, including your EW. Which systems that perform best this time is anybodys guess. The EW you supplied the israelis when they first met the SA-6 didn`t exactly shine. It might be like that this time as well before you fine tune it.

Vlad Plasmius said:

I'm sorry, but it's not toast.

As I said before, the Tor-M1 has fire-on-the-move capability. It has a road speed of about 40 miles per hour. I'm not too certain on its off-road speed, but even at 10 miles per hour in a minute it would be hundreds of meters away from the missile's path.

Also, 2280 kilometers per hour is not Mach 4. It's closer to Mach 2. At max range it's about 2 minutes. The range you gave would be around a minute though. Ultimately the Tor-M1 would have at least half a minute to react. Assuming just 16 kilometers per hour travel speed offroad, assuming it's off-road, the Tor-M1 could move over 100 meters away from the missile's path in a minutes. Half a minute it could move nearly 70 meters away. Without radar to home in on, the HARM would likely not even get close to the Tor-M1.

Click to expand...

Any "fire on the move" capability is useless if you can't turn on any search or targeting radars. Are you suggesting that the crew will succesfully engage aircraft while moving using only visual and IR? You seemto take a contrarian viewpoint in here, which can be useful in making people consider their positions on technology. However, SAM's have been historically limited in what they can do...and have never stopped a determined airforce. Since any attack on Iran will involve stealth aircraft in the beginning phases, along with copious amounts of cruise missiles, the effectiveness of SAM's will be limited.

***Oh, I think that's giving us far too much credit. Every country we've dealt with hasn't had anything particularly mobile in the air defense department, except man-portable SAMs. Finding these SAMs will be like Israel trying to find the Kayusha launchers.***

I beg your pardon? If you think that we really have a competancy problem, then please educate us. In any event, the katyusha launchers were not tied to any specific site, and could fire upon a fixed, immobile target (Haifa, for instance) at leisure. SAM's have none of those advantages. They have to guard something in order to deny YOU the ability to operate there. You already know generally where you will find them. Then, they must "unmask" to engage your aircraft during the extremley limited time they have to do anything. The SAM site is exposed and relatively slow. Very slow. You are fast, and have weapons and buddies, along with the best avionics and jammers in the world. If I were in a helicopter, I would be worried, but the avalanche of stealth aircraft, jamming aircraft and myriad missiles would dismember any semblance of an air defense Iran might have, and Iran knows it. That's why they are hoping to deter attacks with the threat of terrorism and asymetric warfare throughout the Gulf, which is smart for their position.