Iran TOR M1A SAMs VS US missiles

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.

Click to expand...

Having spent 20 years in the USN I know your statement to be very true. No electronic system is functioning correctly 100% of the time. However if an E/A-6B is working say 75% of it's ablity. It's lights out. Witness the US attack on Lybia in 1986. Ask the Iraqi's how well their radars worked in 1991 and the following years as the no-fly zone was inforced.

The E/A-6B is in a constant state of updates.

bd popeye said:

Having spent 20 years in the USN I know your statement to be very true. No electronic system is functioning correctly 100% of the time. However if an E/A-6B is working say 75% of it's ablity. It's lights out. Witness the US attack on Lybia in 1986. Ask the Iraqi's how well their radars worked in 1991 and the following years as the no-fly zone was inforced.

The E/A-6B is in a constant state of updates.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Against Iraq and Libya you weren`t facing state of the art systems. The Prowlers are capable aircraft, but they might need some fine tuning after the first encounter. That happens some times when you encounter a system for the first time. Or the russians might not have introduced any effective new tweaks on this one, and you are spot on. Generally your EW performs very well, but the first encounter tend to be a bit shaky. (again SA-6)

Skorzeny said:

Against Iraq and Libya you weren`t facing state of the art systems. The Prowlers are capable aircraft, but they might need some fine tuning after the first encounter. That happens some times when you encounter a system for the first time. Or the russians might not have introduced any effective new tweaks on this one, and you are spot on. Generally your EW performs very well, but the first encounter tend to be a bit shaky. (again SA-6)

Click to expand...

Remember the Greeks have the Tor-M1 system. I would not be surprised if the Americans asked the Greeks to borrow the systems to test EW systems and countermeasures. Likewise, the Americans have purchased a S-300 SA-10 GRUMBLE system, and have exercised against the S-300 systems provided by some of the new NATO states, such as Slovakia, meaning that the Americans are well informed and aware of the capabilities and some of the deficiencies of the systems, and have developed appropriate countermeasures and tactics to deal with these systems.

Pointblank said:

Remember the Greeks have the Tor-M1 system. I would not be surprised if the Americans asked the Greeks to borrow the systems to test EW systems and countermeasures. Likewise, the Americans have purchased a S-300 SA-10 GRUMBLE system, and have exercised against the S-300 systems provided by some of the new NATO states, such as Slovakia, meaning that the Americans are well informed and aware of the capabilities and some of the deficiencies of the systems, and have developed appropriate countermeasures and tactics to deal with these systems.

Click to expand...

Depends, did the Americans receive the absolute latest Tor-M1 and S-300 systems? I have doubts that the Iranians would spend 700 million USD on a system the Americans have already played around with and know how to counter. As somebody mentioned before, isn't there an MK2 version of the Tor-M1 out? Also, would Russia really sell its best air defense equipment with the latest specs to a NATO country knowing that it can easily get compromised by the Americans? If that's the case then even the PLA wouldn't have bought so many S-300 missiles.

Pointblank said:

Remember the Greeks have the Tor-M1 system. I would not be surprised if the Americans asked the Greeks to borrow the systems to test EW systems and countermeasures. Likewise, the Americans have purchased a S-300 SA-10 GRUMBLE system, and have exercised against the S-300 systems provided by some of the new NATO states, such as Slovakia, meaning that the Americans are well informed and aware of the capabilities and some of the deficiencies of the systems, and have developed appropriate countermeasures and tactics to deal with these systems.

Click to expand...

Well the greeks might have some objections to loan their sams to the country supplying Tyrkey with aircraft. Seems like an own goal if they do. And you don`t need to do major redesigns to put EW off. It`s a constant cat and mouse game and you don`t win or loose all. If any military thought this, they wouldn`t by the systems.

Skorzeny said:

Well the greeks might have some objections to loan their sams to the country supplying Tyrkey with aircraft. Seems like an own goal if they do. And you don`t need to do major redesigns to put EW off. It`s a constant cat and mouse game and you don`t win or loose all. If any military thought this, they wouldn`t by the systems.

Click to expand...

Then again the Americans are also supplying the Greeks with weapons as well, and Greece is a major NATO ally.

Skorzeny said:

Against Iraq and Libya you weren`t facing state of the art systems. The Prowlers are capable aircraft, but they might need some fine tuning after the first encounter. That happens some times when you encounter a system for the first time. Or the russians might not have introduced any effective new tweaks on this one, and you are spot on. Generally your EW performs very well, but the first encounter tend to be a bit shaky. (again SA-6)

Click to expand...

In 1991, Baghdad was the most heavily defended city in the world, with overlapping SAM coverage, redundant command and control, and backed by the 7th largest airforce. They had state of the art Russian tech. The US took that system apart on the first night.

I really hate this: "wait till the US face a 'real' opponent arguments". The US military is combat veteran. It has fought more wars in the past 20 years than Iran, China, and Russia put together. It has proved itself capable of commanding large air armadas and supplying multi-Corps army formations on the move. No amount of training can recreate the "fog of war". Lastly, when was the last time Iran or any other country had an air exercise that involved thousands of sorties in ONE day. The last time the US did that was this month in Red Flag, the last time the US did that in actual combat was in 2003.

Prowlers are being replaced with Growlers

Depends, did the Americans receive the absolute latest Tor-M1 and S-300 systems? I have doubts that the Iranians would spend 700 million USD on a system the Americans have already played around with and know how to counter. As somebody mentioned before, isn't there an MK2 version of the Tor-M1 out? Also, would Russia really sell its best air defense equipment with the latest specs to a NATO country knowing that it can easily get compromised by the Americans? If that's the case then even the PLA wouldn't have bought so many S-300 missiles

Click to expand...

The US had covertly procured Soviet weapon systems for years from third parties. This information was just recently declassified. USAF aggressor squadrons flew Migs in the Cold War.

The Iran will spend $700 million dollars on a compromised system because there is no other alternative. It is the best system for the money. It's not like they can go to another vendor.

Why did the Iranians go for a short-range SAM like the Tor-M1A when they could have gotten a medium or long-range SAM? USAF fighters can drop bombs from twenty five miles away. The Tor-M1 can't reach that far.

The Iranians are known for their ´tweaking´of imported weapon systems. Currently and in the coming months they are probably doing their best in adding some ECCM ´flexibility´ to their new Tor M SAM's. Nevertheless it is probably safe to assume that Tor M alone will not be able to do much harm to prospective USAF raids. The overall quality of the entire Iranian air defense system is very difficult to assess but it is certainly much better than the crap Iraq fielded in ´03 but may be not good enough to make a difference against the mighty USAF.

P.S.: @IDont. I know you might hate the argument but last time the US military (including USAF) was up against real tough guys they were soon in deep deep trouble in some awkward places called KOREA (1950-53) and VIETNAM (1964-73)!

Violet Oboe said:

The Iranians are known for their ´tweaking´of imported weapon systems. Currently and in the coming months they are probably doing their best in adding some ECCM ´flexibility´ to their new Tor M SAM's. Nevertheless it is probably safe to assume that Tor M alone will not be able to do much harm to prospective USAF raids. The overall quality of the entire Iranian air defense system is very difficult to assess but it is certainly much better than the crap Iraq fielded in ´03 but may be not good enough to make a difference against the mighty USAF.

P.S.: @IDont. I know you might hate the argument but last time the US military (including USAF) was up against real tough guys they were soon in deep deep trouble in some awkward places called KOREA (1950-53) and VIETNAM (1964-73)!

Click to expand...

For a time, Hanoi was the most heavily defended airspace on earth, and its' defences even exceeded those of Moscow. What did it accomplish? Nothing, really. We still attacked, and hit the fragged targets. When Wild Weasel aircraft were deployed in substantial numbers, SAM defences were degraded to ineffectivness in about a week. The air force met murderous opposition over Germany in WW II (Schweinfurt is legendary), but the missions were carried out nonetheless. This is why 3rd world nations "dumb down" victory requirements, and claim that merely surviving is some great victory. It's nonsense, but that is what the masses on the street buy these days. Israel inflicted a fearful toll on Hezbollah for murdering and kidnapping soldiers, and Lebanese public opinion has soured towards Hezbollah bacause of the extensive damage from the conflict, yet Hezbollah is said to have won some victory, without ever defining what that victory really is. I'd say they came out worse for wear.
Sorry if I wandered a bit, but I saw a trend in this thread going in this direction, in that if Iran could shoot down a couple of aircraft, then it would be some great victory. I would rather we didn't attack at all. Still, victory as a term has been abused. Just my two cents.