Iran TOR M1A SAMs VS US missiles

Pointblank

Senior Member
Floggers are Floggers.

Nope.

The MiG-27 is the specialized ground attack version of the MiG-23, and differs significantly. The MiG-27 Flogger-D is not equipped with a radar, but has a laser rangefinder. Additional cockpit armour is also installed, and a specialized nav/attack system was developed for it for low level attacks. The MiG-23 fighter's variable intake ramps and exhaust nozzles were deleted in favor of a simpler, fixed configuration, and a beefier landing gear was also installed. The two airplanes may have a similar heritage, but do not confuse the two.
 

bakapa

New Member
You are not really considering that the TOR-M1 can outrun a Highspeed Anti-Radiation Missile?

You seems to be missing the point, HARM is designed to attack static radar positions, not something that is on the move. It homes in on Radar signature, if Tor-M1 radar operator turned of his radar, it cant home it. duh!
 

bakapa

New Member
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.

Even if US managed to developed countermeasures and tactics to deal with these systems, it still need time to mature and train the pilots and also it doesnt immidiately neutralise the threats of these system. Any pilot who has been chased by a SAM would tell you that it's not a very nice experiences even if you deployed counter measures in time, it is mainly a hit and miss affair, and you have to sit and pray that missile goes for the decoys and flares instead of homing in on your plane. The fact that americans taken time to study these systems shows that they are formidable and poses threats to US's air superiority. Remember one of the so-called F-117 stealth fighter was brought down by one of these SAM in Yugoslavia during the balkans war. It just goes to show american air superiority is simply a myth when it come up against sophisticated SAM systems such as these.
 

Pointblank

Senior Member
You seems to be missing the point, HARM is designed to attack static radar positions, not something that is on the move. It homes in on Radar signature, if Tor-M1 radar operator turned of his radar, it cant home it. duh!

Then you miss the whole point of SEAD: I want you to turn off your radar so you can't point a missile at me! And if you do turn off your radar, I can have another SEAD aircraft come in while the other provides overwatch, and have him come in with cluster bombs and blow up your missile system.

Also, the HARM missile is being upgraded to the AGM-88E Advanced Anti- Radiation Guided Missile. This upgrade includes the addition of a radar seeker on the missile so if the target radar is shut down, the missile can still home onto the radar by itself.

Even if US managed to developed countermeasures and tactics to deal with these systems, it still need time to mature and train the pilots and also it doesnt immidiately neutralise the threats of these system. Any pilot who has been chased by a SAM would tell you that it's not a very nice experiences even if you deployed counter measures in time, it is mainly a hit and miss affair, and you have to sit and pray that missile goes for the decoys and flares instead of homing in on your plane. The fact that americans taken time to study these systems shows that they are formidable and poses threats to US's air superiority. Remember one of the so-called F-117 stealth fighter was brought down by one of these SAM in Yugoslavia during the balkans war. It just goes to show american air superiority is simply a myth when it come up against sophisticated SAM systems such as these.

It is an act of stupidity if you do not consistently evaluate your opponent's capabilities on a ever on going basis. The Americans have a large stockpile of Russian SAM's they have acquired over the years to test against, take apart, and analyze.

The shoot down of a F-117 stealth aircraft was the results of poor tactics and complacency on the part of the Americans. NATO flew combat patrols on a very regular pace and became complacent as Serbian air defenses did not pose an extreme risk, and as such, flew combat patrols in predictable flight paths over Serbia. And in war, complacency kills.

Beside the point, the F-117 represents 1st generation American stealth technology, as it was designed in the mid 1970's. Also, the F-117 was built on a budget; parts were recycled from various other combat aircraft at the time, such as the avionics and the fly-by-wire systems of the F-16, the engines from a F/A-18, etc. We are starting to see the latest American stealth technology in the F-22 Raptor and B-2 Spirit which have advanced beyond what the F-117 represents. As such, the F-117, is due to be retired by 2008.
 

Jeep King

Just Hatched
Registered Member
You all assume that the TOR missles would be the only anti-air missles in the area, but what if Iran had long range sams that would shoot at the oncoming aircraft and force the aircraft to deploy all of its flares, and once all the flares are gone, then it would be easy shooting for the TOR. Also if all the US attention is focused on the TORs then it could open up decent shots for other sam systems.
 

Pointblank

Senior Member
You all assume that the TOR missles would be the only anti-air missles in the area, but what if Iran had long range sams that would shoot at the oncoming aircraft and force the aircraft to deploy all of its flares, and once all the flares are gone, then it would be easy shooting for the TOR. Also if all the US attention is focused on the TORs then it could open up decent shots for other sam systems.

The problem with your argument is targeting for the long range SAM's; you can defeat long range SAM's,by flying at an very low altitude. Also, due to the fixed nature of the longer range SAM's, they are easily attacked with cruise missiles, and other long range weapons. Also, ELINT aircraft would pickup the longer range SAM's through their ESM suites, and can relay the location to strike aircraft to attack. And with the 90+km range of the HARM, once a SAM radar is lit up, most SAM's can be engaged.

Also, there are other decoys for use against SAM systems; one of them is the USN's ADM-141 Tactical Air-Launched Decoy (TALD). The TALD is an expendable air-launched decoy who's purpose is to simulate the radar signature of strike aircraft, forcing SAM's to turn on their radars in response to the 'threat', which allows SEAD escorts to identify and engage enemy SAM's. The F/A-18, the primary platform of the TALD, can carry 20 of them in one sortie, to simulate 20 different targets.
 

adeptitus

Captain
VIP Professional
You all assume that the TOR missles would be the only anti-air missles in the area, but what if Iran had long range sams that would shoot at the oncoming aircraft and force the aircraft to deploy all of its flares, and once all the flares are gone, then it would be easy shooting for the TOR. Also if all the US attention is focused on the TORs then it could open up decent shots for other sam systems.

Iran has a very limited inventory of long-range SAM's (SA-5?).

The issue here is that Iran is not picking a winnable fight. Even if its SAM's performed to expectations, you're still pitting a smaller nation that buys SAM units by the dozens, against a superpower that buys planes, tanks, and missiles by the thousands. If the Iranian military manage to shoot down some USN aircraft or sink a carrier in the gulf, it wont' stop the USN. The US has produced some 1,400 F-18's and 300 super hornets. It doesn't take a genius to figure out who'd win the numbers game. Even Qaddafi finally realized this. You have to pick your battles on your terms, and not someone else's.
 
Last edited:

Scratch

Captain
I slightly leave the topic now. But some time ago there were reports of Tehran having bought russian SA-10 systems via Belarussia.
Not much, 3-5 batteries I think, that won't make a real difference, just to add to the picture.

Anyway, if US aircraft were to attack larger facilities only, they won't be in the Tor envelope for a longer time. And if Tors are to defend such facilities in the lower layer defence, their mobility is obviously somewhat reduced.
 

Pointblank

Senior Member
I slightly leave the topic now. But some time ago there were reports of Tehran having bought russian SA-10 systems via Belarussia.
Not much, 3-5 batteries I think, that won't make a real difference, just to add to the picture.

Anyway, if US aircraft were to attack larger facilities only, they won't be in the Tor envelope for a longer time. And if Tors are to defend such facilities in the lower layer defence, their mobility is obviously somewhat reduced.

Exactly. A SAM system, especially mobile ones has one of its hands tied because it has to defend a fixed position compared to aircraft, which can pick and choose when to engage, which gives aircraft the tactical initiative.
 

bakapa

New Member
Exactly. A SAM system, especially mobile ones has one of its hands tied because it has to defend a fixed position compared to aircraft, which can pick and choose when to engage, which gives aircraft the tactical initiative.

Nevertheless the aircraft can still be taken down by SAM.. else why would they even bother to equip the aircraft with countermeasures? The whole point is that SAM still poses significant threat to the aircraft even though it can pick and choose when to engage. Throwing a few HARM rockets at couple of mobile SAM radar doesnt neutralise the rest of the SAM systems in the sector. While aircraft may have tactical initiative it is still vulnerable to SAM attack, be it MANPADS, mobile or static.
 
Top