Iran TOR M1A SAMs VS US missiles

bakapa said:

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.

Click to expand...

And how successful have SAM's been against aircraft? Not that particularly successful! Of the thousands of sorties made by combat aircraft against Kosovo, very few aircraft were actually lost to SAM's. This is a fact. During the two wars in Iraq, Iraqi air defenses were relatively ineffective against coalition aircraft, as very few coalition aircraft were lost due to SAM's.

If you want to deter someone's air force from attacking you, having your own strong air force is the best deterrent. SAM's are the last line of defense, they are not the primary line of defense, and never should be. Enemy aircraft are more of a threat as they can appear at anytime, and without warning. With SAM's, you know they are going to be there, and since they are fairly fixed, you can make plans how to deal with them. With aircraft, numbers that might be sent against you and where they can appear is not known; all that is known that there will be enemy aircraft coming to intercept you, and as such, you do not know how many and where exactly will they come.

Well, regarding SAM efficiancy and the Iraq wars you mentioned.
I think in the '91 war the british Tornados suffered a rather high loss rate when attacking airfields at very low altitue. In those low altitudes, modern SAMs and of course AAA can be rather succesfull.
However, since Kosovo western airforces tend to fly rather high, standing out of those threads' range. I agree that the best air-defence is an AirForce. But I think modern SAMs really pose a significant risk to specific aircraft. (Though the iranien SAMs will be no hindrance for NATO/US AF at a generall level.
And while there are tactics to avoid such risks, that's still a (small) success for the defenders, since they force you to react to them.

dear friends those who discussing about airdefence systems,
I like to say thanks for ur discussions on my topic,post as I getvalot of knowledge from urs posts.
even armed forces use Russian or US best weapons,another main factor is soldiers who run these weapons without error.
some army or forces who handle best weapons but they abandoned their weapons when enemy fire heavy weapons . they just run for their life.
so human resources or their will or eager to defend her or his country is also important for the victory of wars and battles.

The truth is, no amount of advanced SAM will help Iran achieve a victory in a war against US, Iran will always be in a disadvantaged position in front of the US air power, the only way out is to attack. Mobile short and medium range ballistic missiles are hard to locate, and can be launched with little preparation, so when an invasion is imminent, Iran should disperse all of its SRBM and MRBM launchers and target them at important US military facilities in the Gulf region and ensure that they can be launched as soon as the war starts, they will have a maximum of 1 hour to launch their missiles, as the likelihood of them been located and destroyed increase significantly after that. The damage done to US military bases, especially airfields, will significantly hamper the US ability to conduct strikes against targets in Iran. Depending on the scale of the US attack, oil fields, refineries, pipelines, and storage facilities can also be targeted. And the rise in oil price will create massive political pressure on western leaders.

And for the long term, Iran can stop their own "war on terror" and "war on drugs", allowing central Asian opium to flood western markets and religious extremists to move from Afghanistan to Iraq through Iran. Support to Shi'ite militia in Iraq can also be increased.

The truth is, no amount of advanced SAM will help Iran achieve a victory in a war against US, Iran will always be in a disadvantaged position in front of the US air power, the only way out is to attack.

Click to expand...

If Iran did attack the US assets in the Gulf region first. The retalitory strikes by the remaining US assets and US forces comming from all parts of the world would be unparrelled in modern warfare. No bragg just fact. I cannot see any situation whereas the US would send any invasion force into Iran.

I just hope and pray that such a secneiro never ever takes place.

Hmm....I just realized this. Don't you guys think that the Iranian SAM's have never been meant to deter a US attack, rather it has been to deter an Israeli attack? Think about it. The Israelis don't have too many aircraft that can fly into and out of Iran without losing all their fuel, and compound that with some state of the art SAMs. I think the Iranians fear an Israeli attack much more than an American attack. Why else would they spend money on weapon systems like the Tor-M1 fully knowing that it would be wasted in several days by the US? The SAMs by no doubt a warning to the Israeli Air Force no doubt and the IDF just wants to take out the nuclear reactor (which is now protected by the Tor's).

:coffee: do you guys know that last summer the 5th biggest air power vs the most trained guerill forces ...man im talking about proxy between american weapon vs iran training ..the future of war is network centrick and also how u use the best equipment in battlefield condition+ a very flexible independent cain of comand ..its true that 100 us aircraft vs few tor might be unbalance but if the iran deploy an arsenal of passive anti-radiation missile wth home on jam plus high frag 400m radius warhad with built in passive radar at mach 2.5 to sead team....it will be a diffrent story...then plus optically track 30 km range system hidden in the bunkers (in the hills in iran system) waiting to ambush hi prize american target( serbia did it) ....it may ground a few aircraft....dunno just giving another hipothesis

then plus optically track 30 km range system hidden in the bunkers (in the hills in iran system) waiting to ambush hi prize american target( serbia did it) ....

Click to expand...

The Serbians shot down one aircraft. Not many when you consider the number of stories flown by the US over Serbia....

Question...What do you really know about Iranian military training?

mpaduan79 said:

:coffee: do you guys know that last summer the 5th biggest air power vs the most trained guerill forces ...man im talking about proxy between american weapon vs iran training ..the future of war is network centrick and also how u use the best equipment in battlefield condition+ a very flexible independent cain of comand ..its true that 100 us aircraft vs few tor might be unbalance but if the iran deploy an arsenal of passive anti-radiation missile wth home on jam plus high frag 400m radius warhad with built in passive radar at mach 2.5 to sead team....it will be a diffrent story...then plus optically track 30 km range system hidden in the bunkers (in the hills in iran system) waiting to ambush hi prize american target( serbia did it) ....it may ground a few aircraft....dunno just giving another hipothesis

Click to expand...

Popeye put out a very good observation...Iranian training. Do you know that the Iranian military has 2 chain of command? The regular army and the Revolutionary Guard. They don't communicate, coordinate, train, and are pretty much hostile to one another. In the 1980's, the Revolutionary Guard would mine the waters of the Persian Gulf at night to instigate a fight with the US, during the day the Iranian Navy would destroy them hoping to avoid a fight.

Your passive anti-radiation missile with home on jam plus high frag 400m radius is useless if it can't see its target. Attack aircraft do not radiate radar unless it has too. Don't get me started on the Stealth. Secondly, the target that your radar sees are drones or decoy used to locate your SAM sites. Chances are those sites will be TLAMed.

As for the Serbia example, it never seems to amazed me that shooting down 2 aircraft out of tens of thousand of sorties is considered a "victory". I guess the first Persian Gulf War really did had an effect with peoples perception on what is victory when fighting the US. Before, 10 percent casualty rate was very good (thats 1,000 sorties shot down in a 10,000 sortie day). Now 2 is considered a victory. Lets also forget what your forces suffered while getting that victory.

It is like the Japanese declaring victory in Operation ShoGo in April 1945. Headlines would read: "Victory!!! IJN Yamato shot down 12 US aircraft unfortunately the battleship was martyred!"

Iran Strategies

I was educating myself by listening Ron Paul stating that the US is surrounding Iran right now preparing for war and that laws are being implement, laws similar to those that implemented on Iraq in 1998 for regime change.

Question 1: Who controls the waters around Iran right now considering the two air-craft carriers in the area? The shore line of Iran is over 1600km long, Iraq only has 10-20km long shore long.

Question 2: If the US is going to attack Iran, is the best option for Iran a preemptive attack while the US sets up its military to declare war. I mean look at Iraq if Iraq attacked while the US was preparing they would have had a better chance. I mean one surprise attack might prevent a war.

Link removed because of it's political nature.