Iran TOR M1A SAMs VS US missiles

[bomber]

Iran bought 700million dollar worth Airdefence 29#TOR M1A from Russia.Iran have some more airdefence SAMs from Russian,s old models.
According to the past wars history,example:Some Egyuptians pilots dropped the bombs to ground targets but these targets have any isreali soldiers and anti aircraft guns.They dropped and burned the $ without any effect to enemy troops.
Although IRAN have SAMs ,Iran soldiers must keep their duty without fears to US missiles or attack.In Iraq wars, just 1 to 5% of anti aircraft guns and SAMs
worked properly and others airdefence units soldiers abandomed their weapons and ran for survive.
Quality Human resorces or well organized patriotic forces are more important than modern weapons.

[jwangyue]

Iran bought 700million dollar worth Airdefence 29#TOR M1A from Russia.Iran have some more airdefence SAMs from Russian,s old models.
According to the past wars history,example:Some Egyuptians pilots dropped the bombs to ground targets but these targets have any isreali soldiers and anti aircraft guns.They dropped and burned the $ without any effect to enemy troops.
Although IRAN have SAMs ,Iran soldiers must keep their duty without fears to US missiles or attack.In Iraq wars, just 1 to 5% of anti aircraft guns and SAMs
worked properly and others airdefence units soldiers abandomed their weapons and ran for survive.
Quality Human resorces or well organized patriotic forces are more important than modern weapons.


So your point being?

[IDonT]

If your radar is Jammed or destroyed you can't used your fancy SAM system. Wild weasel attacks are very effective. Turn on that radar for more than a few seconds and you will have a HARM missile your way. Fixed SAM sights will be TLAMed in the first few seconds of a conflict.

SAM's are always at a disadvantage against airplanes because they always start out at 0 air speed and 0 height.

[Vlad Plasmius]

Tor-M1s are capable of firing on the move, so HARMs are not really as effective against it. Iran has put a lot of emphasis on building an unconventional fighting force, naturally they'd picked a SAM system perfect for unconventional warfare.

[IDonT]

Tor-M1s are capable of firing on the move, so HARMs are not really as effective against it. Iran has put a lot of emphasis on building an unconventional fighting force, naturally they'd picked a SAM system perfect for unconventional warfare.

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

[Vlad Plasmius]

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

Yes I am. It doesn't have to be that fast. It has a decent road speed. In a minute or so it could be at least half a mile away, and the HARM would still be several minutes away.

[Pointblank]

Yes I am. It doesn't have to be that fast. It has a decent road speed. In a minute or so it could be at least half a mile away, and the HARM would still be several minutes away.

umm, the HARM travels at least Mach 4 (2280 km/h) when launched from a airplane. The missile has a max range of above 48km. The missile, fired from max range, has a time to intercept of the SAM site of a little less than 1 minute. That SAM system is toast if a HARM locks on, and no amount of running on the ground will outrun the missile. Between a duel between a Wild Weasel aircraft and a SAM site, the Wild Weasel will win, due to the advantages of having the faster missile, altitude, and the speed advantage at launch.

[crazyinsane105]

umm, the HARM travels at least Mach 4 (2280 km/h) when launched from a airplane. The missile has a max range of above 48km. The missile, fired from max range, has a time to intercept of the SAM site of a little less than 1 minute. That SAM system is toast if a HARM locks on, and no amount of running on the ground will outrun the missile. Between a duel between a Wild Weasel aircraft and a SAM site, the Wild Weasel will win, due to the advantages of having the faster missile, altitude, and the speed advantage at launch.

The AGm-88 HARM missile has a max range of 90 km, but it has a speed of only 760 mph. The Tor-M1 is designed to shoot down precision guided munitions and missiles like the HARM anyway, plus the HARM didn't perform that great during the air war over Serbia.

[planeman]

Quality Human resorces or well organized patriotic forces are more important than modern weapons.No amount of patriotism is going to get a TOR to engage a medium/high altitude target which is why current US doctrine is to conduct strike missions from high/medium altitude, increasingly with unmanned aircraft.

[Asymptote]

What's Iran got to do in Chinese defense forum?? You should post this somewhere else ! :off

[bd popeye]

What's Iran got to do in Chinese defense forum?? You should post this somewhere else ! :off

This is the Worlds Armed forces discussion of the forum. This subject is permitted.

bd popeye super moderator

[Pointblank]

The AGm-88 HARM missile has a max range of 90 km, but it has a speed of only 760 mph. The Tor-M1 is designed to shoot down precision guided munitions and missiles like the HARM anyway, plus the HARM didn't perform that great during the air war over Serbia.

The HARM is listed by the the Federation of American Scientists and Global Security as having a speed of 2280 km/h. It is well known that the USAF and USN will often 'dumb down' the specs of their equipment in the interests of national security.

You want to bet that a couple of HARM's aimed at the Tor-M1 would all be shot down? If 4-5 are fired at the system, most often, one will get through.

The HARM performed very well over Serbia. Even if it did not destroy many SAM sites, it kept them for the most part, offline so they did not become a threat to Allied aircraft. The main purpose of SEAD is to either destroy enemy SAM's or keep them offline. Furthermore, the HARM also performed very well in the 1991 and 2003 Persian Gulf War.

[planeman]

The HARM is listed by the the Federation of American Scientists and Global Security as having a speed of 2280 km/h. It is well known that the USAF and USN will often 'dumb down' the specs of their equipment in the interests of national security.

You want to bet that a couple of HARM's aimed at the Tor-M1 would all be shot down? If 4-5 are fired at the system, most often, one will get through.

The HARM performed very well over Serbia. Even if it did not destroy many SAM sites, it kept them for the most part, offline so they did not become a threat to Allied aircraft. The main purpose of SEAD is to either destroy enemy SAM's or keep them offline. Furthermore, the HARM also performed very well in the 1991 and 2003 Persian Gulf War.
I take the middle ground, SA-15 is an excellent system but it is not on its own going to win any wars.

But in the HARM debate, I think that SA-15 has a lot better chance than most SAM systems when it comes to survival.

Firstly it is relatively advanced in that the search radar, targeting radar and missiles are all mounted on a single chassis - each and every TOR veicle is a SAM "system" on its own. A charactristic that Russian designers have been into since the SA-8 Gecko (TOR's direct predecessor BTW), but relatively few other systems have managed this. So if you have 4 TOR vehicles operating together, the SEAD aircraft is dealing with 4 search radars, 4 tracking radars and 32 SAMs. All at once.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/ORD_SAM_SA-15_Radar_lg.jpg


Secondly, SEAD aircraft are likely to operate with only 2 HARM and the likelihood of a single TOR vehicle being simultaneously targeted by 4 missiles is remote.

TORs main weakness is that it is a low-level system which makes it great tactically but not much use against an air-dominant US military operating at medium/high altitude.

There is a better version of TOR called TOR-M2 which has a phased array surveilance radar. It is not known which version Iran is getting but if it is the M2 then it'd be even better survivability and lethality.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0c/Sa-15a.jpg

Combine TOR with S-300 however....

[Vlad Plasmius]

umm, the HARM travels at least Mach 4 (2280 km/h) when launched from a airplane. The missile has a max range of above 48km. The missile, fired from max range, has a time to intercept of the SAM site of a little less than 1 minute. That SAM system is toast if a HARM locks on, and no amount of running on the ground will outrun the missile. Between a duel between a Wild Weasel aircraft and a SAM site, the Wild Weasel will win, due to the advantages of having the faster missile, altitude, and the speed advantage at launch.

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.

[Pointblank]

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.

Then that is the whole point of SEAD: to get you to turn off your radar, either voluntarily or by destroying it! If I can get you to turn off your radar, you pose no threat to the strike aircraft in the area, and as such, mission done. On top of that, turning off the radar won't help because the HARM missile has a inertial guidance system built in, meaning that it will remember where you turned your radar on last. Also, Wild Weasel aircraft also carry other weapons, such as cluster bombs or Mavericks, meaning that once a Wild Weasel aircraft knows where you are, he can turn on his radar, and track your movement, and attack you using the cluster bombs or the Maverick missiles. On top of that, future developments of the HARM missile will incorporate a active radar seeker, meaning that even if you turn off your radar and run, the HARM missile will be able to track you with its radar. As I said: no amount of running can save you then.

And 2280km/h is Mach 4, at altitude. Remember that the HARM missile is fired from altitude, not at sea level.

[bd popeye]

Then that is the whole point of SEAD: to get you to turn off your radar, either voluntarily or by destroying it! If I can get you to turn off your radar, you pose no threat to the strike aircraft in the area, and as such, mission done. On top of that, turning off the radar won't help because the HARM missile has a inertial guidance system built in, meaning that it will remember where you turned your radar on last. Also, Wild Weasel aircraft also carry other weapons, such as cluster bombs or Mavericks, meaning that once a Wild Weasel aircraft knows where you are, he can turn on his radar, and track your movement, and attack you using the cluster bombs or the Maverick missiles. On top of that, future developments of the HARM missile will incorporate a active radar seeker, meaning that even if you turn off your radar and run, the HARM missile will be able to track you with its radar. As I said: no amount of running can save you then.


I feel you are correct. Except for one point. The USN/USMC has assumed all SEAD missions for some time now. Since 1996.


http://www.naswi.navy.mil/vaq-135/VAQ-135%20Website.htm

The Prowler is a four person, tactical jet which conducts all weather, carrier based electronic warfare missions in support of the Carrier Air Wing. The Prowler can detect and analyze enemy radars and communications. The three Electronic Countermeasures Officers (ECMOs) process this information and determine which portion of the enemy’s command, communications, and control network to attack. The EA-6B employs the USQ-113 Comm Jammer to disrupt communications and the ALQ-99 Tactical Jamming System to counter enemy radars in a wide range of frequency bands. If the mission requires the destruction of the radar installation, the crew of the Prowler can employ the AGM-88 High Speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM). This combined ability to disrupt or destroy an adversary’s air defense network makes the EA-6B the premiere tactical electronic warfare platform in the world.

When, the Air Force retired its aging fleet of EF-111s, the Navy's EA-6B Prowler community commissioned five new squadrons to support joint shore based assets and to fill their need for electronic warfare support. These new joint Air Force/Navy squadrons are now filling the Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD) role for the Air Force worldwide.


USN & USMC E/A-6B Prowlers now assume that SEAD strike mission. Around 2013 the E/F-18-G Growler will assume that mission.

[Skorzeny]

This isn`t a situation where one wins all and the other looses all. Tor is a capable system and if used with sound tactics, it will send a fair amount of american aircraft to the ground. On the other hand, it will not be able to evade or shoot down all SEAD aircraft and missiles, and you will most likely don`t see any left after the first week. It`s like all military matters, never trust the manufacturer. If the hit percentages they put forward for airdefence was correct, every aircraft flying would be shot down twice, and with the numbers aircraft producers claim, the same aircraft will fly forever. A conflict will see losses on both sides, but the US has the numbers.

[dannytoro]

..In every TOR sales video I've seen, It's had to STOP to resolve launching it's missles. It has never shown itself firing on the run as Vlad ascribes it as capable of. In fact given the rough suspension of the TOR tank, I'd speculate firing on the move to be just as dangerous to the launcher as the aircraft. It is a wildly top heavy design.....

[Vlad Plasmius]

Pointblank

Then that is the whole point of SEAD: to get you to turn off your radar, either voluntarily or by destroying it! If I can get you to turn off your radar, you pose no threat to the strike aircraft in the area, and as such, mission done. On top of that, turning off the radar won't help because the HARM missile has a inertial guidance system built in, meaning that it will remember where you turned your radar on last. Also, Wild Weasel aircraft also carry other weapons, such as cluster bombs or Mavericks, meaning that once a Wild Weasel aircraft knows where you are, he can turn on his radar, and track your movement, and attack you using the cluster bombs or the Maverick missiles. On top of that, future developments of the HARM missile will incorporate a active radar seeker, meaning that even if you turn off your radar and run, the HARM missile will be able to track you with its radar. As I said: no amount of running can save you then.

Thing is, bombs and Mavericks don't have the range of HARM. In half a minute the HARM will strike behind the Tor-M1, which is safely some distance away. Then the Tor-M1 can turn its radar back on safely and engage any thing else that gets thrown at it, or simply keep moving with the radar off for a while.

Thing is, unlike other SAM sites, like most in Serbia and Iraq, the Tor-M1 is mobile and can move to a whole other position and resume its activities.We can't know where the Tor-M1s will be at any time, which is another part of their lethality.

And 2280km/h is Mach 4, at altitude. Remember that the HARM missile is fired from altitude, not at sea level.

No, it's less than Mach 2 at altitude. I'm not 100% on the numbers but as I recall Mach 1 is something like 1000 kilometers per hour at sea level and 1200 kilometers per hour at altitude. In other words, 2280 kilometers per hour is about Mach 2. Sound goes faster higher up in the atmosphere because there's less resistance.

Skorzeny

This isn`t a situation where one wins all and the other looses all. Tor is a capable system and if used with sound tactics, it will send a fair amount of american aircraft to the ground. On the other hand, it will not be able to evade or shoot down all SEAD aircraft and missiles, and you will most likely don`t see any left after the first week.

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.

[Pointblank]

Pointblank

Thing is, bombs and Mavericks don't have the range of HARM. In half a minute the HARM will strike behind the Tor-M1, which is safely some distance away. Then the Tor-M1 can turn its radar back on safely and engage any thing else that gets thrown at it, or simply keep moving with the radar off for a while.

Thing is, unlike other SAM sites, like most in Serbia and Iraq, the Tor-M1 is mobile and can move to a whole other position and resume its activities.We can't know where the Tor-M1s will be at any time, which is another part of their lethality.


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!

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.

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!

[Vlad Plasmius]

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!

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!

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

[ahho]

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.


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)

[Pointblank]

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)

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.

[bomber]

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.

[Vlad Plasmius]

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)

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.

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.

[planeman]

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.

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.

[Pointblank]

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.


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.

[bd popeye]

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.

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.

[Skorzeny]

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.

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.

[celtic-dragon]

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.
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.

[bd popeye]

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.


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.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/ea-6-upgrades.htm

[Skorzeny]

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.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/ea-6-upgrades.htm

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)

[Pointblank]

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)

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.

[crazyinsane105]

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.

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.

[Skorzeny]

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.

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.

[Pointblank]

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.

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

[IDonT]

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)

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

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.

[DPRKUnderground]

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.

[Violet Oboe]

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)!:D

[celtic-dragon]

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)!:D
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.

[jimmyttl]

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



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.

That explained why there's war everywhere for the past 20 years. Probably the judgment for it was to get enough war experience. :off

[Pointblank]

SAM's are good for one thing: protecting fixed sites and forcing the opponent to proceed with caution. A SAM air defence system will not stop a determined and well equipped enemy from attacking, though it may hamper his movement and flexibility though.The USA is a well equipped and a determined opponent, and as such, the USA will develop countermeasures and tactics to deal with any new potential threat to their operations.

[Skorzeny]

All I have been saying is that when you come up against modern SAMs you must expect casualties. Iran will not win an air war, but it is just as stupid to think that the US will have no losses. In war, no system works perfect, and you wont be able to jam all, or stay at perfect range. The SAMs will be taken out, but at a price.
When it comes to all the wars the us has fought the las 20 years against state of the art sam systems, well there isn`t any. Iraq had many missiles, but they were old. Again i use the israelis and the SA-6 as example. they got a rude awakening, but prevailed in the end. That might happen again.

[hongkongpride]

Just my two cents worth,

What if the USAF flew in the brand new F-22 to target the Iranian Tor-M1s?

Theoretically it would be possible to have the ten F-22s at Okinawa supercruise to Diego Garcia for a pit stop and proceed to JDAM the M1 Radars and launchers, targeting provided either by US special forces with laser designators or as I have heard rumoured using their own AESA radars which can scan the ground as well.

I bet the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps would'nt even see the F-22s coming:)

[adeptitus]

On topic of missile range, it varies by altitude, speed, and direction, etc. The "maximum range" is under ideal conditions, and only 3rd world pilots launch at maximum range and make a U-turn. If the US was engaging Iranian SAM sites, the US aircraft is not going to do that.

Turning on/off a SAM radar is not going to protect it against an anti-radiation missile. It takes some time for the system to cool down. The attacker isn't limited to anti-radiation missiles, they can use ATGM's, LGB's, cluster bombs, attack UAV's (IAI Harpy), etc.

For a SAM unit to survive the future battlefield, it needs to be able to defend itself from incoming munitions. You need missiles to intercept other missiles, as well as guided munitions like LGB's. As a last line of defense, maybe even a land-based 30mm CIWS gun system.

Given a hypothetical situation (according to my theory above) where the US deploy wild weasel aircraft to destroy Iranian mobile SAM units, the wild weasel aircraft will launch its anti-radiation missiles, and the Iranian SAM unit will launch its missiles to intercept the incoming missiles. Failing that, the 30mm CIWS guns will auto engage incoming missiles to defend the SAM unit(s). If the US aircraft use LGB's, the defending SAM unit would have alarms that go off when being painted by laser and deploy its own laser soft-kill system. Failing that, it'd launch missiles, then CIWS system to hit the falling LGB.


And no, I don't think the F/A-22 will be deployed against Iranian SAM sites. Wrong aircraft to use IMO.

What are SAMs good for in the future battlefield? Against first-world opponents with better aircraft, it's very difficult to shoot the planes down. But the munitions aren't stealthy and you can still target those. A good defensive SAM system can be deployed to intercept incoming cruise missiles and other air to surface munitions. It can also keep most non-stealthy enemy aircraft at either very low or very high altitudes.

[Schumacher]

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.

Because Russia won't sell the long range SAMs since doing so would really hit US-Russia ties. Despite recent rhetorics from Putin, I don't think Russia considers Iran to be worth the price, for now, of bringing Russia-US ties to a new recent low.
Given that the Iranian nuke sites locations are known, I don't see how a few weeks worth of 24/7 bombings mainly by B-2, cruise missiles supported by F-22 perhaps cannot destroy most of them.
The underground ones may need some special ops teams on the ground, Israel will be glad to help out here. Some losses are expected here but will be deemed acceptable.
The interesting part is how Iran can then expand the conflict to shipping in the Gulf, Iraq, get some help from Syria, fire some SRBMs at the green zone in Baghdad or Kabul forcing USAF to look for their mobile SRBMs etc etc.

[DPRKUnderground]

They would never fire at Kabul. They're allies of Afghanistan.

Iran needs to modernize their Air Force. They have old MiG-29s that have gone through a small upgrade, and some old MiG-21s and MiG-27s. They're budget is close to $20B. They should put their MiG-29s through an extensive upgrade program and let India help them on their MiG-21s and 27s.

China would never sell them the JF-17. Russia could sell old surplus Su-27s. But that would put Russia under huge pressure. Iran is in a bad situation. They can't do anything to stop a USAF bombing campaign or even do some damage to it.

[BLUEJACKET]

Iran needs to modernize their Air Force. They have old MiG-29s that have gone through a small upgrade, and some old MiG-21s and MiG-27s.

Iranian AF (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/airforce-equipment.htm) has no MiG-27s.
It's possible to neutralize SAMs, but what if not all are using their radars during the initial phase? Then some CMs and planes will be shot down, as they were over Iraq and former Yugoslavia. The Russians may also use their AWACS and other long-range radars from outside Iran to pass info. to them- and some good training against real air targets!
Iran doesn't really have to attack shipping and/or close the strait of Hormuz: a few dosen BMs and/or SOF/terrorist attacks can destroy all refineries/loading terminals in the Gulf and there will be nothing to ship out!

[DPRKUnderground]

Floggers are Floggers.

[Gollevainen]

yeas, but MiG-23 and MiG-27 (both sharing the Flogger name given by NATO) are in effect quite different aircrafts and Iran has neither of them. There was a rumours of MiG-27 purchase in the early 90's but nothing came form it.

[Pointblank]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Scratch]

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]

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]

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.

[Pointblank]

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.

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.

[Scratch]

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.

[bomber]

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.

[King_Comm]

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.

[bd popeye]

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.

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.

[crazyinsane105]

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).

[mpaduan79]

: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

[bd popeye]

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) ....

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?

[IDonT]

: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

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!"

[alwaysfresh]

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.

[IDonT]

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.

1.) US controls the Persian Gulf. The shoreline of Iran might be 1600 km long, but locations with strategic and military value are not that many. Two carrier battle groups with airforce back up from Qatar is more than enough.

2.) That depends. For one thing Iran must be really sure that an attack is immenent or you get a situation that is the reverse of what your looking for. Secondly, you better make sure that you have the capability to successfuly carry out your preemptive attack. Because failure, chances are you will fail, will incur massive and irreplacable military losses.

[Finn McCool]

: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

Of course Iran's variety of advanced SAMs will cause casualties to the US. However, it is a mistake to think that it will slow the Americans down much. In any attack on Iran scenario, it is highly likely that the USAF will hit the Iranians with all the electronic assets that it can bring to bear. Secondly SAM sites will be targeted with Tomahawks, then SEAD missions. To survive this the Iranians will probably turn off their radar. But if this happens, the Americans have won. Of course, the Iranians can use the "Serbian technique" and turn their radars on and off which will get them some kills but that will not result in the kind of casualties that would stop the USAF/N.

[mpaduan79]

Of course Iran's variety of advanced SAMs will cause casualties to the US. However, it is a mistake to think that it will slow the Americans down much. In any attack on Iran scenario, it is highly likely that the USAF will hit the Iranians with all the electronic assets that it can bring to bear. Secondly SAM sites will be targeted with Tomahawks, then SEAD missions. To survive this the Iranians will probably turn off their radar. But if this happens, the Americans have won. Of course, the Iranians can use the "Serbian technique" and turn their radars on and off which will get them some kills but that will not result in the kind of casualties that would stop the USAF/N.

(On March 21st, 1968, less than a year after the shining victory of the Six Day War, the IDF raided the Fatah high command a band of crude guerilla fighters in the village of Karameh in Jordan.



They were all present, all the stars of the victory: The paratroopers under Danny Mat, the 7th Brigade commander Shmuel Gonen (Gorodish), and the paratrooper commando unit under Matan Vilnai. The operation was run by Central Command Chief Major-General Uzi Narkis, who captured Jerusalem.



The defense minister at the time was reservist Lieutenant General Moshe Dayan and not Amir Peretz.



Remember how it ended? The IDF retreated quickly (a nice expression for escaping by the skin of their teeth), battered and bruised with 28 dead and three missing (namely, corpses left behind in the battlefield). The forces also left behind four tanks, which were put on display in the streets of Amman. An Israeli aircraft was hit and crashed inside Israeli territory.)

ur all true in all the way but.... its only scenario ,first how does the american search for those active radar site. awacs, prowler or hawkeye aircraft....plus airborne jammer , so lets iran turn flash out a few tin can(its an old soviet radar ) radar signature plus 100 decoy around its mountain in the north ( common sense moutains or hills perfect for bunker) so these big slow moving radar tracker track the signal+ s or c band noise jammer ,scrambling 100 aircraft from the bases in qatar or the aircraft carrier . the passive radar with cold water based battries (from sub tech) in ishafans small small gulfll near to water position with few waves (sea water kown to effect radar tracking perfomence ) trace the signal from the aew jammer radar . giving the coordinat to the pasive anti radar+jammer missile batteries mouted in trucks..
the fires 3 missile based on TOO module (target of oportunity) within 30 km range of target open its own home jam radar ,the the aew aircraft witl be damage and must land for repair...by that time some of the 100 aircrat sead team will near 45 km from tehran ,without the aew to coordinate them, they are force to seach the radar by rwr, but the iran deploy their iff jammer ( dated 1950ies used by hizbollah to disturb IAF) the 100 aircraft counter it ther own airborne jammer, passive radar detects , a volley of these passive anti jamer + radiation radar break the 100 formation then try to dodge those missile,a few tor-mi on its real radar ,ambush these aircrat ( coz the 100 aircraft have already shut down their ecm or eccm capabilities (remember aircraft can only avoid 1 type of tracking method at 1 time) so the fortunate aircraft try to zigzag with nap on earth in the hills to the south without sar radar try to fly to their base back but in their pprojected path( using cell phone or walkie talkie by spooter@villagers thacking by sound or flash to the aa battery waiting them are manpads plus 27-35 mm anti aircraft gun) . In the CNN that after 7 am in the morning day breaking news ,iran manage to shot down 1 f/a-18 hornet using their 14.5 mm quad canon aa gun on a truck by fighters from iraq insurgents group link to iran near the iraqi borders. but by quick response csar team they manage to save the pilot and the navigator but Western media reported no enemy killed in these operations, 28 civilians killed, and 50 civilians wounded.a Marine officer says to media in a press conf. ..its only a hipothesis coz like i said the best weapon is how u know the best use of ur weapon effecively in battle field condition(thats include media)

pre emptive attack its not the best but deterrent is the best defence

pre emptive attack its not the best but deterrent is the best defence iran revolution guards in small RIB inflatable boats teams will try to shoot us aircraft carrier warship using RPG-7VM in volleys using shot and scoot tactic ..... the USN wil try to shot them back using m60 7.62 mm machine guns on their heli or warship , ircg fight back using Dhsk or RPK mg or MANPADS SA-7 ..... try that for a laugh.......wah hahhahhahahahha its true actually:roll: :roll: :roll:

[Pointblank]

iran revolution guards in small RIB inflatable boats teams will try to shoot us aircraft carrier warship using RPG-7VM in volleys using shot and scoot tactic ..... the USN wil try to shot them back using m60 7.62 mm machine guns on their heli or warship , ircg fight back using Dhsk or RPK mg or MANPADS SA-7 ..... try that for a laugh.......wah hahhahhahahahha its true actually:roll: :roll: :roll:

Do you even think that a RIB will even get that close to a US carrier... NOT LIKELY! And will an RPG even penetrate the hull of a carrier, also not likely. They would have been intercepted by the escorts, and promptly sunk by long range cannon fire and helicopters armed with Penguin missiles after being warned...

[mpaduan79]

Do you even think that a RIB will even get that close to a US carrier... NOT LIKELY! And will an RPG even penetrate the hull of a carrier, also not likely. They would have been intercepted by the escorts, and promptly sunk by long range cannon fire and helicopters armed with Penguin missiles after being warned...:coffee:
warned by who, radar? radar cannot spot a small target with near "stealth" capabilities on open water, only infra red can spot them in certain direction(after they blast the rpg in voleys) but at that time they have scoot away at 30 knot uder comoufage ir net (they use in bad boys 2 early part of the movie ) pissing american nav. then they try to target them with long range canon 152 mm but we are talking about a small fast agile moving target in littoral sea homewaters with some wave so, cannot see so cannot predict the coordinat using what gps eh? the scarmble sh-60 sikorski heli with penguin misille (actually pengguin need 20 m rcs to spot the target or the most effective and logical unit ah-1n sea cobra with 20 mm gatling canon (us marines have afew) but with T0W missle but those ircg suicide rib fires manpads beyond tow range (5.5 km vs max 4 km) some more it is Tube-launched, Optically tracked, Wire-guided missile so the heli operator must see and wait untill it hit target but manpad is fire n forget the cobra evasive manuver....but too late it has been spoted by a rib bot with 20mm aa(iraqi trained from taji, so far the have down few apache ah-64 with longbow radar) canon ....so then usn send some csar but the ircgs safe back to their house watching it live from cnn - the objective they have harras the entire carrier battle group to protect oil&logistic shipping lane ,to put all their anti-rib assets to search for those irgc rib boats team the whole day, remain in qatar base becos its safer there... ,then using long range cannon+tomahawk they manage to bomb kharaq island with few "collecteral" damage. cnn repot . also a hepothesis also ....right

[mpaduan79]

hello! thats y hms sheffield wast hit by exocet " sea skimming" missile+ uss stark near kharaq island during iran-iraq war

:coffee:
warned by who, radar? radar cannot spot a small target with near "stealth" capabilities on open water, only infra red can spot them in certain direction(after they blast the rpg in voleys) but at that time they have scoot away at 30 knot uder comoufage ir net (they use in bad boys 2 early part of the movie ) pissing american nav. then they try to target them with long range canon 152 mm but we are talking about a small fast agile moving target in littoral sea homewaters with some wave so, cannot see so cannot predict the coordinat using what gps eh? the scarmble sh-60 sikorski heli with penguin misille (actually pengguin need 20 m rcs to spot the target or the most effective and logical unit ah-1n sea cobra with 20 mm gatling canon (us marines have afew) but with T0W missle but those ircg suicide rib fires manpads beyond tow range (5.5 km vs max 4 km) some more it is Tube-launched, Optically tracked, Wire-guided missile so the heli operator must see and wait untill it hit target but manpad is fire n forget the cobra evasive manuver....but too late it has been spoted by a rib bot with 20mm aa(iraqi trained from taji, so far the have down few apache ah-64 with longbow radar) canon ....so then usn send some csar but the ircgs safe back to their house watching it live from cnn - the objective they have harras the entire carrier battle group to protect oil&logistic shipping lane ,to put all their anti-rib assets to search for those irgc rib boats team the whole day, remain in qatar base becos its safer there... ,then using long range cannon+tomahawk they manage to bomb kharaq island with few "collecteral" damage. cnn repot . also a hepothesis also ....right

might use uss Seawolf class subs, normallly they escort carrier battle group
the blast those ircg rib boat using mark 48 adcap to blast them out of the water using active and/or passive homing ....but sonar cannot refelect rubber
some more in littoral water ...so the have they to use periscope but those ircg guy put playboy mag in front of the scope forcing the sub to submerge to catch and destroy them using m60 mg those ircg ribs but the using limplet mines ,ircg frogman detonate the outer hull of the subs and put it out of action so the subs dive to safety

[Pointblank]

:coffee:
warned by who, radar? radar cannot spot a small target with near "stealth" capabilities on open water, only infra red can spot them in certain direction(after they blast the rpg in voleys) but at that time they have scoot away at 30 knot uder comoufage ir net (they use in bad boys 2 early part of the movie ) pissing american nav. then they try to target them with long range canon 152 mm but we are talking about a small fast agile moving target in littoral sea homewaters with some wave so, cannot see so cannot predict the coordinat using what gps eh? the scarmble sh-60 sikorski heli with penguin misille (actually pengguin need 20 m rcs to spot the target or the most effective and logical unit ah-1n sea cobra with 20 mm gatling canon (us marines have afew) but with T0W missle but those ircg suicide rib fires manpads beyond tow range (5.5 km vs max 4 km) some more it is Tube-launched, Optically tracked, Wire-guided missile so the heli operator must see and wait untill it hit target but manpad is fire n forget the cobra evasive manuver....but too late it has been spoted by a rib bot with 20mm aa(iraqi trained from taji, so far the have down few apache ah-64 with longbow radar) canon ....so then usn send some csar but the ircgs safe back to their house watching it live from cnn - the objective they have harras the entire carrier battle group to protect oil&logistic shipping lane ,to put all their anti-rib assets to search for those irgc rib boats team the whole day, remain in qatar base becos its safer there... ,then using long range cannon+tomahawk they manage to bomb kharaq island with few "collecteral" damage. cnn repot . also a hepothesis also ....right

A RIB is detectable on radar. I've been on a frigate on exercise as a guest before. Besides an excellent ship based radar set, we had good watch from lookouts, and assistance from the Sea King helicopter providing overwatch with it's onboard surface search radar and FLIR. The frigate detected the target, and we engaged the RIB with the 57mm gun. The gun burst shrapnel above the RIB and it promptly sank to the bottom of the Georgia Strait riddled with holes. I doubt anyone can survive proximity fused 57mm rounds bursting over their heads. Besides the main gun, we had Browning M2 .50 machine guns for closer in defence, and the Phalanx Block 1B which is capable of engaging close in targets. Most USN warships are equipped with at least main gun and all have multiple Mk 38 25mm chain guns and Browning M2 machine guns for point defence.

hello! thats y hms sheffield wast hit by exocet " sea skimming" missile+ uss stark near kharaq island during iran-iraq war

HMS Sheffield was sunk because it lost it's ability to fight the fire; it was the result of the missile rupturing the only water main (In a bid to get as many Sea Dart SAM equipped ships to sea as possible, Type 42's had various cost cutting appiled to design, including a single water main, 40 feet cut off the length), thus making the fire from unburnt rocket fuel from the Exocet, problematic to put out. Furthermore, her radar was offline, not unusual since she was one of a number of radar pickets, however, the UUA-1 ESM system would warn of attacks.

But, at the time of illumination of the Exocet's own radar seeker, Sheffield was doing a transmission on her satellite comms system, which compromised the ESM's ability. Again, poor situational awareness and a poor design doomed her.

USS Stark was hit due to poor understanding of the ROE, poor commanding, and poor situational awareness. After Stark was hit, USN ROE and situational awareness sharpened. Nobody got close to USN ships as USN ships tightened up security and alertness as CO's weren't going to let their ships get hit due to a "mis-interpretation" of the ROE. Warning shots were constantly fired against anything that's intentions were unknown and got within 1 mile of the ship. In the end the main failure of the CO of the Stark was that he forgot to protect his ship. A piece of paper with ROEs on it will not stop a missile.

[mpaduan79]

A RIB is detectable on radar. I've been on a frigate on exercise as a guest before. Besides an excellent ship based radar set, we had good watch from lookouts, and assistance from the Sea King helicopter providing overwatch with it's onboard surface search radar and FLIR. The frigate detected the target, and we engaged the RIB with the 57mm gun. The gun burst shrapnel above the RIB and it promptly sank to the bottom of the Georgia Strait riddled with holes. I doubt anyone can survive proximity fused 57mm rounds bursting over their heads. Besides the main gun, we had Browning M2 .50 machine guns for closer in defence, and the Phalanx Block 1B which is capable of engaging close in targets. Most USN warships are equipped with at least main gun and all have multiple Mk 38 25mm chain guns and Browning M2 machine guns for point defence.



HMS Sheffield was sunk because it lost it's ability to fight the fire; it was the result of the missile rupturing the only water main (In a bid to get as many Sea Dart SAM equipped ships to sea as possible, Type 42's had various cost cutting appiled to design, including a single water main, 40 feet cut off the length), thus making the fire from unburnt rocket fuel from the Exocet, problematic to put out. Furthermore, her radar was offline, not unusual since she was one of a number of radar pickets, however, the UUA-1 ESM system would warn of attacks.

But, at the time of illumination of the Exocet's own radar seeker, Sheffield was doing a transmission on her satellite comms system, which compromised the ESM's ability. Again, poor situational awareness and a poor design doomed her.

USS Stark was hit due to poor understanding of the ROE, poor commanding, and poor situational awareness. After Stark was hit, USN ROE and situational awareness sharpened. Nobody got close to USN ships as USN ships tightened up security and alertness as CO's weren't going to let their ships get hit due to a "mis-interpretation" of the ROE. Warning shots were constantly fired against anything that's intentions were unknown and got within 1 mile of the ship. In the end the main failure of the CO of the Stark was that he forgot to protect his ship. A piece of paper with ROEs on it will not stop a missile.

I am seeing that from the rest of your multiple posts that you are most likely a troll, so I will sit back until a mod gets his hands on you and slaps you a warning. Besides, we are off topic; so, BACK TO YOUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED TOPIC! :nono:
:coffee:
ur true and like i said the best way to use the weapon the know how to use in battlefield condition, if the enemy can predict ur sop how ur react , in a terrain of their choice.... just like ins hanit -2 Barak launchers, 20mm Phalanx CIWS Mk.15, 2 x Mk 32 torpedo launchers (6 tubes) Browning M2 machine

According to the the Israeli Navy, the ship's sophisticated automatic missile defense system was not deployed, even though the early warning system is usually deployed during peace-time wargames. It was also reported that even a nearby ship had deployed its defense system, thus creating great speculations. [4]. Israel said the defense system was not deployed because of Israeli aircraft in the area. There was no known intelligence pointing to the fact that such a sophisticated missile was deployed in Lebanon by Hezbollah.
regardless of whether a C-802 or C-701 they are not only fire-and-forget weapons, but require nothing more than a bearing and a rough distance to be launched and hit, both of which could have possibly been acquired using nothing more complicated than binoculars. The issue remains unresolved at present, because the Hanit's precise location at the time of the attack is unknown. The flight profiles of the two missiles employed in the attack (the other hit a Cambodian[verification needed] cargo ship) do indeed suggest that they were launched without precise targeting information, homing in with their onboard electronics: had they been provided with onshore guidance rather than autonomously acquiring their targets, it is fairly unlikely that the nis-targetting of the civilian vessel would have occurred.

Iranian military advisors from the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) had assisted with the firing (more precisely: with deploying and readying the missile launcher; the actual firing was within Hezbollah's capability).[6]

they use binoculars for bearing and a rough distance to be launched and hit Sa'ar 5 ships that are considered the Israeli fleet's most advanced surface

[Gollevainen]

To everyone, leave the moderation for mods please.

And mpaduan79, there's a rules about doupleposting (multiple post in a row without anyone else anwsering in the middle) and of other code of conducts. If you forget something there's the edit putton for that purpose.

Also the discussion is bit offtopic so off you go and linger back to Iranian SAMs.

Gollevainen
Supermoderator

[mpaduan79]

how many sam that iran poses beside tor and wat type aa gun that they poses does somebody know tq:coffee: