In Iranian service, the TOR-M1 would only be used at anti PGM weapon, against high speed weapons. Those sites that are important enough to get a few TOR’s have anyway mid-range radar guided systems, radar guided AAA with very short range radar guided missiles and a load of normal AAA’s and MANPADs. In some cases also very long range radar/HOJ missiles are used in those multi layer sites.

Now the TOR’s that Iran wants to buy are said to be upgraded variants, the ones with new search radar, which might have improved reaction times against high-speed PGM’s (Iran was testing the SA-15 for years having specific requierments). Including the TOR the sites at which TOR’s are used have mid-to-long range radar tracking/illuimating, mid range IR-radar guidance, short range radar command guidance, short-range IR guidance, short-range TV tracking guidance, in some cases very long range HOJ guidance and with maybe thermal TV guidance with the TOR’s.

Only in such enviorment the TOR’s will be used and except the massive use of combined CM’s, decoys/ECM and SEAD/Ballistic missile attacks, at more than a dozen such sites at once, there is no way even the US could take the Iranian Air Defence out in one day.

Then also fighters will come into play and counter attacks by BM’s, bombers and AshM’s/ships/boats, this will create serius problems for the on-going operations and if the long range sam sites embeded into the multi layer sites, are not taken out operations will get very difficlut since tankers, AEW and Command&Control-reconaiassence-SIGINT-ELINT assests will have serius problems with their operations near the boder. Hoping that the stealth fighters and bombers wont be detected, attacking the sites and taking them out by massive firepower is surely an option but this cant be done at all sites at once and certainly never in one day.

There is no comparison to Serbia and Iraq, while both of them had some good tactics at times, their numbers were either low or they leaked the means to establish a wide speared system with newly (war) developed modifications and tactics. Iran’s system on the other hand, has the tactics and the equipment to be a really strong and capable air defence system, having only no-chance against the US military in conventional warfare.

Even if everything wents perfectly at least one week of heavyiest campain will be needed to take out the Iranian Air Defence system.

The TOR was the best option for Iran, its THE system that the Air Defence lacks at the moment and will pave the way for an air defence enviorment in which the possible S-300’s will fit.

What F-14A said is also right Russia would and likely could not set up a production line for the Flanker and especially not for advanced engine like the AL-31 series which is a special technology for Russia today.

The F-14 is surely more complex than the Flanker but Iran is known to it for 30 years, 25 of which keeping them up buy their own. F-14’s are known 100% to the IRIAF, don’t have decoded software and have a complete support infrastructure.

I doubt that even with Russian willingness and 5 years Iran could bring 100 Flankers to the same strength as its current Tomcat fleet.

Photos show that Iran already produce the TL-10 in two versions the optical version which is apparently simply an improved C.701.

Jane’s should better watch more Iranian TV, they even showed the assembly line 😉

I agree with GarryB, to take out an AB an air force is much better.

The Shahab-3B’s RV for example should be too fast for cluster warheads, with them only short range missiles like the Iskander-E are effective.

Its simply so that an raid of aircrafts which have each over 4000kg PGM’s and CBU’s can cause much more damage and really kill the AB for weeks in one raid.

But another was would be using BM’s in very large numbers, which is of course wasteful.

So with good Intel via satellites for example one could chose several “hot spots” within the AB, aircraft shelters or the command centre and completely destroy these spots. For example, with the Shahab-3A as a cheap spin stabilized weapon one could chose 3 x 200m circles in an large AB and shoot each some 30 Shahab-3’s at these spots, with their heavy 1200kg warheads they will destroy most things in these kill circles, if not very strong hardened. That’s how such missiles are used, more pinpoint weapons such as conventional Agni-I and Pershing II or Shahab-3B and Iskander-E are better used against high priority targets such as command centres as they are relatively expensive (especially the Pershing-II of course).

But I can only repeat BM’s are very expensive weapons, only very few of them would be even worth the idea to be used conventionally and I know only one IRBM developed to be cheap and used conventionally and that’s the Shahab-3 series. For example it’s relatively clear to me that Pakistan and North Korea while also using a similar design developed them for nukes and C-weapons (NK) as they remain expensive weapons.

I would not take the Prithvi series as real ballistic missiles, at such a short range they don’t need to re-enter the atmosphere, what means that they glide like PGM’s in a ballistic trajectory, simply said like a guided Katucha.

Nearly all ICBM’s with MIRV’s use a spin stabilization for each warhead, giving them a CEP of between 100-500m, enough for nuclear warheads.

Really accurate BM’s which also do the complex re-entering of the atmosphere are missiles like the Pershing-II and Agni-II and the Agni-I and Shahab-3B.

Pershing-II and Agni-II have advanced INS systems and the first one even a terminal guidance system, by using their aerodynamic steering method via fins they can guide themselves after the re-entering and archive CEP’s of about ~50m.

Missiles such as the Agni-I and Shahab-3B have even a more complex booster nozzle steering system, which other than fins, also works outside the atmosphere, they are generally said to be more manoeuvrable than the fin steering method. Depending on their INS system they are said to have a CEP of 50-20m (at least the Agni-I).

Of course there are also other accurate missiles these were only examples.

SCUD’s fly within the atmosphere the Arrow can attack it at all the way. Other missiles which fly higher and “out of the Atmosphere” will give the Arrow a much shorter reaction time and so effective range.

To this also fooling methods can come, for example if each re-entry vehicle has around 3-5 decoys which are pumped on and towed, with several other real warheads launched at the same time… It can be expected that the Green pine radar detects up to 50 incoming targets which are only attackable in the terminal phase at 30-50km maximum.

With such tactics the Arrow will get great problems in future. Another question is how much cost such a Arrow-2 missile; would it cost less than a SCUD ? How many would Israel acquire ?

Ballistic missiles will remain a threat, especially cheap ones used en masse.

I don’t know if the PAK-FA will be really heavy, it could be something between Su-30 and F-35.

The XXJ-12 yes maybe to project is to advanced by now but like with the PAK-FA it could be something lighter although it is said to be in F/A-22 size. But with China there is the problem that such a heavy design could be too advanced, I mean avionics are one thing but for such an aircraft much experience is needed and here MiG could developed the airframe and strong modern engines are also needed. China might get problems with the XXJ-12 if its really in F/A-22 size.

Iran by now had only experience with light fighters and now a new light/medium has been developed but the resources and experience needed for such a heavy fighter should not be available. The development of such a aircraft needs simply very much resources and development founds, also not many are likely to be build that’s why I see only China, Iran and Russia building and founding something like that together, alone its too comply, expensive and simply much.

Sure the chances are very slim to none existing but it would be a good idea.

I see a foreign market for a new heavy long range fighter. It would must have a good aerodynamic with inertial bays two strong engines for a very long range in an area of 3000-4000km with weapons. It would must be capable to deliver about 3000-4000kg of ordnance to a target 1500-2000km away in a high-low-high profile with a Mach-1+ in the attack and initial leaving phases. Surly it would also must have a two man crew.

Currently only the Su-30 is available for a about similar job which nearly everyone could buy, but its capabilities are too limited. MiG with its experience could develop such a fighter and the 1.44 is a good layout, if they would build the airframe, the engines and FBW and set up a working production line which use high-tech materials, everything in good quality, then maybe China and Iran would buy the aircraft if there is a complete technical documentation. China maybe would must give up its XXJ-12 but could put everything it wants into it; also Iran would integrate its own weapon systems to it.

I see an 80-100 and 150-200 market for Iran and China and eventually Russia and some other larger AF’s would buy their examples. Ok MiG isn’t in a very good condition but with cash from China and Iran they could build it for the time after 2010 and by then both China and Iran would be in a need for such an aircraft.

China and Iran could equip it in the role of a strong long-range airborne radar carrier, with the RIO/WSO having good data-link and ECM system and long range stand-off weapons like CM’s and LRAAM’s.