First of all, you repeat that Tor missile is several times cheaper without any numbers and sources. Tor missile is much heavier than Iron Dome's and has TVC. Thats expensive. During the mass production electronics have a tendency of very high price drop, but mechanical things remain expensive. Today smartphone with megapixel camera, quality touchscreen, powerful processor, MP3 player, radio... costs 10 times cheaper than clumsy cell phone 20 years ago. On the other hand cars remain as expensive as before.
Do not know on what level your example does relate to this, but missiles with seeker are always inherently costlier, and this fact is reflected in Iron Dome where the smallest cost figures are about 50000$ per missile... Nobody else takes that expense to deal against cheap and unsophisticated muntions.
Second of all, Iron Dome battery is one command center one radar and 3 launchers. For Tor you have 4 manned machines, command center, radar - thats much more manpower and much more expensive to operate 24/7. I actually doubt that Tor can operate in this mode at all.
It is not, because important aspect of Tor is that it performs several functions, protection against any kind of target, works in several niches at once, so Tor battery has much more military value. Also, advantage is that battery is modular, can incorporate several elements depending on need, and each unit can work independently.
Iron Dome has no more value than interception of simple and cheap rocket artillery, and efficience is not good when extreme cost difference between interceptor questions it's viability.
Third of all, Iron Dome battery is 100 million dollars cheaper. So even IF missile is 3 times cheaper, EACH BATTERY needs to fire THOUSANDS of them before it compensates the battery cost. And that does not include the higher manpower cost of Tor battery.
Important aspect of comparison here is not that much the system itself (because Tor is versatile and has much more value) but once deployed and performing the mission. And Iron Dome with ridicously expensive interceptor is not efficient in comparison.
Nothing of it is battle proven. Why Russia is not offering Tor to South Korea as area protection system? I dont think it can do that job at all.
Tor is decades of experience and contionous sophistication and much more mature and capable than Iron Dome.
Didn't knew that anyone operates Iron Dome, except Israel where cost is not reflected because it is payed by US financial assistance. While Tor has been exported worldwide in different configurations.
9M100 is short range system. Its going to replace Kinjal - the naval version of Tor.
Nobody will replace Tor (or for the matter, similar systems) with semi-active homing missiles. You do not understand their implementation. It is how do you implement the guidance method, depends on the system.
In case of Tor there is simply no need to do so, as it has a great multi-channel capability, in fact it would be a step backwards because it only would increase missile cost, and exclude secondary guidance, as optical tracking. Tor is already unmatched in it's role.
In ships in particular they will standarise armament with universal VLS cells, in order to be compatible they must have same guidance method, so I do not know how this is related to Tor or whatever.
Yup, everyone else is stupid.
And who is everyone else ? Show examples, of comparable systems, I already will say, that there are none.
