Iranian Air Defense Systems

[PeeD]

They may be good enough to upgrade with the right upgrade but NOT really good enough to produce!

Fact is for it's size, range and capabilities the missile is too large and requires a massive launcher which is NOT a system that's worth taking into production and the main reason against it would be lack of mobility.

In a war with any country with the capability of going to war with Iran the enemy would conduct detailed analysis of where our systems are located and what the range capability of each system is and they'll upgrade the maps of their Aircraft and Cruise Missiles to take countermeasures and unless you use the time given to you by your early warning systems to take countermeasures of your own and move your systems to a 2ndary location previously planed to lay traps you will be in trouble

And systems like the Tor & Pantsir's are highly mobile short ranged systems mainly meant for low altitude engagement like a volley of cruise missiles before the fighters come, intercepting projectiles fired from aircraft, helo's & lower altitude UAV's and in that role they can do their job adequately and cheaper command guidance backed by high processing capability is sufficient at their range and what they'll be used against but it is NOT sufficient for aircrafts that will NOT even attempt to enter a high threat area like Tehran unless backed by various type of jammers and countermeasures

+ The SA-1 or Sayyad-1 is 35ft long & 28 inches in diameter the dam thing is a good 6 inches wider in diameter and well over 10ft longer than a Tomahawk cruise missile which means they are 5ft longer and 8 inches wider than the Fateh-110 and with that size they are usually engaged within 25km of their which would have been OK if they were a mobile system capable of laying traps but they are NOT!

And if your a Un-bunkered high value fixed target that can't lay traps, you can't be well hidden due to a lack of mobility and your engagement range against fighters is less than 60km then fighters can simply use relatively low cost glide bombs like the SDB and a single F-15 can carry 18 of them or 14 & external fuel without breaking a sweet

Which makes them a ridicules SAM to produce at this day and age! Iran would be far better off just building another Zolfaghar factory to allow us to go after more targets and hit their aircraft where they land because Sayyads are just too easy to take out for various reasons which can't even intercept cruise missiles & even if they could they are far too big of a missile for such a task

Plus it's time Iran starts mass producing various types of sensors & electronics with automated factories so they come out cheaper for the military to install them on wide range of platforms from pulse doppler SAR radars to thermal imaging to HD camera's to our own advance processor and memory storage devices & SSD and we need to get our hands on an AESA radars or have our engineers try to develop our own by gathering as much data on them as they can

No one would produce the Sayyad-1 today. Iran has a large stockpile and the manpower to use the systems.
The task for it is very limited --> high speed, high altitude, only Tehran airspace.
That is its percentage of the war. Not more, it won't be used to intercept any SDB or low level maneuverable fighters. Anything that falls into its criteria will receive, everything that is not, not.

One of the main goals of an air campaign is to take out the high altitude capability to allow high altitude bombing. Loosing the high altitude assets is the start of the end.
The Sayyad-1 is static but is protected by all other IADS elements to fullfil its small portion of the warfare.

 

[PeeD]

The Pantsir design is genius in its missile design, better than the Tor with its omni-directional cold launch system.

However if Iran really wants a Pantsir stype "all-in-one" system it should move the AAA component to something like the new Chinese 76mm SA2 AAA system with Oerlikon AHEAD like sensor fused submunition rounds. Iran has the 76mm gun technology in production albeit for naval use and the Russians have also realized that this is the way to go by developing their 57mm equivalent.

Alternatively Iran could go the Russian path and further develop the 57mm S-60 AAA as basis. However the 76mm gun has more potential but would be harder to change into a land version and the size can also cause problems.

A 76mm gun, plus the TOR guidance radar on top of it as well as a compact search radar at the rear with 3-6 of those Iranian Pantsir-like SAMs at each side? The size of such a hybrid would be very large, larger than the Pantsir. Technically possible and a suitable truck is available too but I would distribute the system on 2-3 trucks each dedicated to either 76mm/57mm AHEAD AAA or missiles.

The missile component would then have 12-16 Iranian Pantsir. The Iranian Pantsir seems to have a powered second stage, which would make it more expensive but also longer ranged than the original Pantsir. The powered second stage forbids a more robust laser guidance as in the new Russian Sosna, but could allow a range of around 25km at higher cost per round.

The question whether Tor or Pantsir guidance radar is simpler: The Pantsir radar system while more expensive is smaller and capable for longer ranges. If instead of the traditional 30mm guns of the Pantsir, a giant like the 76mm gun with AHEAD-munition is used, compactness of the radar is of high importance. The question is whether Iran has access to the Pantsir radar technology.

The search radar needs to be compact and high power too. A expensive high power system could be the solution like on the newest Pantsir variants, they offer the range necessary for the longer ranged missiles.
But much more cost effective could be the thermal camera (4x) equipped passive search system which Iran presented 2014 but I can imagine that it would get problems if deployed on the same truck as a 76mm gun when it fires.

A completely different scenario would be of course a copy of the Tor on a wheeled system. The display of the Pantsir-like windtunnel model speaks against this, as well as the relatively higher price per round compared to the Pantsir. But in total it would do the job well and be a lower-risk development than those scenarios above.

 

[AmirPatriot]

@PeeD This is regarding Talash systems and Bavar.
It seems to me the Bavar-373 will only use one missile i.e a sayyad-4. What's the point of having a separate long range air defence system called Talash-3. Why not just incorporate the sayyad-3 into the Bavar system? Is there some other "uniqueness" about this whole Talash system to merit it being an entire separate system? Is the main difference simply a matter of range?

I much rather them develop some dedicated anti missile systems like david's sling and combine this with bavar than have 2 long range air defence systems with both focusing mainly on anti aircraft etc. Unless, like I said, I am missing something about Talash.

Talash is basically an upgrade to the S-200. Talash-3 would provide a mobile, more sophisticated radar at existing S-200 sites, as well as medium range Sayyad-2/3 missiles to protect the static S-200 launch rails from tactical aircraft.

The Pantsir design is genius in its missile design, better than the Tor with its omni-directional cold launch system.

However if Iran really wants a Pantsir stype "all-in-one" system it should move the AAA component to something like the new Chinese 76mm SA2 AAA system with Oerlikon AHEAD like sensor fused submunition rounds. Iran has the 76mm gun technology in production albeit for naval use and the Russians have also realized that this is the way to go by developing their 57mm equivalent.

Alternatively Iran could go the Russian path and further develop the 57mm S-60 AAA as basis. However the 76mm gun has more potential but would be harder to change into a land version and the size can also cause problems.

A 76mm gun, plus the TOR guidance radar on top of it as well as a compact search radar at the rear with 3-6 of those Iranian Pantsir-like SAMs at each side? The size of such a hybrid would be very large, larger than the Pantsir. Technically possible and a suitable truck is available too but I would distribute the system on 2-3 trucks each dedicated to either 76mm/57mm AHEAD AAA or missiles.

The missile component would then have 12-16 Iranian Pantsir. The Iranian Pantsir seems to have a powered second stage, which would make it more expensive but also longer ranged than the original Pantsir. The powered second stage forbids a more robust laser guidance as in the new Russian Sosna, but could allow a range of around 25km at higher cost per round.

The question whether Tor or Pantsir guidance radar is simpler: The Pantsir radar system while more expensive is smaller and capable for longer ranges. If instead of the traditional 30mm guns of the Pantsir, a giant like the 76mm gun with AHEAD-munition is used, compactness of the radar is of high importance. The question is whether Iran has access to the Pantsir radar technology.

The search radar needs to be compact and high power too. A expensive high power system could be the solution like on the newest Pantsir variants, they offer the range necessary for the longer ranged missiles.
But much more cost effective could be the thermal camera (4x) equipped passive search system which Iran presented 2014 but I can imagine that it would get problems if deployed on the same truck as a 76mm gun when it fires.

A completely different scenario would be of course a copy of the Tor on a wheeled system. The display of the Pantsir-like windtunnel model speaks against this, as well as the relatively higher price per round compared to the Pantsir. But in total it would do the job well and be a lower-risk development than those scenarios above.

I think it's better to contain the system into one vehicle (a Zafar 8x8 or at most a Zoljanah 10x10). This way it is less cumbersome, has a shorter supply chain and is just easier to position. You want a small footprint. Because say you want to protect a Bavar-373 battery with 2 Iranian Pantsirs, you only need 2 vehicles not 4 or 6.

For this the 76 mm is waay too big (don't forgot the ammo!) and you have to also consider traverse rate as the gun will be the last line of defence. You don't need a big gun since you want the missiles to fire at targets at range. So there are a multitude of weapons you can consider. I think even the 35 mm Samavat would be good for the job considering reach round of the Oerlikon's AHEAD ammo fires 152 tungsten sub-penetrators. I'd think the high traverse and fire rate of the Oerlikon guns coupled with its effective AHEAD ammo are enough as the "last, last" line of defence.

Anyway I hope Iran gets out of its strange habit of equipping systems with few missiles... Fateh-110 with 1 per truck, Crotale copy with 4, only 4 Qader ASCMs on Mowj class even though 8 can be fitted, 3 instead of 6 Hawk launchers at Hawk sites, 4 TELs at S-300 sites instead of the normal 6, 2 S-200 missiles instead of 6... etc.

 

[Blue In Green]

Talash is basically an upgrade to the S-200. Talash-3 would provide a mobile, more sophisticated radar at existing S-200 sites, as well as medium range Sayyad-2/3 missiles to protect the static S-200 launch rails from tactical aircraft.



I think it's better to contain the system into one vehicle (a Zafar 8x8 or at most a Zoljanah 10x10). This way it is less cumbersome, has a shorter supply chain and is just easier to position. You want a small footprint. Because say you want to protect a Bavar-373 battery with 2 Iranian Pantsirs, you only need 2 vehicles not 4 or 6.

For this the 76 mm is waay too big (don't forgot the ammo!) and you have to also consider traverse rate as the gun will be the last line of defence. You don't need a big gun since you want the missiles to fire arat There targets at range. So there are a multitude of weapons you can consider. I think even the 35 mm Samavat would be good for the job considering reach round of the Oerlikon's AHEAD ammo fires 152 tungsten sub-penetrators. I'd think the high traverse and fire rate of the Oerlikon guns coupled with its effective AHEAD ammo are enough as the "last, last" line of defence.

Anyway I hope Iran gets out of its strange habit of equipping systems with few missiles... Fateh-110 with 1 per truck, Crotale copy with 4, only 4 Qader ASCMs on Mowj class even though 4 can be fitted, 3 instead of 6 Hawk launchers at Hawk sites, 4 TELs at S-300 sites instead of the normal 6, 2 S-200 missiles instead of 6... etc.

"arat"

 

[PeeD]

@AmirPatriot

With systems like the Bavar-373 the footprint factor is already gone, you can't disguise it as civilian trucks anymore. So a compact Iranian Pantsir with twin 35mm guns on Zafar is one option and a large Iranian Pantsir on Zoljanah another more expensive and capable.

The point is that in the future with UAVs, you need a cost effective weapon to kill at extended ranges.
The 35mm gun has a max. range of 3,5km. It was a wise decision by Iran to move to the 100mm KS-19 to be able to engage targets at extended ranges.
The 76mm gun is mastered and in service, plus it offers broadly similar range and altitude capability to the KS-19. It is also large enough to be upgraded to a guided round, something Russians are moving to with their 57mm system.

So the idea that the AAA component is a last ditch mean for protection is from the past. The AAA component should be the tool to kill anything not worth a missile; UAVs, CM, Helicopters, unpowered bombs like SDB...
For those targets a single 76mm AHEAD munition could be sufficient, whole probably needing a salvo of some 6 35mm AHEAD munitions or 25 normal 30mm Pantsir cannon rounds.

The 8 barrel Mesbah does a very good job out to 2,5km, but needs the investment for 8 23mm guns. A 76mm AHEAD round would need one gun, and extend the engagement range 3 times, plus only need one round instead of 30 for a assured kill.
Anything that wants to kill a Bavar-373 site needs to get into that 2,5km zone of the Mesbah at some point in time (like anything that wants to kill a CIWS equipped ship has to go past it). But if you want a system that can kill crossing targets to protect area targets like cities, you use a chain of 4-5 such systems.
We can't underestimate the incoming UAV threat or that of weapons like the SDB. Iranians were wise enough to realize this 10 years ago with the 100mm autogun, it basically does the same job as a potential 76mm AHEAD round (but limited in magazine size and rate of fire).
Iran should not go below 57mm. It has naval 40mm Bofors, 35mm Oerlikon, 30mm autocannon, 23mm ZSU and 20mm "Vulcan" as smaller caliber options, all mastered and ready for production.
But I advocate larger calibers for cost effectiveness and larger coverage area.
Technically it is a challenge to house it but mechanical speed issues are no showstopper. The killing capability of 2 such 76mm guns on two Zafar trucks plus a missile component with 16 missiles on a single Zafar would be much higher than two Pantsir, while still cheaper.
Russian mechanized warfare has sometimes requirements like moving and shooting which requires much extra resources, not really worth the extra investment.

At the end, we might see two completely different "Pantsir-like" systems, one from the IRIADF and one from the IRGC-ASF. The IRGC was innovative enough 10 years ago to go for the 100mm gun when nobody else worked in that direction.
So basically my wish for a 76mm AHEAD AAA was already fulfilled 10 years ago, but I want the "Iranian Pantsir" to benefit from these developments and not move back to smaller calibers with high rate of fire. I know that the engineering problems to integrate such a big gun into a Pantsir like system is enormous, but it would be the best possible.

 

[TheImmortal]

Right, Iran would never do what now???








View attachment 498837

You forgot Russian Torpedo as well.

But you fail to realize 2 basic points

1) BUK and KH-55 are Cold War era systems. Not the recent in Russian technology.

2) Karrar is not a direct copy of T-90 noticeable differences including engine. Furthermore, I believe this project had russian support and even input. It’s an modernization program for Iran’s T-72 tanks in essence.

You don’t think it’s fishy that Iran announces they want to buy T-90 and then few months later reveals a T-90 similar tank? Not to mention Iran introducing Russian T-90 tanks into Syria so it can test their battlefield effectiveness?

One just needs to look at recent Russia-China arms deals and Russia wanting stronger protection for IP technology and reverse engineering clauses.

So a reverse engineered TOR-M1 or S-300 might happen one day down the road, but so far Iran has had TOR system for over a decade and no indications of any reverse engineering.

Furthermore, I am not sure Iran has any domestic system that uses cold launch technology. So Iran will need to master that if it wishes to copy TOR or S-300.

Iran can build a pantsir equivalent using Its owns technology and expertise. It doesn’t NEED to reverse engineer pantsir.

 

[Sineva]

The media made it seem like Iran is copying the pantsir. These piece of sh.. media outlets are the cause of most problems we've had regarding Iranian military news.

As for the pic you posted, it seems slowly everything there is coming to fruition which makes me think if that fighter jet is also something they're making.

Heres a pic of the iranian pantsir type from another angle.

And here is the russian pantsir

There are some similarities but also clearly some differences as well,so definitely not a direct copy just the same concept.The second stage of the iranian sam reminds me a little of the rapier sam in its layout,whereas the second stage of the pantsir sam reminds me more of the sidewinder a2a missile in its layout.

@AmirPatriot

With systems like the Bavar-373 the footprint factor is already gone, you can't disguise it as civilian trucks anymore. So a compact Iranian Pantsir with twin 35mm guns on Zafar is one option and a large Iranian Pantsir on Zoljanah another more expensive and capable.

Thats a good idea,something like an iranian truck mounted Tunguska sam system equivalent,mounting say 8 missiles and 2 35mm rapid fire cannons.And a heavy pantsir type mounting anything from 16-24 missiles with the ability to guide at least 6 at any one time.

 

[AmirPatriot]

@AmirPatriot

With systems like the Bavar-373 the footprint factor is already gone, you can't disguise it as civilian trucks anymore. So a compact Iranian Pantsir with twin 35mm guns on Zafar is one option and a large Iranian Pantsir on Zoljanah another more expensive and capable.

The point is that in the future with UAVs, you need a cost effective weapon to kill at extended ranges.
The 35mm gun has a max. range of 3,5km. It was a wise decision by Iran to move to the 100mm KS-19 to be able to engage targets at extended ranges.
The 76mm gun is mastered and in service, plus it offers broadly similar range and altitude capability to the KS-19. It is also large enough to be upgraded to a guided round, something Russians are moving to with their 57mm system.

So the idea that the AAA component is a last ditch mean for protection is from the past. The AAA component should be the tool to kill anything not worth a missile; UAVs, CM, Helicopters, unpowered bombs like SDB...
For those targets a single 76mm AHEAD munition could be sufficient, whole probably needing a salvo of some 6 35mm AHEAD munitions or 25 normal 30mm Pantsir cannon rounds.

The 8 barrel Mesbah does a very good job out to 2,5km, but needs the investment for 8 23mm guns. A 76mm AHEAD round would need one gun, and extend the engagement range 3 times, plus only need one round instead of 30 for a assured kill.
Anything that wants to kill a Bavar-373 site needs to get into that 2,5km zone of the Mesbah at some point in time (like anything that wants to kill a CIWS equipped ship has to go past it). But if you want a system that can kill crossing targets to protect area targets like cities, you use a chain of 4-5 such systems.
We can't underestimate the incoming UAV threat or that of weapons like the SDB. Iranians were wise enough to realize this 10 years ago with the 100mm autogun, it basically does the same job as a potential 76mm AHEAD round (but limited in magazine size and rate of fire).
Iran should not go below 57mm. It has naval 40mm Bofors, 35mm Oerlikon, 30mm autocannon, 23mm ZSU and 20mm "Vulcan" as smaller caliber options, all mastered and ready for production.
But I advocate larger calibers for cost effectiveness and larger coverage area.
Technically it is a challenge to house it but mechanical speed issues are no showstopper. The killing capability of 2 such 76mm guns on two Zafar trucks plus a missile component with 16 missiles on a single Zafar would be much higher than two Pantsir, while still cheaper.
Russian mechanized warfare has sometimes requirements like moving and shooting which requires much extra resources, not really worth the extra investment.

At the end, we might see two completely different "Pantsir-like" systems, one from the IRIADF and one from the IRGC-ASF. The IRGC was innovative enough 10 years ago to go for the 100mm gun when nobody else worked in that direction.
So basically my wish for a 76mm AHEAD AAA was already fulfilled 10 years ago, but I want the "Iranian Pantsir" to benefit from these developments and not move back to smaller calibers with high rate of fire. I know that the engineering problems to integrate such a big gun into a Pantsir like system is enormous, but it would be the best possible.

Let's be real here. The primary use of a Pantsir is to protect high value installations or air defence systems from cruise missiles and PGMs (glide bombs. SDB, JSOW etc). Helicopters and UAVs are not its mission. Helicopters are fought on the battlefield where SPAA, the guns on APC/IFVs and MANPADS can deal with it. In any case, an unarmoured truck has no place on the battlefield. And it's not really appropriate to bring "future" UAVs into the discussion because we don't know what they will do. Once the UAV threat (to long range air defences like S-300, Bavar???) is defined, it's countermeasures can also be defined.

So if it's job is to protect against cruise missiles and PGMs, we know what each threat is and what can be used against it. Cruise missiles, with relatively high speed and therefore rate of closure, should be targeted by the missile part of the system. This is what was happening in Syria, and navies are adopting a similar approach with systems like the RIM-116 replacing/augmenting gun CIWS systems. The gun part of the Pantsir is very effective at destroying threats like the SDB or JSOW, because they are slow moving glide bombs launched in numbers. Radar/optically guided guns are perfect for taking these out since they can hit such slow moving targets and they have plenty of ammunition. These are the sober and logical solutions to known threats. Do you actually see any problems with the Pantsir? I think it is a great system for what it is meant to do in all aspects. Financially, logistically, operationally.

I think you'd agree that when the enemy has sent half a dozen cruise missiles (or more) at a strategic site or long range air defence system, you don't want to take any chances. You want to destroy them with the best you've got, which is the interceptor missiles.

A huge 76 mm gun is just overly complex and unnecessary. When the target is just some glide bombs, the 30-40 mm calibre is more than good enough.

 

[TheImmortal]

The Pantsir design is genius in its missile design, better than the Tor with its omni-directional cold launch system.

However if Iran really wants a Pantsir stype "all-in-one" system it should move the AAA component to something like the new Chinese 76mm SA2 AAA system with Oerlikon AHEAD like sensor fused submunition rounds. Iran has the 76mm gun technology in production albeit for naval use and the Russians have also realized that this is the way to go by developing their 57mm equivalent.

Alternatively Iran could go the Russian path and further develop the 57mm S-60 AAA as basis. However the 76mm gun has more potential but would be harder to change into a land version and the size can also cause problems.

A 76mm gun, plus the TOR guidance radar on top of it as well as a compact search radar at the rear with 3-6 of those Iranian Pantsir-like SAMs at each side? The size of such a hybrid would be very large, larger than the Pantsir. Technically possible and a suitable truck is available too but I would distribute the system on 2-3 trucks each dedicated to either 76mm/57mm AHEAD AAA or missiles.

The missile component would then have 12-16 Iranian Pantsir. The Iranian Pantsir seems to have a powered second stage, which would make it more expensive but also longer ranged than the original Pantsir. The powered second stage forbids a more robust laser guidance as in the new Russian Sosna, but could allow a range of around 25km at higher cost per round.

The question whether Tor or Pantsir guidance radar is simpler: The Pantsir radar system while more expensive is smaller and capable for longer ranges. If instead of the traditional 30mm guns of the Pantsir, a giant like the 76mm gun with AHEAD-munition is used, compactness of the radar is of high importance. The question is whether Iran has access to the Pantsir radar technology.

The search radar needs to be compact and high power too. A expensive high power system could be the solution like on the newest Pantsir variants, they offer the range necessary for the longer ranged missiles.
But much more cost effective could be the thermal camera (4x) equipped passive search system which Iran presented 2014 but I can imagine that it would get problems if deployed on the same truck as a 76mm gun when it fires.

A completely different scenario would be of course a copy of the Tor on a wheeled system. The display of the Pantsir-like windtunnel model speaks against this, as well as the relatively higher price per round compared to the Pantsir. But in total it would do the job well and be a lower-risk development than those scenarios above.

Israel wiped a pantisr off the map and posted the video in Syria recently.

It’s a capable system, but not the end all be all of short range air defense systems.

Iran needs quantity just as much as quality. If a Pantsir system in hands of Syria struggles againtst a fairly minor Israeli Air raid, then Iran needs to take that into account.

For example the quantity order Iran placed for S-300 was too low to fully cover a nation the size of Iran against an saturation attack from an airforce that is going to give you all it’s got.

The rumor was that the Pantsir in Syria was reloading when it hit got. So just goes to show you if you don’t have quantity then the systems you do have are vulnerable when they are preparing for the next wave.

BTW it’s important to note that in 2010, Syria had a more formidable air defense envelope than Iran.

 

[PeeD]

Pantsir in Syria were attacked by small drones.
The cost-effectiveness proved too poor.
The Russians developed a solution of a miniature interceptor missile that is in development.

Lesson learned: If you start to engage the target just at 3km and need 15-30 rounds for each target, you can be cost effectively saturated by low cost drones.

One solution is the 57mm AAA system the Russians are working on: Engage targets at twice the distance with a single AHEAD round instead of 15-30 rounds.

So either you learn from such lessons or stick to old ideas.
Plus: Guided rounds are coming, a 76mm round can be modified to a guided round, a 35mm round hardly.

Another point: Pantsir is moving away from a point defense system to one that can protect area targets. With a 20km missile, a AAA component with 6-8km range is better than a self defense, low altitude 3km one (retained from Tunguska era).

But I want to be real here as requested: The technical difficulties in terms of miniaturization and final size will most certainly avoid the development of such a potent system.

The Chinese Pantsir-Tor hybrid is huge in size...

 

[un4given.1991]

for protecting high value targets i prefer south Africans products such as :
ZA35 SPAAG

by what we already have made:
mesbah 3D phased array radar and IR/Optical sensors tracking system

or this site

Samavat 35mm

on a Tabas TELAR

for second layer which full fit our needs in NAVY as close range SAM for ships + used as infrared homing (Umkhonto-ER-IR) and a beyond-visual-range radar homing version (Umkhonto-R) air to air missile for AIR FORCE + Umkhonto GBL for protecting high value targets in Air Defense Forces and Ground Forces + as a P#o#r#n For PeeD (im just kidding )
Umkhonto

 

[VEVAK]

No one would produce the Sayyad-1 today. Iran has a large stockpile and the manpower to use the systems.
The task for it is very limited --> high speed, high altitude, only Tehran airspace.
That is its percentage of the war. Not more, it won't be used to intercept any SDB or low level maneuverable fighters. Anything that falls into its criteria will receive, everything that is not, not.

One of the main goals of an air campaign is to take out the high altitude capability to allow high altitude bombing. Loosing the high altitude assets is the start of the end.
The Sayyad-1 is static but is protected by all other IADS elements to fullfil its small portion of the warfare.

Baraks azizam since we have a large stock and 300 or more launcher then we would need to build more launchers and spread them within 100km of Boarder and Coastal area's spread across better hidden locations and spread on the outside of specific cities like Tahran, Esfahan, Shiraz....
And one of the plus side of it being command guided is that with a few simple light weight upgrades they can be modified to go after ground targets especially since they carry a relatively large payload for a SAM & big enough wings to give it good glide capability so worst comes to worst if they prove ineffective against modern fighters they will at least be good for something

From high altitude, fighters can drop relatively low cost GBU-39's or if forced too (due to GPS jamming) GBU-53's from at least 70km out if not more (Wiki has it at 110km) so they wouldn't even need to get within 25km & if we were to believe WiKI even cheaper JDAM's can be dropped from 28km out hell even Iran's Qassed-2 can be dropped from 50km out

And if even we can drop 2000lb Qassed-1's glide bombs that are out dated by our own standards from 35km out then why would a modern Air Force even try to get within 50km of Tehran's Air Space before all Air Defense equipment are dealt with?

So in my opinion any type of SAM system with a range of under 60km needs to be spread +30km outside of cities and the main systems you would need at Air Bases are +70km SAM's & a vast number of short range systems capable of intercepting anything from projectiles to fighters and cruise missiles

As for the Sayyad-1 unless you can either upgrade them to a point where they can intercept either Ballistic Missiles or intercept low altitude fighters from as least 20km out then I don't really see the point of keeping any more than 2 launchers "inside Air Bases" unless in fortified bunkers capable of taking a hit from a SDB light bunker buster that can be towed out relatively quickly

And another thing I don't understand is why Iran keeps such a large portion of it's helo force un bunkered

 

[mohsen]

This line about B-373 I couldn't find on Farsi websites!
The Iranian version has superior features over the original Russian model as it enjoys increased mobility, agility and reduced launch-preparation time.

Iran's Home-Made Air Defense System Tested on Ballistic Missiles - defapress.ir

 

[VEVAK]

Pantsir in Syria were attacked by small drones.
The cost-effectiveness proved too poor.
The Russians developed a solution of a miniature interceptor missile that is in development.

Lesson learned: If you start to engage the target just at 3km and need 15-30 rounds for each target, you can be cost effectively saturated by low cost drones.

One solution is the 57mm AAA system the Russians are working on: Engage targets at twice the distance with a single AHEAD round instead of 15-30 rounds.

So either you learn from such lessons or stick to old ideas.
Plus: Guided rounds are coming, a 76mm round can be modified to a guided round, a 35mm round hardly.

Another point: Pantsir is moving away from a point defense system to one that can protect area targets. With a 20km missile, a AAA component with 6-8km range is better than a self defense, low altitude 3km one (retained from Tunguska era).

But I want to be real here as requested: The technical difficulties in terms of miniaturization and final size will most certainly avoid the development of such a potent system.

The Chinese Pantsir-Tor hybrid is huge in size...

It likely has a less effective Guns than the pantsir with less advanced launch system than the TOR in terms of tech behind the launcher but a more effective launch system

I think Iran should develop a multi vehicle more effective short ranged system that covers various ranges under 0-25km one vehicle carrying a more effective high powered gun with a large stock of ammo with various optical sensor One vehicle that's Radar based and equipped with a missile capable of going after Jammers, one vehicle that's Command based that's also assisted by radar or IR or cheaper Optically assisted with image processing for daytime, one vehicle that algorithm based that again is Optically assisted with image processing and a few UV LED's for night versions equipped with large number of lower cost missiles with every vehicle with it's own targeting and capable of operating independently if force to + vehicles for command & targeting, early warning sensors, radar's, more capable optical radars,.... with the ability of secure wireless networking between all vehicles + an add on options of vehicles for short ranged ground targets with light cheap low payload cruise missiles 0-50km & armed Quads to quickly engage any special forces that may be deployed near your location

 

[AmirPatriot]

Pantsir in Syria were attacked by small drones.
The cost-effectiveness proved too poor.
The Russians developed a solution of a miniature interceptor missile that is in development.

Lesson learned: If you start to engage the target just at 3km and need 15-30 rounds for each target, you can be cost effectively saturated by low cost drones.

Engagement range is 4 km.

The Pantsir in Syria was struck because it was reloading its missiles. If it had engaged the drones with its guns it would have been fine. With your own numbers, if the Pantsir only uses 15-30 rounds to shoot down a drone, then its 1400 round ammo capacity would allow it to kill 46 to 93 drones. Pretty good if you ask me. Though to be fair, wikipedia says the Pantsir fires 83-250 round bursts depending on target type. So assuming low-cost drones only take 83 rounds, that's 16 drones that can be taken out. It still seems good to me, considering the Pantsir has 12 missiles to take out missiles (going by the videos I've seen 1 is fired at each target, which is surprising since usual protocol for SAMs is 2 per target), and I'd hope there would be at least 2 TLARs guarding HVTs like long range SAMs and strategic sites.

One solution is the 57mm AAA system the Russians are working on: Engage targets at twice the distance with a single AHEAD round instead of 15-30 rounds.

57 mm might be an option, but I'm not sure 2 could fit. The Pantsir uses 2 twin 30 mm guns, so 4 guns. It has a combined cyclic rate of 5000 rpm. I don't think Iran has a comparable gun to that (all the Su-25s which use the GSh-30-2 have been gifted to Iraq) unless they use the AK-630's Gatling cannon which would be... ridiculous.

The Chinese Pantsir-Tor hybrid is huge in size...

And that only uses 23 mm guns. No way is a 76 mm fitting on the same vehicle as the missiles + radar.