If 100.000 BM's were the minumum requirement to ensure Iran's safety, then yes. But since that's not the case, no, Iran probably produced less than that number.
And that's precisely the crux of the matter: with ballistic missiles, you can achieve a similar overall outcome at a more affordable price.
The point is that for all practical purposes, 20.000 ballistic missiles should be sufficient. Yes, the Su-30's in your example could theoretically deliver a greater amount of explosives, but in practice they never would. Will your Su-30's ever fly 4000 sorties and launch 8 x 4000 = 32.000 AGM's per aircraft? Surely not. But in order to purchase and operate these jets, you'll still need to disburse several times the sum required to field 20.000 BM's. Why discuss overkill scenarii? We should stay focused on realistic projections.
As for the estimates published by the Pentagon about the size of Iran's BM arsenal, I wouldn't take them all too seriously. They've systematical had a policy of minimizing Iranian power, no matter in which area (even when it came to the number of operational F-14's, we remember well how they made fools out of themselves when the IRIAF flew a large formation of Tomcats over Tehran some decades ago, directly proving wrong a previous estimate coming out of America). So if they talk of 5000 missiles, we can be as good as certain that the actual number is several times that.
An arsenal in the tens of thousands range is well within Iran's capabilities. Iran has been mass producing and stockpiling these for some 20 years now. I remember Shamkhani stating in the early 2000's that they're producing these like noghlo nabat. Ten thousand missile in two decades, that's 500 a year or just below 42 a month... Frankly, it seems obvious to me that this would not even represent such an extraordinary feat for Iran. Personally I believe Iran has some 20.000 ballistic missiles at least.
Also we need to ponder the quantity of missiles which could be produced with the enormous funds Iran allocated to this sector.