Tor: Russia’s mobile anti-missile vehicles can knock out any barrage

[War Thunder]

 

[LeGenD]

58 Tomahawk cruise missiles struck Shayrat airbase in total (the documentary-maker needs to get even simple facts straight first). Confirmation from the analysis of impact points in (and around) Shayrat airbase from information obtained through satellites: https://q13fox.com/2017/04/07/satel...ter-of-us-missile-strikes-on-syrian-air-base/

However, these strikes were carried out in a particular way to minimize the scale of destruction and loss of lives in the airbase; the cruise missiles were armed with least destructive warheads; some were programmed to strike same targets (the hardened shelters in particular); and the Russians (and Syrians) were informed about this attack about 2 hours in advance [they pulled a number of high-value assets from the airbase afterwards]. This show of force was political in large part - and not how the strikes would occur in a real-time combat situation. Decent explanation here: https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-firing-tomahawk-missiles-at-syria-was-a-nearly-usel-1794113103

And as usual, Russians tend to create too much hype of their products, but their products fall short in complex combat environments. A NATO-led attack on Russian forces [hypothetical] would be very complex in scale and scope, and a highly sophisticated one with numerous assets being involved to spoof/jam Russian defenses. Only a fool would believe that Tor-M2 is the magic solution that can contend with anything coming in its way. Here is a hint: https://www.upi.com/US-Air-Force-eq...les-with-anti-jam-capabilities/6551488311526/

Tomahawk cruise missile is an evolving platform in itself, with BLOCK IV variant [current generation] having the characteristics to scatter radar waves around (radar return is very weak) and a number of countermeasures onboard. It can also loiter for hours and shift course instantly on command before striking with pinpoint accuracy.

Even the outdated BLOCK II incorporated EW capabilities and passive guidance technologies:-

"The Tomahawk Anti-Ship Missile (BGM-109B TASM) employs a modified McDonnell Douglas (Boeing) Harpoon guidance set (DPW-23) comprising a Texas Instruments active radar seeker (which incorporates electronic countermeasures capabilities), an IBM digital computer with 64K memory, a Lear Siegler or a Northrop Grumman attitude reference assembly, and a Honeywell radar altimeter common with the land attack missiles. In addition to the Harpoon-common equipment, the TASM employs PI/DE (Passive Identification and Direction-Finding Equipment) to assist in identifying and attacking high-value enemy ships. " - Declassified information

 

[randomradio]

58 Tomahawk cruise missiles struck Shayrat airbase in total (the documentary-maker needs to get even simple facts straight first). Confirmation from the analysis of impact points in (and around) Shayrat airbase from information obtained through satellites: https://q13fox.com/2017/04/07/satel...ter-of-us-missile-strikes-on-syrian-air-base/

However, these strikes were carried out in a particular way to minimize the scale of destruction and loss of lives in the airbase; the cruise missiles were armed with least destructive warheads; some were programmed to strike same targets (the hardened shelters in particular); and the Russians (and Syrians) were informed about this attack about 2 hours in advance [they pulled a number of high-value assets from the airbase afterwards]. This show of force was political in large part - and not how the strikes would occur in a real-time combat situation. Decent explanation here: https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-firing-tomahawk-missiles-at-syria-was-a-nearly-usel-1794113103

And as usual, Russians tend to create too much hype of their products, but their products fall short in complex combat environments. A NATO-led attack on Russian forces [hypothetical] would be very complex in scale and scope, and a highly sophisticated one with numerous assets being involved to spoof/jam Russian defenses. Only a fool would believe that Tor-M2 is the magic solution that can contend with anything coming in its way. Here is a hint: https://www.upi.com/US-Air-Force-eq...les-with-anti-jam-capabilities/6551488311526/

Tomahawk cruise missile is an evolving platform in itself, with BLOCK IV variant [current generation] having the characteristics to scatter radar waves around (radar return is very weak) and a number of countermeasures onboard. It can also loiter for hours and shift course instantly on command before striking with pinpoint accuracy.

Even the outdated BLOCK II incorporated EW capabilities and passive guidance technologies:-

"The Tomahawk Anti-Ship Missile (BGM-109B TASM) employs a modified McDonnell Douglas (Boeing) Harpoon guidance set (DPW-23) comprising a Texas Instruments active radar seeker (which incorporates electronic countermeasures capabilities), an IBM digital computer with 64K memory, a Lear Siegler or a Northrop Grumman attitude reference assembly, and a Honeywell radar altimeter common with the land attack missiles. In addition to the Harpoon-common equipment, the TASM employs PI/DE (Passive Identification and Direction-Finding Equipment) to assist in identifying and attacking high-value enemy ships. " - Declassified information

Russian AD still works. We saw that when a Syrian S-200 shot down an Israeli F-16 recently.

We have evaluated the Tor, it's really good. It has a 98% kill probability.

Here's one on a Tata.

It's just that it doesn't have an APAR, the missiles do not have active seekers and so on. But it's cheap and works.

The problem with the Russian systems is that the Russians export outdated SAMs, like how India is acquiring the S-400 13 years after its release whereas other smaller countries end up having to wait much more than 13 years. Even Syria was handed over older S-300 systems, with tech that's 16 years old now. And most countries that buy Russian systems do not properly train their crews or maintain the system due to a combination of their own ineptitude and Russian bureaucracy.

Also, when you buy Russian systems, it's more sensible to buy Pantsir, Tor and S-300/400 together and integrate them, which most Russian customers do not do or are incapable of making such a large purchase.

 

[War Thunder]

58 Tomahawk cruise missiles struck Shayrat airbase in total (the documentary-maker needs to get even simple facts straight first). Confirmation from the analysis of impact points in (and around) Shayrat airbase from information obtained through satellites: https://q13fox.com/2017/04/07/satel...ter-of-us-missile-strikes-on-syrian-air-base/

However, these strikes were carried out in a particular way to minimize the scale of destruction and loss of lives in the airbase; the cruise missiles were armed with least destructive warheads; some were programmed to strike same targets (the hardened shelters in particular); and the Russians (and Syrians) were informed about this attack about 2 hours in advance [they pulled a number of high-value assets from the airbase afterwards]. This show of force was political in large part - and not how the strikes would occur in a real-time combat situation. Decent explanation here: https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-firing-tomahawk-missiles-at-syria-was-a-nearly-usel-1794113103

And as usual, Russians tend to create too much hype of their products, but their products fall short in complex combat environments. A NATO-led attack on Russian forces [hypothetical] would be very complex in scale and scope, and a highly sophisticated one with numerous assets being involved to spoof/jam Russian defenses. Only a fool would believe that Tor-M2 is the magic solution that can contend with anything coming in its way. Here is a hint: https://www.upi.com/US-Air-Force-eq...les-with-anti-jam-capabilities/6551488311526/

Tomahawk cruise missile is an evolving platform in itself, with BLOCK IV variant [current generation] having the characteristics to scatter radar waves around (radar return is very weak) and a number of countermeasures onboard. It can also loiter for hours and shift course instantly on command before striking with pinpoint accuracy.

Even the outdated BLOCK II incorporated EW capabilities and passive guidance technologies:-

"The Tomahawk Anti-Ship Missile (BGM-109B TASM) employs a modified McDonnell Douglas (Boeing) Harpoon guidance set (DPW-23) comprising a Texas Instruments active radar seeker (which incorporates electronic countermeasures capabilities), an IBM digital computer with 64K memory, a Lear Siegler or a Northrop Grumman attitude reference assembly, and a Honeywell radar altimeter common with the land attack missiles. In addition to the Harpoon-common equipment, the TASM employs PI/DE (Passive Identification and Direction-Finding Equipment) to assist in identifying and attacking high-value enemy ships. " - Declassified information

Yes, that' a lot of hypothesis and if and but kind of thingies.
But the simple fact is, the Tor is a very potent and effective solution to incoming barrages of missiles and bombs. Will you prefer to be sitting in a base covered with Tor and one without it?

Claiming a system can be out maneuvered or out smarted is not wrong. But claiming the system is useless is stupid.

And just like we don't know much about the Tomahawk or the latest EW capabilities of NATO, we also don't know the inner workings of the Tor and how well it might perform against any array of weapons the Americans could bring to the field.

Rest is all assumption and fanboyism, whether against a system or in favor of it.