No its not cheaper. Only thing is cheaper is manpower in Russia.
Loading vehicles - additional price.
Missile seekers turn only at final stage. That's modern way, all the world is turning to it. Even Russia itself.
In addition to another factors, Tor is much more effective to exploit, resources wise. For Iron Dome it costs 50000$ atleast, to intercept a single inexpensive and unsophisticated artillery rocket.
Tor battery already includes support and loading vehicles, though their number can be increased depending on need. But anyway it is always much less expensive, than Iron Dome.
There is no superiority at all in guidance method, in using missiles with seekers. In theory there are advantages, and disadvantages, but it depends on system overall, and necessity. One method, per se does not make system superior. And it is not "modern" or "future" wayю
In particular for the role which we are comparing, interception, defense against rocket artillery, Tor compared to Iron Dome is definitely superior, as:
- It uses inexpensive command guided missiles, cost wise it is much more effective against inexpensive munitions. Also allows to track and intercept targets by optical means as back up.
- Iron Dome uses extremely costly seeker equipeed missiles which give an horrible cost effectiveness against intended cheap targets.
So where is advantage in guidance method ? It is the opposite. In rest of characteristics, mobility, versatility, survivability, effectiveness Iron Dome cannot compete, let alone cost...
Iron Dome can be mobile too.
Iron Dome takes much more time to deploy than Tor battery, also Tor can be based on different vehicles, tracked, wheeled, etc which makes it more mobile and versatile.
There is no radar seeker in the Tamir missile, it has IR seeker.
It does not make any difference.