Just ask Syrian about how their system get jammed left and right.
Their legacy systems get jammed, less so their Pantsirs, at least they kill as many as possible Israeli PGMs (which come in masses at high cost).
Speaking about this: The advantage of the Iranian AESA solution over the original TOR-M1 PESA is its multi target engagement capability.
The TOR-M1 PESA is a very cost effective large aperture, low element radar. It is significantly more cheaper than the Pantsir PESA solution. In fact the Pantsir solution was deemed so expensive by the Russians, that they switched to a horn feed PESA design in the future Pantsir-SM to make the system more economical.
The upside of the Pantsir is that it can truly target 2-4 different targets in one sector at the same time.
The TOR-M1 is designed to target a single target primarily and if necessary a second one flying close to the first one, not anywhere in the whole sector.
So this is the situation and Irans AESA solution is on-pair with the Pantsir multi target capability.
The Oghab, now known to be TOR-M1 based, thus may represent a cost effective but by now legacy solution? Here is where Sardar Hajizadehs claim become important if he was talking about the Oghab system: If it can target while moving, then the radar can't be the cost effective but limited TOR-M1 ones. To achieve that capability you need an agile beam full element array.
The required beam agility level would put it to the level of the TOR-M2. The TOR-M2 has about twice as much phase shifters than the -M1 to enable true sector multi-target capability as well as necessary beam agility levels to launch while moving. The acquisition radar would then also need to become a PESA design for angular compensation.
If Hajizadeh was talking about a yet unknown IRGC system that uses the Iranian AESA solution, there is a risk that the Oghab is just a miniaturized TOR-M1.
The Chinese FM-2000 has been upgraded to TOR-M2 level on radar side with whole sector multi-target engagement and launch while moving.
So the key to achieve that would be doubling the element count at increased cost.
The missile issue is another one: If it retains the mach 2 level TOR-M1 missile, then no more than 8 are possible. If it goes for the mach 3 level Pantsir-like missile, it would also get a smaller diameter missile that may improve ready to fire missile count to 10-12 (and creating the problem of a dangerous burned booster crashing).
I have the feeling that the IRIADF, like the Chinese opted for a more economical miniaturized copy of the TOR-M1 to be used in a battery of 4 inside IADS environment.
While the IRGC is working on a next generation system like the Morfey concept, that is still some years away. That next generation system would use a vertically launched Pantsir-like mach-3 class interceptor, reduce mechanical complexity (=improve reliability) and employ a single array AESA. If miniaturization efforts reach a certain point, this system would become a compact, low footprint front-line system that works independently, is hard to detect, multi-target capable and with a large load of ready to fire missiles (>20).
Such a system would protect 3rd Khordad systems with its continuously operating, high reliability, low power level, LPI AESA at the edge of the front-line where threat level is highest.
