RUSSIAN S 400 vs AMERICAN PATRIOT -- Which one is Better ?!

People compare S-400 to Patriot all the time without understanding how different the two really are. The S-400 is more of a strategic anti-aircraft weapon designed to engage targets at long ranges (380 km) with limited anti-ballistic missile capability. It’s optimized for anti-aircraft role with missiles like 40N6E designed specifically for non-manoeuvring targets (AWACS, Bombers, etc.) The MIM-104 Patriot and the S-400 'Growler' are easily among the most advance multi-role air defence systems currently deployed. One must remember, that it is never effective to compare one system to another system without looking at the bigger picture. In the modern battle field, no system works on its own. Any given system has a fixed role to play and it works in sync with other systems that will eventually help achieve the goal. A detailed comparison will be lengthy and quite complicated. To start off with the S-400 is a heavy hitter with very long reach, while the patriot has a shorter engagement range. So we are talking about two very different classes of systems. But if we are to answer this query one must keep this simple and light :) Its is always simple and light (also fun) to compare open source brochures, so lets do that Ballistic Missile Defence: Let us start with BMD capability as everybody seems interested about it these days. Both the systems are multi-role (can engage aircraft and ballistic missiles). The PAC-3( Later PAC-3 MSE) variant of the Patriot interceptor is a significant upgrade over the PAC-2, and has significant anti-ballistic missile capabilities. The advertised interception range against ballistic missiles is around 30kilometers. This will be significantly higher for aircraft engagement (probably over 150 kilometers). The older Patriot variants have significant battle experience. The new PAC-3 interceptors builds on those experiences and now can provide reliable defence for friendly forces under its protection. The S-400 (an evolution of S-300 family) also fields significant anti-ballistic missile capabilities. It most probably uses the 48N6(E) or the humongous 40N6 interceptors for its anti-ballistic missile roles. The advertised max engagement altitude is approx 150 - 160 kilometers. There is no public info if these interceptors carry a purpose built interceptor to seek out incoming warheads for exo-atmospheric kills (like the SM-3 on Aegis BMD). Since there are no known real life instances (other than development tests) of an S-400 engaging a BM successfully, we will not know how effective the system really is. Engagement ranges and Radars: The S-400 is highly flexible when it comes to engagement ranges. The system uses multiple types of interceptors based on the targets range. The S-400 command node can use one of the following interceptors to bring down its target: The insane 40N6 (~ 400 kilometers) , the very long range 48N6 (~250 kilometers), the long range 9M96E2 ( ~120 kilometers) and medium range 9M96E (~ 40 kilometers). The big interceptors (which are understandably harder on the pockets) need not be used on targets flying closer and can be reserved to harass slow moving, high value targets (like AWACS, Fuel tankers, transports etc). The Russians find this approach of arming a single system with multiple interceptors most suitable for their needs. The patriot has a single type of interceptor (~150 kilometers range against aircrafts) for all types of targets, this approach has its own advantages and disadvantages. But suits the US / NATO and the other users just fine. But when it comes to detection and engagement ranges, the S-400 will probably detect, track and fire at a bogey long before the Patriot can even see it clearly. Both the systems have excellent Radar and Command/control systems that can work on fully autonomous / semi-autonomous modes. Since the S-400 is expected to hit targets at extreme ranges, the radar is more powerful than the Patriots and has longer range. So with the limited info above, one might declare the S-400 to be better, but that would probably not be fair. These are, as mentioned earlier, very different classes of weapon systems and such comparisons don't yield accurate results. The Patriot has seen quite some combat, the S-400 not so much, but it's theoretical capabilities (and from what NATO learnt from a Greek S-300 battery) make the west treat the S-400 with immense respect. The mere mention of the S-300 / 400 deploying in a certain country has altered the perception of strategic balances in the middle east. Combat record It’s worth remembering that Patriot have seen decades of real combat in several countries while S-400 have not seen any combat. Combat performance is important not only to determine actual performance but also to identify deficiencies in the system. Patriot’s performance in Gulf War highlighted several problems, specifically the warhead’s late detonation against incoming Scuds that lead to PAC-2’s guidance system being significantly improved (PAC-2 GEM+) and eventually new PAC-3’s totally different kinetic kill approach. The Iraqi Scuds breaking apart in mid-air presented another problem – leading to PAC-3’s AESA seeker head for improved target discrimination in terminal stage. All of that resulted in significantly better performance as evident from subsequent exposure in 2003 Operation Iraqi Freedom, where Patriot (PAC-2 GEM) intercepted all 9 Iraqi TBMs it engaged. Army Announces Patriot Missile System’s Performance in Operation Iraqi Freedom From January 2015 to April 2017, Patriot batteries intercepted over 100 tactical ballistic missiles in Saudi Arabia – vast majority from PAC-2 GEM. This highlights the volume of Yemeni Scuds Patriot has been dealing with in last few years. Without actual combat it’s not possible to know the limitation of a weapon system. This is S-400’s biggest problem when you’re comparing it with a combat proven system like Patriot. Better is subjective, S-400 is better if you want very long range anti-aircraft capability along with the hype at the expense of massive logistical footprint. Patriot is far superior if you want proven Theatre Ballistic Missile Defence with decent anti-aircraft range in a system that can be easily forward deployed. For countries facing serious threat of TBMs Patriot is much more practical. Western counterpart for S-400 like strategic weapons are Aegis platforms, not Patriot. In the end, these are two very different systems built with different goals in mind, both are effective, both seem to make their users sleep peacefully. So 'yay' to that.






The Financial Armageddon Economic Collapse Blog tracks trends and forecasts , futurists , visionaries , free investigative journalists , researchers , Whistelblowers , truthers and many more