Last starfighter
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2018
- Messages
- 1,159
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
A brief comparison of S-400 with Patriot and Aegis.
September 29
Are Russian (S400) air defenses better than American (Patriot, THAAD, and AEGIS)?
No. This keeps coming where S-400 is portrayed as some kind of out of this world Air Defence system when the reality is far from it.
The Patriot originated as an anti-aircraft system, however over the last 2 decades it’s heavily optimized against Tactical Ballistic Missiles (Short-Medium range ballistic missiles) as they represent the biggest threat to Western forces and strategic installations. The PAC-3 and PAC-3MSE use kinetic warhead (hit-to-kill) and an AESA seeker for better target discrimination (warhead from the missile’s body) while retaining a small fragmentation warhead for anti-aircraft and cruise missile defence.
S-400 on the other hand is optimized for anti-aircraft role, with 40N6E missile giving it 380 km range against strategic aircraft (AWACS, Bombers, Tankers). All of S-400’s SAMs use fragmentation warhead which significantly limit their anti-ballistic missile capability compared to Patriot. Ballistic missiles are hardened to survive re-entry into the atmosphere which makes fragmentation warhead (that are lethal against soft targets like aircraft) largely ineffective as even a successful hit will lead to large parts of the RV reaching ground intact. Without kinetic warhead you’re not even at the same page in Ballistic Missile Defence.
PAC-3MSE also has higher engagement altitude of over 36 km while S-400’s longest range missile 40N6E has about 15 km engagement altitude against ballistic missiles. Then you’ve PAC-3 using an AESA seeker giving much better target discrimination than a Mechanical seeker. Overall, the Patriot is significantly more capable when it comes to Ballistic Missile Defence and represents US Army’s lower tier Terminal BMD.
Characteristics of 40N6 long-range anti-aircraft missile
Whereas the S-400 is more capable in anti-aircraft role, especially with 40N6E giving the ability to engage strategic targets from significantly longer range. This is due to difference in Russian and Western doctrine. Although it’s worth remembering that 40N6E is optimized against AWACS like non-manoeuvrable targets.
Against Fighters the S-400’s maximum range is limited to 200–250 km depending on the 48N6E missile variant. Even the Gravestone Fire-control radar can only track a 4 m^2 target from 250 km. So against tactical aircraft S-400’s engagement envelope isn’t as big compared to Patriot as the hype.
The older PAC-2 had >160 km range in late 90s and is the primary SAM for anti-aircraft role. PAC-3 and PAC-3MSE sacrifice range for smaller footprint allowing a single Patriot launcher to carry 16 and 12 of them compared to just 4 PAC-2. The PAC-3MSE has a little over 100 km range in anti-aircraft role. While S-400 has greater envelope, PAC-3MSE is much more manoeuvrable and given the AESA seeker, it’s also much more resilient to ECMs including towed decoys and therefore, very likely to have better pK against modern Fighters.
Earlier Patriot was restricted to 120° FoV with MPQ-65 radar but the new MFCR radar in MEADS or Raytheon’s GaN AESA radar upgrade adds 360° coverage. Combined with decades of real combat in multiple countriebs that highlighted limitations which eventually lead to radical design changes – PAC-3’s kinetic warhead and AESA seeker being prime examples, add on to Patriot’s capability. Since 2015 Patriot in Saudi Arabia have intercepted more than 230 ballistic missiles from Yemen – that’s more than 1 interception every week.
While the S-400 never saw any combat despite being deployed in active theatre for years and getting multiple opportunities. Lack of combat data not only hides real-world performance but also inherent flaws that could be improved. So far Syrians that saw years of combat with their S-300 aren’t too happy with its performance.
Also worth pointing out that while both are technically mobile – neither S-400 nor Patriot can operate while on the move. All their components: radars, Command post and launchers need to be static in order to function. They can change their position several times a day to minimise risk of a ballistic missile attack, however there is only so much you could do. Against SEAD aircraft vast majority of land based Air Defence systems are static targets. Leaving your position in the middle of an attack is giving the enemy a free pass.
THAAD
THAAD is the upper tier Terminal BMD with a hit to kill interceptor having an engagement altitude* over 150 km. Its Kill vehicle uses an Imaging IR seeker and the TPY-2 radar system with 600 km to 2,900 km+ range depending on the RCS (warhead or ballistic missile’s second stage) is likely the most powerful radar on a Terminal BMD system. Unlike the Patriot, THAAD is truly a Theatre Ballistic Missile Defence.
TPY-2 X band radar
It isn’t comparable to S-400 in anyway. Comparing S-400’s BMD capability with THAAD is like comparing a MANPAD with a long range SAM. The S-500 will be the closest Russian counterpart to THAAD.
Aegis
Sea based Air Defence systems like the Aegis or Type-45’s PAAMS are actual Western counterparts to S-400 like weapon and it doesn’t really compare well.
The S-400’s 91N6E radar can detect a 0.4 m^2 ballistic target from 250 km.
While the Aegis’s SPY-1D(v) radar “can detect golf ball-sized targets at ranges in excess of 165 km.” This statement was made in context with SPY-1D(v)’s ability to detect mortar rounds & artillery shells.
Golf ball = 0.0025 m^2. For a direct comparison if you scale SPY-1D’s range to 0.4 m^2 target, then it corresponds to 587 km – that’s 2.3 times the range of S-400 (91N6E).
The SPY-1 radar having 4 separate arrays for constant 360° coverage provides far better ability to handle multi-aspect saturation attacks compared to a single rotating radar in S-400. In a 2014 test, USS John Paul Jones (DDG 53) with Aegis Baseline 9 engaged an exo-atmospheric ballistic missile with SM-3 Block IB while engaging 2 low-altitude cruise missiles near-simultaneously. Just one of many times when Aegis demonstrated the extent of diverse targets it can handle simultaneously.
Since Aegis ships are actually mobile and well off the coast, a lot of tactics that can be used against land based systems are no longer effective. Tracking Aegis ships in real time is exponentially harder than tracking land based systems.
With 96 cells, a Burke class Destroyers has significantly more fire power than a S-400 battalion. The Aegis ships have far more capable weapon systems from point-defences to long range SAMs. SeaRAM or ESSMs are much more capable point defence systems that can handle more complex threats (like Mach 3+ sea-skimming AShMs) than Pantsir-S or Tor.
The SM-6 Dual I has a range between 370–460 km and is capable of engaging almost any endo-atmospheric target from sea-skimming cruise missiles, tactical aircraft to manoeuvrable ballistic missiles in their terminal stage. Another advantage of Aegis is the Cooperative Engagement capability (NIFC-CA). SM-6’s two-way datalink allows E-2D or F-35 to provide Over the Horizon targeting capability. The SM-6 have engaged OTH cruise missiles solely relying on targeting data from E-2D and F-35. It’s one thing to share data between airborne and ground radars but a whole lot different to have airborne platforms taking over Targeting.
F-35, SM-6 Live Fire Test Points to Expansion in Networked Naval Warfare
Then there’s SM-3 Block IIA, an exo-atmospheric interceptor with over 2,500 km range. SM-3 uses a kinetic Kill Vehicle with an IIR seeker for terminal guidance. It’s the most tested exo-atmospheric interceptor with 79.5% intercept record in 39 tests so far and is scheduled to be tested against an ICBM target this year.
Apart from being one of the most reliable interceptor, SM-3 has two major advantages – since Aegis ships can be forward deployed, SM-3 provides the maximum engagement window all the way from mid-phase to Terminal before re-entry. More importantly, SM-3 Block IIA allows interception at early mid-phase before the deployment of MIRV and decoys.
There is nothing comparable to SM-3 in Russian service and it really highlights the gap between US and Russian BMD capability. The upcoming SPY-6 GaN AESA radar replacement on Flight III Burke is 3 times more powerful than today’s SPY-1D or 7 times the range over S-400’s Search radar. There is no contest. Period.
There’s no doubt about S-400 having several advantages over Patriot but the notion of it being the best Air Defence system on the planet is comical when it isn’t even significantly superior to the likes of Patriot, much less Aegis.
It’s really frustrating to see the hype about impenetrable Russian Air Defences when they’ve been consistently broken over last 40 years in multiple conflicts. This isn’t to bash Russian Air Defences but to highlight the difference between real world and fantasy.
September 29
Are Russian (S400) air defenses better than American (Patriot, THAAD, and AEGIS)?
No. This keeps coming where S-400 is portrayed as some kind of out of this world Air Defence system when the reality is far from it.
The Patriot originated as an anti-aircraft system, however over the last 2 decades it’s heavily optimized against Tactical Ballistic Missiles (Short-Medium range ballistic missiles) as they represent the biggest threat to Western forces and strategic installations. The PAC-3 and PAC-3MSE use kinetic warhead (hit-to-kill) and an AESA seeker for better target discrimination (warhead from the missile’s body) while retaining a small fragmentation warhead for anti-aircraft and cruise missile defence.
S-400 on the other hand is optimized for anti-aircraft role, with 40N6E missile giving it 380 km range against strategic aircraft (AWACS, Bombers, Tankers). All of S-400’s SAMs use fragmentation warhead which significantly limit their anti-ballistic missile capability compared to Patriot. Ballistic missiles are hardened to survive re-entry into the atmosphere which makes fragmentation warhead (that are lethal against soft targets like aircraft) largely ineffective as even a successful hit will lead to large parts of the RV reaching ground intact. Without kinetic warhead you’re not even at the same page in Ballistic Missile Defence.
PAC-3MSE also has higher engagement altitude of over 36 km while S-400’s longest range missile 40N6E has about 15 km engagement altitude against ballistic missiles. Then you’ve PAC-3 using an AESA seeker giving much better target discrimination than a Mechanical seeker. Overall, the Patriot is significantly more capable when it comes to Ballistic Missile Defence and represents US Army’s lower tier Terminal BMD.
Characteristics of 40N6 long-range anti-aircraft missile
Whereas the S-400 is more capable in anti-aircraft role, especially with 40N6E giving the ability to engage strategic targets from significantly longer range. This is due to difference in Russian and Western doctrine. Although it’s worth remembering that 40N6E is optimized against AWACS like non-manoeuvrable targets.
Against Fighters the S-400’s maximum range is limited to 200–250 km depending on the 48N6E missile variant. Even the Gravestone Fire-control radar can only track a 4 m^2 target from 250 km. So against tactical aircraft S-400’s engagement envelope isn’t as big compared to Patriot as the hype.
The older PAC-2 had >160 km range in late 90s and is the primary SAM for anti-aircraft role. PAC-3 and PAC-3MSE sacrifice range for smaller footprint allowing a single Patriot launcher to carry 16 and 12 of them compared to just 4 PAC-2. The PAC-3MSE has a little over 100 km range in anti-aircraft role. While S-400 has greater envelope, PAC-3MSE is much more manoeuvrable and given the AESA seeker, it’s also much more resilient to ECMs including towed decoys and therefore, very likely to have better pK against modern Fighters.
Earlier Patriot was restricted to 120° FoV with MPQ-65 radar but the new MFCR radar in MEADS or Raytheon’s GaN AESA radar upgrade adds 360° coverage. Combined with decades of real combat in multiple countriebs that highlighted limitations which eventually lead to radical design changes – PAC-3’s kinetic warhead and AESA seeker being prime examples, add on to Patriot’s capability. Since 2015 Patriot in Saudi Arabia have intercepted more than 230 ballistic missiles from Yemen – that’s more than 1 interception every week.
While the S-400 never saw any combat despite being deployed in active theatre for years and getting multiple opportunities. Lack of combat data not only hides real-world performance but also inherent flaws that could be improved. So far Syrians that saw years of combat with their S-300 aren’t too happy with its performance.
Also worth pointing out that while both are technically mobile – neither S-400 nor Patriot can operate while on the move. All their components: radars, Command post and launchers need to be static in order to function. They can change their position several times a day to minimise risk of a ballistic missile attack, however there is only so much you could do. Against SEAD aircraft vast majority of land based Air Defence systems are static targets. Leaving your position in the middle of an attack is giving the enemy a free pass.
THAAD
THAAD is the upper tier Terminal BMD with a hit to kill interceptor having an engagement altitude* over 150 km. Its Kill vehicle uses an Imaging IR seeker and the TPY-2 radar system with 600 km to 2,900 km+ range depending on the RCS (warhead or ballistic missile’s second stage) is likely the most powerful radar on a Terminal BMD system. Unlike the Patriot, THAAD is truly a Theatre Ballistic Missile Defence.
TPY-2 X band radar
It isn’t comparable to S-400 in anyway. Comparing S-400’s BMD capability with THAAD is like comparing a MANPAD with a long range SAM. The S-500 will be the closest Russian counterpart to THAAD.
Aegis
Sea based Air Defence systems like the Aegis or Type-45’s PAAMS are actual Western counterparts to S-400 like weapon and it doesn’t really compare well.
The S-400’s 91N6E radar can detect a 0.4 m^2 ballistic target from 250 km.
While the Aegis’s SPY-1D(v) radar “can detect golf ball-sized targets at ranges in excess of 165 km.” This statement was made in context with SPY-1D(v)’s ability to detect mortar rounds & artillery shells.
Golf ball = 0.0025 m^2. For a direct comparison if you scale SPY-1D’s range to 0.4 m^2 target, then it corresponds to 587 km – that’s 2.3 times the range of S-400 (91N6E).
The SPY-1 radar having 4 separate arrays for constant 360° coverage provides far better ability to handle multi-aspect saturation attacks compared to a single rotating radar in S-400. In a 2014 test, USS John Paul Jones (DDG 53) with Aegis Baseline 9 engaged an exo-atmospheric ballistic missile with SM-3 Block IB while engaging 2 low-altitude cruise missiles near-simultaneously. Just one of many times when Aegis demonstrated the extent of diverse targets it can handle simultaneously.
Since Aegis ships are actually mobile and well off the coast, a lot of tactics that can be used against land based systems are no longer effective. Tracking Aegis ships in real time is exponentially harder than tracking land based systems.
With 96 cells, a Burke class Destroyers has significantly more fire power than a S-400 battalion. The Aegis ships have far more capable weapon systems from point-defences to long range SAMs. SeaRAM or ESSMs are much more capable point defence systems that can handle more complex threats (like Mach 3+ sea-skimming AShMs) than Pantsir-S or Tor.
The SM-6 Dual I has a range between 370–460 km and is capable of engaging almost any endo-atmospheric target from sea-skimming cruise missiles, tactical aircraft to manoeuvrable ballistic missiles in their terminal stage. Another advantage of Aegis is the Cooperative Engagement capability (NIFC-CA). SM-6’s two-way datalink allows E-2D or F-35 to provide Over the Horizon targeting capability. The SM-6 have engaged OTH cruise missiles solely relying on targeting data from E-2D and F-35. It’s one thing to share data between airborne and ground radars but a whole lot different to have airborne platforms taking over Targeting.
F-35, SM-6 Live Fire Test Points to Expansion in Networked Naval Warfare
Then there’s SM-3 Block IIA, an exo-atmospheric interceptor with over 2,500 km range. SM-3 uses a kinetic Kill Vehicle with an IIR seeker for terminal guidance. It’s the most tested exo-atmospheric interceptor with 79.5% intercept record in 39 tests so far and is scheduled to be tested against an ICBM target this year.
Apart from being one of the most reliable interceptor, SM-3 has two major advantages – since Aegis ships can be forward deployed, SM-3 provides the maximum engagement window all the way from mid-phase to Terminal before re-entry. More importantly, SM-3 Block IIA allows interception at early mid-phase before the deployment of MIRV and decoys.
There is nothing comparable to SM-3 in Russian service and it really highlights the gap between US and Russian BMD capability. The upcoming SPY-6 GaN AESA radar replacement on Flight III Burke is 3 times more powerful than today’s SPY-1D or 7 times the range over S-400’s Search radar. There is no contest. Period.
There’s no doubt about S-400 having several advantages over Patriot but the notion of it being the best Air Defence system on the planet is comical when it isn’t even significantly superior to the likes of Patriot, much less Aegis.
It’s really frustrating to see the hype about impenetrable Russian Air Defences when they’ve been consistently broken over last 40 years in multiple conflicts. This isn’t to bash Russian Air Defences but to highlight the difference between real world and fantasy.
