I wish I could made this comment in English but unfortunately I can't.
https://www.quora.com/How-comparable-are-the-American-Patriot-and-Russian-S-300-400-missile-systems
How comparable are the American Patriot and Russian S-300/400 missile systems?
10 ANSWERS
Madhusudhan Nanjappa, Military tech enthusiast
Updated Apr 25, 2016
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 30kms. This will be significantly higher for aircraft engagement (probably over 150 kms). 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 kms. 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 kms) , the very long range 48N6 (~250 kms), the long range 9M96E2 ( ~120 kms) and medium range 9M96E (~ 40kms).
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 kms 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.
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.
--------
In term of Performance, S-300/S-400 were more comparable to Aegis Defence System fielded by US Navy. The Scale, Range of Engagement, The Capability of Using Flexible choice of Interceptor Missile according to Target, etc.
--------------'------------
At that distance the radar horizon is at 25,000ft and the radar broadcasts it’s presence to all and sundry. Pilots seldom oblige SAM operators by bumbling into their engagement envelope. In fact they train specifically to avoid being detected until they are as close as possible. The effective range of radar is the primary limit on SAM performance and while having the potential for long range is nice to have it’s practical ability to utilize it is extremely limited.
So we definitely need to tease apart the facts and figures and use a bit of common sense. I’ve seen pieces in the western press saying how amazing the s-400 is; that it can detect and destroy any western fighter at that marvelous 400km range, but that doesn’t pass the smell test.
-------------
If Turkey connected all radar systems for Example HISAR-A and O with future S400 systems, it would be great. I remember KEMENT project.
We have to remember that Russian S400 systems work and conectted with another passive radar systems.They have additional protivnik anti stealth radar but According the wiki Mockow 1 passive sensor is connected with s400 system and passive sensor two times more effective than antistealth radar in 250 km range.
