Comparing S-400 and PAC3 is like comparing apple and oranges. S-400 easily weigh 3300 kg to 4000 kg. Pac 3 weighs only 320 kg (about 700 pound). S-400 is a very heavy, long range and high altitude SAM while PAC 3 is shorter range missile with a much smaller foot print. A better comparison is between SM-2 block IV AER which according to some sources has a range that slighly exceed 400km. This means SM-2 block 4 AER has a slighly longer range than S-400 even though it weighs only about 1500 kg. The SM-2 Eram is a derivative of the current missile with a AMRAAM active seeker replacing the current semi-active guidance. This missile definitely would has a slightly longer useful range against low flying target that is flying near beyond the horizon. The theoritical maximum range of S-400 and Sm-2 bk4 aer is useless is attainable against target flying flow and below the radar foot print beyond the horizon. Having said that, lets talk about PAC3 again. RUSSIAN sources credited Pac3 with a range of 15AC-2 0km. A missile range has to do more with its length and diameter than just pure weight. The 1900 pound PAC 2 has a much larger diameter than Pac 3 but both missile is similar in length. The motor length of both missile os also about equal. This means that if both missile uses the same propellant, their range should not be very much different since the smaller size of Pac3 is compensated for its lighter weight and smaller drag due to a smaller diameter. Since Pac2 has a range of 160 km against slow incoming target, it is entirely reasonable to assume that PAC3 has a range of 150km. Now PAC3 will soon get a very MAJOR upgrade on its motor that extend its range against ballistic missile by 50% and against air breathing target by 100%. This mean that PAC 3 may soon has a range of 300km against slow incoming target, that is not far from S-400 range of 400km. But PAC 3 is less than 10% the size of S-400. Thats what is remarkable. The electronics of PAC3 is also more reliable and more advance and jam resistence than S-400. Being a hit to kill missile demand great accuracy and agility too. PAC 3 is probably a better missile than S-400 in most area with the exception of maximum range and COST efficiency. Pac 3 is probably more expensive than S-400 despite being only 10% the size of S-400. WHy so expensive? US labour is more expensive and the hit to kill mechanism is very delicate.

Is there any benifit to a hit to kill missle agianst aircraft, or is that mostly to go agianst balistic missles

The main benefit of hit to kill is to destroy ballistic missile warhead. For anti-air, the main benefit is a smaller and less detectable missile (less phume), almost assure destruction if the missile manage to hit the target. But the disadvantage is that it is TOO expensive. A bigger missile with conventional blast fragmentation warhead with EQUAL speed, range a agility is CHEAPER because there is no need for very sophisticated maneuvring mechanism to achieve hit to kill accuracy. A smaller hit to kill missile also has the advantage of being more mobile on the ground and more easily transported and camouflage. A S-400 or sa-12b giant is so big that it is easy to target them from the air and easy for recon asset to recognise them too.

I love my commies but no there not. but it is quite an excellent one! :)

Omg, are you joking, by no means can u compare the PAC 3 to the 400. PAC 3 missile is small because it doesnt need to shoot down anything, it cant. Have u seen the 60 min on the Patrit missile system, Patriot doesnt work, its just a fake system thats been pushed down the throats of USA army. It's just crap, look in the Irqi War II the only thing it could do is fire at Brit/USA planes, and during the Gulf War it fired at random totaly fake targets. It fired and shot down SCUD missiles that werent even there. Its just a fake. Now the S-400 while theres has been no real combat evaluation, wait least until China may get kinda annoying for Russia, it maybe at same performance levels of PAC 3 which is 0, but it also maybe a fully functional ads , and maybe the best.

Good grief, you need to wise up and listen to some people who know a thing or two about air defense. If you did, you'd completely change your tune. Displacedjim

Alright, maybe I do not know what you do, and if so, do you want to share info which would dispute my opinion or pt of view. I would appreciate that.

Maybe that the patriot shot down a tornado... Difficult if it's not supposed to work :) The Pac2 (1?) was not designed to intercept missiles, the pac 3 is. (It think it's a hit to kill missile)

Remember gulf war II. Patriot struck and killed all pilots in the f/a-18 or was it a 16 and a British Tornado. Seems capable of hitting air targets even if they are own.

"A missile range has to do more with its length and diameter than just pure weight. The 1900 pound PAC 2 has a much larger diameter than Pac 3 but both missile is similar in length. The motor length of both missile os also about equal. This means that if both missile uses the same propellant, their range should not be very much different since the smaller size of Pac3 is compensated for its lighter weight and smaller drag due to a smaller diameter. Since Pac2 has a range of 160 km against slow incoming target, it is entirely reasonable to assume that PAC3 has a range of 150km." What kind of crack are you on? Oh, and thanks for making me spray Pepsi all over my keyboard. I did enjoy the laugh though. YOu assumption is so flawed that I hardly know where to begin. L/D ratio has an effect on drag and the diameter has an effect on how much propellant you can carry but that's as far as it goes. To say that they'd have the same range because the motor length is similar is ludicrous.