And the US said they bought an S-300
"to fit superior technology to the Patriot" translation: they probably took design concepts of the S-300 to make your beloved
"Patriot Advanced Capability-3".
Well seeing as though marketing hype is all the credibility one needs in these sorts of arguments, there's Raytheon's official PAC-3 capability fact sheet available here:
http://www.raytheon.com/products/patriot/ to give you a bit of food for thought.
Can you please show me anywhere in there that outlines that the Patriot SAM system incorporates technology or design features from the S-300 missile system?
And as the for the portection Saudi "enjoyed" (IIRC) the Patriot had a success percentage of less than 50% in the Gulf War and that was against "Hussien" missiles and we all know how sophisticated those were. There is no doubt in my mind that the S-300's and S-400's capabilities are far superior to those of the PAC-3 system and they're probably cheaper.
Again support what you're saying. Your mind might be made up, but I hope it's done so because of research you've conducted rather than jumping on the bandwagon that thinks because a specification sheet reads more impressively than a comparable system it is automatically superior?
As for cost? A SAM-7 is cheaper than a Patriot fire unit and a Lada Niva is cheaper than a HUMMVEE too. I know which I'd rather own...
Saudi Arabia has certainly enjoyed protection from the Patriot SAM system. If it wasn't there what else could have provided this level of protection? Your vaunted S-300/400 that has yet to participate in conflict where ballistic missiles are being fired at you from mobile launchers?
The same ballistic missiles that according to their manufacturers are so capable?
And you're so called "real world combat performance". Yes, very real world. I think when the world's most powerful military goes against a thrid world military that was choked by sanctions the world's most powerful military is expected to have dazziling results. Not only was the Iraqi Air Force suffering from sanctions and bad pilot training, they were lacking AWACS. Are you telling me that when an F-15 flown by a 1st rate pilot and has AWACS support flies against 5th rate pilot in a poorly maintained plane and shoots it down, it's a show of how good it is? I said when used professionally Russian equipment would have the upper hand.
Perhaps you'd care to read up on the combat engagements in Bosnia then? Serbia certainly wasn't a "thrid world military" and had as up to date Russian equipment as one could ask for. On a comparative basis, they did not better in A2A engagements than did the Iraqi's or the Libyans or the Syrians.
If you think that a 1 v 1 comparison of fighters is representative of their combat effect, then it shows how immature your thoughts on this subject truly are.
But of course if you're lacking support systems, training and maintanance you're not going to have the desired results. As for the Saudi kills with F-15 they were going against the same obselete planes the US was going against. When I see the F-15S score a kill against an Su-30MKI when both platforms have AWACS support, well trained pilots and were well maintained that's when I'll say the F-15 is better otherwise give real evidence that any of the very expensive (and AFAIK downgraded) F-15's Saudi has is better than an Su-30 tailored to Saudi specs.
You'll never see such a thing outside of a simulator because this is real life. Military forces don't chop and change major platforms on a whim or because of the apparent specifications sheet...
The SU-30MKI is a capable aircraft. I do not deny it. But it has done nothing as yet to prove it is decisively superior to current generation Western fighters, in fact it's design features are very much aimed at acquiring the level of capability that the F-15 already enjoys.
? the Su-30MKI's radar can detect an Su-27 from over 300km's away. I think against the F-15 ithe detection range will be only be a little smaller.