Oh, is this the same system that the USAF, U.S. Navy, Israel and a Cesena have walked past with most returning to base before anyone knew what was going on… over the last 20 years?
That is a little skewed. It is like me saying that all Patriots are good for are hitting the tail-end of Scuds (leading the warhead intact and tumbling), and shooting down Allied jets (several friendly fire incidents).
As for the Iraqi system, it was a mish-mash of Soviet and French (and British) systems that was primarily geared towards fending off an Iranian attack and/or an Israeli attack (both countries attacked Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor - Iran in 1980, and Israel in 1981). It had Soviet missiles (old), some French/German missiles (again old ones - the Roland), and the brains of the system was a French system called Kari (which was not that good due to its hierachical nature that was open to disruption, particular if key command nodes went down ...as happened with ADOC - Air Defense Operations Center). To add to the confusion, the French built KARI IADs, with its Soviet era and Franco-German missiles, was connected to a British combat management system called ASMA.
Put all of that together, and it was a system that had some sizeable inherent flaws. Against a repeat Iranian and Israeli attack it had some teeth (note it did manage to bring down a number of Coalition planes), but it was just not up to the task.
Add to this the opponents facing it ...the Coalition had the USAF and USN, various NATO forces, and other allies. Both in terms of quantity and quality it was a wash!
So, if you think comparing that with a S-300/S-400 integrated IADS is the same thing, then go ahead. If you even think the Iraqi system could compare to the old Soviet PVO-Strany, go ahead. Yes, right ...a small plane once landed at Red Square! That means it is useless, right? After all, that is the vestigial thinking that goes on at FR sometimes, where people do not take the extra neurons needed to think that a small plane taking off a short distance away, flying low and landing on Red Square may not necessarily trigger off systems. In most cases, the best way to respond to such inanity would be to raise the November 1994 incident where a man crash-landed a small plane in the White House!!!!! I guess the US systems are also so useless folks can flop down at will, huh?
The reality is this - the 300/400 systems are one of the main reason the B-2 and F-22 (at their huge development costs, and their deep maintenance requirements) were developed ...to be deep-IADS penetrators against advanced integrated air defense networks.
However, since FR knows best, those billions were wasted money. Thus Obama is right to cancel the Raptor (and he should even shelve the B-2 Spirit), because all that we need are A-10s and Predator Drones. After all, we REALLY knocked the taste outta the mouth of the Iraqi system!!!! Right, right?
It's a good thing the military feels different, otherwise American and Allied pilots would be at risk flying their A-10s and F-18s towards integrated advanced IADS like the ones China now has (manned with HQ-9 clones of the S-300, and S-300s). It boggles my mind to see some threads on FR where some FReepers (on other threads) even say that all we need are A-10s since all our enemies are Afghanistan types. Well, some day we will fight a real enemy ...they will not always be Grenada, or the former Yugoslavia, or Afghanistan, or Nicaragua, or Somalia.
When it is China, you will realize why during the Cold War A-10s were not supposed to survive the Fulda Gap. The joke was between A-10 pilots and Apache pilots on who would take the most casualties.