Only the S-300 is a worry. And I am sure that the Pentagon already knows this and has had some of the best and brightest look at ways of negating it, at least to some extent. I actually wouldn't be very surprised if there are S-300 SAMs in the Continental United States for testing .....==
S-300 is the old weaponry too. It is al least 20+ years old. And Russia will never sell the ful capacity of such or any weaponry. It is bad for testing but it is good means that capable versions will never be at any hands except Russia'. The modern one is S-400. It includes the new missile too.
Take the S-300PMU-2. 'Favorit' was introduced in around 1997-98, and that thing will chew anything flying that doesn't have 'Raptor' in its name (i.e that doesn't have the advantage offered by all-aspect stealth, whereby acquisition is degraded, and super-cruise ability, whereby the Raptor can use sheer kinematic performance to stay beyond the missile's viable acquisition range).
As for the S-400 (by the way, also known as the S-300PMU-3), the 'Triumf' is indeed superior to the legacy S-300 series. While the Russian claims that it can target stealth aircraft have to be taken with a (HUGE) grain of salt, the fact does remain that it is arguably one of the best anti-aircraft missiles out there (is it the best? Well, I'll leave that question to the makers of Patriot PAC_3, the latest versions of Standard missiles, and ofcourse the makers of the Triumf). But the fact does remain that it will engage legacy aircraft with ease, it will engage cruise missiles, and it can even offer some level of defence against ballistic missiles. That is not a missile to be caught by when you are flying a SuperHornet.
Anyways, the S-300 (particularly later generations) are a major threat. Just because the S-400 is 'better' doesn't mean that the S-300PMU-2 is rooster poo! It would be like saying that an African Lion is not a dangerous beast because Siberian tigers exist.
Both will kill you just as easy.
And of all the missiles listed in the article, only the S-300 is a major threat.
Actually you proved my point by the way ....the fact that Russia is not willing to simply sell S-400 to anyone means that the S-300 is actually a MORE DANGEROUS threat than the S-400, simply because it will be more available to threat nations than the Triumf would be!
Whether Russia has Topol-M, or extended range AAMs geared at AWACs aircraft, or some new India-Russian 'super' cruise anti-shipping missile, or the S-400 missile system ....all that doesn't mean jack. What is a worry is if IRAN gets its hand on (what you call) 'old' S-300 systems. Trust me, that 'old' missile (if old means something that was made starting from 1998) will knock the taste out of a pilot flying in a Viper or Hornet or Eagle. And while there would be serious work put into discovering and destroying such missiles, there is always the chance that some will escape ....and that some will be shot at our aircraft ....and that some will hit (and a S-300 hit is not something you parachute from). Look back at the Gulf War ....Saddam's SAMS managed to bring down a number of aircraft, and note that although his IAD network was extensive it wasn't as advanced as something (say Iran, or for that fact China) would have.
The following link shows the number of coalition aircraft that suffered attrition during GW1:
http://webcom.com/~amraam/aaloss.html
Now, imagine if Saddam (through the use of ....bear with me ...a time machine) had gotten his hairy mitts on S-300 PMU-2s.
Anyways, all the missiles listed in that article are either phantoms and phantasms (in that while credible threats they will probably NEVER be used ....a good case example being the Topol-M), or they are paper tigers e.g. the R-77 and R-73 ....a missile like the R-73 is indeed very lethal, but the aircraft carrying it wouldn't survive long enough to use it. MiG-29s are not bad aircraft ....it is just that when you are flying against the USAF/USN your chances are lower than dirt! Russian aircraft normall get a bad rap on FR, but they are actually quite good. Problem is, when you have Iraqi pilots with R-27 AAMs flying 'Soviet Doctrine' against F-15Cs with AMRAAMs and AWACS support ....well, one doesn't have to be good to kill all those Iraqi pilots! It is a turkey shoot.
A favorite scenario I love to use to drive this point is India and Pakistan. India's frontline fighter is the Russian made SU-30MKI. Pakistan's frontline fighter is the American F-16.
If the two met in a war by all measures the Pakistani airforce would be decimated! Why? Well, the MKIs radar would be picking up the Pakistani Vipersa LONG distance off, and the MKIs have formidable BVR weaponry. Then add to that that the Flankers would also have AWACS support (Israel is selling AWACS systems to India). An engagement between the Indian and Pakistani airforces would lead to a Viper massacre! But that doesn't mean that the F-16 is a bad plane ....it has proved itself over and over again. Yet in that particular scenario it would be a failure.
Same thing with the Iraqis. They had no chance! You could actually have given them F-15s and the results would have been 100% the same ....Iraqi pilots being turned into Pixie dust like it was bl@@dy open season in the skies.
Anyways, a (say) Iranian jet may have R-73s and R-77s, but it wouldn't have a chance to use them. Thus those missiles are good, but in VIABLE terms they are almost 100% useless.
The S-400 is good, but the Triumf is not being sold everywhere.
However the S-300, whcih is still one of the most capable SAMs out there, is available for sale. With sufficient money ANY country could buy them.
And they work.
That is a viable threat. The rest are nothing more than phantoms (real capability, but will never be used unless all hell breaks lose ...and if that happens we would ALSO be letting lose our own 'pet projects') and/or paper tigers (credible weapons, but not viable against an enemy like the United States of America).
The S-300 is a real threat.