I haven't seen anything in the article that is different from the prior one (and this one is from StrategyPage, which is a nice website in terms of information but it usually full of opinions at the same ratio as it is full with facts. I.e., feet of clay and iron for the most part, with salient information interposed with vaporous opinion). Anyways, many systems are layered. Whether it is a British longbowman with a secondary weapon at an individual level, massed groups of bowmen with skirmishers waiting at the outer edges at a group level, an Israeli MErkava MBT with a hardkill system to support its armor at an individual level, or a number of MBTs supporting (and in return, being supported by) infantry at a group level, a USN Arleigh Burke AEGIS destroyer with Standard missiles PLUS some shorter-range point-defense solution (e.g. ESSM or other), or even as simple as a Raptor (with its low probability of intercept AESA radar, stealth, kinematic superiority via supercruise and altitude factors, great fuel fraction and wing loading, and the AMRAAM-D) STILL HAVING THE SIDEWINDER!
Things are not as linear as some suppose them to be. Just because a Raptor is anathema to anything in the air flown by the enemy, with the ability to destroy enemy air from many many many miles away without even been detected ...doesn't mean that it will not have a shorter range solution just in case. It even has a GUN.
Anyways, while some may think the S-300/400 types are 'soviet era junk,' the sad fact is they are not and they are a major threat to the good guys on our side. They are a threat to our airforce, and a threat to our ground forces by denying them the support of the airforce.
When American lives get taxed by the enemy (God forbid) in some future near-peer war (say China), you can be sure that this system will be SOMEHOW involved.