English · العربية · فارسی · עברית · Русский · 中文 · Español · Français

Arrow 2 vs Khorramshahr-4: Cost-Exchange Ratio & Combat Analysis

Compare 2026-03-21 3 min read

Overview

This analysis compares the Arrow 2, a Israel Endo-atmo BMD system costing $3.0M per unit, against the Khorramshahr-4, an Iranian Heavy MRBM costing $2.5M per unit. The cost-exchange ratio of 1.2:1 favors the attacker — meaning it costs the defender 1.2x more to intercept than the missile cost Iran to produce. At Operation Epic Fury burn rates of 1.5/day, the Arrow 2 inventory of 85 units faces depletion in approximately 56 days. Endo-atmospheric interceptor for medium-range ballistic missiles, combat-proven Iran's heaviest MRBM — liquid-fueled, 3,000km range, 1,500kg warhead

Side-by-Side Specifications

DimensionArrow 2Khorramshahr 4
Unit Cost $3.0M $2.5M
Cost-Exchange Ratio 1.2:1 1.2:1
Range Endo-atmo BMD 3000 km
Inventory ~85 ~50
Annual Production 25/yr
Role Endo-atmo BMD Heavy MRBM
Manufacturer IAI + Boeing Iran / IRGC
Fuel Solid rocket

Head-to-Head Analysis

Cost-Exchange Economics

The Arrow 2 costs $3.0M per unit while the Khorramshahr-4 costs just $2.5M, creating a 1.2:1 cost-exchange ratio. Moderately unfavorable for the defender.
The Khorramshahr-4 has a 1.2:1 cost advantage over the Arrow 2. This asymmetry is a key factor in the conflict's economic sustainability.

Inventory & Depletion

Coalition forces have approximately 85 Arrow 2 interceptors with annual production of 25 units. Iran maintains an estimated 50 Khorramshahr-4 units. At Operation Epic Fury burn rates of 1.5/day, the Arrow 2 inventory of 85 units faces depletion in approximately 56 days.
Coalition holds an inventory advantage, but at 1.2:1 cost ratio, this is offset by economics.

Tactical Engagement

The Arrow 2 engages the Khorramshahr-4 during the flight phase. With 3000km range, the Khorramshahr-4 can be launched from deep within Iranian territory, complicating launch detection. Combat-proven vs MRBMs.
The Arrow 2 is designed to counter threats like the Khorramshahr-4, but sustained engagement at 1.2:1 cost ratios creates long-term sustainability challenges.

Scenario Analysis

Mass salvo of Khorramshahr-4 missiles

In a saturation attack using Khorramshahr-4 systems, the Arrow 2 battery would need to engage multiple targets simultaneously. At $3.0M per interceptor, a salvo of 1 Khorramshahr-4 missiles would cost $2.5M to launch but $3.0M to intercept.
Khorramshahr-4

Extended conflict (30+ days)

Over 30 days of sustained combat, the Arrow 2 inventory faces significant depletion pressure. Annual production of 25 units translates to just 0.1 per day — far below consumption rates during active operations. Meanwhile, Iran produces approximately 3.3 ballistic missiles and 6.7 drones per day.
Attacker (Iran) — production outpaces defender replenishment

Complementary Use

The Arrow 2 should be integrated into a layered defense architecture, not relied upon as a standalone solution against Khorramshahr-4 threats. Cost-effective lower-tier systems (Iron Dome at $80K, or Iron Beam laser at $2/shot) should handle cheaper threats when possible, preserving expensive Arrow 2 interceptors for high-value targets.

Overall Verdict

The Arrow 2 vs Khorramshahr-4 matchup produces a 1.2:1 cost-exchange ratio favoring the attacker. For sustained conflict planning, interceptor production ramp-up and cost-reduction programs are critical to maintaining defensive capability.

Frequently Asked Questions

Related Topics

Iron Dome vs Khorramshahr-4 Arrow 3 vs Khorramshahr-4 Arrow 2 vs Emad Arrow 2 vs Fateh-110 Arrow 2 vs Fattah-2 Arrow 2 vs Ghadr-110

Related News & Analysis