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

Arrow-3 vs Burkan-2H: Side-by-Side Comparison & Analysis

Compare 2026-03-21 4 min read

Overview

This side-by-side comparison of Arrow-3 and Burkan-2H provides a detailed analysis of these two systems, highlighting their strengths and weaknesses. As a defense planner, understanding the capabilities and limitations of these systems is crucial for making informed decisions about missile defense strategies.

Side-by-Side Specifications

DimensionArrow 3Burkan 2h
Range (km) 2400 1000
Speed (Mach) 9+ 5+
Cost (USD) ~$3M ~$200K
Guidance System Two-color infrared seeker with mid-course datalink updates INS (limited accuracy)
Warhead Type Kinetic energy (no explosive warhead) 500kg HE
First Deployed 2017 2017
Unit Cost (USD) ~$3M ~$200K
Significance Only operational exoatmospheric interceptor outside US SM-3. Houthi long-range ballistic missile used to strike Saudi Arabia.
Combat Record Confirmed multiple kills during October 2024 Iranian barrage. Most intercepted by Patriot but some failures reported.
Strengths Intercepts in space (no debris falls on defended area) Long range reaches Riyadh from northern Yemen

Head-to-Head Analysis

Range & Coverage

Arrow-3 has a significantly longer range than Burkan-2H, allowing it to cover a much wider area. This makes it a better choice for defending against long-range ballistic missiles. However, Burkan-2H's longer range does give it an advantage in certain scenarios, such as striking targets in Riyadh from northern Yemen.
Arrow-3 is better for range and coverage due to its longer range and ability to intercept in space.

Accuracy

Burkan-2H has a much lower accuracy than Arrow-3, with a CEP of 500m+ compared to Arrow-3's much tighter CEP. This makes Arrow-3 a better choice for targeting specific areas or engaging multiple targets.
Arrow-3 is better for accuracy due to its more advanced guidance system and tighter CEP.

Cost

Burkan-2H is significantly cheaper than Arrow-3, with an estimated unit cost of ~$200K compared to Arrow-3's ~$3M. This makes Burkan-2H a more attractive option for countries with limited budgets.
Burkan-2H is better for cost due to its lower unit cost and ability to be produced from modified Scud components.

Guidance System

Arrow-3's two-color infrared seeker with mid-course datalink updates provides much more accurate guidance than Burkan-2H's INS system. This makes Arrow-3 a better choice for engaging targets with high accuracy.
Arrow-3 is better for guidance system due to its more advanced and accurate system.

Warhead Type

Arrow-3's kinetic energy warhead is more effective against ballistic missiles than Burkan-2H's 500kg HE warhead. This makes Arrow-3 a better choice for engaging ballistic missiles.
Arrow-3 is better for warhead type due to its more effective kinetic energy warhead.

Scenario Analysis

Defending against Iranian ballistic missile salvo

In this scenario, Arrow-3's longer range and ability to intercept in space make it a better choice for defending against a large number of ballistic missiles. Its more advanced guidance system and tighter CEP also make it more effective at engaging multiple targets.
Arrow-3

Striking targets in Riyadh from northern Yemen

In this scenario, Burkan-2H's longer range makes it a better choice for striking targets in Riyadh from northern Yemen. However, its lower accuracy and lack of advanced guidance system make it less effective than Arrow-3.
Burkan-2H

Engaging cruise missiles or drones

In this scenario, neither Arrow-3 nor Burkan-2H is well-suited due to their high altitude and lack of advanced guidance systems. However, Arrow-3's ability to intercept in space makes it a better choice for engaging cruise missiles or drones.
Arrow-3

Complementary Use

Arrow-3 and Burkan-2H can be used together to provide a layered defense against ballistic missiles. Arrow-3 can engage ballistic missiles in space, while Burkan-2H can engage targets on the ground. This complementary use of both systems can provide a more effective defense against a wide range of threats.

Overall Verdict

Arrow-3 is a more advanced and effective system than Burkan-2H due to its longer range, more accurate guidance system, and tighter CEP. However, Burkan-2H's lower cost and ability to be produced from modified Scud components make it a more attractive option for countries with limited budgets. Ultimately, the choice between Arrow-3 and Burkan-2H will depend on the specific needs and requirements of the country or organization.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the main difference between Arrow-3 and Burkan-2H?

The main difference between Arrow-3 and Burkan-2H is their range and guidance system. Arrow-3 has a longer range and more advanced guidance system, making it a more effective system for engaging ballistic missiles.

Which system is more accurate?

Arrow-3 is more accurate than Burkan-2H due to its more advanced guidance system and tighter CEP.

Which system is cheaper?

Burkan-2H is cheaper than Arrow-3 due to its lower unit cost and ability to be produced from modified Scud components.

Can Arrow-3 and Burkan-2H be used together?

Yes, Arrow-3 and Burkan-2H can be used together to provide a layered defense against ballistic missiles.

Which system is better for engaging cruise missiles or drones?

Neither Arrow-3 nor Burkan-2H is well-suited for engaging cruise missiles or drones due to their high altitude and lack of advanced guidance systems.

Related

Sources

Jane's Defence Weekly Jane's Information Group official
Defense News Gannett Company journalistic
The Jerusalem Post The Jerusalem Post Group journalistic
The New York Times The New York Times Company journalistic

Related News & Analysis