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

PAC-3 CRI vs Sejjil-2: Cost-Exchange Ratio & Combat Analysis

Compare 2026-03-21 3 min read

Overview

This analysis compares the PAC-3 CRI, a US Terminal (cost-red) system costing $3.5M per unit, against the Sejjil-2, an Iranian Solid MRBM costing $1.5M per unit. The cost-exchange ratio of 2.3:1 favors the attacker — meaning it costs the defender 2.3x more to intercept than the missile cost Iran to produce. Cost Reduction Initiative variant of PAC-3 with 90% of MSE capability at lower unit cost Solid-fueled MRBM with 2,000km range — faster launch prep than liquid-fueled variants

Side-by-Side Specifications

DimensionPac 3 CriSejjil 2
Unit Cost $3.5M $1.5M
Cost-Exchange Ratio 2.3:1 2.3:1
Range Terminal (cost-red) 2000 km
Inventory ~700 ~300
Annual Production 200/yr
Role Terminal (cost-red) Solid MRBM
Manufacturer Lockheed Martin Iran / IRGC
Fuel Solid rocket

Head-to-Head Analysis

Cost-Exchange Economics

The PAC-3 CRI costs $3.5M per unit while the Sejjil-2 costs just $1.5M, creating a 2.3:1 cost-exchange ratio. Moderately unfavorable for the defender.
The Sejjil-2 has a 2.3:1 cost advantage over the PAC-3 CRI. This asymmetry is a key factor in the conflict's economic sustainability.

Inventory & Depletion

Coalition forces have approximately 700 PAC-3 CRI interceptors with annual production of 200 units. Iran maintains an estimated 300 Sejjil-2 units. The PAC-3 CRI is already 50% depleted vs operational requirements.
Coalition holds an inventory advantage, but at 2.3:1 cost ratio, this is offset by economics.

Tactical Engagement

The PAC-3 CRI engages the Sejjil-2 during the terminal phase. With 2000km range, the Sejjil-2 can be launched from deep within Iranian territory, complicating launch detection. 90% of MSE capability at 83% cost.
The PAC-3 CRI is designed to counter threats like the Sejjil-2, but sustained engagement at 2.3:1 cost ratios creates long-term sustainability challenges.

Scenario Analysis

Mass salvo of Sejjil-2 missiles

In a saturation attack using Sejjil-2 systems, the PAC-3 CRI battery would need to engage multiple targets simultaneously. At $3.5M per interceptor, a salvo of 3 Sejjil-2 missiles would cost $4.5M to launch but $10.5M to intercept.
Sejjil-2

Extended conflict (30+ days)

Over 30 days of sustained combat, the PAC-3 CRI inventory faces significant depletion pressure. Annual production of 200 units translates to just 0.5 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 PAC-3 CRI should be integrated into a layered defense architecture, not relied upon as a standalone solution against Sejjil-2 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 PAC-3 CRI interceptors for high-value targets.

Overall Verdict

The PAC-3 CRI vs Sejjil-2 matchup produces a 2.3:1 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 Sejjil-2 Arrow 2 vs Sejjil-2 Arrow 3 vs Sejjil-2 David's Sling vs Sejjil-2 PAC-3 MSE vs Sejjil-2 SM-3 Block IB vs Sejjil-2

Related News & Analysis