Shivalik-class & Nilgiri-class (Project 17 A/B) Frigates : Discussions

[randomradio]

Even with a second pulse, the Barak 8 would not be able to hit a target 100KM away. As for the ER type, I don't think India's seven destroyers would be able to accommodate a Barak 8 with a huge booster without a change in the launcher

Gen Next missile defence shield built by Israel and India clears first hurdle | India News - Times of India

India News: Fourteen Indian warships, including aircraft carrier INS Viraat, are currently equipped with the Barak-I system. The new LR-SAM system with Barak-8 in

timesofindia.indiatimes.com

The supersonic Barak-8 missile system, whose interception range has been increased from the earlier 70-km to around 100-km, will be now tested from Indian destroyer INS Kolkata “within a month”, said sources.

By the way, I was wrong about the minimum range, it's actually 300 meters, not 500.

Barak 8 launcher can handle the booster. The booster is just 0.09 meters more in diameter.

At the very least, China and the United States can maintain an air defense net of at least 500 kilometers for the entire carrier fleet
That is to say, India's current destroyer can only maintain 200 kilometers of air defense network, of course, this is enough in the Indian Ocean

The Americans have different missiles for different roles. While India has not bothered about long range SAMs on ships for now, that will come later, the Barak 8 provides sufficient long range and even point defense, but the same on US ships is provided by RIM-162 ESSM, not SM-2/6.

So even their defenses are designed like S-400. But I have only seen Chinese ships with HHQ-9 and HHQ-10, similar in structure to what the US had in the 1990s with just RIM-116 and SM-2, and back then they also had the older Sea Sparrow.

Even for the Americans, a range greater than 200 or 300 km is pointless, forget 500 km, because the main threats fly below 8000 meters. The real threat is well within 100 km. SM-6's claimed range is 240 km but potential range is 370-400 km. That's enough to cater to threats at altitudes necessary for firing missiles.

500 km is just the radar horizon, the max potential for a ship using its own sensors. If you have aircraft to provide targeting, then you can even have a 1000 km SAM.

China's HHQ9 is an active radar-guided missile, which is a basic common sense

It's only an assumption made for the later model HHQ-9B.

 

[randomradio]

You can't judge the advanced destroyers of China and the US by the backward destroyers of India, both China and the US have low altitude blind radar on the top of the mast, the latest Chinese 052d, even uses two AESA radars for low altitude blind
View attachment 40077View attachment 40076

That's a basic surface search radar for CIWS. The one used by China is a very small S band radar and is not even AESA. Maybe future versions will come with AESA, but that's not impressive. It's a half-measure. It's not useful against stealthy missiles like LRASM.

The Type 055 and Arleigh Burke class Flight IIA and Flight III have X band AESA radars instead, which is competitive with MF-STAR. Funny how China and America require large destroyers to compare with India's small destroyers and frigates.

 

[Speedster1]

The 22350 and 20380 are still in production, the future of Russia is still there, and the Western blockade has not defeated the Russian navy

Production of 20380 Stereguschy-class has slowed down because of the Western embargo on radar components. Btw, those ships have an integrated mast which even the mighty PLAN is only getting now with the Type-054B.

 

[GASOLINE_ON_FIRE]

We really have a pompous chinese nationalist here, telling us how backwards others are while nuclear subs from his country keep sinking & god knows how many sailors have died by now????? lmao

I didn't know master's degree in mechanics makes a person an expert in everything from ships to aircrafts to tanks to missiles. incredible!!!
Thats why our resident chinese expert ran away from the discussion on chinese vs indian Air to air missiles after claiming all sorts of nonsense.lol

Also, randomradio vs LX1111 reminds me of this:

 

[LX1111]

We really have a pompous chinese nationalist here, telling us how backwards others are while nuclear subs from his country keep sinking & god knows how many sailors have died by now????? lmao

I didn't know master's degree in mechanics makes a person an expert in everything from ships to aircrafts to tanks to missiles. incredible!!!
Thats why our resident chinese expert ran away from the discussion on chinese vs indian Air to air missiles after claiming all sorts of nonsense.lol

Also, randomradio vs LX1111 reminds me of this:
View attachment 40084

I have given my own reasons, the Indians do not believe, then I can do nothing, after all, I can not wake up a fool

 

[LX1111]

Production of 20380 Stereguschy-class has slowed down because of the Western embargo on radar components. Btw, those ships have an integrated mast which even the mighty PLAN is only getting now with the Type-054B.

I thought you would say 055 and Fujian aircraft carrier, did not expect you will say 054B, it seems that you do not understand, the integrated mast is not a cover to cover all radars, which involves the integrated management of power and electromagnetic signals
The U.S. Navy continued to use traditional masts until Burke III and Constellation

 

[LX1111]

That's a basic surface search radar for CIWS. The one used by China is a very small S band radar and is not even AESA. Maybe future versions will come with AESA, but that's not impressive. It's a half-measure. It's not useful against stealthy missiles like LRASM.

The Type 055 and Arleigh Burke class Flight IIA and Flight III have X band AESA radars instead, which is competitive with MF-STAR. Funny how China and America require large destroyers to compare with India's small destroyers and frigates.

When you see that your answer is different from everyone else's, the only way you could be wrong,
You are wrong again, the radar at the top of the mast that is not the CIWS radar, that is the low altitude blind radar, to warn low flying missiles, take P15A, P15B for example, their CIWS is AK630, and AK630 uses MR123 radar, not the Israeli EL/M-2248 radar

Your claim that India's EL/M-2248 can replace the low altitude blind radar is nonsense, both China and the US have retained the low altitude blind radar on the next generation of destroyers

 

[LX1111]

Gen Next missile defence shield built by Israel and India clears first hurdle | India News - Times of India

India News: Fourteen Indian warships, including aircraft carrier INS Viraat, are currently equipped with the Barak-I system. The new LR-SAM system with Barak-8 in

timesofindia.indiatimes.com

The supersonic Barak-8 missile system, whose interception range has been increased from the earlier 70-km to around 100-km, will be now tested from Indian destroyer INS Kolkata “within a month”, said sources.

By the way, I was wrong about the minimum range, it's actually 300 meters, not 500.

Barak 8 launcher can handle the booster. The booster is just 0.09 meters more in diameter

From this picture, ER has increased by 50% compared to the basic model, which I don't think can be launched directly on the original launch system
The range near the boundary is not important, for the end to reach Mach 3 and HJ12/HJ18, the distance of 3 km is only 2-3 seconds, in which time Barak 8, has not even been launched from the launch tube

 

[LX1111]

What you have is old gen. What we have is new gen

My friend, the AK630 is a weapon that has been in use since 1964, while India's newest P15A and P15B still use them

The Americans have different missiles for different roles. While India has not bothered about long range SAMs on ships for now, that will come later, the Barak 8 provides sufficient long range and even point defense, but the same on US ships is provided by RIM-162 ESSM, not SM-2/6.

So even their defenses are designed like S-400. But I have only seen Chinese ships with HHQ-9 and HHQ-10, similar in structure to what the US had in the 1990s with just RIM-116 and SM-2, and back then they also had the older Sea Sparrow.

Even for the Americans, a range greater than 200 or 300 km is pointless, forget 500 km, because the main threats fly below 8000 meters. The real threat is well within 100 km. SM-6's claimed range is 240 km but potential range is 370-400 km. That's enough to cater to threats at altitudes necessary for firing missiles.

500 km is just the radar horizon, the max potential for a ship using its own sensors. If you have aircraft to provide targeting, then you can even have a 1000 km SAM.

The latest SM-2 Block IIIC has a range of 160 km, and the Sm 6 is not only against ballistic missiles, they are also very effective against aircraft and anti-ship missiles, and the Americans have even moved it on to the FA18

So even their defenses are designed like S-400. But I have only seen Chinese ships with HHQ-9 and HHQ-10, similar in structure to what the US had in the 1990s with just RIM-116 and SM-2, and back then they also had the older Sea Sparrow.

I use a ciws from the 1990s, which is much better than a AK 630 from the 1960s

 

[randomradio]

When you see that your answer is different from everyone else's, the only way you could be wrong,
You are wrong again, the radar at the top of the mast that is not the CIWS radar, that is the low altitude blind radar, to warn low flying missiles, take P15A, P15B for example, their CIWS is AK630, and AK630 uses MR123 radar, not the Israeli EL/M-2248 radar
View attachment 40137
Your claim that India's EL/M-2248 can replace the low altitude blind radar is nonsense, both China and the US have retained the low altitude blind radar on the next generation of destroyers

You are mistaken. The radar you have on your ships is a CIWS radar, it is meant to provide targeting to the HHQ-10. And HHQ-10 is also a CIWS, like Barak-1.

On Indian ships, the Barak 8 itself handles the job of the HHQ-10, not just HHQ-9. You will notice that Indian ships do not have an exclusive low-altitude blind radar, because the MF-STAR does that job. It provides targeting to the AK-630 as well.

Hence the superiority of this design versus older American and Chinese ship designs.

 

[LX1111]

Even for the Americans, a range greater than 200 or 300 km is pointless, forget 500 km, because the main threats fly below 8000 meters. The real threat is well within 100 km. SM-6's claimed range is 240 km but potential range is 370-400 km. That's enough to cater to threats at altitudes necessary for firing missiles.

500 km is just the radar horizon, the max potential for a ship using its own sensors. If you have aircraft to provide targeting, then you can even have a 1000 km SAM

Even for the Americans, a range greater than 200 or 300 km is pointless, forget 500 km, because the main threats fly below 8000 meters. The real threat is well within 100 km. SM-6's claimed range is 240 km but potential range is 370-400 km. That's enough to cater to threats at altitudes necessary for firing missiles.

500 km is just the radar horizon, the max potential for a ship using its own sensors. If you have aircraft to provide targeting, then you can even have a 1000 km SAM

However, in the Red Sea, which the U.S. Navy has called its toughest mission since the end of World War II, the Americans still rely mainly on SM2 for intercepting ballistic and anti-ship missiles, and ESSM mainly for intercepting debris and some drones.
ESSM itself is because after the Cold War, No one will ever threaten America again, in order to improve the missile load and developed, he has a good effect in the face of a large number of subsonic ordinary anti-ship missiles
Like the Iranian C802,

 

[randomradio]

View attachment 40138
From this picture, ER has increased by 50% compared to the basic model, which I don't think can be launched directly on the original launch system

Old booster design.

The range near the boundary is not important, for the end to reach Mach 3 and HJ12/HJ18, the distance of 3 km is only 2-3 seconds, in which time Barak 8, has not even been launched from the launch tube

The launch will happen long before the missile can reach within 1 second of hitting the ship. Even against high speed CMs, the low engagement range provides an additional opportunity to intercept.

Plus, vertical launch means the missile can cover the ship in a 360 deg bubble, whereas HHQ-10 type systems have serious blind spots.

 

[LX1111]

So even their defenses are designed like S-400. But I have only seen Chinese ships with HHQ-9 and HHQ-10,

I see you don't like the Chinese navy anymore
I will now show you some anti-missile weapons on the 052d/055


Many thought it was an HQ19 that could be launched from a destroyer
As for the Barak 8 missile you are proud of, we have developed it for a long time, but we do not consider it valuable, so we do not equip it
The Red Sea of 2024 proves us right

For example, the FM 3000 missile in this image, active radar guidance, can attack 16 targets simultaneously,
Note the location of one HHQ9, which can carry four FM 3000

 

[randomradio]

My friend, the AK630 is a weapon that has been in use since 1964, while India's newest P15A and P15B still use them

So? As long as it works, it works. What matters is the software and shells, not the gun itself.

The latest SM-2 Block IIIC has a range of 160 km, and the Sm 6 is not only against ballistic missiles, they are also very effective against aircraft and anti-ship missiles, and the Americans have even moved it on to the FA18

That's okay. Barak 8 is meant for theater BMD only. We will build larger ships for BMD.

But you first have to worry about surviving CMs.

I use a ciws from the 1990s, which is much better than a AK 630 from the 1960s

The AK-630 is superior to the Type 730 family. AK-630 has the same muzzle velocity and firing rate, but has 2000-4000 shells versus 1200 and Indian destroyers carry 4 while Type 052D and 055 carry just 1. So Indian destroyers have no blind spots, while Chinese destroyers have massive ones.

The Type 30 is cued by a small radar, while AK-630 is cued by MF-STAR.

Why are you so smug about having such inferior firepower?

 

[randomradio]

However, in the Red Sea, which the U.S. Navy has called its toughest mission since the end of World War II, the Americans still rely mainly on SM2 for intercepting ballistic and anti-ship missiles, and ESSM mainly for intercepting debris and some drones.
ESSM itself is because after the Cold War, No one will ever threaten America again, in order to improve the missile load and developed, he has a good effect in the face of a large number of subsonic ordinary anti-ship missiles
Like the Iranian C802,

That demonstrates how even the USN uses ESSM to deal with smaller targets, whereas the Chinese have no equivalent.

 

[LX1111]

It's only an assumption made for the later model HHQ-9B.

Although I know you are very new to the Chinese Navy, you should at least check Chinese Wikipedia
Since its inception in the 1990s, the HHQ9 has been an active radar-guided missile

 

[randomradio]

I see you don't like the Chinese navy anymore

How did you come to that conclusion?

I will now show you some anti-missile weapons on the 052d/055
View attachment 40141
View attachment 40142
Many thought it was an HQ19 that could be launched from a destroyer

It's a big missile, not suitable for use against YJ-12/18.

As for the Barak 8 missile you are proud of, we have developed it for a long time, but we do not consider it valuable, so we do not equip it
The Red Sea of 2024 proves us right
View attachment 40144
For example, the FM 3000 missile in this image, active radar guidance, can attack 16 targets simultaneously,
Note the location of one HHQ9, which can carry four FM 3000

The FM-3000 is significantly inferior to the Barak 8. Inferior range, no dual pulse, reaction time is too high. It's like an upgraded Tor. It's clearly a cheap missile meant for export.

The fact that none of PLAN's ships operate a missile in the same class as ESSM or Barak 8 shows there's a hole in this capability.

 

[LX1111]

The AK-630 is superior to the Type 730 family. AK-630 has the same muzzle velocity and firing rate, but has 2000-4000 shells versus 1200 and Indian destroyers carry 4 while Type 052D and 055 carry just 1. So Indian destroyers have no blind spots, while Chinese destroyers have massive ones.

The Type 30 is cued by a small radar, while AK-630 is cued by MF-STAR.

Why are you so smug about having such inferior firepower

Oh my God, you are challenging my IQ, if the AK630 is so good, why do the Chinese use the 730 on the 052c and many 054a instead of the AK630, according to published Chinese papers, the accuracy of the AK630 at 1 km is the same as that of the 730 at around 3 km, Moreover, the AK630 is arranged separately from the radar and gun, which is greatly affected by the vibration of the ship itself, and even China abandoned the AK630 on the second order of 956E destroyers

It's a big missile, not suitable for use against YJ-12/18

I remember saying that in 2013, China used a 052c to launch HHQ9 and shot down 5 targets at Mach 3 same time, which shows that even the earliest 346 radars and HHQ9 are sufficient against targets like YJ12 and Brahmos

 

[randomradio]

Oh my God, you are challenging my IQ, if the AK630 is so good, why do the Chinese use the 730 on the 052c and many 054a instead of the AK630, according to published Chinese papers, the accuracy of the AK630 at 1 km is the same as that of the 730 at around 3 km, Moreover, the AK630 is arranged separately from the radar and gun, which is greatly affected by the vibration of the ship itself, and even China abandoned the AK630 on the second order of 956E destroyers

AK-630 has undergone multiple upgrades since it was introduced, just like the Su-27 family.

And the same system has undergone more upgrades in Indian hands.

 

[randomradio]

I remember saying that in 2013, China used a 052c to launch HHQ9 and shot down 5 targets at Mach 3 same time, which shows that even the earliest 346 radars and HHQ9 are sufficient against targets like YJ12 and Brahmos

Sure. There's nothing special about that. S-300 could also engage such missiles back in the 90s. Speed is just one quality.