Sure enough, the Jews are the best business people in the world, and he actually convinced the Indians that a missile with a height of only 20 kilometers and a speed of only Mach 2 has theater level one missile defense capability
Shivalik-class & Nilgiri-class (Project 17 A/B) Frigates : Discussions
- Thread starter Ashwin
- Start date
However, the biggest problem with the AK 630 is its gun, which relies on gunpowder gas to drive the gun automaton, which makes it very unstable, whereas the 730 and 1130, as well as the American phanals and the Dutch goalie system, which rely on external energy sources to spin the Gatling gun, their accuracy is greatly improved, and as I said earlier, The radar and artillery were arranged separately, and were greatly affected by the ship's own vibration
The HHQ10 is far more advanced than India's Barak 1/8, it completely automatically relies on the infrared guidance head of the missile to fly to the target, does not rely on the radar of the warship, has stronger multi-target attack capability, stronger anti-interference ability, faster response speed
The 1130 gun on the front of the warship, with a rate of fire of more than 10,000 rounds per minute, is a firewall that no missile can overcome
The HHQ-9 is a direct copy of the S-300's 48N6. Sure I can believe it was eventually upgraded with an active seeker, but nobody reports anything about it being introduced with it because even HQ-9A and B come with semi-active seekers.
What I meant was that the 052c shot down five , all of targets were traveling at Mach 3
There may be something wrong with the grammar of the reply
Sure enough, the Jews are the best business people in the world, and he actually convinced the Indians that a missile with a height of only 20 kilometers and a speed of only Mach 2 has theater level one missile defense capability
They use the same system for the same purpose. Plus the Indian version has an Indian motor. And the ER comes with 30 km altitude.
If HQ-9 is 48N6, then Barak 8 is like 9M96. It's in fact more advanced than 9M96, so why is it a surprise it can perform some BMD operations?
NB
How did you come to this conclusion?
Oh, I see, the English Wikipedia is actually written like this, NB, you study the Chinese army, at least check the Chinese Wikipedia,
Now you go and tell the Russians that instead of using the 48N6E3 and 9M82 to intercept the atacms, you use the 9M96, a modified version of the r77, and well, let me see if the Russians will shoot you
Yes. What's so special about it? 48N6 could also do the same in the 90s. And HQ-9 is the same missile.
Just because you can intercept mach 0.9 Harpoon doesn't mean you can now intercept mach 0.9 LRASM.
So maybe HHQ-9 can intercept Sunburn. But how does that mean it can now intercept Brahmos? Or how does that mean it can intercept YJ-18?
It's public information.
CPMIEC HQ-9 / HHQ-9 / FD-2000 / FT-2000 Self Propelled Air Defence System
CPMIEC, HQ-9, HHQ-9, FD-2000 , FT-2000, China, SAM, S-300PMU, Surface to Air Missile
www.ausairpower.net
Those are for long range BMD against MRBMs. 9M96 is not modified from R-77, when it was made R-77 didn't even exist. 9M96 is similar to Patriot.
Google S-350 and KM-SAM.
The reaction time, ie, the combat system to missile, is far, far shorter than 6-8 seconds. Just so you know, S-500's reaction time is 2-3 seconds, S-400's is 10 seconds. So you assume what Barak's will be.
Also, it is reprogrammable in the air, so it doesn't have to launch with instructions, it can be given those during launch or during transit.
Then, it doesn't need to launch after the missile is 2-3 seconds away, it can launch long before that and then engage the target well before impact.
Lastly, it can use its seeker to generate its own instructions.
It won't have minimum engagement range of 300m if it couldn't do it.
That's CIWS. Has blind spots.
That's CIWS. Has blind spots.
IN finds the AK-630 accurate enough for their needs.
Evidence, some official papers, brochures, videos, interviews, whatever,
If you're shooting a very slow drone, not to say 300 meters, 30 meters, I'm confident that the Barak 8 will be able to shoot him down, after all, for a missile like the Barak 8 that uses canards, the steering capability itself is its strength,
If you don't want to believe Chinese, can you just find some Japanese or Taiwanese sources? None of the information you quoted is correct. HQ9 is much smaller than 48n6
This is Taiwan military information
However, in fact, from the beginning of the project, the HQ-9 has used the mode of mid-course radio instruction guidance + terminal active radar guidance, which has not changed. The radar system supporting the ship's HHQ9 is a Type 346 active phased array, the radar itself works in S-band, and the data chain supporting the HHQ9 missile uplink transmission uses C-band
Oh, my God, don't you know the 9m96e's guide head is an r77? The development of the R77 missile began before the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the 9m96e is 30 kilometers high, the maximum rate of fire is Mach 5, he can certainly claim, against some rockets and short-range ballistic missiles, have a certain ability to intercept, and the Barak 8? It's a pitiful Mach 2 and 20 kilometers
Yeah, Type-055 were the 1st to feature an integrated mast in your navy. I'd forgotten about them.
Barak 8 terminal engagement speed is around 7.5 Mach. Chinese are facing a massive downgrade going forward as access to quality tech dry up. There latest frigate design only affirm that.
What's so strange about using the same seeker? In India too some missiles have the same seeker.
9M96 comes in two versions. One has a short 40 km range and 20 km altitude, the other has a 120 km range and 30 km altitude. Both are capable of BMD. The difference is the second version can defeat much more capable missiles whereas the smaller one is meant for smaller TBMs, like ATACMS and HiMARS.
And unlike, Barak 8, they are not dual pulse.
Israel's new David's Sling intercepts targets up to 15 km altitude. France's Aster 30 Block 1 also goes up to 20 km and can defeat 600 km class SRBMs.
Speed is necessary for long range, not high altitude.
You won't find official stuff. At the minumum, you need to get VIP passes for an expo and talk to people at the stalls. Or get journalist credentials or go with someone who has it. Or read articles where people sometimes post old but verified information, but without sources.
The proof is available in the form of Indian ships not carrying any other missile for self-defense, only Barak 8 and AK-630.
The reason is the Barak 8 has multiple trajectories, including flat and low altitude trajectories.
Barak-1 also has a minimum range of less than 500m, and it's also vertical launched, plus inferior to the Barak 8.
Don't you see it yourself? 48N6 was designed in the 80s, introduced in the 90s, and then sold to China in the late 90s. HQ-9 came a little while later with some minor refinement in the base design, that's all.
Even HQ-16 is based on the Buk's missile. We know for a fact that Russia was involved in its development in the same manner they were in South Korea for KM-SAM. And we know L-SAM too was developed using Russian S-300/400 tech.
Whatever, you have your opinion, I can't convince you, you can think that HHQ9 is a simple copy of the 48N6 series, after all, people like you are simple enough to think that anti-aircraft missiles only launch vehicles, the launch vehicle is the same, they are exactly the same.
You can't even get a picture of a standard HQ9 missile battalion
This is the weirdest thing about you, as a person in a so-called democratic country, you can only keep making up all kinds of data, but you can't come up with an official brochure, while I, as a person in a dictatorship in your eyes, can come up with all kinds of photos and materials to refute your absurdity
For example, this is the Xinhua report on HQ9, which explicitly mentions the guidance system: inertial guidance + terminal active radar
Last edited:
It seems that you do not understand some of the most basic truth, for anti-missile operations, the faster the speed of the missile, the higher the launch, the missile can have multiple interception opportunities, the two missiles you mentioned, a flight speed is Mach 4.5, a flight speed is above Mach 6, however, they only have the ability to intercept ballistic missiles with a range of not more than 300 kM. Such aging missiles tend to slow down to within Mach 1 to Mach 2 terminal speeds, making interception relatively easy.
Even so, in the face of a massive Iranian missile attack last year, Israel's air defense and missile defense system continued to perform poorly, and even before the THAAD system was deployed in Israel, Israel did not dare to launch retaliation against Iran
You don't have to retain its simplicity. 48N6 has also undergone modifications, and I'm sure HQ-9 has as well. Iran's Sayyads are all based on American SM-2 and have undergone multiple modifications too. But the problem is these are all very big and less agile missiles compared to what's available today.
For example, Stunner.
You can see that it's smaller than AIM-120. But they have designed it with 2 seekers and a triple pulse motor.
So this missile is meant to replace Patriot. It can do 300 km and mach 7.5 as part of the David's Sling system. And it uses the same radar as the Barak 8.
So you can clearly see how advanced long range SAMs have become while PLAN is still using some old 2 ton missile that was originally a Russian design.
Proper data is not released for many new technologies.
For example, the MBDA advertises Meteor as 100+ km.
Meteor | Saab
Meteor is an advanced radar-guided, beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile (BVRAAM) that is superior to other missiles of its type. Meteor is a game changer.
www.saab.com
Similarly, SM-6's published range is 240 km. But we know it's 350 or even 450 km.
Rafale's published specs are also pretty modest. Like a max speed of mach 1.8, although we know the prototype has done mach 2. Or a service ceiling of 50000 feet, when it can operationally cross 60000 feet.
Similarly, Israel's officially published figure for Derby ER is 100 km. But at the same time they claim AIM-120D is only 50% as capable, and that it can perform up to 80% of the range of the Meteor.
Similarly, MICA's range is advertised as 65+ km when it's 80 km.
So published democratic sources are fake. That's why it's difficult for us to believe Chinese brochures, especially because we know Russian brochure figures are fake too. The goal of brochures is just to tell what class of system it is, the exact figures are not important.
Furthermore, you may see active seeker in your brochure. But it doesn't explain which particular model has it, and what sort of seeker it is. It's simply assumed that it has a seeker, but there's no proof beyond words in a brochure. We generally don't believe that. We need to see pictures and videos. In Western sources too, we sometimes see information like that, but when we actually start looking at specific models, that's when we know some technologies are not part of every model within the family.
That's why we wait for actual data from people rather than brochures. The more people you know, the faster the information comes in. For example, in India, this forum has the most knowledge of Rafale because of Picdel. He was number 4 in Dassault and has the highest security clearance in the French military and govt. He has also run anti-submarine programs, nuclear programs, and space programs. So he has provided more information about it than you can find elsewhere. That's how it works in democracies.
Patriot has a speed between mach 3.5 and mach 5.
Also, 300 km is a TBM (theater ballistic missile). Which is what I had originally claimed.
Barak 8ER will provide greater performance. With the booster carrying it to high altitude, the missile will have multiple times more range. And a more powerful motor can boost its cruise speed and kill speed.
That's fine. Although the Israelis would claim otherwise, an Indian general said that India's air defenses are more advanced than Israel's.
Another thing about THAAD. It's not about the capability, they need numbers to prevent saturation, but more importantly, they need to maintain their own inventories for a larger war. And it's unlikely for Iran to attack American systems, so even if by chance Israeli systems are defeated, the THAAD will still be operational. So you have to first consider a lot of other factors before deciding the Israelis are not capable, when in fact it's the opposite.