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

[LX1111]

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

Oh, I see, because India imports some very small anti-aircraft missiles from Europe and Israel, then you think the future belongs to such small missiles, but China also has this kind, HQ9C

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

If this missile is so small, as you say, they are so flexible, then why can India only equip 32 P15A\B with a displacement of over 7,500 tons? China's 052D, with a displacement of only 6,800 tons, can be equipped with 48 such heavy anti-aircraft missiles?

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

I don't know where you came up with the data of 2 tons out of thin air. The 48N6 size is 515mm diameter, 7.5m length and 1.8 tons weight, and the Hq9 diameter is 490mm length and 6.4m weight and 1.2 tons weight
If you still want to quib, then I will take out the most clear photos, from these photos, indeed, HHQ9 and S300 shape looks very much the same, but the missile above the various antennas and Windows, the position is completely different, I do not deny that HQ9 in the development, a lot of reference to S300, does not mean that they are exactly the same

 

[LX1111]

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

Things have just passed half a year, you do not need to lie here, at that time there was even a video of the Iranian missile accurately hit the arrow -2/3 position, later things we all know, an Iranian attacks an Israeli air base, of which more than 20 missiles hit the target, if you add the old missiles that stray from the target, more than 40 missiles broke through the anti-missile system，An Iranian missile even hit 200 meters in front of the Mossad building
The reason for waiting for THAAD is that it is the most advanced terminal high altitude anti-missile system in the whole West, and Israel's own products cannot be trusted and must rely on the United States,

 

[LX1111]

Meteor’s operational range is more than 100 km

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.

In fact, most of the Western introductions here are more accurate, such as SM 6, its maximum range can indeed reach 400 kilometers, but the interception oblique distance is 240 kilometers, such as HHQ9B, in the official introduction, we also use the interception oblique distance of 260 kilometers, but HHQ9B's farthest attack distance can also reach more than 400 kilometers

 

[LX1111]

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

I do not pay attention to Israel's weapons, but your understanding of the Rafale is obviously wrong, here 50,000 feet and Mach 2, are obtained in the test flight data, but do not have actual combat value, just like the Chinese J-10A fighter, once in the test flight flew out of the Mach 2.4 high speed, but in the public brochure, we think that its practical speed is only Mach 2

 

[randomradio]

Oh, I see, because India imports some very small anti-aircraft missiles from Europe and Israel, then you think the future belongs to such small missiles, but China also has this kind, HQ9C
View attachment 40258

Ask yourself this. Can the HQ-9C be carried by a fighter jet?

Stunner is smaller than AIM-120. Barak 8 is just 0.5m longer than R-27. These missiles can easily be modified to become AAMs. How many HQ-9C can J-16 carry if given the same modifications? And how effectively will the HQ-9C be in that configuration versus Barak 8?

If this missile is so small, as you say, they are so flexible, then why can India only equip 32 P15A\B with a displacement of over 7,500 tons? China's 052D, with a displacement of only 6,800 tons, can be equipped with 48 such heavy anti-aircraft missiles?

When asked, the IN said it's more than enough, that they did not envison a ship being threatened by more missiles.

For example, PLAN may need 48 missiles to defeat 24 targets, whereas Barak 8 can defeat 32 targets. DRDO recently proved Akash can use 1 missile per target using just command guidance.

I don't know where you came up with the data of 2 tons out of thin air. The 48N6 size is 515mm diameter, 7.5m length and 1.8 tons weight, and the Hq9 diameter is 490mm length and 6.4m weight and 1.2 tons weight

I generally said 1-2 tons for Russian and Chinese ships.

If you still want to quib, then I will take out the most clear photos, from these photos, indeed, HHQ9 and S300 shape looks very much the same, but the missile above the various antennas and Windows, the position is completely different, I do not deny that HQ9 in the development, a lot of reference to S300, does not mean that they are exactly the same
View attachment 40259

You can make modernizations of the same missile, but without significant changes, the general philosophy will remain the same.

Look at Stunner, compare that to HQ-9, and then would you say both will operate the same way? Then why would the S-400 carry 9M96?

And what, you think Brahmos-1 and Brahmos-M don't do the same things either?

 

[randomradio]

Things have just passed half a year, you do not need to lie here, at that time there was even a video of the Iranian missile accurately hit the arrow -2/3 position, later things we all know, an Iranian attacks an Israeli air base, of which more than 20 missiles hit the target, if you add the old missiles that stray from the target, more than 40 missiles broke through the anti-missile system，An Iranian missile even hit 200 meters in front of the Mossad building
The reason for waiting for THAAD is that it is the most advanced terminal high altitude anti-missile system in the whole West, and Israel's own products cannot be trusted and must rely on the United States,

You have an incorrect notion of how air defense is conducted.

What you need to ask is what targets were destroyed on the ground, not how many missiles got through.

In order to conserve ammunition, the SAM commander will allow some missiles to go through if the missile is targeting areas of no consequence or not of vital importance. For example, if an enemy missile's headed towards an empty hangar, the commander will let the enemy missile hit the target because rebuilding the hangar is cheaper than wasting an Arrow missile.

No, THAAD isn't better than what the Israelis operate. In fact, Trump wants to replicate Israeli missile defenses for America. Israel's defenses are far more strategic in nature, whereas THAAD has been designed for mobility and quick insertion into new areas. Both its radar and interceptor are inferior to the Arrow system. The Israeli system is a generation ahead, and India's is even more advanced.

THAAD was offered to India by Trump.

https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/us-proposes-to-sell-thaad-to-india-as-alternative-to-russian-s-400s/story-EqzAqK47PkfXxw1Cl1NGDJ.html

It was rejected for being not better than India's own BMD program and being too expensive. For example, our ASAT uses the same stage as the second interceptor of our Phase 1 BMD.

 

[randomradio]

In fact, most of the Western introductions here are more accurate, such as SM 6, its maximum range can indeed reach 400 kilometers, but the interception oblique distance is 240 kilometers, such as HHQ9B, in the official introduction, we also use the interception oblique distance of 260 kilometers, but HHQ9B's farthest attack distance can also reach more than 400 kilometers
View attachment 40260

You are comparing slant range with ballistic range. But what I'm saying is the SM-6's slant range is advertised as 240 km, but it's more than 350 km, not the ballistic range.

Similarly, the US officially advertises LRASM with a range of 370+ km, when its actual range is 650 km. So they typically advertise its range at low altitude.

Similarly, NSM is advertised for 185+ km, but we know it's far more than that.

I do not pay attention to Israel's weapons, but your understanding of the Rafale is obviously wrong, here 50,000 feet and Mach 2, are obtained in the test flight data, but do not have actual combat value, just like the Chinese J-10A fighter, once in the test flight flew out of the Mach 2.4 high speed, but in the public brochure, we think that its practical speed is only Mach 2

It doesn't matter. What matters is brochure figures are fake in democratic countries, even in Russia. So by extension can potentially be fake in China too.

 

[LX1111]

When asked, the IN said it's more than enough, that they did not envison a ship being threatened by more missiles.

For example, PLAN may need 48 missiles to defeat 24 targets, whereas Barak 8 can defeat 32 targets. DRDO recently proved Akash can use 1 missile per target using just command guidance

Don't you think your reasons are ridiculous? The only reason the Indian P15A/B destroyers carry so little ammunition is that two RBU6000 and a 533 torpedo tube take up too much space on the hull
And these things aren't much use in modern naval warfare,
As I explained at the beginning, the Barak 8 Mach 2 speed and maximum range of 70-100KM doomed it to only one intercept chance against the YJ-12/18
even not mention the CM400AKG

Ask yourself this. Can the HQ-9C be carried by a fighter jet?

Stunner is smaller than AIM-120. Barak 8 is just 0.5m longer than R-27. These missiles can easily be modified to become AAMs. How many HQ-9C can J-16 carry if given the same modifications? And how effectively will the HQ-9C be in that configuration versus Barak 8

You can make modernizations of the same missile, but without significant changes, the general philosophy will remain the same.

Look at Stunner, compare that to HQ-9, and then would you say both will operate the same way? Then why would the S-400 carry 9M96?

And what, you think Brahmos-1 and Brahmos-M don't do the same things either

You seem to think that the smaller the anti-aircraft missile, the better, however, this is extremely foolish,
Our HQ9C is not going after something stupid like the Barak 8, we are going after the terminal anti-missile capability like the PAC-3 MSE whose size is small only because it has to reduce drag to increase speed and fire height

 

[LX1111]

What you need to ask is what targets were destroyed on the ground, not how many missiles got through.

In order to conserve ammunition, the SAM commander will allow some missiles to go through if the missile is targeting areas of no consequence or not of vital importance. For example, if an enemy missile's headed towards an empty hangar, the commander will let the enemy missile hit the target because rebuilding the hangar is cheaper than wasting an Arrow missile.

What are you talking about,？Iranian missiles hit at least one F-35 hangar, two communications aircraft hangars, that's serious damage, and if the Israelis had not been warned and the airfield was still full, a quarter of the IAF's aircraft would have been destroyed
Iran's missiles are copies of North Korean technology from the 2000s, and if they were any more accurate, the IAF would face its worst defeat since 1947

 

[marich01]

You are comparing slant range with ballistic range. But what I'm saying is the SM-6's slant range is advertised as 240 km, but it's more than 350 km, not the ballistic range.

Similarly, the US officially advertises LRASM with a range of 370+ km, when its actual range is 650 km. So they typically advertise its range at low altitude.

Similarly, NSM is advertised for 185+ km, but we know it's far more than that.

Don't they quote all ranges in nautical miles/miles term for brochure purpose as well as payload/weight in pound?

 

[randomradio]

Don't you think your reasons are ridiculous? The only reason the Indian P15A/B destroyers carry so little ammunition is that two RBU6000 and a 533 torpedo tube take up too much space on the hull

The IN will disagree. We even have a 650+ km ballistic missile based torpedo.

And these things aren't much use in modern naval warfare,
As I explained at the beginning, the Barak 8 Mach 2 speed and maximum range of 70-100KM doomed it to only one intercept chance against the YJ-12/18
even not mention the CM400AKG

That's the limitations of your system, not ours. Barak 8 can even provide 32 chances of interception.

You seem to think that the smaller the anti-aircraft missile, the better, however, this is extremely foolish,
Our HQ9C is not going after something stupid like the Barak 8, we are going after the terminal anti-missile capability like the PAC-3 MSE whose size is small only because it has to reduce drag to increase speed and fire height
View attachment 40361

Then funny how PAC-3 is being replaced by an even smaller missile. There's the new SkyCeptor, which is just 3.8m long, basically derived from Stunner.

Israelis Push New Missile For Patriot Launchers: SkyCeptor - Breaking Defense

Patriot missiles are expensive. Rafael and its US partner Raytheon say they can fire the cheaper Israeli SkyCeptor from existing Patriot launchers. Will that tempt the US Army?

breakingdefense.com

 

[randomradio]

What are you talking about,？Iranian missiles hit at least one F-35 hangar, two communications aircraft hangars, that's serious damage, and if the Israelis had not been warned and the airfield was still full, a quarter of the IAF's aircraft would have been destroyed
Iran's missiles are copies of North Korean technology from the 2000s, and if they were any more accurate, the IAF would face its worst defeat since 1947

As I said, it depends on what's inside those hangars, not what you assume could be inside.

Fixing an empty hangar is cheaper than using up multiple Arrow interceptors.

And no, Iran never warned the US or Israel before striking, both times.

 

[randomradio]

Don't they quote all ranges in nautical miles/miles term for brochure purpose as well as payload/weight in pound?

Yes and no. It depends on the target for advertisement.

Officially, only the US Army uses the metric system.

 

[Ashwin]

Stealth frigate INS Tushil sails home to Karwar after maiden voyage of 12,500 nautical miles​

Multi-role stealth guided missile ship is an upgraded Krivak III class frigate, of which six are already in service with Indian Navy. It was commissioned on 9 December last year.​

 

[Ashwin]

 

[Speedster1]

I wonder if P-17A superstructure is composite material like P-28 or steel. The tech was imported from SAAB at high cost. Should be used across multiple classes imo.

 

[Ashwin]

Shakti EW System onboard INS SATPURA