Shivalik Class (Project 17 A/B) & Talwar Class Frigates

[LX1111]

What are you referring to? HQ-19 is BMD, like THAAD, an exo-atmospheric interceptor. You can only shoot down glide vehicles rather than sea skimmers

HQ19 is precisely similar to the THAAD ER missile, he is talking about how to defend against the US hypersonic missile, should be the upcoming service of the LRHW missile, according to CCTV, HQ19 has the ability to defend against HGV type weapons

It can not only intercept traditional ballistic missiles, but also has the ability to counter glide-mobile penetration missiles in the atmosphere, and the interception speed is wide and the interception range is too wide.

 

[LX1111]

What? It says minimum engagement range is 3.5 km? That's terrible.

Barak-8's objective was 70 km and has exceeded 90 km. An upgrade with booster will take it well beyond 150 km, or even 200 km.

And yes, it has sufficient time for terminal defense. Its minimum engagement range is 500 m, its reaction time is a secret but it's very small considering its short engagement range and it has an extremely high kill probability.

Just having long range is pointless. You also need minimum engagement range, faster reaction time, and very high pk, all missing from heavy semi-active missiles. The S-300/400 combines these missiles into one system, which is why it's considered special.

Barak-1 is a short range system, so it complements a medium range system like Shtil, just like on Chinese ships. But if a ship comes with Barak 8, then it doesn't need Barak-1, RAM-116, or HJ-10 class systems

The reason for India's emphasis on minimum range is that all seven of India's destroyers use only AK630 for terminal defence, which is very poor, just like the cruiser Moskva
For China and the United States, the 1130 and HHQ10 have the ability to intercept multiple supersonic missiles within 20KM
We don't care about the minimum range

 

[randomradio]

If you go to all the public information, the speed is Mach 2, in fact, it is very easy to understand that the double pulse engine itself is smaller than the maximum speed of the single pulse, is really a speed time image
View attachment 40074

The motor was developed from an earlier missile called Trishul, which was a mach 2 missile, but the second pulse increased speed to almost twice that when making the kill. The cruise speed was improved on Barak 8 to mach 3 and the kill speed became slightly faster, closer to mach 5. The media simply reports the old Trishul speed. The second pulse works like afterburner on fighter jets.

MICA NG is also designed around the same principle. Speed of mach 3-3.5 at cruise, and kill speed of mach 4.5 once the seeker tags the target. Meteor too cruises at mach 3 and accelerates to mach 4.5 when making the kill.

Long range missiles have to do mach 5-6 at cruise because the speed will drop by more than half at longer ranges. But that's also why their minimum engagement ranges are bad, requiring complementary HQ-10 and Barak 1. And if there's no second pulse, it cannot accelerate before the kill. Plus no active seeker.

Plus the ship radar cannot see beyond 20 or 30 km so the missile cannot decide on a new target by itself. Barak 8 can reassign itself to a new target using its own seeker.

 

[LX1111]

The motor was developed from an earlier missile called Trishul, which was a mach 2 missile, but the second pulse increased speed to almost twice that when making the kill. The cruise speed was improved on Barak 8 to mach 3 and the kill speed became slightly faster, closer to mach 5. The media simply reports the old Trishul speed. The second pulse works like afterburner on fighter jets.

MICA NG is also designed around the same principle. Speed of mach 3-3.5 at cruise, and kill speed of mach 4.5 once the seeker tags the target. Meteor too cruises at mach 3 and accelerates to mach 4.5 when making the kill.

Please give me open information, India, Israel, Azerbaijan,

 

[LX1111]

Long range missiles have to do mach 5-6 at cruise because the speed will drop by more than half at longer ranges. But that's also why their minimum engagement ranges are bad, requiring complementary HQ-10 and Barak 1. And if there's no second pulse, it cannot accelerate before the kill. Plus no active seeker

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

 

[LX1111]

Plus the ship radar cannot see beyond 20 or 30 km so the missile cannot decide on a new target by itself. Barak 8 can reassign itself to a new target using its own seeker

Plus the ship radar cannot see beyond 20 or 30 km so the missile cannot decide on a new target by itself. Barak 8 can reassign itself to a new target using its own seeker

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

 

[LX1111]

Frankly, the RFNs goose is well and truly cooked. The US-led sanctions have disrupted the supply of COTS Western components that went into many of their radars, including the Redut's AESA FCR.
Until they can feild local equivalents, their fleet is vulnerable to air/missile attack.

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

Why would the Chinese report it, and why will photos be made available when there was potential for war?

As I said, it's a transparent battlefield. The Russians cannot attack American and NATo JSTAR aircraft, which provide intelligence to Ukraine without putting Ukrainian surveillance assets at risk. If you are being watched 24/7, then it's obvious attacks will eventually get through.

In a war with NATO, the Russians would be attacking these systems.

In a war with NATO, Russia will not face F16s, but thousands of F35s and B21s, and then it will be over

 

[randomradio]

The reason for India's emphasis on minimum range is that all seven of India's destroyers use only AK630 for terminal defence, which is very poor, just like the cruiser Moskva
For China and the United States, the 1130 and HHQ10 have the ability to intercept multiple supersonic missiles within 20KM
We don't care about the minimum range

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

Please give me open information, India, Israel, Azerbaijan,

Getting information from democratic sources is different from China. You need to know people, not links.

 

[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.