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

[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.

 

[LX1111]

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

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

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

 

[LX1111]

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

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

 

[LX1111]

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

It can be seen that it has taken at least two seconds for the missile to launch, and the time it takes for the missile to turn in the air, and the time for the combat system to give instructions will not be less than 6 to 8 seconds
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

 

[randomradio]

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

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.

 

[LX1111]

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

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

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

 

[randomradio]

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?

 

[LX1111]

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.

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,

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?

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

 

[randomradio]

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

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?

 

[randomradio]

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,

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

The basic airframe configuration and internal layout of the HQ-9/HHQ-9/FD-2000 round appear identical to the Russian Almaz-Antey/Fakel 5V55/48N6 family of SAMs. The only notable difference is the redesign of the TVC vanes, which are situated aft of the nozzle in the Chinese missile.

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

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.

 

[randomradio]

It can be seen that it has taken at least two seconds for the missile to launch, and the time it takes for the missile to turn in the air, and the time for the combat system to give instructions will not be less than 6 to 8 seconds

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.

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

View attachment 40146

That's CIWS. Has blind spots.

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

That's CIWS. Has blind spots.

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

IN finds the AK-630 accurate enough for their needs.

 

[LX1111]

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

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,

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

The basic airframe configuration and internal layout of the HQ-9/HHQ-9/FD-2000 round appear identical to the Russian Almaz-Antey/Fakel 5V55/48N6 family of SAMs. The only notable difference is the redesign of the TVC vanes, which are situated aft of the nozzle in the Chinese missile

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

紅旗-9/海紅旗-9防空導彈

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

 

[LX1111]

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.

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