Yeah, Type-055 were the 1st to feature an integrated mast in your navy. I'd forgotten about them.
Shivalik Class (Project 17 A/B) & Talwar Class Frigates
- Thread starter Ashwin
- Start date
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.
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
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?
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
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,
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
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
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?
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 generally said 1-2 tons for Russian and Chinese ships.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
Don't they quote all ranges in nautical miles/miles term for brochure purpose as well as payload/weight in pound?
The IN will disagree. We even have a 650+ km ballistic missile based torpedo.
That's the limitations of your system, not ours. Barak 8 can even provide 32 chances of interception.
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?
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.