Acoustic Signature of Arihant-class SSBN

[AUSTERLITZ]

Good grief. I ignore you, because you're pretty foolish.

You claimed the Chinese Type 052C destroyer was outdated, because it was based on S-300 naval SAMs.

You're wrong for a few reasons.

1. China's Type 052C destroyer is based on HQ-9, not S-300.

2. China's HQ-9 has been upgraded every few years.

3. China's HQ-9 is digital, whereas the S-300 has many analog control systems. In terms of digitization, the HQ-9 is on par with the S-400.

You see. You don't have a clue.
----------

You make a bid deal about SARH. You seem to be unaware that HQ-9 variants have dual seekers, including SARH.

1.HQ-9 is a derivative of s-300 rif-m.The whole world knows it,but you can ignore that in your fantasy world.

2.And its still poor against sea skimmers.It has limited minimum altitude.Its very heavy over 1000 kgs.Its optimized for shooting down aircraft ,not sea skimmer cruise missiles.

3.Being digital doesn't change the physical characterastics of the missile itself,nor its minimum engagement envelope.

Your arguments that an active seeker missile like barak-8/aster/sm-6 would not be superior to this older missile are totally false.It is you who doesn't have a clue.

 

[Martian2]

Like what? The superior Dutch tugboat?

I'm out of this thread.

I learned a long time ago not to argue with Indians, especially when they make ridiculous claims like the Type 052C SAMs are based on 80s technology. Absurd claims do not deserve a reply.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

1.HQ-9 is a derivative of s-300 rif-m.The whole world knows it,but you can ignore that in your fantasy world.

2.And its still poor against sea skimmers.It has limited minimum altitude.Its very heavy over 1000 kgs.Its optimized for shooting down aircraft ,not sea skimmer cruise missiles.

3.Being digital doesn't change the physical characterastics of the missile itself,nor its minimum engagement envelope.

Your arguments that an active seeker missile like barak-8/aster/sm-6 would not be superior to this older missile are totally false.It is you who doesn't have a clue.

Well, I can debunk your lie with just one single link.

HongQi-15 (HQ-15) - Missile ThreatMissile Threat

 

[Nilgiri]

I learned a long time ago not to argue with Indians, especially when they make ridiculous claims like the Type 052C SAMs are based on 80s technology.

What's wrong with that? A lot of the best tech out there today has legacy back to the 80s and even before that. If it aint broke, dont fix it!

Where the trolling comes in is whether the portrayal/insinuation/interpretation is that anything linked to the 80s is automatically inferior.

 

[Penguin]

Like what? The superior Dutch tugboat?

Among other things.

Costa Cruises commissioned leading worldwide salvage experts Smit Salvage BV, of Rotterdam, The Netherlands, to draw up a plan to recover the reserves of fuel from Costa Concordia -

Dutch company hired for salvaging Costa Concordia - Cruise Radio

In mainland Europe, Smit International has been supreme in the field of 'globalization' and was exercising its aspirations before that buzz word was invented. One of the traditional masters of towage and salvage, the Dutch company has been acquiring tugboat firms worldwide or making alliances for several decades. Smit-International is now a complex group of inter-related deep-sea towage, salvage, ship-handling, and other companies including Smit Americas.

Marcon International, Inc. - Ship Brokers & Marine Consultants

Royal Boskalis Westminster, Wijsmuller, Mammoet (Kursk salvage) and that is just towing an salvage etc

I'm out of this thread.

I learned a long time ago not to argue with Indians,. Absurd claims do not deserve a reply.

Of course, I'm Dutch and not Indian. And how polite I've been to explain to ChineseTiger1986 that he doesn't know jack shit about the Dutch navy, for starters, despite his absurd claims.

 

[Nilgiri]

No one is claiming Dutch navy is an inferior one other than some trolls. For the size of the country, it packs quite a punch and would be an advanced Greenwater+ navy at minimum.

Dutch maritime capability is well known today and in history.

 

[nForce]

So the Indian navy also follows our jingoistic claim?

Exclusive: Indian Navy headless as Chinese nuclear sub prowls Indian Ocean : North, News - India Today

Are you a retard or what ? If information about submarines in seas makes it to newspapers, then how can that be considered quite ?

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Well, I can debunk your lie with just one single link.

HongQi-15 (HQ-15) - Missile ThreatMissile Threat

Say what you will the HHQ-9 is a modified derivative of the s-300 series.In this case s-300v.
China only began to have Naval area defence capability when it imported s-300 naval systems from russia in early 2000s and installed them on the type 051C destroyer,incidentally just the previous class of destroyer before the type052c.
Typical chinese reverse engineering with modifications then produced their own indigienous versions.While its a great missile for targeting aircraft,comparing it to much newer missiles like barak-8,aster and sm-6 is futility.PLAN needs a dedicated sea skimmer killing SAM with active seeker for that.

 

[Nilgiri]

Most of Indian media = China + Pakistan internet defence enthusiasts best friends.

I would not take their "reports" and "articles" seriously unless you are trying to troll/responding to troll.

Serious conversation needs serious analysis from reputable defense sources.

Can we get back to discussing Arihant please?

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Say what you will the HHQ-9 is a modified derivative of the s-300 series.In this case s-300v.
China only began to have Naval area defence capability when it imported s-300 naval systems from russia in early 2000s and installed them on the type 051C destroyer,incidentally just the previous class of destroyer before the type052c.
Typical chinese reverse engineering with modifications then produced their own indigienous versions.While its a great missile for targeting aircraft,comparing it to much newer missiles like barak-8,aster and sm-6 is futility.PLAN needs a dedicated sea skimmer killing SAM with active seeker for that.

The Type 051C was deployed after the Type 052C.

Type 051C destroyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Type 052C destroyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No one denying that the Type 051C is heavily Russian, but the Type 052C has little to do with Russia.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

The Type 051C was deployed after the Type 052C.

Type 051C destroyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Type 052C destroyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No one denying that the Type 051C is heavily Russian, but the Type 052C has little to do with Russia.

It has near same specifications as s-300 series.Same weight class.More or less same performance with electronic upgrades.Land based version looks identical.Uses same cold launch design for vertical ejection from launcher tubes on TELs, 5V55/48N6 rocket motor technology, and a range of other S-300PMU components, including an 8 x 8 four tube TEL modelled on the 5P85SU/DU series.Overall very heavy influence of s-300 series.

Its a missile that is geared towards shooting down enemy aircraft,not sea skimmer cruise missiles.So chinese posters arguing that active seeker missiles are inferior to SARH ,just because they don't have anything like aster,barka or sm-6 make me laugh.And you know why they don't have such a missile?Because they didn't have any russian missile of the similar type which they could reverse engineer as a starting point and then modify and indiginize.

 

[Nilgiri]

Its a missile that is geared towards shooting down enemy aircraft,not sea skimmer cruise missiles.So chinese posters arguing that active seeker missiles are inferior to SARH ,just because they don't have anything like aster,barka or sm-6 make me laugh.And you know why they don't have such a missile?Because they didn't have any russian missile of the similar type which they could reverse engineer as a starting point and then modify and indiginize.

I agree with this. You cannot dismiss a weapon as inferior because it is clearly optimized for a different threat.

People often are in the business of comparing raw numbers without truly understanding the reason behind certain weapon platforms.

Is it true that China has no active seeker missile in its naval deployment? Maybe they have deployed them on other escort ships outside of their main destroyers? (I am not well versed in PLAN naval ships I must admit).

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Its a missile that is geared towards shooting down enemy aircraft,not sea skimmer cruise missiles.So chinese posters arguing that active seeker missiles are inferior to SARH ,just because they don't have anything like aster,barka or sm-6 make me laugh.And you know why they don't have such a missile?Because they didn't have any russian missile of the similar type which they could reverse engineer as a starting point and then modify and indiginize.

The Type 052D and Type 055 can perfectly host the naval version of the CJ-10, and you have no idea what you are talking about.

China has even much more powerful CM than the CJ-10.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

I agree with this. You cannot dismiss a weapon as inferior because it is clearly optimized for a different threat.

People often are in the business of comparing raw numbers without truly understanding the reason behind certain weapon platforms.

Is it true that China has no active seeker missile in its naval deployment? Maybe they have deployed them on other escort ships outside of their main destroyers? (I am not well versed in PLAN naval ships I must admit).

There are currently only 3 ARH naval SAMs in existence - American SM-6 which is the latest on the aegis ships.
European Aster and indo-israeli Barak-8.

The HHQ-9 actually is a good missile for the threat it was percieved to combat - US carrierborne aircraft ,due to power and range of the missile.But its a poor choice against a sea skimmer.But most chinese posters don't understand the difference .Until china develops active seeker anti-sea skimmer SAMs the ships are highly vulnerable to saturation attacks by supersonic sea skimmers.Short range RAM may deal with 1-2 such missiles,but against salvo fire little chance.
Then again for PLAN greatest enemy is JMSDF and USN,and both these navies use subsonic harpoons-so there is a logic to HHQ-9 deployment.

The Type 052D and Type 055 can perfectly host the naval version of the CJ-10, and you have no idea what you are talking about.

China has even much more powerful CM than the CJ-10.

It is you who has no idea what he is talking about.Where did CJ-10 come from?That is a land attack cruise missile lol.
We were talking about naval SAM systems....and you come up with this out of the blue?Can you even understand the topic correctly?

When i said there is no russian missile of similar type i meant a russian active seeker naval SAM that china has gotten its hand on.Only 3 missiles of that category that exist are barak,aster and sm-6.Each one is out of china's hands.No reverse engineering/modification shortcut here.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

There are currently only 3 ARH naval SAMs in existence - American SM-6 which is the latest on the aegis ships.
European Aster and indo-israeli Barak-8.

The HHQ-9 actually is a good missile for the threat it was percieved to combat - US carrierborne aircraft ,due to power and range of the missile.But its a poor choice against a sea skimmer.But most chinese posters don't understand the difference .Until china develops active seeker anti-sea skimmer SAMs the ships are highly vulnerable to saturation attacks by supersonic sea skimmers.Short range RAM may deal with 1-2 such missiles,but against salvo fire little chance.
Then again for PLAN greatest enemy is JMSDF and USN,and both these navies use subsonic harpoons-so there is a logic to HHQ-9 deployment.

Against the USN, China will use the asymmetric warfare just as the saturation attack from the DF-21D/DF-26/WU-14, and no need to worry for China.

Worry about the fact that the US vs China will be a disaster for the humanity, so you better to pray that this won't happen in our lifetime.

It is you who has no idea what he is talking about.Where did CJ-10 come from?That is a land attack cruise missile lol.
We were talking about naval SAM systems....and you come up with this out of the blue?Can you even understand the topic correctly?

When i said there is no russian missile of similar type i meant a russian active seeker naval SAM that china has gotten its hand on.Only 3 missiles of that category that exist are barak,aster and sm-6.Each one is out of china's hands.No reverse engineering/modification shortcut here.

The CJ-10 has already been navalized, and it can easily fit into the universal VLS of the Type 052D.

And you need to keep up your info up to date.