What's new

India To Buy 262 Barak-I Anti-Ship Missiles From Israel

. . .
It says they will be used as a defense against incoming Anti Ship Missiles.
Yes...that is the purpose of these missiles. The range is a bit on the lower side. I guess they form the inner layer. For LR, we will be getting Barak-8 in a couple of years.
 
. .
*** licking pays off….. why doesn't india make its own missiles? such big country and yet you depend on others..

We are paying our hard earned money to buy the hardware we need,not any aides,not any "higher than mountain" friendship.
There's no doubt that India needs to improve its defence productions,and god willing,eventually we will.We had our own quick reaction SAM project "Trishul",but it was a failure,the project was cancelled. On the other hand,some nations are yet to come up with a decent motorbike:omghaha:
 
.
Barak 1 is a defence against anti-ship missiles. How does it translate to Barak 1 being an Anti-ship missile in totality?

Not only defence against anti ship missiles.
32928.jpg

Barak is a mature, operational anti-missile point defense naval surface-to-air missile system, designed to protect combat vessels against sea skimming missiles and aircraft threats.

Barak is effective against highly maneuvering, supersonic and low altitude threats (sea skimmers), as well as low radar cross section (RCS) targets. It is also effective against a full variety of free space threats.

http://www.rafael.co.il/Marketing/354-928-en/Marketing.aspx
 
Last edited:
.

Dude, where does it say that Barak 1 can be used against ships? Because cut to the basics, an anti-ship missile system is supposed to locate, lock onto a ship and strike it. Barak 1 is a defence against such missiles, but it can never be used to target a ship itself.

Free-space threats essentially mean threats in air, not on land or sea surface.

Besides, it's maximum range is 12 kms. No ship these days gets that close to an adversarial Naval vessel before engaging through missiles. Naval guns have ranges above 30kms for that matter.
 
.
Israel ne abhi bohat koch India ko dena he..... Abhi to sara middle east occupy karna he, is game ka hissa he ke India take care of Pakistan......

Pakistan on the other hand have no issues with that country.
 
.
Dude, where does it say that Barak 1 can be used against ships? Because cut to the basics, an anti-ship missile system is supposed to locate, lock onto a ship and strike it. Barak 1 is a defence against such missiles, but it can never be used to target a ship itself.

Free-space threats essentially mean threats in air, not on land or sea surface.

Besides, it's maximum range is 12 kms. No ship these days gets that close to an adversarial Naval vessel before engaging through missiles. Naval guns have ranges above 30kms for that matter.
No No...I guess you understood me wrong brother. I did not say it can be used as anti ship missile, I said...not only against anti ship missiles, against UAV etc also it can be used.. In my post # 20, that was what i meant.
 
.
No No...I guess you understood me wrong brother. I did not say it can be used as anti ship missile, I said...not only against anti ship missiles, against UAV etc also it can be used.. In my post # 20, that was what i meant.

I got that, but read the first sentence of your article. It wrongly mentions that Barak 1 is an anti-ship missile, while it's a SAM system.
 
.
India is being stupid.

Short range air-defence missiles are not complex and should produce its own system.
 
.
I got that, but read the first sentence of your article. It wrongly mentions that Barak 1 is an anti-ship missile, while it's a SAM system.
Oh...you were referring to that part all along!? Well...I just posted the news as i got...shoddy journalism. Maybe @ni8mare and @Android also were referring the same. Could not comprehend. Apologies. :D
 
.
Oh...you were referring to that part all along!? Well...I just posted the news as i got...shoddy journalism. Maybe @ni8mare and @Android also were referring the same. Could not comprehend. Apologies. :D

Yup. They too were referring to the same part. I guess they read that article while you didn't. :partay:
 
. .
Back
Top Bottom