Is the Barak 8 SAM a big mistake?

[Luca1]

Lol, no its not.
This doesn't go around what the HQ-9 is, a license production of the S-300 system. Weather its cheaper and better, is doubtfull, because at the end of the day, they still pay Russians for this system. You can believe all your Chinese hype but thats what it is. You really believe the looks of the missiles, and systems is coincidental? The only major difference between the 2 is new radar and computers, which can add a lot to performance but other than that, its the same missile family with the same flaws, ie limitated engagment to cruise missiles. Which again, is why they have VLS Shtil, ie HQ-16.
Now if you are going to quote me again, or respond to me, it better be more than 1-2 lines of dumb rebuts.

HQ-15 and HQ-18 are Chinese versions of s-300. HQ-9 is something different. Stop making things up.

 

[desimorty]

I think we need to look in the mechanics, this missile is very small, its ideal for even corvettes and provides ranges up 80KM and more with ER. On a double check the ER extra rocket motor is exactly the same diameter fits into the same VLS tube.

 

[UKBengali]

HQ-15 and HQ-18 are Chinese versions of s-300. HQ-9 is something different. Stop making things up.

Some Indians cannot accept that the Chinese have now produced a world-class long-range SAM and so have to resort to call it the S-300.

 

[desimorty]

HQ-15 and HQ-18 are Chinese versions of s-300. HQ-9 is something different.

Ah huh, you do realize the S-300 is system of multiple missiles right? and the HQ-15/18 are speculation, and said they will be ABM concepts.

 

[kaku1]

@UKBengali One question. Do you think HQ-9 attain mach 4 just after launch?

Or at terminal stage for high altitude...high range target? What's ur opinion?

Some Indians cannot accept that the Chinese have now produced a world-class long-range SAM and so have to resort to call it the S-300.

Facepalm. Seems like still you don't understand.

They have star wars like spaceship. We are too much inferior.

Bye Bye.

 

[desimorty]

Real advantage of the Barak 8 is its pulse motor which gives it variable speed and range. Notice its freakin small, and compared to Aster family, which is by the best i've seen yet its cheap.
The S-300 family is expensive and big, not what you would want on even destroyers remember how much room they take.
The Russians put such large missiles on Nuclear Cruisers and the USN on 10 thousand ton destroyers.

Seems like there is a lot more room for more missiles, I think these destroyers as well as other boats in the IN will get more accordingly. Unlike the PLAN, this thing has a lot of room for extra weapons fit. PLAN uses a different approach, 1 ship, 1 duty. IN seems to be concerned with sub surface warfare and surface threats.

 

[anonymus]

LOL.

Imagine a Kolkata class destroyer has just picked up a Mach 3 cruise missile heading towards another ship 20km away at 90 degress to it.

How on earth is a Mach 2 missile going to intercept in time as it will run out of time before the Mach 3 cruise missile hits the other ship?

Again!! Pathetic Chinese cheerleader,

MF STAR could track a high flying missile at a distance of 250+ Km and a Sea Skimming missile at 25+ Km. This is lower than SPY-3 for high flying target (320+ Km) due to higher power rating of SPY-3 ,but higher than SPY-3 for sea skimming missile because of its higher mounting position than SPY-3 (18+Km).


Since range of Ship's radar is always limited by Earth's curvature, Ships on Anti sea-skimming AShCM duty are always positioned on the outer periphery of fleet . Hence your stupid scenario is moot. But I will still entertain your hypothetical scenario to prove how a missile with active seeker is superior to a Ship-Radar guided missile in this scenario.

Suppose a Ship is 20 Km away from your Ship, and the sea-skimming AShCM has been detected to be heading your way possibly by AWACS .

In case of Barak-8, you could fire this missile even when your target missile is beyond the maximum reach of Barak-8. In your example target missile is heading towards that helpless ship 20 Km away at Mach3. Barak-8 fired in general direction of that missile would take 102.85 second to reach its maximum range. Lets say you want to keep some spare range and reduce interception range to 50Km (so that Barak has some spare fuel, in case enemy missile maneuver, and remember, the ship you are protecting is 20Km away) , Barak-8 would take 73.466 second to reach there.At the time you fired Barak-8 in this scenario, target missile was (30 + 150) = nearly 180 Km away from your Ship and 160 Km away from helpless ship it was defending.


This means that even though your radar could not track a Sea-Skimming AShCM at more than 30 Km away ( this is due to Earth's curvature and is present in each and every Radar) , you could still fire Barak-8 when your target missile is 180 Km away (provided you have detected it using AWACS) and depend on Barak-8 to home in on your bogie by itself.

In contrast to this, if your Chibot ship is defending a ship that is 20 Km away, that ship is dead.Even if an AWACS has detected a Sea-Skimming AShCM 500 Km away, your Chibot missile ,which need to be guided by onboard radar, could not be fired until its target comes within range of that onboard Radar ie 25Km away, which means that your Chibot missile has to cover 25Km in time your Enemy missile covers 5 Km (in case of Barak-8 , Barak-8 has to cover 50 Km in time its target missile covers 160 Km).

I think that helpless Bot ship is sunk even when Chibot missile has double the speed of Barak, while Indian ship survives.


Now put your best cheerleading skirt on, take up those pom poms and cheer for your master's Navy.

 

[desimorty]

Delhi class has room for this missile, wondar if the current Barak tubes could handle barak 8 or would they go with arm shtil launcher, btw the shtil with those 2 arms, can launch 1 missile every 3 seconds.

 

[desimorty]

MF STAR could track a high flying missile at a distance of 250+ Km and a Sea Skimming missile at 25+ Km. This is lower than SPY-3 for high flying target (320+ Km) due to higher power rating of SPY-3 ,but higher than SPY-3 for sea skimming missile because of its higher mounting position than SPY-3 (18+Km).

Agreed, but tracking is another unknown.

Since range of Ship's radar is always limited by Earth's curvature, Ships on Anti sea-skimming AShCM duty are always positioned on the outer periphery of fleet . Hence your stupid scenario is moot. But I will still entertain your hypothetical scenario to prove how a missile with active seeker is superior to a Ship-Radar guided missile in this scenario.

Suppose a Ship is 20 Km away from your Ship, and the sea-skimming AShCM has been detected to be heading your way possibly by AWACS .

In case of Barak-8, you could fire this missile even when your target missile is beyond the maximum reach of Barak-8. In your example target missile is heading towards that helpless ship 20 Km away at Mach3. Barak-8 fired in general direction of that missile would take 58.77 second to reach its maximum range. Lets say you want to keep some spare range and reduce interception range to 30Km (so that Barak has some spare fuel, in case enemy missile maneuver, and remember, the ship you are protecting is 20Km away) , Barak-8 would take 42 second to reach there.At the time you fired Barak-8 in this scenario, target missile was (30 + 28.5) = nearly 60 Km away from your Ship and 40 Km away from helpless ship it was defending.


This means that even though your radar could not track a Sea-Skimming AShCM at more than 30 Km away ( this is due to Earth's curvature and is present in each and every Radar) , you could still fire Barak-8 when your target missile is 60 Km away (provided you have detected it using AWACS) and depend on Barak-8 to home in on your bogie by itself.

In contrast to this, if your Chibot ship is defending a ship that is 20 Km away, that ship is dead.Even if an AWACS has detected a Sea-Skimming AShCM 100 Km away, your Chibot missile which need to be guided by onboard radar could not be fired until it comes within range on that onboard Radar ie 25Km away, which means that your Chibot missile has to cover 25Km in time your Enemy missile covers 5 Km (in case of Barak-8 , Barak-8 has to cover 30 Km in time its target missile covers 40 Km).

I think that helpless Bot ship is sunk even when Chibot missile has double the speed of Barak, while Indian ship survives.


Now take up those pom poms and cheer for your master's Navy.

Take into account that modern AAM and SAM take into account where the target is going to be and fire in that direction not at the direction. This is how they work, if they have to chase after the target, failure would be far higher, which is what older SAMs, and AAM weapons do.
Computers calculate the trajectory of the target and intercept.
Also, naval platforms like Harriers, Migs or Hornets can also shoot down cruise missiles, supersonic or subsonic within 40 KM and has been proven late 70's.
In short you don't need to be faster than your target, just smarter.
The minimum range of Barak 8 allows the missile to do exactly what Barak the predecessor did and engage cruise missiles are short notice and short ranges. Also note worthy is that the PLAN, really can't challenge IN in the Indian ocean. Nore can any one else except the USN.
IN knows this, the IAF MKI fleet was purchased for exactly this issue. The only threat the IN faces from the the sea from the USN. Which is why they have purchased supersonic cruise missiles. You don't need supersonic missiles to deter PLAN but the USN, absolutely. Even the PLA is now waking up to the advantage of high speed cruise missiles especially air launched.
Both the PLAN and IN are arming against the same enemy, but different fleets. While the mission is the same, both are coming to the same conclusion, speed - volume, just like the soviets.

Dude, why does every one forget about computers?
The missile goes to direction of where the target is going to be rather than where it is.
and damn man, you just repeated what i've been saying. The s-300 family is good, but the have limitations due to size hence different missiles required for shorter ranges and faster reaction. Also the Grumble takes up a lot of space on a ship, but on the other hand, if the HQ-9 is anything like the Grumble, it can hit surface targets as well, and expensive MBRL which is what China also has.

 

[ni8mare]

Ok - if it was not designed to be an area defence missile then I can see the logic of going with it.

YES B8 is defensive weapon...not a offensive one, because it is tailor made to intercept AShm just like ESSM ...that why it is light weight with very high G ......>80G

HQ-9 is limitation in intercepting supersonic AShm because of high weight of 1.3 tonne with just 40G at max .....this is the reason why 52d has HQ-16/BUk and HHQ-10 ............same reason why american destroyer has ESSM/RIM along with SM-2

that why Barak 8 MRSAM is not offensive because just at 70km you cannot do offensive as most of the SOW are more then that range because of that DRDO and IAI is also working on 120KM variant of B8 LRSAM/ERSAM, beside barak 8 ERSAM DRDO also working on 250 km SAM

 

[desimorty]

Its a Drawback for Barak8 as its associate with MR-STAR of the given super structure....

Physics is fine at its place..

I'm not sure what that was in response for but do explain.
Also the dual pulse motor if i'm not mistaken is also in PAC system, same concept at least. Range vs Speed.

YES B8 is defensive weapon...not a offensive one, because it is tailor made to intercept AShm just like ESSM ...that why it is light weight with very high G ......>80G

HQ-9 is limitation in intercepting supersonic AShm because of high weight of 1.3 tonne with just 40G at max .....this is the reason why 52d has HQ-16/BUk and HHQ-10 ............same reason why american destroyer has ESSM/RIM along with SM-2

that why Barak 8 MRSAM is not offensive because just 70km you cannot do offensive as most of the SOW are more then that range because of that DRDO and IAI is also working on 120KM variant of B8 LRSAM/ERSAM, beside barak 8 ERSAM DRDO also working on 250 km SAM

There are no offensive SAM systems. That is utterly BS. Also range isn`t as important as explained, horizon view etc...
Longer ranges also means higher chances of miss especially if its NOT aesa. Range isn`t always better. Having air defense ships like carriers are usually better options for fleet defence.

If anybody would explain, is their a ship in PLAN that actually uses both the HQ-16 and Hq-9 systems? Can they use the same VLS tubes?

 

[Kinetic]

Some Indians cannot accept that the Chinese have now produced a world-class long-range SAM and so have to resort to call it the S-300.

HQ-15 and HQ-18 are Chinese versions of s-300. HQ-9 is something different. Stop making things up.

Everyone has enough experience on chinese maal, they are very fragile. you know this.

 

[ni8mare]

There are no offensive SAM systems. That is utterly BS. Also range isn`t as important as explained, horizon view etc...
Longer ranges also means higher chances of miss especially if its NOT aesa. Range isn`t always better. Having air defense ships like carriers are usually better options for fleet defence.

If anybody would explain, is their a ship in PLAN that actually uses both the HQ-16 and Hq-9 systems? Can they use the same VLS tubes?

read my post carefully what i have said .................. B8 is mainly for neutriazilling the AShm so 70Km is more then enough as you and @Heena Qureshi said in your posts, which is correct

but my point is B8 will not able to intercept aircraft who about to unload its SOWs at more then 70km ..........do you really think that you will able to deter a saturated attack ....kolkata will run out of B8......this not 90s anymore easy availability of cheap airborne AShm is threat ....you to need take that aircraft before it could unload its SOWs and to do that we need mix of B8 and SAM of 250 km just like american and chinese destroyer

 

[Sneaker]

Even if it is, it is supposed to have it's own air defense system, and CIWS as a last resort. Somebody explain this noob about multilayer air defense in a CBG.

LOL.. you could explain if only he is interested... by this time you should have know his intellectual capability...

 

[desimorty]

Can a sea-skimming Brahmos or Yakhont even be detected at more than 70 kms. out? I think not, unless you have an AEW aircraft on station, or unless the launch was observed by a drone, surveillance aircraft or satellite. The missile, assuming it is moving at about 3000 km/hr., will take almost a minute and a half to get from the edge of Barak-8's engagement envelope to impact on target. That seems like plenty of time to engage it. Again, I think how far away you can detect the incoming missile is the big problem. I do not see the range of the Barak-8 system as an issue at all.

Not going to argue for range of detection tracking for cruise missiles, especially ones designed with low RCS, but thats where fleet air defense comes in. The USN Tomcats practiced against incoming AShM back in the late 70s and 80s with success against multiple missiles. Exact numbers differs between 3 to 6. If you are intercepting a pregnant enemy, enemy launches payload you primary mission becomes to kill payload which was done within 40 KM and was limited because of radars capability.
Missiles withe greater range than 50 KM are no doubt targetting towards larger aircraft.