I wasn't really following the discussion but the P-17 Shivilak is more of a destroyer than a frigate. 6000 tons?
I always liked IN ships, they are always armed to the teach, have massive tonnage and they call them by duty rather than capability. Typically, what IN calls a frigate in PLAN terms is a destroyer and for good reason. The PLAN have only so many vendors to fall back on. So they ended up with quantity of quality per ship, and rely on massive battle groups to provide support.
Example being the HQ-9 missile, license production of the s300 missile from Russia. Its long range, and still has the orginal drawbacks I suspect. The S-300 naval varient was used as a long range missile for dettering aircraft mostly. It does poorly against sea-skimming missile due to reaction time and the inhereant size flaw. Which is why the Soviet/Russian navy used massive numbers of short range SAMs and CIWS that on the nuke Cruiser leaves people in aww.
The HH-9 probabily has the same drawbacks again, this would explain the inductions of HH-16 which is VLS shtil for interception of sea skimming missiles in terminal stage. If this is true the HQ-9 like the naval grumble can be used as a surface to surface missile.
Had a similar discussion with a Chinese member on this same forum, with the Type 52C vs Delhi, while note having a long range SAM the Delhi did score very well in overall armament and first detection giving it the advantage. Delhi can stand alone verywell, but not against aircraft, which is why the IN has aircraft carriers. The Type 52C or HQ-9 provides that long range umbrella provided by air defence aircraft.
Now for the Barak 8, it may be an all in one missile, short range,medium range, long range. Hence why a ship that has Barak8 will not get Barak unless a much more potent quick reaction missile comes a long.
Also Barak has been sucessfull in enganging all IN missiles, including Exocet, Switchblade, Silkworm, and harpoons. Though I was never told if it succesfully enganged the Brahmos.
Now Brahmos or PJ-10 as the Russians designate it, was designed for American battle groups, which is why the IN was so interested in it. Its the USN the IN wants to check mate, and if they can do that, PLAN shouldn't be a problem.
Also, the larger tonnage would mean the ship has longer endurance with extra fuel, and food for the crew, and should be considered key on the open oceans. Endurance is a very big factor.
I always liked IN ships, they are always armed to the teach, have massive tonnage and they call them by duty rather than capability. Typically, what IN calls a frigate in PLAN terms is a destroyer and for good reason. The PLAN have only so many vendors to fall back on. So they ended up with quantity of quality per ship, and rely on massive battle groups to provide support.
Example being the HQ-9 missile, license production of the s300 missile from Russia. Its long range, and still has the orginal drawbacks I suspect. The S-300 naval varient was used as a long range missile for dettering aircraft mostly. It does poorly against sea-skimming missile due to reaction time and the inhereant size flaw. Which is why the Soviet/Russian navy used massive numbers of short range SAMs and CIWS that on the nuke Cruiser leaves people in aww.
The HH-9 probabily has the same drawbacks again, this would explain the inductions of HH-16 which is VLS shtil for interception of sea skimming missiles in terminal stage. If this is true the HQ-9 like the naval grumble can be used as a surface to surface missile.
Had a similar discussion with a Chinese member on this same forum, with the Type 52C vs Delhi, while note having a long range SAM the Delhi did score very well in overall armament and first detection giving it the advantage. Delhi can stand alone verywell, but not against aircraft, which is why the IN has aircraft carriers. The Type 52C or HQ-9 provides that long range umbrella provided by air defence aircraft.
Now for the Barak 8, it may be an all in one missile, short range,medium range, long range. Hence why a ship that has Barak8 will not get Barak unless a much more potent quick reaction missile comes a long.
Also Barak has been sucessfull in enganging all IN missiles, including Exocet, Switchblade, Silkworm, and harpoons. Though I was never told if it succesfully enganged the Brahmos.
Now Brahmos or PJ-10 as the Russians designate it, was designed for American battle groups, which is why the IN was so interested in it. Its the USN the IN wants to check mate, and if they can do that, PLAN shouldn't be a problem.
Also, the larger tonnage would mean the ship has longer endurance with extra fuel, and food for the crew, and should be considered key on the open oceans. Endurance is a very big factor.
