Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
A good ship -yes.Ocean dominance - hardly.Much better ships out there in its class.You don't dominate ocean with HQ-9 sam of 80s vintage naval version of s-300 with angle limitation,lack of active seeker and inability to effectively engage sea skimmers,poor ASW ability.
HQ-9 is not 80s vintage as it won the Turkish SAM competition in 2013.
I would put the most recent HQ-9 version comparable to S-400 SAM.
Another sougrape India trying to misled readers acting as they know Chinese HQ-9 missile. I pity you Indian still depend on foreign import. You can never get the best. Countries always sell you second rated stuff.A good ship -yes.Ocean dominance - hardly.Much better ships out there in its class.You don't dominate ocean with HQ-9 sam of 80s vintage naval version of s-300 with angle limitation,lack of active seeker and inability to effectively engage sea skimmers,poor ASW ability.
Another sougrape India trying to misled readers acting as they know Chinese HQ-9 missile. I pity you Indian still depend on foreign import. You can never get the best. Countries always sell you second rated stuff.
HQ-9 is not 80s vintage as it won the Turkish SAM competition in 2013.
I would put the most recent HQ-9 version comparable to S-400 SAM.
Another sougrape India trying to misled readers acting as they know Chinese HQ-9 missile. I pity you Indian still depend on foreign import. You can never get the best. Countries always sell you second rated stuff.
Lolz,HQ-9 is the modification of navalized s-300 rif.Winning the turkish sam competition is totally different because it is a GOOD sam against aircraft with great range,but its poor against sea skimming cruise missiles.Its got angle restriction,no active seeker and inability to effectively engage sea skimming cruise missiles.
In modern naval ships what matters most in your SAM is ability against anti ship cruise missiles and having an active seeker.Like aster,barak-8 and the new standard models coming up for USN.
We already have the best.The kolkata class has better AESA radar,better sonar,better anti ship missile and better SAM.
If you think brahmos,barak-8,ACTAS sonar and MF-STAR are second rated stuff ,then i'm the one that pities you.
Why would it need sea skimming abilities when ship itself is protected CIWS or RAM? You used a precious LR SAM to take out a cheap anti-ship missile. That is a bad strategy.
View attachment 254085
View attachment 254086
Barak 80 lack range to be a true LRSAM. The 70km range will allow most enemy fighter jet to have a easier thing firing stand alone weapon or lacking adequate range to protect the ship fleet.
By the way, HQ-9 is capable of taking out sea skimming missile. There is no proof of your allegation that it lack the angle restriction. But it will be a waste to be that unless really needed.
If you think CIWS or RAM has much chance against supersonic sea skimmers at mach 3 like klub or brahmos ur not aware of the odds.On top of that type 52c doesn't even have RAM.As for CIWS here's a good explanation -
''CIWS are virtually useless against the BrahMos due to its high speed. The Phalanx, with an effective firing range of 1.5 km (0.93 mi) and a rate of fire of 50 rounds per second, but requiring 0.5 seconds to spool up so only 40 rounds would be fired, would need to destroy the missile beyond 500 meters (1 second engagement time) or high-speed fragments will have enough velocity to hit and damage the ship. Since the BrahMos performs an S-maneuver in the final few kilometers on approach, the Phalanx would have difficulty locking on to a Mach 3 maneuvering target in less than two seconds''
Barak-8 is optimized for defence against anti ship missiles and sea skimmers.Sea skimming cruise missiles are far more of a threat in modern day scenario for surface ships than aircraft .Intercepting aircraft is for Carrier aviation in any case.Most of the enmey aircraft u talking about these days won't even come close..they are just airborne carriers for the same cruise missiles that will be launched.So by countering cruise missiles u actually counter both the aircarft's munitions and ship/sub launched sea skimmers.
Second of all hq-9 doesn't have active seeker.Only aster and barak-8 have it atm.They are true fire and forget missiles and can handle saturation attacks way better.
The minimum operating altitude of rif-m and its chinese derivative the hhq-9 is around 0.025 kms.This comes around to 25 metres.Good enough for taking out high flight profile cruise missiles,but poor against sea skimmers.Something like brahmos can sea skim at altitudes as low as 3-4 metres.How are u going to engage such sea skimmers with ur huge unwieldy missile?Main problem with these missiles are they are large and heavy,for example hq-9 weighs over a 1000 kgs and a warhead weight of 180 kg.The barak-8 in comparison weighs just 265 kgs and has a warhead just 60 kgs.
Take aster,it weighs 300-400 kgs -they are much more agile and effective at low altitudes.You see the difference,these 2 missiles were developed from the start to kill sea skimmer cruise missiles,particularly supersonic ones.Hq-9 is a version of a land based missile ,modified for naval use..its not a specialist.Its main job is to attack aircraft at long ranges,and at that it excels due to long range and heavy missile.But against nimble sea skimmers..nope.
The new chinese ly-90 is more suited for intercepting sea skimmers,and recognizing this PLAN put it on the newer type 052D.But even then its minimum engagement altitude is 15 m which is very touch and go.In contrast altitude envelope of barak -8 is 0-16 km meaning it can hit targets at any altitude upto 16 km.For aster its 0-13kms for aster 15 and 0-20 kms for aster 30.
Hope i made my point clearer.
You seriously do not know how CIWS works. They dont shoot straight at sea skimming missile and expect a pin point head on with 30mm rounds. CIWS make a big swirl and project a wall of rds against incoming missile. And you need to ask why CIWS need such high rate of fire(6000 to 9000 rds per min)? It is to ensure the density of wall of bullets and maximo destruction of missile. It will take not just one 30mm rounds to destruct your brahmos but at least 30-40 rds of 30mm projectile at smack at your brahmos and you can imagine the destruction even its a Abram tank when smashing at the same place that will ensure your brahmos shed to zero fragment and pieces. Not to mention, very likely it will ignite the warhead and ensure complete destruction. And to disappoint you, the engagement range is most likely at 1.5 to 2.5km which is very safe and no fragment can touch our destroyer. And since China do not need to rely on import like India. If Top brass people think CIWS is not enough, they can easily order retrofit the aft CWIS of Type052C with RAM just like the configuration of Type052D.
Another good example of top brass having faith on CIWS engaging High speed sea skimming missile is the installation of H/PJ-14 (Type 1130) next generation CIWS onboard CV-16 liaoning , Type 052D and more recent Type 054A frigate
Chinese Navy Liaoning Aircraft Carrier's H/PJ-14 (Type 1130) new generation CIWS
View attachment 254185
A recent Chinese TV report on Liaoning reported that following studies and testing, H/PJ-14 is able to intercept incoming anti-ship missiles up to a speed of Mach 4 with a 96% success rate.
It is well document in a Chinese write up about this new CIWS tested against a mach 3 supersonic sea skimming missile. Before you claim Chinese is braggin again. I shall remind you China possess CX-1 super sonic and very likely tested the missile against our CIWS which proves the system intercepting of high speed sea skimming missile.
View attachment 254184
The point is can you even properly lock on to a manuevering brahmos in 1-2 seconds time before it hits ship.Because brahmos travels a kilometre in a second.
Almost every navy in the world agrees CIWS systems are just a desperate last defense hope against such missiles,not a real form of protection.And you can add RAM ,u see even your latest LY-90 still has minimum engagement altitude of 15 m.Which is still very risky against modern sea skimmers that can go at altitudes of 3-4 metres.
China can add 200 SAMs in its type 055 cruiser,but as long as they don't fix these inherent problems with sea skimmers -it won't matter.What china needs to do is design a active seeker sleek agile naval sam from scratch to deal with sea skimming cruise missiles like aster or barak.(I understand why PLAN focused on anti-aircraft oriented HQ-9,because they thought american carrier borne aircraft as being biggest threat to PLAN surface ships.)
The problem with that is china is still dependant on russian AGAT company for active seekers in missiles(which it uses on its most modern AAM PL-12)
Once again, you are using a decade old news to claim modern China in 2015 still rely on Russian AGAT for seeker for our PL-12? Please wake up and stop your smearing for active seeker. Just becos you Indian are impotent and rely on import , please do not drag us down to your level. PL-12 seeker are all Chinese made and no import. Do we even need request from Russia to sell PL-12 to PAF just like RD-93 engine? YOu see the Russian never even claim a issue of PL-12 missile sold by CHina to any countries becos non has any Russian component inside.
Once again, I have stated very clearly test against high speed sea skimming has carry out like against CX-1 missile and result is favorable. I do not see any issue and you just want to find fault and try heap praise on your own system with no logic. CIWS wall of rds will ensure very high kill rate even your missile make a big turn or angle which hard to avoid walls of bullet.
Show me then,where is your active seeker aster/barak like missile?I mean ur bragging ,but even hq-9 is just a souped up s-300 rif naval.
And keep continuing in your belief in CIWS against modern ASCMs.Hopefully PLAN top brass doesn't have the same philosophy,because if they go in with that.I t won't even take USN,we will see a a repeat of 1895 sino-japanese war where japanese cruiser and torpedo boats annihilated huge chinese fleet of steel battleships,the loss was so hard that the admirality board in beijing ceased to exist.Hopefully we won't see a repeat,but if u think CIWS is fullproof assurance agiants supersonic cruise missiles..i fear we will.
Yes, HQ-9 is just a copy of S-300 and you shall just claim Turkish are just bunch of idiot who decided to choose an inferior copy as their choice. Why shall HQ-9 needs active seeker? We are not even talking abt fighter who just needs to fire and dodge quicly. Warship are slow compare to fighter jet, and there is no need for active seeker and to dodge. The US aegis SM-2 system to uses semi-active system and seems like no one will claim it being inferior and need active seeker system? Same as China AESA system onboard Type052C which is powerful enough to engage multiple missiles and handle multiple targets.
As for PL-12 active seeker, I do not know Russian R-77 seeker deploy such feature of dual active seeker mode which is the world first for BVRAAM from Chinese 607 institute. So how can one be a copy or made by Russian when Russian themselves dont even have such system?