Is the Barak 8 SAM a big mistake?

[kaku1]

Lolwa, he's a nut.

Yes, he is. But I love his alien theory. Usse ke wajah sai 6 season dekhe Ancient Alien kai.

 

[Skull and Bones]

Yes, he is. But I love his alien theory. Usse ke wajah sai 6 season dekhe Ancient Alien kai.

Dafuq both is even related?

 

[UKBengali]

.

4. Whether a missile is point defence ,or area defence depends on range of missile, not its speed. A missile with 70 Km range qualifies as fleet defence system.

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?

 

[desimorty]

This was highlighted by @@Ceonwulf in another thread.

I have checked all the other long-range SAMs like Aster 30/SM-3/S-300 and HQ-9, and they have speeds of between Mach 4-6, whereas the Barak 8 is only Mach 2.

Unless India only wants to use the Barak 8 just to defend the carrying ship and maybe other ships very close to it like a carrier, it does not seem like a very good SAM with which to provide area defence to a fleet

Maybe I am missing something but can somebody explain the reasons why the Barak 8 was selected to equip the new Indian destroyers?

Lol, biggest bulls shite i've heard. The Aster family is expensive although best. The S-300 HQ-9 are the same thing with only difference in name because the chinese don't wanna admit that they are purchasing parts or the entire missile from Russia. Also the HQ-9 is very limited in engaging cruise missiles, which is why they are supplimented by smaller missiles in the Grumble family or in the case of PLAN, HQ-16. S-300 has the speed.
The Barak 8 has 2 good features, the missile is small, and the speed is variable depending on the distance to target locaiton.
Missiles be it SAM or AAM are fired at location the target is going to be rather than at the target. Speed is also important, but so is distance, which is why the PAC missiles have coast to target to get additional range.

This also means the Barak 8 is smaller, less propellent and by design much quicker to reaction time to engage missiles like cruise missiles. You can have more, missiles per volume, and they are cheaper as well. The Barak 8 is a perfect missile for Corvettes, to Destroyers. I think the Israelis have a real winner, although 1 limitation would be engagment of ballistic missiles but this is limitation on all smaller missiles with a max average ceiling of 16 KM or so.
I would like to know if the Barak 8 ER will require a different VLS module for a bigger diameter. If so, does that mean Matri will be abile to fit the VLS module of a standard Barak 8? Those are the quesitons, we'll have to wait and see. One thing is for certian, the current Kolkatta destroyer does not have have Barak 8 ER.

 

[kaku1]

Dafuq both is even related?

Yes he suggested me to watch Ancient Aliens. But the whole series is crap.

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?

VLS? 360 degree coverage. And BTW, again why a ship remain at 20 KM from CBG?

 

[UKBengali]

Lol, biggest bulls shite i've heard. The Aster family is expensive although best. The S-300 HQ-9 are the same thing with only difference in name because the chinese don't wanna admit that they are purchasing parts or the entire missile from Russia. Also the HQ-9 is very limited in engaging cruise missiles, which is why they are supplimented by smaller missiles in the Grumble family or in the case of PLAN, HQ-16. S-300 has the speed.
The Barak 8 has 2 good features, the missile is small, and the speed is variable depending on the distance to target locaiton.
Missiles be it SAM or AAM are fired at location the target is going to be rather than at the target. Speed is also important, but so is distance, which is why the PAC missiles have coast to target to get additional range.

This also means the Barak 8 is smaller, less propellent and by design much quicker to reaction time to engage missiles like cruise missiles. You can have more, missiles per volume, and they are cheaper as well. The Barak 8 is a perfect missile for Corvettes, to Destroyers. I think the Israelis have a real winner, although 1 limitation would be engagment of ballistic missiles but this is limitation on all smaller missiles with a max average ceiling of 16 KM or so.
I would like to know if the Barak 8 ER will require a different VLS module for a bigger diameter. If so, does that mean Matri will be abile to fit the VLS module of a standard Barak 8? Those are the quesitons, we'll have to wait and see. One thing is for certian, the current Kolkatta destroyer does not have have Barak 8 ER.

LOL @ HQ-9 being S-300.

The HQ-9 was put in a competitive tender against S-300 in Turkey and beat it.

Everything that Russia sells to China is disclosed anyway.

VLS? 360 degree coverage. And BTW, again why a ship remain at 20 KM from CBG?

It happens for some ships to be many 10s of kms from the carrier during war-time - check what happened in Falklands conflict. I am not talking about peacetime here

 

[kaku1]

It happens for some ships to be many 10s of kms from the carrier during war-time - check what happened in Falklands conflict. I am not talking about peacetime here

Then you think the protection of the ship which is 10 Km away from Kolkata is already neutralized?

The Kolkata is not to protect whole India. Further more, FYI all the new big ship ( means new Frigates and Destroyers) getting Barak 8.

 

[UKBengali]

Then you think the protection of the ship which is 10 Km from Kolkata is already neutralized?

The Kolkata is not to protect whole India. Further more, FYI all the new big ship ( means new Frigates and Destroyers) getting Barak 8.

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

 

[kaykay]

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?

Well almost all new Indian Aircraft carriers, frigates and destroyers will carry Barak-8. Also how many countries have mach-3 anti ship cruise missiles?

 

[kaku1]

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

Actually IN is right now not big enough like PLAAN. That require to cover whole Indian ocean with one missile. There is of no use. Maybe in next gen DDG,, maybe we see AAD deployment on destroyers.

 

[desimorty]

LOL @ HQ-9 being S-300.

The HQ-9 was put in a competitive tender against S-300 in Turkey and beat it.

Everything that Russia sells to China is disclosed anyway.

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.

 

[kaku1]

Well almost all new Indian Aircraft carriers, frigates and destroyers will carry Barak-8. Also how many countries have mach-3 anti ship cruise missiles?

Actually Barak 8 designed to intercept incoming BrahMos.

 

[UKBengali]

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.

Whatever you say dude.

 

[desimorty]

Barak 8 test against missile target.

Note kinetic hit to kill

 

[Kinetic]

This was highlighted by @Ceonwulf in another thread.

I have checked all the other long-range SAMs like Aster 30/SM-3/S-300 and HQ-9, and they have speeds of between Mach 4-6, whereas the Barak 8 is only Mach 2.

Unless India only wants to use the Barak 8 just to defend the carrying ship and maybe other ships very close to it like a carrier, it does not seem like a very good SAM with which to provide area defence to a fleet

Maybe I am missing something but can somebody explain the reasons why the Barak 8 was selected to equip the new Indian destroyers?

It is IN's future weapons against all kinds of air threat. Thats enough for you I think. Don't go into details, not needed.