laman12345
BANNED
- Joined
- May 22, 2012
- Messages
- 477
- Reaction score
- 0
India Ships are a joke, almost all are BUY WEAPONS
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.
India Ships are a joke, almost all are BUY WEAPONS
What the heck is that? Once you ask for detail. I give it & then again you change the question. But never mind.None are in service. That is what i'm saying. While the 52C has been since 2003
I apologize for using launched. The day a ship is fully operational is when its commissioned, which none of the P 15A are. The first type 52C was commissioned in 2003. Also why does it take from 2006 to 2012 to commission? Most ships take this size take 1 to 2 years
Oh again. Let me say it more correctly. I said that cell in P15 A can hold 1 or more missiles. And when I say this I mean in BARAK 1 cell only barak type of missile,it can hold 1 or 2-3 BARAK 1 no one knows it. I never said it is universal system which you think I am saying.
I never stated SM 2ER at all. You are imagining it. I gave missile name. You can check it on appropriate place. & I didn't compare it. I said capability of BARAK is moving closer to those two missiles.
& I ma asking 3rd time that please give me a link where Ukrainians are themselves claiming. You have given me link where same thing is written what you are saying that Ukrainians are refuting. But where the hell are those Ukrainians in the link? Link only says they are saying but where are they saying. There is no mention of that.
I know about HQ 9. I want to know about HHQ 9 launch. Give me a damn link which states the successful launch of HHQ 9 from naval platform. And please if possible in English language.
Mate I have no doubt about China manufacturing capability.One thing I should mention.
The 52C and 54A both use unique VLS cells capable of only using the HQ 9 or HQ 16 respectively.
This provides and overlap of fleet defence in the long range 200 Km HQ 9 and medium range 50 Km HQ 16.
The more recent type 52D uses a Universal VLS that solves the need of this being by utilizing both and many other missiles that used to be placed outside.
I will reiterate that not all VLS are the same. There are only 4 known universal VLS systems in the world. All the others can only use a specific type of missile. The 4 are the Mark 41, Mark 57, Slyver ,and the one on the 52D.
Of these 4 the type 52D has the largest single cells at the dimension of 850mm by 9 meters. For example the tomahawk is only 520mm by 6.25 meters. This means it can fit much larger missiles than what China currently has.
The barak 1 vls is tiny in comparison.
Dude STFU if you have nothing to contribute
Because I don't know Chinese. If you post some else missile video how will I recognize it.No. The barak 1 already has a very compact vls . There would be no reason to design a completely new VLS system that can quad pack barak 1 and do nothing else. Not only illogical but a complete waste of time.
The SM 2ER is the missile current US ships use. What would you like to compare it with the V 2?
That is the link you can contact their office if you want and get the source.
The HHQ 9 is just a naval version of the HQ 9.
Why would any of this be in English?
The India Barak Missile Scandal is a case of alleged defense industry corruption relating to the purchase of Barak Missile Systems by India from Israel. The case were under investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation, and several people including the Samata Party ex-treasurer R.K. Jain have been arrested.
BARAK cell & Barak Missiles = Imported Weapons and Corruption
I just tell the truth!
any reliable proof or link about barak can be packed like what you said?what I am saying is that in BARAK 1 cell it may be possible to hold 2-3 BARAK 1 missile depending upon their specs. In BARAK 8 cell 2-3 BARAK 8 missile. I am again saying it is only a possibility,it is not clear yet. Wait for 6 months when it will be commissioned,then we will have more clear picture.
Do you even understand what the whole point a modern fleet defense is for these days? Hmm could it be that it has to provide defense for the entire fleet that includes aircraft carriers.
The barak 8 meant for the P 15A is the 70 km version.
The HQ 9 is still a 200 km range missile.
If you want to compare then do so with on that is in the same class of missiles like the 50 km range HQ 16 which can be quad packed in the 64 VLU cells in the type 52D.
Provide numbers instead of simply claiming for the sake of everyone. As for VLU the it simply stands for Vertical launch unit. P 15A has that. What it does not have is universal VLS like the ones on the 52D or the very common mark 41. When we describe the missile payload of a mk 41 ship or the 52D we simply give a number of cells on it and what can fit into each cell. Nobody actually knows the exact payload of that ship from an outsiders point of view. We know explicitly that the P 15A fits exactly 64 barak 8 type missiles and 32 barak 1 missiles. You don't think you can honestly jam a tomahawk type missile in a barak 1 cell right?
The 16-cell universal vertical launcher module (UVLM) fitted on the ship can launch BrahMos missiles.
LOL at the indians deluding themselves
They can't even build a single warship by themselves without Russian help. Now they are so jealous because China has taken a quantum leap with our Type 052D!
And so is your English......India Ships are a joke, almost all are BUY WEAPONS
You have changed your topic again.
1) Both the Barak-8 and Barak-8ER have the capability to intercept terminal stage ballistic missiles as well as cruise/terminal stage supersonic/subsonic cruise missiles. The 8ER is better at this due to its extended range and increased maneuverability. In fact there's a thread on PDF about it -
Barak-8: Details from Paris AirShow 2009 | defence.pk
2. The same Vertical launch unit of Barak-8 can also house and fire the Barak-8ER which shares the same dimensions and profile.
^^The missile in the background is the 8ER, foreground B-8.
I don't see what's you're point in saying that fleet defence capability is better performed by HQ-9. When you have t intercept an incoming ballistic missile, you need to do it in the terminal stage. B-8/ER does that perfectly, only that it's range is lesser than HQ-9. But still the range of the 8ER is comparable to that of the US RIM-67 Standards that is used on the US Navy AEGIS.
The B-8ER however is superior to the SM-2ER when it comes to maneuverability, resistance to electronic warfare/jamming and maybe an increased kill probability. The B-8ER provides excellent carrier-defence capabilities, and FYI, the P-15A is already slated to form part of the escort for the Vikramaditya carrier battle group.
No. Both the 8 and 8ER are meant for P-15A. See my quotes above and the following link in my previous post. The range of B-8ER is upto 120km, not 70km, that is comparable to that of US AEGIS missiles like SM-2ER.
With however a lesser chance to take out an incoming missile.
Isn't HQ-16 a 30km missile? Same as Shtil-1 that we already have.
It is not known what type of VLS is installed on P-15A exactly. From what I know it already has universal launcher for cruise missiles, although details are still sketchy - Kolkata class guided missile destroyers | defenceprojetsindia.com
It is said the UVLM is fitted BrahMos, but it isn't revealed what other types of missiles it can carry. But it's not safe to assume P-15A doesn't have universal launchers for SAMs at all, since it already possesses one for cruise missiles, which may well be capable of launching both BrahMos/Klub or Nirbhay-type long range LACMs.