Israeli Barak SAM system for Chinese ships

I was browsing through the web and came across the following article on the resumption of arms sales to China by Israel.



It just occurred to me that the new construction destroyers (052B/C and 051C) could use a short range SAM like the Barak in conjunction with the type 730 CIWS to enhance their point defense system against incoming anti-ship missiles. The Barak is a compact system that does not significantly increase the ship's displacement. One such unit has already been installed on a Indian Delhi class destroyer. It makes sense for the PLAN to purchase a number of Barak systems and use them to upgrade the new destroyers. (Provided that there is enough room and no signal interference with the existing onboard electronic system.)

not if Uncle Sam has anything to say about it.

I don't think Uncle Sam even knows everything. China got the Harpies easily at first. Plus, Israel might just ignore it. It's a short range SAM, as defensive a missile can get. Stopping something like this would not help the US government much in the way of popularity.

Dear Sirs:

Given the recent, shall we say "disappointing" performance of the Barak anti-missile system on INS Hanit against what the Israeli's themselves claim is an Iranian-made Chinese C 802 anti-ship missile, I would think not.

If like most of us believe, the attacking missile may be one of several models the Chinese supplied to the Iranians some time ago (perhaps 10 or more years back) and thus is most likely a dated, localised version - certainly not the latest Chinese design - the Barak seems to have offered no effective defense.

Therefore I don't think the Chinese would invest in a defensive anti-missile missile whose demonstrated capabilities against older versions of their own weapons has been proven rather wanting.

It would make much more sense to improve the rapid response and interception capabilities of their own candidate systems - such as the FM-90/HQ-7 series (already the standard PLAN SAM, with limited anti-missile capabilities), the TY-90 or even the QW-2/3 series.

This may be achieved by:

1) adapting any one of them to a vertical-launch system and

2) by providing them with a gas-dynamic system for rapid changes in trajectory and

3) providing them with modern sensors and homing systems, coupled to the ships existing targeting and cueing systems.

This would give Chinese weapons designers and builders an opportunity to develop and learn more about Anti-Missile systems, and thus would greatly aid in the modernization of the weapons industry.

In the end you may be right and they may buy a few Barak systems - but for trials and learning purposes, not for installation onto a PLAN warship. With China, indigenous weapons systems are the way to go.

Best Regards,

Dusky Lim

What Chinese need is something like S-300 air defense system onboard their ships. And its happening on 115...A true fleet air defence

duskylim said:

Therefore I don't think the Chinese would invest in a defensive anti-missile missile whose demonstrated capabilities against older versions of their own weapons has been proven rather wanting.

Click to expand...

I do not believe you can really use that engagement as a basis for knocking the Barak system. It was turned off and therefore its effectiveness cannot really be guaged. That's how I would view it. By all former tests, the systems seems to be advanced and very capable...but you do have to turn it on.

In addition, I expect the US will most likely protest and discourgae such a sale from one of its allies to one of its potential belligerents.

Jeff Head said:

I do not believe you can really use that engagement as a basis for knocking the Barak system. It was turned off and therefore its effectiveness cannot really be guaged. That's how I would view it. By all former tests, the systems seems to be advanced and very capable...but you do have to turn it on.

In addition, I expect the US will most likely protest and discourgae such a sale from one of its allies to one of its potential belligerents.

Click to expand...

Hi,

I for one find it kind of strange. Why would you have something on your ship but turn it off during patrol as claimed by the Israelis? Although they say that they never expect the Lebanonese had such advance anti-ship missiles, it still doesn't make any sense.

Of course this is just my feeling on such things, hope it did not offend anyone.

Jeff Head said:

I do not believe you can really use that engagement as a basis for knocking the Barak system. It was turned off and therefore its effectiveness cannot really be guaged. That's how I would view it. By all former tests, the systems seems to be advanced and very capable...but you do have to turn it on.

Click to expand...

That's true, but only if we assume that the system was turned off. At this time I don't think we can say for certain. This is the first time that the Barak system has been deployed to combat and I think we need more time to fully evaluate it.

As for testing, the Phalanx CIWS system performed well in tests too. But in actual combat, its performance was not good. Notice the British RN replacing Phalanx CIWS with Goalkeeper CIWS on its capital ships.

As an amateur/armchair general's opinion, I'd say tests are often conducted under optimal condition.

Having S-300s does not justify this missile at all, because as a long range SAM, the S-300 has a min. altitude limit, which I believe here is 500m. I don't think there have been even 1 sea-skimming ASM that would fly above 100m normally speaking. So basically speaking, the S-300 cannot intercept ASMs at all.

And I agree with Adeptitus, this missile needs more testing. Nothing is 100% (Was a missile even launched?) Rumours say that the system was turned off because they didn't expect Hezbollah to have ASMs, and that friendly aircraft was in the proxmity.

sumdud said:

And I agree with Adeptitus, this missile needs more testing. Nothing is 100% (Was a missile even launched?) Rumours say that the system was turned off because they didn't expect Hezbollah to have ASMs, and that friendly aircraft was in the proxmity.

Click to expand...

Does the US turn off it's Aegis when it parks in ally ports? :coffee:
Why whould they turn off their systems..it's like saying US turns off all it's missile early warning radars knowing that Kim doesn't have anything to reach the US.