TR Missile & Smart Munition Programs

[Anmdt]

It all depends on how big a canister size MIDLAS can accommodate.

If MIDLAS is same size as MK41 VLS System, then even Siper Block-1 will not fit in dual packed; never mind quadpacked.

SM2 missile is 34.3 cm in diameter. And it only just manages to fit inside MK41 as a dual packed missile. (pls see below)
MK41 has 26 x 26 inch (66 x 66 cm) dimensions. But can only have available space of 21 x 21 inch (53.4 x 53.4 cm) for missiles.
In the SM2’s case, 34.3 x 34.3 cm in dual packed; In ESSM’s case 25.4 x 25.4 cm in quad packed .

Our Siper Block-1 is 37 cm in diameter. The canister size is given as 85 x 80 cm. 42cm diameter missile should, logically, fit in to that canister in dual packed form. But we do not know if the canisters they are quoting, are also to be used in our VLS.

May be @Anmdt can shed some light in to this dilemma.


SM2 DUAL PACKED in MK41

View attachment 70881

ESSM QUAD PACKED in MK41 VLS

View attachment 70882 View attachment 70883

For Siper B1 it is the booster adopted from Atmaca AShM that occupies the diameter, if we actually look at the actual missile dimensions in-flight, i think it has nearly the same dimensions as Hisar-D / Hisar-O RF, thus if modified could be quadpacked.

But since Hisar-D B1 and B2 inherits all the guidance mods that Siper B1 has, and actually holds more for illumination and data link, it is more logical to make an extended range Hisar-D B2 with an addition of booster, which also naturally will be quadpackable.

Navy has never demanded a dual or quad packable Siper B2, it was never meant to be (i have mentioned it here several times even when trusthworthy sources mentioned a quadpacked or dual packed Siper B2). Navy has never demanded that, Roketsan has never attempted that. I am wondering how we got to a point where we discuss dual/quadpacking a huge missile. At minimum it was going to be SM-1/2, but we have got a monster.

Not even dual packed...Siper B2 too big, much bigger than SM-2...most likely more than 1 tones

i think we will see much more than 150km, when tests end..

It is not the range but the altitude we will be discussing.

 

[Afif]

It is not the range but the altitude we will be discussing.

Interesting. It is already 30km. SM-6 has 33km. How SIPER block-2 with conventional control surfaces goes above that? From what I read, at those altitude atmosphere become much thinner rendering conventional control surfaces ineffective.

 

[Chocopie]

It all depends on how big a canister size MIDLAS can accommodate.

If MIDLAS is same size as MK41 VLS System, then even Siper Block-1 will not fit in dual packed; never mind quadpacked.

SM2 missile is 34.3 cm in diameter. And it only just manages to fit inside MK41 as a dual packed missile. (pls see below)
MK41 has 26 x 26 inch (66 x 66 cm) dimensions. But can only have available space of 21 x 21 inch (53.4 x 53.4 cm) for missiles.
In the SM2’s case, 34.3 x 34.3 cm in dual packed; In ESSM’s case 25.4 x 25.4 cm in quad packed .

Our Siper Block-1 is 37 cm in diameter. The canister size is given as 85 x 80 cm. 42cm diameter missile should, logically, fit in to that canister in dual packed form. But we do not know if the canisters they are quoting, are also to be used in our VLS.

May be @Anmdt can shed some light in to this dilemma.


SM2 DUAL PACKED in MK41

View attachment 70881

ESSM QUAD PACKED in MK41 VLS

View attachment 70882 View attachment 70883

I think you‘re mistaken. This dual-pack patent was never clearly meant for SM-2 dimensions afaik. Just a dual-pack canister concept afaik.

In practice a MK41 VLS (tactical or strike length) cell has a single SM-2, SM-3 or SM-6 installed. There’s no room for more than 1 missile of these sizes. Only slimmer ESSM are quad-packed in a MK41 cell.

see LockMart brochure and the link as sources:

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/rms/documents/naval-launchers-and-munitions/MK41_VLS_Vertical_Launching_System_Product%20Card_8.5x11_042419.pdf

The SM-2, SM-3, SM-6, ESSM, and RAM: A Guide to US Naval Air Defense Missiles - WhiteFleet.net

This article provides an overview of the air defense missiles deployed aboard American warships, including a table with specifications.

whitefleet.net

 

[dBSPL]

Interesting. It is already 30km. SM-6 has 33km. How SIPER block-2 with conventional control surfaces goes above that? From what I read, at those altitude atmosphere become much thinner rendering conventional control surfaces ineffective.

Even more interesting is the Siper Product-3 missile, which we'll probably see its design in 2025. Press specs on the Product-2 suggest that it could almost be the equivalent of the SM-6. With the third batch of missiles, I wonder if efforts will expand to ICBM interception? I mean, you know, even more altitude!

 

[chngr]

It is not the range but the altitude we will be discussing.

We need PIF-PAF or KV for that....But it will be expensive for Block 2's missions

 

[Anmdt]

I think you‘re mistaken. This dual-pack patent was never clearly meant for SM-2 dimensions afaik. Just a dual-pack canister concept afaik.

In practice a MK41 VLS (tactical or strike length) cell has a single SM-2, SM-3 or SM-6 installed. There’s no room for more than 1 missile of these sizes. Only slimmer ESSM are quad-packed in a MK41 cell.

see LockMart brochure and the link as sources:
View attachment 70891

View attachment 70893

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/rms/documents/naval-launchers-and-munitions/MK41_VLS_Vertical_Launching_System_Product%20Card_8.5x11_042419.pdf

The SM-2, SM-3, SM-6, ESSM, and RAM: A Guide to US Naval Air Defense Missiles - WhiteFleet.net

This article provides an overview of the air defense missiles deployed aboard American warships, including a table with specifications.

whitefleet.net

This was obviously nothing more than a patent based on a wild idea. And the body seems fitting to the dimesions of an SM-2, but not sure how they thought of handling the fins.

Interesting. It is already 30km. SM-6 has 33km. How SIPER block-2 with conventional control surfaces goes above that? From what I read, at those altitude atmosphere become much thinner rendering conventional control surfaces ineffective.

Had better i say it in a proper way and call it an envelope. Well aware of current design being not quite practical at +30,000 km. Altought personally i would be in favor a smaller missile with a smaller warhead and hit to kill capability with a better sensor/guidance etc., they should be up to something for next block with the current size.

 

[Afif]

I wonder if efforts will expand to ICBM interception? I mean, you know, even more altitude!

Technically after SIPER block 3 I don't see any reason why it couldn't be done.
ASAT+plus ICBM interceptor into one. But TSK has to analyze the strategic imperative first, then proceed.

 

[UkroTurk]

Previous post deleted

Mathematically You couldn't dualpack two missiles larger than 395mm in 22'x22' VLS cell.

MK-41 and Slyver VLS cells dimensions:22'x22'
View attachment 60551

Diagonal:790mm
View attachment 60553
Experience showed us two missiles larger than 343mm couldn't be dualpacked in MK-41 .


Anyway i don't think Siper B2 larger than 300mm.

D: 400-450mm is İmpossible

Siper B2 diameter appears 420mm so it is impossible dualpacking in 22' VLS container.

I doubt if Siper B1 could be dualpacked

 

[uçuyorum]

Don't some of the anti ballistic missiles have a pif paf seeker at the tip that separates from missile at final stage? SM-2/3/6 all use some common components like that if I remember correctly

Actually it might be arrow 3 i am mistaking

 

[dBSPL]

It is a good exchange of ideas for frigates that may have a very limited number of cells, I follow it with interest.

On the other hand, even if we consider that only the Hisar-D B2 will be quadpack capable as the system to be replacing ESSM and everything else will be loaded as a single missile per cell, it creates an arsenal that I have a hard time visualizing when it comes to the TF-2000. 16x4, 64 Hisar missiles. Let's say you allocate 16 cells for surface-to-surface missiles; that still leaves 64 more cells for air warfare

 

[YeşilVatan]

It is a good exchange of ideas for frigates that may have a very limited number of cells, I follow it with interest.

On the other hand, even if we consider that only the Hisar-D B2 will be quadpack capable as the system to be replaced with ESSM and everything else will be loaded as a single missile per cell, it creates an arsenal that I have a hard time visualizing when it comes to the TF-2000. 16x4, 64 Hisar missiles. Let's say you allocate 16 cells for surface-to-surface missiles; that still leaves 64 more cells for air warfare

How is it looking at the budget side of things? Can you inform us about the cost? I believe the main money sink on the ship is actually the armaments and munitions. Do we look good on that front?

 

[uçuyorum]

It is a good exchange of ideas for frigates that may have a very limited number of cells, I follow it with interest.

On the other hand, even if we consider that only the Hisar-D B2 will be quadpack capable as the system to be replacing ESSM and everything else will be loaded as a single missile per cell, it creates an arsenal that I have a hard time visualizing when it comes to the TF-2000. 16x4, 64 Hisar missiles. Let's say you allocate 16 cells for surface-to-surface missiles; that still leaves 64 more cells for air warfare

I think thats how it was mentioned, 32x strike length vls for 16x gezgin/ atmaca and 16x quadpack hisar ( strike length seems to be necessary for quadpack, with possible all 7 of remaining istif having strike length midlas as we seen from F516 model) and 64 for larger siper missiles

 

[Heartbang]

Don't some of the anti ballistic missiles have a pif paf seeker at the tip that separates from missile at final stage?

Ballistic missile intercepts require extreme maneuverability in general.

For intercepts in the terminal phase, aka when the missile is in the final stretch, interceptor missiles with vectored thrust coupled with lateral thrusters are used. They pull up to 50 G's and smack the target head-on, and detonate a small warhead for good measure.
That is your PAC-3 MSE's and Aster's. They are good for smaller ballistic missiles up to the speed of Mach 5.

For intercepts with speeds higher than that, the most effective way of stopping those are in their midcourse phase, aka while they're at their highest attitude and most slowest. Those tend to happen outside atmosphere. And that's what EKV's(exoatmospheric kill vehicles) are for.
They are carried to duty with your SM-3's and THAAD's and Arrow's and GBI's and destroy the warhead with sheer kinetic hatred.
Their speed is determined by the missile that carries them.
(est. Mach 8-9 for Arrow&THAAD, Mach 13 for SM-3, Mach 18-20 for GBI)

Arrow-3 EKV

SM-3 EKV

THAAD EKV

They all have a place in the threat counter spectrum, depending on the intercepted missile and its intercept phase.

SM-2/3/6 all use some common components like that if I remember correctly

They do, but just for parts that relate to their rocketry. All Standard missiles have different payloads and seeker tech.

 

[Yasar_TR]

This dual-pack patent was never clearly meant for SM-2 dimensions afaik. Just a dual-pack canister concept afaik.

US5327809A - Dual pack canister - Google Patents

The invention provides a canister which holds two missiles, which is the same size as prior art canisters that held a single missile. The inventive canister provides improved structural strength, simpler operation for the closure and electronics and an improved shock isolation system. The...

patents.google.com

Whether it was ever implemented or not; There was a patent taken for the dual packed missile for the MK41 VLS. And It coincides well with the SM2 measurements.
We are not discussing if it ever was utilised in this format. The point is the very fact that with a patent the viability of dual packability of SM2 was verified.
Albeit, the missile is not specified in the patent. But at the time the patent was taken they were working on the SM2MR missile, less the fins.