TR Missile & Smart Munition Programs

BalkanTurk90

Contributor
Messages
775
Reactions
5 1,160
Nation of residence
Albania
Nation of origin
Turkey
CEP and impact radius are two different parameters.
impact radius 500 meter ?
If its 500 kg warhead than even 100 meter is more .
At 500 meter i bet i will sleep while those 500kg bombs blow up .
We need south korea style 10 ton warheads ballistic missile
 

Strong AI

Experienced member
Messages
1,822
Reactions
48 6,247
Nation of residence
Germany
Nation of origin
Turkey
Imo we shouldn't concentrate on numbers. Because in theory Cenk should be able to carry a nuclear warhead.
 
Messages
9
Reactions
6
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
Can anyone enlighten me about quality of high explosives like RDX , HMX , TNT produced by USA , Russia n China . Is there any difference of quality produced by them ? Or same ?
 

UkroTurk

Experienced member
Land Warfare Specialist
Professional
Messages
2,729
Reactions
55 4,868
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
All credits to me and to our forum!!!
Turkish missile programs should have lessons from last attack.


Title:

Why the Last Tested Nuclear Weapon Was a Bunker-Buster — Today's Iran Strike Offers Context


---

Post Content:

Many don't realize that the last full-scale nuclear test conducted by the United States — “Divider” — was not just another atomic bomb, but very likely an earth-penetrating nuclear warhead, also known as a nuclear bunker-buster.

This test took place on September 23, 1992, at Yucca Flat, Area 3, within the Nevada Test Site, as part of Operation Julin. Though its exact configuration is classified, experts suggest that Divider was designed to validate the functionality and survivability of a low-yield nuclear warhead for use against hardened underground targets.

📌 Key Facts:

💣 Test Name: Divider

📍 Location: Nevada Test Site, Area 3

📅 Date: September 23, 1992

⚛️ Estimated Yield: ~5 to 20 kilotons (unconfirmed)

🧪 Test Type: Underground shaft test

🛡️ Purpose: Warhead survivability, reliability, and penetrator effectiveness

🔬 Operation Series: Part of Operation Julin — the last test series before the U.S. nuclear test moratorium



---

Bunker-Buster Evolution During the Obama Administration

Although President Obama upheld the U.S. moratorium on explosive nuclear testing, significant progress was made in modernizing earth-penetrating nuclear weapons through simulation-based methods and subcritical testing (i.e., tests without a nuclear chain reaction).

Two key developments:

1. B61-11:
A nuclear gravity bomb introduced in the late 1990s and improved under the Obama-era B61 Life Extension Program (LEP). It was engineered to penetrate soil or concrete before detonating underground, maximizing shock wave effectiveness.


2. Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) — GBU-57A/B:
A 30,000-pound conventional bunker-buster (non-nuclear) developed for deep underground facilities like Iran's Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant. Multiple test drops were conducted during Obama’s presidency to assess its ability to destroy targets buried 200+ feet deep.



➡️ Both systems (MOP and B61-11) were designed not to replace each other, but to provide a full spectrum of options — conventional or nuclear — for strategic planning against hardened, deeply buried targets (HDBTs).


---

Why It Matters Now

Today’s reported military strikes on Iranian underground facilities bring this entire history into sharper focus. In 1992, the U.S. conducted Divider, likely anticipating future threats involving fortified underground sites. Now, with real-time conflicts targeting those exact types of installations, the purpose of Divider seems prescient.

What seemed abstract Cold War overkill has become strategically relevant again. Nuclear bunker-busters are no longer a Cold War relic — they remain a key part of modern deterrence and strike capabilities, especially in scenarios where conventional weapons cannot guarantee success.


---

Sources & Further Reading:

U.S. Department of Energy – DOE Nevada Nuclear Test Site Database

Nuclear Weapon Archive – US Nuclear Tests

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists – B61 Modernization

Federation of American Scientists – MOP & Bunke
r-Busting Weapons

Arms Control Association – Nuclear Testing Timeline

Author 💪🏻🇹🇷
 

TheInsider

Experienced member
Professional
Messages
4,476
Solutions
1
Reactions
43 15,702
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
The Chinese developed a really good ground effect UAV/missile hybrid with a big payload of 1000kg. Serious threat against carriers.

 

UkroTurk

Experienced member
Land Warfare Specialist
Professional
Messages
2,729
Reactions
55 4,868
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
The Chinese developed a really good ground effect UAV/missile hybrid with a big payload of 1000kg. Serious threat against carriers.

Ground effect vehicles are vulnerable against waves. If the sea is calm, Absolutely they will not be more serious threat than cruise missiles.

Large wings are very easy to be detected so there is n advantage. I would prefer slower USV rather than this.

i don't know if it is cheaper than gps guided rocket artillery or a cruise missile.
 

BalkanTurk90

Contributor
Messages
775
Reactions
5 1,160
Nation of residence
Albania
Nation of origin
Turkey
The Chinese developed a really good ground effect UAV/missile hybrid with a big payload of 1000kg. Serious threat against carriers.

If its not steath and immune from jamming than its useless , remember iran attacked israel with some 500 Ballistic missiles bit only 40 hypersonic ones reached their targets .
 

TheInsider

Experienced member
Professional
Messages
4,476
Solutions
1
Reactions
43 15,702
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Ground effect vehicles are vulnerable against waves. If the sea is calm, Absolutely they will not be more serious threat than cruise missiles.

Large wings are very easy to be detected so there is n advantage. I would prefer slower USV rather than this.

i don't know if it is cheaper than gps guided rocket artillery or a cruise missile.
This one is not vulnerable against waves because it has mmw radar and adjuts its path according to waves.
 

TheInsider

Experienced member
Professional
Messages
4,476
Solutions
1
Reactions
43 15,702
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
If its not steath and immune from jamming than its useless , remember iran attacked israel with some 500 Ballistic missiles bit only 40 hypersonic ones reached their targets .
It is reported to have an RCS as big as a seagull besides it hides itself from RF emissions while flying low and hiding inside sea clutter. It can probably be detected by the flying wing of the carriers and CIWs systems in the terminal phase.
 

boredaf

Experienced member
Messages
1,687
Solutions
1
Reactions
26 4,768
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Turkey
If its not steath and immune from jamming than its useless , remember iran attacked israel with some 500 Ballistic missiles bit only 40 hypersonic ones reached their targets .
There is a massive difference in attacking a well prepared anti-air umbrella that covers multiple layers and knows where the missiles are likely to come and an aircraft carrier (plus its entourage), in open seas, in a situation where they might not even be sure where this missile will come from.

Also, I wouldn't compare Iran's technology with China, at all.
 

Yasar_TR

Experienced member
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
3,516
Reactions
188 18,021
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Turkey
Ground effect on wings allow aerial vehicles fly very efficiently when they are close to surface.
But the plane needs to be as close to surface as technically possible. (Closer than the distance of a one wing span; most apparent effect is observed at less than half of one wing span.)

To take advantage of the effect the surface needs to be very even; either a paved surface or a very calm sea.

It is also important to remember that manoeuvrability is adversely effected during this form of flight.

Also flying too low has its own dangers;
such as :
unexpected swells hitting wings.
Unnoticed vessels, small boats in the sea that are in the way.
Whales, dolphins jumping out.
Buoys,
Rogue waves.

Nevertheless it is a novel and ingenious idea. Being stealthy and having capability to avoid waves beforehand improves its survivability.
 

UkroTurk

Experienced member
Land Warfare Specialist
Professional
Messages
2,729
Reactions
55 4,868
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
RCS as big as a seagull
Today AESA radars of modern Navies could detect submarine periscope from 30km so for US Navy radars , detection of such big , large and heavy aircraft would be very easy. US Navy warships would detect it from 70km after that the ecranoplan would be destroyed by 2 ESSM in 50km range.
ESSM is very capable air defense missile, if you have forgotten.



Being stealthy and having capability to avoid waves beforehand improves its survivability
low flying ANKA-3 with çakır missiles is the most optimal solution.
Or from high altitude dropping Tolun !
1751575116769.jpeg
 
Last edited:

Yasar_TR

Experienced member
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
3,516
Reactions
188 18,021
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Turkey
Today AESA radars of modern Navies could detect submarine periscope from 30km so for US Navy radars , detection of such big , large and heavy aircraft would be very easy. US Navy warships would detect it from 70km after that the ecranoplan would be destroyed by 2 ESSM in 50km range.
ESSM is very capable air defense missile, if you have forgotten.




low flying ANKA-3 with çakır missiles is the most optimal solution.
Or from high altitude dropping Tolun !
View attachment 76239
Flying so close to the water surface would create so much spray that it would mask it‘s radar footprint. It is claimed that at calm waters, this plane can fly at 0.5 metres above sea surface.

Even a carrier with a radar mast as high as ~70metres can not see anything beyond 35km. As it is going to be well masked from radar signals, only way to notice it is, visually or if the carrier has aerial assets flying high above with powerful radars. If a radar can differentiate a seagull travelling at 0.6 Mach and it has algorithms to recognise it as a danger, then it can fall prey. Otherwise if it doesn’t show on the radar of Anka-3, how is it to target it? Besides, both CAKIR and Tolun with IIR seekers are only effective against moving targets travelling at lower than 70km/hour. You need a2a missiles to hit something travelling at 0.6 Mach.
 

Strong AI

Experienced member
Messages
1,822
Reactions
48 6,247
Nation of residence
Germany
Nation of origin
Turkey
Otherwise if it doesn’t show on the radar of Anka-3, how is it to target it? Besides, both CAKIR and Tolun with IIR seekers are only effective against moving targets travelling at lower than 70km/hour. You need a2a missiles to hit something travelling at 0.6 Mach.

I think he talks about hitting a ship, not the chinese drone.
 

Follow us on social media

Top Bottom