TR Missile & Smart Munition Programs

[Huelague]

That looks like Pi to me, my calculations show 1.26 k m² which is still big enough for a 2000 lb drop.

A = π • r²
r = 1 km² (radius of destruction, as estimated)
π ~3,142
A = 3,142 • 1 (km²)
A = 3,142 km² (destruction zone)
Still.

 

[Radko]

As it is, it quite literally cannot.

Idk, tell that to the ones in Roketsan. That's what I heard in IDEF day 2

 

[Yasar_TR]

Idk, tell that to the ones in Roketsan. That's what I heard in IDEF day 2

As I said before; If there is a will there is a way.
P&W PT6A-60 engine develops 1050HP.
P&W PT6A-52 engine develops 850HP.
When used on below aircraft, the 850HP engine gives 1700kg useful load capacity.
When used on the same plane, the 1050HP engine gives a useful load capacity of up to 4200kg.

Beechcraft Super King aircraft.

Baykar is already using the 750HP version of this engine on Akinci. If Baykar can integrate the more powerful versions to Akinci and strengthen the wings’ inner pylons, anything is possible.
But these engines are about 1 million US dollars each. They cost half that amount to fully overhaul. So it is not cheap. But the return may be worth it.

 

[Strong AI]

Baykar is already using the 750HP version of this engine on Akinci. If Baykar can integrate the more powerful versions to Akinci and strengthen the wings’ inner pylons, anything is possible.

Akinci-C already uses two 850HP engines and they plan to use TS-1400 for a bigger Akinci (recent CNN interview with Selcuk Bayraktar).

Power Plant - 2 x 450 hp / 2 x 750 hp / 2 x 850 hp Twin Turboprop

Bayraktar <br> AKINCI

With its unique fuselage and wing design Bayraktar Akinci platform is a strategic class platform which can carry various payloads. Bayraktar

baykartech.com

BAYKAR Yönetim Kurulu Başkanı Selçuk Bayraktar CNN TÜRK'te! | CANLI HABER

HABER | Son Dakika Haber ve Güncel Haberleri İlk Bilen Siz Olun...Selçuk Bayraktar Türkiye'nin yüksek teknoloji alanındaki geleceğini Fulya Öztürk'le Akıl Çe...

www.youtube.com

 

[Yasar_TR]

Akinci-C already uses two 850HP engines and they plan to use TS-1400 for a bigger Akinci (recent CNN interview with Selcuk Bayraktar).

Power Plant - 2 x 450 hp / 2 x 750 hp / 2 x 850 hp Twin Turboprop

Bayraktar <br> AKINCI

With its unique fuselage and wing design Bayraktar Akinci platform is a strategic class platform which can carry various payloads. Bayraktar

baykartech.com

BAYKAR Yönetim Kurulu Başkanı Selçuk Bayraktar CNN TÜRK'te! | CANLI HABER

HABER | Son Dakika Haber ve Güncel Haberleri İlk Bilen Siz Olun...Selçuk Bayraktar Türkiye'nin yüksek teknoloji alanındaki geleceğini Fulya Öztürk'le Akıl Çe...

www.youtube.com

Baykar’s site shows this as an engine option for Akinci.
Akinci A, uses 450HP (Ukranian engine).
B version uses PT6A-135 the 750HP engines.

C version using 850HP engines, has flown as you rightfully pointed out. But we don’t know if anyone has yet bought it.
This engine is classed as for medium in terms of weight of plane. The 750HP version is used for small planes in terms of their weight.
So their fuel consumptions and flight endurance can be quite different.

Potentially, the 850HP engine is at the limit of being able to accommodate 2 İHA-300ER missiles. But it can not be ruled out. It all depends on the airframe design of the Akinci.

But remember, fired at 30000 ft, IHA300-ER will have a range of 400km. Fired at 40000ft its range will extend to 500km.
With 850HP engines it may struggle to attain altitude. I remember Selçuk Bayraktar talking about using a 1000HP engines for the Akinci.

 

[TR_123456]

Baykar’s site shows this as an engine option for Akinci.
Akinci A, uses 450HP (Ukranian engine).
B version uses PT6A-135 the 750HP engines.

C version using 850HP engines, has flown as you rightfully pointed out. But we don’t know if anyone has yet bought it.
This engine is classed as for medium in terms of weight of plane. The 750HP version is used for small planes in terms of their weight.
So their fuel consumptions and flight endurance can be quite different.

Potentially, the 850HP engine is at the limit of being able to accommodate 2 İHA-300ER missiles. But it can not be ruled out. It all depends on the airframe design of the Akinci.

But remember, fired at 30000 ft, IHA300-ER will have a range of 400km. Fired at 40000ft its range will extend to 500km.
With 850HP engines it may struggle to attain altitude. I remember Selçuk Bayraktar talking about using a 1000HP engines for the Akinci.

So,my question.
Lets say they pick the right engine,how will the weight shift work when one of the two IHA-300's is fired?
Does it automaticly compensate the weight loss(on the wings) or how does it work?

 

[Yasar_TR]

So,my question.
Lets say they pick the right engine,how will the weight shift work when one of the two IHA-300's is fired?
Does it automaticly compensate the weight loss(on the wings) or how does it work?

Ailerons which control roll to move plane side to side,
Elevators to control pitch to move nose of plane up or down, and
Rudder to control yaw to move plane to left or right would have to be adjusted accordingly by the pilot, unless the plane has a form of AI/flybywire system, to do that to a degree automatically.
Also adjusting power of engines to compensate for the imbalance can be applied.
Pilots are specially trained to react to plane imbalance immediately, to stay in control. But most fly by wire systems‘ computer can compensate when an imbalance occurs.
If a plane can fly with one engine it can be flown with an unbalanced weight distribution. Not ideal. But within the scope of things.

 

[Zafer]

Flaps are used to increase lift of the wings; you lover the flap on the side of the wing where the load is heavier. Flaps and ailerons are similar but flaps are positioned inboard while ailerons are positioned outboard of the wings. So when you drop an IHA300 from one side you lover the flap on the side where there still is an IHA300 attached. Actually flaps are lowered depending on how heavy the plane is but the full lowering angle is like 45° and you don't lower that much in normal cruise.

 

[UkroTurk]

Are we going to see TÜBİTAK sage G40?

Do you really think Hisar-D suits MIDLAS?
IMO Hisar -D is waste of space.

İlk TF-2000’de detaylar geldi

MİLGEM projesi çerçevesinde inşa aşamasında olan TF-2000 hava savunma muhribinin yeni detaylarını ASFAT paylaştı.

www.haberdenizde.com

 

[Oublious]

Are we going to see TÜBİTAK sage G40?
View attachment 77003
Do you really think Hisar-D suits MIDLAS?
IMO Hisar -D is waste of space.

View attachment 77000
View attachment 77002

İlk TF-2000’de detaylar geldi

MİLGEM projesi çerçevesinde inşa aşamasında olan TF-2000 hava savunma muhribinin yeni detaylarını ASFAT paylaştı.

www.haberdenizde.com

MİDLAS Dikey Atım Sistemi'ne quadpack özellikli HİSAR-D füzesi!

ROKETSAN MİDLAS'ta SİPER Blok 1 uzun menzilli hava savunma füzeleri ve quadpack özellikli HİSAR-D füzeleri kullanılabilecek.

www.defenceturk.net

 

[UkroTurk]

MİDLAS Dikey Atım Sistemi'ne quadpack özellikli HİSAR-D füzesi!

ROKETSAN MİDLAS'ta SİPER Blok 1 uzun menzilli hava savunma füzeleri ve quadpack özellikli HİSAR-D füzeleri kullanılabilecek.

www.defenceturk.net

But they have not showed us Quadpacked slim Hisar-D. Navy keeps showing bulky Hisar-D.

 

[Oublious]

But they have not showed us Quadpacked slim Hisar-D. Navy keeps showing bulky Hisar-D.

They are in test phases.

 

[chngr]

But they have not showed us Quadpacked slim Hisar-D. Navy keeps showing bulky Hisar-D.

Hisar-D is not bulky, slimmer than ESSM

Hisar-D's diameter 234mm...ESSM's 254mm

Hisar D just need folding fins

 

[TheInsider]

Hisar-D has a better performance compared to G-40 due to its dual-pulse rocket engine.

 

[UkroTurk]

Hisar-D has a better performance compared to G-40 due to its dual-pulse rocket engine.

First you and we know nothing about G40 whether it has dual pulse rocket engine or not !

Second

A naval self defense missile should have ability to engage in 2.5 second or 7.5 second?

 

[TheInsider]

First you and we know nothing about G40 whether it has dual pulse rocket engine or not !

Second
View attachment 77010

A naval self defense missile should have ability to engage in 2.5 second or 7.5 second?

Terminal/end-game kinematics are more important than anything else for a medium-range air defense missile. For short ranges, RAM point defense missiles and CIWS will come into play.

 

[Quasar]

A naval self defense missile should have ability to engage in 2.5 second or 7.5 second?

I should say I agree with you... long story short.... for instace both Hisar D and ESSM are simply based on alreday existing missiles, I strongly believe that we had a very similar concern when we picked an already existing and tested missile.... perfect is the enemy of good.....so yes Hisar D is may be not perfect but it is a good and tested missile..... we should wait for the evolution of Hisar D I guess.

 

[UkroTurk]

Terminal/end-game kinematics are more important than anything else for a medium-range air defense missile. For short ranges, RAM point defense missiles and CIWS will come into play.

Again BS!!! You don't surprise us.

Kinematic capacity is not just dual pulse rocket engine.

I don't know that against Hisar -D which missile you are comparing but
The goal of the ESSM program was to enhance the kinematic capabilities (speed and maneuverability) .

You mean ESSM has less kinematic capacity ???

Or, If you are speaking about G40, how comes you knew about kinematic capacity of G40!!!!

Guys ESSM is really what a warship needs!!! If G40 copy of it , I would prefer it just for its more kinematic capacity.

@Anmdt please enlighten me: "Hisar-D has better kinematic capacity then G40?"

 

[TheInsider]

Yes ESSM has less terminal kinematic capacity compared to a similar dual pulse missile. That is basic knowledge.

 

[Anmdt]

Again BS!!! You don't surprise us.

Kinematic capacity is not just dual pulse rocket engine.

I don't know that against Hisar -D which missile you are comparing but
The goal of the ESSM program was to enhance the kinematic capabilities (speed and maneuverability) .

You mean ESSM has less kinematic capacity ???

Or, If you are speaking about G40, how comes you knew about kinematic capacity of G40!!!!

Guys ESSM is really what a warship needs!!! If G40 copy of it , I would prefer it just for its more kinematic capacity.

@Anmdt please enlighten me: "Hisar-D has better kinematic capacity then G40?"​

Brother, i am not an expert of missile kinematics, and i lack the understanding of rocket engines in depth to answer this question precisely but 15 years of engineering experience taught me this philisophical aspect of people.

If someone speaks too sharply of a certain subject involving few areas of the expertise - he is either truly an expert in all and in project manager position leading one of those air-defense missile projects, or he is totally making it up through a dunning-kruger effect.

And here comes the other thing that i learnt at a cost through time;

If two concepts vary greatly - one can not win in all the aspects, you always trade off something in the optimization process - especially when it is multi-objective optimization.

Coming back at the missiles; i believe if we were to analyze these missiles through digital twins, we would happen to see one wins over up to an alititude and range, while other is taking over beyond it. Looking back at the ESSM's design principle, it is precisely a point defense missile tailored for surface skimming targets at 30-40 km, and precisely used for initial engagements. Also works for munitations separated from aerial targets. Given these facts, the missile itself has more than one engagement envelopes and optimized for certain scenarios based on the target distance - altitude.

So i will cut it short to say; yes ESSM has more kinematical capability up to a certain distance, better acceleration, better turn rate but this remains valid up to a distance and altitude, beyond that Hisar-D seems better by logic, but it doesn't last dramatically longer there. ESSM is fine tuned through the years hitting 2000+ missiles in production, tried by numerous navies in by years in exercises and lastly in Red Sea incicents against Houthis / Hisar-D however only engaged a high flying sub sonic and non-maneuvering target. That's where we are. Dual pulse isn't the ultimate solution, especially when your target lies close to surface and approaches from 30 km, onwards to the ship. For typical air defence missiles this is a non-brainer question to go for dual pulse for better NEZ since the target is not flying towards you directly - which is being the test scenario for Hisar-D in the last trials ; a point defense missile precisely engages a target heading right towards the launch platform - so there is no concerns for NEZ, which makes both equilavent.

Nonetheless, thinking of multiple uses - like Hisar-D B2 (quadpacked, capable of sea-skimming interception) may be utilized for pure aerial engagements like MICA as well, and might be furnished with a booster - like Siper-1, and quadpacked for pure aerial engagements which gives a common base for a future missile.
​