TR Air Defence Programs

[boredaf]

Roketsan sungue specs which one is correct? View attachment 79678 View attachment 79679

Turkish one, it is on the latest Turkish brochure and also because our companies utterly suck at putting out proper English documentation. In their latest documents, for example, Roketsan went and copied Alpagut's specs into Eren's English brochure, because they were right after each other in their catalogue and apparently they have no one that goes over them.

 

[Strong AI]

How about this concept against low-cost drones?
We know that K2 can loiter 13+ hours with its 200 kg warhaead, has at least one hardpoint and there will be different variants of it.
So why don't we just strip its warhead, put CATS and Cirit pod/pods on it and link them with an AESA equipped Akıncı?
CATS to lase for Cirit and AESA to detect targets. K2 should cost much less than a TB2.
CATS is only an example.

 

[boredaf]

How about this concept against low-cost drones?
We know that K2 can loiter 13+ hours with its 200 kg warhaead, has at least one hardpoint and there will be different variants of it.
So why don't we just strip its warhead, put CATS and Cirit pod/pods on it and link them with an AESA equipped Akıncı?
CATS to lase for Cirit and AESA to detect targets. K2 should cost much less than a TB2.

We already have, what, over a hundred TB2s by now? Why not use them? We can have several constantly in the air towards dangerous sectors and in case of a war we can have a squadron if we want.

Or make a smart rack like Tolun for Eren and load Akıncı up with multiple Eren for long range engagement against slow moving targets, up to and including cruise missiles perhaps? 3 Eren plus a smart rack shouldn't weigh more than 120-150 kg at most, Akıncı can carry that weight on all of its hard point I think.

 

[Pokemonte13]

How about this concept against low-cost drones?
We know that K2 can loiter 13+ hours with its 200 kg warhaead, has at least one hardpoint and there will be different variants of it.
So why don't we just strip its warhead, put CATS and Cirit pod/pods on it and link them with an AESA equipped Akıncı?
CATS to lase for Cirit and AESA to detect targets. K2 should cost much less than a TB2.

EO gimbal is the most expensive thing on the TB2 so k2 would be the same as TB2 in terms of price.

 

[Strong AI]

We already have, what, over a hundred TB2s by now? Why not use them? We can have several constantly in the air towards dangerous sectors and in case of a war we can have a squadron if we want.

Or make a smart rack like Tolun for Eren and load Akıncı up with multiple Eren for long range engagement against slow moving targets, up to and including cruise missiles perhaps? 3 Eren plus a smart rack shouldn't weigh more than 120-150 kg at most, Akıncı can carry that weight on all of its hard point I think.

Wouldn't it be better to have more options?

 

[Strong AI]

EO gimbal is the most expensive thing on the TB2 so k2 would be the same as TB2 in terms of price.

I mean CATS is only an example, basically a cheap EO to detect and lase would be enough. Doesn't have to be as good as CATS.

 

[GoatsMilk]

When we look at the recent Ukraine and Iranian wars, if your able to contest the skies above you, it doesnt matter how strong the enemy is you can survive. Turkiye really needs to develop systems that can be deployed quickly and then hidden away quickly if required. The problem with the big systems is they are easy to locate and destroy with standoff munitions.

Turkiye needs systems that can be hidden easily and then deployed easily. Basically air defence systems that can be deployed in a hit and run sort of way. If the iranians had the ability to pull out air defence systems the way they are able to pull out their ballistic missiles, this current attack on Iran would probably be one big failure for the americans.

even develop some kind of cheap smallish drone that can be sent up into the sky and operate as air defence. Because we hit a point where hitting the enemy has become relatively cheap and easy. Iranians and Ukrainians are showing this, so if you can develop a cheap and practicle method to at least contest the sky against fighter jets, then the concept of Super power doesn't really matter much these days.

 

[boredaf]

Wouldn't it be better to have more options?

I mean, sure, but why waste the strike potential of K2 when we already have higher endurance drones in hand that can defend our skies in the manner you describe while K2 is unique in our arsenal in its capacity to strike the enemy?

Also, that pod in the video doesn't look 2 meters long to me, which a Cirit pod would be. You need clearance for the propeller at the back and the landing gear at the front. And, I don't think Cirit is cold or soft launched, so you also have to think about the rocket exhaust at the back, right across the propellers most likely damaging them in the process. Gimbal would probably be right in front of the Cirit pod as well.

 

[Sanchez]

Turkiye needs systems that can be hidden easily and then deployed easily. Basically air defence systems that can be deployed in a hit and run sort of way.

This is the concept behind the Soviet -Russian style low-medium range GBADs. It doesn't really work. Being too mobile means it's never really connected to greater umbrella and enemy with LO aircraft and aircraft with great EW capabilities run circles around them, picking them off one by one.

One thing should be clear, there's no air defence in the world that can stay tall against the kind of massed air power US can throw for long enough. Not the Soviets, not even China. US and coalition lost more than 70 aircraft against Iraq in 91. Iraq at the time had one of the most complex air defence umbrellas in the world; it took Americans 15 years to disassemble it with follow up strikes and corruption and even then they still lost more than 10 aircraft in and after 2003. But none of those losses prevented the Americans from winning. When the enemy comes at you with 2400+ aircraft, shooting down 70 is not that important.

Iran in two wars in over 1.5 years have managed to shoot down one single aircraft(which did manage to land safely) and I believe 10 or so drones. Iran's air defence performance is abysmal; it's a bad example.

Air defence can only help support air operations. Up until 2021 or so, only system we had that could shoot down a very high flying drone or an aircraft flying 50kms away we had was an F-16 with AIM-120s. It's not that different today, will be much better in 2-3 years. Air defence is not a net you can use to cover the whole country. It should be methodical. It's expensive, you never have enough of it. It will be used to cover strategic installations; factories, bridges, airports. And even then there will be many losses. If the idea is to dish out against an enemy that can send in hundreds of tankers and hundreds of aircraft, that's always a losing proposition.

 

[GoatsMilk]

This is the concept behind the Soviet -Russian style low-medium range GBADs. It doesn't really work. Being too mobile means it's never really connected to greater umbrella and enemy with LO aircraft and aircraft with great EW capabilities run circles around them, picking them off one by one.

One thing should be clear, there's no air defence in the world that can stay tall against the kind of massed air power US can throw for long enough. Not the Soviets, not even China. US and coalition lost more than 70 aircraft against Iraq in 91. Iraq at the time had one of the most complex air defence umbrellas in the world; it took Americans 15 years to disassemble it with follow up strikes and corruption and even then they still lost more than 10 aircraft in and after 2003. But none of those losses prevented the Americans from winning. When the enemy comes at you with 2400+ aircraft, shooting down 70 is not that important.

Iran in two wars in over 1.5 years have managed to shoot down one single aircraft(which did manage to land safely) and I believe 10 or so drones. Iran's air defence performance is abysmal; it's a bad example.

Air defence can only help support air operations. Up until 2021 or so, only system we had that could shoot down a very high flying drone or an aircraft flying 50kms away we had was an F-16 with AIM-120s. It's not that different today, will be much better in 2-3 years. Air defence is not a net you can use to cover the whole country. It should be methodical. It's expensive, you never have enough of it. It will be used to cover strategic installations; factories, bridges, airports. And even then there will be many losses. If the idea is to dish out against an enemy that can send in hundreds of tankers and hundreds of aircraft, that's always a losing proposition.

Then the only real deterrent a nation like Turkiye can have against the USA is nuclear weapons.

 

[Sanchez]

Then the only real deterrent a nation like Turkiye can have against the USA is nuclear weapons.

No it's simpler actually. We are just not interested in fighting US. If anything, Turkey getting nukes without the US' consent is one sure way to clash in the future.

 

[boredaf]

Then the only real deterrent a nation like Turkiye can have against the USA is nuclear weapons.

That also isn't enough without having a delivery vehicle that is reliable enough to give them a pause. And considering the distance a hypothetical missile would have to cross, it is a borderline impossible task. The reason they have so many bases around the world and so many fleets in the oceans is to protect the US mainland, not Europe or Japan or whatever. With all those bases and thousands of satellites they have, we would need to launch perhaps more than a 100 missiles, some real some decoys, so that maybe 1 or whatever might hit a target. But even that is not enough because then you are against a country with thousands of nukes, so, first one to draw doesn't get away scot-free against either.

I'm oversimplifying here but my point is simply having nukes is not enough to be a deterrent if US really wants to attack you. And when it comes to yanks, there is always something you haven't seen before waiting in the wings. We are talking about a country that spends more on their military in 1 year than we do in 20. More like 30 now actually.

So, @Sanchez is right. We don't want to fight against them and if they really do, neither nukes nor air defence would be enough to stop them. And the only proven way to end it is bogging them down in a guerilla war that lasts for years until the cost exceeds the profit for them.

 

[Angry Turk !!!]

We don't want to fight against them and if they really do, neither nukes nor air defence would be enough to stop them.

Why doesn't the US dare to attack North Korea, China or a direct war with Russia then, if nukes are no deterrent?

Having Nukes is THE deterrent weapon and no amount of cope of people in this forum will change that.

 

[Strong AI]

I mean, sure, but why waste the strike potential of K2 when we already have higher endurance drones in hand that can defend our skies in the manner you describe while K2 is unique in our arsenal in its capacity to strike the enemy?

Also, that pod in the video doesn't look 2 meters long to me, which a Cirit pod would be. You need clearance for the propeller at the back and the landing gear at the front. And, I don't think Cirit is cold or soft launched, so you also have to think about the rocket exhaust at the back, right across the propellers most likely damaging them in the process. Gimbal would probably be right in front of the Cirit pod as well.

Imo K2 can have two inner wing hardpoints.

 

[boredaf]

Imo K2 can have two inner wing hardpoints.

You're expecting far too much from a cheap body mate.

Why doesn't the US dare to attack North Korea, China or a direct war with Russia then, if nukes are no detterend?

Having Nukes is THE detterend weapon and no amount of cope of people in this forum will change that.

Cope? Learn to read before talking shite, because I didn't say it wasn't a deterrent at all, I said if the US really wants to attack us it would, whether we have nukes or not. Why the fuck do you think US has been getting ready for a war with China even though both have nukes? Because if the war is inevitable, having nukes alone won't really stop US from attacking someone.

US had no reason to attack North Korea or anyone else, because it has been THE superpower for decades, its soft power granted him almost everything it wanted and none of those countries you mentioned have been a real threat to them since Soviets collapsed.

A direct war with Russia? Why bother when you can bleed them dry through Ukrainians? All they lose is equipment and munitions, which means more money for their military industrial complex, hell, even the money they gave to Ukraine mostly went right back into US because Ukraine used it to buy stuff from them!

 

[Angry Turk !!!]

You're expecting far too much from a cheap body mate.


Cope? Learn to read before talking shite, because I didn't say it wasn't a deterrent at all, I said if the US really wants to attack us it would, whether we have nukes or not. Why the fuck do you think US has been getting ready for a war with China even though both have nukes? Because if the war is inevitable, having nukes alone won't really stop US from attacking someone.

US had no reason to attack North Korea or anyone else, because it has been THE superpower for decades, its soft power granted him almost everything it wanted and none of those countries you mentioned have been a real threat to them since Soviets collapsed.

A direct war with Russia? Why bother when you can bleed them dry through Ukrainians? All they lose is equipment and munitions, which means more money for their military industrial complex, hell, even the money they gave to Ukraine mostly went right back into US because Ukraine used it to buy stuff from them!

The #1 reason to have Nukes is to not being able to be conquered, you can be conventionally attacked, sure. The US can bleed Russia via Ukraine, no problem.

But you can't conquer them without getting nuked, so the Ukr v Rus war would end the second if Ukraine is able to kick them out the Country, they will not go further than that, why? Because Russia has nukes... But it would look different if Russia wouldn't have them.

An neither Russia, NK, China or any other Country with nukes can be conquered from the outside. And that is good enough reason to have them...

So in short, your nation is much safer with Nukes than without. Shouldn't be to hard to understand.

 

[TR_123456]

That also isn't enough without having a delivery vehicle that is reliable enough to give them a pause. And considering the distance a hypothetical missile would have to cross, it is a borderline impossible task. The reason they have so many bases around the world and so many fleets in the oceans is to protect the US mainland, not Europe or Japan or whatever. With all those bases and thousands of satellites they have, we would need to launch perhaps more than a 100 missiles, some real some decoys, so that maybe 1 or whatever might hit a target. But even that is not enough because then you are against a country with thousands of nukes, so, first one to draw doesn't get away scot-free against either.

I'm oversimplifying here but my point is simply having nukes is not enough to be a deterrent if US really wants to attack you. And when it comes to yanks, there is always something you haven't seen before waiting in the wings. We are talking about a country that spends more on their military in 1 year than we do in 20. More like 30 now actually.

So, @Sanchez is right. We don't want to fight against them and if they really do, neither nukes nor air defence would be enough to stop them. And the only proven way to end it is bogging them down in a guerilla war that lasts for years until the cost exceeds the profit for them.

Yeah English,all nice and good but what happens if we threaten to nuke Israel with nukes sent by Pakistan?
You think in such a situation we wouldnt get nukes?
But then again,we will never be in a situation to fight the US.
Not because they wouldnt want to but because the US would never dare,we are not Afghanistan or any Arab country.
We have doctrine,an advanced NATO doctrine,nobody would dare a war.
They can however defeat us from the inside as they have done many times before,we have many traitors.

 

[Pokemonte13]

this is getting of topic

 

[TR_123456]

Ok guys,back to topic!

 

[boredaf]

The #1 reason to have Nukes is to not being able to be conquered, you can be conventionally attacked, sure. The US can bleed Russia via Ukraine, no problem.

But you can't conquer them without getting nuked, so the Ukr v Rus war would end the second if Ukraine is able to kick them out the Country, they will not go further than that, why? Because Russia has nukes... But it would look different if Russia wouldn't have them.

An neither Russia, NK, China or any other Country with nukes can be conquered from the outside. And that is good enough reason to have them...

So in short, your nation is much safer with Nukes than without. Shouldn't be to hard to understand.

I'll have to spell it out for you, eh? Fine.

Having nukes doesn't mean you are immediately able to nuke someone. Even if you have the nukes, even if you have the missiles for delivery. We are about 9000 km away from the US. Our nukes would have to go through the airspace of multiple countries, including EU countries and countries with American bases. Even if we had the missiles go hypersonic during all of its phases, in all air densities and whatnot, it would take around an hour to get to the US. Those missiles would have to go through multiple levels of air defences to get to US, some on land, some on the sea, some in the air and some even in orbit. You can't just send 1 missile. You'd have to send dozens at the same time and even that doesn't guarantee you a hit.

So, in case of a war with US, one that they are committed to actually invade us, nukes would do fuck all for our safety. Best we can do is get some warheads at them while getting pelted by theirs. In our case vs US, which was the first claim that started this, they do not guarantee safety because hitting them is virtually impossible.

I'll repeat myself because your reading comprehension failed you again, I never said it wouldn't make us safer, best case scenario it would help curb Israel's plays *after* we got them. I would much prefer if we got them actually, but once again, not for the chest beating reasons like "oh even the US wouldn't dare attack us hurrrr" stuff.

Yeah English,all nice and good but what happens if we threaten to nuke Israel with nukes sent by Pakistan?
You think in such a situation we wouldnt get nukes?
But then again,we will never be in a situation to fight the US.
Not because they wouldnt want to but because the US would never dare,we are not Afghanistan or any Arab country.
We have doctrine,an advanced NATO doctrine,nobody would dare a war.
They can however defeat us from the inside as they have done many times before,we have many traitors.

I think you've snuffed a bit too much propaganda lately mate. We are a very strong country but there are levels of strength in the arena.