TR Air Defence Programs

[500]

İ can't see E/O here
View attachment 25447
There are a lot of different radio command devices ( datalink technology) subject to their prices.

Tamir is a cheap tactical solution.

1) There is no datalink on missile, only a reciever.
2) You dont need anything complicated, just simple directional antenna looking backwards. It will be virtually impossible to jam.

 

[Siper>MMU]

1) There is no datalink on missile, only a reciever.
2) You dont need anything complicated, just simple directional antenna looking backwards. It will be virtually impossible to jam.

We call it one way datalink.

 

[Yasar_TR]

That is a very good question. As I recall it, SSB changed requirements after the first Hisar A, thus we got the + variants, but I do not believe we have ever built an O variant. So I think the O+ that we’re talking about is O variant, and that may be the explanation to why the specs are similar today.

If I am not mistaken, HisarO+ will replace Hawk missile systems we currently use. Ismail Demir definitely said the A and O were being replaced by A+ and O+. I personally watched the interview he gave on screen.
Hawk system has an operational range of 45-50 km with a ceiling of 20000m. The missiles have a maximum speed of 2.5 Mach and are powered by a ”dual-thrust” motor which with a quick burning fuel, speeds up to maximum velocity and then second slow burning fuel sustains this speed.
OK, the seeker head and the dual pulse engine Hisar missiles use are much better and newer in technology. But, logically, if the Hisar has a 4+ Mach engine and is going to replace Hawk, I can’t understand why it should have half the range of the system it is replacing. It doesn’t make sense.
Hisar A , was replaced by Hisar A+ because of the need for better flight ceiling and range. So why did they replace Hisar O with O+ If they were literally the same?

 

[Siper>MMU]

If I am not mistaken, HisarO+ will replace Hawk missile systems we currently use.
Hawk system has an operational range of 45-50 km with a ceiling of 20000m. The missiles have a maximum speed of 2.5 Mach and are powered by a ”dual-thrust” motor which with a quick burning fuel, speeds up to maximum velocity and then second slow burning fuel sustains this speed.
OK, the seeker head and the dual pulse engine Hisar missiles use are much better and newer in technology. But, logically, if the Hisar has a 4+ Mach engine and is going to replace Hawk, I can’t understand why it should have half the range of the system it is replacing. It doesn’t make sense.
Hisar A , was replaced by Hisar A+ because of the need for better flight ceiling and range. So why did they replace Hisar O with O+ If they were literally the same?

Autonomus Hisar A+ is for ground forces
Towed Hisar A+ with AİC is for both ground and air forces
Hisar O+ is for ground forces
Hisar RF is for air force, since air force wants an RF missile to replace Hawk

 

[Yasar_TR]

Autonomus Hisar A+ is for ground forces
Towed Hisar A+ with AİC is for both ground and air forces
Hisar O+ is for ground forces
Hisar RF is for air force, since air force wants an RF missile to replace Hawk

OK fair enough. But it still doesn’t explain why it has less range than the missile system it is replacing.

 

[Siper>MMU]

OK fair enough. But it still doesn’t explain why it has less range than the missile system it is replacing.

RF will replace Hawk. Rf will have 40-50km range.

 

[Saithan]

If I am not mistaken, HisarO+ will replace Hawk missile systems we currently use. Ismail Demir definitely said the A and O were being replaced by A+ and O+. I personally watched the interview he gave on screen.
Hawk system has an operational range of 45-50 km with a ceiling of 20000m. The missiles have a maximum speed of 2.5 Mach and are powered by a ”dual-thrust” motor which with a quick burning fuel, speeds up to maximum velocity and then second slow burning fuel sustains this speed.
OK, the seeker head and the dual pulse engine Hisar missiles use are much better and newer in technology. But, logically, if the Hisar has a 4+ Mach engine and is going to replace Hawk, I can’t understand why it should have half the range of the system it is replacing. It doesn’t make sense.
Hisar A , was replaced by Hisar A+ because of the need for better flight ceiling and range. So why did they replace Hisar O with O+ If they were literally the same?

Autonomus Hisar A+ is for ground forces
Towed Hisar A+ with AİC is for both ground and air forces
Hisar O+ is for ground forces
Hisar RF is for air force, since air force wants an RF missile to replace Hawk

It doesn't answer the question. How can a system with half operational range replace hawk system.

If the technology we're using are better. What are the dimensions. Compare that with Hawk system, is it better, but why only half the range ?

Nothing wrong with asking these questions, and if we believe in our R&D, then answering them should pose no humiliation.

 

[Yasar_TR]

RF will replace Hawk. Rf will have 40-50km range.

According to @TheInsider RF has a range of 35-40km!!
Do we have a definitive source for the range figure for the RF missile?
Also why RF has a longer range than IIR? Does the nose structure of a missile make such a big difference? If it does can someone explain how? Since a circular ball head has better aerodynamic properties and drag coefficient than a cone shaped head of same diameter, I would like to know what gives this extra range.

 

[Siper>MMU]

According to @TheInsider RF has a range of 35-40km!!
Do we have a definitive source for the range figure for the RF missile?
Also why RF has a longer range than IIR? Does the nose structure of a missile make such a big difference? If it does can someone explain how? Since a circular ball head has better aerodynamic properties and drag coefficient than a cone shaped head of same diameter, I would like to know what gives this extra range.

RF has wider body. Also one of the reasons that limiting the range was use of IIR seeker. RF seeker will have better range.

 

[Turko]

Length is not matter, function is more important

Hisar is really last gen missile. If Hisar RF seeker is AESA, the missile will be unbeatable.
Agility, ECCM capabilities, Main AESA radar etc.

 

[Saithan]

RF has wider body. Also one of the reasons that limiting the range was use of IIR seeker. RF seeker will have better range.
View attachment 25450
View attachment 25451

I may be misunderstanding things, but what are the dimensions of the Hisar-O+ missiles compared to Hawk ?

You can tell me we will reach 50km range, but if it requires the dimensions of Bora missile then I'll be laughing. Like I've said before I believing in maximizing efficiency. So if a sungur missile can achieve 50 km with current standard small size, that' efficient.

 

[Saithan]

Turkish Army to deploy Hisar missiles to boost air defense

Turkey's Hisar A+ air defense missile system has been delivered with all its elements and the Hisar O+ system has reached the mass production stage,...

www.dailysabah.com

 

[Yasar_TR]

RF has wider body. Also one of the reasons that limiting the range was use of IIR seeker. RF seeker will have better range.
View attachment 25450
View attachment 25451

If RF missile has wider body, than it is less aerodynamic than IIR missile. That should make it’s range shorter.
Again; Why RF has more range than IIR? Please read my previous post. If IIR head is globular (circular) than it should be more aerodynamic. And should have a longer range than a conical shaped head.

 

[Siper>MMU]

If RF missile has wider body, than it is less aerodynamic than IIR missile. That should make it’s range shorter.
Again; Why RF has more range than IIR?

IIR seeker can be effected by weather, clouds, air etc. But RF signals are not likely to be get effected by these.

Thats why almost all BVR air to air missiles use RF seekers. IIR has lower lock on range. And at longer distances, IIR's capability to determine between target and a countermeasures are worse. At longer ranges, a single flare and aircraft are the same size as a pixel.

 

[Turko]

I may be misunderstanding things, but what are the dimensions of the Hisar-O+ missiles compared to Hawk ?

You can tell me we will reach 50km range, but if it requires the dimensions of Bora missile then I'll be laughing. Like I've said before I believing in maximizing efficiency. So if a sungur missile can achieve 50 km with current standard small size, that' efficient.

Unfortunately we don't know the dimensions. Hisar is being said to be similar to MİCA VL which is 310cm with 20km range but even Hisar A seems to me longer than 310cm. So Hisar O RF could reach 35-40 km range.

Eyyyyy Roketsan it is enough to hide specifications!!!! We are looking forward to hearing it.

 

[Khagan1923]

If anyone really believes the given ranges they need a checkup. Both Hisar-A+ and Hisar-O+ have easily longer engagement ranges than given to the public. This is not the first time our companies and TSK gives false ranges to the public and media.

You can't replace Hawk Missiles with Hisar-RF if it has 10-15km less range than its cold war counter part. Air Force would never accept such a product as replacement for Base Protection.

They are doing the same with Gökdogan, 65km range given. Does anyone really believe this?

Range 15km Altitude: 10km ...
Range 25km Altitude: 10km ...

for cutting edge Surface to Air Missiles that are bigger than their european counterparts but have the same range? No. Just No.

come on...

Everyone with connections in the industry believes the ranges to be higher than what they are given as.

Akya is a good example of how false numbers are given for security reasons, some are later revised some stay even though it is an open secret by then that the given range is smaller than the actual one.

 

[Khagan1923]

Unfortunately we don't know the dimensions. Hisar is being said to be similar to MİCA VL which is 310cm with 20km range but even Hisar A seems to me longer than 310cm. So Hisar O RF could reach 35-40 km range.

Eyyyyy Roketsan it is enough to hide specifications!!!! We are looking forward to hearing it.

If Hisar-O RF only has 35km range and they intend to replace 'ESSM with it on the Istif-Class the dicussion need to be had why G40 was not greenlit in 2019.

 

[RadarGudumluMuhimmat]

If Hisar-O RF only has 35km range and they intend to replace 'ESSM with it on the Istif-Class the dicussion need to be had why G40 was not greenlit in 2019.

Bruh, range isn't everything. The G40 is a system developed mostly for missile defense and is just a concept. It has a maximum altitude of 12 km. Hisar O+ will have an altitude of 15-17 km and RF will have an altitude of 17-18 km according to my unofficial estimates and has a double pulse engine.

 

[hawk21]

If RF missile has wider body, than it is less aerodynamic than IIR missile. That should make it’s range shorter.
Again; Why RF has more range than IIR? Please read my previous post. If IIR head is globular (circular) than it should be more aerodynamic. And should have a longer range than a conical shaped head.

It is the other way around. The pointed nosecone of a radar seeker has much less drag than the rounded seeker of an IIR missile. See the following link for example. Addition of a pointed nosecone to the Umkhonto ER is expected to increase its range by upto 10 km:

Denel Dynamics develops expendable nose cone to increase missile range - defenceWeb

Denel Dynamics interns have developed a nose cone to reduce drag and thus increase the range of the Umkhonto infrared guided missile by more than ten kilometres. The expendable nose cone will be fitted to the Umkhonto EIR surface-to-air weapon. This was revealed during the Denel Dynamics Interns...

www.defenceweb.co.za

The Hisar RF could conceivably achieve a range of 35 km compared to 25 km for the Hisar O with just this modification.

 

[Yasar_TR]

IIR seeker can be effected by weather, clouds, air etc. But RF signals are not likely to be get effected by these.

So from what you are saying can I deduce that the physically, the missile can reach longer ranges but due to it’s seeker head’s inadequacies, as it can’t see efficiently further than 25 km, and hence it has a shorter range?

And at longer distances, IIR's capability to determine between target and a countermeasures are worse.

For IR this is the case. Isn’t that it is why Imaging Infra Red seekers are used so that the target lock is secured with the image and flares don’t mean much?
Atmaca block 2 will use multi mode seeker ; RF and IIR seeker head. Why not use the same for Hisar, if this is the limiting factor?