TR Air Defence Programs

[Combat-Master]

GOKDENIZ 35mm CIWS

Effective range
– 4 km for airplanes, helicopters
– 4 km for surface targets
– 2.5 km for missiles (Phalanx effective range is 1.5 km)

 

[Combat-Master]

HISAR - A+ Low Altitude Air Defense Missile System​	HISAR - O+ Medium Altitude Air Defense Missile System​

 

[what]

you are the one who deleted my every comment about refugees or against any of your friends. You are abusing your moderator power. If you like refugees that much maybe you should come into turkey? Funnily every person who got butthurt against me are gurbetçis from Europe they can't cope with the reality

I will continue to delete your posts as long as you call all refugees rapists and whatelse. If you think you've been wronged, please go to one of the other mods or admins. But this has nothing to do with this topic, so feel free to take it somewhere else.

 

[Combat-Master]

The test and integration center, where air defense and missile systems developed within the Turkish defense industry will be produced, is getting ready for duty.

 

[B.t.N]

The test and integration center, where air defense and missile systems developed within the Turkish defense industry will be produced, is getting ready for duty.

View attachment 43365
View attachment 43367
View attachment 43368

All that underground space is not designed for recreational purposes, I presume!

 

[Cabatli_TR]

Gökdeniz CIWS passed the final trials. It will be integrated to TCG Istanbul this year

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1521385284180787200

 

[kenny]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1522866151197401089

aselsan has completed the deliveries of the Battery Command and Control Operations Center at 4 different jet bases.

 

[Brave Janissary]

What Is The pros and cons of fixed panel aesa radars and rotateing panel aesa radars ?

vs

 

[TheInsider]

Rotating AESA radars cost magnitudes less and use less power.
Nonrotating AESA radars have better refresh times(milliseconds rather than 1 or 2 seconds), they provide a more consistent air picture. Nonrotating AESA radar basically means 4x AESA radars working at the same time.

 

[Merzifonlu]

Rotating AESA radars cost magnitudes less and use less power.
Nonrotating AESA radars have better refresh times(milliseconds rather than 1 or 2 seconds), they provide a more consistent air picture. Nonrotating AESA radar basically means 4x AESA radars working at the same time.

+1 And nonrotating AESA radars is more costly.

 

[UkroTurk]

What Is The pros and cons of fixed panel aesa radars and rotateing panel aesa radars ?

vs

İ don't think you could make %100 point defence with rotating radar.

Look at Russian frigate hit by Neptune. If there had been 4 fixed AESA panels even compact sized , the frigate could have recognized the missile.

I would prefer one rotating long range antenna with 4 Compact x band AESA panels. Compact panels reduces cost while giving realtime situational awareness.

Even such compact AESA panels could do a lot of job.

 

[Quasar]

İ don't think you could make %100 point defence with rotating radar.

Look at Russian frigate hit by Neptune. If there had been 4 fixed AESA panels even compact sized , the frigate could have recognized the missile.

I would prefer one rotating long range antenna with 4 Compact x band AESA panels. Compact panels reduces cost while giving realtime situational awareness.

View attachment 43605
View attachment 43606

Even such compact AESA panels could do a lot of job.

with Gökdeniz-ER ( 4 AESA radar + EO) we are in the right direction and theoretically we may have one of the most effective point defence systems. guess South Korea has a similar solution

 

[Tornadoss]

with Gökdeniz-ER ( 4 AESA radar + EO) we are in the right direction and theoretically we may have one of the most effective point defence systems. guess S. Korea have a similar solution

What I don't lıke wıth Gökdeniz-ER is the number of missiles it has.

 

[Nutuk]

What I don't lıke wıth Gökdeniz-ER is the number of missiles it has.

Depends on the dimensions of the system, if compact two of them (one in front, one in back) is better and number of missiles will be sufficient. A compact system will also be better for smaller boats.

 

[UkroTurk]

What I don't lıke wıth Gökdeniz-ER is the number of missiles it has.

What if there are frontal and rear two launchers? İt will give 360 degree cover using 22 missiles proportionally. İ think you will agree with 22 missiles?

 

[Combat-Master]

Depends on the dimensions of the system, if compact two of them (one in front, one in back) is better and number of missiles will be sufficient. A compact system will also be better for smaller boats.

It's actually very compact, it's using the same naval pedestal as GOKER

1:1 scale Land based GOKER

 

[Yasar_TR]

These missiles need exhaust outlets at the back, unless they are cold launched. Sungur missiles are cold launched. But Sungur for the Gokdeniz-ER need to have longer ranges to be on par with current block of Rolling Airframe Missiles. (10km)
Also each Sungur missile as it is, 147cm in length. That would make a missile canister container that is over 3metres in length, if you place missiles back to back.
Since the whole system is very compact, and if the price is right, just install two of them on the ship.

 

[Tornadoss]

What if there are frontal and rear two launchers? İt will give 360 degree cover using 22 missiles proportionally. İ think you will agree with 22 missiles?

I am not an expert, I guess this would depend on the type of vessel. For example Sachsen class frigate has 2 ram system one in rear one in front and total 42 missiles.
Maybe it's better to have one Gokdeniz-ER and 1 Gokdeniz.

 

[TheInsider]

I have another idea. 2 launchers one in the front and one in the back with 2x11 missiles. Both launchers should have 2x AESA radars for 180-degree coverage. This way 2x launcher can provide 360-degree coverage without the obstruction of the ship's mast and superstructure. Also rather than using 8x AESA radars, we will be using 4x which will decrease costs.

 

[UkroTurk]

I have another idea. 2 launchers one in the front and one in the back with 2x11 missiles. Both launchers should have 2x AESA radars for 180-degree coverage. This way 2x launcher can provide 360-degree coverage without the obstruction of the ship's mast and superstructure. Also rather than using 8x AESA radars, we will be using 4x which will decrease costs.

Those 2x2 AESA plates should be stationary apart from launcher. This economical solution would allow use larger plates.