TR Air Defence Programs

[TheInsider]

Well from what I saw the diameter of Siper might be 400 to 450mm. If this is the case it can't be quadpacked but it can be doublepacked.

 

[UkroTurk]

 

[UkroTurk]

Siper might be 400 to 450mm

No way. Even SM-2 350mm.

 

[Fairon]

No way. Even SM-2 350mm.

Our missiles tend to be larger than their American counterparts.

 

[UkroTurk]

Mathematically You couldn't dualpack two missiles larger than 395mm in 22'x22' VLS cell.

MK-41 and Slyver VLS cells dimensions:22'x22'

Diagonal:790mm

Experience showed us two missiles larger than 343mm couldn't be dualpacked in MK-41 .


Anyway i don't think Siper B2 larger than 300mm.

D: 400-450mm is İmpossible

 

[BalkanTurk90]

SM3 is an exo atmospheric missile, it has solid rocket booster + dual thrust rocket motor + third stage rocket motor + and finally kinetic warhead since at the final stage after the speration of booster and dual thrust motor, third stage rocket motor places the kinetic warhead into orbit since kinetic warhead operates in the vacuum of space SM3 reachs this ranges and speeds, basicly you are sending a kinetic warhead to orbit. Further not the missile itself but the kinetic warhead has the range and speed.

Yeah now i understand , the 1200km range is for outer space when air absent and missile or its warhead can still go on with high speed and reach 13 mach and 1000+ km just like other space objects that with little force can travel indefinetely so if US navy use it inside air 10km altitude can not pass 400km range since wiki says its based on SM2 Block4 and it has 370km range !?
Wiki aslo should explain that 1200km is only for outer space

 

[Bogeyman]

If the diameter of Siper-2 is ≤450mm it will be possible to use it as a dual pack from MIDLAS.

SIPER Block-2 is a completely new design. It is not a derivative of HİSAR RF Missiles such as B0, such as HİSAR O+ and B1, with a booster attached and some aerodynamic design improvement to reach a range of 100km.

While 235mm diameter, 5.3m length and 100km range are given for the SİPER B1 Missile, these values are 420mm, 6.2m and 150km for the SİPER Block 2 Missile. According to the ASELSAN roadmap, ballistic missile interception capability with the SIPER System will be achieved in 2028.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1695407742335291810

 

[UkroTurk]

235mm diameter

I think it's not a diameter, it's a wingspan.

On the other hand, 6,2 m length??!!! Like pencil.

 

[Baryshx]

While the SİPER B1 Missile has a diameter of 235mm, a length of 5.3m and a range of 100km, these values are 420mm, 6.2m and 150km for the SİPER Block 2 Missile. According to ASELSAN's roadmap, the ballistic missile interception capability with the SİPER System will be realized in 2028...

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1695407742335291810

 

[Anmdt]

The age of Standard missile family is over 50 years. The same design has been modified and upgraded inside out countless times to the perfection. Resulting in various members of SM family each with their own multiple variants.

Maybe @Anmdt could tell us further about how despite using same booster and rocket motor of SM-2ER block IV and SM-6 (Mk-72 booster and MK-104 rocket motor) SM-3 block IA/IB can reach such high altitude and longer range? Yet SM-2ER block IV and SM-6 only reaches 33-35km effective altitude. Apparently, just an additional small third stage shouldn’t get you that far high.

It is about data link/seeker and high altitude controllers that differs SM2ER Block IV and SM3 Block IB. Up to IB SM3 uses common booster and common rocket motor with SM2ER Block IV. Old, but works well with the commonality.

With Siper we may expect to a performance up to SM3 IB levels by 2028/30. But to hope on IIA/B we need a whole new missile.

I think it's not a diameter, it's a wingspan.

On the other hand, 6,2 m length??!!! Like pencil.

Told you all, Siper is huge.

 

[UkroTurk]

these values are 420mm, 6.2m and 150km

Again. I insist. The numbers given by Ibrahim seem suspicious.

Look at THAAD missile, do you think SIPER larger and longer than THAAD?

For comparison canisters of THAAD and human bodies

Maybe wingspan of SİPERis 430mm, but diameter not larger than SM-2.

 

[Baryshx]

Told you all, Siper is huge.

We need to start shortening and thinning.

 

[Windchime]

So, previously I tend to think interceptors without hit to kill kinetic warheads can only shoot down TBMs. (range up to 300km, e.g. ATACMS, KHAN)

However, in light of recent development in Ukraine conflict where MIM-104 PAC-2 GEM interceptor surprisingly shot down Kinzal, ( that's right, it wasn't PAC-3) I think we can conclude that, SIPER block ii with a new large and powerful rocket motor, highly accurate new seeker and big warhead (assuming from the diameter of the missiles) can reliably shoot down SRBM. (with a range up to 1000km)


In a nutshell, SIPER block ii can act as a capable ABM system at altitude.

If you know the reason why they tend to go HTK and the reason they've developed PAC-3, you wouldn't use the word "reliably shoot down TBM" that easily. If anything they'll need a warhead that works like lethality enhancer on PAC-3 instead of general HEBF or continuous rod found on most SAM warheads. Apart from that it would also need endgame maneuverability enhancement and incorporating such would make it quite a different missile already. So in short, no.

Well, read this.

https://www.quora.com/Does-the-Patr...share=450150d6&srid=hZ8Ruf&target_type=answer

That seems pretty evident to me.
There is direct confirmation from US DOD official press secretary. (And given their words matches the OSINT, i am gonna take it)
Anyway, let's agree to disagree.

Agreed with the point that I'd rather believe what US DoD says, but in general putting faith in randome Quora post by some random dude doesn't spark much confidence. Also he doesn't know the existence of lethality enhancer warhead on PAC-3 and cites wrong reasons.

Second picture shown as a proof for warhead was first posted by Ukraine Military as a crashed P-800

In Russia, the Kinzhal hypersonic missile, which Russians wanted to use to strike Kryvyi Rih, fell down - Militarnyi

A Kinzhal hypersonic missile fell down on the territory of Russia. The incident took place on September 14 in the Turkmen district of the Stavropol Krai near the village of Kendzhe-Kulak.

mil.in.ua

Then we have photos of shot down Iskander-M from Azerbaijan and warhead doesn't look similar,
View attachment 60544

View attachment 60545


Yeah, let's agree to disagree

The source you've quoted is bunch of rubbish. It's pointing to the radome as if that would be the tip of the warhead. It most likely is not P-800 if that is what the article you've linked would state as a reason they believe it was Oniks.

That Hypothesis about it being P-800 is not convincing.
because P-800 oink has seeker head in the front. And i am not sure if it is feasible to put radar seeker behind 3 inch thick steel casing.

In the second picture it is probably Iskander’s nose cone, not the warhead. (Given warheads posses its own casing)

Yeah, but there were some Russian anti-ship cruise missile designs which had penetrating warhead instead of othe more conventional warhead most of the other ASMs are equipped with, since those Russian missiles were more of a general anti-surface missiles rather than a purely anti-ship. P-800 also fits that criteria, so there's no garauntee that Oniks' warhead wouldn't have such shape of a penetrating warhead.

Though I generally agree that it is more likely that of Khinzal rather than Oniks.

Can someone explain what tech did USA use to build SM3 that accroding to wikipedia it says have range of 1200 km altitude 1000km, mach 8-13 ! aslo can shoot down satellites and its not big only 6.5 meter and 343mm -533mm diameter very similar in size with other missiles like pac 3 , SM2 , Aster 30 etc have range only 100-150km ?

New 21 inch propulsion section + 3rd stage in place of where the warhead is in SM-2 and SM-6 meaning much more delta v/energy for lighter payload.

 

[uçuyorum]

Again. I insist. The numbers given by Ibrahim seem suspicious.

Look at THAAD missile, do you think SIPER larger and longer than THAAD?
View attachment 60557

View attachment 60559


For comparison canisters of THAAD and human bodies
View attachment 60558


Maybe wingspan of SİPERis 430mm, but diameter not larger than SM-2.

The thickness at thickest point is what matters so yes.

 

[Quasar]

If you know the reason why they tend to go HTK and the reason they've developed PAC-3, you wouldn't use the word "reliably shoot down TBM" that easily. If anything they'll need a warhead that works like lethality enhancer on PAC-3 instead of general HEBF or continuous rod found on most SAM warheads. Apart from that it would also need endgame maneuverability enhancement and incorporating such would make it quite a different missile already. So in short, no.


Agreed with the point that I'd rather believe what US DoD says, but in general putting faith in randome Quora post by some random dude doesn't spark much confidence. Also he doesn't know the existence of lethality enhancer warhead on PAC-3 and cites wrong reasons.


The source you've quoted is bunch of rubbish. It's pointing to the radome as if that would be the tip of the warhead. It most likely is not P-800 if that is what the article you've linked would state as a reason they believe it was Oniks.


Yeah, but there were some Russian anti-ship cruise missile designs which had penetrating warhead instead of othe more conventional warhead most of the other ASMs are equipped with, since those Russian missiles were more of a general anti-surface missiles rather than a purely anti-ship. P-800 also fits that criteria, so there's no garauntee that Oniks' warhead wouldn't have such shape of a penetrating warhead.

Though I generally agree that it is more likely that of Khinzal rather than Oniks.


New 21 inch propulsion section + 3rd stage in place of where the warhead is in SM-2 and SM-6 meaning much more delta v/energy for lighter payload.

What can be infered from the fact that dorsal fins are close to control surfaces what such a positioning provides lets say compared to central dorsal fins?

Nilgiri Yasar​

 

[Radko]

Our missiles tend to be larger than their American counterparts.

Uh what?

 

[Afif]

If you know the reason why they tend to go HTK and the reason they've developed PAC-3, you wouldn't use the word "reliably shoot down TBM" that easily. If anything they'll need a warhead that works like lethality enhancer on PAC-3 instead of general HEBF or continuous rod found on most SAM warheads. Apart from that it would also need endgame maneuverability enhancement and incorporating such would make it quite a different missile already. So in short, no.


Agreed with the point that I'd rather believe what US DoD says, but in general putting faith in randome Quora post by some random dude doesn't spark much confidence.

1) By reliably I mean with a kill probability over 50%.
Previously I thought without kill vehicle the chance against this kind of hypersonic balistic targets was much lower 20%/25%.

(Also, as USN planning to shoot down hypersonic targets with SM-6 which doesn't even have kill vehicle or end game maneuverability enhancement, it inspire confidence in my hypothesis)

2) And the reason they developed PAC-3 is to garunteee a hit with a kill probability of 95% with two interceptor assigned against each target.


3) Agreed, I don't put too much faith into random qouran either. But here I am talking about the argument (not the man) which seems convincing to me.

Also he doesn't know the existence of lethality enhancer warhead on PAC-3 and cites wrong reasons.

Reading from his other posts he is not the guy to miss such basic info.
I think his point stands. And afaik, small enhance lethality warhead is complementary and meant for airfracfts and cruise missiles. It is unlikely to have same effect on hypersonic targets, unless interceptor kineticcally slams into it. That's the whole point of PAC-3. Which would have totally obliterated the missile in the first place. Thus, it is very likely that it was a PAC-2 GEM.

 

[Yasar_TR]

What can be infered from the fact that dorsal fins are close to control surfaces what such a positioning provides lets say compared to central dorsal fins?

Nilgiri Yasar​

In order to understand this fully, you need to have a good grasp of burnout and egress effects of dorsal fins on a missile. Just by enlarging or bringing it close to vector control fins you would alter the response of the missile positively or negatively with respect to egress or burnout. By increasing one you may be decreasing the other. In essence by altering position or geometry of a dorsal fin, you would be altering the Longitudinal Centre of Gravity (XCG). That would have major repercussions. There are trade offs that exist between egress and burnout conditions when you play around with dorsal fins’ position, size and geometry.
You are entering the domain of fluidics and aerodynamics of a rocket engineer. If any are around here, they would be able to answer this better. But below is a file that tries to explain it as simple as possible.

https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2011/physics/Wednesday13490_McGowan.pdf

 

[Anmdt]

In order to understand this fully, you need to have a good grasp of burnout and egress effects of dorsal fins on a missile. Just by enlarging or bringing it close to vector control fins you would alter the response of the missile positively or negatively with respect to egress or burnout. By increasing one you may be decreasing the other. In essence by altering position or geometry of a dorsal fin, you would be altering the Longitudinal Centre of Gravity (XCG). That would have major repercussions. There are trade offs that exist between egress and burnout conditions when you play around with dorsal fins’ position, size and geometry.
You are entering the domain of fluidics and aerodynamics of a rocket engineer. If any are around here, they would be able to answer this better. But below is a file that tries to explain it as simple as possible.

https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2011/physics/Wednesday13490_McGowan.pdf

Instinctually speaking, narrow, short and relatively rear positioned strakes make me feel that they are planning higher G's with this missile.

 

[Quasar]

thanks!
Yasar