TR Air Defence Programs

[TR_123456]

I did not use AI. Depending on the source and version (e.g. PAC-2 GEM), PAC-2 -> PAC-3 MSE missiles have a range of between 70 -> 100+ and more kilometres.

The range of the Patriot PAC-3 system varies depending on the type of missile and target, but is typically around 68 km for general air defence (PAC-2), while the more modern PAC-3 and MSE (Missile Segment Enhancement) can achieve an extended range of up to 100+ and more km against aircraft and up to 30-40 km against ballistic missiles.

Is everything searchable with Google Search.

''it can match or surpass older S-400 configurations in overall effectiveness.''
''When integrated into a modern sensor-fusion and network-centric command architecture, it can match or surpass older S-400 configurations in overall effectiveness.''
''its system-level effectiveness can exceed that of S-400.''


It says ''level of effectiveness,overall effectiveness,system level effectiveness''
This does not say or mean ''range level'' alone which is what you meant to say?
So,i find it bs.
We need to see them all in action to make such statements.

 

[UkroTurk]

S-400 is superior than pac-3? KAMAZ truck vs Chevrolet Suburban
PAC 3 older version is worse than pac-3 MSE? MSE is created for economy because first gen pac-3 was expensive.
Totally Bullshit.

 

[mehmed beg]

I think that few days ago I read the n the Ukrainian site ,that Russians hit an Ukrainian plane from 150 km distance at the altitude of 15 m. Probably it was S 400 . Probably Russia improved the S 400 or improved tactics.

 

[TR_123456]

I think that few days ago I read the n the Ukrainian site ,that Russians hit an Ukrainian plane from 150 km distance at the altitude of 15 m. Probably it was S 400 . Probably Russia improved the S 400 or improved tactics.

Probably R-77,R-37 or maybe even KS-172.

 

[Pokemonte13]

there are currently 3 Different patriot missiles in production/service
1. Pac 2 GEM-T: Based on the Pac 2 but has better hit probability against target especially ballistic missiles and use a fragmentation warhead.
2. Pac 3 CRI: (Cost reduction initiativ) Has a reduced range compared to Pac 2 but higher kill probability and is hit to kill and uses a single stage engine and the biggest difference are the attitude control thrusters.
3. Pac 3 MSE: (Missile segment enhancement) Greater Range compared to Pac 3 CRI and better maneuverability and overall systems upgrade plus a dual pulse rocket engine. Very expensive compared to the others and used for high value target (ballistic missiles).
Siper 1 would be closer to aster 30 than patriot.
Siper 2 is closest to Pac 2 GEM-T maybe with a better range and sensors with limited anti ballistic defences against TBM and maybe some SRBM.
Siper 3 is still unclear some say it will be like sm3 others say like Pac 3 MSE. Most likely it will be similar to MSE because, every block enhances to the next level and because its cheaper.

 

[mehmed beg]

Probably R-77,R-37 or maybe even KS-172.

As I could indeed the article, it was ground based air defence. The whole article was about Russian Air Defences . In reality, the Ukrainians themselves are saying that the main weakness of the Russian PVO is logistics. The system by themselves ain't so bad as it is described nor as good as Russians wants us to believe.
It was S400 or S 300 , it wasn't air to air kill. I am sorry I can't find the article nor I remember the site

 

[Yasar_TR]

I don’t see the point or need to find similarities between Russian or US AD systems and ours

S400 is classed as the best long range AD system by certain circles. Yet Ukranian planes are still operating within its effective operating radius. Plus many of them have been taken out. They have only recently started employing Aesa Radar technology on them with their Yenisey Radars.
S400, with the exception of few specific interceptor usage, did not use Aesa; But Pesa Radar technology.

Aster 30 system uses Pif-Paf technology [Pilotage en Force (Thrust Control) and PAF stands for Pilotage Aerodynamique Fort (Strong Aerodynamic Control].
So does the PAC-3MSE. We don’t have any missiles with such control yet.
Since Pac3-MSE is designed to intercept ballistic missiles during their terminal stage, which is comparatively short, it has to have very potent manoeuvring capabilities. Hence the Pif-Paf.

The best complete AD system in the world is claimed to be the Israeli one with it’s related missiles and radars. Yet they don’t have Pif-Paf capable missiles.
They use Barak-8 missiles against 300km range SRBMs.
But they have a very good sensor fusion and network centric system which meet their defence needs. For long range interception they use SM2 and SM3 (arrow) missiles.

We will have to wait until Siper Blocks 2 and 3 come out and show us what they are capable of. We know that Siper 2 has an effective range in excess of 150km at 30km altitude. It has already been tested twice.
Siper 3 will be able to intercept tactical ballistic missiles and SRBMs.
Then an exo atmospheric interceptor needs to be produced.
So until they come out, no point in conjecture.

We are building our Air Defence system gradually and confidently with knowledge gathered and obtained from current live conflicts. So it will be the most valid and relevant system.

https://wwwcdn.aselsan.com/api/file/SST_SIPER_1_2_ENG.pdf

 

[MonteCarlo]

I don’t see the point or need to find similarities between Russian or US AD systems and ours

S400 is classed as the best long range AD system by certain circles. Yet Ukranian planes are still operating within its effective operating radius. Plus many of them have been taken out. They have only recently started employing Aesa Radar technology on them with their Yenisey Radars.
S400, with the exception of few specific interceptor usage, did not use Aesa; But Pesa Radar technology.

Aster 30 system uses Pif-Paf technology [Pilotage en Force (Thrust Control) and PAF stands for Pilotage Aerodynamique Fort (Strong Aerodynamic Control].
So does the PAC-3MSE. We don’t have any missiles with such control yet.
Since Pac3-MSE is designed to intercept ballistic missiles during their terminal stage, which is comparatively short, it has to have very potent manoeuvring capabilities. Hence the Pif-Paf.

The best complete AD system in the world is claimed to be the Israeli one with it’s related missiles and radars. Yet they don’t have Pif-Paf capable missiles.
They use Barak-8 missiles against 300km range SRBMs.
But they have a very good sensor fusion and network centric system which meet their defence needs. For long range interception they use SM2 and SM3 (arrow) missiles.

We will have to wait until Siper Blocks 2 and 3 come out and show us what they are capable of. We know that Siper 2 has an effective range in excess of 150km at 30km altitude. It has already been tested twice.
Siper 3 will be able to intercept tactical ballistic missiles and SRBMs.
Then an exo atmospheric interceptor needs to be produced.
So until they come out, no point in conjecture.

We are building our Air Defence system gradually and confidently with knowledge gathered and obtained from current live conflicts. So it will be the most valid and relevant system.

https://wwwcdn.aselsan.com/api/file/SST_SIPER_1_2_ENG.pdf

Is the Thrust control you mention different technology than thrust control vectoring? because afaik all of the hisar missile family has thrust vector control

 

[hugh]

Is the Thrust control you mention different technology than thrust control vectoring? because afaik all of the hisar missile family has thrust vector control

afaik, we don't have this

 

[Huelague]

Is the Thrust control you mention different technology than thrust control vectoring? because afaik all of the hisar missile family has thrust vector control

Its a combination control of TVC and the tails/fins.

 

[Yasar_TR]

Is the Thrust control you mention different technology than thrust control vectoring? because afaik all of the hisar missile family has thrust vector control

No!
This “PIF” thrust control is done directly by exhaust gasses or something similar to that effect, that are expelled from the body of the missile.
TVC is the system that mechanically diverts nozzle of the rocket motor.
With “PIF”, on the body of the missile there are points from which exhaust gasses are expelled to change direction of the missile. The system blows air or exhaust gases perpendicular to the flight path (PIF) while using traditional fins (PAF) for steering.

PIF and TVC are necessary where air is rare and surface fins are of no use. Like space. TVC alone may not be enough though. Therefore PIF is used to fine tune good “hit-to-kill”.

Aster PIF for lateral thrust. This system utilises some of the exhaust gasses that the rocket motor generates.

Pac3-MSE (PIF system in action)
Pac3 system has explosive lateral thrusters that activate at launch or terminal stage to correct direction of flight. Below it is firing to bring missile to a more vertical position.

 

[Strong AI]

From 2020

 

[Pilatino]

From 2020

And we're still waiting for that, unfortunately...

 

[Yasar_TR]

And we're still waiting for that, unfortunately...

Although PIF-PAF is a great system that gives advanced agility to interceptor missiles, it is not a must.
Especially within atmosphere applications, TVC and traditional fin systems are more than adequate for fine manoeuvring. Our dual pulse interceptors all use TVC and fins to manoeuvre.

Things get a bit complicated when you start intercepting in rarified atmosphere and in space.

If you check SM-3 Arrow system; you have “Divert and Attitude Control Systems” in play there (DACS). There are at least 10 nozzles as pictured below that are activated in space, as and when needed, to give fine manoeuvring capability to this hit to kill missile.
Each of the 10 or so nozzles have individual throttle capability to adjust the amount of thrust applied in any one direction. This gives very precise manoeuvring.

If you investigate the video of the PIF-PAF system operation in PAC-3 missile in my above post, you will find that they utilise multiple explosive solid propellant rocket motors that activate as and when needed.

We have in the past tested our own PIF-PAF like systems under laboratory conditions. But we don’t know the type of exo atmospheric interceptor we will use.

We have seen SM-3 system intercepting Iranian missiles. We may use a similar system.

At the end of the day it will have to be the most economically and technically viable system to suit our needs and respond to the threat level we have around us. I would say wait until Siper Block 3 comes out. The finalised configuration of this block will be for high-altitude ballistic missile interception with the longest range in the family. (Presumably in excess of 200km)

 

[Pilatino]

Although PIF-PAF is a great system that gives advanced agility to interceptor missiles, it is not a must.
Especially within atmosphere applications, TVC and traditional fin systems are more than adequate for fine manoeuvring. Our dual pulse interceptors all use TVC and fins to manoeuvre.

Things get a bit complicated when you start intercepting in rarified atmosphere and in space.

If you check SM-3 Arrow system; you have “Divert and Attitude Control Systems” in play there (DACS). There are at least 10 nozzles as pictured below that are activated in space, as and when needed, to give fine manoeuvring capability to this hit to kill missile.
Each of the 10 or so nozzles have individual throttle capability to adjust the amount of thrust applied in any one direction. This gives very precise manoeuvring.

View attachment 78919

If you investigate the video of the PIF-PAF system operation in PAC-3 missile in my above post, you will find that they utilise multiple explosive solid propellant rocket motors that activate as and when needed.

We have in the past tested our own PIF-PAF like systems under laboratory conditions. But we don’t know the type of exo atmospheric interceptor we will use.

We have seen SM-3 system intercepting Iranian missiles. We may use a similar system.

At the end of the day it will have to be the most economically and technically viable system to suit our needs and respond to the threat level we have around us. I would say wait until Siper Block 3 comes out. The finalised configuration of this block will be for high-altitude ballistic missile interception with the longest range in the family. (Presumably in excess of 200km)

I'm pretty sure we'll see it on more platforms soon if we really want to pull off multiple reuses like SpaceX, you need super precise control during re-entry and landing.

Roketsan's sounding rocket tests back in 2018-2021 shown the booster separates and then the upper stage does these crazy quick maneuvers using small side thrusters it's basically the same PIF-PAF system from the Aster missiles that lets it pull 60G turns.

Now Roketsan is pushing MUFS toward real orbital launches, the Somalia spaceport is coming along fast, and Baykar's Fergani etc.

I can feel that that's just around the corner especially if Siper Block 3 will have a big booster at its back similar to aster then we haven't got much choice due to the design (tvc vs booster at the back dilemma) so I can count this as another proof.

 

[Strong AI]

KORKUT 140/35 Very Short Range Air Defense System