• Forum restore complete (see latest announcement thread)

TR Air Defence Programs

AlperTunga

Committed member
Messages
244
Reactions
5 324
Nation of residence
Switzerland
Nation of origin
Turkey
I read this article and it seems that Nato Air Defence systems are doing the job for us. When will we can defend ourselves ?We talk about hisar and siper and so on but when it comes to real work we expect to be saved by Nato . https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulid...allistic-deficiencies-in-turkeys-air-defense/
This is because we wont have anti-ballistic capability till 2030s. Difficult to catch up as we have been sleeping centuries.

Edit: Also our defence procurement agency was sleeping. It is irresponsible all these S400, F35 and Altay debacles.
 

IC3M@N FX

Contributor
Messages
699
Reactions
3 30 1,432
Nation of residence
Germany
Nation of origin
Turkey
Initially, Siper Block 2 will provide only limited capabilities for defending against ballistic targets. Full-scale ballistic missile defense capabilities will not be achieved until Siper Block 3 is implemented. For this reason, NATO has so far assumed responsibility for defending against ballistic threats.
 

Yasar_TR

Experienced member
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
4,270
Reactions
258 22,299
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Turkey
Initially, Siper Block 2 will provide only limited capabilities for defending against ballistic targets. Full-scale ballistic missile defense capabilities will not be achieved until Siper Block 3 is implemented. For this reason, NATO has so far assumed responsibility for defending against ballistic threats.
I’m afraid that isn’t entirely reflecting the complete picture.
Siper block 2, as you say, should provide limited defence capabilities against ballistic threats. But in essence it is a 150+km range, 30km altitude single stage missile specifically designed to intercept high altitude UAVs, jet fighters, cruise and air to ground missiles. So as you point out should give some cover against SRBMs.
The Siper 3 version will have a range of 180-200km, and more than 30+km altitude and is designed to intercept ballistic missiles in their high terminal phase. Similar to Pac-3/MSE.
But to intercept MRBM and higher range ballistic missiles that may carry nuclear warheads, we need exo atmospheric interceptors like SM3. These have altitudes and ranges as high as 1000km and 2500km respectively depending on the version.

SM-3 Variant Capabilities:
  • Block IA/IB:
    • Range: Approximately 700 km to 1,200 km.
    • Max Altitude (Ceiling): Approximately 500 km (311 miles).
  • Block IIA:
    • Range: Over 1,200 km (some reports indicate up to 2,500 km).
    • Max Altitude (Ceiling): 900 km to over 1,000 km
These missiles cost between 10million to 30 million dollars each depending on the version being used. (4 interceptors NATO used to defend our airspace should have cost in excess of 40 million dollars at least - that is if they used a single interceptor per target as quite often two interceptors are used to positively eliminate)

So, Siper-3 is not the real remedy. It is a partial patch.
To intercept positively and surely those MRBMs Iran has been using against us, we really need exo atmospheric interceptors.

EDIT :

When multiple threats were targeted in Iran operation, 1.5 SM3s per target were fired to be sure.
 
Last edited:
Messages
5
Reactions
14
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
I’m afraid that isn’t entirely reflecting the complete picture.
Siper block 2, as you say, should provide limited defence capabilities against ballistic threats. But in essence it is a 150+km range, 30km altitude single stage missile specifically designed to intercept high altitude UAVs, jet fighters, cruise and air to ground missiles. So as you point out should give some cover against SRBMs.
The Siper 3 version will have a range of 180-200km, and more than 30+km altitude and is designed to intercept ballistic missiles in their high terminal phase. Similar to Pac-3/MSE.
But to intercept MRBM and higher range ballistic missiles that may carry nuclear warheads, we need exo atmospheric interceptors like SM3. These have altitudes and ranges as high as 1000km and 2500km respectively depending on the version.

SM-3 Variant Capabilities:
  • Block IA/IB:
    • Range: Approximately 700 km to 1,200 km.
    • Max Altitude (Ceiling): Approximately 500 km (311 miles).
  • Block IIA:
    • Range: Over 1,200 km (some reports indicate up to 2,500 km).
    • Max Altitude (Ceiling): 900 km to over 1,000 km
These missiles cost between 10million to 30 million dollars each depending on the version being used. (4 interceptors NATO used to defend our airspace should have cost in excess of 40 million dollars at least - that is if they used a single interceptor per target as quite often two interceptors are used to positively eliminate)

So, Siper-3 is not the real remedy. It is a partial patch.
To intercept positively and surely those MRBMs Iran has been using against us, we really need exo atmospheric interceptors.

EDIT :

When multiple threats were targeted in Iran operation, 1.5 SM3s per target were fired to be sure.

'Defence experts' argue that mid course interceptors are too expensive for Turkey to develop and deploy but even if there is a slight possibility of Turkey finding itself in need to fight a war against a nuclear armed country it should allocate all the resources it can to develop such missiles. World is changing and mutually assured destruction stopped direct wars between nuclear armed states for decades but the end result is countries with nuclear warheads bullying countries with conventional weapons and this is going to end with more countries developing nuclear weapons. If spending 10-20 billion USD saves millions of lives even for a %0.1 possibility of war that is what we should do. Only other way is to develop your own nuclear weapons which would cost a lot more than 20 billion USD probably ten folds in a year with sanctions.

USA raged wars to stop countries from becoming a nuclear rogue state yet they helped create the ultimate nuclear rogue state that is Israel.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Messages
5
Reactions
14
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Nobody will sanction Türkiye for having nukes.
That really depends on how is Turkey going to align itself in the future. If in the future Turkey is going to be a completely independent state that only acts on it's own interests even if it contradicts that of USA then it would face sanctions.
 

Zafer

Experienced member
Messages
5,650
Reactions
15 8,712
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
That really depends on how is Turkey going to align itself in the future. If in the future Turkey is going to be a completely independent state that only acts on it's own interests even if it contradicts that of USA then it would face sanctions.
What does anyone gain from sanctioning Türkiye that is already highly self reliant and has options to source supplies from multiple sources. Türkiye sits at the center of the world which nobody can ignore. They can only wish Türkiye aligns with them and they need to align with Türkiye too.
 
Last edited:

IC3M@N FX

Contributor
Messages
699
Reactions
3 30 1,432
Nation of residence
Germany
Nation of origin
Turkey
Nobody will sanction Türkiye for having nukes.
In a crisis, all the major players would likely impose sanctions – the US, Europe, Russia and China alike.
And yet, simply by virtue of its demographics, geographical location and size, Turkey has the potential to establish itself as a minor superpower. It will not become a global superpower – but that is not its real advantage.
Its real leverage lies elsewhere: network power.
The ability to speak to virtually all sides at the same time, to trade with them, and not to lose credibility immediately in the process.
Turkey is effectively the only NATO member state with which both Russia and China would communicate openly in a serious crisis – precisely because it is not a classic bloc state, but a pivotal state.
And it is precisely such actors that are needed:
Sometimes it is not the projection of power that decides, but the role as a broker or mediator between the blocs.
That is why Turkey is strategically pursuing several options simultaneously:
– Rapprochement with BRICS, but more as a privileged observer
– In parallel, an interest in the EU, though primarily via a modernised customs union rather than full membership
The end result is a deliberately chosen state of affairs:
Not belonging fully to any one side.
This is both a strength and a weakness –
a balancing act between maximum flexibility and permanent uncertainty.

That is why we are not particularly popular within Europe, Russia and the US/Israel – because, strategically speaking, we hold too many keys.

That’s the dilemma… see the F-110 engine blockage from US Parlament (building the 40-60 TAI KAAN would be a Power Shift in South East Europe and Middle East by 2032).
If we were geographically situated between Italy and Spain, we’d get everything we wanted; the only question then would be money.
 
Last edited:

Huelague

Experienced member
Messages
5,379
Reactions
19 5,410
Nation of residence
Germany
Nation of origin
Turkey
The meaning of sanctions is, to prevent nuclear capabilities of a state. If the state reach the capability, sanctions would not make any sense.
 

IC3M@N FX

Contributor
Messages
699
Reactions
3 30 1,432
Nation of residence
Germany
Nation of origin
Turkey
But that is precisely the point: as soon as you reach the threshold of that state, you will feel the full force of it coming at you from all sides – and that is certain.
Do you really believe that Russia and China actually want Iran to possess nuclear weapons? They, too, do not want to negotiate with new nuclear players, just as the US, Israel and Europe do not.
Nuclear power is an exclusive commodity – their power is based on it, at least in large part, and if you possess it, you restrict their room for manoeuvre.
 

Huelague

Experienced member
Messages
5,379
Reactions
19 5,410
Nation of residence
Germany
Nation of origin
Turkey
But that is precisely the point: as soon as you reach the threshold of that state, you will feel the full force of it coming at you from all sides – and that is certain.
Do you really believe that Russia and China actually want Iran to possess nuclear weapons? They, too, do not want to negotiate with new nuclear players, just as the US, Israel and Europe do not.
Nuclear power is an exclusive commodity – their power is based on it, at least in large part, and if you possess it, you restrict their room for manoeuvre.
Have you heard anything about North Korea? No, it makes no sense to talk about N.K. anymore. It’s a point of no return with no turning back. If you reached your goal (developing nukes), why should you step back? Even countries intense the pressure by sanctions?
India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, no one steps back. No body wants to step back. No matter what.
 
Last edited:

IC3M@N FX

Contributor
Messages
699
Reactions
3 30 1,432
Nation of residence
Germany
Nation of origin
Turkey
That is true, but the US’s unease towards China highlights the fact that its operational reach in Asia is far more limited than is often assumed. As its influence rests almost exclusively on Japan, South Korea and the Philippines, Washington’s power base remains fragile, particularly as India is best regarded as an independent actor rather than a reliable ally. For the neighbouring states, this also presents a fundamental security dilemma: Whilst the US can withdraw across the Pacific at any time following a conflict – as history in Vietnam demonstrated – the geography remains unchangeable for Asian countries. They would have to bear the long-term consequences of a wrong decision, which is why unconditional allegiance to the US is considered too risky.
This loss of power is also evident in the event of nuclear proliferation by states such as Indonesia or Malaysia. The West could do little more than exert economic pressure here, as military intervention would immediately drive the region into China’s arms. Beijing, for its part, tends to adopt an inward-looking stance as long as its core interests are not directly affected. This makes the situation in Southeast Asia vastly different from that in Iran, whose ambitions simultaneously clash with the interests of the US/Israel/Europe, Russia and China, leaving it completely isolated in the event of a crisis.

We, too, would feel this pressure because we are a pivotal nation, acting as both a gatekeeper and a hub; geographically, we hold so many keys that all parties involved would prefer to see a weakened and controllable as Turkey.

We are too much of a thorn in their side; we hold too many keys.
 
Last edited:

Yasar_TR

Experienced member
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
4,270
Reactions
258 22,299
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Turkey
Siper block 2, as you say, should provide limited defence capabilities against ballistic threats. But in essence it is a 150+km range, 30km altitude single stage missile specifically designed to intercept high altitude UAVs, jet fighters, cruise and air to ground missiles. So as you point out should give some cover against SRBMs.
The Siper 3 version will have a range of 180-200km, and more than 30+km altitude and is designed to intercept ballistic missiles in their high terminal phase. Similar to Pac-3/MSE.
To add to this I guess what is said on below video 2.00 min is important. Ex TÜBİTAK Sage MD Gutcan Okumus clearly states that:
“even though I am not at liberty to quote any range figures for Siper 2 range, it is clear that attaining 1.5-2 times the current range is potentially there. A booster addition will give different development areas too ”.

That puts Siper 2 maximum range somewhere between 225 to 300 km. Logically it’s maximum altitude will increase too.

1. Which aircraft will operate at altitudes of 100 + thousand feet?
2. How effective will a SAM be at such long ranges? These SAMs
are effective primarily as area-denial weapons rather than high-probability killers.
3. Positive engagement probability decreases significantly against fast, low-flying, or maneuvering aircraft at 2-300km ranges

So, even though Mr Gurcan Okumus has not spelt it out, he has given enough information to deduce that Siper 2 is really meant for anti ballistic missile duty, for interception at their terminal phases.

Unless of course, in his statement he was giving preliminary info on what to expect of Siper3!

 

Pokemonte13

Contributor
Messages
1,163
Reactions
11 2,106
Nation of residence
Germany
Nation of origin
Turkey
IMG_5865.jpeg

Some interesting stuff in the background.
 

Mis_TR_Like

Experienced member
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
1,977
Reactions
50 7,506
Nation of residence
Australia
Nation of origin
Northern Cyprus
Top Bottom