TR Air Defence Programs

[Pokemonte13]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2037092525643575781

Another Siper battery and aksungur delivery. Interesting that aksungur is with cats not aselflir 500/600 I guess they are waiting for aselflir 600 to be ready so cats is just a placeholder.

 

[zio]

Roketsan sungue specs which one is correct?

 

[MonteCarlo]

Roketsan sungue specs which one is correct? View attachment 79678 View attachment 79679

For our companies English one being wrong is the most likely scenario. They are really sloppy with their English content

 

[boredaf]

Roketsan sungue specs which one is correct? View attachment 79678 View attachment 79679

Turkish one, it is on the latest Turkish brochure and also because our companies utterly suck at putting out proper English documentation. In their latest documents, for example, Roketsan went and copied Alpagut's specs into Eren's English brochure, because they were right after each other in their catalogue and apparently they have no one that goes over them.

 

[boredaf]

How about this concept against low-cost drones?
We know that K2 can loiter 13+ hours with its 200 kg warhaead, has at least one hardpoint and there will be different variants of it.
So why don't we just strip its warhead, put CATS and Cirit pod/pods on it and link them with an AESA equipped Akıncı?
CATS to lase for Cirit and AESA to detect targets. K2 should cost much less than a TB2.

We already have, what, over a hundred TB2s by now? Why not use them? We can have several constantly in the air towards dangerous sectors and in case of a war we can have a squadron if we want.

Or make a smart rack like Tolun for Eren and load Akıncı up with multiple Eren for long range engagement against slow moving targets, up to and including cruise missiles perhaps? 3 Eren plus a smart rack shouldn't weigh more than 120-150 kg at most, Akıncı can carry that weight on all of its hard point I think.

 

[Pokemonte13]

How about this concept against low-cost drones?
We know that K2 can loiter 13+ hours with its 200 kg warhaead, has at least one hardpoint and there will be different variants of it.
So why don't we just strip its warhead, put CATS and Cirit pod/pods on it and link them with an AESA equipped Akıncı?
CATS to lase for Cirit and AESA to detect targets. K2 should cost much less than a TB2.

EO gimbal is the most expensive thing on the TB2 so k2 would be the same as TB2 in terms of price.

 

[GoatsMilk]

When we look at the recent Ukraine and Iranian wars, if your able to contest the skies above you, it doesnt matter how strong the enemy is you can survive. Turkiye really needs to develop systems that can be deployed quickly and then hidden away quickly if required. The problem with the big systems is they are easy to locate and destroy with standoff munitions.

Turkiye needs systems that can be hidden easily and then deployed easily. Basically air defence systems that can be deployed in a hit and run sort of way. If the iranians had the ability to pull out air defence systems the way they are able to pull out their ballistic missiles, this current attack on Iran would probably be one big failure for the americans.

even develop some kind of cheap smallish drone that can be sent up into the sky and operate as air defence. Because we hit a point where hitting the enemy has become relatively cheap and easy. Iranians and Ukrainians are showing this, so if you can develop a cheap and practicle method to at least contest the sky against fighter jets, then the concept of Super power doesn't really matter much these days.

 

[boredaf]

Wouldn't it be better to have more options?

I mean, sure, but why waste the strike potential of K2 when we already have higher endurance drones in hand that can defend our skies in the manner you describe while K2 is unique in our arsenal in its capacity to strike the enemy?

Also, that pod in the video doesn't look 2 meters long to me, which a Cirit pod would be. You need clearance for the propeller at the back and the landing gear at the front. And, I don't think Cirit is cold or soft launched, so you also have to think about the rocket exhaust at the back, right across the propellers most likely damaging them in the process. Gimbal would probably be right in front of the Cirit pod as well.

 

[Sanchez]

Turkiye needs systems that can be hidden easily and then deployed easily. Basically air defence systems that can be deployed in a hit and run sort of way.

This is the concept behind the Soviet -Russian style low-medium range GBADs. It doesn't really work. Being too mobile means it's never really connected to greater umbrella and enemy with LO aircraft and aircraft with great EW capabilities run circles around them, picking them off one by one.

One thing should be clear, there's no air defence in the world that can stay tall against the kind of massed air power US can throw for long enough. Not the Soviets, not even China. US and coalition lost more than 70 aircraft against Iraq in 91. Iraq at the time had one of the most complex air defence umbrellas in the world; it took Americans 15 years to disassemble it with follow up strikes and corruption and even then they still lost more than 10 aircraft in and after 2003. But none of those losses prevented the Americans from winning. When the enemy comes at you with 2400+ aircraft, shooting down 70 is not that important.

Iran in two wars in over 1.5 years have managed to shoot down one single aircraft(which did manage to land safely) and I believe 10 or so drones. Iran's air defence performance is abysmal; it's a bad example.

Air defence can only help support air operations. Up until 2021 or so, only system we had that could shoot down a very high flying drone or an aircraft flying 50kms away we had was an F-16 with AIM-120s. It's not that different today, will be much better in 2-3 years. Air defence is not a net you can use to cover the whole country. It should be methodical. It's expensive, you never have enough of it. It will be used to cover strategic installations; factories, bridges, airports. And even then there will be many losses. If the idea is to dish out against an enemy that can send in hundreds of tankers and hundreds of aircraft, that's always a losing proposition.

 

[TR_123456]

Ok guys,back to topic!

 

[sh. Abdj]

This is the concept behind the Soviet -Russian style low-medium range GBADs. It doesn't really work. Being too mobile means it's never really connected to greater umbrella and enemy with LO aircraft and aircraft with great EW capabilities run circles around them, picking them off one by one.

One thing should be clear, there's no air defence in the world that can stay tall against the kind of massed air power US can throw for long enough. Not the Soviets, not even China. US and coalition lost more than 70 aircraft against Iraq in 91. Iraq at the time had one of the most complex air defence umbrellas in the world; it took Americans 15 years to disassemble it with follow up strikes and corruption and even then they still lost more than 10 aircraft in and after 2003. But none of those losses prevented the Americans from winning. When the enemy comes at you with 2400+ aircraft, shooting down 70 is not that important.

Iran in two wars in over 1.5 years have managed to shoot down one single aircraft(which did manage to land safely) and I believe 10 or so drones. Iran's air defence performance is abysmal; it's a bad example.

Air defence can only help support air operations. Up until 2021 or so, only system we had that could shoot down a very high flying drone or an aircraft flying 50kms away we had was an F-16 with AIM-120s. It's not that different today, will be much better in 2-3 years. Air defence is not a net you can use to cover the whole country. It should be methodical. It's expensive, you never have enough of it. It will be used to cover strategic installations; factories, bridges, airports. And even then there will be many losses. If the idea is to dish out against an enemy that can send in hundreds of tankers and hundreds of aircraft, that's always a losing proposition.

Well that's why I always suggested being armed with extra Air defense and Extra Radars maybe 5 times what is need to cover all the country because many of them will be destroyed during the process and because if you want to be independent you have to have enough power to pain the biggest bully and downing tens of enemy Aircrafts whole your air defense is totally destroyed is not good trade. Iraq didn't have the technology to replace the lost Air defense, lost its potential super power friend USSR and had geographical disadvantage. So to be independent have big stockpile and be ready to produce big numbers to cover the losses and have factories deep in the mountains. Alot of this points Turkeye didn't cover till now. And as for cost it goes down with mass production and for digging it becomes easier with experience.

 

[boredaf]

Well, apparently Canik just threw their hat in the "c-uas" ring

CANİK’ten asimetrik İHA tehditlerine karşı çok katmanlı koruma kalkanı

Samsun Yurt Savunma (SYS Grup), CANiK, AEI Systems ve UNIROBOTICS’in sahip olduğu ileri kabiliyetleri entegre ederek, modern savaşın hızla değişen

www.savunmatr.com

 

[duveil]

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/

 

[AlperTunga]

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]

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]

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.

 

[inthrustwetrust]

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.

 

[Zafer]

Nobody will sanction Türkiye for having nukes.

 

[inthrustwetrust]

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]

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.