TR Air Defence Programs

[MonteCarlo]

1.47 billion dollars additional Air Defence serial production deal between SSB and Aselsan.

Edit: sorry it is 1.47 billion Euro not dollars so more like 1.68 billion dollars

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2075489440168857658

The deal is for HİSAR-A and HİSAR-O apparently. Should be very high quantity thinking the size of the deal

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2075501768587264155

 

[fushkee]

Just quick question;
How many of air defence missiles do we stock per each Hisar systems/launcher and Siper as well.
I’m asking that because we h have been hearing many news which says that “that much system has been delivered to the army, etc..”

 

[Sanchez]

Just quick question;
How many of air defence missiles do we stock per each Hisar systems/launcher and Siper as well.
I’m asking that because we h have been hearing many news which says that “that much system has been delivered to the army, etc..”

Only information we have is the number of ready to fire missiles in the launchers, which we cam surmise from the number of canisters. Even then, we know that first deliveries were made with lighter loads as it took some time for the missile production to ramp up.

System/battery level reloads and other possible stocks are not made public.

 

[BalkanTurk90]

1.47 billion dollars additional Air Defence serial production deal between SSB and Aselsan.

Edit: sorry it is 1.47 billion Euro not dollars so more like 1.68 billion dollars

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2075489440168857658

Thats alot of money and thats mean lots of air defence batteries .
Any estimate how many batteries Türkiye needs ?!
25 Hisar -A
35 Hisar O
30 - Siper 1
20- Siper 2
+ all other components of çelik Kubbe like korkut , laser guns , Electronic warfare korals etc etc
?

 

[MonteCarlo]

Thats alot of money and thats mean lots of air defence batteries .
Any estimate how many batteries Türkiye needs ?!
25 Hisar -A
35 Hisar O
30 - Siper 1
20- Siper 2
+ all other components of çelik Kubbe like korkut , laser guns , Electronic warfare korals etc etc
?

Siper 1 and Siper 2 is the same system just different missiles.


Someone made a study about how much systems we would need and their result was:

- 16 SİPER batteries
- 30 HİSAR-RF batteries
- 50 HİSAR-O batteries
- 60 KORKUT batteries
- 90 set GÜRZ
At minumum and:

22 x SİPER 30 x HİSAR-RF 50 x HİSAR-O 80 x KORKUT 100 x GÜRZ
Ideally

Hisar o and RF is the same thing as well just iir vs radar seeker so take that as 80 hisars

Here is the link to the thread

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2000224486193303825

 

[Pokemonte13]

Thats alot of money and thats mean lots of air defence batteries .
Any estimate how many batteries Türkiye needs ?!
25 Hisar -A
35 Hisar O
30 - Siper 1
20- Siper 2
+ all other components of çelik Kubbe like korkut , laser guns , Electronic warfare korals etc etc
?

Couple of things here:
1. Siper 1 and 2 are not different batteries just different missiles the same will be Siper 3 and Siper A. One air defence system with different missiles.
2. Hisar A and O numbers will vary and any credible number will be hard to know

 

[Pokemonte13]

Siper 1 and Siper 2 is the same system just different missiles.


Someone made a study about how much systems we would need and their result was:

- 16 batarya SİPER
- 30 batarya HİSAR-RF
- 50 batarya HİSAR-O
- 60 batarya KORKUT
- 90 set GÜRZ
At minumum and:

22 x SİPER 30 x HİSAR-RF 50 x HİSAR-O 80 x KORKUT 100 x GÜRZ
Ideally

Hisar o and RF is the same thing as well just iir vs radar seeker so take that as 80 hisars

Here is the link to the thread

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2000224486193303825

These numbers are just thought and not based on any needs of the armed forces. Also there is no difference between a Hisar O and Hisar RF battery just different missiles

 

[BalkanTurk90]

Siper 1 and Siper 2 is the same system just different missiles.


Someone made a study about how much systems we would need and their result was:

- 16 SİPER batteries
- 30 HİSAR-RF batteries
- 50 HİSAR-O batteries
- 60 KORKUT batteries
- 90 set GÜRZ
At minumum and:

22 x SİPER 30 x HİSAR-RF 50 x HİSAR-O 80 x KORKUT 100 x GÜRZ
Ideally

Hisar o and RF is the same thing as well just iir vs radar seeker so take that as 80 hisars

Here is the link to the thread

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2000224486193303825

So Hisar iir doest care about steath of airctaft but only lock in to thermal part like engines ! But how it work ! Doesnt it require radar to guide the missile ! And can even big anti air missiles equip with iir like siper 2 with range over 200km ?!

 

[UkroTurk]

Have Submarine-Launched Anti-Aircraft Missiles Finally Come Of Age?

A submarine that can fire back at an aircraft hunting it certainly sounds intriguing, but is such a capability really relevant?

www.twz.com

I would like to pitch a conceptual design and operational doctrine for discussion regarding submarine air-defense. While projects like IDAS focus on tube-launched or sail-embedded systems with highly limited capacity, I am proposing a different approach: Integrating a Vertical Launch System (VLS) on Midget Submarines (~200 tons) to deploy compact, thin-body SAMs like the RIM-116 (RAM) or the Turkish LEVENT, operating strictly from the surface.

Here is how the technical and tactical framework would look:


1. Form Factor & High-Capacity Volumetric Efficiency

Space and displacement are the ultimate constraints on a ~200-ton midget submarine. One might ask: Why not use existing indigenous systems like HİSAR-A or the GÖKDENİZ ER (GÖKDOĞAN/BOZDOĞAN maritime variants)?

Technically, missiles like HİSAR-A or air-to-air derived systems like NASAMs, Gökdeniz , Sidewinder and IRIS-T possess the exact technological architecture required for this mission—they have advanced Inertial Navigation System (INS) modules allowing them to be pre-programmed with estimated target coordinates before launch. However, they are simply too bulky. Their large diameters, control surface wings, and overall volumetric footprints take up far too much premium space.

This is why the RIM-116 or LEVENT are the ideal candidates. Their extremely slender body diameter and folding/low-profile wing surfaces allow them to be densely packed into a specialized, modular VLS cell array. A 200-ton platform could carry a surprisingly high volume of ready-to-fire interceptors compared to heavier SAMs.


2. EMCON-Compliant "Avcı-Pusu" (Hunter-Ambush) Doctrine

The operational profile relies entirely on passive surveillance to bypass enemy SEAD/SIGINT nets:

• Passive Detection on the Surface: The midget submarine operates in littoral zones, surfacing to periscope/deck level. It keeps its radar completely turned off (Strict EMCON). Utilizing mast-mounted or hull-integrated IIR (Imaging Infrared) tracking systems, it passively scans the horizon for low-flying threats trying to exploit radar blind spots—such as maritime patrol aircraft, UAVs, and cruise missiles.
  
  
• Pre-Programmed Inertial Guidance (No Datalink): The submarine's Combat Management System (CMS) calculates the target's estimated vector based on pure IIR data. Just like the pre-launch lock-after-launch (LOAL) programming seen in IRIS-T or HİSAR-A, this initial trajectory data is uploaded to the LEVENT/RAM missile prior to launch.
  
  
• The Necessity of INS: The missile relies strictly on its onboard INS for its mid-course phase, flying "blind" toward the intercept basket. There is no radio datalink between the submarine and the missile post-launch. This ensures zero RF emissions from the submarine, preventing enemy Electronic Intelligence (ELINT) from pinpointing the vessel's coordinates during the weapon's flight. Terminal guidance is autonomously handled by the missile's own IIR seeker.

3. Post-Engagement Phase: AESA Suppression & Egress

• Radar Suppression: Once the missile is away, the submarine's element of surprise is reduced. At this point, the midget submarine activates its integrated, low-probability-of-intercept fixed AESA radar panels.
  
  
• Area Control: The AESA radar is used to quickly screen the airspace, suppress localized electronic threats, and provide active targeting data for rapid-fire follow-up salvos if a secondary wave of targets emerges.
  
  
• Tactical Retreat: After exhausting its immediate targets, the submarine dives immediately, disappearing back into the shallow littoral waters. Any pursuing enemy anti-submarine warfare (ASW) surface vessels or hunter-killer submarines are then funneled into a trap, to be picked off by wider, networked friendly naval assets (corvettes, shore-based anti-ship missiles, or loitering munitions).

4. Platform Viability: The 200-Ton Midget Submarine

This doctrine does not require expensive, blue-water oceanic submarines. Instead, a cost-effective, highly manufacturable ~200-ton midget submarine (even smaller than the STM500 concept) is perfect. These vessels are intended for short-endurance, high-risk asymmetric denial operations in contested archipelagos or shallow littoral shelves (e.g., the Aegean or East Med).

How viable do you think a surface-fired VLS configuration is on a hull as small as 200 tons regarding buoyancy and stability during hot-launching? Also, do you think ROKETSAN's LEVENT can be easily adapted for a cold/hot vertical launch system while maintaining its compact nature? Looking forward to hearing your technical insights!

Should Levent consist INS module?

 

[YeşilVatan]

Have Submarine-Launched Anti-Aircraft Missiles Finally Come Of Age?

A submarine that can fire back at an aircraft hunting it certainly sounds intriguing, but is such a capability really relevant?

www.twz.com

I would like to pitch a conceptual design and operational doctrine for discussion regarding submarine air-defense. While projects like IDAS focus on tube-launched or sail-embedded systems with highly limited capacity, I am proposing a different approach: Integrating a Vertical Launch System (VLS) on Midget Submarines (~200 tons) to deploy compact, thin-body SAMs like the RIM-116 (RAM) or the Turkish LEVENT, operating strictly from the surface.

Here is how the technical and tactical framework would look:


1. Form Factor & High-Capacity Volumetric Efficiency

Space and displacement are the ultimate constraints on a ~200-ton midget submarine. One might ask: Why not use existing indigenous systems like HİSAR-A or the GÖKDENİZ ER (GÖKDOĞAN/BOZDOĞAN maritime variants)?

Technically, missiles like HİSAR-A or air-to-air derived systems like NASAMs, Gökdeniz , Sidewinder and IRIS-T possess the exact technological architecture required for this mission—they have advanced Inertial Navigation System (INS) modules allowing them to be pre-programmed with estimated target coordinates before launch. However, they are simply too bulky. Their large diameters, control surface wings, and overall volumetric footprints take up far too much premium space.

This is why the RIM-116 or LEVENT are the ideal candidates. Their extremely slender body diameter and folding/low-profile wing surfaces allow them to be densely packed into a specialized, modular VLS cell array. A 200-ton platform could carry a surprisingly high volume of ready-to-fire interceptors compared to heavier SAMs.


2. EMCON-Compliant "Avcı-Pusu" (Hunter-Ambush) Doctrine

The operational profile relies entirely on passive surveillance to bypass enemy SEAD/SIGINT nets:

• Passive Detection on the Surface: The midget submarine operates in littoral zones, surfacing to periscope/deck level. It keeps its radar completely turned off (Strict EMCON). Utilizing mast-mounted or hull-integrated IIR (Imaging Infrared) tracking systems, it passively scans the horizon for low-flying threats trying to exploit radar blind spots—such as maritime patrol aircraft, UAVs, and cruise missiles.
  
  
• Pre-Programmed Inertial Guidance (No Datalink): The submarine's Combat Management System (CMS) calculates the target's estimated vector based on pure IIR data. Just like the pre-launch lock-after-launch (LOAL) programming seen in IRIS-T or HİSAR-A, this initial trajectory data is uploaded to the LEVENT/RAM missile prior to launch.
  
  
• The Necessity of INS: The missile relies strictly on its onboard INS for its mid-course phase, flying "blind" toward the intercept basket. There is no radio datalink between the submarine and the missile post-launch. This ensures zero RF emissions from the submarine, preventing enemy Electronic Intelligence (ELINT) from pinpointing the vessel's coordinates during the weapon's flight. Terminal guidance is autonomously handled by the missile's own IIR seeker.

3. Post-Engagement Phase: AESA Suppression & Egress

• Radar Suppression: Once the missile is away, the submarine's element of surprise is reduced. At this point, the midget submarine activates its integrated, low-probability-of-intercept fixed AESA radar panels.
  
  
• Area Control: The AESA radar is used to quickly screen the airspace, suppress localized electronic threats, and provide active targeting data for rapid-fire follow-up salvos if a secondary wave of targets emerges.
  
  
• Tactical Retreat: After exhausting its immediate targets, the submarine dives immediately, disappearing back into the shallow littoral waters. Any pursuing enemy anti-submarine warfare (ASW) surface vessels or hunter-killer submarines are then funneled into a trap, to be picked off by wider, networked friendly naval assets (corvettes, shore-based anti-ship missiles, or loitering munitions).

4. Platform Viability: The 200-Ton Midget Submarine

This doctrine does not require expensive, blue-water oceanic submarines. Instead, a cost-effective, highly manufacturable ~200-ton midget submarine (even smaller than the STM500 concept) is perfect. These vessels are intended for short-endurance, high-risk asymmetric denial operations in contested archipelagos or shallow littoral shelves (e.g., the Aegean or East Med).

How viable do you think a surface-fired VLS configuration is on a hull as small as 200 tons regarding buoyancy and stability during hot-launching? Also, do you think ROKETSAN's LEVENT can be easily adapted for a cold/hot vertical launch system while maintaining its compact nature? Looking forward to hearing your technical insights!

Should Levent consist INS module?

I always wondered if towed submersible extra-mini USVs could be a part of something like this. You have a long cable that would send electricity and data, then the small swimming apparatus communicates with the missile, gets data from sattelites etc., has optical sensors for more small scale 'stealth' AA area denial. Just a towed sensor that has its own little electric engine and sensors like AESA radar etc. Shouldn't be much bigger than a jetski.