TR Air Defence Programs

yusuf

Active member
Messages
118
Reactions
306
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
there also a gap between detection and fire of ESSM missile
 
T

Turko

Guest
for to stop incoming missile 35-40km is the limit for sensors range,so extension of range only can be achived by heli or uav assist,so reaction time almost same for all ships sensors for subsonic incoming missiles
Stop spreading pointless BS
 

Anmdt

Experienced member
Naval Specialist
Professional
Messages
5,540
Solutions
2
Reactions
119 25,145
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
there also a gap between detection and fire of ESSM missile
ESSM is not only used against sea skimming missiles. It is a point defense missile used as a MR-SAM when needed.
And not all sea-skimming missiles follow low-low-low , it is usually high-high-low and with a dedicated radar these can be detected earlier too (depending on profile-launch site-range, that is why KEMENT project matters to Turkey).
 
T

Turko

Guest
ESSM is not only used against sea skimming missiles. It is a point defense missile used as a MR-SAM when needed.
And not all sea-skimming missiles follow low-low-low , it is usually high-high-low and with a dedicated radar these can be detected earlier too (depending on profile-launch site-range, that is why KEMENT project matters to Turkey).
He just doesn't know there is datalink between missiles and command post.

Further reading:
Command Off Line-Of-Sight (COLOS)

1615460995619.png

1615461072502.png


1615460923851.png

Do you think the Active guided missiles with 100km range use their tiny Ku band radars from launch to interception?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Combat-Master

Baklava Consumer
Moderator
Messages
3,667
Reactions
15 25,475
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Turkey
SSB İsmail Demir: “Sometimes we call restrictions 'good luck'. Because a block in the detail product, which we are not aware of, causes us to take a step. For example; We would start using HİSAR-A 6 months ago. It's a little late. Because a part-sensor in a system was blocked. What did we do we made that sensor ourselves. "


I'm guessing it might have been the laser proximity fuze?
 

dustdevil

Committed member
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
271
Reactions
669
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
G40-ER_small.png


G40-ER dimensions compared with tactical length Mk 41 VLS if the rocket motor inside the missile or a similar length motor is used as a booster. I don't expect this kind of experiment with close fitting until booster tech and two stage is mature enough for us though. There are small errors and width is not considered for VLS cell, but gives an idea.


Edit: Fixed graphical errors and booster length. I left some space on the bottom of VLS cell for cables :) so the SM-2/Hisar-O also starts after the gap.
 
Last edited:

Zafer

Experienced member
Messages
4,683
Reactions
7 7,389
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
They should instead make better and more compact barrels to increase rate of fire.
They should of course give their best but if it is ground based they can as well employ multiple units to target the same target and double or triple the firing rate if they hit a bottleneck in packing all the power in one unit.
 

Anmdt

Experienced member
Naval Specialist
Professional
Messages
5,540
Solutions
2
Reactions
119 25,145
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
They should of course give their best but if it is ground based they can as well employ multiple units to target the same target and double or triple the firing rate if they hit a bottleneck in packing all the power in one unit.
They won't able to make a gatling gun as good as the one used on Phalanx, it will have a lot of dispersion, issues with the munition and a lot more, we are sure they won't be doing else than the gun, they will make it and say "we have done the CIWS" for the PR, they won't care about control units or the rest, will give it to Aselsan so they can pack it up as a CIWS.
There is already one good CIWS platform and if they could actually make a better barrel (invest money in here), it could have a single barrel and become more compact.
Or instead they could work on 40mm -50mm barrels, alternatively ,for munitions with higher velocity and greater range.
In sum, they are not the the maker of the CIWS, they only make the gun-barrel-cannon.
 

Saithan

Experienced member
Denmark Correspondent
Messages
8,775
Reactions
37 20,048
Nation of residence
Denmark
Nation of origin
Turkey
They should instead make better barrels to increase rate of fire and durability.

They should of course give their best but if it is ground based they can as well employ multiple units to target the same target and double or triple the firing rate if they hit a bottleneck in packing all the power in one unit.

Durability of barrels for CIWS or for minigun for ATAK would require R&D in metallurgi.

Considering the weapons platform being produced atm by Turkish defence firms don't we have the necessary level of R&D to deliver what's needed ?
 

Zafer

Experienced member
Messages
4,683
Reactions
7 7,389
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
They won't able to make a gatling gun as good as the one used on Phalanx, it will have a lot of dispersion, issues with the munition and a lot more, we are sure they won't be doing else than the gun, they will make it and say "we have done the CIWS" for the PR, they won't care about control units or the rest, will give it to Aselsan so they can pack it up as a CIWS.
There is already one good CIWS platform and if they could actually make a better barrel (invest money in here), it could have a single barrel and become more compact.
Or instead they could work on 40mm -50mm barrels, alternatively ,for munitions with higher velocity and greater range.
In sum, they are not the the maker of the CIWS, they only make the gun-barrel-cannon.
Probably not just yet.
They have a new leadership and probably a bigger vision now.
Turkey needs a fast CIWS beside Korkut and Gökdeniz and the gun is the bigger part of the project. Adding Aselsan into the mix down the road shouldn't be an insult to Aselsan, after all they are both public companies.
 
Last edited:

Combat-Master

Baklava Consumer
Moderator
Messages
3,667
Reactions
15 25,475
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Turkey
Durability of barrels for CIWS or for minigun for ATAK would require R&D in metallurgi.

Considering the weapons platform being produced atm by Turkish defence firms don't we have the necessary level of R&D to deliver what's needed ?

There's nothing special about the barrels of the original M61A1, there really isn't any need for R&D for metallurgy, if anything they can add a coating which can be purchased or one of recently developed coatings...
 

Saithan

Experienced member
Denmark Correspondent
Messages
8,775
Reactions
37 20,048
Nation of residence
Denmark
Nation of origin
Turkey
There's nothing special about the barrels of the original M61A1, there really isn't any need for R&D for metallurgy, if anything they can add a coating which can be purchased or one of recently developed coatings...
I just thought it would need proper R&D based on it being one of the fields within mechanical engineering.

 

Combat-Master

Baklava Consumer
Moderator
Messages
3,667
Reactions
15 25,475
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Turkey
I just thought it would need proper R&D based on it being one of the fields within mechanical engineering.


We know MKEK can make barrels with it's current tech to reach 20,000 rounds before it's deemed unsafe/inaccurate to use further as the rifling deteriorates.

Let's say 5,000 rounds is the best they can do for 20mm cannon, which is decent. Now, imagine having 6 barrels with same durability of 5,000 rounds each.

Maximum burst rate of Phalanx is stated to be 1000 rounds, each barrel would cycle through 160-170 rounds. That means each barrel could sustain max burst 31 times or around 48 reloads of ammunition before barrels have to be replaced. I don't think it's that bad. Of course we are going off imaginary numbers for durability, it could be whole lot better or a little worse.

Hence, why I don't think metallurgy is the issue here - it would be nice if they could bring the weight down with advanced metals but not a necessity, perhaps for the TFX it would be.

At this point, the issue would be keeping the dispersion rate as tight as possible.
 

Kartal1

Experienced member
Lead Moderator
Messages
5,289
Reactions
114 19,705
Nation of residence
Bulgaria
Nation of origin
Turkey
We know MKEK can make barrels with it's current tech to reach 20,000 rounds before it's deemed unsafe/inaccurate to use further as the rifling deteriorates.

Let's say 5,000 rounds is the best they can do for 20mm cannon, which is decent. Now, imagine having 6 barrels with same durability of 5,000 rounds each.

Maximum burst rate of Phalanx is stated to be 1000 rounds, each barrel would cycle through 160-170 rounds. That means each barrel could sustain max burst 31 times or around 48 reloads of ammunition before barrels have to be replaced. I don't think it's that bad. Of course we are going off imaginary numbers for durability, it could be whole lot better or a little worse.

Hence, why I don't think metallurgy is the issue here - it would be nice if they could bring the weight down with advanced metals but not a necessity, perhaps for the TFX it would be.

At this point, the issue would be keeping the dispersion rate as tight as possible.
I am not sure if the same principles apply to that case but MKEK managed to pull off very high quality barrel with special coating and manufacturing technique for the MPT-76 that is the best barrel for its class according to Can Yazici.

While the barrel have 15.000 rounds stated barrel life they tested one that is on 20.000 rounds and managed to achieve 3.5 MOA dispersion while the standard for the European made barrels is 4.0 MOA for 5000 rounds.

As I said I am not sure if the same principles apply to the scale of a CIWS barrel and high caliber but if so that is huge potential.
 

Yasar_TR

Experienced member
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
3,276
Reactions
147 16,476
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Turkey
Signing of preliminary definition process has been completed on SAMP -T project. As there are no political bottlenecks the procedure is ongoing, final stage of which is to build an air defence system by the participant partners.
 
Last edited:
T

Turko

Guest
View attachment 15913

G40-ER dimensions compared with tactical length Mk 41 VLS if the rocket motor inside the missile or a similar length motor is used as a booster. I don't expect this kind of experiment with close fitting until booster tech and two stage is mature enough for us though. There are small errors and width is not considered for VLS cell, but gives an idea.


Edit: Fixed graphical errors and booster length. I left some space on the bottom of VLS cell for cables :) so the SM-2/Hisar-O also starts after the gap.
İ appreciate your afford, your drawing a great job but why don't we go for SM-2 fuselage which is larger, so that it'd give more range. Nonetheless larger seeker space could enable to use simpler sensors.
How many km range could g40- ER version intercept? App 70-80km while larger SM-2 equivalent could reach likely 150km. Moreover in future we could transform larger structure into SM-6 and SM-3 variants. I dunno Americans know their shit better.
 

Follow us on social media

Latest posts

Top Bottom