TR Missile & Smart Munition Programs

TheInsider

Experienced member
Professional
Messages
3,826
Solutions
1
Reactions
27 13,738
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
There is a limit to how smaller you can get. If I would be paying similar prices I would rather have the 100kg one which gives real stand-off capability and adequate destruction without becoming big and clunky.
 

Yasar_TR

Experienced member
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
3,052
Reactions
116 14,897
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Turkey
More lethal compared to what? What is the measurement of lethality. I would put an armor-piercing capability similar to Atmaca and can say my warhead is more lethal now. What is the total amount of energy both warheads release? That is the real question. There is no way a 140kg explosive releases more energy than a 250kg one. Anyone who invented such a chemical will win a nobel prize. Moreover, those explosives have to be insensitive and stable in all environmental changes. Those explosives also had to comply with NATO MIL-STD specs.
1kg of Semtex or 1kg of C4 or 1Kg of C2 or 1Kg of TNT , or 1kg of nitroglycerin ;
They are all same weight. But differ a great deal in explosive power.
There is also the penetration power of an explosive. Amount of shock wave they create; Amount of heat they create. Some draw the air out suffocating then burning the explosive on to the target. Some are specifically produced to create high speed shrapnel effect.
To achieve it with one, you may need 2-3 times more weight of the other.
You can not generalise it. Explosives are produced as case and target sensitive. In other words if you intend to sink a ship you have an explosive that is carried by a hull penetrating warhead that will cause great damage to the interior of a ship where it will explode.
A bunker buster bomb’s explosive warhead is very different to a ship sinker missile’s warhead. Both in weight and composition.
Explosives technology is a science that is continuously developing and advancing. Newer more effective explosives are being produced all the time.
 
Last edited:

Huelague

Experienced member
Messages
3,614
Reactions
4 3,863
Nation of residence
Germany
Nation of origin
Turkey
Kuzgun-KY will be an overpriced underachiever for the class it is stationed in. We don't need a Brimstone. It is a failed product it is not cost-effective. Kuzgun has to be cost-effective. Remember triple Ms( Modüler, Müşterek, Maliyet-etkin) Brimstone block-1 is basically Umtas-ER which costs more than quadruple compared to Umtas. Brimstone Block-2 brings good capability but costs fucking a quarter of a million $. Mark my words Kuzgun-TJ will cost a lot less than a Brimstone-2. That is not logical. I would rather have cheap cost-effective Umtas-ER than having an overpriced Brimstone copy. At this segment (50kg/20-30km range) cost-effectivenes is more important than anything because armed forces will be using thousands of this.

Brimstone-1 ( 170k $ overpriced and has similar capability with a theoretical UMTAS-ER/NLOS)
Brimstone-2 (250k $ brings good capability but overpriced)
Even we have no money to buy this overpriced missile, than we must found customers who has that money. As far as the quality justify the price.
 

TheInsider

Experienced member
Professional
Messages
3,826
Solutions
1
Reactions
27 13,738
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Atmaca warhead has the armor-piercing and double-tap capability(secondary explosion inside the hull) and it weighs 250kg. There is no way on earth that 140kg warhead of Harpoon 2 is more lethal than Atmaca.


BTW TR has national HMX/RDX production capability and uses them in national warheads.
 
Last edited:

Cabatli_TR

Experienced member
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
5,369
Reactions
80 45,486
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
You may be correct from your own perspective. But from the article I have shared, what I understand is that US company has developed a ”more lethal” explosive for the “next generation” 2+ER version. It is NOT the same type of explosive used in previous Harpoons. It clearly compares this one to the previous Harpoon version being more lethal yet weighing less.
I am only going by, with what I read.
According to the below article this new generation version is developed from SLAM-ER land attack missile. And carries a “more lethal” warhead, is lighter faster and smaller.
Quote:
The Block II+ER is a lot lighter and smaller than the SLAM-ER, but it has a more lethal warhead, higher speed
Unquote.
However I agree that the article is a bit vague in expressing about what it is more lethal than. But one thing is sure. According to these articles; The new generation version is using a different and more effective explosive. But not necessarily more effective as a whole than the previous Harpoon..

Yes, I have read Boeing's statement but the word "more lethal" is claimed in comparison with which product? it is necessary to think about it. When Boeing made this statement, it was giving a serious fight against its rival Raytheon's NSM and the tender price was billions of dollars if I remember correctly. I don't know if this tender has been finalized, but these are the statements in the process. If you just look at the headlines in the media, you can understand how tight this competition is. Boeing offered the Harpoon Blk-2+ ER to the Marines, while rival Raytheon was in the field with the NSM. The "More lethal" warhead may also have been mentioned as part of the marketing and perception element but only in comparison to the rival missile, not with other Harpoon variants. Otherwise, a 140kg explosive that is more lethal than a similar 250kg warhead can only be possible with a new chemical but there is not an open expression or sentence emphasizing this in the texts or statements. The known most lethal and energetic explosive that most advanced states have been using on warheads are HMX/RDX and US is also one of countries using them so i consider this -Boeing's 140kg warhead used on Harpoon-2+ER is more lethal than Raytheon's NSM with 125kg warhead. This is an acceptable solution for me.

Raytheon wants to drive Boeing's Harpoon anti-ship missile into extinction

Boeing backs extended-range Harpoon to stave off Kongsberg threat
 

Spook

Contributor
Messages
607
Reactions
2,106
Nation of residence
Albania
Nation of origin
Turkey
Is there any work for something similar to Rampage missile?

I mean thinking we would want to at least have something similar to Black Sparrow to simulate tests for our air defense programs. I believe so. At least we would have the knowledge to do it.
 

Yasar_TR

Experienced member
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
3,052
Reactions
116 14,897
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Turkey
BTW TR has national HMX/RDX production capability and uses them in national warheads.
German scientists have developed one of the most reactive non-nuclear explosives known to man. It is called “aziroazide azide”. This is so active and unstable due to the 14 nitrogen atoms that are connected to each other and want to form expanding nitrogen gas, that even the slightest touch would detonate it. (They say even looking at it may detonate it).
Because of it’s unstable characteristics no end use has been found yet. But knowing human ingenuity when it comes to explosives, it won’t be long before it is used in warheads.
PETN is also a very powerful explosive. As it is difficult to detonate on it’s own it is quite often used together with RDX. It is in fact used in the exploding-bridgewire detonators in nuclear weapons.
RDX, HMX, TNT and similar nitrogen based explosives are actually very toxic and dangerous to human life. Ecologically use of these explosives is a disaster to the environment. PETN in a way is good as it is not toxic.
It is good that we have a production facility for explosives. But we should be looking in to R&D of newer types of explosives as well.
 

Cabatli_TR

Experienced member
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
5,369
Reactions
80 45,486
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
German scientists have developed one of the most reactive non-nuclear explosives known to man. It is called “aziroazide azide”. This is so active and unstable due to the 14 nitrogen atoms that are connected to each other and want to form expanding nitrogen gas, that even the slightest touch would detonate it. (They say even looking at it may detonate it).
Because of it’s unstable characteristics no end use has been found yet. But knowing human ingenuity when it comes to explosives, it won’t be long before it is used in warheads.
PETN is also a very powerful explosive. As it is difficult to detonate on it’s own it is quite often used together with RDX. It is in fact used in the exploding-bridgewire detonators in nuclear weapons.
RDX, HMX, TNT and similar nitrogen based explosives are actually very toxic and dangerous to human life. Ecologically use of these explosives is a disaster to the environment. PETN in a way is good as it is not toxic.
It is good that we have a production facility for explosives. But we should be looking in to R&D of newer types of explosives as well.

Screenshot_20210808-204720_Opera beta.jpg


This report is a bit old. Some of the explosive compounds on this list under the name of new generationenergetic materials have already been successfully synthesized and produced.


About 3 years ago, SSB reported that it has successfully synthesized one of the most powerful explosives known as HNIW (HexaNitroHexaAzaIsoWurtzitane). HNIW emits %20 more energy than conventional HMX-based propellants and is far superior to conventional high-energy propellants and explosives like RDX and TNT.
 

Nilgiri

Experienced member
Moderator
Aviation Specialist
Messages
9,371
Reactions
107 19,037
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India
You may be correct from your own perspective. But from the article I have shared, what I understand is that US company has developed a ”more lethal” explosive for the “next generation” 2+ER version. It is NOT the same type of explosive used in previous Harpoons. It clearly compares this one to the previous Harpoon version being more lethal yet weighing less.
I am only going by, with what I read.
According to the below article this new generation version is developed from SLAM-ER land attack missile. And carries a “more lethal” warhead, is lighter faster and smaller.
Quote:
The Block II+ER is a lot lighter and smaller than the SLAM-ER, but it has a more lethal warhead, higher speed
Unquote.
However I agree that the article is a bit vague in expressing about what it is more lethal than. But one thing is sure. According to these articles; The new generation version is using a different and more effective explosive. But not necessarily more effective as a whole than the previous Harpoon..

Those bois at china lake are always up to something...
 
T

Turko

Guest
Guys I'm puzzled because of that you compared Kuzgun KY with UMTAS-ER. Then you mentioned Brimstones, Spike-NLOS, etc...


İ really wonder what's disadvantages of Kuzgun KY. Heavy weight? Laser guidance?(BTW laser guidance is always cheaper than IR which UMTAS has)
 

Combat-Master

Baklava Consumer
Moderator
Messages
3,667
Reactions
15 25,473
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Turkey
There is a limit to how smaller you can get. If I would be paying similar prices I would rather have the 100kg one which gives real stand-off capability and adequate destruction without becoming big and clunky.

Surely you understand that there is a requirement to standardise a single missile with enhanced capabilities among Naval, Air and Land forces. The type of missile that fits among all three components of the Turkish Armed Forces is in my opinion, the Kuzgun-KY. It is light enough to be used on rotary aircraft while also being light enough to have multiples on jet aircraft. As the Kuzgun missile is modular, there are other versions of the missile in development also - as you know, Kuzgun has a glide version and a jet-powered version which will extend the stand-off capability - however, those versions will surely be limited to platforms capable of launching it.

And there you have it,
Kuzgun - Solid Rocket Motor
Kuzgun - Glide-Fall
Kuzgun - Jet Powered

We have all seen how a drone can spot multiple targets but is only capable of striking one target at a time. Having a missile that is small, deadly with simultaneous strike capability is the way forward.

Also, would be a great idea to convert some Firtina SPH chassis into missile carriers. (Pictured - K-9 Chassis with Brimstone Missile)
Brimstone-TD-K9-1021.jpg
 

Ryder

Experienced member
Messages
10,494
Reactions
5 18,116
Nation of residence
Australia
Nation of origin
Turkey

From the archive 😁
 

Ryder

Experienced member
Messages
10,494
Reactions
5 18,116
Nation of residence
Australia
Nation of origin
Turkey
Bora getting fired up was beautiful to see.

Also intimidating as hell.
 

TheInsider

Experienced member
Professional
Messages
3,826
Solutions
1
Reactions
27 13,738
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Surely you understand that there is a requirement to standardise a single missile with enhanced capabilities among Naval, Air and Land forces. The type of missile that fits among all three components of the Turkish Armed Forces is in my opinion, the Kuzgun-KY. It is light enough to be used on rotary aircraft while also being light enough to have multiples on jet aircraft. As the Kuzgun missile is modular, there are other versions of the missile in development also - as you know, Kuzgun has a glide version and a jet-powered version which will extend the stand-off capability - however, those versions will surely be limited to platforms capable of launching it.

And there you have it,
Kuzgun - Solid Rocket Motor
Kuzgun - Glide-Fall
Kuzgun - Jet Powered

We have all seen how a drone can spot multiple targets but is only capable of striking one target at a time. Having a missile that is small, deadly with simultaneous strike capability is the way forward.

Also, would be a great idea to convert some Firtina SPH chassis into missile carriers. (Pictured - K-9 Chassis with Brimstone Missile)
View attachment 27537
This is an insanely fail concept. We shouldn't get any armored vehicles like this NEVER! And I have never heard and I don't think TAF has any requirement for a monstrosity like this.

Kuzgun-KY has to check these boxes
Big enough warhead to hit pillbox like small fortifications, strong points, and trenches successfully. We don't want another MAM-L where targets 5 meters away from the explosion run away lightly injured or unscathed. MAM-L is a smart "miniature" bomb and extremely successful in its "class".

Stand-off capability against short to medium-range air-defense missiles 30km should be the minimum requirement while 50km(stand-off capability against ESSM) should be aimed. I don't want a missile that costs more than a MAM-T. MAM-T can hit a target 30km away with a bigger warhead.

It should be cheap it shouldn't cost as much as Kuzgun-TJ or Brimstone. Kuzgun TJ can cost 250k and it will still be cost-effective compared to SOM missile which costs 1 million but Kuzgun-KY shouldn't cost over 50k under any circumstances.
 
Last edited:

Anmdt

Experienced member
Naval Specialist
Professional
Messages
5,189
Solutions
2
Reactions
100 23,174
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
It is light enough to be used on rotary aircraft while also being light enough to have multiples on jet aircraft. As the Kuzgun missile is modular, there are other versions of the missile in development also - as you know, Kuzgun has a glide version and a jet-powered version which will extend the stand-off capability - however, those versions will surely be limited to platforms capable of launching it.
Actually looking at UMTAS stations and launcher configuration, one would logically expect maximum of 60~kg for the missile. Especially for the Naval launchers such a missile shouldn't exceed twice weight of the UMTAS to remain in the capacity of the launcher and other factors (connection hinge for being exposed,not in a canister)
 

Combat-Master

Baklava Consumer
Moderator
Messages
3,667
Reactions
15 25,473
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Turkey
This is an insanely fail concept. We shouldn't get any armored vehicles like this NEVER! And I have never heard and I don't think TAF has any requirement for a monstrosity like this.

It's not a failed concept, Armoured Missile Carrier vehicles have been in existence since the development of Anti-Tank Missiles,

Since you're so familiar with SPIKE NLOS, you should then be aware of Israel's Pereh
kbwim0mi6mz21.jpg


Or China's ZBD-4A, which is another perfect example of a missile carrier
norinco-zbd04at-anti-tank-guided-missile-carrier-vehicle-china.jpg
 

TheInsider

Experienced member
Professional
Messages
3,826
Solutions
1
Reactions
27 13,738
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
They are the concept of an older doctrine. Israel fielded those in the 80s. When a 100kg Iranian makeshift kamikaze UAV that costs 10k destroys that people will realize how useless it is. You shouldn't concentrate your firepower on a single expensive IFV(costs over 8 million $) by putting 8x/16x very expensive missiles on it. You should distribute firepower with cost-effective carrier vehicles. 8x Brimstone missile costs as much as a TB2 that is wrong on many fronts.




When I see 16x Brimstone carriers I remembered this.
Jobaria_Defense_Systems_Multiple_Cradle_Launcher.jpg

mbda-s-boxer-brimstone-mounted-close-combat-overwatch-mcco-concept.jpg
 
Last edited:

Combat-Master

Baklava Consumer
Moderator
Messages
3,667
Reactions
15 25,473
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Turkey
They are the concept of an older doctrine. Israel fielded those in the 80s. When a 100kg Iranian makeshift kamikaze UAV that costs 10k destroys that people will realize how useless it is. You shouldn't concentrate your firepower on a single expensive IFV(costs over 8 million $) by putting 8x/16x very expensive missiles on it. You should distribute firepower with cost-effective carrier vehicles. 8x Brimstone missile costs as much as a TB2 that is wrong on many fronts.




The idea would be to supplement Firtina howitzers with missile's pinpoint accuracy and the simultaneous attack.

A concept that could be useful would be Firtina with its 155mm cannon creating area denial. While a Missile Carrier Firtina could strike with pinpoint accuracy in pockets where the targets are herded into. This could be out to stand-off ranges of 30-40km, depending on the specs of Kuzgun-KY.

Aerial threats are something that would have to be defended against no matter what platform is in use on the ground. Also, I'm not against distributing fewer quantities of missiles on smaller vehicles. F
 
Top Bottom