TR Missile & Smart Munition Programs

[Oublious]

One of the main advantages of domestically developed weapons is obviously that your foes have no way of knowing the exact capabilities of your weapons. Could be 70km, 120km or even more.

Not only that we can by as much we can...

 

[Siper>MMU]

Also the HvKK requirement for missiles was 70km range. They are intended to replace AIM120B's

 

[Nilgiri]

PRC has a testing facility in Taklamakan Dessert where they have been testing DF21D’s accuracy. They claim to have achieved a CEP value of under 20m.

China’s Giant Moving Warship Target In The Desert Shows How Seriously It’s Taking The Naval Arms Race

China is expending considerable effort and resources to drastically increase the fidelity of its desert-based anti-ship weapons targets.

www.thedrive.com

US takes these claims seriously. And sees DF21D as a real threat.
Yes. PRC yet to test at sea a DF21D hitting a moving sea vessel to prove their claims. But they have invested heavily in to the “Carrier Killer” concept both with that testing facility and the missiles themselves.
India’s Brahmos2 project is also quite interesting. Where does this project stand today? Is it similar to the Russian concept Zircon? They claim to have achieved success with Zircon.
Personally I see more depth and possibilities with the scramjet route to hit and disable Carriers with.

I'm bit short on time right now....I'll explain a larger phenomenon I perceive (that adds to my skepticism/caution on these kind of projects) a bit later.

The projects themselves of course represent a significant potential that must be addressed by opponents. But their final relevance/validity is at largely nebulous stage and can be staged/gamed to some degree (and it benefits other democratic side to treat as credible + worst case scenario anyway to gain more funding and preparation).

Alphamike post is very good to read for time being on the system issues/challenges in this specific long range objective.

 

[TheInsider]

Airforce requirement for Gökdoğan BVRAAM 65km
Range of the Gökdoğan Block-I BVRAAM 70+km
Estimated range of the Gökdoğan Block-II BVRAAM 100+km

Airforce requirement for Bozdoğan WVRAAM 20km
Range of the Bozdoğan Block-I WVRAAM 25+km
Estimated range of the Bozdoğan Block-II WVRAAM ~35km

 

[Rodeo]

Airforce requirement for Gökdoğan BVRAAM 65km
Range of the Gökdoğan Block-I BVRAAM 70+km
Estimated range of the Gökdoğan Block-II BVRAAM 100+km

Airforce requirement for Bozdoğan WVRAAM 20km
Range of the Bozdoğan Block-I WVRAAM 25+km
Estimated range of the Bozdoğan Block-II WVRAAM ~35km

Is there an Airforce requirement for GÖKHAN missile's range?

 

[Bogeyman]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1546235346672914436

Gürcan Okumuş
"We are beyond range targets in BOZDOĞAN and GÖKDOĞAN. They have outstanding abilities compared to their counterparts. In a test, the first supersonic air-to-air missile was fired as part of this project."
- March 2022 / SavunmaSanayiST

 

[Yasar_TR]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1546235346672914436

Gürcan Okumuş
"We are beyond range targets in BOZDOĞAN and GÖKDOĞAN. They have outstanding abilities compared to their counterparts. In a test, the first supersonic air-to-air missile was fired as part of this project."
- March 2022 / SavunmaSanayiST

What do you make of that last sentence? It doesn‘t make sense.
If this were the first supersonic firing, what speed previous tests were made at? This missile IS supersonic. In fact it should have speed of around 4mach.
My only explanation is that the wording has been wrong. (By replacing the comma in a different place it may mean quite different) What he probably meant: for the first time in this project the missile was fired at a target that had supersonic speed.
That means they used a supersonic test plane.
Any comments?

By the way he actually says ;
We have surpassed the expected range requirements for both Gokdogan and Bozdogan. Also they have capabilities ahead of their foreign equivalents. (This is in line with @TheInsider ’s earlier post.)

 

[Merzifonlu]

What do you make of that last sentence?

As far as I understand, the missile was fired while F-16 was flying at supersonic speed. In previous firings, that plane was flying at subsonic speed.

 

[Zafer]

Bir testte, ilk kez ses üstü hızda hava hava füzesi atışı bu proje kapsamında yapıldı.

First time ever air to air rocket firing at supersonic speeds was realized in one of the test of this project.

 

[TheInsider]

He said that to remind it as a milestone. Göktuğ project is the first national missile project in which a missile is fired when the carrying platform is above the speed of sound. Several supersonic launch tests are done with both missiles.

 

[TheInsider]

Is there an Airforce requirement for GÖKHAN missile's range?

There is but I haven't heard anything about it yet. The project is keeping its secrecy.

 

[Oublious]

The test is in a scenario fired wher the F16 fly high for a max kill, when you shoot a air to air missile for max range the only way to achieve this is flying hihg altitude so the missile have less air drag because less denser air. The target is a small drone so the seeker is good, i am waiting for longer range missile.

 

[Bogeyman]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1546429447506743297

With this successful shot, both the domestic design and production data link and the RF seeker head have proven themselves.

 

[Yasar_TR]

As far as I understand, the missile was fired while F-16 was flying at supersonic speed. In previous firings, that plane was flying at subsonic speed.

YES! That makes more sense. I always thought they were capable of doing that anyway. But apparently they weren’t to start with. But now they are.
That is a very important capability. Thanks for clarifying that for me.

 

[Anmdt]

Their guidance, correction and target acquisition processes still have not been proven (openly enough like other systems have) at these kind of ranges. ...especially given say arleigh burke counter radar capability kicking in at some point for measures to be taken by say the CBG.

We are led to believe everything just goes tic tac toe (for things distant, dispersed and constantly moving as well).....when every proving process (on all these matters and in far more favourable scope) has been quite extensive for other missiles.

I find their use speculative at best especially given PRC openly is going for more ships, including aircraft carriers. They dont seem to believe CBGs are so easily deterred and countered.

Wonder what @Anmdt and @AlphaMike think.

Apart from everything related to missile itself, the CBG is something that is able to maneuver, if US Intelligence sources is not able to detect the launch site and possible landing site, thus the targeted CBG then they better not get into a war with China in backyard of them. We all know US would be able to pick up those TBM launch sites and notify the CBG and they would have started pulling hard maneuvers to minimize the risk.

Also to keep in mind the CBG holds ABM capable warships that can track those missiles at long distances and engage them at apogee points. So after all China should fire at least a half thousand missiles (roughly) to ensure a critical hit in one of those ships with the current capability. Does it worth? I doubt, even if they yield a critical damage the remaining CBG would have known they are safe for the second round. If this is happening, it means we are talking about a full-scale war.

This has been explained by another member long time ago, to hit a carrier by measures of observational error some might guess that you'll need high accuracy/high precision (HA/HP),

, but that would be a mistake since high velocity descending munitions will find it hard to achieve HA/HP, ships are MOBILE rather than FIXED target. To ensure a missile hits, against this moving target, you will still employ HA/HP but you would launch your missiles in a successive manner. If the first missile is successful, then the other missiles will be wasted but it would be written off as a necessary cost of the mission. The other weapons system that employs HA/HP is a sniper, but unlike a sniper a descending hypersonic/ballistic missile don't have the luxury of TIME, the faster the projectile dive, the lesser the time it need to do re-calculations of the target, and the faster the projectile goes (as in case in hypersonics and ballistic missile ) the more stress are applied to the body even when it tries to do a basic movement using the surface control of the body.

Hence you'll likely end with high accuracy low precision (HA/LP), means multiple warheads will have to descend at one particular are (sq meters) at the same time. The question is, how much warheads would you throw at ~100-1000 sqm of area to ensure a hit on a single ship ? We're talking a lot.

Then there's the issue of shipboard countermeasures, both kinetic and non kinetic means. A hypersonic vehicle (both glide and ballistic) have one PHYSICAL characteristic, they're design to ensure the lowest drag possible against the air. Which means that most doesn't have the real estate to accommodate extensive on board sensors to ensure a kill during the descend phase to target. And if it employs radar guidance, you'll have less real estate inside to accomodate powerful ones, as the antenna size of the radar plate could be detrimental to the range it can achieve (power-aperture product). and oh one more thing the surface clutter will work to the advantage of the defender.

Does that mean that it can't be done ? off course not, it CAN be done, but its not as easy as some people might think.

The closest nation to be able to achieve this is the Chinese, and yet we don't know if they're successful at it yet, only time will tell. If you look at the Chinese test arena you'll see a relatively simple track for those carriers.

modern aircraft carriers are more nimble that those tracked carriers you see in the Xinjiang desert.

Also add factor of maneuvering, despite of being bulky and large US still prioritizes certain maneuverability on AC and Destroyers for evasion. The area to be engaged to ensure a critical hit with %99 above chances would require high number of missiles.

And let's say the missile can actually track the target via an active seeker by means of imaging or radar, what is the highest sensitivity of control surfaces (in terms of angle, lift) achieved so far with hypersonic missiles that it would allow pin-pointing the target even if it is detected. The best shot they have; monitor the target, estimate heading + speed, fire missile at estimated coincident point like old times torpedoes, update the missile at the apogee with the current status, ie. new updated meeting location after running a smart algorithm to include maneuvering characteristics and heading changes of the platform. This requires a proper C4I structure both ground and satellite based with a real-time prediction of the target's motion. Can it be done? Surely, but not within this decade.

 

[Osman]

Turkey to add indigenous anti-radiation missile to inventory

Turkish defense company Roketsan is currently designing a domestic anti-radiation missile that would be named Akbaba (Vulture).

www.turkishdefencenews.com

According to this news Akbaba anti radiation missile was going to be tested
As you know this was a ramjet propelled Roketsan missile development.
Does anyone know if this took place? (Subject to not breaking state secrets)
But I have a feeling there won’t be much news about this missile for a long time, until it comes out in foreign military circles.

I think there is a misunderstanding. They said the work for the missile is still undergoing.

 

[Nilgiri]

Apart from everything related to missile itself, the CBG is something that is able to maneuver, if US Intelligence sources is not able to detect the launch site and possible landing site, thus the targeted CBG then they better not get into a war with China in backyard of them. We all know US would be able to pick up those TBM launch sites and notify the CBG and they would have started pulling hard maneuvers to minimize the risk.

Also to keep in mind the CBG holds ABM capable warships that can track those missiles at long distances and engage them at apogee points. So after all China should fire at least a half thousand missiles (roughly) to ensure a critical hit in one of those ships with the current capability. Does it worth? I doubt, even if they yield a critical damage the remaining CBG would have known they are safe for the second round. If this is happening, it means we are talking about a full-scale war.


Also add factor of maneuvering, despite of being bulky and large US still prioritizes certain maneuverability on AC and Destroyers for evasion. The area to be engaged to ensure a critical hit with %99 above chances would require high number of missiles.

And let's say the missile can actually track the target via an active seeker by means of imaging or radar, what is the highest sensitivity of control surfaces (in terms of angle, lift) achieved so far with hypersonic missiles that it would allow pin-pointing the target even if it is detected. The best shot they have; monitor the target, estimate heading + speed, fire missile at estimated coincident point like old times torpedoes, update the missile at the apogee with the current status, ie. new updated meeting location after running a smart algorithm to include maneuvering characteristics and heading changes of the platform. This requires a proper C4I structure both ground and satellite based with a real-time prediction of the target's motion. Can it be done? Surely, but not within this decade.

Thanks this covers some very useful points to add to alphamike.

There is a larger phenomenon at play (non equivalent setups and how threat analysis bubble and percolate in them)

The systems (discussion strategy) are simply built differently in a more open versus closed system.

The US took "Apex tech" soviet threats very seriously (as percolated to the media to pressure DC politicians+bankers for financial assurance in the coming years and next decade especially) and are quick to broadcast and give major credence if the threat has significant potential for disruption of status quo....

...whereas (by design) little of this happening from the other side in any commensurate broadcast way (the politicians/finance simply are the same military complex since there is no democratic web).

So taking seriously (in media articles, think tank output et al) serves a distinct purpose in the US/Western system compared to number of other (non-democratic) peer-adversary's systems in the world.

We tend to get one kind of broadcast aligned and even re-inforced from both sides (that emphasize the threat potential)....for different reasons for both (it often serves the "closed" side to seem stronger than they are and also the "open" side to seem weaker than they are)

Just one example was soviet computing given in the early cold war, the soviets had some of the best computer scientists in the world at the time.

They could also demonstrate (somewhat staged) competence in various ways.
This was treated seriously by the west....it served (driving) western signalling and response to it well using the democratic + free market setup it had developed.

But in the end the realised results (mid and late cold war computing) were extremely lacking in the soviet side. The threats did not materialise at the scale needed over the time allowed to play out (commensurate to the fearful projections).

This is the larger issue (and time needed) of realised applicability and final relevance (given the scale and bulk of military efforts and the network of very crucial moving parts between them).

Whats on paper in schrodinger cat way.... versus what materialises in the actual results/shooting war....like we are seeing for Russia in Ukraine.

At least to me, what I know of aviation systems in general (given the trade-off process, payloads, costs, integration at apex tech especially)
....that by occams razor, there is plenty of scope for the Chinese to stage results a bit or a lot, who knows for sure.

It is not like one side tested it on another opponent with the (latter's) full agency at play like there would be in wartime....and we have the transparent breakdown to use from both sides.

So that is why I generally approach superweapons somewhat conservatively in general....I consider them somewhat relevant for sure, but I keep them overall in the speculation (till more decisively proven) realm.

Or at least till we see the commensurate ramped up budgeting, infra + osint for them etc....relative to the more legacy systems.

Something of a catch 22 (you dont know till its war, but such war is rare in nuclear age now) that has always existed in modern warfare era.

The big problem I see for PRC (and Russia) is it doesnt have the repertoire of close yet capable allies to test emerging technologies on, free agency and all.

Consider even outside of NATO, how US tested Swedish submarine tech actively against their CBG etc and took lessons on board (That they otherwise could not have if merely restricted to only internal wargaming).

Competent, skilled free agency counts for a lot in the end is what I have found....having as much competence actively against you to literally squeeze the best and most relevant results (for both).

 

[Anmdt]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1546451616122929158

From this tweet, we may say they will call the latter block of Gökdoğan with -ER, or simply all Gökdoğan will hold the ER capability as @Cabatli_53 has pointed.

Possibly in near future Gökdoğan will hold NEW capability with the Kement data link, thus the carrier platform and engagement platform will not necessarily be common or not even an aerial platform, a missile fired from an aerial patroller could be guided by a land or sea based platform, or vice-versa. A Hisar-RF or Siper fired from a land-sea target may be guided by an aerial UAV or fighter jet equipped with those brand new GaN AESA based Radars.

 

[Yasar_TR]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1546673996665655296

Subject to this news being correct, it seems that the Gokce MK83 based guided penetration bombs with new structural upgrades gaining autopilot and moving target capability will be going in to serial production this year.

 

[Bogeyman]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1546454475321344000

At least two different missiles with RamJet propulsion system are currently being developed in Turkey.

- The first of these is the AKBABA Anti-Radiation Missile developed by Roketsan. The other is the GÖKHAN Air Air Missile developed by TÜBİTAK-SAGE.