TR Missile & Smart Munition Programs

[Trakya_forever]

I hope we will see the Gezgin missile in Idef23.

 

[Combat-Master]

i think using todays world turbofan engine on a cruise missile will be reflected on radar easier than the turbojet engine for having less fan area to reflect radar waves, unless you develop 5th generation engine for that which nobody would as it should bea cost effective.

Gezgin is said to have features which makes it very much a stealthy missile

 

[Huelague]

Gezgin is said to have features which makes it very much a stealthy missile

Which feature we are talking about? RAM, design ...?

 

[Radonsider]

Which feature we are talking about? RAM, design ...?

I hope it is something like JASSM


Before people say we need something to carry it, we can probably strap a booster and then use the turbojet/fan

 

[Afif]

They are most useful in demolishing and erasing completely an entire carrier group with a single strike without much collateral damage as long as they are targeted away from ports.
Therefore if your adversaries know that you have them, they will think twice before coming close to the vicinity of your waters.

with all due respect, i disagree! when a CSG is moving in battle formation in open sea, it is not possible to simply take out the whole CGS with one strike. even if you can get any nuclear tipped missile or torpedo through the defense screen of CGS.

 

[Baryshx]

I hope we will see the Gezgin missile in Idef23.

It will be shown before the election, I guarantee you. Maybe 18 March

 

[Gary]

i think using todays world turbofan engine on a cruise missile will be reflected on radar easier than the turbojet engine for having less fan area to reflect radar waves, unless you develop 5th generation engine for that which nobody would as it should bea cost effective.

This could be mitigated by engineering a more stealthy inlet design, the NSM, LRASM uses those approach.

 

[AzeriTank]

This could be mitigated by engineering a more stealthy inlet design, the NSM, LRASM uses those approach.

NSM use the Turbojet engine, you can do it. but how about Turbofan engine which i mentioned?

 

[Gary]

NSM use the Turbojet engine, you can do it. but how about Turbofan engine which i mentioned?

The foremost low observable cruise missile uses Turbofan, it comes to the inlet design to minimize blade radar return.

AGM-129 ACM - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Engine	Williams International F112-WR-100 Turbofan

 

[Yasar_TR]

with all due respect, i disagree! when a CSG is moving in battle formation in open sea, it is not possible to simply take out the whole CGS with one strike. even if you can get any nuclear tipped missile or torpedo through the defense screen of CGS.

Yes, the best time is when they just leave port or on the way to battle as they are altogether within a square km.

Otherwise in battle formation they spread out, anything from 30 to 50 km apart. Some units even a 100 to 200 km away.
In that case, out of a force of 7-8000 personnel, well over 5000 are on the carrier itself with 60-70 planes. Then you take out the carrier. Cut out the head of the serpent. An accurate ICBM size missile or two, travelling at 10+ Mach at terminal stage or a hypersonic missile carrying a thermonuclear bomb is near impossible to stop.
Also there is the choice of striking the Carrier Group at port as a last resort. All of this is good enough “deterrent” in it’s own right. Because after all, the name of the game is deterrence.

 

[AWP]

another Bozdoğan test

 

[Heartbang]

another Bozdoğan test

which one is this again? is it BVR/RF of WVR/IR? i keep confusing those two.

 

[Radonsider]

which one is this again? is it BVR/RF of WVR/IR? i keep confusing those two.

WVR

 

[AzeriTank]

The foremost low observable cruise missile uses Turbofan, it comes to the inlet design to minimize blade radar return.

AGM-129 ACM - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Engine	Williams International F112-WR-100 Turbofan

US has different requirement, such as able to carry nuclear warhead, able to fly up to 2000-2500km and so on, but it doesnt mean that thats the right way to do it. as i said, US can do it, but t will cost you a lot of money that the whole reason people started to do cruise missiles instead of ballistic are the cost effectiveness. even US only purchase 460 of them, no more. but as you can see in Russia, countries need way more than that

 

[Gary]

i said, US can do it, but t will cost you a lot of money that the whole reason people started to do cruise missiles instead of ballistic are the cost effectiveness.

Cruise missile are clearly not a "cheap" delivery method, for that Western militaries used glide bombs and JDAM+Paveway. Cruise missiles like the JASSM, Taurus, SCALP are there to wipe out highly defended military installations (C2 bunkers, runways, hangars) in tandem with SEAD/DEAD operations destroying hostile air defense. Once the enemy command and control are devastated and its air defense are supressed (if not outright destroyed), they'll switch to more affordable munitions like JDAMs or Paveways.

So no cruise missile are not built as alternative to ballistic missiles. It has its own strength and weakness. An excellent military will employ them in such a manner that those weapons will be delivered on time, on target.

 

[Ammar]

MAM-T was used in the Karabağ liberation war two years ago, most likely it was used by SU-25.

The news was published in (DEFENCE TURK) but they deleted it minutes later, but I picked it up

 

[Osman]

Those who think that, after war in ukraine the first lesson to be learnt is countries should produce much more munitions (especially precision guided ones) are not completely right. First, it's not a new phenomenon, all of the war history is full of munition shortage stories. You can easily see how armies lack munition in each war since centuries. Second, wars should not be degraded just to munitions and inventories, indeed war is an economic struggle where cost effectiveness will dramatically affect the result. Third, Precision Guided Munitions have a shelf life (10-15 years) which can be extended maybe another 10- 15 years via modernisaton and maintenance. And in peace time every penny spent is considered as redundant by civilian authorities which should allocate budget for many other areas of the life of a nation. History is full of examples of countries where excessive spending on defense has driven them into bankruptcy.

Therefore AlphaMike is completely right. A strong and good army is one who employ his material resources in a rational and cost effective way. This is how wars are won. Of course, defence forums are full of people who hungrily want more and more weapons in their country's army. But war is just one small aspect of the human life and civilisation.

Add: To win a war a deep defence industry with a strong ecosystem which is ready for sustainable mass production in case of need, is much more important than an inflated inventory.

 

[Altay2071]

...war is just a small aspect of human life!?? You cant be serious. We are low in every inventory imaginable in comparison to the threats we have. If armenia attacks Azerbajcan with the help of Iran and Russia, greece attacks us in the same time with help from France Egypt and others.... Go on a war then with 50 atmacas, and 50 soms.

 

[Osman]

...war is just a small aspect of human life!?? You cant be serious. We are low in every inventory imaginable in comparison to the threats we have. If armenia attacks Azerbajcan with the help of Iran and Russia, greece attacks us in the same time with help from France Egypt and others.... Go on a war then with 50 atmacas, and 50 soms.

If everyone attack a single country simultaneously, which is not common, no inventory is sufficient to defend that country. Therefore we have diplomacy, there are alliances.

Inventory can not guarantee victory. Besides many things (industrial and financial capacity, geo strategic position, the strenght of its army, alliances, etc. ), first of all it is her people's will and determination to fight that will bring victory to a country. If you forgot our war of liberation, please look at the current war in Ukraine.

Nobody here knows exact figures about Turkey's inventory. So you can't say that we are low in every munition imaginable. Turkey is not paper tiger. Let me give you some numbers which can be found in open sources: In 2018 2 485 guidance kits (HGK, LGK and KGK) for mk series bombs were produced in Turkey. In the same year in only Olive Branch Operation Turkish Air Forces used 3 000 guided bombs. In 2011 miltary intervention in Libya where France and UK felt helpless and begged for support from US within a few weeks, NATO air forces used almost 7 000 guided bombs in 6 months. Up to date our lovely neighbour Greece received only 1 750 guidance kits (paveway and Jdam) during her whole history of arm purchase. Last year Turkey produced 1 000 hgk 82. This is just the number of HGK 82. We don't know the numbers of Hgk 83, Hgk 84, Lgk 82, Lgk 84, Teber, KGK 82, KGK 83, Minbo, Laçin etc. And during a general mobilisation you can't even imagine how many precision guidance kit (and cruise and ballistic missiles) can be produced by Turkish industry.

 

[Hexciter]

Our the lightest MRL system (107 mm) for mountain warfare.

Can be turn into a more valuable weapon with guided munitions.