TR Missile & Smart Munition Programs

[dustdevil]

Hisar RF has lower diameter than O+, also with smaller wings. Naval version of it probably can be quadpacked. Dualpacking a missile don't worth the effort.
View attachment 21505
View attachment 21506

Are you sure about the dimensions?

It looks like they use the full diameter of the missile for the radar seeker and warhead part. Because of that, the rest looks more slender IMHO.

 

[dustdevil]

Just noticed how it seems Turkish missiles are a lot heavier and thiccer than missiles with similar ranges, why is that?

I’d say because of no direct competition between manufacturers.

Of course the maturation of technology, missile generations, manufacturing experience and optimization plays a part... in time better generation of missiles will come but I feel some stagnation on Roketsan’s part.

 

[Hexciter]

I’d say because of no direct competition between manufacturers.

Of course the maturation of technology, missile generations, manufacturing experience and optimization plays a part... in time better generation of missiles will come but I feel some stagnation on Roketsan’s part.

All of Roketsan’s in-house products are stagnated in design at least.

 

[dustdevil]

All of Roketsan’s in-house products are stagated in design.

Yes, I try not to say bad things about it.

Look at Cirit, UMTAS, OMTAS, all innovation was adding a laser seeker to UMTAS. No weight or range improvements. MAM-T looks functional but crude. MLRS range stagnated too, the functional upgrades are good (laser seeker) but we need more drive for innovation.

 

[Hexciter]

Yes, I try not to say bad things about it.

Look at Cirit, UMTAS, OMTAS, all innovation was adding a laser seeker to UMTAS. No weight or range improvements. MAM-T looks functional but crude. MLRS range stagnated too, the functional upgrades are good (laser seeker) but we need more drive for innovation.

Look to the aerodynamic design of Bora missile. That’s enough. At least for me.

 

[Anmdt]

Look at Cirit, UMTAS, OMTAS

They have improved OMTAS and Karaok (as per request), as far as i know UMTAS had gone through some improvisation during integration on Naval platforms.
They simply don't improve something unless it is requested and paid for.
While we are lucky to have Tubitak in Hisar project they are doing some of the R&D job and they have refined the missiles so far. We can expect more for the future. They are also rapidly purposing the know-how for future missiles, it is time to put them in a DARPA-like structure to create concepts and be the source of future studies.

then it will fit in to a dual pack.

Dual pack really has no use for such point defense missiles it doesn't worth the effort, it could only make sense for Hisar-U and Siper if the platforms can not be further designed with more VLS, which in this case adding more VLS could be more feasible.

It should fit into quadpack for simplicity, if Roketsan can not do that SAGE G40 along with quadpacked Gökdoğan and Bozdoğan should be adopted.
Mr Okumuş has also told G40 with soft launch and divert attitude systems has ~1 second reaction time improvement (for the time leaving VLS cell + engagement) also consider with a hot launch the missile goes up first and then re-courses into low altitude for sea-skimming missiles. Soft launch will have much less reaction time in total and longer range (or more kinetic abilities in the longer ranges) which matters most in point-self defense.

Soft launch is future proof and will allow more missiles to be easily integrated in future.

 

[Zafer]

The weapons development requirements are in a constant change in Turkey's current state of the military machine. There are a multitude of developments and which one of those developments matter more has changed over time. Things need more time to ripen and our industry have a lot on their hands to do. Spending too much time over a given project is waste while there are other varieties to work on. The requirements picture is not fully painted and urgent requirements are not yet met. Therefore further iterations and refinements of projects need to be made when they get another time slot for improvements. Further versions of weapons will be better optimized for sure. They just need more time to revisit the completed projects and reshape them. It is more important to expand the envelope and gain the capabilities that don't exist yet rather than optimize what is already available. Crude or not some of our weapons are doing a good job.

 

[Huelague]

They have improved OMTAS and Karaok (as per request), as far as i know UMTAS had gone through some improvisation during integration on Naval platforms.
They simply don't improve something unless it is requested and paid for.
While we are lucky to have Tubitak in Hisar project they are doing some of the R&D job and they have refined the missiles so far. We can expect more for the future. They are also rapidly purposing the know-how for future missiles, it is time to put them in a DARPA-like structure to create concepts and be the source of future studies.

Dual pack really has no use for such point defense missiles it doesn't worth the effort, it could only make sense for Hisar-U and Siper if the platforms can not be further designed with more VLS, which in this case adding more VLS could be more feasible.

It should fit into quadpack for simplicity, if Roketsan can not do that SAGE G40 along with quadpacked Gökdoğan and Bozdoğan should be adopted.
Mr Okumuş has also told G40 with soft launch and divert attitude systems has ~1 second reaction time improvement (for the time leaving VLS cell + engagement) also consider with a hot launch the missile goes up first and then re-courses into low altitude for sea-skimming missiles. Soft launch will have much less reaction time in total and longer range (or more kinetic abilities in the longer ranges) which matters most in point-self defense.

Soft launch is future proof and will allow more missiles to be easily integrated in future.

I thought we have DARPA-like institution.

 

[Saithan]

I was imagining that the establishing of more production capabiliies e.g. In konya would help free some time for further R&D to the big names in the industry. I think improving the missiles and keeping older models available for export would be wise. We keep latest tech for ourselves and closest allies. And exporr 1.generation.

 

[kimov]

Look at Cirit, UMTAS, OMTAS, all innovation was adding a laser seeker to UMTAS. No weight or range improvements. MAM-T looks functional but crude. MLRS range stagnated too, the functional upgrades are good (laser seeker) but we need more drive for innovation.

Just curious, why do you need longer range than 8km for an ATGM? You cant see any further anyway as an infantry soldier or ground based platform. The syrain war showed that most ATGM engagements were within 2-5km so 8km is fine.

If you are thinking about Spike-NLOS with 30km range then you need to keep in mind that it needs a secondary platform to designate the target. The question then becomes, why not put the ATGM on that secondary platform like we are doing with drones and MAM-L with extended 15km range (as of a few weeks ago)? If you want further, just put the original UMTAS (MAM-L + engine) on the drone an you will have >30km ATGM. If you want even further, you can add range by putting on some wings to get Kuzgun (>250km).

Also, MLRS with longer range than 70km simply becomes our ballistic missiles of various ranges. These are expensive so you would probably not launch them in large salvos.

So in my view, diversifying the platforms like Turkey is doing is better spent money instead of optimizing good-enough platforms with 10% lower weight or minor improvements.

Our biggest problems are sensors + electronics + high energy chemicals, not range or size.

 

[dustdevil]

Just curious, why do you need longer range than 8km for an ATGM? You cant see any further anyway as an infantry soldier or ground based platform. The syrain war showed that most ATGM engagements were within 2-5km so 8km is fine.

If you are thinking about Spike-NLOS with 30km range then you need to keep in mind that it needs a secondary platform to designate the target. The question then becomes, why not put the ATGM on that secondary platform like we are doing with drones and MAM-L with extended 15km range (as of a few weeks ago)? If you want further, just put the original UMTAS (MAM-L + engine) on the drone an you will have >30km ATGM. If you want even further, you can add range by putting on some wings to get Kuzgun (>250km).

Also, MLRS with longer range than 70km simply becomes our ballistic missiles of various ranges. These are expensive so you would probably not launch them in large salvos.

So in my view, diversifying the platforms like Turkey is doing is better spent money instead of optimizing good-enough platforms with 10% lower weight or minor improvements.

Our biggest problems are sensors + electronics + high energy chemicals, not range or size.

OMTAS is 4km
UMTAS is 8km

Infantry does not use UMTAS, even STA uses OMTAS. OMTAS range is close to main gun and other ATGM range which can be found even in Syria.

8 km is not much, I can see far beyond it with my own eyes, with a datalink (RF or fiber optic link) one can survey well beyond line of sight. Add some autonomous capability and you have a game changer.

I have been saying similar things for years in other forums. What about US military saying it now:

The Army wants an anti-tank missile that shoots twice as far as its current weapon

The Army wants an anti-tank missile to replace the TOW, which was fielded in 1970.

www.armytimes.com

Why put everything in one basket, like a successful UAV hoping to perform the same trick in every possible war? Why not give infantry more reach?

Why stop the innovations and say everything is fine?

Don’t misunderstand me, good enough weapons are ok, but lack of innovation is the killer and I want advantage over technologically advanced adversaries, not just parity.

 

[Yasar_TR]

OMTAS is 4km
UMTAS is 8km

Infantry does not use UMTAS, even STA uses OMTAS. OMTAS range is close to main gun and other ATGM range which can be found even in Syria.

8 km is not much, I can see far beyond it with my own eyes, with a datalink (RF or fiber optic link) one can survey well beyond line of sight. Add some autonomous capability and you have a game changer.

I have been saying this for years. What about US military saying it now:

The Army wants an anti-tank missile that shoots twice as far as its current weapon

The Army wants an anti-tank missile to replace the TOW, which was fielded in 1970.

www.armytimes.com

Why put everything in one basket, like a successful UAV hoping to perform the same trick in every possible war? Why not give infantry more reach?

Why stop the innovations and say everything is fine?

Don’t misunderstand me, good enough weapons are ok, but lack of innovation is the killer and I want advantage over technologically advanced adversaries, not just parity.

Battlefield Zeppelin Style balloons like the Aselsan’s “KARAGÖZ“ will be ideal to view beyond line of sight distances. At 500m height a balloon like Karagöz will give an effective radar range of 80+km. these balloons can carry equipment like CATS and ATMACA to see and target multiple distances of an Umtas can go. So we have the means to use longer range anti tank missiles than Umtas if needed.

https://www.aselsan.com.tr/KARAGOZ_Balonlu_Gozetleme_Sistemi_Urun_Ailesi_2661.pdf

 

[Kartal1]

NLOS ATGM for sure will be appreciated capability. We saw what Israel and Azerbaijan are doing with these. In combination with low profile one man operable tactical UAV for reconnaissance and target designation it can be a real game changer. It can take out accurately tank formations, enemy fortifications and when the enemy realizes what is happening it will be to late.

There are many ways to neutralize armor formations and fortifications but the capability of highly mobile NLOS ATGM teams will bring us one more important capability that can be used on the right place and time and we should introduce our Land Forces to that high tech capability and start adapting the tactics and equipment of our Land Forces for the demands of the future warfare. In the war in Karabakh how many Spike Sand Cat carriers the Armenians managed to neutralize? As far as I know 0 while Azerbaijani crews managed to take out tens of targets including enemy armor, logistic vehicles and fortified positions. Only that fact should make a man think about it.

Our Land Forces are doing pretty well in COIN operations but I believe that we are still struggling to introduce the new way of fighting when we compare them with the way the Navy and the Air Forces leaped forward. We successfully managed to introduce guided rocket artillery and automation systems. Also we managed to update our professional unit's equipment and develop advanced reconnaissance systems but taking in account the capabilities of the defence industry we should do more to introduce better and modern systems in the Land Forces. We should utilize unmanned systems better and bring the NLOS ATGM system to the Force. The damage it can deliver to the enemy forces when compared to its price is just incredible.

There could be times that we don't have the air superiority and that don't mean we stop fighting. Maybe our drone and fighter jet fleet is temporarily unavailable and those are real problems that we should think of. For the Land Forces NLOS ATGMs, loitering munitions and tactical mini-UAVs that can provide reconnaissance will be a game changer and any enemy that is blessed with high numbers of armor will think twice before amassing it for both defensive and offensive means.

As @dustdevil said we should not put everything in one basket and we should improve our force's damage potential in Land, Air and Sea.

 

[kimov]

OMTAS is 4km
UMTAS is 8km

Infantry does not use UMTAS, even STA uses OMTAS. OMTAS range is close to main gun and other ATGM range which can be found even in Syria.

8 km is not much, I can see far beyond it with my own eyes, with a datalink (RF or fiber optic link) one can survey well beyond line of sight. Add some autonomous capability and you have a game changer.

I have been saying similar things for years in other forums. What about US military saying it now:

The Army wants an anti-tank missile that shoots twice as far as its current weapon

The Army wants an anti-tank missile to replace the TOW, which was fielded in 1970.

www.armytimes.com

Why put everything in one basket, like a successful UAV hoping to perform the same trick in every possible war? Why not give infantry more reach?

Why stop the innovations and say everything is fine?

Don’t misunderstand me, good enough weapons are ok, but lack of innovation is the killer and I want advantage over technologically advanced adversaries, not just parity.

Honestly I still don't get it when you say that we lack innovation or have stopped developing.

Innovation is exactly what we do when we work on new platforms instead of trying to improve good enough platforms like OMTAS/UMTAS or even TB2. We are simply growing our platform envelope in new directions instead concentrating on the same platform which we already have (this would actually be stagnation). That is, Akinci is not an improved TB2 with slightly higher payload and the next jet powered drone will not be an improved Akinci. We will still use TB2+MAM-L even when we have jet powered super sonic HALE drones with internal BVRAAM Gökdoğan for A2AD missions since that is a different task.

The horizon is about 10-20km on a clear day so that is your limit for ground-to-ground munitions unless you are located at high altitudes (hill/mountain/drones/choppers) or use a secondary platform to guide the munition. However, 99% of the time the visual range is more like 0-5km due to natural obstacles (this value obviously varies with environment). But sure, both you and me would like to see some autonomous capabilities in some longer range munition. But this is exactly what we have in platforms such as Kurgu and Alpagu which I find to be a far superior platform than ATGM for long range targets since those platforms actually have capabilities to loiter, change course and have time to find a target. ATGM is simply a lousy platform for a long range autonomous platform since it is in the air for a few seconds and really lacks capabilities to change course.

Concerning TOW, it is an old system with 3-3.5km range so it obviously needs an update since it is not even up to OMTAS level, let alone UMTAS.

Finally, I actually think even current platforms such as OMTAS do get improvements when needed but we dont get to know this or even care since we get so many new platforms and developments during the last few years. For example, MAM-L range was extended to 15km and got the ability to engange sea targets while TB2 got an extended communication range to 300km (from 150km). If we talk about UMTAS/OMTAS, I would not be supprised if they also got improves performance since introduction.

 

[kimov]

NLOS ATGM for sure will be appreciated capability. We saw what Israel and Azerbaijan are doing with these.

Where did you get this from. The systems which were used in 2nd Karabag war were primarily TB2 with MAM-L (70% kills accoding to Oryx), loitering ammunition, artillery (including rocket artillery) and manned A2G bombers. Most of the remainning 30% targets were still guided by TB2 doing the ISR as evident by multiple hits by harpy and artillery monitored by TB2. I would not be supprised if not more than 90% of all recorded kills were directly or indirectly by TB2.

Btw, loitering munition = Harpy = Kurgu = Alpagu =/= NLOS ATGM

 

[dustdevil]

Honestly I still don't get it when you say that we lack innovation or have stopped developing.

Innovation is exactly what we do when we work on new platforms instead of trying to improve good enough platforms like OMTAS/UMTAS or even TB2. We are simply growing our platform envelope in new directions instead concentrating on the same platform which we already have (this would actually be stagnation). That is, Akinci is not an improved TB2 with slightly higher payload and the next jet powered drone will not be an improved Akinci. We will still use TB2+MAM-L even when we have jet powered super sonic HALE drones with internal BVRAAM Gökdoğan for A2AD missions since that is a different task.

The horizon is about 10-20km on a clear day so that is your limit for ground-to-ground munitions unless you are located at high altitudes (hill/mountain/drones/choppers) or use a secondary platform to guide the munition. However, 99% of the time the visual range is more like 0-5km due to natural obstacles (this value obviously varies with environment). But sure, both you and me would like to see some autonomous capabilities in some longer range munition. But this is exactly what we have in platforms such as Kurgu and Alpagu which I find to be a far superior platform than ATGM for long range targets since those platforms actually have capabilities to loiter, change course and have time to find a target. ATGM is simply a lousy platform for a long range autonomous platform since it is in the air for a few seconds and really lacks capabilities to change course.

Concerning TOW, it is an old system with 3-3.5km range so it obviously needs an update since it is not even up to OMTAS level, let alone UMTAS.

Finally, I actually think even current platforms such as OMTAS do get improvements when needed but we dont get to know this or even care since we get so many new platforms and developments during the last few years. For example, MAM-L range was extended to 15km and got the ability to engange sea targets while TB2 got an extended communication range to 300km (from 150km). If we talk about UMTAS/OMTAS, I would not be supprised if they also got improves performance since introduction.

Sorry for distributed nature of my response:

- Lack of innovation I talk is about is about Roketsan, not the whole industry.

- Turkey has lots of hills. One carefully hidden battery can cover easily 10km+. Many cities has hills or mountains next to them.

- Kargu and Alpagu are anti-infantry or for soft targets. Alpagu is 1.9kg, Kargu is 7kg with special shaped fragment warhead. They will not affect hard targets:

STM - ALPAGU - Fixed Wing Loitering Munition System

Click for capabilities, technical features, and all the details about ALPAGU Fixed Wing Loitering Munition System!

www.stm.com.tr

STM - KARGU - Combat Proven Rotary Wing Loitering Munition System

Click to learn more about the rotary-wing attack drone KARGU®, its capabilities, and technical features!

www.stm.com.tr

- MAM-L was already capable of 14 km with INS according to old technical data, somebody designated a target at 15 km then it become extended range in one day, nice but was there a real innovation here? It can probably reach further from a higher altitude because it glides a bit...(MAM-T is the one, crude but OK....)

They did not even change this page, it has been like this since ages:

Range

8 km (14 km with Inertial Navigation System/Global Positioning System Option)

MAM-L Smart Micro Munition – Roketsan

- So why the US does not stop at 8km for the TOW replacement?

Check out Kornet-EM's range for another example, 8 km for HEAT and 10 km for HE warhead:

Anti-tank missile system Kornet-EM | Catalog Rosoboronexport

The Kornet-EM anti-tank guided missile (ATGM) system is a day/night, precision-guided long-range missile system with a jam-resistant laser-beam riding guidance system intended to counter ground and ai...

roe.ru

Of course I don't want Roketsan to stop working on everything else and try to improve OMTAS/UMTAS etc. But I want more initiative from them like SAGE and Aselsan displays.

 

[kimov]

- Kargu and Alpagu are anti-infantry. Alpagu is 1.9kg, Kargu is 7kg with special shaped fragment warhead.

I know that these platforms are for soft targets but that was just an example showing that we have other platforms much better suited for long range targets than an ATGM could ever be due to real physical limitations. To my knowledge, either we already have or are developing long range ground launched loitering munition for hard targets as well. Just don't remember the name. For air launched versions, we have drones with MAM-L, UMTAS or even Kuzgun.

In my view, Turkey as country (not individual companies like Aselsan or even much worst BMC) is doing very well at this point by developing different platforms with good enough performance. Later stages may be used for optimizing each platform when we have more information in the use case. I think this is a common problem with a lot of engineers as they want a perfect solution before introducing them to the market instead of good-enough and let the customer test it.

 

[Anmdt]

OMTAS is 4km
UMTAS is 8km

Infantry does not use UMTAS, even STA uses OMTAS. OMTAS range is close to main gun and other ATGM range which can be found even in Syria.

8 km is not much, I can see far beyond it with my own eyes, with a datalink (RF or fiber optic link) one can survey well beyond line of sight. Add some autonomous capability and you have a game changer.

I have been saying similar things for years in other forums. What about US military saying it now:

The Army wants an anti-tank missile that shoots twice as far as its current weapon

The Army wants an anti-tank missile to replace the TOW, which was fielded in 1970.

www.armytimes.com

Why put everything in one basket, like a successful UAV hoping to perform the same trick in every possible war? Why not give infantry more reach?

Why stop the innovations and say everything is fine?

Don’t misunderstand me, good enough weapons are ok, but lack of innovation is the killer and I want advantage over technologically advanced adversaries, not just parity.

The improved variants will be avaliable soon, we have talked about range improvement for Kara-Ok earlier, and i am sure whatever they have done for the improvement will also applied for OMTAS -UMTAS.

At least i know UMTAS Naval ,despite of being launcher from ground, had a remarkably longer range from earlier UMTAS-L /IIR and it wasn't simply was achieved by reduction of warhead but overall improvement. So maybe we just need to wait a little more.

There isn't lack of innovation, but let's say the ranges were probably defined in 2005 and assumed to be sufficient, Roketsan worked on those as much as possible and presented as "here are the missiles you have required for this range,and i am delivering those as per request". Roketsan is the monopoly for these missiles and they simply can develop whatever required if the money is submitted, there is nobody challenging them for the main customer -TAF . It is all "emotional".

For Kara-Ok the range requirement has changed thus they needed to improve it.
Will happen the same for the rest.

 

[dustdevil]

Something like this would be enough for me for a while...

https://www.rafael.co.il/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/SPIKE-ER2.pdf

https://www.rafael.co.il/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/spike_er2_2018.pdf

https://www.rafael.co.il/worlds/land/spike-5th-gen-precision-guided-tactical-missiles/

- It has better sensors (multiple cameras unlike OMTAS/UMTAS)
-better range (10km ground, 16 km from helicopter launch).
- fiber optic guidance option

Sure it will be more expensive, but when the time comes our helicopters would have more stand-off capability for select missions, our tank hunters on the ground will be more protected...

Can this mission be duplicated by SİHA+MAM-L combo? Why not....

Would SİHA tactics work against advanced adversaries who saw the capabilities of our UAVs in different battles? It's a risk now....

Why would Roketsan work on this? Because it has "roket" in company's name! It's their main job.

 

[dustdevil]

There isn't lack of innovation, but let's say the ranges were probably defined in 2005 and assumed to be sufficient, Roketsan worked on those as much as possible and presented as "here are the missiles you have required for this range,and i am delivering those as per request". Roketsan is the monopoly for these missiles and they simply can develop whatever required if the money is submitted, there is nobody challenging them for the main customer -TAF . It is all "emotional".

But this is exactly the lack of innovation I suspect and think about. TAF requests something and Roketsan fulfills. If TAF does not request anything it will stay the same, until TAF founds out the requirements has changed due to changing nature of warfare in a costly battle. In the meantime Roketsan may lose potential foreign customers by losing edge against competitors.

Maybe we should open up for more international competition, forcing Roketsan and similar companies to participate in international tenders for export sales.