TR Missile & Smart Munition Programs

[Kartal1]

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

You can see the effective use of NLOS ATGM in videos posted by the Azerbaijani MoD and personal accounts. It is undisputed fact that both Azerbaijan and Israel used the system and it proved pretty successful against the targets its made for. NLOS ATGM have its use and when air forces couldn't intervene in the desired time and on the desired level it's a perfect scenario for the system to shine. To put everything on your Air Forces is a bad strategy and when the Air Forces stop to become a factor ATGMs are some of the most effective mobile weapon systems that the Land Forces posses. Diversity is a thing and the capability of having NLOS ATGM in our Land forces is a pretty big one for our Armed Forces as a whole.

By the way I don't agree with the classification of the Harpy, Kargu, Alpagu and NLOS ATGM as the same thing. All of these unmanned systems have their mission profiles, different propulsion and cost difference. While from the first three only Harpy posses anti-armor capability all these can loiter in the air and conduct their own surveillance and in the case of Kargu it can be retrieved. Alpagu and Kargu's explosive can't do anything to armored targets other than damage optical devices. NLOS ATGM is a dedicated system for striking all kinds of armor. For example Spike NLOS range goes up to 25km and its speed between 130-180 m/s while Harop's range is 1000km and its speed 115 m/s. Spike NLOS provides low level of observability and low action time for the enemy with the needed damage on low cost. Non of the above listed loitering munitions can match these parameters and the difference of cost between the only anti-armor capable loitering munition from the ones listed above and Spike NLOS is colossal. While a unit of Spike NLOS costs around $210.000 a unit of IAI Harop costs ~$10.000.000 (Indian Air Forces purchased 10 for $100.000.000 in 2009). IAI Harop is not a system to be thrown at every armor formation that comes your way.

 

[Yasar_TR]

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.

Soft launch is;
1. Safer. (In general, unless it does not ignite after launch)
2. You can fit more missiles in to a given volume as there are no exhaust ducts.
3. Has quicker response time and imparts more energy to missile.
4. Same missile will have more range and kinetic energy left in terminal phase, extending range.
5. As launching is via pressurised gas, has limitations for weight and size of rocket it can launch for a given system.
6. At windy conditions can be difficult to manage.
7. Is more expensive to implement.

 

[kimov]

You can see the effective use of NLOS ATGM in videos posted by the Azerbaijani MoD and personal accounts.

It could be that some of the dive-to-kill videos which I interpreted as Harop/Harpy videos could be Spike NLOS as I lack the technical knowledge to distinguish them.

This interpretation is based on at least of one video showing Harpy attacking tanks from TB2 point-of-view and one video of Harpy attacking a bus from a civilian camera. So we know that Harpy were used against "low value" targets as tanks, buses and bunkers but also against high value targets as S300. Similar videos of Spike NLOS would be difficult for me to distinguish from MAM-L so I never considered Spike NLOS. The only video I know of where I think an Israeli long range missile were used was against a bridge filmed from a car.

By the way I don't agree with the classification of the Harpy, Kargu, Alpagu and NLOS ATGM as the same thing.

But I never meant them to be the same, that was why I used =/= for NLOS ATGM. (=/= or != tend to mean not equal to).
I did not even mean that Harpy is the same thing as Alpagu, just that these could be considered as winged loitering munition of different classes.

PS. The Indian 10M$ price for one Harpy is crazy.

 

[Kartal1]

It could be that some of the dive-to-kill videos which I interpreted as Harop/Harpy videos could be Spike NLOS as I lack the technical knowledge to distinguish them.

This interpretation is based on at least of one video showing Harpy attacking tanks from TB2 point-of-view and one video of Harpy attacking a bus from a civilian camera. So we know that Harpy were used against "low value" targets as tanks, buses and bunkers but also against high value targets as S300. Similar videos of Spike NLOS would be difficult for me to distinguish from MAM-L so I never considered Spike NLOS. The only video I know of where I think an Israeli long range missile were used was against a bridge filmed from a car.


But I never meant them to be the same, that was why I used =/= for NLOS ATGM. (=/= or != tend to mean not equal to).
I did not even mean that Harpy is the same thing as Alpagu, just that these could be considered as winged loitering munition of different classes.

PS. The Indian 10M$ price for one Harpy is crazy.

Azerbaijan used Harop (improved version of Harpy) in the Karabakh war. They used them both in the main role they are meant to take (Suppression of Enemy Air Defence Systems) and on occasions striking as you say "low value" targets because of necessity. The big missile that hit a bridge was an Israeli made Lora ballistic missile.

If you don't have the technical knowledge and struggle to distinguish the different strikes I can say that MAM-L strikes are filmed from the E/O gimbal of the TB-2 and usually you are looking at either Wescam or Aselsan CATS interface . The view is from high altitude and you see how the missile strikes the marked target while in the case of Harop or Spike its like your view is getting closer or closer until suddenly the image is cut. The top attack videos most of us saw were either loitering munitions or Spike NLOS. The video below will show Spike strikes and you can compare them to video of loitering munitions used and you will start to distinguish the different interface and overall difference in flight pattern, control and view.

Spike strikes (special attention at 0:20 )

Harop strikes

Bayraktar TB-2 and MAM-L/MAM-C combination

 

[kimov]

Azerbaijan used Harop (improved version of Harpy) in the Karabakh war. They used them both in the main role they are meant to take (Suppression of Enemy Air Defence Systems) and on occasions striking as you say "low value" targets because of necessity. The big missile that hit a bridge was an Israeli made Lora ballistic missile.

If you don't have the technical knowledge and struggle to distinguish the different strikes I can say that MAM-L strikes are filmed from the E/O gimbal of the TB-2 and usually you are looking at either Wescam or Aselsan CATS interface . The view is from high altitude and you see how the missile strikes the marked target while in the case of Harop or Spike its like your view is getting closer or closer until suddenly the image is cut. The top attack videos most of us saw were either loitering munitions or Spike NLOS. The video below will show Spike strikes and you can compare them to video of loitering munitions used and you will start to distinguish the different interface and overall difference in flight pattern, control and view.

Spike strikes (special attention at 0:20 )

Harop strikes

Bayraktar TB-2 and MAM-L/MAM-C combination

Kartal kardes, do you deliberately misinterpret me?

I did not say that I had difficulties distinguish between a dive-to-kill Harpy/Harop/Spike video from a TB2 video.
I said, that any video as seen from TB2 (so the interface will always be the same) where a Spike ATGM were used is difficult to distinguish from MAM-L (which could come from another TB2). In that case, you would need to investigate missile size, speed and explosion to determine if it was a MAM-L, Spike ER, Spike NLOS or other guided bombs. A lot of the time you only see the explosion since the frame-rate is low and that might not be enough to tell various bombs from each other.

Furthermore, I said that there are video evidence of Harpy/Harop being used on tanks as well as SAM sites so I assumed that Az used these for all the dive-to-kill videos assuming that these tanks and bunkers were targets of opportunity. But it seem that I'm wrong here since the interface are different between Harpy and Spike, which clearly show that Spike missiles were used.

But these videos do not tell us if Spike MR/LR/ER or Spike NLOS (30km) were used. If these are Spike ER II (10km) then these are similar to our UMTAS (8km) which I have no problem with as they fill the exact same market. If these are Spike NLOS then my question becomes how did the Spike NLOS got the the acquisition from 30km? If TB2 were used for the target acquisition then why not use TB2 with cheap MAM-L or UMTAS if you want longer range.

I'll repeat myself. Non-line of sight (NLOS) targets are better engaged with winged loitering ammunition with the correct loitering time, propulsion system and warhead you need to take out the target as it gives you time to detect a possible target. The time can be as long as several hours in case of Harpy/Harop but also short as 10minutes for the smaller systems. A NLOS ATGM has a loitering time which is counted in seconds so you need to know that there is a target in the general direction +20km away, otherwise you just wasted $200k.

 

[dustdevil]

Kartal kardes, do you deliberately misinterpret me?

I did not say that I had difficulties distinguish between a dive-to-kill Harpy/Harop/Spike video from a TB2 video.
I said, that any video as seen from TB2 (so the interface will always be the same) where a Spike ATGM were used is difficult to distinguish from MAM-L (which could come from another TB2). In that case, you would need to investigate missile size, speed and explosion to determine if it was a MAM-L, Spike ER, Spike NLOS or other guided bombs. A lot of the time you only see the explosion since the frame-rate is low and that might not be enough to tell various bombs from each other.

Furthermore, I said that there are video evidence of Harpy/Harop being used on tanks as well as SAM sites so I assumed that Az used these for all the dive-to-kill videos assuming that these tanks and bunkers were targets of opportunity. But it seem that I'm wrong here since the interface are different between Harpy and Spike, which clearly show that Spike missiles were used.

But these videos do not tell us if Spike MR/LR/ER or Spike NLOS (30km) were used. If these are Spike ER II (10km) then these are similar to our UMTAS (8km) which I have no problem with as they fill the exact same market. If these are Spike NLOS then my question becomes how did the Spike NLOS got the the acquisition from 30km? If TB2 were used for the target acquisition then why not use TB2 with cheap MAM-L or UMTAS if you want longer range.

I'll repeat myself. Non-line of sight (NLOS) targets are better engaged with winged loitering ammunition with the correct loitering time, propulsion system and warhead you need to take out the target as it gives you time to detect a possible target. The time can be as long as several hours in case of Harpy/Harop but also short as 10minutes for the smaller systems. A NLOS ATGM has a loitering time which is counted in seconds so you need to know that there is a target in the general direction +20km away, otherwise you just wasted $200k.

TB2 flies around 15.000-20000ft. What happens when there is an overcast or broken cloud at, let’s say 3000 ft? Optics and laser designation would not work. You either need radar and MMW sensors on missiles, or need weapon datalink capability to search for targets via live feed from the missile. GPS/INS is another option but not suitable for moving targets.

NLOS ATGM can be used in coordination with smaller UAVs without laser designators that can fly lower and cheaper, or another NLOS ATGM can be used to do reconnaissance.

If one puts everything to the same basket he risks losing the battle. Medium altitude EO+SAL might fail someday due to enemy action or weather. Don’t judge a war by camera footage, there is something called survivor bias. You don’t see the footage where TB2 or another platform did not detect the targets because there is nothing to show to audience. Same applies to all weapons including ATGM ER, not just TB2.

Survivorship bias - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Nilgiri]

a unit of IAI Harop costs ~$10.000.000 (Indian Air Forces purchased 10 for $100.000.000 in 2009).

PS. The Indian 10M$ price for one Harpy is crazy.

I believe this (like often case with Indian defence acquisition reporting) includes the relatively "one time" upfront CnC systems, C4I integration etc....that do not repeat in future orders. Happens a lot when we acquire from US and West in general.

India (supposedly) ordered more batches later. But no indication of price for those and the relative amortisation/inclusion etc.

India Approves Purchase Of 54 Israeli Harop Drones

The Indian defense ministry has accorded the purchase of 54 Harop attack drones from Israel. “A proposal to acquire these 54 attack drones was approved by the Defence Ministry at a high-level meeting last week,” ANI reported Wednesday quoting defense sources as saying. The Air Force already has...

www.defenseworld.net

"A proposal to acquire these 54 attack drones was approved by the Defence Ministry at a high-level meeting last week," ANI reported Wednesday quoting defense sources as saying.

The Air Force already has an inventory of around 110 of these drones which have now been renamed as P-4.


Maybe @500 has more info on harop unit cost.

 

[kimov]

NLOS ATGM can be used in coordination with smaller UAVs without laser designators that can fly lower and cheaper, or another NLOS ATGM can be used to do reconnaissance.

Bro, you are contradicting yourself.

If TB2 can not fly due to bad weather or EW interference then you want to send some other drone or even worst use a second NLOS ATGM to do spotting just to be able to use Spike NLOS ATGM. So you need at least 3 systems (LNOS ATGM+TB2+secondary drone) just to be able to take out tanks at 30km. So now your basket of 3 systems must work all the time. Dont you think this hava higher probability of failure than one single system.

Wouldn't it be more efficient and cheaper to use an semi-autonomous loitering munition with correct warhead as I described so you don't need any forward spotter or any other systems to use it? If it does not find any target then a loitering munition can even return to base to be reused, no such thing with ATGM.

Why this love with specifically Spike NLOS ATGM?
Note, I have no problem with Spike ER (=UMTAS) or other Israeli systems. It is just that I find the range of Spike NLOS ATGM to be too long as there are better solutions for NLOS targets which does not require multiple systems to be used.

 

[500]

I believe this (like often case with Indian defence acquisition reporting) includes the relatively "one time" upfront CnC systems, C4I integration etc....that do not repeat in future orders. Happens a lot when we acquire from US and West in general.

India (supposedly) ordered more batches later. But no indication of price for those and the relative amortisation/inclusion etc.

India Approves Purchase Of 54 Israeli Harop Drones

The Indian defense ministry has accorded the purchase of 54 Harop attack drones from Israel. “A proposal to acquire these 54 attack drones was approved by the Defence Ministry at a high-level meeting last week,” ANI reported Wednesday quoting defense sources as saying. The Air Force already has...

www.defenseworld.net

"A proposal to acquire these 54 attack drones was approved by the Defence Ministry at a high-level meeting last week," ANI reported Wednesday quoting defense sources as saying.

The Air Force already has an inventory of around 110 of these drones which have now been renamed as P-4.


Maybe @500 has more info on harop unit cost.

Obviously 10 mln per Harpy is nonsense. It's cost should not be very different from Spike NLOS (200 K $). Basically Harpy is Spike NLOS with small Wankel engine instead of solid rocket.

 

[500]

But these videos do not tell us if Spike MR/LR/ER or Spike NLOS (30km) were used. If these are Spike ER II (10km) then these are similar to our UMTAS (8km) which I have no problem with as they fill the exact same market. If these are Spike NLOS then my question becomes how did the Spike NLOS got the the acquisition from 30km? If TB2 were used for the target acquisition then why not use TB2 with cheap MAM-L or UMTAS if you want longer range.

I'll repeat myself. Non-line of sight (NLOS) targets are better engaged with winged loitering ammunition with the correct loitering time, propulsion system and warhead you need to take out the target as it gives you time to detect a possible target. The time can be as long as several hours in case of Harpy/Harop but also short as 10minutes for the smaller systems. A NLOS ATGM has a loitering time which is counted in seconds so you need to know that there is a target in the general direction +20km away, otherwise you just wasted $200k.

Ground based Spike NLOS operate together with 155-mm artillery. They have similar range (up to 30 km). So depending on needs u use either simple shells or precision munition (NLOS). Designation in both cases done by simple small drones.

Helicopter based Spike NLOS can attack systems like Pantsir without risking themselves.

 

[dustdevil]

Bro, you are contradicting yourself.

If TB2 can not fly due to bad weather or EW interference then you want to send some other drone or even worst use a second NLOS ATGM to do spotting just to be able to use Spike NLOS ATGM. So you need at least 3 systems (LNOS ATGM+TB2+secondary drone) just to be able to take out tanks at 30km. So now your basket of 3 systems must work all the time. Dont you think this hava higher probability of failure than one single system.

Wouldn't it be more efficient and cheaper to use an semi-autonomous loitering munition with correct warhead as I described so you don't need any forward spotter or any other systems to use it? If it does not find any target then a loitering munition can even return to base to be reused, no such thing with ATGM.

Why this love with specifically Spike NLOS ATGM?
Note, I have no problem with Spike ER (=UMTAS) or other Israeli systems. It is just that I find the range of Spike NLOS ATGM to be too long as there are better solutions for NLOS targets which does not require multiple systems to be used.

I think you misunderstood me, I was describing methods to find targets if a certain type of method fails. If weather is bad we can use low flying missiles or spotter drones for target detection. TB2 type UAV, by altitude and SAL method is more vulnerable to weather. And weather is important.

No special love to Spike NLOS either, but I’m interested in fiber optically guided long range or short range missiles. I think they are suited to our needs but for some reason we do not work on them and ignore the technique. Why let Israel dominate this field?

 

[Philip the Arab]

I think you misunderstood me, I was describing methods to find targets if a certain type of method fails. If weather is bad we can use low flying missiles or spotter drones for target detection. TB2 type UAV, by altitude and SAL method is more vulnerable to weather. And weather is important.

No special love to Spike NLOS either, but I’m interested in fiber optically guided long range or short range missiles. I think they are suited to our needs but for some reason we do not work on them and ignore the technique. Why let Israel dominate this field?

I like TV guidance, but you will need a big datalink pod probably.

 

[dustdevil]

I like TV guidance, but you will need a big datalink pod probably.

With fiberoptic cable it should be easy.
If you have time, see this: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a356540.pdf

@kimov also I recommend for you, if interested. The missile they tried/planned to use had turbojet propulsion and a fiber optic link for long range recon+targeting. Some of the missions today can be done by UAVs of course but this type of weapon is a different and serious problem for adversaries, especially to technologically advanced ones. Because it’s hard to beat expert man in the loop capability with a high fidelity realtime video feed on an expendable platform using virtually unjammable and undetectable datalink.

 

[Yasar_TR]

TB2 flies around 15.000-20000ft. What happens when there is an overcast or broken cloud at, let’s say 3000 ft? Optics and laser designation would not work. You either need radar and MMW sensors on missiles, or need weapon datalink capability to search for targets via live feed from the missile. GPS/INS is another option but not suitable for moving targets.

NLOS ATGM can be used in coordination with smaller UAVs without laser designators that can fly lower and cheaper, or another NLOS ATGM can be used to do reconnaissance.

If one puts everything to the same basket he risks losing the battle. Medium altitude EO+SAL might fail someday due to enemy action or weather. Don’t judge a war by camera footage, there is something called survivor bias. You don’t see the footage where TB2 or another platform did not detect the targets because there is nothing to show to audience. Same applies to all weapons including ATGM ER, not just TB2.

Survivorship bias - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

If cloud cover is blocking your TB2’s view, why not target with a SAR-GMTI-RADAR like MILSAR asper the one below, of Meteksan.

MILSAR UAV SAR/GMTI Radar | Meteksan Defence | Meteksan

MILSAR UAV SAR/GMTI Radar could be operated on unmanned air vehicles (UAVs), helicopters and fixed wing aircraft along with its easy installation feature to detect and track potential targets either low speed small size or fast moving objects even in adve

www.meteksan.com

Meteksan Defence MILSAR SAR/GMTI Radar Provides Outstanding Capabilities to Tactical UAVs

MILSAR generate radar images up to 30cm resolution from 27km.

www.defenceturkey.com

 

[TheInsider]

I believe this (like often case with Indian defence acquisition reporting) includes the relatively "one time" upfront CnC systems, C4I integration etc....that do not repeat in future orders. Happens a lot when we acquire from US and West in general.

India (supposedly) ordered more batches later. But no indication of price for those and the relative amortisation/inclusion etc.

India Approves Purchase Of 54 Israeli Harop Drones

The Indian defense ministry has accorded the purchase of 54 Harop attack drones from Israel. “A proposal to acquire these 54 attack drones was approved by the Defence Ministry at a high-level meeting last week,” ANI reported Wednesday quoting defense sources as saying. The Air Force already has...

www.defenseworld.net

"A proposal to acquire these 54 attack drones was approved by the Defence Ministry at a high-level meeting last week," ANI reported Wednesday quoting defense sources as saying.

The Air Force already has an inventory of around 110 of these drones which have now been renamed as P-4.


Maybe @500 has more info on harop unit cost.

True but it is still a lot of money even when you take that into account. Poland bought the whole package and it cost them nearly 10 million for a TB2 and it needs more infrastructure than Harop. Turkiye produces SOM cruise missiles for a million dollars per unit.

Let's say Harop costs 2 million after taking into account the costs you mentioned above (I'm %100 sure that it costs way more than that) it is still a lot for a kamikaze drone. When it comes to drones Israel and the US are robbing people. Israel leased 2 Herons to Greece for 39 million euros for 3 years. If you don't ask for the whole package you can buy 6 TB2s with that amount.

 

[TheInsider]

Obviously 10 mln per Harpy is nonsense. It's cost should not be very different from Spike NLOS (200 K $). Basically Harpy is Spike NLOS with small Wankel engine instead of solid rocket.

This is not true harpy is way more advanced than Spike NLOS. It has a passive RF seeker, GPS/INS, stabilized IIR/CCD EO gimbal, two-way datalink, and man-in-the-loop capability.

 

[500]

This is not true harpy is way more advanced than Spike NLOS. It has a passive RF seeker, GPS/INS, stabilized IIR/CCD EO gimbal, two-way datalink, and man-in-the-loop capability.

NLOS has gimbal EO two way datalink and man in loop as well. Not sure if passive RF still remained there.

 

[Philip the Arab]

With fiberoptic cable it should be easy.
If you have time, see this: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a356540.pdf

@kimov also I recommend for you, if interested. The missile they tried/planned to use had turbojet propulsion and a fiber optic link for long range recon+targeting. Some of the missions today can be done by UAVs of course but this type of weapon is a different and serious problem for adversaries, especially to technologically advanced ones. Because it’s hard to beat expert man in the loop capability with a high fidelity realtime video feed on an expendable platform using virtually unjammable and undetectable datalink.

Well yes but I think a TV/IIR guided missile using RF link will be able to have far greater range.

Akinci for example could carry a pod, and guide the missiles very precisely which could be fired from a ground launcher or another UAV or fighter. This type of guidance was used by PAF in Feb 26 where Mirage 5s dropped H-4 SOWs which were guided by Mirage 3s.


IIRC, the AGM-84K is actually the most precise missile (CEP) the US Navy and uses the same guidance.

 

[dustdevil]

Well yes but I think a TV/IIR guided missile using RF link will be able to have far greater range.

Akinci for example could carry a pod, and guide the missiles very precisely which could be fired from a ground launcher or another UAV or fighter. This type of guidance was used by PAF in Feb 26 where Mirage 5s dropped H-4 SOWs which were guided by Mirage 3s.


IIRC, the AGM-84K is actually the most precise missile (CEP) the US Navy and uses the same guidance.

Roketsan has Laçin datalink for this, it could be repurposed for UAVs. But a RF datalink also has drawbacks, UAV will become easier to detect. Nevertheless it’s also a good option.

 

[dustdevil]

If cloud cover is blocking your TB2’s view, why not target with a SAR-GMTI-RADAR like MILSAR asper the one below, of Meteksan.

MILSAR UAV SAR/GMTI Radar | Meteksan Defence | Meteksan

MILSAR UAV SAR/GMTI Radar could be operated on unmanned air vehicles (UAVs), helicopters and fixed wing aircraft along with its easy installation feature to detect and track potential targets either low speed small size or fast moving objects even in adve

www.meteksan.com

Meteksan Defence MILSAR SAR/GMTI Radar Provides Outstanding Capabilities to Tactical UAVs

MILSAR generate radar images up to 30cm resolution from 27km.

www.defenceturkey.com

View attachment 21559

Yes, the UAV will become a true all-weather killer with those. I hope they make a long range one so it can be used from stand-off distance too.