TR Missile & Smart Munition Programs

Yasar_TR

Experienced member
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
3,250
Reactions
141 16,292
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Turkey
Idea seem good idea at first glance but is in reality not very good for standard 155mm shells as it beats the whole idea of artillery shells, i.e. be cheap and effective. This solution is expensive, more complex than standard shells, most likely have no guidance and virtually no explosive to do any damage. Keep in mind that the kinetic energy will have been consumed during the flight so it does not have much kinetic energy either at 150km (as it will have +70km unpropelled flight).

A rocket artillery like tr-122 (MBRL), trlg-230 or trg-300 is most likely much more effective and cheaper when you consider the war-head size they carry.

Said said, a ramjet in this size is still very good for AA-missiles which we are also developing.
155mm Artillery shells are cheap but not very accurate. Their range, unless base-bleed is used, will not exceed 30km. With base-bleed you are looking at 40km.
Excalibur rounds with maximum 55 km range, are very accurate against stationary targets. But are very expensive (best part of 70 thousand dollars a piece). However if you consider the fact that you are achieving perfect target destruction with a single round, it is feasible and can be deemed cost effective.
Nammo and Boeing now joined forces to produce a ramjet powered 155mm artillery round that can hit moving targets with an explosive amount found in a120mm round. As the air goes through the artillery shell during it’s flight, there is very little drag. Therefore it doesn’t lose a lot of it’s speed as it is coming down on the target. Also there is now work being carried out, to achieve at least 100seconds of flight with thrust, using BAE Systems’ guidance to give accuracy in hitting moving targets.
This is a technology in the making. It is developing. Raytheon has a program, Indians are on it as well. Since we are working on ramjet and possibly scramjet powered missiles, it is only logical that we investigate and start work on this tech too.
 
Last edited:

kimov

Committed member
Messages
164
Reactions
1 408
Nation of residence
Sweden
Nation of origin
Turkey
155mm Artillery shells are cheap but not very accurate. Their range, unless base-bleed is used, will not exceed 30km. With base-bleed you are looking at 40km.
Excalibur rounds with maximum 55 km range, are very accurate against stationary targets. But are very expensive (best part of 70 thousand dollars a piece). However if you consider the fact that you are achieving perfect target destruction with a single round, it is feasible and can be deemed cost effective.
Nammo and Boeing now joined forces to produce a ramjet powered 155mm artillery round that can hit moving targets with an explosive amount found in a120mm round. As the air goes through the artillery shell during it’s flight, there is very little drag. Therefore it doesn’t lose a lot of it’s speed as it is coming down on the target. Also there is now work being carried out, to achieve at least 100seconds of flight with thrust using BAESystems’ guidance to give accuracy in hitting moving targets.
This is a technology in the making. It is developing. Raytheon has a program, Indians are on it as well. Since we are working on ramjet and possibly scramjet powered missiles, it is only logical that we investigate and start work on this tech too.
First, we know that standard artillery shells lacks in range and accuracy as one would wish but that is by design, not technology as your own example for Excalibur shows.

So, let us compare apples to apples. When you compare a ram-jet powered 155mm shell to a standard rocket artillery with equal range, accuracy and warhead, then you will find that rocket artillery is significantly cheaper due to simpler, older and less demanding technology. For example, the electronics in a rocket artillery do not need to be able to handle the extreme g-forces a standard artillery shell experience during firing. We can also look the the limitations of each technology. For example, the range and war-head will be limited in a ramjet power 155mm shell while a rocket artillery do not have the same limitation. One more limitation of lesser concern is that the ram-jet power shell need an expensive SPAG while the rocket artillery can use a much cheaper truck, eg. Katyusha.

So, sc/ramjet do have real applications but a small and every expensive artillery fired 155mm shell is not one of the prime applications.
In my opinion, there is simply no inherent benefit of using expensive ramjet over rocket propelled shells to make it an attractive option but you are welcome to point out anything I missed about the propulsion.

Finally, if the shell would have any significant horizontal kinetic energy at the end of its range then they would use that kinetic energy to increase the range. Hence, all ballistic objects have limited horizontal kinetic energy at the end. Though, they do have vertical kinetic energy due to the free-fall nature of the ballistic trajectory.
 

TheInsider

Experienced member
Professional
Messages
4,066
Solutions
1
Reactions
34 14,482
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
The best approach is our approach. Numerous artillery shells with course correction+low amount of high precision shells. Ramjet can be the next step for the high precision artillery shell after 2025 but I think the ramjet team will have their hands full with the scramjet project after 2025.
 

Yasar_TR

Experienced member
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
3,250
Reactions
141 16,292
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Turkey
First, we know that standard artillery shells lacks in range and accuracy as one would wish but that is by design, not technology as your own example for Excalibur shows.

So, let us compare apples to apples. When you compare a ram-jet powered 155mm shell to a standard rocket artillery with equal range, accuracy and warhead, then you will find that rocket artillery is significantly cheaper due to simpler, older and less demanding technology. For example, the electronics in a rocket artillery do not need to be able to handle the extreme g-forces a standard artillery shell experience during firing. We can also look the the limitations of each technology. For example, the range and war-head will be limited in a ramjet power 155mm shell while a rocket artillery do not have the same limitation. One more limitation of lesser concern is that the ram-jet power shell need an expensive SPAG while the rocket artillery can use a much cheaper truck, eg. Katyusha.

So, sc/ramjet do have real applications but a small and every expensive artillery fired 155mm shell is not one of the prime applications.
In my opinion, there is simply no inherent benefit of using expensive ramjet over rocket propelled shells to make it an attractive option but you are welcome to point out anything I missed about the propulsion.

Finally, if the shell would have any significant horizontal kinetic energy at the end of its range then they would use that kinetic energy to increase the range. Hence, all ballistic objects have limited horizontal kinetic energy at the end. Though, they do have vertical kinetic energy due to the free-fall nature of the ballistic trajectory.
Rocket artillery missiles are big cumbersome weapons. They have a very high ballistic trajectory. They can be stopped by modern AD systems. So I wouldn’t compare a 155mm shell sized weapon with a rocket artillery missile (apples to apples, you are looking at TRG300 and bigger. Hence probably not very cheap) Yes they are great for saturation bombing. With precision guided systems fitted they do become somewhat costlier. But still are good. They are however the technology of a different century.
As the saying goes : “nothing ventured nothing gained”. US, India and Norway must have seen some future in this technology to bury some money in to it.
It is a scientifically proven fact that due to air flowing through it, whilst descending, the drag coefficient of the ramjet shell is much lower than that of the conventional shell. Hence it would carry a higher impact speed.
BAE Systems have developed electronics and guidance systems that can withstand railgun round launch speeds, and Excalibur is also a good example.
They are also thinking of developing this technology further so that , by increasing diameter and length they are proposing a shell that can have a range in excess of 400km. (A replacement of railgun???)
As I said, this is a technology in the making. There is more to come in this field.
 

Hexciter

Experienced member
Messages
2,575
Reactions
4 11,451
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Sungur air defense missile (in canister)
42624A26-BE0F-4E87-B0CC-5C85DE206CDC.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom