TR Missile & Smart Munition Programs

[Yasar_TR]

Sure? A turkish ESSM equivalent this year?

It is not a Turkish ESSM equivalent. It IS the ESSM blk2 that is going to be ready this year.
Australia, Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Turkey, and the United States are jointly acquiring Block II.
Now; If US embargoes ESSM Blk 2 deliveries to Turkey, then we may see a Turkish equivalent!

 

[BalkanTurk90]

He mean G40 equivalent to ESSM
I dont like Turkey still buying essm , better speed up G40 and buy your own missiles .

 

[mysndgn]

Roketsan TRG 300 Kaplan Füzesi

 

[mysndgn]

MAM - C

 

[Yasar_TR]

He mean G40 equivalent to ESSM
I dont like Turkey still buying essm , better speed up G40 and buy your own missiles .

Yes it can be said that G40 is the Turkish ESSM. Gokdogan missile’s bottom part made a little thicker and turned in to a ground/sea launched version. If we add a booster to this missile it can still fit in to Mk41 VLS canisters and can become G40-ER . (or may be “Siper”?)
After all, US turned the air-to-air Sparrow missile in to sea launched missile called it sea-sparrow. That missile was evolved and was called ESSM . And now the ship based radar lighting omitted it is ESSM Blk2.
Working on the ESSM development has given Roketsan invaluable insight and expertise. Probably made it easier to develop our air to air missiles. We should carry on buying ESSM and carry on further developing within the consortium. You can not buy this sort of know-how even if you wanted to.

 

[mysndgn]

 

[azaher77]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1336342708483342336

BORA is at the service of the Turkish Army in all circumstances! Our deterrent power against the enemy with its high destructive power, force multiplier, long range precision strike capability, high explosive particle effective warhead and guidance ability!

 

[Yasar_TR]

To add to my above message;
In order to achieve a range in excess of 500km for a missile like Bora, it has to be either fatter or longer.
Current Bora is 610mm in diameter and 7.8m in length weighing about 2500kg. It has a payload of 470kg.
None of the Chinese BP12 and B611 versions from which Bora was evolved, has ranges in excess of 400km. To extend range you need 800mm or 1000mm diameter, or alternatively more length to put more fuel to go further. Logical route could be making the missile longer. To make the missile go further will mean to make it bigger and heavier too.
Since the terminal speed of a ballistic missile is also directly proportional to it’s weight, the heavier the missile the faster it will hit it’s target. If the 500+km , more aerodynamic, longer and heavier Bora2 (say 3500kg) is around 2250kg after it has depleted all it’s fuel, it would hit the target with an approximate speed of 4.5+ Mach. This is almost at hypersonic levels. I can’t see any anti ballistic system that can actually stop this missile if it can execute those continual maneuvers on it’s descent to trick AD Radars.

 

[Cabatli_TR]

I don’t think Roketsan has a lack on rocket technology in developing missiles over 500km. It was stated that Turkey’s ballistic missile programs are on track and It is proceeding successfully without taking any external help. It is already known that Roketsan has developed a solid propellant carbon filament rocket engine tech that has a 1,35m diameter. The solid propellant rocket engines in this size are being used to develop ballistic missiles that have a range more than 2000km (two stage). Besides all these, I believe The actual matter is about guidance of these missiles. Anti-ship variant of these missiles will be strategic enough to frighten the enemy and It is the guidance tech that will transform these missile a deadly beasts on sea surface.

 

[Saithan]

I do not understand why people keep saying AD can't catch up with HS missiles. Doesn't AD systems calculate speed and trajectory before counter missiles are launched ?

Unless you need to catch up to a missile from behind all AD needs to do is intercept.

 

[Anmdt]

I do not understand why people keep saying AD can't catch up with HS missiles. Doesn't AD systems calculate speed and trajectory before counter missiles are launched ?

Unless you need to catch up to a missile from behind all AD needs to do is intercept.

It can intercept but reaction time matters; it is dramatically reduced (1/4th or less), the anti-ship BM missile attacks from an higher altitude, easier to detect and track compared to sea-skimming cruise missiles but harder to intercept because they accelerate to hyper sonic speeds in the range-altitude which can be intercepted by CIWS or point defense missiles.
This is why sea-skimming HS cruise missiles are a game changer but, it is complicated in terms of gaining speed, loosing maneuverability; maneuverability can matter at the most inner layer where CIWS engage with bullets.
Detected at 40km, a ship with has 7-8+ interception attempt at subsonic cruise missile (total of 200 seconds), 3-4 (at most) attempt at HS cruise missile(total of 40-50 seconds, engagement is 20-30 seconds remained after preps).
Anti-Ship BM detected at 200+ (depends on radar config), gives 200 seconds (with Smart-S eqv.) to prepare, 10-20 seconds to engage. Because it approaches from above, even engaged with CIWS the remains may damage the ship.
But it also complicates the equation, the ships ,expecting a known threat, lays an eye on horizon more than they look at high up for self-protection even though it is automatized nowadays it will take time until enemy has adapted to it.
Re-configuration of flight paths with self -decision maker cruise missiles is important too, that is why KEMENT is as much important as anti-ship BM.

 

[Yasar_TR]

I do not understand why people keep saying AD can't catch up with HS missiles. Doesn't AD systems calculate speed and trajectory before counter missiles are launched ?

Unless you need to catch up to a missile from behind all AD needs to do is intercept.

You are correct. An Aster-30 1NT missile (with a speed of 4.5 Mach) can intercept a ballistic missile travelling faster than it self say at hypersonic speed. But it will have a very short time to react because of the very high speed of the incoming missile. More importantly if the incoming missile is maneuvering continually at high speed, the Aster-30 may not be able keep a lock on target. And also may not follow the sharp and fast directional changes the ballistic missile makes during these maneuvers.

 

[Cabatli_TR]

MUFA (2024-25): 1,35m first stage main solid prop engine, 1,35m secınd stage, 1,35m diameter two booster, 19m Length, 32ton Weight, 100+kg payload and 400+km altitude range (MUFA SLV tech (1,35m diameter) equals to a ballistic missile tech with a range around 2000-2500km range)

Şimşek UFA (2028-2030): 2,8m diameter first stage liquid propellant engine, 2,5m diameter second stage liquid propellant engine, ~30m length, ~155t weight, 1,5t payload, 700+km altitude range (Şimşek SLV tech(2,8m diameter) equal to a ballistic missile infrastructure with a range from 5000 to 8000km depending upon length, warhead weight and Stage numbers)

 

[Turko]

It can intercept but reaction time matters; it is dramatically reduced (1/4th or less), the anti-ship BM missile attacks from an higher altitude, easier to detect and track compared to sea-skimming cruise missiles but harder to intercept because they accelerate to hyper sonic speeds in the range-altitude which can be intercepted by CIWS or point defense missiles.
This is why sea-skimming HS cruise missiles are a game changer but, it is complicated in terms of gaining speed, loosing maneuverability; maneuverability can matter at the most inner layer where CIWS engage with bullets.
Detected at 40km, a ship with has 7-8+ interception attempt at subsonic cruise missile (total of 200 seconds), 3-4 (at most) attempt at HS cruise missile(total of 40-50 seconds, engagement is 20-30 seconds remained after preps).
Anti-Ship BM detected at 200+ (depends on radar config), gives 200 seconds (with Smart-S eqv.) to prepare, 10-20 seconds to engage. Because it approaches from above, even engaged with CIWS the remains may damage the ship.
But it also complicates the equation, the ships ,expecting a known threat, lays an eye on horizon more than they look at high up for self-protection even though it is automatized nowadays it will take time until enemy has adapted to it.
Re-configuration of flight paths with self -decision maker cruise missiles is important too, that is why KEMENT is as much important as anti-ship BM.

Russian sea

It can intercept but reaction time matters; it is dramatically reduced (1/4th or less), the anti-ship BM missile attacks from an higher altitude, easier to detect and track compared to sea-skimming cruise missiles but harder to intercept because they accelerate to hyper sonic speeds in the range-altitude which can be intercepted by CIWS or point defense missiles.
This is why sea-skimming HS cruise missiles are a game changer but, it is complicated in terms of gaining speed, loosing maneuverability; maneuverability can matter at the most inner layer where CIWS engage with bullets.
Detected at 40km, a ship with has 7-8+ interception attempt at subsonic cruise missile (total of 200 seconds), 3-4 (at most) attempt at HS cruise missile(total of 40-50 seconds, engagement is 20-30 seconds remained after preps).
Anti-Ship BM detected at 200+ (depends on radar config), gives 200 seconds (with Smart-S eqv.) to prepare, 10-20 seconds to engage. Because it approaches from above, even engaged with CIWS the remains may damage the ship.
But it also complicates the equation, the ships ,expecting a known threat, lays an eye on horizon more than they look at high up for self-protection even though it is automatized nowadays it will take time until enemy has adapted to it.
Re-configuration of flight paths with self -decision maker cruise missiles is important too, that is why KEMENT is as much important as anti-ship BM.

Russian sea-skimming anti ship cruise missiles fly supersonic at last terminal phase imagine it. A cruise missile intercepting you with 2 mach speed at see level i would rely just on CIWS and ESSM. İ wouldn't trust RAMs.

 

[Anmdt]

Russian sea

Russian sea-skimming anti ship cruise missiles fly supersonic at last terminal phase imagine it. A cruise missile intercepting you with 2 mach speed at see level i would rely just on CIWS and ESSM. İ wouldn't trust RAMs.

I said before, i like all those together but it is expensive; gives you multiple times of engagement from each and increases the probability.
CIWS + RAM + ESSM + Medium Range AD (for Anti-ship BM)

 

[Yasar_TR]

I said before, i like all those together but it is expensive; gives you multiple times of engagement from each and increases the probability.
CIWS + RAM + ESSM + Medium Range AD (for Anti-ship BM)

ESSM is designed to counteract supersonic cruise missiles. I don’t know if it will be good enough to stop a Bora missile hurtling towards a ship at 4+Mach. But is the only contender that can stop it. A Close in weapons system may hit a Bora missile. But with engagement limit between 2500 - 3000 metres, even if a CWIS manages to explode the payload, the backend of a Bora probably weighing close to a ton, travelling at mach4, will carry on travelling and will be hitting the target. Any ship hit with this debris will be taken out of commission for sure.

 

[Anmdt]

ESSM is designed to counteract supersonic cruise missiles. I don’t know if it will be good enough to stop a Bora missile hurtling towards a ship at 4+Mach. But is the only contender that can stop it. A Close in weapons system may hit a Bora missile. But with engagement limit between 2500 - 3000 metres, even if a CWIS manages to explode the payload, the backend of a Bora probably weighing close to a ton, travelling at mach4, will carry on travelling and will be hitting the target. Any ship hit with this debris will be taken out of commission for sure.

ESSM can easily engage a BORA missile with its Medium range AD missile role. BM has less maneuverability, thus more predictable route, easy to keep radar lock on and doesn't inherit evasive maneuvering. Even ESSM fits perfect for that because it is launched vertically, and BM has top-attack profile.
For sea-skimming hyper-sonic cruise missiles ESSM will have longer response time, and less Probability to kill, one can easily tell PK is inversely related with distance, thus a CIWS has more PK than RAM, and the latter has more PK than ESSM.
What matters most is tracking and illumination capacity of the ship in a salvo of missiles.

In details, RAM can be launched nearly horizontal or at whichever angle its needed, and engaged on target since the launch, accelerates faster thus responds in short time. While ESSM is launched vertically, takes time to accelerate, maneuver towards the incoming threat and adjust the altitude.

 

[Yasar_TR]

ESSM can easily engage a BORA missile with its Medium range AD missile role. BM has less maneuverability, thus more predictable route, easy to keep radar lock on and doesn't inherit evasive maneuvering. Even ESSM fits perfect for that because it is launched vertically, and BM has top-attack profile.
For sea-skimming hyper-sonic cruise missiles ESSM will have longer response time, and less Probability to kill, one can easily tell PK is inversely related with distance, thus a CIWS has more PK than RAM, and the latter has more PK than ESSM.
What matters most is tracking and illumination capacity of the ship in a salvo of missiles.

In details, RAM can be launched nearly horizontal or at whichever angle its needed, and engaged on target since the launch, accelerates faster thus responds in short time. While ESSM is launched vertically, takes time to accelerate, maneuver towards the incoming threat and adjust the altitude.

ESSM is designed for stopping supersonic and subsonic cruise missiles and low speed aircrafts. It is especially good against sea skimming missiles. It was never designed against ballistic missiles.
quote:

Mission/Role:​

The mission of the ESSM is to provide the U.S. Navy and allies of the United States with a missile with performance to defeat current and projected threats that possess low-altitude, high-velocity, and maneuver characteristics beyond the engagement capabilities of the RIM-7P Sea Sparrow.

Unquote

Although real range and altitude figures are classified, ESSM is thought to have an effective range of 40-50 km . it can not go too high in altitude either - just check our Gokdogan/G40 if launched from land-. With that sort of range and altitude it would be a real feat of achievement to hit a target like Bora which will cover that 40km within 20seconds. Also if it was vertically trying to hit the incoming Bora, an ESSM will not even make half that distance.
Logically, like you say, if vertically launched and had enough juice in it like a booster, it could be able to intercept.
Also the targeting radars of ESSM will have to be able to lock on to the maneuvering and altitude changing Bora in the first place.

 

[Huelague]

I dont get it. We have SOM-N, Atmaca and later Gezgin. Why an inaccurate Bora-2 missile which has not accuracy and manoeuverbility of cruise missiles.

 

[Yasar_TR]

I dont get it. We have SOM-N, Atmaca and later Gezgin. Why an inaccurate Bora-2 missile which has not accuracy and manoeuverbility of cruise missiles.

We do not hava a SOM-N. If you mean naval version ; it is SOM-C /SOM-J. And they are still under development. Current SOM missiles can not hit moving sea targets.
Atmaca and Gezgin are subsonic cruise missiles. Atmaca is a sea-skimming missile, where as Gezgin, still not finished, is a long range land attack cruise missile.
Bora in it’s last two trials that I have seen, has hit the target within less than a metre. You can not call that inaccurate. Now there is work for a naval version of Bora with a new seeker head that will be able to target moving sea vessels. We are talking about a missile that travels at hypersonic speeds, ie 5+ Mach. A missile that hits it’s target close to hypersonic speeds with a payload of 470 kg and a missile with a range of 500+ km. A missile with precision strike capability over moving targets.
Even without the payload the Bora 2 missile weighing in excess of 2.2 tons hitting the deck of an aircraft carrier at 4.5 Mach will go right through it and put it out of commission. I think AD systems of a carrier group will find it too taxing to handle half a dozen Bora missiles attacking all at once!!
This is a quasi ballistic missile. It goes to about 50-60km as it’s apogee. It is an altitude that is neither covered by Thaad nor Patriot. It is in between. Nothing can intercept it until it reaches 15-20 km on it’s way down. At which time it is probably travelling at 6-8 Mach and start making sharp maneuvers to trick AD radars that try to lock on to it.