TR Missile & Smart Munition Programs

[boredaf]

It is clear that the larger the combat radius, the better. 20-30 km is good. But what is the point of destroying a enemi tank 100 km from the front line, when a tank is dangerous just 5-10 km away?

I'm afraid that when Turkey demonstrates an ATGM with a radius of 100 km, the Russians will put... an anti-tank shaped charge weighing... 8 kg on their... strategic intercontinental ballistic missiles with a combat radius of 11 000 km

I don't believe we're going to see a 100+km version, but, the range isn't just for killing a tank or whatever, it is also to protect your own asset using that missile. Right now, using a helicopter with UMTAS would put it at 8 kms from the target which is within the range of MANPADS. But if that same helicopter has UMTAS GM than it can stay safe while attacking its target.

I am suspicious if it would be economically efficient. Too small to penetrate armor. Too fancy (and costly) to kill infantry.

Depends, would you say your infantry being able to attack an enemy position 1 km+ away is worth the cost or not?

 

[Kaan Azman]

A year has passed after the first firing of UAV-230 and we've even gotten a new version with a new fin layout. However we still haven't seen it getting launched off an F-16. With F-16's speed and altitude, you could probably hit 200+ km when we have the fact that AKINCI, a turboprop UAV scored a 150 km hit with sub-meter accuracy. I think it is time we see such a test.

 

[Sanchez]

Depends, would you say your infantry being able to attack an enemy position 1 km+ away is worth the cost or not?

I’d think that would need to be discussed doctrinally. Do we need a squad hitting man sized single(maybe double) targets at 1km away with proprietary solutions? This is no fpv drone with a grenade worth 1000$, it’s a whole weapon system.

 

[Bogeyman]

I’d think that would need to be discussed doctrinally. Do we need a squad hitting man sized single(maybe double) targets at 1km away with proprietary solutions? This is no fpv drone with a grenade worth 1000$, it’s a whole weapon system.

Yes, it is absolutely necessary. If one day we are faced with trench warfare like in Ukraine, METE will definitely be worth its weight in gold for assassinating high-ranking soldiers.

In fact, I advocate loading 5-10 METEs into robots and gaining saturation capability.

 

[guest12]

Not the mention how many infantry knows how to operate fpv drone? I remember very well when METE first revealed it was supposed launched by underrail of a rifle while guided by hand held laser designator by another infantry.This concept was most practical one yet new trailer shows none of this concept , looks like they failed on part.FPV drone operators wont be on field risking risking their life and that UGV thing has no place at Southeast mountains.

They should either develop some sort of laser guided RPG or buy the license production of something like NLAW.

 

[boredaf]

I’d think that would need to be discussed doctrinally. Do we need a squad hitting man sized single(maybe double) targets at 1km away with proprietary solutions? This is no fpv drone with a grenade worth 1000$, it’s a whole weapon system.

Single maybe double? Mate, this is a 40 mm grenade with a rocket motor and guidance system not #00 buckshot. A grenade that can go through a window after being fired from 1 km away, if necessary, thanks to its accuracy. It wouldn't replace 40 mm grenades in all theatres but it is an amazing option to have. For every 1 fpv drone success video you see there are dozens you don't see because they fail, you have to take that into account as well. And, not everything has to be cheap solutions, sometimes you need something that does the properly, instead of just good enough. Btw, Chinese are also doing something similar, Roketsan isn't alone in this.

Not the mention how many infantry knows how to operate fpv drone? I remember very well when METE first revealed it was supposed launched by underrail of a rifle while guided by hand held laser designator by another infantry.This concept was most practical one yet new trailer shows none of this concept , looks like they failed on part.FPV drone operators wont be on field risking risking their life and that UGV thing has no place at Southeast mountains.

I was in the military what now feels like ancient times and even then we were using drones for surveillance, extremely overpriced drones we bought from foreign countries but still, we were using them. They are not planes mate, people can be taught how to fly them easily, you think average Ukrainians soldier is somehow born with an innate ability to fly a drone?

An fpv drone can have range of 5-10 kms maybe even more and with a missile that can hit its target from 1+ kms away it can do its job without putting itself or more importantly its operator in danger. This thing only weighs 1.4 kgs, a drone operator can carry the drone with multiple Metes. A drone operator can scout ahead with a drone armed with Mete and if he finds a target of opportunity he can just blast them. All done kms away without putting a single soldier at risk.

 

[boredaf]

Yes, it is absolutely necessary. If one day we are faced with trench warfare like in Ukraine, METE will definitely be worth its weight in gold for assassinating high-ranking soldiers.

In fact, I advocate loading 5-10 METEs into robots and gaining saturation capability.

What you want is Songar with 6 40 mm rockets, though I don't know if it went beyond test firing.

 

[2033]

An excellent weapon system. You move 4-5 km with mini drones and return by firing the METE missile from a distance of 500-1000 meters. I am sure it will be very useful in frontline warfare.

 

[Afif]

For every 1 fpv drone success video you see there are dozens you don't see because they fail, you have to take that into account as well.

To kill infantry in trenchs or in open at 1km, it's more efficient to drop 81mm mortar round on top of them with quadcopters. #BOYGA. Definitely packs more firepower than mete. At the same time economicallly efficient and reusable. At close 1km line of sight distance quadcopters usually do okay despite jamming. It's when you try to push it beyond FLOT, jamming intensifies and signal weakens.

However, if you are looking for direct fire penetrating solutions against hardened target, AT4AST/AT4CS ER type system with a range of 600m is far more economically efficient.

An fpv drone can have range of 5-10 kms maybe even more and with a missile that can hit its target from 1+ kms away it can do its job without putting itself or more importantly its operator in danger. This thing only weighs 1.4 kgs, a drone operator can carry the drone with multiple Metes. A drone operator can scout ahead with a drone armed with Mete and if he finds a target of opportunity he can just blast them. All done kms away without putting a single soldier at risk.

Now your envisioned scenario runs in contrast to your previous statement.

I’d think that would need to be discussed doctrinally. Do we need a squad hitting man sized single(maybe double) targets at 1km away with proprietary solutions? This is no fpv drone with a grenade worth 1000$, it’s a whole weapon system.

Perhaps this configuration with special ops make sense, to provide time critical precision or in one shot opportunity scenario.

 

[boredaf]

At close 1km line of sight distance quadcopters usually do okay despite jamming

Jamming is not the only threat against quads. You have to get right on top of your enemy to do any kind of damage which opens you up to get shot down. There are a lot of videos of Ukrainian drones by rifles, shotguns etc. and everyone is investing hard and soft kill systems. That range advantage Mete has will become even more important in time, mark my words.

if you are looking for direct fire penetrating solutions against hardened target

Why even mention hard targets? This missile is strictly made for soft targets, even Roketsan's website directly says that.

Now your envisioned scenario runs in contrast to your previous statement.

Which statement would that be?

 

[Afif]

Which statement would that be?

For every 1 fpv drone success video you see there are dozens you don't see because they fail, you have to take that into account as well.

An fpv drone can have range of 5-10 kms maybe even more and with a missile that can hit its target from 1+ kms away it can do its job without putting itself or more importantly its operator in danger. This thing only weighs 1.4 kgs, a drone operator can carry the drone with multiple Metes. A drone operator can scout ahead with a drone armed with Mete and if he finds a target of opportunity he can just blast them. All done kms away without putting a single soldier at risk.

Don't you see how fpv and quadcopters equipped with mete can run into the same problem due to jamming and fall out of sky.

 

[Bogeyman]

What you want is Songar with 6 40 mm rockets, though I don't know if it went beyond test firing.

I think that having more alternatives is always good. With this, you can surround the enemy on land from more than one front and make surprise attacks. Of course, it would be good if its range increased to 2-2.5 km over time, before it grows too much. I think that being able to integrate to more than one platform is more important in this project than ATGM or Karaok. There is no modularity in Karaok.

 

[UkroTurk]

faced with trench warfare like in Ukraine,

But in Ukraine none uses laser guided Mini rockets from drones. Drone launched mortar shells are enough. You don't need laser guidance.

Mete is good ,but for tranches , we need Carl Gustavmk4 with timefused airburst Ammunitions.

 

[Bogeyman]

But in Ukraine none uses laser guided Mini rockets from drones. Drone launched mortar shells are enough. You don't need laser guidance.

Mete is good but for tranches , we need Carl Gustavmk4 with timefused airburst Ammunitions.

The Russians have very weak countermeasure systems against micro kamikaze drones. That's why micro drones using mortar ammunition seem to be advantageous for now. However, you can't fly micro drones in all weather conditions. In land-based unmanned systems, you don't have such a problem in rain, snow and windy weather (I mean light weather conditions. Minimum requirements for operational competence).

I also see 4-legged unmanned ground vehicles as more advantageous than tracked ones.
Because tracked ones will have a hard time moving on rough terrain.
Additionally, tracked heavy-duty unmanned ground vehicles can become easier targets by increasing their silhouettes.

 

[boredaf]

Don't you see how fpv and quadcopters equipped with mete can run into the same problem due to jamming and fall out of sky.

Sure, that is a possibility but they'll be almost 2 kms away from their targets (as 1 km range was given for ground launched Mete), instead of trying to get right on top of it, making it a very slim possibility, especially compared to, drone trying to drop its payload.

 

[boredaf]

But in Ukraine none uses laser guided Mini rockets from drones. Drone launched mortar shells are enough. You don't need laser guidance.

Because a- they barely have the funds and equipment to do those drones b- they don't have a 40 mm missile like we do and c- we don't have to copy everything they do out of necessity.

Also, comparing a 84 mm missile to 40 mm one is ridiculous mate, they are completely different classes.

 

[UkroTurk]

Sure, that is a possibility but they'll be almost 2 kms away from their targets (as 1 km range was given for ground launched Mete), instead of trying to get right on top of it, making it a very slim possibility, especially compared to, drone trying to drop its payload.

How could you hit deep inside trench from 1km distance? İt is non of sight.

Direct fire won't fork against trenches unless ammunition timefused.

That's why Carl Gustav made airburst timefused HE 448 ammunition

 

[YeşilVatan]

Sure, that is a possibility but they'll be almost 2 kms away from their targets (as 1 km range was given for ground launched Mete), instead of trying to get right on top of it, making it a very slim possibility, especially compared to, drone trying to drop its payload.

Fair point, but doesn't that increase the sensor costs? You have to target the missile somehow.

 

[Bogeyman]

How could you hit deep inside trench from 1km distance? İt is non of sight.

Direct fire won't fork against trenches unless ammunition timefused.

That's why Carl Gustav made mk4

You can attack from behind cover while in the air. So, if they have not entered underground tunnels or anything, then it is possible for you to watch for an angle where they are exposed.

 

[boredaf]

Fair point, but doesn't that increase the sensor costs? You have to target the missile somehow.

You can direct it with a drone, obviously, since the missile itself has a semi active laser. I don't think Mete costs as much as everyone seem to think it might. You can buy a hobby rocket that can fly more than 1 km vertically for less than 100 dollars. Most expensive thing inside it would be the laser finder.

Also, for me, this is about keeping the soldiers that are using them safe. They can sit in a safe spot, scout with a drone and attack from kms away. And let's not forget, training soldiers, by which I mean professional soldiers and special forces that actually go out and risk their lives nowadays, cost time, money and resources as well.