TR Missile & Smart Munition Programs

[Sanchez]

Meanwhile Defence Turk published an Article

Please read the above replies and the last page, no need to post the same thing multiple times, discussions can move forward as quotes

 

[UkroTurk]

I guess Hisar-D will have AESA seeker.
First the Japanese started equipp missiles with AESA seekers.

AAM-4 - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

XRIM-4 – Naval surface-launched variant, project was previously canceled but effectively resurrected in 2016.[9]

Type 03 Chū-SAM - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

İmages were translated by Google lens

 

[Radko]

Bit offtopic to the current discussion, but it seems to me that we can actually quadpack Siper Ü-1 if we design a narrower-taller booster. Siper Ü-1 is 238mm without booster (slimmer than the ESSM with 254mm) and 370mm with that chunky-short booster.


I want to see that quadpackable 100+km missile ASAP

 

[Kaan Azman]

Tried that on blender, actually possible dimmensionally speaking


One magazine even threw in the idea of a booster ESSM

 

[uçuyorum]

It's not enough to fit the missile, you need to have room for exhaust fumes and their exit.

 

[Kaan Azman]

as long as you keep the packed diameter within the canister boundaries it is alright dimmensionally.

But shift in the centre of gravity and stabiliy with a radically different booster is the next stage of this enginieering problem

 

[Radko]

It's not enough to fit the missile, you need to have room for exhaust fumes and their exit.

Exhaust gases are extracted via the trench between the VLS cells, so your constraint is length of the cell.

 

[Radko]

as long as you keep the packed diameter within the canister boundaries it is alright dimmensionally.

But shift in the centre of gravity and stabiliy with a radically different booster is the next stage of this enginieering problem

Yep, I guess it is up to TN actually wanting that capability. I don't think Roketsan would bother with it without TN wanting it? Hopefully I am just wrong...

 

[UkroTurk]

Bit offtopic to the current discussion, but it seems to me that we can actually quadpack Siper Ü-1 if we design a narrower-taller booster. Siper Ü-1 is 238mm without booster (slimmer than the ESSM with 254mm) and 370mm with that chunky-short booster.


I want to see that quadpackable 100+km missile ASAP

No worries,
you will get quad packed-100km range-missiles without booster.
Look at the catalogue. Siper 1 Range with booster is 150km.

@Yasar_TR Dear the info in the catalogue is accurate?Does Siper1 have max range 150km?

 

[Yasar_TR]

No worries,
you will get quad packed-100km range-missiles without booster.
Look at the catalogue. Siper 1 Range with booster is 150km.
View attachment 70869

@Yasar_TR Dear the info in the catalogue is accurate?Does Siper1 have max range 150km?

Siper missiles are solid fuelled dual pulsed rocket engined missiles produced by Roketsan.
Roketsan has given 100km range for the Block-1 and 150km range for the block-2 missiles.
Aselsan is not the missile manufacturer per se. They are responsible for guidance and electronics and are coproducers with Roketsan of the Siper System with the help of Tubitak Sage. However if you read Aselsan’s document on Siper, it gives you an overall system maximum range of 150 km. That is correct as the system uses the same canister and hardware for Block-1 and Block-2 missiles.

Block-1 missile has a diameter that may allow it to be quadpackable.
Yet the Block-2 missile seems too wide for quadpackability. But could be dual packed.

 

[Anmdt]

Bit offtopic to the current discussion, but it seems to me that we can actually quadpack Siper Ü-1 if we design a narrower-taller booster. Siper Ü-1 is 238mm without booster (slimmer than the ESSM with 254mm) and 370mm with that chunky-short booster.


I want to see that quadpackable 100+km missile ASAP

Been telling this since the first day. Hisar-D B2 will be as capable as Siper-B1 in terms of guidance, all they need is a narrow booster capable of TVC if the flight stability matters.
It is more logical to introduce an ER version of Hisar-D B2 than reworking on Siper-B1 for quadpacking.

 

[UkroTurk]

Been telling this since the first day. Hisar-D B2 will be as capable as Siper-B1 in terms of guidance......

It is more logical to introduce an ER version of Hisar-D B2 than reworking on Siper-B1 for quadpacking.

+100 there are also disadvantages of boosters however 70km range is ideal for a frigate.

 

[chngr]

View attachment 70870 Siper missiles are solid fuelled dual pulsed rocket engined missiles produced by Roketsan.
Roketsan has given 100km range for the Block-1 and 150km range for the block-2 missiles.
Aselsan is not the missile manufacturer per se. They are responsible for guidance and electronics and are coproducers with Roketsan of the Siper System with the help of Tubitak Sage. However if you read Aselsan’s document on Siper, it gives you an overall system maximum range of 150 km. That is correct as the system uses the same canister and hardware for Block-1 and Block-2 missiles.

Block-1 missile has a diameter that may allow it to be quadpackable.
Yet the Block-2 missile seems too wide for quadpackability. But could be dual packed.
View attachment 70871

Not even dual packed...Siper B2 too big, much bigger than SM-2...most likely more than 1 tones

i think we will see much more than 150km, when tests end..

 

[Yasar_TR]

Not even dual packed...Siper B2 too big, much bigger than SM-2...most likely more than 1 tones

i think we will see much more than 150km, when tests end..

It all depends on how big a canister size MIDLAS can accommodate.

If MIDLAS is same size as MK41 VLS System, then even Siper Block-1 will not fit in dual packed; never mind quadpacked.

SM2 missile is 34.3 cm in diameter. And it only just manages to fit inside MK41 as a dual packed missile. (pls see below)
MK41 has 26 x 26 inch (66 x 66 cm) dimensions. But can only have available space of 21 x 21 inch (53.4 x 53.4 cm) for missiles.
In the SM2’s case, 34.3 x 34.3 cm in dual packed; In ESSM’s case 25.4 x 25.4 cm in quad packed .

Our Siper Block-1 is 37 cm in diameter. The canister size is given as 85 x 80 cm. 42cm diameter missile should, logically, fit in to that canister in dual packed form. But we do not know if the canisters they are quoting, are also to be used in our VLS.

May be @Anmdt can shed some light in to this dilemma.


SM2 DUAL PACKED in MK41

ESSM QUAD PACKED in MK41 VLS

 

[Anmdt]

It all depends on how big a canister size MIDLAS can accommodate.

If MIDLAS is same size as MK41 VLS System, then even Siper Block-1 will not fit in dual packed; never mind quadpacked.

SM2 missile is 34.3 cm in diameter. And it only just manages to fit inside MK41 as a dual packed missile. (pls see below)
MK41 has 26 x 26 inch (66 x 66 cm) dimensions. But can only have available space of 21 x 21 inch (53.4 x 53.4 cm) for missiles.
In the SM2’s case, 34.3 x 34.3 cm in dual packed; In ESSM’s case 25.4 x 25.4 cm in quad packed .

Our Siper Block-1 is 37 cm in diameter. The canister size is given as 85 x 80 cm. 42cm diameter missile should, logically, fit in to that canister in dual packed form. But we do not know if the canisters they are quoting, are also to be used in our VLS.

May be @Anmdt can shed some light in to this dilemma.


SM2 DUAL PACKED in MK41

View attachment 70881

ESSM QUAD PACKED in MK41 VLS

View attachment 70882 View attachment 70883

For Siper B1 it is the booster adopted from Atmaca AShM that occupies the diameter, if we actually look at the actual missile dimensions in-flight, i think it has nearly the same dimensions as Hisar-D / Hisar-O RF, thus if modified could be quadpacked.

But since Hisar-D B1 and B2 inherits all the guidance mods that Siper B1 has, and actually holds more for illumination and data link, it is more logical to make an extended range Hisar-D B2 with an addition of booster, which also naturally will be quadpackable.

Navy has never demanded a dual or quad packable Siper B2, it was never meant to be (i have mentioned it here several times even when trusthworthy sources mentioned a quadpacked or dual packed Siper B2). Navy has never demanded that, Roketsan has never attempted that. I am wondering how we got to a point where we discuss dual/quadpacking a huge missile. At minimum it was going to be SM-1/2, but we have got a monster.

Not even dual packed...Siper B2 too big, much bigger than SM-2...most likely more than 1 tones

i think we will see much more than 150km, when tests end..

It is not the range but the altitude we will be discussing.

 

[Afif]

It is not the range but the altitude we will be discussing.

Interesting. It is already 30km. SM-6 has 33km. How SIPER block-2 with conventional control surfaces goes above that? From what I read, at those altitude atmosphere become much thinner rendering conventional control surfaces ineffective.

 

[Chocopie]

It all depends on how big a canister size MIDLAS can accommodate.

If MIDLAS is same size as MK41 VLS System, then even Siper Block-1 will not fit in dual packed; never mind quadpacked.

SM2 missile is 34.3 cm in diameter. And it only just manages to fit inside MK41 as a dual packed missile. (pls see below)
MK41 has 26 x 26 inch (66 x 66 cm) dimensions. But can only have available space of 21 x 21 inch (53.4 x 53.4 cm) for missiles.
In the SM2’s case, 34.3 x 34.3 cm in dual packed; In ESSM’s case 25.4 x 25.4 cm in quad packed .

Our Siper Block-1 is 37 cm in diameter. The canister size is given as 85 x 80 cm. 42cm diameter missile should, logically, fit in to that canister in dual packed form. But we do not know if the canisters they are quoting, are also to be used in our VLS.

May be @Anmdt can shed some light in to this dilemma.


SM2 DUAL PACKED in MK41

View attachment 70881

ESSM QUAD PACKED in MK41 VLS

View attachment 70882 View attachment 70883

I think you‘re mistaken. This dual-pack patent was never clearly meant for SM-2 dimensions afaik. Just a dual-pack canister concept afaik.

In practice a MK41 VLS (tactical or strike length) cell has a single SM-2, SM-3 or SM-6 installed. There’s no room for more than 1 missile of these sizes. Only slimmer ESSM are quad-packed in a MK41 cell.

see LockMart brochure and the link as sources:

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/rms/documents/naval-launchers-and-munitions/MK41_VLS_Vertical_Launching_System_Product%20Card_8.5x11_042419.pdf

The SM-2, SM-3, SM-6, ESSM, and RAM: A Guide to US Naval Air Defense Missiles - WhiteFleet.net

This article provides an overview of the air defense missiles deployed aboard American warships, including a table with specifications.

whitefleet.net

 

[dBSPL]

Interesting. It is already 30km. SM-6 has 33km. How SIPER block-2 with conventional control surfaces goes above that? From what I read, at those altitude atmosphere become much thinner rendering conventional control surfaces ineffective.

Even more interesting is the Siper Product-3 missile, which we'll probably see its design in 2025. Press specs on the Product-2 suggest that it could almost be the equivalent of the SM-6. With the third batch of missiles, I wonder if efforts will expand to ICBM interception? I mean, you know, even more altitude!

 

[chngr]

It is not the range but the altitude we will be discussing.

We need PIF-PAF or KV for that....But it will be expensive for Block 2's missions

 

[Anmdt]

I think you‘re mistaken. This dual-pack patent was never clearly meant for SM-2 dimensions afaik. Just a dual-pack canister concept afaik.

In practice a MK41 VLS (tactical or strike length) cell has a single SM-2, SM-3 or SM-6 installed. There’s no room for more than 1 missile of these sizes. Only slimmer ESSM are quad-packed in a MK41 cell.

see LockMart brochure and the link as sources:
View attachment 70891

View attachment 70893

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/rms/documents/naval-launchers-and-munitions/MK41_VLS_Vertical_Launching_System_Product%20Card_8.5x11_042419.pdf

The SM-2, SM-3, SM-6, ESSM, and RAM: A Guide to US Naval Air Defense Missiles - WhiteFleet.net

This article provides an overview of the air defense missiles deployed aboard American warships, including a table with specifications.

whitefleet.net

This was obviously nothing more than a patent based on a wild idea. And the body seems fitting to the dimesions of an SM-2, but not sure how they thought of handling the fins.

Interesting. It is already 30km. SM-6 has 33km. How SIPER block-2 with conventional control surfaces goes above that? From what I read, at those altitude atmosphere become much thinner rendering conventional control surfaces ineffective.

Had better i say it in a proper way and call it an envelope. Well aware of current design being not quite practical at +30,000 km. Altought personally i would be in favor a smaller missile with a smaller warhead and hit to kill capability with a better sensor/guidance etc., they should be up to something for next block with the current size.