TR Missile & Smart Munition Programs

[Yasar_TR]

Can a future ICBM be fired from the VLS on the MILDEN submarines?

In English there is a saying: “ how long is a piece of string?”
When in the future?
What version of Milden are we talking about?

Current Milden design we have been served with, has no VLS available. It has 8 torpedo tubes with possibility to launch missiles through canisters fired from these tubes.
If we can develop a technology one day that would make it possible to launch surface to surface missiles with a 5000+ km range that can be fired from a 533mm diameter torpedo tube, then may be!
Otherwise the answer to your question is, no.

Turkish Submarine MİLDEN's Construction to Start in 2025 | TURDEF

Chief of the Turkish Navy Ercüment Tatlıoğlu has stated that the construction of MİLDEN national submarines will begin in 2025.

turdef.com

So the Milden as it is at 2700 tons is not supposed to have VLS operation.

 

[BaburKhan]

In English there is a saying: “ how long is a piece of string?”
When in the future?
What version of Milden are we talking about?

Current Milden design we have been served with, has no VLS available. It has 8 torpedo tubes with possibility to launch missiles through canisters fired from these tubes.
If we can develop a technology one day that would make it possible to launch surface to surface missiles with a 5000+ km range that can be fired from a 533mm diameter torpedo tube, then may be!
Otherwise the answer to your question is, no.

Turkish Submarine MİLDEN's Construction to Start in 2025 | TURDEF

Chief of the Turkish Navy Ercüment Tatlıoğlu has stated that the construction of MİLDEN national submarines will begin in 2025.

turdef.com

View attachment 73039
View attachment 73038
So the Milden as it is at 2700 tons is not supposed to have VLS operation.

AFAST have shown a Design with VLS.

SAHA EXPO 2024: ASFAT Shows MİLDEN Submarine With VLS | TURDEF

ASFAT has shown the MİLDEN submarine with VLS for cruise missiles during the SAHA EXPO 2024 exhibition as the secondary weapon.

turdef.com

 

[Sanchez]

Current Milden design we have been served with, has no VLS available.

Latest model shown is implied to have VLS.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1848691880071987216

 

[Yasar_TR]

Latest model shown is implied to have VLS.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1848691880071987216

May be one day!
We haven’t even built a submarine that is totally indigenous to us yet.
Let us walk before we run.

VLS from a sub needs very sensitive know how and expertise.
Although it is much more convenient to use VLS for surface attack missiles, for submarines’ core weapon, torpedoes, you still need tubes to launch them as they can’t be fired from VLS.
Also having the weapons in a dedicated “weapons room” can be more advantageous. Tube fired missiles and torpedoes can be loaded at sea; where as you need to bring the sub to port to replenish VLS missiles.

As to firing ICBMs from a Milden; first let us build an ICBM. (“What for” is another question one needs to ask)

 

[BaburKhan]

May be one day!
We haven’t even built a submarine that is totally indigenous to us yet.
Let us walk before we run.

VLS from a sub needs a very sensitive know how and expertise.
Although it is much more convenient to use VLS for surface attack missiles, for submarines’ core weapon, torpedoes, you still need tubes to launch them as they can’t be fired from VLS.
Also having the weapons in a dedicated “weapons room” can be more advantageous. Tube fired missiles and torpedoes can be loaded at sea; where as you need to bring the sub to port to replenish VLS missiles.

As to firing ICBMs from a Milden; first let us build an ICBM. (“What for” is another question one needs to ask)

MILDEN will not be suited for ICBM, Russia, US and China SSBN Submarines which are capable of firing ICBM. They are from Weight and Size not comparable to MILDEN. Even with VLS MILDEN can just launch Gezgin SLCM or Tayfun for quik land Attacks or to Strike Carrier sized Ships from safe Distance.

 

[Huelague]

Could, but not with MILDEN .

Not current configuration, but future configuration.

 

[Angry Turk !!!]

As to firing ICBMs from a Milden; first let us build an ICBM. (“What for” is another question one needs to ask)

For Nukes ofc. Türkiye needs them more than pretty much everyone else.

 

[dBSPL]

Ballistic missiles are not an area that I have in-depth knowledge of, but I have always found discussions only based on diameters(thus fuel amount) and range to be incomplete, and I think there are many more factors for the relevant military staff to classify the deterrence of these systems. We naturally discuss many issues such as propulsion and fuel class,storage conditions and ease of maintenance, mobility, warhead technologies, terminal phase engagement and guidance accuracy, but when we talk about very high altitude systems, there is another important issue, the trajectory model. Traditionally, we assume the high parabolic trajectory to calculate the range of all ballistic missiles, but with the disadvantage of better calculability for countermeasures. More recently, the systems have more of an irregular flight path, which involves the warhead being abruptly pulled up at least once as it begins the final phase of its flight. These skip-glide trajectory patterns can also increase the total flight distance by employing aerodynamic lift. These complex trajectory patterns further complicate the limited reach of countermeasure systems.

So, very basically, in addition to engagement radius, engagement time, engagement technology; the trajectory models of these missiles are also among the classification criteria for strike systems. Therefore, I am in favor of very high speed and high trajectory systems finding a place in naval systems. IMO, if we give an example from the MILGEM destroyers, which are expected to have the strategic strike capability of the navy, as well as the need for a cruise missile (like US Tomahawk) with high subsonic +1000km and sea-skimming flight profile for deep land targets or enemy surfaces, I think it should be able to have a naval MRBM too (like Chinese YJ-21) that can reach hypersonic speeds in the terminal phase with a skip-glide trajectory.

 

[Yasar_TR]

Ballistic missiles are not an area that I have in-depth knowledge of, but I have always found discussions only based on diameters(thus fuel amount) and range to be incomplete, and I think there are many more factors for the relevant military staff to classify the deterrence of these systems. We naturally discuss many issues such as propulsion and fuel class,storage conditions and ease of maintenance, mobility, warhead technologies, terminal phase engagement and guidance accuracy, but when we talk about very high altitude systems, there is another important issue, the trajectory model. Traditionally, we assume the high parabolic trajectory to calculate the range of all ballistic missiles, but with the disadvantage of better calculability for countermeasures. More recently, the systems have more of an irregular flight path, which involves the warhead being abruptly pulled up at least once as it begins the final phase of its flight. These skip-glide trajectory patterns can also increase the total flight distance by employing aerodynamic lift. These complex trajectory patterns further complicate the limited reach of countermeasure systems.

So, very basically, in addition to engagement radius, engagement time, engagement technology; the trajectory models of these missiles are also among the classification criteria for strike systems. Therefore, I am in favor of very high speed and high trajectory systems finding a place in naval systems. IMO, if we give an example from the MILGEM destroyers, which are expected to have the strategic strike capability of the navy, as well as the need for a cruise missile (like US Tomahawk) with high subsonic +1000km and sea-skimming flight profile for deep land targets or enemy surfaces, I think it should be able to have a naval MRBM too (like Chinese YJ-21) that can reach hypersonic speeds in the terminal phase with a skip-glide trajectory.

I fully agree with the first paragraph of your article. I could not have put it better myself.
However there is a point that needs to be made clear regarding what you mention within second paragraph to do with ballistic missiles.
That is the matter of “terminal velocity” .
Terminal velocity is the maximum speed attainable by an object as it falls through a medium like air or fluid under the effect of gravity.
For a given object this is always the same. There are certain parameters that affect the said velocity:
Shape of object : more aerodynamic means faster drop
Weight of object : heavier the object faster the drop
Density of medium : denser the medium slower the drop.
Cross section of the object : bigger the cross section slower the drop.

No matter what trajectories they may have, ballistic missiles are limited by their specific terminal velocities. A missile or a glide vehicle may have 10 or 20 Mach hypersonic speeds at 80km or 60km altitude. But as they are dropping down towards the earth, their speeds are governed by the terminal velocity laws. Hence depending on their weights they may hit the ground with less than a Mach speed. Or in the case of an ICBM (very heavy) with a speed of 10 Mach.

If we were to give an example:
Our trg230 reaches 4.2 Mach top speed. But hits the ground with a speed that is just above 1 Mach. If we were able to fire a trg230 from a space vehicle, it may have reached 10 Mach speed in space as it drops down towards earth. But when it hits ground it will still have a terminal speed of just above 1 Mach . That is to do with terminal velocity laws.

The only way to have hypersonic speeds in terminal stage is either to have a sleek aerodynamic and definitely heavy enough missile ;
Or, have propulsion till the last moment. (Scramjets)

pls check out NASA’s terminal velocity formula calculations below.

Terminal Velocity

 

[boredaf]

The only way to have hypersonic speeds in terminal stage is either to have a sleek aerodynamic and definitely heavy enough missile ;
Or, have propulsion till the last moment. (Scramjets)

What about a two stager? As in, first stage to get the missile where it needs to go to enter terminal phase and then a second stage that'll activate at a certain altitude to increase its velocity before impact?

 

[Yasar_TR]

What about a two stager? As in, first stage to get the missile where it needs to go to enter terminal phase and then a second stage that'll activate at a certain altitude to increase its velocity before impact?

Depends on when the second stage is activated. If it is activated in terminal phase, then the terminal speed will increase.
But we know that all two stage ballistic missiles use up their fuel before they start their downward ballistic flight. So it will have no effect on terminal speed. (It is the last 20 km of atmosphere that decrease the speed of ballistic missiles, as it gets denser and denser with approaching ground)
If however a ballistic missile were to be able to keep some of it’s fuel to be burnt during the very last phase of it’s flight, then what you are suggesting would work. (A bit like some of the Kalibr missiles where subsonic turbojet engine propulsion is switched to a solid fuel rocket propulsion during the last seconds of it’s flight to bring the missile to supersonic speeds when it enters radar detection distance; whereby decreasing the radar detection time significantly.)

 

[boredaf]

If however a ballistic missile were to be able to keep some of it’s fuel to be burnt during the very last phase of it’s flight, then what you are suggesting would work.

That's what I was thinking, or a proper multistage rocket type of missile with a "booster" (so to speak) that'll separate from the missile right before terminal phase and then second rocket will activate to speed it up and over its terminal velocity. Or, something like that.

 

[Yasar_TR]

That's what I was thinking, or a proper multistage rocket type of missile with a "booster" (so to speak) that'll separate from the missile right before terminal phase and then second rocket will activate to speed it up and over its terminal velocity. Or, something like that.

Easier said than done!
Even a short range missile like Tayfun needs 456 seconds to travel 561 km. That time also includes the suppressed trajectory altitude it needs to get up to and down again to cover a straight line distance of 561km. The actual burn time of the fuel is very short. Not in minutes but in seconds.
According to observers, Bora missile’s initial launch time was shorter which indicates that although Bora and Tayfun share the same canister and are similar in appearance, Tayfun’s slower burn in launch helps it to retain more fuel and more energy to be used in thrust for extended burn times, increasing range and speed in upper atmosphere.
Also, a ballistic missiles’ embedded gyroscopic guidance system would experience trouble in calculating the flight envelope, if the range is increased. It gets more challenging to make fine gyroscopic calculations at higher velocities too. Hence, improvements in the missile’s inertial guidance and software infrastructure will also improve combustion efficiency. This returns as better energy potential and range. So software improvements help with range and midcourse speed.
As ballistic missiles are most vulnerable in boost phase, it is better to keep this phase away from prying eyes and AD systems. It is most difficult to intercept a ballistic missile travelling at hypersonic speeds during its midcourse. So rather than firing a missile close to our borders, it is better to fire it from inland to allow it to attain untouchable speeds when over enemy airspace.

To keep some of the fuel for terminal phase means, you need to expend more fuel to launch a heavier load. Hence bigger and more expensive missile. If we are talking about a two stage missile, it will definitely be an expensive exercise.

The whole idea behind ballistic missiles is the fact that it utilises the rare, almost drag free upper atmospheric conditions to gain speed and with the altitude it is at, it can dive and increase speed further. The trick is to make the dive as perpendicular as possible to decrease air drag at lower layers of atmosphere and conserve energy.

What you are suggesting is like a dual pulse engined rocket which waits for the second and comparatively smaller pulse to be engaged at the threshold of dense atmospheric layers ; May be at ~15km altitude? If the missile reaches this altitude with a speed of 1500m/sec, to sustain this speed till it hit the ground, second pulse will have to be active for 10 seconds. That is still a lot of fuel.

 

[boredaf]

Easier said than done!
Even a short range missile like Tayfun needs 456 seconds to travel 561 km. That time also includes the suppressed trajectory altitude it needs to get up to and down again to cover a straight line distance of 561km. The actual burn time of the fuel is very short. Not in minutes but in seconds.
According to observers, Bora missile’s initial launch time was shorter which indicates that although Bora and Tayfun share the same canister and are similar in appearance, Tayfun’s slower burn in launch helps it to retain more fuel and more energy to be used in thrust for extended burn times, increasing range and speed in upper atmosphere.
Also, a ballistic missiles’ embedded gyroscopic guidance system would experience trouble in calculating the flight envelope, if the range is increased. It gets more challenging to make fine gyroscopic calculations at higher velocities too. Hence, improvements in the missile’s inertial guidance and software infrastructure will also improve combustion efficiency. This returns as better energy potential and range. So software improvements help with range and midcourse speed.
As ballistic missiles are most vulnerable in boost phase, it is better to keep this phase away from prying eyes and AD systems. It is most difficult to intercept a ballistic missile travelling at hypersonic speeds during its midcourse. So rather than firing a missile close to our borders, it is better to fire it from inland to allow it to attain untouchable speeds when over enemy airspace.

To keep some of the fuel for terminal phase means, you need to expend more fuel to launch a heavier load. Hence bigger and more expensive missile. If we are talking about a two stage missile, it will definitely be an expensive exercise.

The whole idea behind ballistic missiles is the fact that it utilises the rare, almost drag free upper atmospheric conditions to gain speed and with the altitude it is at, it can dive and increase speed further. The trick is to make the dive as perpendicular as possible to decrease air drag at lower layers of atmosphere and conserve energy.

View attachment 73043

What you are suggesting is like a dual pulse engined rocket which waits for the second and comparatively smaller pulse to be engaged at the threshold of dense atmospheric layers ; May be at ~15km altitude? If the missile reaches this altitude with a speed of 1500m/sec, to sustain this speed till it hit the ground, second pulse will have to be active for 10 seconds. That is still a lot of fuel.

I'll defer to your expertise mate, rocket science is out of my league. I was curious whether that might be solution to our dilemma, or rather a simpler solution than waiting for hypersonic missiles which seems from your comments that it might not be.