TR Missile & Smart Munition Programs

[dustdevil]

Sungur is designed to be man portable. It may not perform well against a Brahmos type missile.
ESSM has semi-active guidance, without ship radar it can not hit anything.
The radar and battle management system of the ship can be overloaded with saturation attacks, and it may malfunction after a hit, especially during a missile exchange.
A navy weapons officer, living in peace time with limited military budgets, probably did not experience a saturation attack by an EW capable enemy using high speed anti-ship missiles, so may think ESSM and Phalanx combo is enough. He has probably shot down a couple low speed drones for target practice.

 

[Siper>MMU]

The only matter is not the range, if you again carefully read why US Navy needed a RAM - like system instead of having a Manpads with extended range as RAM you can understand the reason.
Also you can look at China, while having MANPADS, they developed a RAM-like missile for CIWS.

First RAM (block 0) was based on sidewinder + Stinger IR seeker or a RF sensor,the later versions are upgraded from this point, so why did these guy developed RAM from an AA missile build instead of extending range of existing stinger, while in fact the missile was already using seeker of stinger.

It is maneuvarability, bozdoğan is much more maneuverable compared to Sungur. How many G's sungur can pull in a maneuver, how much bozdoğan can? This is the critical point of a CIWS missile, being highly maneuverable, having a re-engagement ability when it misses the target.

It is easier to develop a higly maneuverable missile from a missile with similar kinetics&maneuverability, from sungur you can only develop a VSHORAD.

And also one more point: Weight is a more serious concern for air platforms while it is almost not a concern for naval platforms. So talking about weight was really pointless.
20 x 140 kg - 20 x 75 kg = 1300 kg, literally a fly for a warship/corvette/FAC, an excess of a few tonnes is not really a concern for ships as long as it stays with 1%.
Or 20x 160 (exaggerating weight of bozdoğan based CIWS) - 20x 30 = 2400 kg, again nothing for a ship.

While it would become a real concern for small boats, which is not threatened by AShM missiles but more by helicopters, in which case these kind of boats already carry MANPADS to be launched from shoulder, in future they can be upgraded with RC Sungur.

Also; AMRAAM was developed for air platforms but then used for NASAMS and gained a lot of attraction because of commonality. Which means air-to-air missiles can easily be converted to a ground to air.

Also; Sea Sparrow was derived from an air-to-air missile.

Also; MICA - CAMM, used both for AA and CIWS-Point defense, which again proves: CIWS and Point defense missiles have to be highly maneuverable.

Where are you thinking to put 20 Bozdoğan on ? Each missile has diameter of almost 3 Sungur tubes.

 

[Anmdt]

This isnt true. I asked many Navy weapons officers and they said having both RAM and ESSM is redundant. Turkish Navy puts RAM system on the vessels which don't have ESSM because it is still a cheaper alternative than installing VLS(big work the ship has to designed for VLS in the first place) plus filling VLS with ESSM. Per missile cost of RAM and ESSM is similar and ESSM can intercept missiles as good as RAM. So if i have ESSM which costs and performs similar/better to RAM on my ship i don't need RAM. I would rather have phalanx. If i don't have ESSM on my ship and need a missile-based system with a reach that can stop AShM i would pick RAM.

If a vessel has ESSM what they want is CIWS like phalanx or Gokdeniz to complement it.

Ada class has Ram and no ESSM.
I class has ESSM and no RAM.

For example; see American ACs (Ford Class), having all Phalanx + RAM + ESSM.
It is layered AD system, it is not redundant but complementary. ESSM designed to engage threats at greater ranges and minimum engagement range of RAM is much less than ESSM (also more maneuverable than ESSM within 0.5- 7 km from the ship)

ESSM is vertically launched, RAM is horizontally launched.

I have personally talked with officers as well which are my friends. I can call one ask it right now if you want.
Also if you ask a weapon officer about price of RAM or other self-defense systems, they would also tell you price of a self-defense system is neglected and has never been a concern, compared to price of the platform it is protecting.
Commonization of parts and logistic management is more important than the price management.

The people you have talked either worked on frigates or corvettes, which is having a limited space, they either pick ESSM + Phalanx, Phalanx + RAM, only RAM, only Phalanx.

Initial sketches of TF-2000 had RAM+ESSM, and people who designed it was admirals/officers/armerkom
STM's demonstator TF4500 (which was designed by counseling ex-officers-officers) had RAM+ESSM
Later TF-2000 had Phalanx/Oerlikon +ESSM, we don't know what it will have in future after a RAM developed domestically.
For more examples you can see German frigates with ESSM+RAM
Or New class of Japanese frigates with ESSM + SeaRAM.
US Navy's Constellation class FFG (X) with ESSM+RAM
San Antonio class ATD with ESSM (FBNW)+RAM
America class LHA has ESSM+RAM+CIWS

These are what i know to have mixed use, for others you can use google.

 

[Anmdt]

Where are you thinking to put 20 Bozdoğan on ? Each missile has diameter of almost 3 Sungur tubes.

Where do they put 21 RAM missiles with 127mm dimameter? See RAM launcher for example.
Bozdogan has 160 mm range, either launcher gets larger or less missiles are used.

At worst, it will be a locally developed missile and it won't be a luxury to use 2x launchers on each platform like Germans do.

You are asked to buy watermelons and got a fixed size of bag, will you buy 10 apples just because it is more than 2 watermelons?

 

[Siper>MMU]

Where do they put 21 RAM missiles with 127mm dimameter? See RAM launcher for example.
Bozdogan has 160 mm range, either launcher gets larger or less missiles are used.

At worst, it will be a locally developed missile and it won't be a luxury to use 2x launchers on each platform like Germans do.

You are asked to buy watermelons and got a fixed size of bag, will you buy 10 apples just because it is more than 2 watermelons?

You must fold its wings and lower diameter. Almost same as designing a new missile.

With low capacity it will be useless against saturation attacks. One of the reasons for Ram to have 21 missiles.

 

[dustdevil]

You must fold its wings and lower diameter. Almost same as designing a new missile.

With low capacity it will be useless against saturation attacks. One of the reasons for Ram to have 21 missiles.

Ram Block 2 is 160 mm and fits to the same launcher.

I think the main question is would a Stinger type missile, being 70 mm, be affective against a heavy and very fast anti-ship missile, even after hitting it.

What is bad or wrong with designing new missile for this purpose, as point defense/CIWS is not a secondary role?

This is a life versus death problem for the multi million dollar ship.

I’d say, modify Sungur for very small ship protection, and convert Bozdoğan for use in bigger ships if time critical.

 

[Yasar_TR]

You can get 20~ Sungur missiles within a MK29 launcher ( maybe even more) with almost same range and capability.

How can you say same range and capability? A missile with Bozdogan’s speed , (which is twice the speed of Sungur) and Bozdogan’s size, will have a much longer range than Sungur which is given as 6km by Roketsan. US has been testing aim9x in ground launch trials. With additional fuel and other developments they are estimating aim9x to have a 50-60% more range than block 1 version.
So the potential is there! Also, Our missile is bigger and faster than aim9x.

Investor Relations | Raytheon Technologies Corporation

The Investor Relations website contains information about Raytheon Technologies Corporation's business for stockholders, potential investors, and financial analysts.

investor.raytheon.com

The AIM-9X Sidewinder May Finally Evolve Into A Completely New And Longer-Range Missile

The Navy is still funding work on a new rocket motor and other features that could fundamentally change the character of this "dogfighting" missile.

www.thedrive.com

 

[Anmdt]

You must fold its wings and lower diameter. Almost same as designing a new missile.

With low capacity it will be useless against saturation attacks. One of the reasons for Ram to have 21 missiles.

RAM launcher has 6 rows 4 columns, bozdoğan has 160mm diamater, RAM has 127mm
Which means launcher will get wider by ~20 cm in height, ~15 cm in width.
There is no need to decrease diameter of bozdoğan, but to make it with foldable wings.

 

[Siper>MMU]

How can you say same range and capability? A missile with Bozdogan’s speed , (which is twice the speed of Sungur) and Bozdogan’s size, will have a much longer range than Sungur which is given as 6km by Roketsan. US has been testing aim9x in ground launch trials. With additional fuel and other developments they are estimating aim9x to have a 50-60% more range than block 1 version.
So the potential is there! Also, Our missile is bigger and faster than aim9x.

Investor Relations | Raytheon Technologies Corporation

The Investor Relations website contains information about Raytheon Technologies Corporation's business for stockholders, potential investors, and financial analysts.

investor.raytheon.com

The AIM-9X Sidewinder May Finally Evolve Into A Completely New And Longer-Range Missile

The Navy is still funding work on a new rocket motor and other features that could fundamentally change the character of this "dogfighting" missile.

www.thedrive.com

The air is not thin on sea level. So forget about reaching 4 mach, you can hardly reach mach 2.2

 

[Yasar_TR]

The air is not thin on sea level. So forget about reaching 4 mach, you can hardly reach mach 2.2

Yes the air thicker at sea level. The speed of Bozdogan may be compromised. But you give figures as if you have tried it or have a source that says it can’t go over Mach 2.2. Can you provide a source?
How come a missile like ESSM manages 4+ Mach at low altitudes to engage with incoming sea hugging missiles? After all ESSM was developed from sea sparrow which in itself was developed from aim7. So it is a matter of development. We don’t really know the “real” speed characteristics of Bozdogan. We probably never will. If you read my posts and the links I provided US was busy trying to extend the range of aim9x. They even tested more than once with ground launched aim9x. So there is room for development.

 

[Siper>MMU]

Yes the air thicker at sea level. The speed of Bozdogan may be compromised. But you give figures as if you have tried it or have a source that says it can’t go over Mach 2.2. Can you provide a source?
How come a missile like ESSM manages 4+ Mach at low altitudes to engage with incoming sea hugging missiles? After all ESSM was developed from sea sparrow which in itself was developed from aim7. So it is a matter of development. We don’t really know the “real” speed characteristics of Bozdogan. We probably never will. If you read my posts and the links I provided US was busy trying to extend the range of aim9x. They even tested more than once with ground launched aim9x. So there is room for development.

Longer burn ESSM motor vs short burn Bozdoğan? Are you joking?

Even Aim-9X barely reaches 3 mach at 20k~ feet altitude.

 

[Yasar_TR]

Longer burn ESSM motor vs short burn Bozdoğan? Are you joking?

Even Aim-9X barely reaches 3 mach at 20k~ feet altitude.

Short burn or long burn would not affect the top speed of a modern missile if designed correctly , especially if you are comparing two very different missiles. A missile may be designed to reach high speed quickly and burn quickly or it may be designed to go long. Hence burn longer. It is to do with design, acceleration, aerodynamics and the physics and of course if present, a booster stage. ESSM and Bozdogan of today are very different missiles with very different dynamics. ESSM is developed from sea sparrow. So Bozdogan can be developed to be more viable to be used as a land launched anti-missile missile as well. ESSM or RAM missiles are around 1 million dollars each. Bozdogan should not be more than 350-400 thousand dollars especially if we are to produce them in house in quantity. There is an advantage here if you are going to be spending many numbers of these missiles.
Aim9x has a given top speed of 2.5 Mach. Not 3 Mach! Bozdogan has a given speed of 4+ Mach.
Again we are discussing with values given to us. These will definitely not be correct as they are all classified!

Raytheon AIM-9 Sidewinder

www.designation-systems.info

 

[dustdevil]

We don’t really know the “real” speed characteristics of Bozdogan. We probably never will.

Just for info... Looking at the released footage, it looks like it’s flying ~3 times the speed of the F-16, if F-16 is 0.8-1M, so probably 2.5-3 Mach. I don’t know the source for 4 Mach. Maybe if F-16 was higher & faster Mach 4 is possible.

They should not have released the telemetry footage.

 

[Siper>MMU]

Short burn or long burn would not affect the top speed of a modern missile if designed correctly , especially if you are comparing two very different missiles. A missile may be designed to reach high speed quickly and burn quickly or it may be designed to go long. Hence burn longer. It is to do with design, acceleration, aerodynamics and the physics and of course if present, a booster stage. ESSM and Bozdogan of today are very different missiles with very different dynamics. ESSM is developed from sea sparrow. So Bozdogan can be developed to be more viable to be used as a land launched anti-missile missile as well. ESSM or RAM missiles are around 1 million dollars each. Bozdogan should not be more than 350-400 thousand dollars especially if we are to produce them in house in quantity. There is an advantage here if you are going to be spending many numbers of these missiles.
Aim9x has a given top speed of 2.5 Mach. Not 3 Mach! Bozdogan has a given speed of 4+ Mach.
Again we are discussing with values given to us. These will definitely not be correct as they are all classified!

Raytheon AIM-9 Sidewinder

www.designation-systems.info

If launched from a 1-1,2 mach flying aircraft at 20k~ feet altitude. Aim9-X can reach 3 mach.

 

[Nilgiri]

Readers may be interested in dual-guidance feature India has developed with its Akash SAM system:

Missiles and Guided Munitions

So finally our Desi meteor is taking shape. Hope they will be ready by the time Tejas mk1A is ready for good.

defencehub.live

 

[TheInsider]

The only matter is not the range, if you again carefully read why US Navy needed a RAM - like system instead of having a Manpads with extended range as RAM you can understand the reason.
Also you can look at China, while having MANPADS, they developed a RAM-like missile for CIWS.

First RAM (block 0) was based on sidewinder + Stinger IR seeker or a RF sensor,the later versions are upgraded from this point, so why did these guy developed RAM from an AA missile build instead of extending range of existing stinger, while in fact the missile was already using seeker of stinger.

It is maneuvarability, bozdoğan is much more maneuverable compared to Sungur. How many G's sungur can pull in a maneuver, how much bozdoğan can? This is the critical point of a CIWS missile, being highly maneuverable, having a re-engagement ability when it misses the target.

It is easier to develop a higly maneuverable missile from a missile with similar kinetics&maneuverability, from sungur you can only develop a VSHORAD.

And also one more point: Weight is a more serious concern for air platforms while it is almost not a concern for naval platforms. So talking about weight was really pointless.
20 x 140 kg - 20 x 75 kg = 1300 kg, literally a fly for a warship/corvette/FAC, an excess of a few tonnes is not really a concern for ships as long as it stays with 1%.
Or 20x 160 (exaggerating weight of bozdoğan based CIWS) - 20x 30 = 2400 kg, again nothing for a ship.

While it would become a real concern for small boats, which is not threatened by AShM missiles but more by helicopters, in which case these kind of boats already carry MANPADS to be launched from shoulder, in future they can be upgraded with RC Sungur.

Also; AMRAAM was developed for air platforms but then used for NASAMS and gained a lot of attraction because of commonality. Which means air-to-air missiles can easily be converted to a ground to air.

Also; Sea Sparrow was derived from an air-to-air missile.

Also; MICA - CAMM, used both for AA and CIWS-Point defense, which again proves: CIWS and Point defense missiles have to be highly maneuverable.

You are completely wrong. We are not the US. Turkish Navy has its own priorities. ESSM is the main anti missile missile of the Turkish Navy. Only in the absence of ESSM(or similar missiles) TN is willing to utilize RAM. RAM=Cheaper and worse ESSM alternative for our NAVY. Look at how many ships has RAM in Turkish inventory. Turkish Navy shies away from the RAM for a reason.

Weight is a serious concern for ships because you have to penetrate the deck to mount a 15 tonnes assembly(point load) which means design change.
Bozdoğan is expensive. I see no point in developing a Turkish RAM that costs as much as a Hisar-RF missile with less capability.

NASAMS is a bad system with the vanilla AMRAAM. When firing from ground AMRAAM range differs from 15 to 25km depending on the version. That is why Amraam-ER has been developed guess from which missile? ESSM. Amraam-ER uses ESSM body+Amraam Seeker.

Sea Sparrow really now we come to 50+ years old missiles.

 

[Anmdt]

Weight is a serious concern for ships because you have to penetrate the deck to mount a 15 tonnes assembly(point load) which means design change.

I do/have done structural analysis of several ships, a naval architect myself for a decade almost, and now are you lecturing me? I am telling you a few tonnes is not a big deal at all. If you can mount 21 RAM, you can also mount 21 Bozdoğan based RAM*. These are not point loads but integrated loads which is connected-welded to primary structural members in an integrated way. I have no time to free time to further explain this.

What i am implying here, installing phalanx or RAM requires same kind of modifications on the installed deck. If a system was installed on there it wouldn't really matter if a few extra tonnes are added. Moreover a deck modification results in ~10 increase in weight of the deck itself. (Including several other modifications)

You are completely wrong. We are not the US. Turkish Navy has its own priorities. ESSM is the main anti missile missile of the Turkish Navy. Only in the absence of ESSM(or similar missiles) TN is willing to utilize RAM. RAM=Cheaper and worse ESSM alternative for our NAVY. Look at how many ships has RAM in Turkish inventory. Turkish Navy shies away from the RAM for a reason.

You may see initial sketches of TF2000 from 2005-2010 which uses 2x RAM, which also uses ESSM
Also i am acquainted to some people who carries out design stage and if possible they would prefer to have RAM despite of having ESSM, because these systems are not substitute of each other but filling the gap of each other. On a limited budget, small sized ship you have to make choices, i am just invalidating your argument.

You are showing realized examples and making an end conclusion " it is this", and i am telling you Milgem was at some point was going to have 8 Cell for ESSM + Still a RAM launcher. But VLS option was dropped. Cost management and size management. This is not related to properties of the missile but the ship.

The ships i have mentioned was not only from US Navy but also from Germany, Japan and latest offer to Greece is also spotted with 1x/ 2xRAM.

I am telling you current and future trends, and also trends within Turkish Navy.
If you are further interested in design attributes for self-protection of ships and why RAM was chosen on milgem instead of Phalanx / Oerlikon, or why some ships solely have Phalanx but not RAM or ESSM, we can discuss in relevant threads.

number of RAM in inventory of Turkish Navy is irrelevant, 1st because it is not a local system, 2nd RAM was introduced with Milgem. Once a local substitute is developed it will be easily available in other ships. This trend is also seen with other sub-systems which is developed locally and then became available on all ships.

I am telling once and for all : cost of self protection systems are entirely negligible compared to cost of a ship + personnel + strategic effects of a leaving a damaged ship in midst of the sea.

 

[Turko]

RAM=Cheaper and worse ESSM alternative for our NAVY.

I see no point in developing a Turkish RAM that costs as much as a Hisar-RF missile with less capability.

you are too confused

RIM-116 cheaper than ESSM ???!!
However our Türkish RAM will be expensive??

First RAM is not cheaper than ESSM.
Second RAM is expensive not because of active radar seeker. Because it has IR seeker.
Third There is no copy-pasted Türkish RAM -116. Turkish naval point defence SAM could be with RF seeker like Iron dome which has cheap Tamir missiles

In addition RIM -116 is bad ?))

How could you defend little ships which can't be fitted VLS?

 

[dustdevil]

Some random rants:

ESSM-> Semi active missile, mostly comes out from common missile magazine, ship radar has to illuminate the target.
RAM-> Missile has sensors, separate magazine, separate sensors

In missile exchange

- if your VLS magazine is hit
- if your radar malfunctions
- if EW is applied
- if target has low RCS
- if enemy deploys false targets to deplete your ESSM battery


You lose CIWS capability (not counting on Phalanx/Gökdeniz... they all have dead sectors and can't engage multiple same time of arrival, smart pop-up missiles, they won't stop fast missiles like Brahmos, the debris will hit the ship).....

For CIWS scenarios, even if ESSM performs %60 and RAM+ESSM performs %70 it is going to make a difference, so much that your enemy might base his decisions to attack or disengage based on those probabilities (they know about our ships and they will calculate and allocate resources, we will do the same).

Has the Turkish Navy ever conducted a drill using 5-10 real anti-ship missiles and tried to measure ESSM/RAM/Phalanx/Gökdeniz/SeaZenith performance against saturation attacks?

Probably not.... probably many navies did not even try (except Australians tried some scenarios which was not a saturation drill). US is US and Turkish Navy is different, but which one has the complete layered defence (E-2 Hawkeye, satellite sensors, underwater sensors, AAW frigates, interceptor aircraft, group of ships, tomahawk missiles) and can choose not to install a perfect CIWS system and get away with it?

Current capabilities of our navy which needs to improve):

- AWACS-> relies on airforce
- Satellite sensors, limited coverage, not sure realtime networked data is available to navy
- AAW frigates-> SM-1 & Smart
- underwaters sensors, if any probably local and not global coverage like US SOSUS
- interceptor aircraft, relies on airforce
- group of ships, nothing spectacular
- long range anti-ship missiles, no (200 km is not long range to deter serious navies)

Many capabilities are getting better, but there is a long long way to go....


I'd like to see those:

- Aselsan should make an aircraft mounted version of EIRS radar
- We should put tens of satellites into low earth orbit, for networking and for remote sensing
- TF2000 and smaller versions having scaled down systems should form a network, smaller vessels like OPVs and FACs should join too with their sensors and weapons
- For navy we need equivalent of SM2/3/6, ESSM with Gökdoğan sensor, Siper, specialised missiles against antiship missiles etc.
- Towed arrays, passive sensors in nearby seas
- Navy should start to fly fighter aircraft, even from land initially
- We should make ship building cheaper and use all our shipbuillding capacity i.e. instead of waiting I class for 3-4 years, we should concurrently produce 3-4 in different shipyards
- Gezgin in the antiship mode


We should direct serious money and research time into CIWS/point defence as it can make a big difference in battle, along with long range weapons and a robust network oriented, scalable battle management system for any size of ships, maybe extending this to coastal installations and other domains...

 

[Zafer]

Some random rants:

ESSM-> Semi active missile, mostly comes out from common missile magazine, ship radar has to illuminate the target.
RAM-> Missile has sensors, separate magazine, separate sensors

In missile exchange

- if your VLS magazine is hit
- if your radar malfunctions
- if EW is applied
- if target has low RCS
- if enemy deploys false targets to deplete your ESSM battery


You lose CIWS capability (not counting on Phalanx/Gökdeniz... they all have dead sectors and can't engage multiple same time of arrival, smart pop-up missiles, they won't stop fast missiles like Brahmos, the debris will hit the ship).....

For CIWS scenarios, even if ESSM performs %60 and RAM+ESSM performs %70 it is going to make a difference, so much that your enemy might base his decisions to attack or disengage based on those probabilities (they know about our ships and they will calculate and allocate resources, we will do the same).

Has the Turkish Navy ever conducted a drill using 5-10 real anti-ship missiles and tried to measure ESSM/RAM/Phalanx/Gökdeniz/SeaZenith performance against saturation attacks?

Probably not.... probably many navies did not even try (except Australians tried some scenarios which was not a saturation drill). US is US and Turkish Navy is different, but which was has the complete layered defence (E-2 Hawkeye, satellite sensors, underwater sensors, AAW frigates, interceptor aircraft, group of ships, tomahawk missiles) and can choose not to install a perfect CIWS system and get away with it?

Current capabilities of our navy which needs to improve):

- AWACS-> relies on airforce
- Satellite sensors, limited coverage, not sure realtime networked data is available to navy
- AAW frigates-> SM-1 & Smart
- underwaters sensors, if any probably local and not global coverage like US SOSUS
- interceptor aircraft, relies on airforce
- group of ships, nothing spectacular
- long range anti-ship missiles, no (200 km is not long range to deter serious navies)

Many capabilities are getting better, but there is a long long way to go....


I'd like to see those:

- Aselsan should make an aircraft mounted version of EIRS radar
- We should put tens of satellites into low earth orbit, for networking and for remote sensing
- TF2000 and smaller versions having scaled down systems should form a network, smaller vessels like OPVs and FACs should join too with their sensors and weapons
- For navy we need equivalent of SM2/3/6, ESSM with Gökdoğan sensor, Siper, specialised missiles against antiship missiles etc.
- Towed arrays, passive sensors in nearby seas
- Navy should start to fly fighter aircraft, even from land initially
- We should make ship building cheaper and use all our shipbuillding capacity i.e. instead of waiting I class for 3-4 years, we should concurrently produce 3-4 in different shipyards
- Gezgin in the antiship mode


We should direct serious money and research time into CIWS/point defence as it can make a big difference in battle, along with long range weapons and a robust network oriented, scalable battle management system for any size of ships, maybe extending this to coastal installations and other domains...

We should do everything but we can't squeeze too many things in a short time as it will cause some alarm bells to ring. The main thing we can do is to conduct as many research projects as we possibly can and strengthen our industry base. The ability to make many things locally is more valuable than making many of the same ships.

I would rather increase the self reliance level to past 80% before making many weapons. We can't make marine turbine engines yet. We can only make as many ships as the number of engines we can find for them. We are not there yet.