TR Naval Programs

[Spook]

Second phase is loading.........................

 

[Spook]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1406148933911564288

 

[kimov]

MİLGEM Sohbeti: Silahlar ve Alt Sistemler​

 

[Yasar_TR]

They mentioned as an interim solution until Hisar based solution matured. We can develop ESSM Block 1 and SM-1 alternative. Something like ESSM Block 2 will take time.

ESSM block-1 alternative is probably G40. Block 2 is actually a little more manoeuvrable and does not rely on ship’s radar for homing on to it’s target. Apart from that it is no different from block-1. As we are in the ESSM consortium, we did extensive work on the development of both bocks. So manufacturing a G40 with block-2 properties should be within the scope of our capability.

 

[Spook]

ESSM block-1 alternative is probably G40. Block 2 is actually a little more manoeuvrable and does not rely on ship’s radar for homing on to it’s target. Apart from that it is no different from block-1. As we are in the ESSM consortium, we did extensive work on the development of both bocks. So manufacturing a G40 with block-2 properties should be within the scope of our capability.

We are in ESSM "consortium", we do develop build parts for it but its not like we are building the missile or the guidance system. Block 1 alternative will be developed with knowledge from Göktuğ and Hisar programs. For something advanced as Block 2, we need a lot of feedback and upgrade, develop new subsystems.

From the live interview. Kozan said that Korea is developing K-VLS with its own missiles, its identical to MK41 in shape and size. They wanted to integrate ESSM to it. US did allow but in the condition that it would not be quad-packed. My first comment was based on that.

 

[Anmdt]

ESSM block-1 alternative is probably G40. Block 2 is actually a little more manoeuvrable and does not rely on ship’s radar for homing on to it’s target. Apart from that it is no different from block-1. As we are in the ESSM consortium, we did extensive work on the development of both bocks. So manufacturing a G40 with block-2 properties should be within the scope of our capability.

We are in ESSM "consortium", we do develop build parts for it but its not like we are building the missile or the guidance system. Block 1 alternative will be developed with knowledge from Göktuğ and Hisar programs. For something advanced as Block 2, we need a lot of feedback and upgrade, develop new subsystems.

From the live interview. Kozan said that Korea is developing K-VLS with its own missiles, its identical to MK41 in shape and size. They wanted to integrate ESSM to it. US did allow but in the condition that it would not be quad-packed. My first comment was based on that.

Why do we need ESSM block I in MIDLAS while Gurcan Okumus had already been telling that G40 can meet I-Class frigate's schedule?
Apart from range based comparison with ESSM block II, G40 is going to have an active seeker just like Block II but with range of Block I (depends on how we measure the range), this will improve by time and we can expect G40 to have a range same as CAMM-ER thanks to the cold launch just at the first design attempt.

If it goes down to one missile per cell, we shouldn't even consider ESSM-like point defense missile while Hisar-O RF definitely is going to provide a better solution with dual pulse engagement.

For the Korea, they operate mixed VLS configuration on their ships(both K-VLS and Mk41), i haven't really heard if they were trying to put ESSM in K-VLS on those mixed ships (maybe it was happening for small vessels with limited number of VLS for example LST or such), they do carry their domestic missiles with K-VLS (K-ASROC, LACM, Anti-Air) and US missiles with Mk-41.

If it was working vice-versa they wouldn't really develop a VLS but integrate missiles to the Mk 41 and keep it common.

Integrating missiles into VLS is farther than just placing one or more canister within the Cell, VLS has a controller interface which mates with the missile and missile container's controller circuit or data port.

 

[Nutuk]

Actually, no foreign made missiles will be suitable for MDAS.
Only home made missiles will be usable. Our own missiles too, will not be suitable on MK41 VLS systems. That is the way it will be now.

Why?

It would be stupid to make a VLS which does not have standardized dimensions. And with standardized dimensions it will be suitable for most of the missiles existing.

 

[Anmdt]

View attachment 23627

View attachment 23626

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1406331897551241218

This is rather a prototype for console which is made for test purposes, Roketsan is going to improve it for final integration and it will have a better and more solid look.

 

[Yasar_TR]

Why?

It would be stupid to make a VLS which does not have standardized dimensions. And with standardized dimensions it will be suitable for most of the missiles existing.

Good question!
One logic could be:
As we are producing our own missiles as well; Then it is only fair to think that anybody buying our MDAS should buy our missiles. Also any body buying our missiles should use our MDAS.
During integration of foreign equipment or ammo to your indigenous equipment or ammo, a lot of sensitive information is likely to be shared. (When SOM-J was being integrated in to F35, Lockheed had access to our tech) .
With this policy, no one knows about our sensitive tech in detail.

Quote:

TÜRK FIRKATEYNİNDEN ESSM FÜZESİ ATIŞI​

Aslında MDAS Projesi, bir dikey atım sisteminden çok daha fazlasını ifade ediyor. SavunmaSanayiST.com tarafından elde edilen bilgiye göre; Türkiye’nin, MDAS sistemine hiçbir yabancı füzenin entegre edilmemesi ve hiçbir yerli füzenin de Mk41 gibi yabancı atım sistemlerine entegre edilmemesi gibi bir tutumu var. Dolayısı ile Türkiye, TCG İSTANBUL Fırkateyni’nin envantere alınacağı 2020 tarihine kadar MDAS’da kullanılacak yerli füzeleri de üretmeyi amaçlıyor. Füze alanında hem Roketsan hem de TÜBİTAK-SAGE çalışmalar gerçekleştirmekte.

Milli Dikey Atım Sistemi, hem hava savunma füzelerini hem de satıhtan satha füzeleri ateşleme kabiliyetine sahip olacak. Yani GEZGİN Füzesi’nin de MDAS’tan atılması planlanıyor.
Unquote.

İstanbul Fırkateyni, MDAS ile donatılacak

T.C. Cumhurbaşkanlığı Savunma Sanayii Başkanı Prof. Dr. İsmail Demir, TCG İSTANBUL Fırkateyni (F-515)’nin Milli Dikey Atım Sistemi (MDAS) ile donatılacağını açıkladı.

aydinlik.com.tr

Milli Dikey Atım Sistemi (MİDLAS)

Milli Dikey Atım Sistemi (MiDLAS)

www.millisavunma.com

 

[Yasar_TR]

We are in ESSM "consortium", we do develop build parts for it but its not like we are building the missile or the guidance system. Block 1 alternative will be developed with knowledge from Göktuğ and Hisar programs. For something advanced as Block 2, we need a lot of feedback and upgrade, develop new subsystems.

From the live interview. Kozan said that Korea is developing K-VLS with its own missiles, its identical to MK41 in shape and size. They wanted to integrate ESSM to it. US did allow but in the condition that it would not be quad-packed. My first comment was based on that.

When you are in a “consortium” like this and are active in the development of the missile with a view to producing certain parts, you have access to most of the tech involved in the missile. That gives you a big head start. G40 is the fine example of this!

 

[Anmdt]

As we are producing our own missiles as well; Then it is only fair to think that anybody buying our MDAS should buy our missiles. Also any body buying our missiles should use our MDAS.

compatibility is required for integrating a missile with a VLS system and it is beyond fitting a missile physically. Can not happen without permission of the suppliers of the each system.

In simple terms (since it is how the procedures work analogically):

-You may have a printer which plugs into the computer (/OS) you have made, but the manufacturer does not supply drivers so you can plug it in, but you can not use it.
or,

-You may have a printer which you have made on your own, but computer (/OS) supplier does not providers you the necessary environment (libraries) to code the driver libraries so you can plug it in, but you can not use it.

 

[Yasar_TR]

compatibility is required for integrating a missile with a VLS system and it is beyond fitting a missile physically. Can not happen without permission of the suppliers of the each system.

In simple terms (since it is how the procedures work analogically):

-You may have a printer which plugs into the computer (/OS) you have made, but the manufacturer does not supply drivers so you can plug it in, but you can not use it.
or,

-You may have a printer which you have made on your own, but computer (/OS) supplier does not providers you the necessary environment (libraries) to code the driver libraries so you can plug it in, but you can not use it.

Am I understanding correctly?
Taking your printer analogy as an example; You need certain drivers (software) to plug your printer to the computer. Those drivers are written with software that has info of your printer embedded in it’s core. So if you are going to use an ESSM on MDAS, you will need the codes of the ESSM missiles written in to the program of your MDAS system for the ESSM to be compatible with your MDAS.
So same applies for our G40 to be compatible with MK41 VLS.?
So integration of foreign system in to yours, involves trading sensitive information of some kind.

 

[Nutuk]

Good question!
One logic could be:
As we are producing our own missiles as well; Then it is only fair to think that anybody buying our MDAS should buy our missiles. Also any body buying our missiles should use our MDAS.
During integration of foreign equipment or ammo to your indigenous equipment or ammo, a lot of sensitive information is likely to be shared. (When SOM-J was being integrated in to F35, Lockheed had access to our tech) .
With this policy, no one knows about our sensitive tech in detail.

Quote:

TÜRK FIRKATEYNİNDEN ESSM FÜZESİ ATIŞI​

Aslında MDAS Projesi, bir dikey atım sisteminden çok daha fazlasını ifade ediyor. SavunmaSanayiST.com tarafından elde edilen bilgiye göre; Türkiye’nin, MDAS sistemine hiçbir yabancı füzenin entegre edilmemesi ve hiçbir yerli füzenin de Mk41 gibi yabancı atım sistemlerine entegre edilmemesi gibi bir tutumu var. Dolayısı ile Türkiye, TCG İSTANBUL Fırkateyni’nin envantere alınacağı 2020 tarihine kadar MDAS’da kullanılacak yerli füzeleri de üretmeyi amaçlıyor. Füze alanında hem Roketsan hem de TÜBİTAK-SAGE çalışmalar gerçekleştirmekte.

Milli Dikey Atım Sistemi, hem hava savunma füzelerini hem de satıhtan satha füzeleri ateşleme kabiliyetine sahip olacak. Yani GEZGİN Füzesi’nin de MDAS’tan atılması planlanıyor.
Unquote.

İstanbul Fırkateyni, MDAS ile donatılacak

T.C. Cumhurbaşkanlığı Savunma Sanayii Başkanı Prof. Dr. İsmail Demir, TCG İSTANBUL Fırkateyni (F-515)’nin Milli Dikey Atım Sistemi (MDAS) ile donatılacağını açıkladı.

aydinlik.com.tr

View attachment 23638

Milli Dikey Atım Sistemi (MİDLAS)

Milli Dikey Atım Sistemi (MiDLAS)

www.millisavunma.com

Well that would be the dumbest choice, one has to go with standards if you want your missiles to be sold. And those standards have already been set by the US with the MK41VLS.

We needs same cell sizes to utilize the maximum possible amount of missile integration.

PS we are already following US standards (under the nominem of "NATO" standards) , all our aircraft missiles are in these size standards.

 

[Anmdt]

Am I understanding correctly?
Taking your printer analogy as an example; You need certain drivers (software) to plug your printer to the computer. Those drivers are written with software that has info of your printer embedded in it’s core. So if you are going to use an ESSM on MDAS, you will need the codes of the ESSM missiles written in to the program of your MDAS system for the ESSM to be compatible with your MDAS.
So same applies for our G40 to be compatible with MK41 VLS.?
So integration of foreign system in to yours, involves trading sensitive information of some kind.

You will need codes (again, sort of drivers to communicate with the missile) of ESSM if you plan to integrate it with your own VLS' control unit,
But this is less likely, so then you will need some sort of libraries /drivers to communicate with ESSM's electronic control unit (usually configured 1 per 8 missile* , 1 per 16) which manufacturer will provide if they are allowing the integration.

So in both cases, you need some sort of libraries from the manufacturer.

Also while integrating G40 in Mk41 it applies the same way, but also it can be avoided by replacing control unit of Mk41 with MIDLAS' and using only shell of Mk41 (which i doubt if US will allow such a thing)

As a last note, since ESSM Block II chances are weak for Turkish Navy even without CAATSA and good relationship with US before than 2025, it is better to focus on domestic missiles; G40, Gökdoğan/Bozdoğan as Point defence/CIWS family , Hisar - Siper as MR-LR anti-air to further lower component pricess with a high rate of production.

 

[TheInsider]

Some good news. Cenk-S rotating type AESA radar has a range of over 300km with state-of-the-art range and bearing resolution (better than Smart-S Mk2 which is a very good performer). TN holds Aselsans license production Smart-S Mk2s with very high regard. Locally produced Smart-S Mk2 radars have slight differences compared to the Thales version. They have better resistance to electronic interference. In Libya, Smart-S Mk2 worked very well under French EW attack/interference. Cenk-S firmly beats Smart-S Mk2 in every parameter, and TN is extremely pleased with the radar's early performance.

Range Resolution - Radartutorial

www.radartutorial.eu

 

[Nutuk]

Is CENK-S an own product of Aselsan or like Smart-S a licenced NS-100?

 

[Anmdt]

Is CENK-S an own product of Aselsan or like Smart-S a licenced NS-100?

They don't need to license a radar anymore, especially after completing Cafrad CFR and T-eirs. They might be only inspired spec-wise to figure out size and power.
It could be either like ns-100, or ns-200. I feel like they aim specs of ns-200 and beyond but first blocks will be more close to ns-100.

 

[TheInsider]

Is CENK-S an own product of Aselsan or like Smart-S a licenced NS-100?

No, it is %100 national radar.

 

[Nutuk]

I ask this because there was a render of CENK-S that did look exactly like NS100. The strange thing is that Aselsan did not ever show CENK-S in any fair or even on their own internet site and suddenly there is a radar. To me this gives a feeling that it most likely could be a licensed product.

 

[TheInsider]

They don't need to license a radar anymore, especially after completing Cafrad CFR and T-eirs. They might be only inspired spec-wise to figure out size and power.
It could be either like ns-100, or ns-200. I feel like they aim specs of ns-200 and beyond but first blocks will be more close to ns-100.

I expect it to be somewhere between NS-100 and 200. It uses the same modules as CAFRAD UMR and EIRS.