TR Naval Programs

Brave Janissary

Well-known member
Messages
325
Reactions
5 666
Ladys and gentelman ;

Our own Sm-1 missiles on Gabya's one of the most modern versions of sm-1 they are using same warhead and fuse and semi active radar seeker and engine with sm-2 block 1. But sm-2 mr b1 is going 74 km our sm-1's 46 km .

Only diffrences of two missile is sm-2 have more modern autopilot software and datalink.

So they flight more effective way to target via help of modern autopilot software and they seek datalink until midcourse. After the midcourse their semi active seeker seek launcher ships radar signals who return from target. Sizes of two missile are same.

Give a side to semi active seeker we have full active seeker, datalink, mission computer warhead and fuse techs.

With little update we can have 4 gabya who have a 32x 75 km ranged sam sm-2 mr b1 , 32x essm, phalanx , Smart-s mk2 + genesis subsystems. Maybe we can add him more accurate mar-d x band air defence radar.

Australian Sm-2 Mr B1

 

Quasar

Contributor
The Post Deleter
Messages
734
Reactions
51 3,280
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
It will have Li-Ion from scratch. That is what giving these light submarines a comeback after years; High density Li-Ion batteries.

Quite possible, SAGE has made several concept submissions to the Turkish Navy but still nothing came out officially. Taiwan currently benefiting from this, deploying SR-SAM / MR-SAM in 16 in place of 4 AShM canisters.

Gave my comments on this earlier, STM deploys French VL-MICA on Ukranian Ada class in similar spot but adjacent to the helicopter hangar. If used this way (as in the concept published there) exhausts should be wrapped onto sides of launchers and given to top to prevent deck penetration. Still lands us with a similar concept of what STM has applied.

Possibly Milgem's MLU will have 16 Hisar-RF deployed similar to the Hisar-Class OPV's individual 8 pack launcher. They will find a way to fit those.


This should be done not just to allow Ada-Class and frigates to carry AD missiles but also the fast attack crafts and patrol boats via common oblique AShM launchers. That would be nice if a FAC (let's say TTHB or whatever it becomes) equipped with 8 AShM and 2+2 quad packed Gökdoğan with booster (tagged as G40/60 by SAGE). That common launcher interface should be benefitted more but it first requires some ability on quad-packing and it is Roketsan's responsilbiity now as part of the MDAS contract.


2 year ago @UkroTurk came with a similar idea (Defence Turk was later than our forum :) );

Whatever they are going to mount on Ada-Class or others better be compact as this launching system with minimal deck penetration and modification.

Then i improved the idea a bit with proper VL systems;

what is your impression I mean what the Navy inclined to do? I belive a dual AD missile structure is the optimum solution ( SİPER + quadpacked G40/60 very similar to SM series + ESSM)
 

Anmdt

Experienced member
Naval Specialist
Professional
Messages
5,503
Solutions
2
Reactions
118 24,893
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
what is your impression I mean what the Navy inclined to do? I belive a dual AD missile structure is the optimum solution ( SİPER + quadpacked G40/60 very similar to SM series + ESSM)
There is Hisar-RF which is redesigned to meet Navy's demand. All Roketsan needs to do is presenting it can match and surpass ESSM Block-II in certain specs. For now navy seems to be intrigued with the idea of having both Hisar-RF and Siper Block - 0 that uses a similar (nearly common) missile with Hisar-RF in quad-packable formation. However G40 catches their interest with the compactness.

With this duo TN is opting for 50+ / 80+ km ranges and higher altitudes than what SAGE is offering with G40/60.
 

Nutuk

Contributor
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
1,017
Reactions
8 3,638
Nation of residence
Nethelands
Nation of origin
Turkey
We can convert our sm-1 mr's to sm-2 mr block1's easy way. More logical than deattach sm-1 launcher and establish a vls for siper blok 1.

Like a Iranian style with more profaessional way.
A lot is possible but I am afraid we will run into many legal issues there
 

UkroTurk

Experienced member
Land Warfare Specialist
Professional
Messages
2,684
Reactions
55 4,801
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
We can convert our sm-1 mr's to sm-2 mr block1's easy way. More logical than deattach sm-1 launcher and establish a vls for siper blok 1.

Like a Iranian style with more profaessional way.
Since there's SİPER why should we do it?

There's a mere alternative for old frigates: Gökdeniz -ER.


PLAN modernized old frigates with HQ-10


Before
images (2).jpeg


After

images (1).jpeg

1656342676153.png
 
Last edited:

Brave Janissary

Well-known member
Messages
325
Reactions
5 666

Tayfun Ozberk 

Member
Naval Specialist
Messages
11
Reactions
4 150
Website
twitter.com
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
We can convert our sm-1 mr's to sm-2 mr block1's easy way. More logical than deattach sm-1 launcher and establish a vls for siper blok 1.

Like a Iranian style with more profaessional way.

It's not that simple. I worked for three years on Gabya-class frigates as a fire control officer and experienced Block-14 ORDALT (Ordnance Alteration) of Mk-92 fire control system. While the Mk-13 GMLS is compatible with SM -2 missiles, the fire control system has to be upgraded first, and you can not upgrade the system without the manufacturer's technical support (as well as U.S. permission) because it's a pretty complicated system. The ORDALTs would be done with U.S.-supplied equipment. Therefore, there are obstacles about the fire control system.

The missile part is a different case. The Navy's missile maintenance stations (Canakkale and Basiskele) are only responsible for basic maintenance. The missiles are either sent to the U.S. or upgraded with U.S.-supplied equipment. We do not have the expertise of the missiles in terms of production and cannot get approval for such upgrades. The SM-1 missiles are obsolete and nearing the end of their service life. I am not sure if other navies use these missiles, perhaps Egypt and Pakistan, but upgrading them seems to be a futile effort.
 
M

Manomed

Guest
It's not that simple. I worked for three years on Gabya-class frigates as a fire control officer and experienced Block-14 ORDALT (Ordnance Alteration) of Mk-92 fire control system. While the Mk-13 GMLS is compatible with SM -2 missiles, the fire control system has to be upgraded first, and you can not upgrade the system without the manufacturer's technical support (as well as U.S. permission) because it's a pretty complicated system. The ORDALTs would be done with U.S.-supplied equipment. Therefore, there are obstacles about the fire control system.

The missile part is a different case. The Navy's missile maintenance stations (Canakkale and Basiskele) are only responsible for basic maintenance. The missiles are either sent to the U.S. or upgraded with U.S.-supplied equipment. We do not have the expertise of the missiles in terms of production and cannot get approval for such upgrades. The SM-1 missiles are obsolete and nearing the end of their service life. I am not sure if other navies use these missiles, perhaps Egypt and Pakistan, but upgrading them seems to be a futile effort.
Do SM-2 missiles still hold up in 2022?
 

Brave Janissary

Well-known member
Messages
325
Reactions
5 666
It's not that simple. I worked for three years on Gabya-class frigates as a fire control officer and experienced Block-14 ORDALT (Ordnance Alteration) of Mk-92 fire control system. While the Mk-13 GMLS is compatible with SM -2 missiles, the fire control system has to be upgraded first, and you can not upgrade the system without the manufacturer's technical support (as well as U.S. permission) because it's a pretty complicated system. The ORDALTs would be done with U.S.-supplied equipment. Therefore, there are obstacles about the fire control system.

The missile part is a different case. The Navy's missile maintenance stations (Canakkale and Basiskele) are only responsible for basic maintenance. The missiles are either sent to the U.S. or upgraded with U.S.-supplied equipment. We do not have the expertise of the missiles in terms of production and cannot get approval for such upgrades. The SM-1 missiles are obsolete and nearing the end of their service life. I am not sure if other navies use these missiles, perhaps Egypt and Pakistan, but upgrading them seems to be a futile effort.
Efenim, I'm not talking about it's efficent way or not. I just say a relation between sm-1 MR Block VI and Sm-2 MR Block I .
Yes, Complete to Siper B1 and establish him available ships are more smart way. But In War Conditions there ara a possibility in the corner.

Salute
 

UkroTurk

Experienced member
Land Warfare Specialist
Professional
Messages
2,684
Reactions
55 4,801
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
I worked for three years on Gabya-class frigates as a fire control officer and experienced Block-14 ORDALT (Ordnance Alteration) of Mk-92 fire control system
It's great pleasure to meet you Komutanım.
Could you tell us more about ESSMs ? How they work? They can intercept low flying cruise missiles? What do you think about RIM-116. We are looking forward to hearing real experiences.


I have a lot of questions but i think for a start , those would be enough. :)
 

UkroTurk

Experienced member
Land Warfare Specialist
Professional
Messages
2,684
Reactions
55 4,801
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey

Follow us on social media

Top Bottom