TR Propulsion Systems

[Profchaos]

What is wrong with you?

I was gonna ask the same

 

[Zafer]

I was gonna ask the same

What's your point, before I start ignoring you.

 

[DBdev]

Turbofan missiles are efficient and gets you further with same amount of fuel but they are the slowest jet engines.

Slow means easy to shoot down. World is moving away from subsonic missiles. America tried staying subsonic with STEALTH but even they are focusing on hypersonic. For one you can't fire a non heat shielded subsonic cruise missile from a hypersonic flying 6th or 7th gen aircraft. So any propulsion tech it is not hypersonic is a dead end and a bad investment for the future.

At least invest in easy to build, store solid fuel hypersonic glider missiles. Arm all your submarines and ships with dozens of laser proof, heat tile covered, hypersonic missiles that can hit moving targets. Who is going to mess with us if we choose to do that instead of current subsonic silliness?

 

[Yasar_TR]

Turbofan missiles are efficient and gets you further with same amount of fuel but they are the slowest jet engines.

Slow means easy to shoot down. World is moving away from subsonic missiles. America tried staying subsonic with STEALTH but even they are focusing on hypersonic. For one you can't fire a non heat shielded subsonic cruise missile from a hypersonic flying 6th or 7th gen aircraft. So any propulsion tech it is not hypersonic is a dead end and a bad investment for the future.

At least invest in easy to build, store solid fuel hypersonic glider missiles. Arm all your submarines and ships with dozens of laser proof, heat tile covered, hypersonic missiles that can hit moving targets. Who is going to mess with us if we choose to do that instead of current subsonic silliness?

There are merits to what you say. However you can not rule out the use of subsonic missiles either. Neither should you call it “silliness”.

War is governed by and is a matter of sustainability, skill and managing economics of battlefield.

A hypersonic missile like ARRW will cost 15 to 18 million dollars a piece.

CBO Estimates $15-18 Million Cost Per ARRW Hypersonic Missile | Air & Space Forces Magazine

A report from the Congressional Budget Office offered estimates for different Air Force and Army programs and the cost per hypersonic missile.

www.airandspaceforces.com

If you are not carrying a nuclear warhead, it is false economy to fire a hypersonic glide vehicle/missile over a thousand kilometres, unless you are aiming to sink a carrier.

We have even seen in latest news the claims of the much advertised, and estimated at 10+ million dollar a piece Zircon missile being shot down in Ukraine. So they are not infallible either.

Every piece of weapon has a use in a specific situation. Much acclaimed Storm Shadow missiles have faltered as well.
There were news earlier last year that western airforces like RAF were contemplating purchasing supersonic Rampage missiles (Israeli version of TRG300 artillery rockets fired from air) at a fraction of the cost of a Storm Shadow to take out enemy targets.

A sea skimming subsonic missile may only be visible to enemy radars in the last 80-90 seconds. Yet a terrain hugging subsonic cruise missile may not be visible to enemy radars until the last 20-30 seconds due to geographic camouflage it utilises.
So you use them accordingly.
We have subsonic sea skimming Atmaca and we have Stealthy SOM-J and SOM-C (under development) to hit sea targets. Then we have “unverified“ news of Typhoon that can travel at hypersonic speeds and hit moving sea targets.
All three have case specific attack envelopes that they utilise. It all depends on what assets of enemy you are targeting to destroy.

 

[Oublious]

 

[KhanOfEurasia]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1776205419356020738

 

[DBdev]

Turbofan missiles are efficient and gets you further with same amount of fuel but they are the slowest jet engines.

Slow means easy to shoot down. World is moving away from subsonic missiles. America tried staying subsonic with STEALTH but even they are focusing on hypersonic. For one you can't fire a non heat shielded subsonic cruise missile from a hypersonic flying 6th or 7th gen aircraft. So any propulsion tech it is not hypersonic is a dead end and a bad investment for the future.

At least invest in easy to build, store solid fuel hypersonic glider missiles. Arm all your submarines and ships with dozens of laser proof, heat tile covered, hypersonic missiles that can hit moving targets. Who is going to mess with us if we choose to do that instead of current subsonic silliness?

As I said, subsonic silliness has no future. It is already dead. The proof is in the pudding. The only weapons that were effective against Israel were the hypersonic ones. The rest was just a huge pile of expensive trash. 'Silliness' was too polite a term; they were just utter trash against good Western air defense tactics. The Greece-Türkiye situation wouldn't be any different from the Israel-Iran faceoff due to the strong Western support in both cases.

 

[Merzifonlu]

BTW, I think a company other than TEI needs to develop a turboprop engine using the core of the TS-1400 engine. For example Kale. We never know when the Canadians will be bullshitting again. It is unthinkable for Akıncı to remain without an engine.

 

[Huelague]

As I said, subsonic silliness has no future. It is already dead. The proof is in the pudding. The only weapons that were effective against Israel were the hypersonic ones. The rest was just a huge pile of expensive trash. 'Silliness' was too polite a term; they were just utter trash against good Western air defense tactics. The Greece-Türkiye situation wouldn't be any different from the Israel-Iran faceoff due to the strong Western support in both cases.

Nah, use the cheap subsonic missile to employ the ADS. The real deal comes with the hypersonic ones.

 

[uçuyorum]

Nah, use the cheap subsonic missile to employ the ADS. The real deal comes with the hypersonic ones.

Cruise missiles can fly low and have stealth features. Being close to surface makes it difficult for radars to tell it apart from the ground as well I think when you have airborne platforms, but modern radars might be good enough for that not to matter significantly anymore.

 

[DBdev]

Nah, use the cheap subsonic missile to employ the ADS. The real deal comes with the hypersonic ones.

False. Hypersonic missiles don't benefit from lame oversaturation tactics. Their SPEED is enough to overcome all modern air defenses, especially if they don't apogee at space and keep their hypersonic speed in a low altitude hypersonic glider manner.

 

[DBdev]

Cruise missiles can fly low and have stealth features. Being close to surface makes it difficult for radars to tell it apart from the ground as well I think when you have airborne platforms, but modern radars might be good enough for that not to matter significantly anymore.

Airborne radars can see very low flying cruise missiles just fine. Fighter based AD strategy can handle anything subsonic, as America and Israel just demonstrated flawlessly. Stealth can be effective, but only if it is done right. Mastering hypersonic ballistic missiles is easier and much cheaper than mastering true stealth. And Iran just demonstrated their effectiveness against any foe.

 

[uçuyorum]

Airborne radars can see very low flying cruise missiles just fine. Fighter based AD strategy can handle anything subsonic, as America and Israel just demonstrated flawlessly. Stealth can be effective, but only if it is done right. Mastering hypersonic ballistic missiles is easier and much cheaper than mastering true stealth. And Iran just demonstrated their effectiveness against any foe.

Hypersonics are fast but at the end may not have enough explosive payload to deliver when you optimize it to go that fast. Maybe as a kinetic penetrator against certain targets? Or well the non conventional warheads.

 

[Huelague]

Cruise missiles can fly low and have stealth features. Being close to surface makes it difficult for radars to tell it apart from the ground as well I think when you have airborne platforms, but modern radars might be good enough for that not to matter significantly anymore.

Not every cruise missile has stealth features.

 

[boredaf]

Do we really have to go through the stage of proclaiming a weapon/vehicle/system/missile/etc. is now obsolete and useless because something new/cheaper/whatever can be/should be/ must be used, every time a new system gets any mention on Twitter?

Everything has been declared dead on here at one time or the other, makes one wonder how we haven't achieved absolute peace by the virtue of every weapon system being useless already.

We have just started making our own cruise missiles with our own engines now people, have some patience. Or by the time we have hypersonic missiles, you'll be asking why we don't have particle lances or blaster rifles for our soldiers.

 

[Samba]

Is there any source showing the success of Iranian hypersonic missiles successfully hitting on Israeli targets?

 

[Yasar_TR]

Unless you have a layered missile system, be it subsonic, supersonic or hypersonic, it is all academic when it comes to real life events.

Last night we watched the Arrow system intercepting an exoatmospheric Iranian missile. That missile must have been travelling at high hypersonic speeds when it was intercepted.
Going by several Russian claims of S400 missile system intercepting hypersonic missiles and a Zircon being downed in Ukraine too, it is evident that even hypersonic missiles can be stopped with a capable well designed ADS.
We know that a missile like ESSM can stop supersonic missiles. Barak 8 can stop an Iskander missile that actually flies at hypersonic speeds during midcourse, albeit is most likely stopped by Barak 8 at terminal stage when it is travelling at supersonic speeds.

Any missile can be intercepted if you have the right system to counter it.

What is necessary here, is to have an effective layered attack missile system as well as a layered defence system.

There are instances where you will need a subsonic missile:
Like, if you need to saturate ADS inventory or,
Like, if you need your missile to hug the contours of the geography.

There are instances where you will need a hypersonic missile:
Like, when you are using a Carrier Killer ballistic missile
Like, when you have an HGV to attack high value strategic positions.

One must remember that a hypersonic missile is many times more expensive than a subsonic and a supersonic missile.
It should also be noted that to qualify for “hypersonic“ it has to travel at that speed in terminal phase.

It is “silly” to engage in a “full frontal attack” posture with a country when that country’s ADS is fully operational and you do not aim to destroy it’s ADS and radar system, by making it present itself to your anti radiation missiles, with your cheap subsonic drones and low value missiles as decoys.

Last night’s firework display was ”silly” .
It did not mean anything.

 

[Saithan]

Well said. Just a curious question here. But considering how clusterbombs are getting delivered, these subsonic engines we're producing could be used to deliver payload of different kinds in the future.

I also think it was mentioned in the Israel-Palestine thread that the AD systems are better at identifying and hitting active missiles than munition that travels by it's on weight and trajectory.

Do correct me if I'm wrong

But having these propulsion systems gives us a diversity that isn't to be underestimated. We just need to have the production line to make our adversaries to think twice before messing with us.

 

[Yasar_TR]

Well said. Just a curious question here. But considering how clusterbombs are getting delivered, these subsonic engines we're producing could be used to deliver payload of different kinds in the future.

I also think it was mentioned in the Israel-Palestine thread that the AD systems are better at identifying and hitting active missiles than munition that travels by it's on weight and trajectory.

Do correct me if I'm wrong

But having these propulsion systems gives us a diversity that isn't to be underestimated. We just need to have the production line to make our adversaries to think twice before messing with us.

Exactly!
In terms of jet powered munitions, we have Kuzgun, Çakır, Atmaca, Kara Atmaca, SOM A-B-C and J, Kemankes and of course the infamous Gezgin to come yet. These subsonic cruise missiles use Kale KTJ series (ktj1750, ktj3200, ktj3700, Arat) and İdealab engines to power them. Some of them are sea skimming and manoeuvre during flight to break radar lock. Some have stealth geometry and RAM paint to make them less visible on radar systems.

Yes radar systems and seeker heads are more effective towards powered missiles when it comes to identifying them. Glide bombs are more difficult to intercept. Bombs like KGK with a stealthy geometry will be more difficult to identify and has more chance of getting through AD systems. But when you can intercept even the artillery rounds with systems like C-RAM , Phalanx and Sea-Dart missiles, anything that is flying and presenting itself as a danger, can be intercepted. It all depends on how capable your AD systems are. In most cases , “saturation” is the name of the game. A large barrage of artillery rounds will be near impossible to be stopped 100%.
Same is valid for swarm attacks of relatively cheaper Kuzgun-TJ or Çakır missiles. Being smaller they have better chance of overcoming defences.

It should however be remembered that the missile attacks of any sort is most effective when you have air superiority and you have done away with most of the enemy radar systems. EW systems like Koral that can open corridors for your missiles and UAVs to get through, play a big part in a successful missile assault.

 

[DBdev]

TEI, Akşit went silent suddenly after testing TF-6000. Is there a problem with turbofan? Does anyone here know anything. Like real thrust, TIT, etc.?