Turkish Naval Programs

[Babur Han]

Besides, we don't have any other objectives than showing flag. Because we don't have a global naval vision, not yet. But there's one for for future under the title "Middle-scale global operating capable". At the end of the day, it again comes to how we use the Navy..we had a discussion with @isoo on that. The vast Land Forces dominance at general headquarters and planning leads to comparison weaknesses over the AF and Navy. Hope we will have a whitoperationale chief of staff one day. Good talking btw I had missed it ,

I think this could mean operational Capabillity of TN in Theaters like eastern mediterran, Red Sea, Persian Gulf, arabian Sea and Straight of Gibraltar ?

 

[Exocet]

We are talking about integration of SM-3 but do we have the capability of guiding it? CAFRAD's range is 450km. SM-3 Block 1's range is 700 km and it is 2500 km for Block 2. Do we have the radars to intercept targets such as ICBM's with Block 2?

 

[CekilinBenDoktorum]

We are talking about integration of SM-3 but do we have the capability of guiding it? CAFRAD's range is 450km. SM-3 Block 1's range is 700 km and it is 2500 km for Block 2. Do we have the radars to intercept targets such as ICBM's with Block 2?

We have also airborne AWACS bro. But intercepting balistic Missile is very difficult. You Need to hit balistic Missile exactly with a kinetic kill vehicle. Balistic Missiles can have even heavy armor to protect it against air burst Missiles like that russian crap buk Missiles. russian air defence is crap, i don´t understand why everyone praising it. it is cheap russian junk. US Air force can easily enter russian air space with B2 and even B1 to bomb the shit out of russian weaklings.

The only Thing avoiding that are the old soviet era nuclear weapons. Russkies threaten us with soviet earning which was achieved by our turkic Brothers.

 

[Transhumanist]

We have also airborne AWACS bro. But intercepting balistic Missile is very difficult. You Need to hit balistic Missile exactly with a kinetic kill vehicle. Balistic Missiles can have even heavy armor to protect it against air burst Missiles like that russian crap buk Missiles. russian air defence is crap, i don´t understand why everyone praising it. it is cheap russian junk. US Air force can easily enter russian air space with B2 and even B1 to bomb the shit out of russian weaklings.

Ok, several things need to be clarified here

1. AWACS looks level or down, not up. For missile defense, talking about Turkey's proposed use of SM-3, you need radars that look up into the sky - early warning radars like this:

And radars that can illuminate and vector missiles, like this AN-TPY-2 from THAAD:

AWACS doesn't have the capability to scan space for targets, their scan ranges are slightly above, but mostly level to or below the radar array. Here's a beam scan pattern for an AWACS radar - as noted by Gambit here.

These don't provide the necessary vertical scan coverage to track fast-moving missile with enough fidelity.

2. Ballistic missiles have nose caps designed to survive high-speed maneuvers though an atmosphere, but they aren't armored.

This is the nose-cap of an LGM-30 Minuteman III following reentry into Earth's Atmosphere:

It's made of a strong, but light-weight composite that was burned during reentry. Heavy armor would hamper the missiles range, speed and warhead size. Ballistic missiles rely on speed, not armor, to escape defenses.

3. Air-burst warheads are great against aircraft:

They shred them to pieces. But as the US found out in Iraq War 1, blast-fragmentation warheads aren't good at destroying missiles.

This one was hit by a PAC-2 in Iraq:

Notice a problem? It's still mostly intact.

As a result of this poor performance against missile, but strong performance against aircraft, a new type of warhead was created - the Hit-to-kill bus.

This is SM-3's kill vehicle:

These warhead types carry no explosive, but rely on kinetic energy - speed and mass, to vaporize their target. They leave no remains:

4. You may not respect it, but military's do. Combat aircraft have been lost to BUK:

Need a reminder? A BUK brought down MH17.

 

[Oublious]

We are talking about integration of SM-3 but do we have the capability of guiding it? CAFRAD's range is 450km. SM-3 Block 1's range is 700 km and it is 2500 km for Block 2. Do we have the radars to intercept targets such as ICBM's with Block 2?

Good question, so why are we purchasing SM-3?

 

[Transhumanist]

Do we have the radars to intercept targets such as ICBM's with Block 2?

According to Raytheon, SM-3 uses a combination of sensors to track targets, though it's own Long-wave Infrared delivers terminal guidance, which looks like this:

IN SPACE - NOVEMBER 21: A target missile is seen from the infared-targeting camera on an SM-3 missile moments before impact November 21, 2002 at over 500,000 feet above the Pacific Ocean. The target missile was launched from the island of Kauai in Hawaii and the SM-3 intercept missile was fired from the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense Cruiser the USS Lake Erie. The missile intercept was a test of the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System.

These sensors include:

AN/SPY-1 to locate targets.

GPS satellites to provide mid-course updates.

And LEAP's own warhead.

SM-3 has one, the LEAP kill vehicle, built in, but the other two would need to be sourced - or have an equivalent procured.

Keep in mind that Aegis ballistic missile defense isn't a built in capability for AN/SPY-1, it's a result of software updates and at present is only applied to 5 Ticonderoga class cruisers and 25 Arleigh Burke class destroyers in the US Navy:

Current Aegis BMD hardware includes the SM-3 Block-1a missile and other improvements to the Aegis Weapons System. Future development of the Aegis BMD system includes Launch on Remote capability, upgraded SM-3 avionics and hardware, and an upgraded Aegis Weapon System. In 2012 Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense will merge with Aegis Open Architecture and deliver the benefits of both platforms. The Launch on Remote capability involves the use of off-board sensors, such as the Space Tracking and Surveillance System to provide a targeting solution for a SM-3 launch.

The variations of the Aegis BMD system currently in service are the 3.6.1 version and the 4.0.1 version. The MDA and the US Navy plan to deploy more advanced versions, such as the 5.0, 5.1 and 5.2, in the future. The improved versions will be equipped with advanced processors and software, as well as upgraded variants of the SM-3 interceptor missile. BMD capable ships can have their BMD capabilities upgraded from earlier versions to later versions.

Having SM-3 alone doesn't help if you don't have an AN/SPY-1 equivalent, software modifications to allow for BMD capabilities or GPS satellites to help with trajectory corrects.

...

SM-3 on land, known as Aegis Ashore, also is held to these limitations as noted with its deck house:

Do we have the radars to intercept targets such as ICBM's with Block 2?

Right now, No. It doesn't appear that Turkey possesses the necessary component parts, but SM-3 Block IIA (the ultra-long range version - Range: 2500 km. Flight ceiling: 1500km):

Is still a few years off, according to Raytheon:

SM-3 Block IIA is the centerpiece of the European missile defense system, and Raytheon Company will begin flight testing in 2015 to keep the program on track for 2018 deployment at sea and on land in Poland.

This assume the project is on track, it is with the first SM-3 Block IIA test taking place earlier this year:

The Technical Research and Development Institute (TRDI), Japan Ministry of Defense (MOD), and the U.S. Missile Defense Agency (MDA), in cooperation with the U.S. Navy, announced the successful completion of a Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) Block IIA flight test from the Point Mugu Sea Range, San Nicolas Island, California. This test, designated SM-3 Block IIA Cooperative Development Controlled Test Vehicle-01, was the first live fire of the SM-3 Block IIA. The missile successfully demonstrated flyout through nosecone deployment and third stage flight. No intercept was planned, and no target missile was launched.

 

[CekilinBenDoktorum]

You are posting nice Fotos, but Nuclear warheads are armored. You can be sure about that. i am not talking about the heat cap of the Missile.

 

[Transhumanist]

You are posting nice Fotos, but Nuclear warheads are armored. You can be sure about that. i am not talking about the heat cap of the Missile.

Showing you no nothing about the functions of these interceptor missiles, yes? SM-3 doesn't intercept MIRV warheads:

These typically airburst, but some are hardened to allow for Earth penetration:

Pershing II featured a hardened, but not armored, MARV:

Most are not.

Notice how thin the skin of this Russia Project 4202 MARV/MIRV is:

This is a cutaway of a w78 warhead and Mk4 reentry vehicle. No armor, just dead-space in its nose section:

This technicality aside, the function of interceptor missile means they aren't even going after MIRV/MARV warheads. Their function is to kill the carrier missile prior to warhead separation, or the target would simply be overwhelmed by the number of reentry vehicles.

Notice how the US Missile Defense Agency notes that each missile is intercepting its target during the mid-course phase of its flight path?

This is to prevent warhead separation.

So no, not only are they not armored, as noted in the sources and diagrams above, but the interceptor missiles don't even target MIRV/MARVs, they target carrier missiles prior to separation, which would make a hypothetical armored MIRV/MARV useless anyway.

Please provide sources and supporting evidence to your claims.

 

[CekilinBenDoktorum]

Thin? That is TITAN. You now what TITAN is?

1 Inch of Titan can carry 10 Elephants.

 

[Transhumanist]

You now what TITAN is?

Evidently you don't. None of those are Titan. Titan hasn't been used as an ICBM since the 1960s. It was replaced by LGM-30A in 1965.

Titan used a single W53 warhead and a single Mk6 reentry vehicle:

This photo is of Peacekeeper and features 5 M21s:

The W78 and Mk4 are used on Trident C4 and D5:

Provide sources to support your claims, you've yet to do so and have been consistently wrong.

 

[CekilinBenDoktorum]

You are a funny Boy with your Wikipedia Fotos.

Of course Military engineers use high grade TITAN on their products. What did you think they use? Aluminium for a nuclear device?

Funny Boy!

 

[Transhumanist]

@cabatli_53 please do something about this clown. He has nothing to provide here, no sources, nor evidence, just empty claims and rhetoric.

And if you mean titanium, not "titan," then still no. These reentry vehicles are constructed of carbon fiber and aluminium.

Honestly, it's not that hard to do some research and provide sources. I've supported every claim I've made.

...

And:

I'm not a boy.

 

[madmusti]

@Transhumanist

He get´s banned and makes an new Account and then get banned and again a new Account ! Just Ignore him like all we do !

 

[Transhumanist]

@Transhumanist

He get´s banned and makes an new Account and then get banned and again a new Account ! Just Ignore him like all we do !

Already on it.

 

[CekilinBenDoktorum]

@cabatli_53 please do something about this clown. He has nothing to provide here, no sources, nor evidence, just empty claims and rhetoric.

Honestly, it's not that hard to do some research and provide sources.

Stop lying.

A nuclear device when a hydrogen bomb Needs a massive steel or titanium casing to hold back the Neutron flux Long enough to fuse the Deuterium and Tritium in the hydrogen bomb.

Kiminle dalga geciyon?!