Turkey has $1b budget for anti-SSBM missiles.

[Soner1980]

Turkey has started to open a project for the purchase of anti-SSBM missiles worth $1 billion. The competitive systems are the S-300, Patriot PAC-3, Arrow 2 and the joint production of the S-400 (NATO designation SA-20 Triumf) with Russia.

The Defense Ministry will make his choice in the month july 2006.

The request for proposal will include the following requirements for the systems:

-New generation IFF system;
-Ability to fire the missiles when enemy SSBM is launched;
-System must warn Ankara HQ automatically in crisis;
-Missile range must be at least 50km and maximum 300km;

Strange why there is a maximum in it's max range. But if you ask my opinion about it, Turkey must go for the co-production of the S-400 (SA-20 Triumf) with it's maximum of 400km range. The system is ablt to intercept AWACS, Jets, Ballistic missiles, Cruise missiles. And ofcouse of the production capability wich Turkey is always interested.

But if Turkey don't want to exceed the 300km, then the Patriot Advanced Capabilities 3 will stand in the 2nd place. The S-300 is not a futuristic system anymore and will be phased out within 10 years I think. Turkey can buy about 250 missiles wich some launchers for a price of $1b.

[Big-E]

Out of these choices I would definetly write off the Grumble S-300 and Arrow 2. The ones I would consider are Patriot 3 and the Triumf. The difference in these platforms is reliabilty versus range. Triumf has a much greater range but the Patriot is much more capable of a kill. Which ever you decide is more important is the one you should go with.

[Soner1980]

I think Turkey will buy (or produce under licence) both systems like the 2000's Boeing and Airbus transport aircraft: 25 Airbus and 27 boeing planes.

I think Turkey will choose for both because if you combine S-400 and PAC-3 then the capability is optimal in such danger.

Ofcourse Turkey as a strategic ally of the US must approve the licenced production like the F-16, but with the source code delivered to Turkey.

[aaaditya]

Out of these choices I would definetly write off the Grumble S-300 and Arrow 2. The ones I would consider are Patriot 3 and the Triumf. The difference in these platforms is reliabilty versus range. Triumf has a much greater range but the Patriot is much more capable of a kill. Which ever you decide is more important is the one you should go with.

the patriot was also highly capable of killing ones own aircrafts and missiles when fired at the enemy.wonder if this dubious capability has been rectified or not?

[beleg]

According to some local newspapers (which are not very credible) TSK has interest in the tech offer by Russia for the S-400 system. If the classical US restrictions on tech transfer continiues we might likely see the Russian system as a winner. Still Patriot is not a system to be under estimated and USA will put heavy pressure on Turkey in this project i guess.

[Soner1980]

Yes, you are right. Turkey is behind shedule in it's military industries and therefore we need tech transfer in full speed to boost our native defensive industries. The American systems are excellent but they have us busted with some restrictions like tech transfer of new technologies or selling the source code of some systems.

Therefore USA can not sell much weapons systems to Turkey like before. Turkish arms deal policy have changed radically and the US hates the word 'radical' and therefore we can not make a deal anymore.:D

[Big-E]

the patriot was also highly capable of killing ones own aircrafts and missiles when fired at the enemy.wonder if this dubious capability has been rectified or not?

If your talking about the Hornet incident in Iraq that was a rather complicated incident. I think those battery operators must have been half asleep as well. It's not hard to tell the difference b/w a TBM and a friendly aircraft track.:o The PDB-6 software will fix all of these mentioned problems.

[Soner1980]

Newer heard of IFF system? Or maybe other tactical fault?

[Wild Weasel]

Well, one could compare the number of operational successes of either system in a real-world combat enviroments, and decide from there.
They should be quite decisive, when compared side by side. And when compared to the ratio of successful intercepts, the number of friendly fire incidents are practically inconsequential- for either system.

[Soner1980]

I will not to try 'to throw mud' to the US Army but I have heard that sometimes there is a lack in coordination in the Army, Navy and Air Force. But also in Turkey there was a coordination in 1974 when Turkish jets fired missiles and bombs to the Kocatepe frigate and sunk with the crew members.

Back to toppic: Is the PAC 3 been fixed up or not? Should Turkey to develop the S-400 jointly with Mother Russia or will the US Congress approve the tech transfer to Turkey because of the money? The US can also develop a new system not?

[Wild Weasel]

I will not to try 'to throw mud' to the US Army but I have heard that sometimes there is a lack in coordination in the Army, Navy and Air Force. But also in Turkey there was a coordination in 1974 when Turkish jets fired missiles and bombs to the Kocatepe frigate and sunk with the crew members.

Back to toppic: Is the PAC 3 been fixed up or not? Should Turkey to develop the S-400 jointly with Mother Russia or will the US Congress approve the tech transfer to Turkey because of the money? The US can also develop a new system not?


Well once again, which system has achieved the highest number of actual combat kills? How many launches resutled in a successful intercept? When the numbers of successes are compared, the number of fraticide incidences are practically negligible.

Frankly, if the transfer of highly-sensitive technology to other nations causes a real risk to their national security, I wouldn't expect the US, ( or any other nation ) to do so.
If the deal can't go through without licensing and the transfer of secrets, you may have no other choice but to buy the S-400 from Russia- even it is less effective than the Patriot has proven itself to be.

[Big-E]

I will not to try 'to throw mud' to the US Army but I have heard that sometimes there is a lack in coordination in the Army, Navy and Air Force.

This is the case with any nation at war, name one country that has better Joint Forces coordination and I'll lick my boot if true.;)

[Soner1980]

The US army is among the best of some NATO countries plus the Russian Spetsnats again is making a comeback with it's deadly units.

But I think that some NATO countries like Turkey, US, Germany and UK are one of the worlds best armies that can do something hard to it's foe.

To keep the US army the best, the US congress does not sell their best technology to others. It's also a financial reason: If Turkey can manufacture their own weapons then Turkey wouldn't buy weapons from US again. But soon or later, this time will be achieved not only by Turkey but also by Iran, Taiwan, Jordan, Egypt, etc..

[Wild Weasel]

The US army is among the best of some NATO countries plus the Russian Spetsnats again is making a comeback with it's deadly units.

But I think that some NATO countries like Turkey, US, Germany and UK are one of the worlds best armies that can do something hard to it's foe.

To keep the US army the best, the US congress does not sell their best technology to others. It's also a financial reason: If Turkey can manufacture their own weapons then Turkey wouldn't buy weapons from US again. But soon or later, this time will be achieved not only by Turkey but also by Iran, Taiwan, Jordan, Egypt, etc..

Soner1980, what does the Russian Spets have to do with this discussion?

Frankly, a nation's army is limited by it's ability to deploy in force, and all the other details of logistics. Naturally, I'm talking about air- and sea-lift, primarily.
But again, this has nothing to do with the topic.

To keep the US army the best, the US congress does not sell their best technology to others. It's also a financial reason: If Turkey can manufacture their own weapons then Turkey wouldn't buy weapons from US again. But soon or later, this time will be achieved not only by Turkey but also by Iran, Taiwan, Jordan, Egypt, etc..

Now this is true. The US does maintain its military hegemony by maintaining state secrets. That's perfectly logical behaviour as far as I can tell.
Wouldn't you expect the Turkish government to maintain it's state secrets?

This is not a peaceful world of make believe that we live in. If the US is concerned about providing another nation with the inner-most secrets relating to it's military's frontline SAM- from either an OPSEC or economic standpoint- you can't really blame them. It's just survival of the fittest.
Obviously, they feel that allowing Turkey to have access to the source code may be a security risk. For instance, Turkey is on friendly terms with Russia, who would love to have access to that information. Subsequently, it could then be provided to the PRC, and the DPRK.
There is no guarantee that the code would not be provided to nations that the United States may view as a potential enemy in a future scenario.

So as I said, Turkey may have no choice but to buy the Russian system, if tech-transfer is a key point of the contract. The US government may feel that it's too risky, or against their own national interests to allow such a transfer to go through.

[Izzy1]

Interested to hear other's opinions on this.

Given the close defence ties between Ankara and Tel Aviv, isn't Arrow 2 in a strong position to win a possible order? Or would US tech transfer issues come into play?

[Wild Weasel]

Interested to hear other's opinions on this.

Given the close defence ties between Ankara and Tel Aviv, isn't Arrow 2 in a strong position to win a possible order? Or would US tech transfer issues come into play?

I guess that depends on the level of US involvement in the Arrow program.

Ah, nevermind. :p:

In February 2003, IAI signed an agreement with Boeing to establish the production infrastructure to manufacture components of the Arrow missile in the US. Boeing will be responsible for the production of approximately 50% of the missile components in the US. Boeing will produce various missile components and co-ordinate the production of existing Arrow missile components already being manufactured by more than 150 American companies. IAI will be responsible for integration and final assembly of the missile in Israel.
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/missile_systems/surface_missiles/arrow/Arrow.html

I'm guessing that Israel won't be much help.

[beleg]

Arrow is indeed an option. Actually Turkey is facing a serious TBM threat from the east. Arrow 2 is supposed to be a superior interceptor for these missiles. However its still too early to comment on it.

The situation is plain actually. Both S-400 and PAC3 are great systems. It will all come to what the sellers have to offer. I dont think that these systems are much too different performance wise however it might be harder to integrate S-400 into NATO compliant airdefence network of Turkey.

[Wild Weasel]

Arrow is indeed an option. Actually Turkey is facing a serious TBM threat from the east. Arrow 2 is supposed to be a superior interceptor for these missiles. However its still too early to comment on it.

The situation is plain actually. Both S-400 and PAC3 are great systems. It will all come to what the sellers have to offer. I dont think that these systems are much too different performance wise however it might be harder to integrate S-400 into NATO compliant airdefence network of Turkey.

Keep in mind that Israel counts the Arrow ABM as it's first choice for the defense of their airspace. If any of her neighbors acquire the requisite technical expertise to threaten Israel with an IRBM, it would be the ARROW that intercepts it.
And Israel can be very secretive about their top-most national secrets.
Not to mention the fact that the United States may have the ability, and motivation- to prevent the sale from taking place.

I would be less suprised to see a US-Turkey PAC-3 deal, than I would be if Israel decided to provide access to the Arrow.

[beleg]

Israel had offered to jointly develop Arrow back in 2000 if i remember correctly ;). USA had already approved it , the transfer of the green pine radar included in the offer. However the major economical crisis had killed the chances of such a partnership.

I am not sure if Arrow 2 totally satisfies the needs of THK , we need something more like S-400/PAC3 for the beginning which is more suited to intercepting both tbms and aircraft. I also agree that i wont be surprised to see PAC3 win at the end.

[tphuang]

I will not to try 'to throw mud' to the US Army but I have heard that sometimes there is a lack in coordination in the Army, Navy and Air Force. But also in Turkey there was a coordination in 1974 when Turkish jets fired missiles and bombs to the Kocatepe frigate and sunk with the crew members.

Back to toppic: Is the PAC 3 been fixed up or not? Should Turkey to develop the S-400 jointly with Mother Russia or will the US Congress approve the tech transfer to Turkey because of the money? The US can also develop a new system not?
Is PAC-3 fixed or not? Theoretically speaking, it can never be totally fixed. There is always possible bugs in the PAC-3 software that could pop up in a war situation. But generally speaking, PAC-3 has been tested far more in both war and testing situations than S-400, so you would think that it should have better reliability.

Another question surrounding S-400 is the issue of the long range missile. People keep on talking about the 400 KM range of S-400, but that missile hasn't been developed yet! Until then, I would say PAC-3 has the edge, but then again the Russian sell S-400 at lower price and can offer much better ToT.

[Soner1980]

I think Turkey would choose the Russian S-400 because it is a new design and Turkey can join the further design of it. Russian officials has asked Turkey to join the development phase and sell it together to the world. The S-300 is getting 'old' and over 10 years it is obsolete. So, PAC-3 or the S-400 is a good selection. The Arrow system is not so a new design to counter latest technological ballistic missiles I think.

[DoC_FouALieR]

I wonder if it is possible to adapt the Aegis system in order to make it a land system...
In my view the Aegis system with a combination of SM-2/SM-3 missiles is currently the best to intercept short- and middle-range balistic missiles.

[Soner1980]

The Standart Missile 3 has recently tested by the US armed forces. It has a very good design. Yes it is possible to adapt it on land systems or make it a fixed unit.

But this will take some time and the Iranian missile threat is advancing, I don't know it is a good choice in short or mid-term. The PAC-3 is fielded now and is still improving. The S-300 is good for today, and then switch to the s-400 would also a good idea. I found the both (S-400 and PAC) very capable and I think Turkey will short list them. This time without the source code problem I hope :p:

[tphuang]

The Standart Missile 3 has recently tested by the US armed forces. It has a very good design. Yes it is possible to adapt it on land systems or make it a fixed unit.

But this will take some time and the Iranian missile threat is advancing, I don't know it is a good choice in short or mid-term. The PAC-3 is fielded now and is still improving. The S-300 is good for today, and then switch to the s-400 would also a good idea. I found the both (S-400 and PAC) very capable and I think Turkey will short list them. This time without the source code problem I hope :p:
S-400 is not necessarily a new design, it's just an upgraded S-300PMU2. Actually, it's often just called S-300PMU3. The S-300 and S-400 are all developed using modular design, so you can put S-300 parts in S-400 and vice versa. If Turkey does select S-400, it's likely it will get the S-300PMU2 first.

[Soner1980]

Yes I think you are speaking right. The S300 is just the same but with a different missile roughly. Ofcourse there are changes in the launching platform, but it is the same system if you look from a distance.

I'm not a missile fanatic, I'm more interested in tanks and other AFV but last month I also want to know more about missiles. The S-300PMU3 is also a further upgraded version of the S-300 we know, also known the SA-10 Grumble, the V version I think and the PMU2 is called SA-12 I think. Then the missile characteristics change when upgrading further to the PMU3 version. Later called S-400 and by NATO the SA-20. Giantly, the S-400 has a long range wich actually began with the famous SA-5 Ganef. The S-500 is now just paperwork, also read somewhere that it is ready to put in production, and will have intercontinental range to intercept aerial objects. But Russia is out of funds to produce this kind of missile.

A crazy sentence: Will Russia built 50 years later a missile to engage aereal targets at 12.000 km distance???:p:

[DoC_FouALieR]

A crazy sentence: Will Russia built 50 years later a missile to engage aereal targets at 12.000 km distance???
Russia has already built missiles with nuclear warhead designed to intercept fighters and even balistic missiles (the moscou abm system...)
So don't be surprise with their weird trend to "love" BIG missiles...
But a 12000 km range SAM is unlikely, because of the curvature of the earth, unless it is a space-based weapon system.

[Soner1980]

To make it impossible to intercept the missile by a fighter plane or SAM, the missile must travel at a height that nobody can hit it with a weapon. I think most ICBM's with 12.000 km range could travel like a space shuttle. And therefore the missile also must get in orbital altitude.

But the S-500 is also believed to match the US 'Star Wars' missile defence shield. Only the Russians does not have the budget to produce it. The S-600 when developed, could maybe turn once of the whole earth...

[DoC_FouALieR]

The S-600 when developed, could maybe turn once of the whole earth...
Then it is far too simple to modify a commercial space launcher like the proton rocket by fitting it with a kill vehicle which behaves like a satellite.... 8-)

[Soner1980]

Yes it is possible I think. But when? Maybe 50 years later?

But the S-400 is also a very good design and has one of the best characteristics in the world. The PAC-3 is also a good system but it has a short range capability and you need more of it to defend your territory.

I hope that Mother Russia finds some money to produce the S-500 in the somewere of the next decade because the S-300 based S-400 is almost to its end of its advancements after 10 years.

[killbill2]

Who says such a system would be effective against SLBM's like the Trident???

How would effective would this be against the C-4 or D-5 when launched close to the shore and a shallow trajectory is selected.

[Wild Weasel]

When one considers all the firepower that the United States can bring to bare, it becomes frighteningly obvious that the outcome would be total destruction for Russia.
The only real option that Russia has, is to continue with the MAD doctrine, and pray that it is enough to maintain the peace.

[Soner1980]

Yes, tell me what is able to stop SLBM's. The S-300? Or the PAC-3? Is there any shoulder launched SAM who can intercept a cruise missile flying to it's target?

[DoC_FouALieR]

As far as I know, there is no country owning SLBMs who can be a threat to the sovreignety of Turkey...

And there is no systems in the world able to intercept modern SLBMs like Trident, Bulava or M51...
By the way, the system must be able to intercept low flying target and "normal" aricraft too, isn't it?

[Wild Weasel]

I believe that it may be possible to shoot down a cruise missile with a shoulder-fired SAM, but in a real-world situation it's probably extremely unlikely.
Due to the average cruise missile's NOE flight profile, and reduced signatures, it's very difficult for major air defence networks to detect a cruise missile- let alone troops in the field.
A cruise missile usually flys low and relatively slow- but just fast enough to pass over a MANPADS crew, and disappear behind structures or terrain features before the crew can realistically acquire and lock onto the missile.
Typically, the small turbofan engines powering a modern cruise missile don't generate a large heat signature either, which makes a solid lock-on a difficult proposition for most MANPADS.

The best defense against low flying cruise missiles is not a foot soldier with a short-range SAM- it's a modern, over-lapping, multi-tiered, digitally networked air defense grid.
For this reason, it becomes quite obvious why cruise missiles are so highly prized as a first strike option. Combined with jamming, decoys, SPECOPS, stealthy aircraft, and a range of other options- the modern cruise missile is a very effective, low risk strike weapon.

Building such an effective, sophisticated, and elaborate defense network against them is cost prohibitive for most nations.