Turkish Missile Programs

1777986030719.png

They gave it a Tughra.

giphy.gif
 
Why does Turkey even need an ICBM? Who will it target? Will the US allow it?
 
hyperman said:
@MMM-E

You said I was too ambitious about wanting an IRMB, they went and built a whole ICBM!
Click to expand...
hyperman said:
Yeah.... Nukes are coming.. lol

Either Warhead will be provided by friends or maybe in the long term Turkey develops its own, but the ICBM Delivery system is already here.
Click to expand...
I believe the main goal here is the development of anti-satellite war capabilities (ASAT).
 
Eşbah said:
I believe the main goal here is the development of anti-satellite war capabilities (ASAT).
Click to expand...

They don't need an ICMB with that throw weight for Anti Satellite Capabilities. That can be had with something like an SM3 or a SIPER Block 3 which will be exoatmospheric.

No this is for a strategic strike, either with a Nuke or a very big conventional warhead, like what South Korea is doing.

The real interesting question is that this missile is liquid propelled, and I don't know of many liquid propelled missiles that are fired from TEL launchers, as they take a while to fuel and fire, and usually are not as survivable as solid fuel missiles which deploy faster. So I think another surprise we may be seeing is Turkey building silos in mountains for launches.
 
hyperman said:
Why does Britain need an ICBM? lol
Click to expand...
Well that's a legacy from the Cold War, it's a nuclear weapon state and clearly its main adversary is Russia, similar to the US. Turkey doesn't have any nuclear weapons and even if it did, who would be its main adversary that would require an ICBM? Russia? China? The US? Just trying to figure out the use case, that's all.
 
YILDIRIMHAN ICBM

Range : 6.000 km
Warhead : 3.000 kg
Speed : up to mach 25 ... ( terminal speed mach 9 )

1777992034377.png
1777992084506.jpeg
it covers whole India
1777992044666.png

Defense Minister Yaşar Güler:
"We think we will only use it as a deterrent but If we need to use YILDIRIMHAN, we will do so without hesitation."
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
hyperman said:
They don't need an ICMB with that throw weight for Anti Satellite Capabilities. That can be had with something like an SM3 or a SIPER Block 3 which will be exoatmospheric.

No this is for a strategic strike, either with a Nuke or a very big conventional warhead, like what South Korea is doing.

The real interesting question is that this missile is liquid propelled, and I don't know of many liquid propelled missiles that are fired from TEL launchers, as they take a while to fuel and fire, and usually are not as survivable as solid fuel missiles which deploy faster. So I think another surprise we may be seeing is Turkey building silos in mountains for launches.
Click to expand...
Liquid fuel? That's a bit outdated for an ICBM. Could this be an SLV instead, rather than a TEL deployed ICBM?
 
Corax said:
Well that's a legacy from the Cold War, it's a nuclear weapon state and clearly its main adversary is Russia, similar to the US. Turkey doesn't have any nuclear weapons and even if it did, who would be its main adversary that would require an ICBM? Russia? China? The US? Just trying to figure out the use case, that's all.
Click to expand...
To defend our Pakistani brothers and sisters. We have allies, too, you know? 🫡

e6uzfcrtrbzg1.png
 
Eşbah said:
To defend our Pakistani brothers and sisters. We have allies, too, you know? 🫡

e6uzfcrtrbzg1.png
Click to expand...
To be honest, I didn't expect Turkey to see Pakistan in that view, but I'm certainly happy to hear it! 😍 if that's the case, I'm sure we could help you out on a suitable payload 😉
 
Corax said:
Liquid fuel? That's a bit outdated for an ICBM. Could this be an SLV instead, rather than a TEL deployed ICBM?
Click to expand...

Not necessarily.

Silo based Missiles usually are Liquid Fuel. And Silo missiles are still used by Russia, China.

The RS-28 Sarmat is brand new and its liquid fueled.

The advantage here in underground silos is that the downside of storing solid fuel is negated, the thing only explodes if the fuels are mixed, so generally liquid is safer underground.

Secondly Liquid Fueled missiles can travel further and carry bigger payloads, compared to solid fueled missiles, and easier to build. They can also regulate thrust better and can shut engines mid flight and then restart again, whereas the Sulid needs to burn throughout usually.

This is why Liquid is preferred if you have silos, b/c the main disadvantage of liquid missiles is the time to set up the launch, but if its in a silo and underground whether you are taking 1 day or 1 hour, they don't know, they can't see underground from satellites. Liquid is preferred for heavy payloads and things where you need range, b/c the liquid fuel is more efficient than solid.

Ideally you would want a balance. you want your Silo missiles to be liquid and heavy and long range. You want your road and even rail mobile missiles to be solid, as they need to be launched quickly before you get bombed at the staging site.
 
Its a glorified SLV , that still needs testing and a lot of stuff.
ICBM are very expensive systems and are only useful if you have nukes.
Conventional warheads are just inefficient for ICBMs.
Turks are just getting carried away lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

  • Total: 3 (members: 1, guests: 2)

    Pakistan Defence Latest

    Country Watch Latest

    Latest Posts

    Share this page

    Back
    Top