Arms race: Greece & Turkey
- Thread starter Brit
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
I ve seen.I did my military service there near the border at a town called feres and i know well the area, so easier to detect them on the googleearth.beleg said:Dear fantasma,
Thats the case for most of our countries military istallations. I suggest you to take a look at the Greek side in Evros/Meric border. There are tons of static defense positions visible.
Besides the arms race between Greece and Turkey or Turkey's defence requirments, Turkey targeted the arms sector as a strategic industry for turkish economy for export (Like textile and tourism). I mean Turkey's aim is becoming a major arms exporter in a decade. So Turkey is making investments on the industry, major turkish investors are becoming related with arms industry. I can count more than 30 private company who have investments in arms Industry and numbers are increasing drastically. Tech transfer became the key factor for all our defence purchasments. Also local share is a must on many.
hi everyone!My opinion,is that noone can judge the military strength just by numbers.For example an army fighting for the defence of its homeland,can defeat greater number of enemies.To be more specific Greece always fought against bigger armies,against huge persian armies,later on Greece manage to gain its freedom from the huge Ottoman empire,in WW1 and WW2 Greeks gained great victories.If I am not mistaken Churchil once said "heroes fight like Greeks".All I want to say is that a nation fighting for defence of families,of homeland can make the impossible possible.
Spare us from the history lesson please.
Still i agree that defending armies have the advantage not only limited to what you say but also because of logistic difficulties for the invaders. Greece tried to invade western Turkey after WWI which then had a significant Greek population , but once they tried to move inwards it became a logistic nightmare for them. And finally they lost although their army was on paper stronger.
Still i agree that defending armies have the advantage not only limited to what you say but also because of logistic difficulties for the invaders. Greece tried to invade western Turkey after WWI which then had a significant Greek population , but once they tried to move inwards it became a logistic nightmare for them. And finally they lost although their army was on paper stronger.
Meanwhile Australian AAW destroyer program is a good example for both countries AAW needs. However its also an interesting example to how many true AAW platforms one can buy for billions of dollars. Perhaps the Greek MoD is just looking for a multi-role frigate and trying to publicize it as an AAW platform to counter the threat of TuAF..
Budget sinks destroyer hopes
Jeremy Roberts
AUGUST 04, 2006
THE navy's new air warfare destroyers will not be equipped with the latest technology being planned for the US navy.
Despite an assurance from Navy Chief Vice Admiral Russ Shalders that the ships would be "right at the leading edge of naval capability", one of two companies bidding for the contract to design them said the $6 billion budget for the three ships did not allow for top-of-the-line technology.
Gibbs and Cox chairman Kevin Moak said yesterday the cost pressures meant Australia's AWDs, to be built by Adelaide-based firm ASC, would not have the same capabilities as the next generation of surface combat ships being built for the US.
"We are not trying to do the most innovative design solutions because if we were, we would not be able to achieve the constraints of cost," he said. "In terms of brand-new innovation, there is very little because we are trying to minimise the risk as we go through the design process."
Defence Minister Brendan Nelson yesterday unveiled the first pictures of Gibbs and Cox's design for the AWD at the opening of the centre that will de-velop the two designs to be considered. By July, the federal Government will decide whether to adopt the Gibbs and Cox design -- a heavily modified and smaller version of the US Arleigh Burke Class guided missile destroyer -- or the Spanish-designed Navantia F-100 frigate used by the Spanish navy.
Regardless of which design is chosen, the Defence Materiel Organisation is under pressure to deliver the three ships on time and under budget after a string of cost blowouts and delays to other projects.
These include the Collins-class submarines in the late 1990s and the halt in May of flight tests of the $1billion Seasprite helicopters.
Despite the budget constraints, Mr Moak said the Gibbs and Cox design would include a higher radar mast, giving it longer range, and a larger number of missile launchers than its US equivalent destroyers.
The Australian
http://australianit.news.com.au/art...Enbv%5E,00.html
You are wrong,the truth is that Smyrni(you call it Izmir if I am not mistaken) and the near ground was given to Greece after WW1,but Greece wanted more ground,so started a campaign for expansion(although some say that Turkish people were harassing the Greek region).But due to reasons you said and due to the support Kemal obtained from Italy because Greece was thought to be under the sphere of influence of G.Britain,Greece was defeated.One more reason is the dispute between tke king of Greece and the prime minister.
Dear Gerasimos with all respect this is not the subject of our topic. This could be added to a topic concerning the difficulties and the background of the greek turkish relations and their problems, wars, attitudes, foreign policies etc. If we start to "dig" we ll find ourselves discussing the beginings of the "Anatolian Issue" which is the battle of Mantzikert in 1071 AD (defeate of Byzantine Army and the beginning of uprooting Christianity from Asia Minor) and its consequences that we live even today.Gerasimos said:You are wrong,the truth is that Smyrni(you call it Izmir if I am not mistaken) and the near ground was given to Greece after WW1,but Greece wanted more ground,so started a campaign for expansion(although some say that Turkish people were harassing the Greek region).But due to reasons you said and due to the support Kemal obtained from Italy because Greece was thought to be under the sphere of influence of G.Britain,Greece was defeated.One more reason is the dispute between tke king of Greece and the prime minister.
Best regards, Christos
I think we didn't see an other factor here. My point is that the TN needs more than the Greek Navy AAW frigates let me say for the Aegean environment. Thousands of greek islands over Aegean some of the them have Exoset Launchers and SAM'S such as Patriots PAC 3, S-300, Tor M1's, Hawk, Skyguard, Crotale.. All these SAM;s are a very serious antiaircraft umbrella over Aegean. I guess Greece needs AAW frigates for the open sea;s not for an archipelago such is the Aegean.
I'm sorry,you are right,I just wanted to make clear that we didn't "invaded".I would prefer 4 more 214 subs instead of frigates.I don't believe Turkish Air force or Turkish Navy has the same capability in anti-sub weapons as it has in anti-ship weaponry.By obtaining more subs we could gain the upper hand in Aegean.(Excuse my simple words but I'm not a military analyst or sth like that).
@fantasma
Logic would make us think any ship larger than a FAC will not operate near the islands but mind you that MOST of the islands in the Aegean are inside artillary range from Turkish coast, some can even be hit by mortars. Turkey having 2 saparate naval fleets can operate at the same time in both north Aegean and south Aegean & Med. without difficulty with support of Turkish Airforce.
The main purpose of AAW is to provide an area air cover to any ship operating in the same task force, regardless of the distance from the shore..
The pricing of an AAW platform prohibits countries like Turkey or Greece to have them. However a multi purpose platform like FREMM class is feasible (still in reduced numbers).
@Gerasimos
Turkey has a strong ASW asset unlike Greece. OHPs operated by Turkish Navy have the strongest sonars in both countries fleets. Both nations operate S-70s for heli-asw platforms ,Turkey has more S-70s than Greece. Greece relies on critically outdated P3s while Turkey enjoys having CN-235 and recently signed ATR-72 as MPAs combined with AMASCOS.
Turkish submarines are also well equipped both for ASW and ASuW.
Frigates are a necessary need for Greek Navy since some of their frigates lack even CIWS.
Logic would make us think any ship larger than a FAC will not operate near the islands but mind you that MOST of the islands in the Aegean are inside artillary range from Turkish coast, some can even be hit by mortars. Turkey having 2 saparate naval fleets can operate at the same time in both north Aegean and south Aegean & Med. without difficulty with support of Turkish Airforce.
The main purpose of AAW is to provide an area air cover to any ship operating in the same task force, regardless of the distance from the shore..
The pricing of an AAW platform prohibits countries like Turkey or Greece to have them. However a multi purpose platform like FREMM class is feasible (still in reduced numbers).
@Gerasimos
Turkey has a strong ASW asset unlike Greece. OHPs operated by Turkish Navy have the strongest sonars in both countries fleets. Both nations operate S-70s for heli-asw platforms ,Turkey has more S-70s than Greece. Greece relies on critically outdated P3s while Turkey enjoys having CN-235 and recently signed ATR-72 as MPAs combined with AMASCOS.
Turkish submarines are also well equipped both for ASW and ASuW.
Frigates are a necessary need for Greek Navy since some of their frigates lack even CIWS.
Dear Gerasimos, Greece except the 4 Papanikolis class is already upgrading 3 of its older 209/1200 Poseidon class to AIP standard and by 2013 will have 7 subs which in technological means will have the edge. Priority now are the main surface combat ships such as new frigates. If we not proceed NOW greek fleet will be far behind in numbers and in quality terms and in case of high tensions and a conflict over Aegean the only thing it could do is not to protect sea lanes and prevent naval blokades over the Aegean islands but only to defend from far distance the fleet.Gerasimos said:I'm sorry,you are right,I just wanted to make clear that we didn't "invaded".I would prefer 4 more 214 subs instead of frigates.I don't believe Turkish Air force or Turkish Navy has the same capability in anti-sub weapons as it has in anti-ship weaponry.By obtaining more subs we could gain the upper hand in Aegean.(Excuse my simple words but I'm not a military analyst or sth like that).
Do not forget also the range of the Patriots located in islands for example Skyros north central Aegean, or Santorini south central Aegean safe from artillery and far from the turkish coast. Main fleet bases of Turkey Aksaz and Smirna are also too close to Aegean islands and also in the range of their artillery, Exoset launchers probably located to Limnos and Lesvos targetting fleet from the Dardanelles or Smirna. Complicated...Greece to me needs AAW for the Eastern Mediterannean mostly (in case if something goes wrong to Cyprus).beleg said:@fantasma
Logic would make us think any ship larger than a FAC will not operate near the islands but mind you that MOST of the islands in the Aegean are inside artillary range from Turkish coast, some can even be hit by mortars. Turkey having 2 saparate naval fleets can operate at the same time in both north Aegean and south Aegean & Med. without difficulty with support of Turkish Airforce.
The main purpose of AAW is to provide an area air cover to any ship operating in the same task force, regardless of the distance from the shore..
The pricing of an AAW platform prohibits countries like Turkey or Greece to have them. However a multi purpose platform like FREMM class is feasible (still in reduced numbers).
@Gerasimos
Turkey has a strong ASW asset unlike Greece. OHPs operated by Turkish Navy have the strongest sonars in both countries fleets. Both nations operate S-70s for heli-asw platforms ,Turkey has more S-70s than Greece. Greece relies on critically outdated P3s while Turkey enjoys having CN-235 and recently signed ATR-72 as MPAs combined with AMASCOS.
Turkish submarines are also well equipped both for ASW and ASuW.
Frigates are a necessary need for Greek Navy since some of their frigates lack even CIWS.
Latest news. The following days will be signed from the MoD the list of the weapons that will be ordered from the US. This weaponry is predicted to arm the last batch of F16s.The cost of this weaponry is about 150 mn Euros and it is the minimum figures in order to reduse costs. This list includes AGM-154 C Jsow, laser bombs GBU-12EP II, JDAM etc.. Also an other order will follow for Iris missiles and for the Israeli Spice that multiplies effectiveness of the bombs. Three types of weapons did not released from the US. (source "in.gr")
From the greek press "ta nea" only one out of three types of weapons is mentioned and this is JASSM (AGM-158) which has a range 370 km. It says that after Turkey achieved to release for her AGM-84K (range 280km air to ground missile) Greece is trying hard to persuade USA to release JASSM. For the time it seems efforts failed
This is the whole list as it appears in "defencenet.gr"
-180 AIM-120C-5 AMRAAM (Advanced Medium Range Air-To AIR missile)
-120 IRIS-T.
-50 AGM-154 JSOW (Joint Standoff Weapon).
-200 CBU-87 CEM (Combined Effects Munition).
-250 EGBU-12 Enhanced Paveway II.
-100 BLU-109
-100 JDAM (Joint Direct Attack Munition).
-50 Spice-2000 και 300 Spice-1000 kits for 1000 and 2000 libr bombs
-180 AIM-120C-5 AMRAAM (Advanced Medium Range Air-To AIR missile)
-120 IRIS-T.
-50 AGM-154 JSOW (Joint Standoff Weapon).
-200 CBU-87 CEM (Combined Effects Munition).
-250 EGBU-12 Enhanced Paveway II.
-100 BLU-109
-100 JDAM (Joint Direct Attack Munition).
-50 Spice-2000 και 300 Spice-1000 kits for 1000 and 2000 libr bombs
contedicavour
New Member
Could you please share some more information on AGM-84K ? From its number it reminds me of the naval Harpoon, but the range you mention is more than double that of the Harpoon.fantasma said:From the greek press "ta nea" only one out of three types of weapons is mentioned and this is JASSM (AGM-158) which has a range 370 km. It says that after Turkey achieved to release for her AGM-84K (range 280km air to ground missile) Greece is trying hard to persuade USA to release JASSM. For the time it seems efforts failed
thks
cheers
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
It's usually known by it's more common name as: SLAM-ER...contedicavour said:Could you please share some more information on AGM-84K ? From its number it reminds me of the naval Harpoon, but the range you mention is more than double that of the Harpoon.
thks
cheers
Cheers.
From www.designation-systems.net
AGM-84H/K
The AGM-84K is an upgraded variant of the AGM-84H SLAM-ER with internal improvements. Developmental tests of the hardware and software updates of the AGM-84K were conducted in early 2001, followed by operational test and evaluation in the first half of 2002, and Initial Operational Capability in July 2002. Existing AGM-84Hs will be upgraded to AGM-84K standard. Training versions are the ATM-84K and CATM-84K.
The latest upgrade of the AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER is the SLAM-ER ATA (Automatic Target Acquisition). This missile can be launched in the general direction of the target and will automatically select a target by comparing the stored reference image with the IIR seeker image without the need for operator intervention. However, the operator can take over control of the missile at any time in the mission, thereby retaining the capabilities of the basic SLAM-ER. The ATA system was released to the Fleet in 2002, and existing AGM-84H/K missiles will eventually be upgraded.
Length: 4.37 m (14 ft 4 in)
Wingspan: 2.43 m (96 in)
Weight: 725 kg (1600 lb)
Speed: Mach 0.85
Range: 280 km (150 nm)
Propulsion: Sustainer: Teledyne/CAE J402-CA-400 turbojet; 3.0 kN (680 lb)
Booster (RGM/UGM-84 only): A/B44G-2 or -3 solid-fueled rocket; 53 kN (12000 lb) for 2.9 sec
Warhead: 360 kg (800 lb) WDU-40/B penetrating BF
Here is also the article from "defenseworld" conserning the turkish side:
"WASHINGTON --- The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Turkey of 50 AGM-84K Joint Standoff Land Attack Missiles-Expanded Response (SLAM-ER) as well as associated equipment and services. The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $162 million. The Government of Turkey has requested a possible sale of 50 AGM-84K Joint Standoff Land Attack Missiles-Expanded Response (SLAM-ER), 4 Captive Air Training missiles/Dummy/Recoverable Air Test, 5 AWW-13 Advanced Weapon Data Link Pods, containers, 5 Joint Mission Planning Systems, software development/integration, test sets and support equipment, spare and repair parts, publications and technical data, maintenance, personnel training and training equipment, U.
S. Government (USG) and contractor representatives, contractor engineering and technical support services, and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $162 million. The Government of Turkey is a political and economic power in Europe and the Middle East, and a partner of the United States in ensuring peace and stability in those regions. It is vital to the U.S. national interest to assist our Turkish ally in developing and maintaining a strong and ready self-defense capability that will contribute to an acceptable military balance in the area. This proposed sale is consistent with those objectives.
Turkey will use the SLAM-ER as a standoff weapon on its F-16 aircraft. The Turkish Air Force (TAF) is highly advanced in aerospace technology and has the capability and skill to fully integrate, operate, and maintain this weapon system. The proposed quantity is adequate to meet the needs of the TAF for NATO and coalition operations. The missiles will be provided in accordance with, and subject to the limitation on use and transfer provided under the Arms Export Control Act, as amended, and as embodied in the Letter of Offer and Acceptance. This proposed sale will not adversely affect either the military balance in the region or U.
S. efforts to encourage a negotiated settlement of the Cyprus question. The prime contractor will be Boeing Company of St. Louis, Missouri. Although generally the purchaser requires offsets, at this time, there are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale. Implementation of this proposed sale will require assignment of U.S. Government and contractor representatives to Turkey on a temporary basis for program technical/management oversight and support. There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale."
AGM-84H/K
The AGM-84K is an upgraded variant of the AGM-84H SLAM-ER with internal improvements. Developmental tests of the hardware and software updates of the AGM-84K were conducted in early 2001, followed by operational test and evaluation in the first half of 2002, and Initial Operational Capability in July 2002. Existing AGM-84Hs will be upgraded to AGM-84K standard. Training versions are the ATM-84K and CATM-84K.
The latest upgrade of the AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER is the SLAM-ER ATA (Automatic Target Acquisition). This missile can be launched in the general direction of the target and will automatically select a target by comparing the stored reference image with the IIR seeker image without the need for operator intervention. However, the operator can take over control of the missile at any time in the mission, thereby retaining the capabilities of the basic SLAM-ER. The ATA system was released to the Fleet in 2002, and existing AGM-84H/K missiles will eventually be upgraded.
Length: 4.37 m (14 ft 4 in)
Wingspan: 2.43 m (96 in)
Weight: 725 kg (1600 lb)
Speed: Mach 0.85
Range: 280 km (150 nm)
Propulsion: Sustainer: Teledyne/CAE J402-CA-400 turbojet; 3.0 kN (680 lb)
Booster (RGM/UGM-84 only): A/B44G-2 or -3 solid-fueled rocket; 53 kN (12000 lb) for 2.9 sec
Warhead: 360 kg (800 lb) WDU-40/B penetrating BF
Here is also the article from "defenseworld" conserning the turkish side:
"WASHINGTON --- The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Turkey of 50 AGM-84K Joint Standoff Land Attack Missiles-Expanded Response (SLAM-ER) as well as associated equipment and services. The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $162 million. The Government of Turkey has requested a possible sale of 50 AGM-84K Joint Standoff Land Attack Missiles-Expanded Response (SLAM-ER), 4 Captive Air Training missiles/Dummy/Recoverable Air Test, 5 AWW-13 Advanced Weapon Data Link Pods, containers, 5 Joint Mission Planning Systems, software development/integration, test sets and support equipment, spare and repair parts, publications and technical data, maintenance, personnel training and training equipment, U.
S. Government (USG) and contractor representatives, contractor engineering and technical support services, and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $162 million. The Government of Turkey is a political and economic power in Europe and the Middle East, and a partner of the United States in ensuring peace and stability in those regions. It is vital to the U.S. national interest to assist our Turkish ally in developing and maintaining a strong and ready self-defense capability that will contribute to an acceptable military balance in the area. This proposed sale is consistent with those objectives.
Turkey will use the SLAM-ER as a standoff weapon on its F-16 aircraft. The Turkish Air Force (TAF) is highly advanced in aerospace technology and has the capability and skill to fully integrate, operate, and maintain this weapon system. The proposed quantity is adequate to meet the needs of the TAF for NATO and coalition operations. The missiles will be provided in accordance with, and subject to the limitation on use and transfer provided under the Arms Export Control Act, as amended, and as embodied in the Letter of Offer and Acceptance. This proposed sale will not adversely affect either the military balance in the region or U.
S. efforts to encourage a negotiated settlement of the Cyprus question. The prime contractor will be Boeing Company of St. Louis, Missouri. Although generally the purchaser requires offsets, at this time, there are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale. Implementation of this proposed sale will require assignment of U.S. Government and contractor representatives to Turkey on a temporary basis for program technical/management oversight and support. There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale."
- Status
- Not open for further replies.