TR Navy Naval Programs

[No Name]

How would that work, physically? As ballistic missiles in question won't be that slim to fit inside the regular cells, multiple cells would need to be removed to put in a one bigger cell, right? Unless TF-2000 goes for a 64-96 cell setup that would be an important reduction in SAMs.

Most destroyers only have 64-96 cells and the plan for TF-2000 has been 64 cells from the start just look at this naval news article 2021.

The only destroyer that has more than 96 cells is PLA Navy's Type 055 destroyer which has 112 cells.

 

[Afif]

Most destroyers only have 64-96 cells and the plan for TF-2000 has been 64 cells from the start just look at this naval news article 2021.

The only destroyer that has more than 96 cells is PLA Navy's Type 055 destroyer which has 112 cells.

Some AEGIS ships also has 128 VLS capability.

 

[No Name]

Some AEGIS ships also has 128 VLS capability.

Do you mean the Ticonderoga-class cruiser, which has 122 VLS cells?

 

[Afif]

Do you mean the Ticonderoga-class cruiser, which has 122 VLS cells?

Sejong the Great-class.

 

[uçuyorum]

Most destroyers only have 64-96 cells and the plan for TF-2000 has been 64 cells from the start just look at this naval news article 2021.

The only destroyer that has more than 96 cells is PLA Navy's Type 055 destroyer which has 112 cells.

Why not 80 The middleground, like Zumwalt but hopefully not a failure like that

 

[UkroTurk]

I don't think current Bora/Khan SRBMs could be fit in MİDLAS.

 

[Anmdt]

According to the info received by Mr. I. Sünnetçi from some sources, there is also a ballistic missile launch capability on MIDLAS roadmap. He stated that this capability will be applied to Tf2000 and Milden after 2030.

View attachment 59431

Bro, Milden has no MIDLAS. It features flexible payload module similar to US submarines.

 

[Knowledgeseeker]

How would that work, physically? As ballistic missiles in question won't be that slim to fit inside the regular cells, multiple cells would need to be removed to put in a one bigger cell, right? Unless TF-2000 goes for a 64-96 cell setup that would be an important reduction in SAMs.

 

[Anmdt]

How would that work, physically? As ballistic missiles in question won't be that slim to fit inside the regular cells, multiple cells would need to be removed to put in a one bigger cell, right? Unless TF-2000 goes for a 64-96 cell setup that would be an important reduction in SAMs.

Speaking for regular TF-2000 it is pointless. TF-2000 is primarily a theathre level air defence destroyer. We are speaking about 2030+ dates.

 

[Heartbang]

I don't think current Bora/Khan SRBMs could be fit in MİDLAS.

Unless MIDLAS is smaller than the Mk41, it fits comfortably.

 

[Quasar]

Frankly speaking cant see the logic of having a balistic missile on MILDAS

-Navy will/may have land attack capabiliy with Gezgin, Kara Atmaca, Çakır, Kuzgun on diffrent types of combatans most probably including our submarines.

-for supersonic anti ship role all I can say is soon ramjet tec wiil be at our disposal not only for A2A or anti radiation missiles I am almost certain that we will utilize ramjet for antiship missiles as well

-one of the hardest task during Gulf war was locating mobile balistic missile lauchers. we already reached the ranges to use our balistic missiles both in land attack and in anti ship role from our main land or from Cyprus if necessary. A very limited number of balistic missiles on MILDAS will have very limited effect

 

[CAN_TR]

You will have Gezgin, why would you need ballistic missiles on TF-2000 or MILDEN?

 

[Afif]

You will have Gezgin, why would you need ballistic missiles on TF-2000 or MILDEN?

Because they provide different types of capability.

 

[Quasar]

Because they provide different types of capability.

still waste of valuable and very limited space in a VLS and dangerous... especilly if you consider the fact that with current ranges job is still done if you fire the same balistic missile from Turkish main land. only advantage of a VLS launched balistic missile would be unknown&unexpected attack direction which can be used against certain SAMS like Patriot but still very limited number of VLS launched balistic missiles will have very limited effect. Further, unknown&unexpected attack direction is not only an advantage for balistic missile but for cruise missiles or drons as well.

and you should be very carefull about trying to place such a thrust into a tiny VLS

 

[UkroTurk]

still waste of valuable and very limited space in a VLS and dangerous... especilly if you consider the fact that with current ranges job is still done if you fire the same balistic missile from Turkish main land. only advantage of a VLS launched balistic missile would be unknown&unexpected attack direction which can be used against certain SAMS like Patriot but still very limited number of VLS launched balistic missiles will have very limited effect. Further, unknown&unexpected attack direction is not only an advantage for balistic missile but for cruise missiles or drons as well.

View attachment 59473

and you should be very carefull about trying to place such a trust into a tiny VLS

That's why submarines are great launchers of ballistic missiles.

 

[Heartbang]

You will have Gezgin, why would you need ballistic missiles on TF-2000 or MILDEN?

Nukes.

 

[Huelague]

Nukes.

Can carried out by Gezgin.

 

[Huelague]

Can carried out by Gezgin.

I hope we are working on a nuklear propulsion.

 

[Heartbang]

Can carried out by Gezgin.

Can be easily intercepted like those Storm Shadows in Ukraine.
No ones been able to stop something that comes their way at Mach 20-something in a reliable and effective manner yet. That's why having nuclear-tipped ICBM's carries a special weight in the world arena.
Granted, Naval launched anti-ship ballstic missiles do not reach Mach-20's, but they certainly do go at Mach-5 and more (reportedly, in the case of China's YJ-21, Mach-10) therefore the argument sticks.

 

[Sanchez]

ASFAT AS-3600
64 VLS ?!

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1683720443067334656