I mean, there's not much you can do about this. TN has its own ideas in its own future. MSB has the job of managing the budget they are allocated fully and to the best of its capabilities for all branches. SSB has the mission of maximizing defence sector participation and needs so that it can survive and cherish. This is the best case scenario where there's no petty infighting. And over the years we've seen that there's plenty of infighting to go around. What's a better way?
Navy usually moved without rocking the boat re its future plans for the last 2 decades because they had plans. Those plans came out of working groups and inner bureaucracy like this. I wouldn't want to be sitting on those tables, that's for sure.
The Navy has long-term plans, but when it comes to fulfilling the plans, they don't know how to freeze the requirements or what they need explicitly to realise the plan. This is also the case with DIMDEG.
At this point my opinion is: just do whatever they want or however they want to incorporate it into operational concepts or within the doctrine.
My personal opinion: It is hard to find an optimised point, you either drop to 30 knots by assuming large spaces and stern ramp for USVs, or you drop below a size with sufficient EW, sensor and weapon suite (which TN requires to be present) with the higher speed. To satisfy both, we need to rethink the unorthodox design philosophies that TN is not open to. And higher speed can be achieved by means other than the vessel alone (drones, USVs, dedicated fast boats, etc.).
The Navy has long-term plans, but when it comes to fulfilling the plans, they don't know how to freeze the requirements or what they need explicitly to realise the plan. This is also the case with DIMDEG.
At this point my opinion is: just do whatever they want or however they want to incorporate it into operational concepts or within the doctrine.
My personal opinion: It is hard to find an optimised point, you either drop to 30 knots by assuming large spaces and stern ramp for USVs, or you drop below a size with sufficient EW, sensor and weapon suite (which TN requires to be present) with the higher speed. To satisfy both, we need to rethink the unorthodox design philosophies that TN is not open to. And higher speed can be achieved by means other than the vessel alone (drones, USVs, dedicated fast boats, etc.).
The Navy has long-term plans, but when it comes to fulfilling the plans, they don't know how to freeze the requirements or what they need explicitly to realise the plan. This is also the case with DIMDEG.
The sudden shift of requirements, a change on doctrine, a change of heart. Whatever it is, it happens while the project is moving toward the earlier determined product. This, in return, creates the grueling task of redesign for the shipyards and hence the confusion and inevitable delays
I think that’s exactly what @Anmdt was trying to tell.
The sudden shift of requirements, a change on doctrine, a change of heart. Whatever it is, it happens while the project is moving toward the earlier determined product. This, in return, creates the grueling task of redesign for the shipyards and hence the confusion and inevitable delays
He mentioned Unorthodox solution:" Hamina class:The vessel's hull is constructed of aluminum and the superstructures are constructed of reinforced carbon fiber composite. "
Hamina class weights just 250tonnes and length is 50m! Speed +30knots. But it has 500 miles range.
Or another unorthodox solution: " Visby class:The hull is constructed with a sandwich design consisting of a PVC core with a carbon fibre and vinyl laminate.There are multiple advantages to using composite materials in ship hulls"
650tones, stealth, 35knott speed. Range :2500miles!!!
I knew they'd say that one day. lol We're back to +++50 knots again. Or maybe the navy never backed down on that. lol. TTHB was a concept that everyone biased or unbiased and even a lot of really respected navy enthusiasts really saw as the optimum point. But for our navy, it is too slow.
The program could have been partially started with 4 TTHBs at least year ago, and we could have proceeded with different tonnages and concepts in packages of 4. The renewal of our navy in the main combat fleet has been prolonging for years for many reasons. But whether low-tonnage high-speed navy ships, can maintain a high level of readiness for decades beyond their planned service life like frigates of thousands of tons, I think this is one of the issues that Anmdt üstad can enlighten us on.
On the other hand, the insistence on this issue (increasing corvette-sized warships to extraordinary speeds) also constitutes a very clear and concrete definition of the Navy's doctrinal approach. Ironically, when you go back hundreds of years in Turkish naval tradition, it is possible to see similar traces. Turkish dominance of the Mediterranean was largely based on maneuverability rather than firepower.
He also adds that new Amphibious Assault Ships (maybe Landing Ships?) are in the queue. I'm not quite sure if this is a reference to the acquisition of older LSTs, or if it's a reference to additional ships.
Besides, there are other crucial vessels that TN falls in the need of;
For the third and fourth planned LST ships, I am of the opinion that the existing Bayraktar class LSTs should be largely modified to have hangars for more than one heavy duty helicopter. In fact, I think these next ships could be a multi-role logistics and multi-function support ship, closer to the LPD approach, rather than an LST.
I knew they'd say that one day. lol We're back to +++50 knots again. Or maybe the navy never backed down on that. lol. TTHB was a concept that everyone biased or unbiased and even a lot of really respected navy enthusiasts really saw as the optimum point. But for our navy, it is too slow.
To be honest, they started from 60+ (which was only reached with 1x25000+ 4x5000 SHP GTs), so I would say 50 is a fair point to settle . I think a ship based on MPAC could also reach 50+ with an adjustment to the propulsion unit (opting for one large GT for booster waterjet instead of 2 small GTs), if the available space in the main engine room allows it. I have concerns that this would lengthen the hull by 5 metres, increase displacement, use up more fuel for cruising, improve the range, compromise manoeuvrability and so on. (Note: all based on assumptions. It is an educated guess).
But if they really fancy a high-speed, agile, compact attack boat with the old school feel then the MRTP51 from Yonca Shipyard is the only way to go.
For the third and fourth planned LST ships, I am of the opinion that the existing Bayraktar class LSTs should be slightly modified to have hangars for more than one heavy duty helicopter. In fact, I think this ship could be a multi-role logistics and multi-function support ship, closer to the LPD approach, rather than an LST.
We should adopt a similar approach for LCTs. It would be wise to have a deck cover (hence the drone attacks) and a small landing pad for the use of G-IHA.
To be honest, they started out at 60, so I would say that 50 is a fair point at which to settle down .
We should adopt a similar approach for LCTs. It would be wise to have a deck cover (hence the drone attacks) and a small landing pad for the use of G-IHA.
For emergency situations, its Ok you can push the engines and the ship, but I find it still incredibly high that ships of these dimensions are maneuvering with a standard full speed of 60 knots, as standard speed of deployment. Üstad, you know better than all of us what this means, don't misunderstand me, this is addressed to the general, I would love my friends who see these speeds as normal to get on a speedboat that reaches these speeds on the sea. Then I would like them to imagine what they feel in a ship about 50 times bigger and in 2-3 sea states... And then to take into account that the hundreds of systems inside that ship must serve like clockwork for 30 years... It's like this, one day the air force command saying that standard fighter jets have a top speed in the range of 1.8-2 mach, we want jets that can reach 3 mach.
For emergency situations, its Ok you can push the engines and the ship, but I find it still incredibly high that ships of these dimensions are maneuvering with a standard full speed of 60 knots, as standard speed of deployment. Üstad, you know better than all of us what this means, don't misunderstand me, this is addressed to the general, I would love my friends who see these speeds as normal to get on a speedboat that reaches these speeds on the sea. Then I would like them to imagine what they feel in a ship about 50 times bigger and in 2-3 sea states... And then to take into account that the hundreds of systems inside that ship must serve like clockwork for 30 years... It's like this, one day the air force command saying that standard fighter jets have a top speed in the range of 1.8-2 mach, we want jets that can reach 3 mach.
One more thing to note: the Speed Criteria mentioned are based on Sea State 3. Actually, human perception is more related to the Froude number here, so if a small boat is going faster, we are more likely to feel it dramatically. It is, however, more of a constraint for larger vessels to go faster.
Displacement, semi-planning, planning type hulls (for conventional designs) are the key words for people to search and understand how this would change the design of a ship for an optimal hull shape. (Although this is not my expertise either)
The Turkish Type Fast Attack Craft Project (Türk Tipi Hücumbot - TTHB, in Turkish), also known as the Next Generation Fast Patrol Boat Project (NG-FBP) of the Turkish Navy, first appears in documents published by the Undersecretariat of Defence Industries (now the Presidency of Defence...
Turkish Type Fast Attack Craft Project (Türk Tipi Hücumbot - TTHB, in Turkish), also known as Next Generation Fast Patrol Boat Project (NG-FBP) of the Turkish Navy first emerges in documents published by Undersecretariat of Defense Industries (now, Defense Industries Presidency) in 2008. The aim of the project is mentioned as;
"Supplying future needs of the Turkish Navy, providing design of a new FAC for replacement of the aging classes"
NM = Nautical Mile
BS = Beaufort Scale
FAC = Fast Attack Craft
FPB = Fast Patrol Boat
LOA = Length Overall
LWL = Length Waterline
DWL = Design Waterline
GT = Gas Turbine
DE = Diesel Engine
RG = Reduction Gear
EW = Electronic Warfare
EA = Electronic Attack
ED = Electronic Defense
IR = Infra-red
AShM = Anti-Ship Missile
SFOC = Specific Fuel-Oil Consumption
Background of the TTHB project, and early phase of the Request for Information addressed by SSM
First tendencies by Turkish Navy was to acquire a Fast Attack Craft solution based on a composite structure that provides a light structure, naturally low RCS and IR & Acoustic signature and armor protection by Kevlar upgrade with ease. Yonca-Onuk, producer of the MRTP (Multi-role tactical platform) series of the boats, were the top-running choice. However, this tendency hasn't lasted. Initial plan was to acquire at least 6 boats with 4 options (expected to grow as many as 15 by the years), in range of 200 to 300 tons with limited endurance, yet rapid strike capability. In addition to the rapid-strike, TN has requested this boat to have cruising abilities above 300 NM of operational range at maximum attainable speed, minimum of 60 knots, at sea state 3 in BS.
Weapon & Sensor configuration was listed and kept pretty much same throughout the evolution of the design.
3D search radar and Guided Missile based Point Defense system - referring to RAM
Basic EW suite, R-ESM and limited EA capability
40 or 76 mm main gun, the tendency was for 40 mm fast forty.
4 or 8 Harpoon sized AShM
First appeared designs are skipped in this article, soon after the appearance TN has shifted their focus towards rather more capable and high-endurance platforms, this was the point where public has met with Anadolu Shipyard's Ada-Class spin-off (Although it was not based on the Ada-Class design, the features and lines were adopted from); an offer for TTHB project that was commonly acclaimed by the public. The designs submitted for the Request for Information adressed by the SSM, was now above 400 tons to satisfy certain requirements related to accommodation and endurance. ADIK's design had 800 tons displacement, WJ based propulsion, with 5 Gas Turbines; 4 x LM500 + 1 LM2500, the latter was merely for booster configuration driving a single WJ, while other 4 GTs drive 2 WJ, 2 GT for each WJ. It has topped 60+ Knots, with a displacement type of the hull operating in semi-planning regime supporting its dynamic stability. It was not a FAC, however, may be assumed as a Corvette at this size and completely unaffordable.
The design has features a low-RCS platform with embedded (not pop-up) AShM launches, by directly adopting the Ada-Classes mast with ESM module and 3D search radar. Along this, other designs stemming from the same design office were made for other shipyards, briefly Desan, Sefine, Istanbul Shipyard. But the other eye-catching design(s) was RMK Marine's 2 distinct offers. The propulsion system of these designs were not disclosed publicly, however one may assume the design on the left has used 3 water-jets (possibly GT-COGAG), 1 in booster configuration and the one on the right has utilized 2 water-jets, both powered by dual engines on each WJ (GT + GT COGAG)
One of these designs is focused on providing an integrated mast, a solution offered jointly by RMK and Aselsan with an APAR based 3D search radar, pop-up AShM launchers (left or upper image), and the latter is focused on providing a novel design jointly by RMK Marine and foreign partner (design solution) that focuses on a contemporary semi-catamaran hull form with embedded main gun and pop-up AShM launchers. Judging from the size these designs were in range of 450 to 600 tons of displacement and as of then, out of the range which was set by the Navy.
Another offer has arrived from Dearsan, a solution based on the novel YTKB design, with increased capacity and high speed profile. Main propulsion was COGAG.
Until now the scene was occupied by the platforms which were resulting in a high-visual profile (except Dearsan), against what TN had been seeking; being able to operate in Aegean sea with low-visual, IR profile in addition to the low-RCS since it was more prominent for these FACs to be engaged by anti-tank missiles as well as the coastal AShM defences. Only Dearsan's platform has approached towards a low-visual profile yet it has failed providing sufficient technical details on IR and RCS signatures.
Then, STM a company affiliated with SSM has proposed a new design, somewhat by knowing what TN had been seeking, a new design with extremely low-RCS as well as very low visual profile with small DWL (less than 1.5 meters) and Overall Depth, FAC-55. Let us note it here, TN had an abrupt speed requirement since the beginning, which was above 60 Knots in the beginning, later was updated as 55 knots with the increasing size. This range of speed is only achievable with all-gas turbine propulsion and water-jet for this scale of the platform. STM's FAC-55 was powered by 3 Rolls-Royce Gas Turbine each powering a water-jet totalling 28 M installed power (Note, Ada-Class is equipped with 32 MW of installed power), one in booster configuration other two in steerable condition.
There were no remarks on which design was chosen, yet TN has signed concept development project, Phase I with STM in coordination with SSM (SSB). At this stage concept of the FAC-55 was studied thoroughly via certain modifications, towing tank experiments both for resistance in calm seas and sea-state 3 were conducted. In addition to these, STM has carried out the preliminary studies for signatures and assessed the design in terms of applicability. TN has made requests while Phase I was ongoing and the ship's displacement has increased continuously and reached a point where the hull is rendered inable to satisfy 55 Knots requirement with 3 GTs, resulted in an update of 50 Knots.
Updates on the project as of 2021-2022
Phase II of the concept development project signed with STM, in coordination with SSB. As concept design phase I was completed on a platform wrapped around the the FAC-55 design, Turkish Navy had introduced new requirements on the accommodation and installed equipment. This has rendered FAC-55 design obsolete, STM has started studies on a new design for the Contract / Functional Design stage. In first half of the 2021 the new design has started to take a shape, a platform rather more capable on the abilities with sacrifice of the visual profile and maximum attainable speed. FAC-55's latest iteration was known to be above 550 tons with maximum speed of the 50 knots in Sea State 3, while maximum attainable speed was not disclosed but expected to be above 55 knots. (5 Knots less, compared to the first iteration). STM, in fact, has showcased the philosophy of the design belonging to the TTHB by the MPAC platform. First shown in IDEF'21, then took its place in the STM's website as of the Q1 2022, repeatedly marketed by STM in all conferences and exhibitions and to special foreign customers - visitors. A new multi-purpose attack platform nearly with capabilities of a Corvette with optional growth space. Upon a personal engagement with STM's engineers, we have found out the MPAC design in fact is not the TTHB itself, but it is TTHB with a "make-up" where visual appearance has been altered to avoid possible license-issues with the TN. Little is known about the TTHB still, as of March 2022, but it is safe to claim, MPAC is what TTHB has become in terms of the design philosophy. This information is based on insider insights. View attachment 40529
Major differences are given as follows.
COGAG propulsion (3 WJ -> 3 RR GT - 28 MW) was replaced with CODAG design (3 WJ -> 2 LM500 GT + 2 MTU DE - 18-20 MW)
Increase in the range, 30% more range and higher cruise speed compared to the latest FAC-55 iteration
More space to growth and larger mast, with additional spots
Conventional lateral AShM bay, compared to the forward-looking pop-up launchers utilized in FAC-55
Increase in the Draught, thus resulting in a more efficient hull form
Additional Deck with increased accommodation and space for the consoles and the equipment
Additional FCR, increasing situational awareness
Simpler and straight forward design, with affordable and easy to maintain propulsion system
Reduction in the total price, nearly as 40% in overall design
New design with the double endurance, better sea-keeping features, more provisions to stay longer at the sea
Larger AShM Bay that can optionally be equipped with 12 Medium Range AShM, or Combination of 6 MR + 4 LR AShM, or 4 LACM + 4 AShM
More electricity capacity, 35% increase in supply, thus indicating better EW, sensor suite
Better EW suite, both R-ESM and C-ESM is now available, also Compact ED/EA system being developed by Aselsan is now seen on the MPAC thus available on TTHB
The updated 3D search radar was not listed among the differences, since the same radar was also planned to be utilized on FAC-55, an X-band based (as of the current choice, may change later thus take it with pinch of salt).
In sum, we can further say that, TN has abandoned the FAC-55 design in favor of a more conventional and flexible MPAC design, MPAC despite of being an uncompleted and untested design, has managed to attract several customers, since it can be easily configured in various roles for various duties including OPV and Patrol Boat roles, FAC roles with different payloads, flexible propulsion options thanks to the larger engine room and allowing on-site overhauling when it is necessary with a comfortable engine-room. We have also delivered the FAC-55 design was not a chosen design in the beginning of the Phase I since TN has habit of being involved in the projects and managing how the design evolves, by the April-2021 In this forum. This information was verified by Nihal Yalçın, Leader of the Electrics&Electronics integration team of the Naval platforms division in STM, in a speech given at STG'22 held by ITU-SAVTEK. Lastly we are saying that TTHB will be MPAC with minor differences on the outer shell which satisfies the certain requirements for TN, protecting the core and main features in dimensions, displacement, sensor-weapon payload, propulsion system et al same. Both SSB & TN have also agreed on working 2 different TTHB designs, with several different features by keeping the concept same, with alternative systems for redundancy - something that SSB applies as a principle with growing numbers of unexpected embargoes.
By the end of the TTHB project, both STM & SSB & TN will hold design rights of 4 available platform; namely FAC-55 (3 iterations in Concept Design Phase), MPAC (Completed Contract & Functional Design Phase), TTHB1 and TTHB2 (Completed Contract & Function Design Phase).
TN is still interested in high-speed strike capability, What now?
Yet, again TN still persuades of having rapid-strike capability but MPAC-like platform can only supply 40 Knots speed with an efficient SFOC, 45+ knots speed with manageable SFOC, and may have maximum of the 52-53+ knots attainable speed with unmanageable, inefficient SFOC, yet in all these it has longer operational range than the earlier FAC-55 design. TN still requires a platform that will achieve 60-65+ Knots speed with affordable, reliable propulsion regime and able to deliver at least 4 or 8 Harpoon sized AShM. As a last note here are the two options in review for now.
1.Yonca-Onuk's recently revealed MRTP 51 design
MRTP 51 has 55+ (60+ in extremes) knots maximum speed merely by utilizing diesel engines with a planning highly maneuverable hull form with composite material construction. This is rather an update of the MRTP 49 design which was earlier submitted for the TTHB.
The design requirements have not been publicly available for this, but TN has made certain requests on TTHB design, certain abilities on the cooperation with USVs (spare console position, higher electricity and accommodation supply for operators et al.) But an USV design can easily be deployed for rapid-strike actions in coordination with more capable central communication ship. Also an USV would easily attain speeds above 60 Knots, have longer endurance compared to a manned platform thanks to having no crew aboard, and also can be optionally manned with minimal crew to operate the weapons and the navigation.
The Navy has long-term plans, but when it comes to fulfilling the plans, they don't know how to freeze the requirements or what they need explicitly to realise the plan. This is also the case with DIMDEG.
At this point my opinion is: just do whatever they want or however they want to incorporate it into operational concepts or within the doctrine.
My personal opinion: It is hard to find an optimised point, you either drop to 30 knots by assuming large spaces and stern ramp for USVs, or you drop below a size with sufficient EW, sensor and weapon suite (which TN requires to be present) with the higher speed. To satisfy both, we need to rethink the unorthodox design philosophies that TN is not open to. And higher speed can be achieved by means other than the vessel alone (drones, USVs, dedicated fast boats, etc.).
I think you can increase the operational capability and/safety of any warship with USVs.
Let's say our new FAC can carry 2 USVs, suddenly it can operate within hundreds of kilometres without risking itself. Deployed in a region with suspected submarine activity? Two USVs in anti-submarine configuration allows you to cover it more thoroughly. Or you use them to scout ahead, or check the blind spots like small islands on Aegean with anti-surface configuration. Or in electronic warfare configuration.
Basically, my guess is it is because USVs on FACs or any other ships would be a simple way of increasing their capabilities.
I think you can increase the operational capability and/safety of any warship with USVs.
Let's say our new FAC can carry 2 USVs, suddenly it can operate within hundreds of kilometres without risking itself. Deployed in a region with suspected submarine activity? Two USVs in anti-submarine configuration allows you to cover it more thoroughly. Or you use them to scout ahead, or check the blind spots like small islands on Aegean with anti-surface configuration. Or in electronic warfare configuration.
Basically, my guess is it is because USVs on FACs or any other ships would be a simple way of increasing their capabilities.
FAC are low endurance ships and they don't have room for a usv anyways. For most operations where FAC may be used you can also use the USV from home port.
I think you can increase the operational capability and/safety of any warship with USVs.
Let's say our new FAC can carry 2 USVs, suddenly it can operate within hundreds of kilometres without risking itself. Deployed in a region with suspected submarine activity? Two USVs in anti-submarine configuration allows you to cover it more thoroughly. Or you use them to scout ahead, or check the blind spots like small islands on Aegean with anti-surface configuration. Or in electronic warfare configuration.
Basically, my guess is it is because USVs on FACs or any other ships would be a simple way of increasing their capabilities.
Isn't the FAC supposedly to be like hit and run, fast, agile and small enough so it can be more maneuverable and detected harder when using small islets or rocks as a cover while waiting in an ambush?
I mean travel fast, hit hard and retreat fast.
I would understand it if we are talking about a corvette or a frigate that has a higher footprint and it stays longer in the sea, but I am not sure how would the FAC concept combine with a fully capable USV that it would carry.
Isn't the FAC supposedly to be like hit and run, fast, agile and small enough so it can be more maneuverable and detected harder when using small islets or rocks as a cover while waiting in an ambush?
I mean travel fast, hit hard and retreat fast.
I would understand it if we are talking about a corvette or a frigate that has a higher footprint and it stays longer in the sea, but I am not sure how would the FAC concept combine with a fully capable USV that it would carry.
I'm no more knowledgeable than you mate, it was just a guess based on what was written here and the fact that our Navy wanting a bigger/heavier FAC than what one would normally expect.
Isn't the FAC supposedly to be like hit and run, fast, agile and small enough so it can be more maneuverable and detected harder when using small islets or rocks as a cover while waiting in an ambush?
I mean travel fast, hit hard and retreat fast.
I would understand it if we are talking about a corvette or a frigate that has a higher footprint and it stays longer in the sea, but I am not sure how would the FAC concept combine with a fully capable USV that it would carry.
Our modern FACs are on the heavier side of FACs. If i remember right, Lürssen classifies the Kılıç Class as a light corvette. At 40 knots, they are also not the fastest FAC out there.
Maybe due to low number of main combatants we have, over the years, FACs were also used for patrol duties, even on the EEZ, offshore.
If we actually have 10 Hisars in the future that can take this side role from FACs, they can be more specialized in fast attack duties. But as I see it, TN still somewhat wants FACs to act as small corvettes as a side role, hence MPAC, which is basically a light corvette, and heavier than Kılıç Class.
Our modern FACs are on the heavier side of FACs. If i remember right, Lürssen classifies the Kılıç Class as a light corvette. At 40 knots, they are also not the fastest FAC out there.
Maybe due to low number of main combatants we have, over the years, FACs were also used for patrol duties, even on the EEZ, offshore.
If we actually have 10 Hisars in the future that can take this side role from FACs, they can be more specialized in fast attack duties. But as I see it, TN still somewhat wants FACs to act as small corvettes as a side role.
dont know may be but may be we can also read the current FAC design and requirements as a shift or better to say the inclusion of certain sections of Eastern Mediterranean ... Our main concern has always been the Agean but not any more. I belive Hisar OPVs and New FACs makes more sense with this perspective.
dont know may be but may be we can also read the current FAC design and requirements as a shift or better to say the inclusion of certain sections of Eastern Mediterranean ... Our main concern has always been the Agean but not any more. I belive Hisar OPVs and New FACs makes more sense with this perspective.
FAC project starts at 60+ knots of speed, evolves and 50+ is acceptable. Later they try to scrap the Ares FAC 55 design and go to slower design with added capabilities. Now they want a smaller design again to gain back some speed.
I remember how ANKA project was evolving. The project was slowed down extremely by the non-stop changing TSK requirements.
The difference here is that a MALE system is simpler, easier to modify, redesign and produce while the resources, time and expertise needed when it comes to FAC's and bigger maritime platforms is on a whole different level.
It is clear that we need fast attack capabilities that the FAC project will give us, but as always TSK don't have a clear vision of what it wants.
I hope the Navy comes up with clear solution as soon as possible so the industry can do its share and the project can continue smoothly. As far as I understood they will receive different types of USVs so they can test different operational concepts and decide how and for what they will use USVs for. This process must be completed fast so we actually "freeze" the requirements and have a clear vision for the development of our naval capabilities for decades ahead.
The completion of this testing process would surely influence the designs of our future projects, will show if the navy needs additional capabilities so they can utilize the USVs in the most effective and efficient way possible and can even force a change in the way some of our ships in service are used like TCG Anadolu, our two big LSTs and even more.
The time is running and the enemy is not sleeping.
I believe that thanks to the lessons from Ukraine vs. Russia. We can adjust the strike capabilities by using usv. Thus returning to a solid FAC design is more realistic.
So if TN is fumbling around (that’s the impression I get from what has been posted). It could be beneficial to upscale TCG resposibilities and thus the vessels they’ll need. TCG with OPV could alleviate TN responsibility in some places and TN would be free to focus on warfare potential.
. I think a ship based on MPAC could also reach 50+ with an adjustment to the propulsion unit (opting for one large GT for booster waterjet instead of 2 small GTs), if the available space in the main engine room allows it. I have concerns that this would lengthen the hull by 5 metres, increase displacement, use up more fuel for cruising, improve the range, compromise manoeuvrability and so on. (Note: all based on assumptions. It is an educated guess).
