TR Navy Naval Programs

[Afif]

Rather than launching a single stage missile vertically, two of the torpedo tubes could be sacrificed in favor of, for example, two 650-800mm special type launchers. I think the answers to the questions about why vertical launch is wanting are a little bit gray zone. I mean tons of speculation in a highly restricted area, and those who know something can't open their mouths for some reasons.

Technically it can be done, but I think sacrificing Torpedo tubes is almost never a good idea for diesel electric boats. I am firmly against it. Because it doesn't have the large torpedo room of SSNs. So, you gotta be really careful with priority management and don't want your boat to run out of its primary weapon.

 

[Anmdt]

How would it hurt exports?

The premature start of construction (cutting of steel, laying of the keel) without any real progress in the background gives the impression that the project is delayed and progressing slowly. So, a loss of prestige or image, which raises questions such as "well, that platform took years to launch and commission, how do you propose to get it in the service in time for us".

I don't see Buraks enter 2030 tbh. Those ships are ancient and bring nothing to the table in this day and are now also called patrol boats. Adas with their turbines are good little ships and maybe they can be upgraded a la Baburs with smaller, cold launch VLS.

The Burak class has long been relegated to patrol boat duties (perhaps the heavy weapons on board have become obsolete), and one is being used as an experimental platform to test the downsizing of Advent and a suite for future patrol boats and another being retired. Moreover, recently they have received patrol boat status along with NTPB in DzKK's website, officially.

 

[Anmdt]

Which missiles will be used for VLS as they can not be launched from torpedo tubes?

For the first or second VLS?

For the first, think of it as a provisional space. Interpreting the Navy's habit of incorporating future visions into their current designs, they may have left a space where Gezgin or others can be accommodated first, then whatever comes next in the future.

As for the second, who knows. There are only rumours.

Technically it can be done, but I think sacrificing Torpedo tubes is almost never a good idea for diesel electric boats. I am firmly against it. Because it doesn't have the large torpedo room of SSNs. So, you gotta be really careful with priority management and don't want your boat to run out of its primary weapon.

And interpreting the inclusion of the VLS module in the Milden, that is a complex and rough way that the Navy had opposed earlier, the Navy should have finally considered torpedo tubes as rather flexible points to use expendable UUVs, torpedoes and Sub-Atmaca (short range set of weapons) and others, while shifting the surface attack to VLS (long range set of weapons).

There may also be another reason related to Gezgin's dimensions, which were recently updated, making torpedo tubes unnecessarily long and unfeasible, thus prompting the switch to VLS. However, I am sure that either Kara Atmaca (or maybe SOM) will get a submarine version or Gezgin will get a 'Lite' version.

Speaking of Milden, the VLS launch weapons refer to an era beyond 2035, so I think there are plenty of opportunities to do a fictional experiment on what can be done with these VLS.

This post only contains information from open sources or just wild thoughts, nothing concrete.

 

[Anmdt]

Fatih Mehmet Küçük said in today's broadcast that there are rumors of revision in the TF-2000s after Ukraine hit the Moskva cruiser.


Correction: They will increase the tonnage to 9 thousand tons. 96 VLS is coming.

Frankly, I doubt it, but we'll see. They have already gone a long way (from SSB's point of view and financially) by taking it from 7000 to 8500 tonnes. Last I saw they had taken the conceptual design we saw in the latest IDEF to the functional/contract design stage. I expect minor revisions beyond this point, which may include PDMS and other things that were not included in the conceptual design (by choice, such as the EW suite).

At least.

Unfortunately the TF4500 was just a concept design made by STM to be offered during feasibility studies made for the TF2000, after that failed (we have seen the course the Navy has taken) they took the design out in public and at fairs, then it faded away. STM sometimes acts proactively. (OPV designs, TS1700, STM500 et al.)

 

[uçuyorum]

Speaking of gezgin, 16 cruise missiles in Istif is more than usual isn't it? Even much larger ships use mostly 8. Is it possible to change half of these to gezgin based on mission?

 

[Anmdt]

Speaking of gezgin, 16 cruise missiles in Istif is more than usual isn't it? Even much larger ships use mostly 8. Is it possible to change half of these to gezgin based on mission?

The I-Class is not made for this, but the point of having a VLS is to make it flexible, so yes, it can do 1 or 16 or none.

 

[uçuyorum]

The I-Class is not made for this, but the point of having a VLS is to make it flexible, so yes, it can do 1 or 16 or none.

I meant instead of Atmaca launchers since VLS is already limited.

 

[Bogeyman]

Frankly, I doubt it, but we'll see. They have already gone a long way (from SSB's point of view and financially) by taking it from 7000 to 8500 tonnes. Last I saw they had taken the conceptual design we saw in the latest IDEF to the functional/contract design stage. I expect minor revisions beyond this point, which may include PDMS and other things that were not included in the conceptual design (by choice, such as the EW suite).


Unfortunately the TF4500 was just a concept design made by STM to be offered during feasibility studies made for the TF2000, after that failed (we have seen the course the Navy has taken) they took the design out in public and at fairs, then it faded away. STM sometimes acts proactively. (OPV designs, TS1700, STM500 et al.)

It is said that before the final decision, the navy lobbied for a 5000-ton ship, but they had to settle for the İstif class. They insistently wanted a ship that could sail into the ocean.

 

[Zafer]

It is said that before the final decision, the navy lobbied for a 5000-ton ship, but they had to settle for the İstif class. They insistently wanted a ship that could sail into the ocean.

Decisions of going from not being oceangoing to being oceangoing are political too as well as economical rather than being simply technical. I wonder if we will see more roadblocks when going to larger ships as we still get the engines from foreign vendors.

 

[Anmdt]

It is said that before the final decision, the navy lobbied for a 5000-ton ship, but they had to settle for the İstif class. They insistently wanted a ship that could sail into the ocean.

The deal has been going on for a while, and I think the 5000+ tonnes is still on the table, but only for later (when the 4 upgraded Gabya are retired). The current plan is to replace 4 Yavuz class with 4 I class and 4 Gabya with another 4 I+ class. Meanwhile the Type 23 plan gets dropped.

Note that TCG Anadolu and future AC flotillas need this multi-purpose frigate.

Decisions of going from not being oceangoing to being oceangoing are political too as well as economical rather than being simply technical. I wonder if we will see more roadblocks when going to larger ships as we still get the engines from foreign vendors.

TN needs to evolve into (or adopt the doctrines of) a blue-water navy in order to become a navy beyond the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean.

 

[Anmdt]

About that, India and China despite having multiple AC and nuclear submarine fleet are not considered blue water navy. Because it is assumed that they don't have the doctrinal and logistical set up for that (yet). Do you think a blue water set up like French or Royal navy would be the best naval posture for Turkey from a strategic stand point? I am only saying this, because pretty much the only reason UK and France's blue water force posture make sense is because if they were to fight a peer adversary, it is always going to be alongside USN in a multi national task group. However, if it wasn't the case and UK and France were left on their own, I think they would have gone for a different force design to make the most efficient use of limited resources.

My personal view is that there is the US Navy and then there are the blue-water navies. There is no other navy that can possibly match it in terms of logistics and power projection (in the short term). I use the term "blue water" for navies that can sustain naval warfare (limited air defence, anti-submarine, anti-surface, anti piracy-insurgency etc.) in areas not adjacent to home ports. Meanwhile, the US Navy has the capability to sustain any kind of warfare globally. If it is necessary to use the right terms then I would say blue water navy level 2/3 and that will be what France - UK / India - China have at the moment.

Blue-water navy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Let's say Blue Water Navy 2 to 3 is the point I'm referring to, while TN is already at 4 (well should be if Egypt and Brazil is there).

 

[Zafer]

My personal view is that there is the US Navy and then there are the blue-water navies. There is no other navy that can possibly match it in terms of logistics and power projection (in the short term). I use the term "blue water" for navies that can sustain naval warfare (limited air defence, anti-submarine, anti-surface, anti piracy-insurgency etc.) in areas not adjacent to home ports. Meanwhile, the US Navy has the capability to sustain any kind of warfare globally. If it is necessary to use the right terms then I would say blue water navy level 2/3 and that will be what France - UK / India - China have at the moment.

Blue-water navy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Let's say Blue Water Navy 2 to 3 is the point I'm referring to, while TN is already at 4 (well should be if Egypt and Brazil is there).

Good thing we are sailing under the radar.

 

[Anmdt]

What could be the possible timeline be on those projects?

Could we see a 5000+ ton frigate be slotted into production before TF2000? Or rather a project left to the mid 2030s?

Not sure if I said this before, but Type-23 (and conversion/upgrade) and I-Class were even in terms of schedule and cost. An I+ class with VDS and USV capability can replace the Type-23 in all aspects except seakeeping.

For the remaining, I+ class, I expect to see them in service before 2029, with construction starting in 2025 for the first hull.

For TF-2000 we are certainly looking at 2032 and onwards for commissioning (due to the complex radar and EW suites and the timeline associated with them) hence, assuming the design phase of TF-2000 progresses well, it is a "why not" situation to have the smaller-lighter, or a less equipped hull for the interim solution with a fixed face X-band radar (CFR) of the CAFRAD suite, a mediocre EW suite, CENK-S (larger version) in rotary configuration (to compensate for UMR) and AKREP CWI for illumination and missile guidance (to compensate for AYR).

 

[Afif]

Not sure if I said this before, but Type-23 (and conversion/upgrade) and I-Class were even in terms of schedule and cost. An I+ class with VDS and USV capability can replace the Type-23 in all aspects except seakeeping.

For the remaining, I+ class, I expect to see them in service before 2029, with construction starting in 2025 for the first hull.

For TF-2000 we are certainly looking at 2032 and onwards for commissioning (due to the complex radar and EW suites and the timeline associated with them) hence, assuming the design phase of TF-2000 progresses well, it is a "why not" situation to have the smaller-lighter, or a less equipped hull for the interim solution with a fixed face X-band radar (CFR) of the CAFRAD suite, a mediocre EW suite, CENK-S (larger version) in rotary configuration (to compensate for UMR) and AKREP CWI for illumination and missile guidance (to compensate for AYR).

I don't understand why illumination radar is still relevant when SAPAN and SIPER block 1/2 has active seekers? Shouldn't data link antenna be enough for passing guidance data? For example, new generation Frigates like FREMM or FDI doesn't even have any illumination radar.

 

[uçuyorum]

I don't understand why illumination radar is still relevant when SAPAN and SIPER block 1/2 has active seekers? Shouldn't data link antenna be enough for passing guidance data? For example, new generation Frigates like FREMM or FDI doesn't even have

If you have 4 static radars you won't need it but rotating radars will lose target for a good while during rotation. That's why you have AKR-D. In terms of active seeker, small seeker on missiles are no match for a full sized radar, those will become more relevant as target is closer.

 

[UkroTurk]

If you have 4 static radars you won't need it but rotating radars will lose target for a good while during rotation. That's why you have AKR-D. In terms of active seeker, small seeker on missiles are no match for a full sized radar, those will become more relevant as target is closer.

So one rotating PESA (smart-s) plus 4 compact fixed AESA would be great solution. ( İmagine as if Ada-Class would have 4 panels)You wouldn't spend for additional radars for FCR and for helicopter approach.

AFAIK AESA radars also could detect periscope of submarines from 30km. IMO our every Corvette, MPAC and frigates must have 4 fixed panels.
YTKBs could have rotating MAR-D. İt is first step for modern naval warfare.

 

[B_A]

Fatih Mehmet Küçük said in today's broadcast that there are rumors of revision in the TF-2000s after Ukraine hit the Moskva cruiser.


Correction: They will increase the tonnage to 9 thousand tons. 96 VLS is coming.

So it will like a Maya-class destroyer or Jeongjo the Great class...

 

[B_A]

in Turkiye How many cities are there which starts with İ ?

İdil	12,905	19,123	21,329	22,496	23,663	Şırnak
96	Iğdır	38,917	59,880	75,927	75,824	75,721	Iğdır
574	Ilgaz	8,136	-	6,981	7,051	7,121	Çankırı
190	Ilgın	25,032	26,698	31,178	30,892	30,606	Konya
343	Ilıca	2,929	16,807	4,467	8,978	13,489	Antalya
251	İmamoğlu	21,484	30,428	21,331	20,848	20,365	Adana
262	İncirliova	15,870	17,548	18,335	18,921	19,507	Aydın
472	İnebolu	8,350	9,486	9,747	9,465	9,183	Kastamonu
43	İnegöl	73,258	119,710	154,698	158,575	162,452	Bursa
493	İpsala	9,212	8,471	7,851	8,318	8,785	Edirne
381	İscehisar	10,071	10,542	11,721	11,773	11,825	Afyon
571	Işıklar	5,014	7,334	7,118	7,135	7,152	Afyon
38	İskenderun	154,807	159,149	177,294	176,374	175,454	Hatay
258	İskilip	19,624	19,648	20,782	20,251	19,720	Çorum
191	İslahiye	34,607	38,770	31,963	31,204	30,445	Gaziantep
535	İsmil	6,576	7,317	5,930	6,909	7,888	Konya
42	Isparta	112,117	148,496	184,735	175,815	166,895	Isparta
1	Istanbul	6,629,431	8,803,468	10,861,463	10,878,360	14,025,646	Istanbul
3	İzmir	1,758,780	2,232,265	2,644,531	2,672,126	2,847,691	İzmir
23	İzmit

 

[Sanchez]

Isparta and Iğdır(I instead of İ but still) probably would be chosen. Unless they plan to retire İskenderun it's taken. Same with İnebolu. Wonder what the other 2 would be called if they stick with I naming scheme.

 

[Afif]

If you have 4 static radars you won't need it but rotating radars will lose target for a good while during rotation. That's why you have AKR-D.

FREMM uses Rotating KRONOS NAVAL. Yet it doesn't require illumination radar to guide ASTER interceptors afaik.

In terms of active seeker, small seeker on missiles are no match for a full sized radar, those will become more relevant as target is closer.

Yes, but i am not sure what you meant by the comparison? We are talking about Illuminating radar.

"A target illumination radar is a special continuous wave radar for the semi-active missile guidance system. It is a bistatic radar whose transmitter is on the ground and whose receiver is inside the missile."

Target Illumination Radar - Radartutorial

www.radartutorial.eu

When missile has active seeker it does not require illumination. Only mid-course guidance update. Which can be pass through data link (by dedicated data link antenna or by using the AESA radar antenna itself)