TR Navy Naval Programs

[Anmdt]

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.

I just threw it in, just in case. Otherwise, I am well aware that CFR is capable of beamforming, ie APAR illumination mode. Nevertheless, CAFRAD has a dedicated illumination radar (AYR) to beamform to illuminate or serve as a data link, which I believe was thought to take the burden off CFR so that CFR can allocate more resources to tracking,updating and classification while AYR is on guidance and data links. It is also worth bearing in mind that active radar seeker equipped missiles do not have the seeker on from the go (as the power output is limited) and rely on the data link, GPS - INS correction in mid-course. Illumination could make it easier for a missile in semi-active mode to plot a better course during mid-course, or to be guided precisely to the target in the presence of clutter, decoys, jamming or object separation (bombs, missiles etc. that may separate from the target and pose a bigger threat). These are all my assumptions by the way.

 

[Anmdt]

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



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."

View attachment 64461

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)

Illumination radars can also act as data link (primarily) or sector scanning radars if required, and speaking of adequacy, I think a proper X/C/S band AESA radar would be sufficient to accurately track-update a target and pass this information via data link to most modern missiles. But yes, it is my personal decision to have excessive amount of sensors.

Note that CAFRAD's illumination radar - AYR is a fixed face radar. I thought Navy may demand a compensation for absence of it.

 

[Afif]

I just threw it in, just in case. Otherwise, I am well aware that CFR is capable of beamforming, ie APAR illumination mode. Nevertheless, CAFRAD has a dedicated illumination radar (AYR) to beamform to illuminate or serve as a data link, which I believe was thought to take the burden off CFR so that CFR can allocate more resources to tracking,updating and classification while AYR is on guidance and data links. It is also worth bearing in mind that active radar seeker equipped missiles do not have the seeker on from the go (as the power output is limited) and rely on the data link, GPS - INS correction in mid-course. Illumination could make it easier for a missile in semi-active mode to plot a better course during mid-course, or to be guided precisely to the target in the presence of clutter, decoys, jamming or object separation (bombs, missiles etc. that may separate from the target and pose a bigger threat). These are all my assumptions by the way.

Thank you, that actually solves all the questions. It really make sense if there is a deticated AYR creating data links then CFR can allocate more resources to tracking updating and classification even though technically CFR AESA antenna can create data links.

Also, it totally slipped my mind that Active seekers also has semi active mode and having illumination from Illuminators really adds extra layer of redundancy in all those different scenarios that you mentioned.

 

[uçuyorum]

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



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."

View attachment 64461

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)

Active seeker of missiles have limited range with its own power output but can still detect signals from a more powerful radar. But say a larger missile like Siper Urun-2 is probably much more capable.

 

[Afif]

Active seeker of missiles have limited range with its own power output but can still detect signals from a more powerful radar.

You are right, seekers have a semi active mode. It slipped my mind.

 

[Luwian]

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

to complete the above...

- İçel, as former name of Mersin (Until 2002, the province was called İçel).
and
- Iznik, is missing - a district in Bursa Province, The town lies at the eastern end of Lake İznik.

 

[Sanchez]

Look at the coincidence, just 36 hours after SSİK and Istif class being increased to 8, Brits now think about scrapping two Type 23s. I had projected that if a deal was to happen, Argyll would be one of the ships we would be interested in acquiring.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1743035226735927694

 

[B_A]

This is very ambitious; you would need a nuclear-powered reactor to power the electromagnetic CATOBAR system.
There are lots of technologies that we don't have.
Electromagnetic catapults, nuclear reactors, and a CATOBAR-capable naval version of Kaan.

Alternatively, you could go for steam-powered catapults, which uses conventional power systems. But this is old tech.

We have to develop a nuclear-powered reactor of our submarines but still a white paper until now.

Steam powered catapult is old but even Russian and Chinese decides not to develop that.That s stupid to waste money on that.

If we just build a CV.That are only Mig-29k we can get…..

 

[uçuyorum]

The most logical option for us would be to build Trakya, but change its design enough to make it primarily a drone carrier, for TB3, KE and Anka-3. We don't need an aircraft carrier that we can't protect, hell, we can't even properly protect Anadolu right now. Only after building all of our projected warships, we can protect it. Not to mention, our options for getting a carrier into any ocean is controlled by other countries, what happens if things change and we aren't allowed to pass? Then we end up with a carrier we can't use on 2 of our 3 seas and we don't really need it for the third. And even if we tried to use it there, we would need to relocate most of our Navy to just protect it.

It isn't an "ambitious" project, it is just vain. We would be much better served if we focused the resources it would require to our submarine and destroyer project and establish ourselves as *the* regional power when it comes to naval power.


That was the first estimate, then it was revised to a billion but its true cost was never revealed.

First, we have good relations with Morocco and Gibraltar is subject to UNCLOS so we can pass. We have presence in Somalia and since Milgem is being built in Karachi shipyards as well we have a friendly shipyard with technical know how of our systems should we need repairs and what not. But even in mediterranean and Libya it could serve a purpose.

Nonetheless it's a long project, it is for tomorrows needs, and resources aren't necessarily being cut short for TF2000 and Milden, hopefully. Request for Anadolu was made in 1995, and they first wanted a carrier back then.

 

[boredaf]

First, we have good relations with Morocco and Gibraltar is subject to UNCLOS so we can pass.

Right now. As I said in my post, you can never guess what is going to happen tomorrow. Not to mention in international politics friendships are fickle at best, anyone could just betray you if they find a better friend. And if we want to have a presence in Libya it makes much more sense to simply have a base there as it would be safer and much cheaper.

 

[Zafer]

We need a ship that will reflect our whole potential in 15 years.

 

[B_A]

The most logical option for us would be to build Trakya, but change its design enough to make it primarily a drone carrier, for TB3, KE and Anka-3. We don't need an aircraft carrier that we can't protect, hell, we can't even properly protect Anadolu right now. Only after building all of our projected warships, we can protect it. Not to mention, our options for getting a carrier into any ocean is controlled by other countries, what happens if things change and we aren't allowed to pass? Then we end up with a carrier we can't use on 2 of our 3 seas and we don't really need it for the third. And even if we tried to use it there, we would need to relocate most of our Navy to just protect it.

It isn't an "ambitious" project, it is just vain. We would be much better served if we focused the resources it would require to our submarine and destroyer project and establish ourselves as *the* regional power when it comes to naval power.


That was the first estimate, then it was revised to a billion but its true cost was never revealed.

We can compare with the Japanese izumo class,which was 120 billion jpy+40 billion to changed to a F-35 carrier.

Totally about 1 billion USD.

 

[Zafer]

We can compare with the Japanese izumo class,which was 120 billion jpy+40 billion to changed to a F-35 carrier.

Totally about 1 billion USD.

If you purchase American made catapults they alone cost around a billion dollars.

 

[B_A]

If you purchase American made catapults they alone cost around a billion dollars.

We didnt need to worry that,they will not sell to us.

French brought for 1.2billion.

GA wins $1.2B deal for electromagnetic catapult work for French, US carriers

The contract award includes case study and developmental research in support of the potential future procurement of EMALS and AAG for France.

defbrief.com

If not to buy Chinese one,we have to do by ourself.

 

[Zafer]

We didnt need to worry that,they will not sell to us.

French brought for 1.2billion.

GA wins $1.2B deal for electromagnetic catapult work for French, US carriers

The contract award includes case study and developmental research in support of the potential future procurement of EMALS and AAG for France.

defbrief.com

If not to buy Chinese one,we have to do by ourself.

I just pointed out the price, they will not sell us a thing and we won't actually buy from them. An endeavour like an aircraft carrier is also a technology development project so it is best if we develop it ourselves, and we can as we already have experience in raygun development.

 

[B_A]

I just pointed out the price, they will not sell us a thing and we won't actually buy from them. An endeavour like an aircraft carrier is also a technology development project so it is best if we develop it ourselves, and we can as we already have experience in raygun development.

Yes, but our military purchases have been difficult to understand. We could develop SIPER but tried to buy the Chinese HQ-9 and others, if US didnt block us ,we maybe depend on this Chinese product(Later Chinese bought S400 too).

 

[Zafer]

Yes, but our military purchases have been difficult to understand. We could develop SIPER but tried to buy the Chinese HQ-9 and others, if US didnt block us ,we maybe depend on this Chinese product(Later Chinese bought S400 too).

Because there is no certainty when it comes to defence development. It would be 3-4 years until we make the Siper and we had no airdefence in the meantime. We wouldn't have the courage to conduct our foreign policy and defend our interests. We didn't even know if Russians would sell us the S400 so it is not an open book that you can turn every page and read about them before things happen, you need to wait and see what your counterparts are thinking.

 

[Tornadoss]

I guess they are like the Russian,just talk about the aircraft carrier again and again.

But If we get electromagnetic catapult tech we can fly Kaan.

It seems it's an expensive tech. Even France getting it from USA, I am not sure how much it cost to us, to develop such thing.

The United States' State Department approved a possible Foreign Military Sale (FMS) to France of Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS), Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG), and related equipment for an estimated cost of $1.321 billion.​

United States Approves Possible FMS of EMALS and AAG to France - Naval News

The United States' State Department approved a possible Foreign Military Sale (FMS) to France of Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS), Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG), and related equipment for an estimated cost of $1.321 billion.

www.navalnews.com

 

[uçuyorum]

Uk decided not to use catapults since it would have costed as much as a new carrier as well

 

[Zafer]

The US, the UK and France are all tied togather as a collective west. When the US develops a technology orhers will not duplicate it, they just simply share at a cost. We don't belong to the group so we develop ourselves. It shouldn't be hard as railguns that we have already worked on supposedly use similar technology.