TR Aircraft Carrier & Amphibious Ship Programs

[Heartbang]

I propose TCG Mete Han for the name.

Since our story of domination across the land realm started with him, I guess its only fair for our story of domination across the sea realm to also start with "him".

 

[uçuyorum]

To properly protect Anadolu, Trakya AND a proper aircraft carrier we would need around 15-18 new ships, most of which focused on air defence. And simply putting corvettes or frigates with limited VLS capability wouldn't cut it either. On top of that, we would need support and logistic ships to accompany them, perhaps even a refueler as they are not going to be nuclear powered.

I swear, whenever this issue comes up people really underestimate and oversimply the operation and protection of aircraft carriers/carrier groups. They are vulnerable on their own and they would be the first target for any enemy in a war. We can't build a carrier safe in the knowledge that we are going to have NATO ships always accompany them like UK did. So, either we put a plan and structure in place to create honest to god carrier groups that are capable of working on their own, (whether 1 giant group with Trakya, Anadolu and new carrier together, or maybe one bigger group for new carrier and smaller groups for Trakya and Anadolu) or we shouldn't waste any resources on this project at all.

You don't need multiple CSG or ESG, you can run just one with multiple carriers or amphibious ships, or just run like a small amphibious group while carrier is at port, and maybe send them to join the larger group after if needed with some more escort.

 

[Zafer]

Atatürk associated himself with peace, so it is not suitable to involve his name with weapons. While on the other hand Erdoğan is all about belligerence and you probably already know but I still see the need to remind you that Erdoğan is the president who is ordering this ship and most likely paying the money. So you know the drill if a president's name is to be given to this ship it is no one else's but Erdoğan's name that is appropriate to be given. "Parayı veren düdüğü çalar". Hail TCG Erdoğan.

 

[Iskander]

I propose TCG Mete Han for the name.

Since our story of domination across the land realm started with him, I guess its only fair for our story of domination across the sea realm to also start with "him".

I would call him Atilla. Let the Europeans tremble at its name alone
Atilla returns

 

[uçuyorum]

Atatürk associated himself with peace, so it is not suitable to involve his name with weapons. While on the other hand Erdoğan is all about belligerence and you probably already know but I still see the need to remind you that Erdoğan is the president who is ordering this ship and most likely paying the money. So you know the the drill if a president's name is to be given to this ship it is no one else's but Erdoğan's name that is appropriate to be given. "Parayı veren düdüğü çalar". Hail TCG Erdoğan.

Whose money

Atatürk associated himself with peace, so it is not suitable to involve his name with weapons. While on the other hand Erdoğan is all about belligerence and you probably already know but I still see the need to remind you that Erdoğan is the president who is ordering this ship and most likely paying the money. So you know the the drill if a president's name is to be given to this ship it is no one else's but Erdoğan's name that is appropriate to be given. "Parayı veren düdüğü çalar". Hail TCG Erdoğan.

People pay the money.

 

[Zafer]

Whose money

People pay the money.

People never pay the money until Erdoğan orders it. People never want to pay money.

 

[boredaf]

You don't need multiple CSG or ESG, you can run just one with multiple carriers or amphibious ships, or just run like a small amphibious group while carrier is at port, and maybe send them to join the larger group after if needed with some more escort.

Even if you keep all of them together you would need more ships around them to protect them sufficiently. Operating carriers is not something you half-arse if you want it to be taken seriously, you either do it properly or you fuck up and your carrier becomes a joke like the Russian's carrier. If that thing is going sit in a port for most of its life then we don't need it at all.

 

[Luwian]

Imho the AC can be called "Vatan", which is the sum of Trakya and Anadolu in a different sense. The ship will be able to project whatever TR has in terms of military power.

While I completely agree with the name "Vatan", I also came to the following conclusion

If we create names based on geographical landmasses, such as Trakya, Anadolu... for a country that in the past existed on three continents and today lies at the intersection of the continents, why not "Asya" (Asia), or if something bigger comes later, why not "Avrasya" (Eurasia)?

I think it will be a bit ambitious, but if you think big, you also need big reflecktion of this.

 

[BalkanTurk90]

I propose TCG Mete Han for the name.

Since our story of domination across the land realm started with him, I guess its only fair for our story of domination across the sea realm to also start with "him".

TCG BARBAROSA will be better

 

[Gary]

Imho the AC can be called "Vatan", which is the sum of Trakya and Anadolu in a different sense. The ship will be able to project whatever TR has in terms of military power.

The Germans renamed their pocket battleship 'Deutschland' to 'Lutzow' because if 'Deutschland' is sunk by the enemy, it will carry a huge national burden + heavy propaganda disaster.

Imagine if 'Vatan' is sunk.

 

[Anmdt]

The Germans renamed their pocket battleship 'Deutschland' to 'Lutzow' because if 'Deutschland' is sunk by the enemy, it will carry a huge national burden + heavy propaganda disaster.

Imagine if 'Vatan' is sunk.

Thought of this while suggesting the name but couldn't come up with a better idea thus kept sinking out of my mind.

'Mavi Vatan' was once mentioned by someone as well. As long as it fits to my criteria, completing or complementing Anadolu-Trakta i would follow it.

While I completely agree with the name "Vatan", I also came to the following conclusion

If we create names based on geographical landmasses, such as Trakya, Anadolu... for a country that in the past existed on three continents and today lies at the intersection of the continents, why not "Asya" (Asia), or if something bigger comes later, why not "Avrasya" (Eurasia)?

I think it will be a bit ambitious, but if you think big, you also need big reflecktion of this.

The word seems to have of foreign origin, imho Navy is little tedious in picking names and strict on them being Turkish unless it is name of historical figure.
If there is another example it may suit.

And as everyone has seen we have nothing to discuss but ship's name as the information on design or requirements are scarce.

 

[B_A]

We have seen navy ships named carried the title of Ottoman sultans, but is there a special reason why they are not named after our national heroes of the Republican era? Atatürk is more than a national hero, he is the eternal leader of our nation, the founder of the republic and our first president. If a republican-era monument is to be named after him, I don't know what could be better than the flagship of the navy. The aircraft carrier will not only be the flagship of the navy, but also a symbol of its face in the new century.

I guess (of course we had a lot of heroes in Republican era)during the republican era we wasn’t a very powerful country.In history their names weren’t as big as the leaders of super empires.

For a large flag ship , a great conqueror s name is better than a hero who defend the country.

Actually I don’t want a ship named Atatürk to attack the enemy or under attack .something like mete Timur or sultan murad are better in this case.

 

[dBSPL]

The Germans renamed their pocket battleship 'Deutschland' to 'Lutzow' because if 'Deutschland' is sunk by the enemy, it will carry a huge national burden + heavy propaganda disaster.

Imagine if 'Vatan' is sunk.

Anyway, I didn't think my suggestion about the name would come to this point. lol. For me, seeing that 65.000-ton Turkish Republic Navy flagship in the water and experiencing that beauty with the eyes of the world is one of my biggest dreams.

I also feel obliged to clarify something, even if it is off-topic: As all we know, navy vessels are actually floating homelands with hundreds of highly qualified and dedicated personnel on board, thousands of tons of steel, some of the highest technology of its time and a considerable place in the national economy. Losses are, yes, a great demoralization, but it is a great illusion here because of the peacetime psychology is not the same as the perspective of a society that has completely shifted to the economics and sociology of war. If you are talking about the Turkish nation, the situation is subject to an even more pronounced change.

A demoralized nation is a country that has lost the will to fight. Just last century, We did not give up even when we lost whole navy, even when our army was demobilized and the rulers of the country surrendered, even when we did not even have enough oxen to carry field artillery. Ah, sorry, in the first year of the national struggle we did not even have proper field artillery. In order to stop the Armenian-Greek massacres supported by the active participation of the great war's enemy armies in the field, 40-50 officers were sent regions and they were organizing local peasants. In fact, the first part of the war of liberation consisted of the movements of the national forces, and it took more than a year for the Grand National Assembly to form a proper army to kick the ass of the Greek genocidalists. If you want an example of demoralization, in 1922 a quarter of Anatolia up to 100 km from our capital was burned and destroyed. Which ship can we compare it with? There is not a single European with even a little knowledge of history who would think that if you sink the Turks' ship they will stop protecting the interests of their country. What has always frustrated and defeated us has always been the loss of unity within ourselves. Not machines but oursevles.

In terms of naval tactics and doctrines, it is really too hard to sink an aircraft carrier. We are not talking about corvettes or frigates on forward patrol duty, but ships that float with huge task forces that look like an armada. Their combined firepower is large enough to invade entire small countries. Even engaging this fleet is lethal, while sinking a ship that is too big to be sunk even with multiple hits and while escorted by the best ships of its navy would require extra incompetence on the part of the admirals of the navy in question.



Also as a fun note edit: Relying on my experience as a navy enthusiast who has followed the structuring and modernization of our navy for years, the fact that this ship was conceptualized with a displacement of 60,000 tons before it was even designed indicates that we will physically encounter a 65-75K displacement. Those looking for a close example can look at the very beginning of LPD (TCG Anadolu) and AAW frigate planning. Or the beginning of the MILGEM...

 

[dBSPL]

If we continue to evaluate the issue in terms of naval structuring rather than in the context of AC's nomenclature, Trakya LHD will likely be a platform that looks like the one below:

And again, we will probably see a retrofit planning that will include some changes to the LHD Anadolu flight deck as TCG Trakya enters active inventory. In short, there will be at least two platforms that can be configured as pocket carriers, at least one of which is ready and the other is in the preparation phase, until the aircraft carrier takes flesh and bones. And these pocket carriers will have at least 2 UCAV types operational to conduct combat air operations.

In parallel with this, if our country does not have a vital preparation for the 2035s, I am of the opinion that with a longer infrastructure work and preparation, the acquisition of this capability should be a few steps ahead of the two pocket carriers that will be available. I am trying to keep this issue on the agenda because I am of the opinion that if we want to put an aircraft carrier on top of the two LHDs, it should be a full-scale aircraft carrier.

 

[Zafer]

If we continue to evaluate the issue in terms of naval structuring rather than in the context of AC's nomenclature, Trakya LHD will likely be a platform that looks like the one below:

And again, we will probably see a retrofit planning that will include some changes to the LHD Anadolu flight deck as TCG Trakya enters active inventory. In short, there will be at least two platforms that can be configured as pocket carriers, at least one of which is ready and the other is in the preparation phase, until the aircraft carrier takes flesh and bones. And these pocket carriers will have at least 2 UCAV types operational to conduct combat air operations.

In parallel with this, if our country does not have a vital preparation for the 2035s, I am of the opinion that with a longer infrastructure work and preparation, the acquisition of this capability should be a few steps ahead of the two pocket carriers that will be available. I am trying to keep this issue on the agenda because I am of the opinion that if we want to put an aircraft carrier on top of the two LHDs, it should be a full-scale aircraft carrier.

A 60k ton, 285m long ship is a full size hip. Bigger ships are not big because they have to be but because of more storage capacity. An EMALS is only 300ft long and can launch a plane of 100.000lb. A half power EMALS is all we need as larger planes are neither more effective nor more economical. UK too is looking for a 24k ton launch and 21k ton recovery system, so it makes sense for everyone. Especially in an age of uncrewed planes.

What matters is to have a full size fleet. If the ship costs relatively low you can make more of them and place them where you need them compensating for lack of nuclear propulsion.

 

[dBSPL]

A 60k ton, 285m long ship is a full size hip. Bigger ships are not big because they have to be but because of more storage capacity. An EMALS is only 300ft long and can launch a plane of 100.000lb. A half power power EMALS is all we need as larger planes are neither more effective nor more economical. UK too is looking for a 24k ton launch and 21k ton recovery system, so it makes sense for everyone. Especially in an age of uncrewed planes.

What matters is to have a full size fleet. If the ship costs relatively low you can make more of them and place them where you need them compensating for lack of nuclear propulsion.

What I actually mean is that it should be an air base capable of hangaring around/over 3 squadrons of fighter jets, providing ground services, ensuring their uninterrupted maintenance, and managing safe flight operations, if we measure it according to air force norms. On top of that, for the full operation of the ship, a large rotary wing group such as RESCO, CSAR, AEW and utulity helicopters will be added... And on top of all this will be the air operations of various types of unmanned systems.

A minimum of 100 aircraft of various types and missions. How long will the flight preparation time of an aircraft be and can a squadron take off under 20 minutes for example, what will be the preparation time for the second one to land after one aircraft has landed; in short, while all these air operations are active, how intensively can the air command group use this air power depending on the technical infrastructure of the ship, what will be the theoretical daily sortie capacity, this is essentially how I approach the issue. The ship's own personnel and living quarters, mission compartments, thousands of systems to be carried by the superstructure, machinery and fuel as the ship will have intercontinental force projection capability even if the ship is conventional, and many other details... If an aircraft carrier with a flight deck layout and Infrastructure that is a few steps ahead of the current and next LHD can be packaged under 60K displacement, why should I have any objection.

But based on my past observations, I can tell you that almost none of the navy's conceptual work has been as it started when it reached the physical completion stage. Let me underline a small detail, in the conceptual illustration, it seems that they put a derivative of KAAN on the ship. If we want to make an analogy, it's like the US wanting to deploy an F-22 on a navy ship...

 

[AlterUnd]

Thought of this while suggesting the name but couldn't come up with a better idea thus kept sinking out of my mind.

'Mavi Vatan' was once mentioned by someone as well. As long as it fits to my criteria, completing or complementing Anadolu-Trakta i would follow it.


The word seems to have of foreign origin, imho Navy is little tedious in picking names and strict on them being Turkish unless it is name of historical figure.
If there is another example it may suit.

And as everyone has seen we have nothing to discuss but ship's name as the information on design or requirements are scarce.

Fixed it for you;

TCG Sulh, which also fits the motto.
This will also sail around the world, a noice word fun - we bring 'Peace' to your place.

Here are my technical remarks on the project or what we have seen so far.

The design is roughly a template showing the Navy's intentions, requirements even, nothing solid yet on the design but we know something for sure;

1. We are to be satisfied with skijump assisted take-off. This also interests the aircraft designers, a catapult launch requires a design input from today (as well as operational planning, MTOW and so on).
2. For the time being we will have to make do with mechanical propulsion. However, I personally expect a twin-island configuration in later iterations with a semi-IEP configuration. Just a wild guess, but as in the OPV, we may have gas turbines directly driving the propeller and larger diesel engines positioned around mid-ship with exhaust going through the forward island, and these gensets can either drive the propeller or supply some 'intensive energy demand'.
3. The speed is set at 25 knots, which is also DIMDEG's maximum speed in a given sea state. So the guys increased the speed requirement of DIMDEG in lieu of preparing an aircraft carrier.
4. We see 4, fixed face AESA, probably the X-band which can also serve as approach radar, the top radar seems of an S-band, volume search. It is a wild guess, but the X-band radar may be configured to manage drones in visual range. I see no additional antennas for the drone.
5. In this context, I expect a conformal X-band satellite antenna for wide bandwidth communications. Is this even possible? Maybe not, but we have 15 years minimum to make it available.
6. The second point refers to, is that we are stuck with a single island configuration. Unless otherwise we switch to a semi-IEP.
7. An angled landing deck is almost certain, but not put in the first template.
8. Unlike the earlier projects, this time the Navy has put a cap on the tonnage, the tonnage given is the maximum ever and I expect it to go down between 50 and 55 and settle there in later iterations.

We should be glad for these reasons;

• Anything DPO sketches eventually goes into construction and to the service, they are not a shipdesign office that plays with concepts for visuality but a place that makes Navy's requirement into comprehensible visual concepts, that later can be worked on by other companies/institutions.
• They are not adopting an azimuth thruster based solution because there is no available azimuth that provides such a propulsion power ( safely speaking of 100 MW ) and unlike Anadolu, this girl is prepared for real action. Therefore their intention to keep propulsion as plain as possible, remains.

 

[Gary]

Anyway, I didn't think my suggestion about the name would come to this point. lol. For me, seeing that 65.000-ton Turkish Republic Navy flagship in the water and experiencing that beauty with the eyes of the world is one of my biggest dreams.

I also feel obliged to clarify something, even if it is off-topic: As all we know, navy vessels are actually floating homelands with hundreds of highly qualified and dedicated personnel on board, thousands of tons of steel, some of the highest technology of its time and a considerable place in the national economy. Losses are, yes, a great demoralization, but it is a great illusion here because of the peacetime psychology is not the same as the perspective of a society that has completely shifted to the economics and sociology of war. If you are talking about the Turkish nation, the situation is subject to an even more pronounced change.

A demoralized nation is a country that has lost the will to fight. Just last century, We did not give up even when we lost whole navy, even when our army was demobilized and the rulers of the country surrendered, even when we did not even have enough oxen to carry field artillery. Ah, sorry, in the first year of the national struggle we did not even have proper field artillery. In order to stop the Armenian-Greek massacres supported by the active participation of the great war's enemy armies in the field, 40-50 officers were sent regions and they were organizing local peasants. In fact, the first part of the war of liberation consisted of the movements of the national forces, and it took more than a year for the Grand National Assembly to form a proper army to kick the ass of the Greek genocidalists. If you want an example of demoralization, in 1922 a quarter of Anatolia up to 100 km from our capital was burned and destroyed. Which ship can we compare it with? There is not a single European with even a little knowledge of history who would think that if you sink the Turks' ship they will stop protecting the interests of their country. What has always frustrated and defeated us has always been the loss of unity within ourselves. Not machines but oursevles.

In terms of naval tactics and doctrines, it is really too hard to sink an aircraft carrier. We are not talking about corvettes or frigates on forward patrol duty, but ships that float with huge task forces that look like an armada. Their combined firepower is large enough to invade entire small countries. Even engaging this fleet is lethal, while sinking a ship that is too big to be sunk even with multiple hits and while escorted by the best ships of its navy would require extra incompetence on the part of the admirals of the navy in question.



Also as a fun note edit: Relying on my experience as a navy enthusiast who has followed the structuring and modernization of our navy for years, the fact that this ship was conceptualized with a displacement of 60,000 tons before it was even designed indicates that we will physically encounter a 65-75K displacement. Those looking for a close example can look at the very beginning of LPD (TCG Anadolu) and AAW frigate planning. Or the beginning of the MILGEM...

Well, in the end, it's up to the nation to figure out if they're willing to name the ship and the associated risks based on its assumption of its capability. I'm just offering a new perspective.

The U.S. Navy has and had a ship named after their country because they're confident that no potential enemy could realistically sink her

 

[dBSPL]

Well, in the end, it's up to the nation to figure out if they're willing to name the ship and the associated risks based on its assumption of its capability. I'm just offering a new perspective.

The U.S. Navy has and had a ship named after their country because they're confident that no potential enemy could realistically sink her

Okay, I won't insist.

Sulh (Peace) and (Mavi)Vatan (Blue Homeland) are the ones I like the most among the ones shared so far. Although their word origins are foreign, they have been common words in our spoken language for millennia.

 

[Zafer]

As far as I understand it if there is no catapult to assist take off you need to keep the ship speeding in the water to help give planes taking off additional air speed. You can do this if you have nuclear propulsion but when you don't have it you will be consuming fuel to do it. So it is a must to have some catapult system to avoid racing the ship. If our shipbuilders are not confident our near term capabilities are up to making a half power EMALS then we can keep the ski-jump in place until we upgrade to a catapult. But honestly I would not include it even in the initial designs as it means an under-performing ship and you want to upgrade it from day one of operations.

I wish our engineers go for a compact but high sortie ship from day one and not leave it to future upgrades.