TR Aircraft Carrier & Amphibious Ship Programs

[IC3M@N FX]

Doesn't it make more sense to design a completely new Aircraft? Similar in size to the F-18 Super Hornet but with full Stealth characteristics.
Turkey have a contract with countless of GE F404 Engines anyway.
Surely you can build something useful with two GE F404 engines that is also cheap.
With an internal weapons bay for 3-4 AAM including 6-8 external hardpoints and carrying a total of 7-8 tons of ammunition.
The Aircraft would be relatively competitive as a workhorse (F-16 replacement as multirole) and as a Naval platform against all other Aircraft, except now the absolute high-end aircraft like F-22/F-35 or TAI KAAN, J20 & Co.
Later on, as with the KAAN, more powerful domestic Engines with better Stealth characteristics can be built, which would bring performance closer to the F-35.

Finally, it also depends on what kind of Engines Turkey has available in the next 10-15 years.

2x GE F110 129 for TAI KAAN
2x TEI TF 35000 from 2029/30 realistically more likely 2031/32 as Series Engine.

GE F404 for TAI Hürjet
2x GE F404 for TAI Multirole & Naval Fighter
2x TEI TF-25000??? 2037/38 140kn Dry 200kn Wet Total

 

[Yasar_TR]

Then why bother putting a jet on the carrier at all? Both KE and Anka-3 has blos control already, with autonomous controls of drones ever progressing, by the time the carrier is ready we might not even have to control them at all. We can build Trakya and another 2 like it and other ships by the price 1 of one carrier if drones are to be its main force.

Turning a trainer into a naval jet to use in 2040s is utterly insane mate. It'll be far, far inferior to anything it might face by then. It's geometry isn't stealthy, it's payload is not even half of an F-16. Putting it on a carrier just to control drones that doesn't have to be controlled from a jet is illogical.

A carrier isn't something you half-arse, and putting Hürjet, even a modified one, on a carrier that is going to cost billions to design and build in 2040s is truly insane. At least with Kaan, especially imo a single engine Kaan, you have a 5th gen plane that could go toe-to-toe with any other out there.

The real question you should be asking is: Why bother building a MUGEM at all?
1. We don’t have a decent aircraft to do it justice.
2. The ship itself is too expensive to build and to maintain for a country like ours.
3. We don’t have the expertise and technologies to operate and build a 65000ton carrier that would be commensurate with the needs of a ship of that caliber. We will be learning it as we are building it.

Yes, drone ships would be more useful than a carrier to us.

Hell! We don’t even have suitable helicopters to operate from our LHD. We are having to make do with used, old US AH1Ws. We have not enough Seahawk class platforms. Our c47s are not navalised. So unsuitable for it.
That carrier will need as many helicopters as the LHD.
(All our frigates and the TF2000s will need 2 Seahawk Class helicopters each as they are designed to accommodate two)
And we are contemplating furnishing our carrier with stealthy jets, that will be oversized and overpriced for that job.

Designing a stealth navalised fighter jet is going to take many years. First we have to get KAAN in to inventory of our Air Force. Then let it mature before we can go back to the drawing board to design a navalised stealth aircraft.

Our naval specialists must see the feasibility of navalising and using Hurjets from the carrier rather than KAAN. That is why both is on the discussion table. To see which is the right way, and more importantly the feasible way to go.
Do you think it would be easy to navalise Hurjet? It would take years too. But at least it is more readily available. Simpler to work on. Its size would be an advantage. Once fortified with a more powerful engine, a new Aesa radar and modern avionics, it can operate as a capable fighter. What will make KE and Anka-3 most effective and game changer class weapons, will be their capability to be used in loyal wingman format and be controlled by Hurjets against enemy targets and planes. On their own they may each have weaknesses. But when they join forces they become lethal.

In fact a simpler and even cheaper solution would be to purchase a couple of squadrons of navalised Typhoons to add to the ones we are planning to order now. It would save us developing a plane for the carrier, if and when we have it built.

BAE Systems Introduces a Navalized Typhoon Option - Defense Update:

While the competition between six international aircraft manufacturers moves on, some of the competitors are already looking a step further, positioning their respective platforms addressing possible interest from the Indian Navy.

defense-update.com

 

[boredaf]

The real question you should be asking is: Why bother building a MUGEM at all?
1. We don’t have a decent aircraft to do it justice.
2. The ship itself is too expensive to build and to maintain for a country like ours.
3. We don’t have the expertise and technologies to operate and build a 65000ton carrier that would be commensurate with the needs of a ship of that caliber. We will be learning it as we are building it.

Yes, drone ships would be more useful than a carrier to us.

I wholeheartedly agree with everything you just said mate. I have made my point of view clear before, I see this as a vanity project, nothing more. We are a regional power, with some interest overseas but not across oceans. We don't need a ship that can "travel to New York and back". If we want to project strength, or protect our interests in Africa, for example, we can do so easily by sending two LHDs with escorts and/or having bases on those countries from which we could operate drones and USVs if necessary.

And one more point, we are also going to have to produce enough frigates/destroyers to protect it, while also not leaving our seas short, and logistic/support ships to go with it, again while also keeping enough for our fleets back home.

Our naval specialists must see the feasibility of navalising and using Hurjets from the carrier rather than KAAN.

Do they? Or are they being pushed into it by the timetable put in front of them, on top of TAI's incessant push for Hürjet to be used as everything, to recoup their costs (imo). I honestly (and obviously) have no idea, but I genuinely can't believe that our navy would want Hürjet on that carrier instead of Kaan (or a variant of it) after all their long term planning and how careful they have been with all their procurement. Having Hürjet on MUGEM is not future proofing that ship, a ship that would most likely become our new flagship and would be in use in 2040s and forward.

Designing a stealth navalised fighter jet is going to take many years. First we have to get KAAN in to inventory of our Air Force. Then let it mature before we can go back to the drawing board to design a navalised stealth aircraft.

That's true but design will be frozen in not too distant future and production will take priority while future blocks come out later on. We have 15 years (give or take, I doubt we'll see a carrier before 2040) before we need these jets, and given how long it took us to design and start testing Kaan, I don't see how we wouldn't be able to design a naval version with everything we have learned in that time. And the end result would be a jet that is stronger and safer on its own, well worth the cost.

In fact a simpler and even cheaper solution would be to purchase a couple of squadrons of navalised Typhoons to add to the ones we are planning to order now. It would save us developing a plane for the carrier, if and when we have it built.

Not only a navalised Typhoon doesn't exist, not even as a prototype, it would also need substantial changes as well. If you look at the date of that article, and the subsequent comments after their bid on Indian carrier program, you'll see that it is simply dead. Plus, while our relationship with UK is okay right now, it isn't guaranteed that it'll remain so in the future. What if that cunt Farage wins the next election? Not having an engine of our own (as opposed to TF3X000) is a liability for the future as well.