TR Naval Programs

[Turko]

Could be faster and less fuel consumption but no good in choppy seas. Breaks down easily! (At least the Russian ones we had did) .
Also the higher off the sea , the easier to see on radar!
You should try to go the other direction. If we could sink it as much as we could it would be better. Ideally next stage could be a completely submerged version with only a small RAM painted snorkel above water to communicate with and coming out of water when in range.

You mean like narco-submarines

 

[akrepon]

Can ULAQ or its sized boat be detected from 20km distance with shirborne radars? İf yes , the one with Medium range AShMs will be necessary.

Let's imagine how ULAQ attacking on greek frigates.

Medium range missile will be integrated. I am sure of it. But the question is, how is the guidance going to work? Is it illuminated or fire-forget type of thing or maybe with datalink(most probably)?

 

[Combat-Master]

Can ULAQ or its sized boat be detected from 20km distance with shirborne radars? İf yes , the one with Medium range AShMs will be necessary.

Let's imagine how ULAQ attacking on greek frigates.

Larger versions would be necessary; ULAQ ASuW - G/M | ANTI-SURFACE WARFARE, GUIDED MISSILE

 

[guest12]

Larger versions would be necessary; ULAQ ASuW - G/M | ANTI-SURFACE WARFARE, GUIDED MISSILE
View attachment 14018

They should just turn FAC-55 into ULAQ and we are done.

 

[akrepon]

They should just turn FAC-55 into ULAQ and we are done.

I think FAC is still useful. We can maybe use it also as a relay between ULAQs for longer range operation coverage.

 

[Yasar_TR]

Can ULAQ or its sized boat be detected from 20km distance with shirborne radars? İf yes , the one with Medium range AShMs will be necessary.

Let's imagine how ULAQ attacking on greek frigates.

A frigate’s radar which is say 30m above sea level will have a line of sight distance at sea level of:
d= 3.57 √h
d= ~19.5 km
But radar has a radio horizon factor and can see further:
d= 4.12 √h
d= ~22.5 km
Further than this distance it is not possible to detect the ULAQ. But even within this distance due to it‘s shape, geometry, material, paint and size the frigate shouldn’t be able to detect the ULAQ on it’s radar. But before 19.5 km , ULAQ’s mast start to show itself to naked eye. So I would guess that as it is 18-15 km away it is a target to naked eye. It may still be stealthy to the radars though. So I would like to see how ship’s radars would lock and fire missiles if it is not showing on it’s screens.

 

[guest12]

I think FAC is still useful. We can maybe use it also as a relay between ULAQs for longer range operation coverage.

I saying current ULAQ is too light and weak be it for weapon loadout limit or open seas operations.

 

[Orkunhun]

I would like to see semi-submersible type boats of ULAQ family. Which can hide themselves under the water except censors and can resurface when higher speeds needed.

 

[Turko]

A frigate’s radar which is say 30m above sea level will have a line of sight distance at sea level of:
d= 3.57 √h
d= ~19.5 km
But radar has a radio horizon factor and can see further:
d= 4.12 √h
d= ~22.5 km
Further than this distance it is not possible to detect the ULAQ. But even within this distance due to it‘s shape, geometry, material, paint and size the frigate shouldn’t be able to detect the ULAQ on it’s radar. But before 19.5 km , ULAQ’s mast start to show itself to naked eye. So I would guess that as it is 18-15 km away it is a target to naked eye. It may still be stealthy to the radars though. So I would like to see how ship’s radars would lock and fire missiles if it is not showing on it’s screens.

Then we need long range UMTAS with 20-22km range.

 

[Yasar_TR]

You mean like narco-submarines
View attachment 14015

Originally North Korean! Also used by Vietnam. Copied by Iran.

 

[Yasar_TR]

Then we need long range UMTAS with 20-22km range.

L-Umtas is a laser guided supersonic missile built to destroy moving tanks. Unless it hits a frigate at a very critical point it will not be able to take it out of commission. I would like to see ULAQ firing AKYA torpedoes from 25-30 km away. That will sink almost any ship.

 

[Cabatli_TR]

Larger versions would be necessary; ULAQ ASuW - G/M | ANTI-SURFACE WARFARE, GUIDED MISSILE
View attachment 14018

Ulaq team with anti-ship, EW and anti-submarine boats in a network coordinated strike group will be able to challenge against much bigger enemy ships. These unmanned platforms will change the concept of naval warfare and Turkey is heading to a good course in this field.

 

[Zafer]

Could be faster and less fuel consumption but no good in choppy seas. Breaks down easily! (At least the Russian ones we had did) .
Also the higher off the sea , the easier to see on radar!
You should try to go the other direction. If we could sink it as much as we could it would be better. Ideally next stage could be a completely submerged version with only a small RAM painted snorkel above water to communicate with and coming out of water when in range.

It can be both: it can be semi-submersible and it can get on foils when needed. Both stealth and speed can be achieved.

 

[Anmdt]

Medium range missile will be integrated. I am sure of it. But the question is, how is the guidance going to work? Is it illuminated or fire-forget type of thing or maybe with datalink(most probably)?

These vessels will have up link with MPA's, Frigates and other members of the unmanned gang. The missile can be guided with INS/GPS up to the terminal stage without any illumination.

L-Umtas is a laser guided supersonic missile built to destroy moving tanks. Unless it hits a frigate at a very critical point it will not be able to take it out of commission. I would like to see ULAQ firing AKYA torpedoes from 25-30 km away. That will sink almost any ship.

Temren (naval umtas) will more likely integrated on these vessels. And those, along with cirit are not intended to engage frigates but rather boats ( patrol boats, fac, fab etc). To be honest a ship nearly has no armor protection but more volume compared to a tank, thus temren missile will have a different warhead to ensure maximum damage at sensors.

 

[Anmdt]

I would like ULAQ better if it had hydrofoil tech, most likely faster and more agile. I don't know the downsides but it appeals to me.

Simplicity over complexity.
Ulaq is simple, easier to operate and maintain/overhaul. It has a decent speed too and the hull is capable of higher speeds with additive rear mounted engines.

Hydrofoils won't be favored in naval forces in near future due to complexity.

It can be both: it can be semi-submersible and it can get on foils when needed. Both stealth and speed can be achieved.

Sea doesn't like all in one solutions. The reason why difference between submarines and frigates are still too sharp.

I can bet Iran will loose 60-70 percent of their semi submersibles due to malfunction/lost connection/sunk before they can achieve to fire their torpedoes. And half of the remaining will fail to fire their torpedoes.

Ulaq has mounted engines which can steer without any need of a rudder, can be replaced less than half hour: however in submersible mode it would require batteries or snorkel, everything to be waterproof + additional control surfaces to maneuver and stay in a stable course and fixed engine -rudder systems.

It is sufficient if it has low as much as possible visual profile, telescopic mast and reduced rcs. (Maybe a hatch to close on top to further reduces rcs)

There is something more feasible than hydrofoil boats: swath boat with variable draft.

 

[Merzifonlu]

We need a vehicle that can dive and hide in 5-10 meters when necessary, fast on the surface, silent under water, with stealth in every possible way, and act like a sniper.

Their weapons should also be the Orca Torpedo and the Medium Range Anti-Ship Missile.So they have to be pretty long range.

This concept is different from the unmanned submarine. Submarines are mostly underwater. Therefore, they move slowly.

The vehicle I am considering will use the dive function to hide between rapid displacements on the surface.

Dive and be as quiet as a rock and suddenly fire torpedoes / missiles. Of course, she can fire his weapons while moving at full speed on the surface. In addition, be act underwater mines also be available when necessary.

Like this:

H I Sutton - Covert Shores

But, ours will be a completely unmanned "water drone".

 

[Zafer]

Simplicity over complexity.
Ulaq is simple, easier to operate and maintain/overhaul. It has a decent speed too and the hull is capable of higher speeds with additive rear mounted engines.

Hydrofoils won't be favored in naval forces in near future due to complexity.

Sea doesn't like all in one solutions. The reason why difference between submarines and frigates are still too sharp.

I can bet Iran will loose 60-70 percent of their semi submersibles due to malfunction/lost connection/sunk before they can achieve to fire their torpedoes. And half of the remaining will fail to fire their torpedoes.

Ulaq has mounted engines which can steer without any need of a rudder, can be replaced less than half hour: however in submersible mode it would require batteries or snorkel, everything to be waterproof + additional control surfaces to maneuver and stay in a stable course and fixed engine -rudder systems.

It is sufficient if it has low as much as possible visual profile, telescopic mast and reduced rcs. (Maybe a hatch to close on top to further reduces rcs)

There is something more feasible than hydrofoil boats: swath boat with variable draft.

Simplicity will get you to some point and then it will suddenly stop and sink. That's where compounding starts. This is happening in aviation where classical helicopters will be phased out of attack roles where speed and agility are paramount. Helicopters with wings and pusher propellers and tilting propellers are coming. A similar progression can happen at see where the simple starts the process and compound takes over down the road.

 

[emrachi]

Arm this boat with all kind of possible weapons and imagine a group of them can be part of protection group of the future carrier.

 

[Anmdt]

Simplicity will get you to some point and then it will suddenly stop and sink. That's where compounding starts. This is happening in aviation where classical helicopters will be phased out of attack roles where speed and agility are paramount. Helicopters with wings and pusher propellers and tilting propellers are coming. A similar progression can happen at see where the simple starts the process and compound takes over down the road.

"Sink" is not equal to "Fall"
It is not how it works at sea, like helicopters falling, a boat will not sink when engines stop or something else happens (like a puncture at the top hull) . And i personally would prefer a cheap unmanned usv to sink rather thank roaming or floating around when something has gone wrong.

I am not starting all over from simple naval architecture but it takes some effort for a boat to sink moreover to capsize. But at the sea everything propels to be simpler, more integrated and efficient.


We are not flying with parachutes considering the possibility of an airplane might fall. Analogically you can apply this to semi submersibles. It is good as a special force delivery vehicle, nothing further in near future.

People has sketched telescopic masts in the past as a solution to protect sensors from blast damage, but it is not a feasible or simple solution nowadays, compared to an integrated mast which can witstand hundred folds blast loads to a similar solution without any moving parts. Those people couldnt foresee radars would have flat surfaces and shrink in sizes. Just telling this as an example how simplicity actually may work.

 

[Zafer]

I am sorry

"Sink" is not equal to "Fall"
It is not how it works at sea, like helicopters falling, a boat will not sink when engines stop or something else happens (like a puncture at the top hull) . And i personally would prefer a cheap unmanned usv to sink rather thank roaming or floating around when something has gone wrong.

I am not starting all over from simple naval architecture but it takes some effort for a boat to sink moreover to capsize. But at the sea everything propels to be simpler, more integrated and efficient.


We are not flying with parachutes considering the possibility of an airplane might fall. Analogically you can apply this to semi submersibles. It is good as a special force delivery vehicle, nothing further in near future.

People has sketched telescopic masts in the past as a solution to protect sensors from blast damage, but it is not a feasible or simple solution nowadays, compared to an integrated mast which can witstand hundred folds blast loads to a similar solution without any moving parts. Those people couldnt foresee radars would have flat surfaces and shrink in sizes. Just telling this as an example how simplicity actually may work.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean physically sinking, I meant conceptually not being useful anymore.

FYI: I am not a shipbuilder but I lived on the see for some of my life.