Navy Turkish Aircraft Carrier Project

[Yasar_TR]

I agree with some of your points, as those are necessary to make Hurjet a CATOBAR carrier based aircraft, i'd also say that Hurjet may require more wing surface area for take-offs and landings.

However, in terms of the requiring a second engine it is not necessary. F-35 runs off a single engine, Harriers have been running off a single engine for decades. It's not a necessity and overall complicates maintenance and would use up space on a carrier. I can see Hurjet becoming India's Naval variant of Tejas, very capable single engined light fighter aircraft.

View attachment 13766

Well, if you read my post in detail, I have said apart from STOVL aircraft, carrier based aircrafts are twin engined. With the exception of f35C I guess. It is not a necessity. Otherwise there would not be some aircrafts with single engines Operating from carriers. But it is more desirable. Twin engine gives more chance for the plane to survive should there be a problem with one of the engines. For this very reason all carrier based planes apart from STOVL and f35C, are twin engined. The advantages of having a twin engined plane on a carrier must outweigh the cost. Indian Navy has abandoned the Hal Tejas carrier version for this reason.

 

[Nilgiri]

. Indian Navy has abandoned the Hal Tejas carrier version for this reason.

Yup, if we go for a Tejas variant, it will be TEDBF (twin engine deck based fighter).

 

[Zafer]

Yup, if we go for a Tejas variant, it will be TEDBF (twin engine deck based fighter).

It should be about power to weight ratio, if you can make it with one engine you are good.

 

[Cypro]

Look at this beauty​

If I were the decision makers in SSB or TN, I would start considering AW609 for the Navy. If Turkey plans to have an Aircraft Carrier similar to Queen Elizabeth-class and considering TCG Anadolu could host VTOL, there is a certain need for a AEW plane like E-2 Hawkeye or Maritime Patrol Aircraft based on ship. AW609 is intended for civilian market but it is evolving into a military tiltrotor as well . Engines are PW Canada PT6C-67A and maker is Italian, so less likely be subject to embargoes. Also P-72 MPAs also made by Leonardo, I would love to see this chopper as MPA or AEW operating from TCG Anadolu. Also think about similar UAVs with TS 1400 turboprop or turboshaft taking off from Anadolu as VTOL aircraft and patrolling..

HAI: Leonardo AW609 set for military certification in 2021​

"Leonardo Helicopters is making steady progress with its AW609 tiltrotor and expects to achieve US Federal Aviation Administration this year, with first delivery following in 2020 and military approval in 2021."

----

 

[Zafer]

Look at this beauty​

If I were the decision makers in SSB or TN, I would start considering AW609 for the Navy. If Turkey plans to have an Aircraft Carrier similar to Queen Elizabeth-class and considering TCG Anadolu could host VTOL, there is a certain need for a AEW plane like E-2 Hawkeye or Maritime Patrol Aircraft based on ship. AW609 is intended for civilian market but it is evolving into a military tiltrotor as well . Engines are PW Canada PT6C-67A and maker is Italian, so less likely be subject to embargoes. Also P-72 MPAs also made by Leonardo, I would love to see this chopper as MPA or AEW operating from TCG Anadolu. Also think about similar UAVs with TS 1400 turboprop or turboshaft taking off from Anadolu as VTOL aircraft and patrolling..

HAI: Leonardo AW609 set for military certification in 2021​

"Leonardo Helicopters is making steady progress with its AW609 tiltrotor and expects to achieve US Federal Aviation Administration this year, with first delivery following in 2020 and military approval in 2021."

View attachment 13961

----

This American design that is turned into a civilian model by Italians is an old technology which is nowadays evolved into V-280 Valor in its homeland.

The new model achieved a top speed of around 565 km/h.
It is a fast helicopter but lifting capacity and autorotation ability is questionable.
A more reliable single rotor helicopter can be designed in Turkey to match and exceed its capabilities.

 

[Combat-Master]

Guys, what do you think about going to one of the previous designs during the feasibility phase of TFX, could one of these designs be envisaged for carrier use?

 

[Turko]

Guys, what do you think about going to one of the previous designs during the feasibility phase of TFX, could one of these designs be envisaged for carrier use?

View attachment 14308

Canards vs tail wings? Hmm I've no idea . Would it be smart to create new design for limited navalized fighters?

Wait what's wrong with current MMU design? İt has twin engine which suits navalized aircraft.

 

[Zafer]

Guys, what do you think about going to one of the previous designs during the feasibility phase of TFX, could one of these designs be envisaged for carrier use?

View attachment 14308

I would make all of them in addition to the twin engine TFX but not instead of it.
The reason why is there will be in access of 80% commonality, so why not.

 

[Combat-Master]

Canards vs tail wings? Hmm I've no idea . Would it be smart to create new design for limited navalized fighters?

Wait what's wrong with current MMU design? İt has twin engine which suits navalized aircraft.

I feel like the MMU is going to be really expensive to maintain on a ship and we may need an interim fighter jet.

 

[Turko]

I feel like the MMU is going to be really expensive to maintain on a ship and we may need an interim fighter jet.

Just because of second engine maintenance would be expensive? Under any circumstances a fighter need to paid whether navalized or conventional.

Then the best solution is :

Vought Model 1600 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Combat-Master]

Just because of second engine maintenance would be expensive? Under any circumstances a fighter need to paid whether navalized or conventional.

Then the best solution is :
View attachment 14321
View attachment 14322

Vought Model 1600 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

No not just the second engine - coatings, the overall cost of the platform - it's going to be far more expensive than conventional MMU.

 

[CAN_TR]

Rough sea, salt water and staying outside in any weather condition will for sure make not only the maintenace expensive but also shorten the intervals between the inspections, which for normal aircrafts is once a year.

In my opinon HÜRJET has to mature to a Gripen like fighter jet with Naval version.

 

[Nilgiri]

I feel like the MMU is going to be really expensive to maintain on a ship and we may need an interim fighter jet.

Maybe Turkey can consider doing some STO and arrested landing tests for a naval hurjet?

It could have interim potential with relevant retrofit configuration on TCG anadolu....I checked the total length is reasonable at around 232 metres....and I assume enough of that is available for landing if configured/arranged for it.

N-LCA I believe did its landing on vikramaditya within 100m....and hurjet will be around same size.

Operations will give experience to work upon for next more dedicated platforms in this area.

 

[Hexciter]

Guys, what do you think about going to one of the previous designs during the feasibility phase of TFX, could one of these designs be envisaged for carrier use?

View attachment 14308

Navalization of current design is more logical for me

 

[Turko]

No not just the second engine - coatings, the overall cost of the platform - it's going to be far more expensive than conventional MMU.
View attachment 14323

They have hundreds of fighters. How many navalized fighters Turkish Navy will have maximum 50. So it could be compensated considering the cost of creating a new platform.
However navalized Hurjet sounds reasonable.

 

[dBSPL]

Guys, what do you think about going to one of the previous designs during the feasibility phase of TFX, could one of these designs be envisaged for carrier use?

View attachment 14308

Is the current airframe not suitable? As far as I know, the current airframe wing area is more than other pre-designs. It has also more wingspan. In this case, what would be the advantage of changing to a different body instead of configuring the existing body.

There is also a handicap for the navy configurations because aircrafts gets very seriously loads for necessary needs. First of all, landing gear must be stronger, and for this reason heavier and larger. Therefore, every possible kN is needed at take-off. This often causes problems with aircraft fuel and ammunition load. Especially the USA has been spending billions of dollars on pre-mission refueling projects with Carrier-Based aircraft for many years. Last example of this, a huge tanker-UAV program is underway for this issues.

The transition to a different airframe will leave the MMU's main design process largely starting from the very basic, which not only creates problems in both the financial management of the project and workforce planning, but may also be condemned to an open-ended schedule. If a Carrier-Based aircraft project is planning, I think there are two ways to follow. The first is to enter a carrier-based fighter development project as a partner with a foreign country that is preparing a project in this regard. Or we should plan to expand and Navalize the Hurjet first, and to navalize MMU in the long term. Third way is completely ready-end product procurement, but I personally believe that carrying an aircraft dependent on imported logistics on naval platforms greatly reduces the strategic multiplier effect of the aircraft carrier. The model to be followed here must be France's way.

Of course, first of all, we are a country that does not yet have any operations in this field, nor any experience in design. TR must be very carefully analyze all the risk factors that are shaping their own planning from economic parameters, to the international conjuncture.

 

[the]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1367037680756793344

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1367038545630793732

TCG ANADOLU’ya Bayraktar TB2 SİHA | Savunma Sanayi

Savunma Sanayii Başkanı Prof. Dr. İsmail DEMİR, konuk olduğu NTV canlı yayını esnasında TCG ANADOLU Amfibi Hücum Gemisi hakkında önemli açıklamalarda bulundu.

www.savunmasanayist.com

TCG Anadolu LHD will become a drone carrier,with carrier-based variants of Bayraktar TB2 and other #UAVs and #UCAVs .

İsmail Demir: "Fixed wing UAVs will come to turn TCG Anatolia into an SİHA ship. We will add striking unmanned aerial vehicles from TCG Anatolia to the inventory. We have a project to transform TCG Anadolu into an SİHA ship."

 

[Anmdt]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1367043870383607808

This part of the tweet is wrong, lets make it clear first:

TCG Anadolu was specifically modified to host and operate F-35B (possibly more efficiently compared to the original design), however it is not the sole purpose of the ship,it is an LHD with extended Light Aircraft Carrier configuration. It has partial maintenance and re-arming - refueling capabilities for fixed wing aircrafts in addition to helicopters.
It can operate in
-LPD mode, focusing on delivering units with LCU/LCT and transport helicopters,
-LHD mode operating attack helicopters and MAVs,
-LAC mode operating STOVL aircraft and supporting other landing units,
-mixed configuration of the right prescription of the above,as needed according to the mission.

For STOVL amphibious operations the platform was specifically designed for F-35B (elevator capacity, width ,deck strength etc), and rather actually for STOVL in nearby dimensions (Harrier).
Anything less, is loss of the investment, but as i have stated before the ship has 40 years of operations and sooner or later STOVL aircrafts will be on TCG Anadolu, UAVs are temporary solutions to provide aerial support in amphibious operations.

 

[Era_shield]

It should be about power to weight ratio, if you can make it with one engine you are good.

For carrier use dual engine is preferred even if it has lower P:W because for a single engine craft if 1 engine fails it means crashing into the sea, but a dual engine craft can still limp back to the carrier using the other engine. F-35C is the exception because it's poorly optimised for carrier use (and all other uses).

 

[Combat-Master]

For carrier use dual engine is preferred even if it has lower P:W because for a single engine craft if 1 engine fails it means crashing into the sea, but a dual engine craft can still limp back to the carrier using the other engine. F-35C is the exception because it's poorly optimised for carrier use (and all other uses).

F6U Pirate, F9F Panther, F-9 Cougar, FJ Fury, FJ-2 Fury, FJ-3 Fury, F11 Tiger, F8 Crusader, A7 Corsair II, A4 Skyhawk, FH3 Demon, F4D Skyray. AV8B Harrier all have operated on aircraft carriers with single engines. We shouldn't be so closed off to single engine aircrafts, also, engines have become a lot more reliable over the decades...

Maybe we can grab some modernised A4 Skyhawks from Brazil as an interim solution

Exclusivo – Programa de Modernização dos caças AF-1/1A da Marinha do Brasil

Lugar certo para se informar sobre Defesa,Geopolítica,Guerras,Teorias da ConspiraçãoUfologia,Economia e muito mais

www.noticiafinal.com.br