TR Naval Programs

BalkanTurk90

Contributor
Messages
574
Reactions
5 921
Nation of residence
Albania
Nation of origin
Turkey
A few point about TN future fleet structure, A second enlarged drone carrier/LHD was mentioned and some design images was revealed. Also, a real AC was officially discussed with UK. Apart from this, the production of Tf2000 must be started in the upcoming period, maybe in 2024/2025 but This project may need a partner customer for financial support (?). In this way, big money worth billion $ for each exported ship can be supplied to the country while continuing to produce this beast.The number specified for Hisar OPV is 10 in total. The previous FAC tender was based on 10 ships. I think STM TTFAC which will start production, will be produced with similar numbers. I think fleet structure that TN will create for mid term will be as follows;

1x AC
2x LHD/Drone carrier
8x TF8500 (Tf2000)
4x+4 Tf4500
4x I class
4x Ada
10x Hisar OPV
10x TTFAC
-When i look at Turkish navy ships and when i look at S Korea(example) i feel sorry for Turkish navy .
S Korea alot smaller than Turkiye and have 25 warships only Drigates + desteoyers 4000 tons + while destroyers are 10 000tons.
While Turkiye have most of its navy ships gifted old craps .
If Turkiye should ptotect its Mavi Vatan then at least its Navy should be same as S korea by numbers and quality .
- 1 AC
- 2 LHD (anadolu)
- 9 TF 2000 ( 10 000 Tons )
- 8 tf 4500
- 4 Istanbul class
- 4 MLU Barbaros
- 4 milgem
- 10 Hisar OPV
- 20 Facs
- 20-30 submarines .
 

Oublious

Experienced member
The Netherlands Correspondent
Messages
1,974
Reactions
7 4,223
Nation of residence
Nethelands
Nation of origin
Turkey
-When i look at Turkish navy ships and when i look at S Korea(example) i feel sorry for Turkish navy .
S Korea alot smaller than Turkiye and have 25 warships only Drigates + desteoyers 4000 tons + while destroyers are 10 000tons.
While Turkiye have most of its navy ships gifted old craps .
If Turkiye should ptotect its Mavi Vatan then at least its Navy should be same as S korea by numbers and quality .
- 1 AC
- 2 LHD (anadolu)
- 9 TF 2000 ( 10 000 Tons )
- 8 tf 4500
- 4 Istanbul class
- 4 MLU Barbaros
- 4 milgem
- 10 Hisar OPV
- 20 Facs
- 20-30 submarines .


20-30 subs? untill 2030 our fleet will 15 included STM500. After 2030 with milden maybe 20. But going to 30 subs?
 

BalkanTurk90

Contributor
Messages
574
Reactions
5 921
Nation of residence
Albania
Nation of origin
Turkey
20-30 subs? untill 2030 our fleet will 15 included STM500. After 2030 with milden maybe 20. But going to 30 subs?
10 stm 500 which are smaller and cheap to produce
6 type 214 Reis class
8 Milden
4 MLU Gürclass
( So not impossible 25-30 submarine)
 

uçuyorum

Contributor
Messages
687
Reactions
9 1,122
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
A few point about TN future fleet structure, A second enlarged drone carrier/LHD was mentioned and some design images was revealed. Also, a real AC was officially discussed with UK. Apart from this, the production of Tf2000 must be started in the upcoming period, maybe in 2024/2025 but This project may need a partner customer for financial support (?). In this way, big money worth billion $ for each exported ship can be supplied to the country while continuing to produce this beast.The number specified for Hisar OPV is 10 in total. The previous FAC tender was based on 10 ships. I think STM TTFAC which will start production, will be produced with similar numbers. I think fleet structure that TN will create for mid term will be as follows;

1x AC
2x LHD/Drone carrier
8x TF8500 (Tf2000)
4x+4 Tf4500
4x I class
4x Ada
10x Hisar OPV
10x TTFAC
Western carrier capable aircraft are F35, F18 and Rafale M. We can’t make a carrier based fighter before MMU matures. My earliest guess for actual AC if we could at all have one is 2045+.
 

Khagan1923

Contributor
Messages
882
Reactions
10 3,811
Nation of residence
Germany
Nation of origin
Turkey
So it's more like the confirmed plan for 4 TF2000 is a direct replacement of the 4 G-Class that are less modernized and will likely retire earlier. I've thought that TF-2000 was a completely independent, new project not intended to replace any existing Turkish Navy ship, since the size and capability difference was so huge. Anyways then, the replacement of rest of the 4 G-Class ships equipped with VLS is still up in the air. If there's an official mention of this 4500 ton class frigate, the TF-4500 that you've mentioned, I guess it really depends on Turkish economic outlook. As you'd know the French and Italians drastically scaled down in their Horizon class program and replaced it with the AAW variants of FREMM instead. Same could happen I guess, but for that TF-4500 might need to grow a bit larger. We'll see.
Officially there is no mention of TF-2000 being the replacement of the Gabya but those ships are old and when I say old I mean it. They were commissioned at the end of the 70s beginning of 80s. So we are talking about ships that are right now 43-45 years old. Which if I may mention also shows how good the Turkish Navy takes care of its ships even though they are used pretty intensely. The average age of the G-Class right now is over 40. By the time the first TF-2000 enters inventory of the Navy they will be 46-48 years old. So even if the Navy officially does not see the TF-2000 as a replacement inofficially they will replace the G-Class.

My hope and I think it is a hope shared by others here is that we see all 8 ships ordered and built as well as the TF-4500 becoming reality. I'm an advocate for enlarging the Navy but it all depends on the economy.

Like @Cabatli_TR said in his post. That would be the ideal set up IMO for the Navy in the future. We hope thats all we can do.

Also we should not forget how much the Navy is investing into the Milden project.
 

Cabatli_TR

Experienced member
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
5,369
Reactions
80 45,485
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
-When i look at Turkish navy ships and when i look at S Korea(example) i feel sorry for Turkish navy .
S Korea alot smaller than Turkiye and have 25 warships only Drigates + desteoyers 4000 tons + while destroyers are 10 000tons.
While Turkiye have most of its navy ships gifted old craps .
If Turkiye should ptotect its Mavi Vatan then at least its Navy should be same as S korea by numbers and quality .
- 1 AC
- 2 LHD (anadolu)
- 9 TF 2000 ( 10 000 Tons )
- 8 tf 4500
- 4 Istanbul class
- 4 MLU Barbaros
- 4 milgem
- 10 Hisar OPV
- 20 Facs
- 20-30 submarines .


STM500 will be of great interest to TN as a game changer in its geography in this displacement class. Since there is no shallow water submarine of this class in TN's inventory, they will probably work on new concepts and tactics and establish a strong fleet structure especially for Aegean. Besides, Milden will appear as a power multiplier, giving TN previously unowned abilities and Milden will form the backbone of future TN so I think Milden will be produced in large numbers in blocks. Entry of heavy tonnage carrier ships into the inventory of TN increase the imprtance of protection of those ships not only from surface threats but also from underwater so It won't be a surprise TN will have a larger fleet than total number of submarines currently available. In addition, in parallel with the technological developments of unmanned submarines, a different kind of surprise effect and obscurity card will be created with powerful sensors and weapons.

With created fleet structure I mentioned above, Turkish navy will already be among top 3 in whole Mediterranean. South Korea has a dangerous brother as well as a giant China that they have to cope with.
 

Cabatli_TR

Experienced member
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
5,369
Reactions
80 45,485
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Western carrier capable aircraft are F35, F18 and Rafale M. We can’t make a carrier based fighter before MMU matures. My earliest guess for actual AC if we could at all have one is 2045+.

Turkiye is conducting R&D on Hürjet to develop a flying platform that will easily land/takeoff on carrier ships and it has been stated that such a target (landing AC) has not been set for TFX. I mentioned this before, future Hürjet variants will most likely turn into maybe Rafale-M of Tükiye, with larger fuselage, better range/speed in accordance to future requirements of TN. After the first engineering variant of Hürjet to land on the AC runway is revealed, the demands will become clearer. Nowadays, the engineering of this version of Hürjet is being studied rather than a strong platform to conduct difficult mission. If first step is achieved, much more advanced variants will be revealed.
 

Baryshx

Contributor
Messages
948
Reactions
8 2,026
Website
www.twitter.com
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
About the comparison. Our neighbor doesnt threat us with Nukes.
You can't counter nuclear with ships and submarines. In that sense, what Korea is doing is meaningless. If they are thinking of dropping Nukes from these ships and submarines in the future, fine.
 

UkroTurk

Experienced member
Land Warfare Specialist
Professional
Messages
2,216
Reactions
28 3,975
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
You can't counter nuclear with ships and submarines. In that sense, what Korea is doing is meaningless. If they are thinking of dropping Nukes from these ships and submarines in the future, fine.
Although USA would share with South Korea nuclear weapons in case of North attack, a non-atomic Country could hit enemy's nuclear facilities, this first strike could create destructive impact like nuclear attack.
 

Sanchez

Experienced member
Moderator
Think Tank Analyst
DefenceHub Diplomat
Messages
1,624
Reactions
56 7,373
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
-When i look at Turkish navy ships and when i look at S Korea(example) i feel sorry for Turkish navy .
S Korea alot smaller than Turkiye
Small South Korean economy is 2 times that of Turkish one and they spend 2.5 times more on their military. We also do not have a North Korea we need to circle, a China we need to stop and a Japan we need to keep at bay.
 

Heartbang

Experienced member
Messages
2,313
Reactions
7 3,495
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey

Windchime

Well-known member
Moderator
Professional
South Korea Moderator
Messages
413
Reactions
22 1,272
Nation of residence
Poland
Nation of origin
South Korea
-When i look at Turkish navy ships and when i look at S Korea(example) i feel sorry for Turkish navy .
The biggest difference between Korean and Turkish naval buildup was the fact that Korea didn't comission second-hand ships once we started building our own ships in FF and PCC, and also that we didn't license surface combatant designs but sticked with our own. More importantly, once the lines crossed in 1979, Korean economic growth curve was much steeper + Korean industry, especially shipbuilding has been world-class since at least two to three decades.

The thing is, pretty much all of earlier Korean ship designs were already obsolete on arrival. Korea was planning to buy an American design for their first FF and PCCs but the negotiations with American naval architects collapsed and Korean shipbuilders had to go on their own. In hindsight this turn of events would've helped massively in fostering domestic designing capacity. This was 1975~1976 btw, when Korea was still quite significantly behind Turkish economy both in terms of per capita production and national production, so there was some critical decisions, but I think there's a valid reason Turkiye was not able to choose the option of domestic design this early on.

On one hand, the reason Korea was able to just stick with such obsolete designs was because the naval threat was marginal during the 20th century and the first decade of 21st century. China was more of an afterthought throughout this period and only serious threat was North Korean spec ops infiltrating through sea and their amphibious forces landing on Korean coastal islands on the eastern and western coastlines. Hence although obsolete, Korean domestic designs had what it take to be adequate naval deterrence to the threat it faced. It had good speed and had some real heavy ASuW firepower in 76mm and 40mm guns (most of them had 2 76mm guns coupled with 2 or 3 40mm + 4 to 8 SSMs so you know what I'm talking)

On the other hand, in my view, the Turkish Navy had no luxury that the South Korean Navy was able to enjoy, being able to stick with ships of old but still adequate design on a more lax naval environement. While Korea was facing North Korean Navy, Turkiye was facing Soviet Black Sea Fleet. Since the end of Cold War you guys have major dispute with Greece in form of UNCLOS implementation so the maritime threat was just always there and the difference is absolutely stark. You guys were forced to hit that perfect balance between right amount of ships with adequate capabilities in more unforgiving naval environement so there was pretty much no time to wait for a good domestic design to appear, and 2nd hand ship was the best option since after cold war, there were plenty of which being decomissioned from the western navies.

For starters, Turkish Navy operated more ex-USN FRAM destroyers than South Korean Navy, had multiple SSM equipped FACs since Kartal class while the South Korean Navy had built only 8 such ships (Baekgu class based on US PSMM design) during the same period. The first Turkish naval ship with SAM was contracted in 1983 and comissioned in 1987 based on MEKO 200 design, whereas the first Korean ship with SAM, DDH-I was first contracted in 1989 and comissioned in 1998. Not to mention the G-Class, which was far capable than any Korean ship until the comissioning of DDH-2 in 2003. By 2003 Korean economy was already twice the size of Turkish economy and we were using that money to design and build our own ships for the last 3 decades by that point.

But now, Turkish economy has been catching up in the speed of growth ever since the 2000s. Although Turkiye seems to have been trying to cultivate domestic defense industry for quite a while, I think that also really kickd in once the economy started growing faster during the 2000s. As a result, MILGEM class is very capable and up to date design. Compare Ada class with FFG-I for example, in service since roughly the same period and it's surprising really, how fast the catch-up was considering Korea was designing their own ships since way earlier. Of course there are more context when comparing the two beyond just how it looks but I think you'll be able to get the jist.

So there's no need to feel sorry for the Turkish Navy. Actually by now you'd have realized that the Korean Navy and its sailors probably would've suffered more for a longer time for having worse ships than the Turkish Navy. This really showed when a PCC was sunk by a North Korean submarine. At least Turkish sailors were sailing on a ship with adequate AAW and good ASW capabilities.
 
Last edited:

Windchime

Well-known member
Moderator
Professional
South Korea Moderator
Messages
413
Reactions
22 1,272
Nation of residence
Poland
Nation of origin
South Korea
You can't counter nuclear with ships and submarines. In that sense, what Korea is doing is meaningless. If they are thinking of dropping Nukes from these ships and submarines in the future, fine.
You're just casually disregarding sea-based BMD and ground strike of TST with SLBM, let alone ASW hunter-killer capability of a submarine against North Korean SSB that is just around the corner. There's a reason Korea went for a big 3000+ tons class SSK. They are both integral parts of Korean deterrence against NK nuclear force. KDX-III are equipped with Aegis BMD and KDDX will have a Korean BMD solution onboard as well. Think about a case where a North Korean SLBM is launched, where do you think it could be detected and intercepted the earliest?
 
Last edited:

Khagan1923

Contributor
Messages
882
Reactions
10 3,811
Nation of residence
Germany
Nation of origin
Turkey
We should also not forget that there is a good chance the tonnage of the design changes once again. I think next week we will see the final design of the TF-2000 be unveiled at IDEF. Last IDEF the tonnage had changed from 7000 to 8500. It could see another increase.

I-Class: 3100 tons
TF-4500: 5000-6000 tons
TF-2000: 9000-10000 tons

is a real possibility in the future.
 

uçuyorum

Contributor
Messages
687
Reactions
9 1,122
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
We should also not forget that there is a good chance the tonnage of the design changes once again. I think next week we will see the final design of the TF-2000 be unveiled at IDEF. Last IDEF the tonnage had changed from 7000 to 8500. It could see another increase.

I-Class: 3100 tons
TF-4500: 5000-6000 tons
TF-2000: 9000-10000 tons

is a real possibility in the future.
Where is it going, TF2000 Heavy Frigate -> TD20000 Air Defence Destroyer -> TC200000 Guided Missile Cruiser? :)
 

dBSPL

Experienced member
Think Tank Analyst
DefenceHub Ambassador
Messages
2,048
Reactions
77 10,602
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Instead of attempting a third hull design like the TF-4500 (1st arm İ class 2nd arm TF-2000), I am in favor of designing a Batch-II by giving the Milgem-II İstif class another 10-12 meters in length. I mean a frigate in the 3400-3600 ton displacement range with a more powerful main mast and better seakeeping.

This understanding is basically a way that can be realized much faster as it will be a development on a ready system with most of detailed design ready and all engineering packages completed. In fact, private shipyards that will build in parallel three İstif Class ships can build the second ships with Batch-II immediately after the first ships.

Not only the production planning and construction cost, but also the operation will be more favorable. What about the platforms that will meet the need for a heavier class ASW frigate? In this regard, we should focus on the 5th, 6th and 7th ships, which are considered as +3 of the TF-2000 project.

edit: The fact that both the TF-2000 hull and the existing I-class light frigate hull can be configured according to different needs by creating a logistic common infrastructure, and that these ships can be built by private shipyards in the future after the lead ships of each class, will make the modernization processes of navies like TN, which have very challenging conditions in terms of resource management, more efficient and feasible. Our only problem is not financial. I would like to remind you that our Navy launched a frigate for the first time in almost 25 year due to the problems it faced during the indigenization drive and many erroneous political decisions. There should be no more room for error in risk management.
 
Last edited:

Saithan

Experienced member
Denmark Correspondent
Messages
8,092
Reactions
21 18,639
Nation of residence
Denmark
Nation of origin
Turkey
I'd like to remind everyone how the cards have been laid on the table the last couple of weeks.

I don't think you can expect anything new design-wise until the snowball called economy has hit rock bottom. And Government has forumalated a plan to beat it back to stable onset and something more solid.

Perhaps it's good that the Hisars are in production so we can get some decent OPV out there to carry the burden. I don't think we'll get a 4500+ tonnage Frigate the next 10 years.

Adding extra meters to a completed design won't work @Anmdt already said that. Have to start design from scratch.
 

Yasar_TR

Experienced member
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
3,011
Reactions
105 14,567
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Turkey
Instead of attempting a third hull design like the TF-4500 (1st arm İ class 2nd arm TF-2000), I am in favor of designing a Batch-II by giving the Milgem-II İstif class another 10-12 meters in length. I mean a frigate in the 3400-3600 ton displacement range with a more powerful main mast and better seakeeping.

This understanding is basically a way that can be realized much faster as it will be a development on a ready system with most of detailed design ready and all engineering packages completed. In fact, private shipyards that will build in parallel three İstif Class ships can build the second ships with Batch-II immediately after the first ships.

Not only the production planning and construction cost, but also the operation will be more favorable. What about the platforms that will meet the need for a heavier class ASW frigate? In this regard, we should focus on the 5th, 6th and 7th ships, which are considered as +3 of the TF-2000 project.

edit: The fact that both the TF-2000 hull and the existing I-class light frigate hull can be configured according to different needs by creating a logistic common infrastructure, and that these ships can be built by private shipyards in the future after the lead ships of each class, will make the modernization processes of navies like TN, which have very challenging conditions in terms of resource management, more efficient and feasible. Our only problem is not financial. I would like to remind you that our Navy launched a frigate for the first time in almost 25 year due to the problems it faced during the indigenization drive and many erroneous political decisions. There should be no more room for error in risk management.
We discussed this previously and @Anmdt made it quite clear that as Milgem program goes, I-Class is the limit. Any bigger, heavier and wider or deeper it will not be I-Class/Milgem. But a different class of ship.

Post Number #604

That means any bigger than I-Class it will have to be back to drawing board to design a new frigate.
It wouldn’t be a bad thing. But there is the financial constraints that @Saithan has mentioned. Also Turkish Navy’s future program does not include enlargement in current platform numbers. On the contrary the program is focused on more capable and mission centric naval force with conservative combatant numbers with an emphasis on cost effectiveness.
In to 2030s and beyond our navy will not be much bigger than today in numbers. But will be much more capable with indigenisation and application of new technologies. Our Submarine force will probably be the only area where we will see definite growth.
 

dBSPL

Experienced member
Think Tank Analyst
DefenceHub Ambassador
Messages
2,048
Reactions
77 10,602
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
I'd like to remind everyone how the cards have been laid on the table the last couple of weeks.

I don't think you can expect anything new design-wise until the snowball called economy has hit rock bottom. And Government has forumalated a plan to beat it back to stable onset and something more solid.

Perhaps it's good that the Hisars are in production so we can get some decent OPV out there to carry the burden. I don't think we'll get a 4500+ tonnage Frigate the next 10 years.

Adding extra meters to a completed design won't work @Anmdt already said that. Have to start design from scratch.
Then there should be not only 3, but 3+3 parallel production for the İstif class. That is, 2025-26 launching the first 3 frigates, 2027-2028 launching the second three, batch-II frigates. The targeted schedule for the TF-2000 lead ship is already around 2027-2028. In short, what I want to say is that we need to put between TF-2000 and I-class a block before the TF-2000 mass production, which we can realize the fastest through the I-class. TF-100 heavy frigate? It could be last step after first 4 destroyer.

For the first time since the most frightening period of the Cold War, the risks are rising frighteningly high again, the region is boiling, small states have collapsed and a new phase is underway, there is a huge list of urgent military needs and new frigates are on that list.
 
Top Bottom