TR Naval Programs

76mm gun will start serial production by the end of this year. 2 months for sea trials is ambitious but the gun performed very well and passed the ground trials with a perfect score so the end of the year is very realistic.

TheInsider said:

76mm gun will start serial production by the end of this year. 2 months for sea trials is ambitious but the gun performed very well and passed the ground trials with a perfect score so the end of the year is very realistic.

Click to expand...

Hello community, this is my first message.

The 76-mm gun project is significant for two reasons. First, it is a mechanically sophisticated system that is not easy to produce. Second, we have numerous ships with 76-mm guns.

On the other hand, the Istanbul Naval Shipyard and MKE have a lot of experience with this gun, so it was relatively easy to carry out this project. MKE has been manufacturing gun barrels for more than two decades, and the Istanbul Naval Shipyard has been performing overhaul work on these guns for a long time. Gun overhaul is the most comprehensive maintenance process of the gun, I can say that the gun is disassembled to the smallest part until you see the backbone of the gun. Even if you do this process several times, the technicians learn a lot. The Istanbul shipyard (95 gun installations) has done the overhaul of the gun maybe hundreds of times. Based on this comparison, you can guess the level of expertise.

Another important company is Ermaksan, which manufactures harder and larger parts of the gun. As far as I know, Ermaksan has been making the hard parts of the gun for Leanordo for some time.

In the ground tests, the main expectation is that the gun fires without any defect. However, during sea trials, there are other aspects to consider, such as the gun's coherence with the fire control system, the gun's hydraulic agility in rough seas (here, of course, the ship's gyro is important), and accuracy (distribution of bullet splashes on the target).

Even if the gun has passed sea trials, user feedback is crucial, as the quality of such systems can be judged by the time the product is used in exercises, etc. The performance of the gun, the number of malfunctions and the comparison with Leonardo's system are the most important things I look at. After using this gun for 3-4 years without any problems (or no more than expected), we would confirm that the system has proven itself.

Tayfun Ozberk said:

Hello community, this is my first message.

The 76-mm gun project is significant for two reasons. First, it is a mechanically sophisticated system that is not easy to produce. Second, we have numerous ships with 76-mm guns.

On the other hand, the Istanbul Naval Shipyard and MKE have a lot of experience with this gun, so it was relatively easy to carry out this project. MKE has been manufacturing gun barrels for more than two decades, and the Istanbul Naval Shipyard has been performing overhaul work on these guns for a long time. Gun overhaul is the most comprehensive maintenance process of the gun, I can say that the gun is disassembled to the smallest part until you see the backbone of the gun. Even if you do this process several times, the technicians learn a lot. The Istanbul shipyard (95 gun installations) has done the overhaul of the gun maybe hundreds of times. Based on this comparison, you can guess the level of expertise.

Another important company is Ermaksan, which manufactures harder and larger parts of the gun. As far as I know, Ermaksan has been making the hard parts of the gun for Leanordo for some time.

In the ground tests, the main expectation is that the gun fires without any defect. However, during sea trials, there are other aspects to consider, such as the gun's coherence with the fire control system, the gun's hydraulic agility in rough seas (here, of course, the ship's gyro is important), and accuracy (distribution of bullet splashes on the target).

Even if the gun has passed sea trials, user feedback is crucial, as the quality of such systems can be judged by the time the product is used in exercises, etc. The performance of the gun, the number of malfunctions and the comparison with Leonardo's system are the most important things I look at. After using this gun for 3-4 years without any problems (or no more than expected), we would confirm that the system has proven itself.

Click to expand...

certainly all of us would love to hear your opinion on DATA as well since it was the news of the day

Quasar said:

certainly all of us would love to hear your opinion on DATA as well sice it was the news of the day

Click to expand...

Well, DATA is an unusual development for our country. We can say that it is a kind of test bed. This is the second significant development in our underwater test facilities, the first being the cavitation tunnel developed by Istanbul Technical University.

Such test beds are very beneficial when it comes to increasing the number of trials, and types of tests. For example, if you want to do live testing of a torpedo, there are some requirements. You need to provide a submarine, publish a NAVTEX/NOTAM for the test, and provide patrol boats for area security. Such tests affect the freedom of navigation and are very costly as at least 4 to 5 vessels participate in it and consume fuel (submarine, target towing vessel, patrol boats, etc.) Moreover, the test can be conducted only once with these assets. In live missile tests, this process is even more difficult because the launch range increases enormously due to the range of the missiles.

DATA will change this structure. Submarine weapons (torpedoes, encapsulated missiles, etc.) will be tested in DATA perhaps countless times. And the number of tests at open seas would decrease. DATA will allow more testing and reduce the cost of research and development projects. As weapons are tested more, they will also be more trustworthy.

Tayfun Ozberk said:

Well, DATA is an unusual development for our country. We can say that it is a kind of test bed. This is the second significant development in our underwater test facilities, the first being the cavitation tunnel developed by Istanbul Technical University.

Such test beds are very beneficial when it comes to increasing the number of trials, and types of tests. For example, if you want to do live testing of a torpedo, there are some requirements. You need to provide a submarine, publish a NAVTEX/NOTAM for the test, and provide patrol boats for area security. Such tests affect the freedom of navigation and are very costly as at least 4 to 5 vessels participate in it and consume fuel (submarine, target towing vessel, patrol boats, etc.) Moreover, the test can be conducted only once with these assets. In live missile tests, this process is even more difficult because the launch range increases enormously due to the range of the missiles.

DATA will change this structure. Submarine weapons (torpedoes, encapsulated missiles, etc.) will be tested in DATA perhaps countless times. And the number of tests at open seas would decrease. DATA will allow more testing and reduce the cost of research and development projects. As weapons are tested more, they will also be more trustworthy.

Click to expand...

What exactly will be the big advantage for the defense industry with the cavitation tunnel?

Don't take my question wrong as I have been part of a design team that has build and installed a cavitation tunnel at a University in the Netherlands, I know a cavitation tunnel pretty well with pumps that pump the water loop and special turbulance grid with rods that have triangle shaped stirrers to create all types of turbulences.

I just do not see a direct application for the defense industry

The cavitation tunnel will be used for both commercial and military applications. On the military side, KATMANSIS will analyze the flow characteristics, noise signature, and resistance of torpedoes, autonomous underwater vehicles, and submarine-launched missiles, as well as warships and submarines.

I am not an acoustic engineer but have some experience in underwater warfare. Collecting the information I mentioned above takes time at sea. Plus, it is also useful to detect the defects or unsatisfying performance of the system before taking it into to service.

Nutuk said:

What exactly will be the big advantage for the defense industry with the cavitation tunnel?

Don't take my question wrong as I have been part of a design team that has build and installed a cavitation tunnel at a University in the Netherlands, I know a cavitation tunnel pretty well with pumps that pump the water loop and special turbulance grid with rods that have triangle shaped stirrers to create all types of turbulences.

I just do not see a direct application for the defense industry

http://imgur.com/0538Cos

Click to expand...

-Propeller design (depth conditioning for cavitation)
-Conventional Torpedo design ( nd full scale early experiments and prototyping)
-Cavitation torpedo design and experiments
-Underwater acoustics measurements of the platforms (frigates, submarines) with appendages in a controlled environment for design optimization
-Hydrodynamics, hull form optimization, flow characterisation to aid optimization for submarines with depth conditioning, or frigates with active propellers (ie. Self propulsion)
-Sonar dome hydrodynamic optimizations, flow noise estimation and hull integration.

The tunnels are highly critical for certain applications in defense industry. It depends on how to utilize them. ITU-KAT also is going to have a solid computational infastructure for verifications, reducing experimentation time etc.

TF-2000, Milden, ORKA and AKYA utilizes or going to utilize the ITU-KAT along with some other undisclosed R&D projects.

Cavitation tunnels are essentially the liquid equivalent of wind tunnel.

Not surprising, both are fluids.

Buckingham Pi theorem is good to look into regarding this (i.e why does dimensionless parameter like reynolds apply to both gas and liquid).

Combat-Master said:

View attachment 45274
View attachment 45279

Click to expand...

they took out the propeller, they did the right thing.

Combat-Master said:

View attachment 45274
View attachment 45279

Click to expand...

I think it's the first time I've seen this propulsion system and I don't know about the coincidence principle. a water jet?

Tayfun Ozberk said:

Even if the gun has passed sea trials, user feedback is crucial, as the quality of such systems can be judged by the time the product is used in exercises, etc. The performance of the gun, the number of malfunctions and the comparison with Leonardo's system are the most important things I look at. After using this gun for 3-4 years without any problems (or no more than expected), we would confirm that the system has proven itself.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the detailed information on the gun, based on the last remark we may assume the gun will be matured and ready for 3 I-Class frigates.

Jacop said:

View attachment 45288 View attachment 45289

I think it's the first time I've seen this propulsion system and I don't know about the coincidence principle. a water jet?

Click to expand...

Those are actually folded rudder-stabilizers or simply wings -helping capsule to follow a stable upward convex pattern towards surface-, magic propulsion is pressurized air. Simple and neat since all this capsule needs to do is follow a pattern and surface, then using the inertia getting out of the water.

Anmdt said:

Those are actually folded rudder-stabilizers or simply wings -helping capsule to follow a stable upward convex pattern towards surface-, magic propulsion is pressurized air. Simple and neat since all this capsule needs to do is follow a pattern and surface, then using the inertia getting out of the water.

Click to expand...

Thank you for information

Turkey needs cruise missiles that can be launched from ships and submarines.

Sami1234 said:

Turkey needs cruise missiles that can be launched from ships and submarines.

Click to expand...

Like ‚Gezgin‘?

Huelague said:

Like ‚Gezgin‘?

Click to expand...

Which ship has it?

Sami1234 said:

Which ship has it?

Click to expand...

None right now.

Huelague said:

None right now.

Click to expand...

Yes because i remember when the Turkish Navy was trying to help the GNA capture Alwatia airbase i asked some turks like why not just clap them with some cruise missiles they said Turkey doesn't have them, i was like how a massive Navy like that doesn't have cruise missiles!

Sami1234 said:

Yes because i remember when the Turkish Navy was trying to help the GNA capture Alwatia airbase i asked some turks like why not just clap them with some cruise missiles they said Turkey doesn't have them, i was like how a massive Navy like that doesn't have cruise missiles!

Click to expand...

During that campaign navy tried to provide air defence with SM-1(againts Wagner's atack helicopters) and keep naval corridor intact(againts Operation Irene) thats all.