TR Naval Programs

Radonsider · Feb 18, 2024

It is confirmed by Tayfun Özberk that TF-2000 "ADF" is just about the naming scheme of the programme. TF-2000 wont be a "frigate" so calm down.

also we will get to see the final design and news regarding the project soonTM

https://x.com/TayfunOzberk/status/1759125271645401484?s=20

https://x.com/TayfunOzberk/status/1758576397096792503?s=20

AlterUnd · Feb 18, 2024

Radonsider said:
It is confirmed by Tayfun Özberk that TF-2000 "ADF" is just about the naming scheme of the programme. TF-2000 wont be a "frigate" so calm down.

also we will get to see the final design and news regarding the project soonTM

https://x.com/TayfunOzberk/status/1759125271645401484?s=20

https://x.com/TayfunOzberk/status/1758576397096792503?s=20

Man the project is 30 years old and older than most of the defence enthusiast or let alone, the defence media editors that spreads this sensation. If you carefully look, the older and wiser editors are silent on the matter, as since they know what it is actually about.

Frigate or Destroyer, even Navy could have been confused about these terms after all these years and moreover, the image given in the poster could be from an iteration between 2019 - 2022, of when the project was still referred as frigate. Also look at the model and notice 'conceptual' CIWS, missing Nazar and AYR radar and so on, it was not an actual depiction, or not a recent one of the project.

One last remark is that, i strongly believe DzKK considers variations (not batches) of TF-2000, thus the confusion of referring to it as frigate or destroyer emerges.

Anmdt · Feb 18, 2024

AlterUnd said:
Man the project is 30 years old and older than most of the defence enthusiast or let alone, the defence media editors that spreads this sensation. If you carefully look, the older and wiser editors are silent on the matter, as since they know what it is actually about.

Frigate or Destroyer, even Navy could have been confused about these terms after all these years and moreover, the image given in the poster could be from an iteration between 2019 - 2022, of when the project was still referred as frigate. Also look at the model and notice 'conceptual' CIWS, missing Nazar and AYR radar and so on, it was not an actual depiction, or not a recent one of the project.

One last remark is that, i strongly believe DzKK considers variations (not batches) of TF-2000, thus the confusion of referring to it as frigate or destroyer emerges.

I can not confirm that the model is the old one but that sure looks like an old concept that is deriven in DPO and passed on to conceptualization-visualition process by another team. Use of black color scheme for radars show that it dates back several years, hence the 'frigate label'. You commented on the bow form on the twitter but man, how do you differ the nuance at the bows with one being low-res and at a different angle?

I don't think they would step down from the desired TF-2000 configuration, they have sacrificed a post, multi-functional frigate, and they will retain full configuration TF-2000 at 8500-9000 tonnes. And we seem to agree on a licensed multi-functional frigate if it becomes a necessity, or a dire need.

Radonsider · Feb 18, 2024

I really thought you guys were the same person tbh

TheInsider · Feb 18, 2024

I don't like the +4 İstif class to be the same config. I think it is a wrong decision. UAVs and anti-ship missiles are proliferating fast. Even actors like Houthis can form strike packages of 15-20 effectors easily. I think we should rework the mast of İstif class. We should use the X-band AESA section of CAFRAD and put the Cenk-S on top of that. This will give uninterrupted lightning-fast 360-degree coverage in X-Band and long-range S-band rotating AESA will be a good way to complement it cost-effectively. We should also increase the amount of VLS as this setup will enable us to engage more targets at the same time. Even an additional 8x VLS will be meaningful if we take into account the quad-pack capability that will be available in the future. The displacement of İstif block 2 should be something like 3500 tonnes with these changes.

zio · Feb 20, 2024

I agree S band cenk radar should keep to be on top,it makes longer detection range of sea skimming missiles, 32 hisar D and gökdeniz can manage at least 10 target on time, 8 siper 1 also near enough for 4th gen aircrafts,but we should improve irst detection range and make it multistatik form to manage 5th generation aircrafts and TF2000 should have L band or uhf band radar system

Radonsider · Feb 20, 2024

S Band UMR/ERALP is not only used for long range detection but also guidence of Siper system. Mr. Sünnetçi mentioned this in his last LinkedIn post

Screenshot_2024-02-18-23-25-10-118_com.linkedin.android~2.jpg

uçuyorum · Feb 20, 2024

Radonsider said:
S Band UMR/ERALP is not only used for long range detection but also guidence of Siper system. Mr. Sünnetçi mentioned this in his last LinkedIn post

View attachment 65740

Link please?

Brave Janissary · Feb 20, 2024

Many of the transistors can be usable for missile guidance who others make a long range search. But in the end its'a s band radar. Latency is much more than x band aesa's.

UkroTurk · Feb 20, 2024

Radonsider said:
S Band UMR/ERALP is not only used for long range detection but also guidence of Siper system. Mr. Sünnetçi mentioned this in his last LinkedIn post

View attachment 65740

"There will be just one X-band radar in the new ÇAFRAD configuration, solely for surface engagement. It was pointed out that the new ÇAFRAD configuration would be a more cost-effective solution than the old one."

So what is missing in the new configuration? Additional AYR illimunator for semi-active guidance?

@Anmdt Dear do you remember i asked you " Why there are additional AYR( aydınlatma radarı)in ÇAFRAD?"

Bluetooth · Feb 20, 2024

zio said:
32 hisar D and gökdeniz can manage at least 10 target on time,

32 missiles+modern ciws can definitely manage more than 10.hisar doesn't seem to be inferior than similar western options imo.

uçuyorum · Feb 20, 2024

UkroTurk said:
"There will be just one X-band radar in the new ÇAFRAD configuration, solely for surface engagement. It was pointed out that the new ÇAFRAD configuration would be a more cost-effective solution than the old one."

So what is missing in the new configuration? Additional AYR illimunator for semi-active guidance?

@Anmdt Dear do you remember i asked you " Why there are additional AYR( aydınlatma radarı)in ÇAFRAD?"

View attachment 65743

12 separate radars was too much after all. A more cost efficient solution is gonna make life easier.

Anmdt · Feb 20, 2024

Radonsider said:
S Band UMR/ERALP is not only used for long range detection but also guidence of Siper system. Mr. Sünnetçi mentioned this in his last LinkedIn post

View attachment 65740

It does not fit my logic, although I have all the respect for I. Sünnetçi.

First of all, the all-integrated mast was discarded in 2017-18, not in the latest iteration, moreover, I doubt if it was ever included in the concept, but studied among other options with distributed radars.

Then comes the horizon and surface search, this was one of the CFR's tasks, along with volume scan, fire control window, target tracking, etc. See picture below, I doubt it has changed;

And finally, AYR was more in the form of a data link in recent thinking, not sure if they have discarded APAR guidance yet. AYR could have been used as a data link for drones, which are undoubtedly the future of any naval asset. However, I doubt that AYR will be scrapped altogether, but instead the illumination mode for SARH will be scrapped and it will remain as a data link.

And one more thing, if UMR can do everything, why do we have CFAKR + data links in the Siper system? I do not see data links in this low resolution concept. We cannot imagine an air defence frigate destroyer without an X-band radar to search and track the nearby field, note that this ship has no Ka-Ku band tracking radars, leaving us with CFR. There will be at least 64 AA missiles in Siper-D configuration, 128 Hisar-D + 32 Siper-D at most, and you'll need data links capable of 15 simultaneous engagement windows on each side. AYR should serve this purpose. The datalink available on the I-Class cannot do this with a single unit.

It's also roomy at certain points, where they might include 2 - 3 x AKREP, and I wouldn't be surprised.

Unless we've unlocked God Mode and developed AN-SPY6, I don't think it's feasible. I want to be right this time. If we switch to a more powerful UMR then I am all for it.

UkroTurk · Feb 20, 2024

Anmdt said:
It does not fit into my logic, although I have all the respect for I. Sünnetçi.
First of all, the all-integrated mast was discarded in 2017-18 not in the recent iteration, moreover, I doubt if it was ever included in the concept, but studied among other options with distributed radars.
Then comes the CFR watching/scanning the horizon and surface, this was one of the CFR's duties along with volume scan, fire control window, target tracking etc. See image below, i doubt if it has changed;

View attachment 65744

And finally AYR was more in the form of a data link in recent thinking, not sure if they have discarded APAR guidance already. AYR could have been used as a data link for drones, which are undoubtedly the future of any naval asset. Nevertheless, i doubt if AYR will be entirely omitted, but instead illumination mode for SARH will be omitted and it will remain as a data-link.

View attachment 65745

And one more thing, if UMR is capable of doing everything, why do we have CFAKR + data links in the Siper system? I can not see data-links in that low-res concept. We cannot imagine an air defence frigate destroyer without an X-band radar to search and track the nearby field, notice this vessel lacking Ka-Ku band tracking radars, thus leaving us to CFR. There will be at least 64 AA missiles in Siper-D configuration, 128 Hisar-D + 32 Siper-D at max, and you gotta need data-links capable of simultaneous 15 engagement windows on a side. AYR was going to serve that purpose. The data-link present on I-Class may not do this with a single unit.

It is also spacious on certain spots where they may include 2 - 3 x AKREP and i won't be surprised.

Unless we have unlocked God mode and developed AN-SPY6, I don't think it's feasible. I would like to be right on this, this time. If we are switching to a more powerful UMR then i am all in.

İt is not my cup of tea but

Radar Transmitting Data - Avionics International

At A Glance: Three major military contractors–Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems, L-3 Communications and Lockheed Martin Aeronautics–are jointly developing a wideband data link communications capability for today’s active electronically scanned array […]

www.aviationtoday.com

"Retrofits Possible

The radar data link capability could be made available for retrofit, as well. "The process would not be complicated," says Ensor. "However, hardware would have to be added to fielded systems. The length of the process is entirely dependent on the degree to which an elegant retrofit solution can be engineered."

Ensor adds that the retrofit package could be developed for virtually any AESA radar system."

Raytheon’s Radars To Offer Common Datalink Interoperability - Defense Update:

Raytheon Company (NYSE:RTN) will design and develop a Radar Common Data Link for the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory

defense-update.com

So X-Band ÇFR or S-Band UMR could transmit data's just with the little touch?

Afif · Feb 20, 2024

Anmdt said:
It does not fit into my logic, although I have all the respect for I. Sünnetçi.
First of all, the all-integrated mast was discarded in 2017-18 not in the recent iteration, moreover, I doubt if it was ever included in the concept, but studied among other options with distributed radars.
Then comes the CFR watching/scanning the horizon and surface, this was one of the CFR's duties along with volume scan, fire control window, target tracking etc. See image below, i doubt if it has changed;

View attachment 65744

And finally AYR was more in the form of a data link in recent thinking, not sure if they have discarded APAR guidance already. AYR could have been used as a data link for drones, which are undoubtedly the future of any naval asset. Nevertheless, i doubt if AYR will be entirely omitted, but instead illumination mode for SARH will be omitted and it will remain as a data-link.

View attachment 65745

And one more thing, if UMR is capable of doing everything, why do we have CFAKR + data links in the Siper system? I can not see data-links in that low-res concept. We cannot imagine an air defence frigate destroyer without an X-band radar to search and track the nearby field, notice this vessel lacking Ka-Ku band tracking radars, thus leaving us to CFR. There will be at least 64 AA missiles in Siper-D configuration, 128 Hisar-D + 32 Siper-D at max, and you gotta need data-links capable of simultaneous 15 engagement windows on a side. AYR was going to serve that purpose. The data-link present on I-Class may not do this with a single unit.

It is also spacious on certain spots where they may include 2 - 3 x AKREP and i won't be surprised.

Unless we have unlocked God mode and developed AN-SPY6, I don't think it's feasible. I would like to be right on this, this time. If we are switching to a more powerful UMR then i am all in.

I am little confused, If CFR is 2D then how is it going to provide fire control? Don't you also need target's elevation/altitude information for weapon quality track along with range + bearing?

uçuyorum · Feb 20, 2024

Anmdt said:
It does not fit into my logic, although I have all the respect for I. Sünnetçi.
First of all, the all-integrated mast was discarded in 2017-18 not in the recent iteration, moreover, I doubt if it was ever included in the concept, but studied among other options with distributed radars.
Then comes the CFR watching/scanning the horizon and surface, this was one of the CFR's duties along with volume scan, fire control window, target tracking etc. See image below, i doubt if it has changed;

View attachment 65744

And finally AYR was more in the form of a data link in recent thinking, not sure if they have discarded APAR guidance already. AYR could have been used as a data link for drones, which are undoubtedly the future of any naval asset. Nevertheless, i doubt if AYR will be entirely omitted, but instead illumination mode for SARH will be omitted and it will remain as a data-link.

View attachment 65745

And one more thing, if UMR is capable of doing everything, why do we have CFAKR + data links in the Siper system? I can not see data-links in that low-res concept. We cannot imagine an air defence frigate destroyer without an X-band radar to search and track the nearby field, notice this vessel lacking Ka-Ku band tracking radars, thus leaving us to CFR. There will be at least 64 AA missiles in Siper-D configuration, 128 Hisar-D + 32 Siper-D at max, and you gotta need data-links capable of simultaneous 15 engagement windows on a side. AYR was going to serve that purpose. The data-link present on I-Class may not do this with a single unit.

It is also spacious on certain spots where they may include 2 - 3 x AKREP and i won't be surprised.

Unless we have unlocked God mode and developed AN-SPY6, I don't think it's feasible. I would like to be right on this, this time. If we are switching to a more powerful UMR then i am all in.

I mean AN SPY 1 is also S band and Arleigh Burke doesn't have big X-band radar, neither does Istif or FREMM( S or C), or Type45( L and S band) so why can't we do it without X band primary radar?

Anmdt · Feb 20, 2024

uçuyorum said:
FREMM( S or C)

C = Lower S + Upper X. FREMM = Multi-purpose frigate.

uçuyorum said:
Arleigh Burke

If we have performance of latest AN-SPY 6 I do not really mind it, we can even put only one rotating AN-SPY 6 with 25+ RMA I would accept it as air defence destroyer. If we have auxiliary (alternative) sensor capability from the USN we can sail this without any fixed face AESA but even MAR-D and CENK-S radars. Do not mention SPY 1 as it is obsolete and due to be phased out (though still performing remarkably well even against small air threats or BMs at the same time).

uçuyorum said:
I mean AN SPY 1 is also S band and Arleigh Burke doesn't have big X-band radar, neither does Istif or FREMM( S or C), or Type45( L and S band) so why can't we do it without X band primary radar?

For Type 45, Horizon, see the new designs that will replace those to have a glimpse of the near future.

Anmdt · Feb 20, 2024

Afif said:
I am little confused, If CFR is 2D then how is it going to provide fire control? Don't you also need target's elevation/altitude information for weapon quality track along with range + bearing?

2D means 2-axis AESA scan, not "2D" in dimensions. Also, 4 Face AESA is not essential for surface scanning, as surface threats are less likely to move at high speeds. Instead, a rotating AESA with 30/60 RPM modes will do the job.

Afif · Feb 20, 2024

Anmdt said:
2D means 2 axis AESA scan, not "2D" in dimensions.

Oops, sorry.

Anmdt · Feb 20, 2024

UkroTurk said:
İt is not my cup of tea but

Radar Transmitting Data - Avionics International

At A Glance: Three major military contractors–Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems, L-3 Communications and Lockheed Martin Aeronautics–are jointly developing a wideband data link communications capability for today’s active electronically scanned array […]

www.aviationtoday.com

"Retrofits Possible

The radar data link capability could be made available for retrofit, as well. "The process would not be complicated," says Ensor. "However, hardware would have to be added to fielded systems. The length of the process is entirely dependent on the degree to which an elegant retrofit solution can be engineered."

Ensor adds that the retrofit package could be developed for virtually any AESA radar system."

View attachment 65746

Raytheon’s Radars To Offer Common Datalink Interoperability - Defense Update:

Raytheon Company (NYSE:RTN) will design and develop a Radar Common Data Link for the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory

defense-update.com

So X-Band ÇFR or S-Band UMR could transmit data's just with the little touch?

X-band CFR, yes, I've said this before and many X-band MFRs do this. However, we are talking about an air defence destroyer here and it is better to save those modules for keeping an eye on the sky - horizon - near surface than to pulse data for each missile. That was the purpose of the AYR.

TR Naval Programs

Contributor

Member

Experienced member

Contributor

Experienced member

Well-known member

Contributor

Contributor

Well-known member

Experienced member

Active member

Contributor

Experienced member

Experienced member

Experienced member

Contributor

Experienced member

Experienced member

Experienced member

Experienced member

Follow us on social media

About us

Newest members