TR Aircraft Carrier & Amphibious Ship Programs

[TR_123456]

What @Anmdt thinks about it? Is a non-catabor carrier really worth the effort and resources for Turkish strategic context?

Not only that but without nuclear power it will be useless like the Chinese AC's.
They have to stay close to China,not worth it.

 

[Zafer]

Timing is critical, ideally we want an AC that we will want to make more than a few of but making a high quality AC with EMALS catapults and nuclear propulsion can be challenging. Therefore a first step basic AC with conventional propulsion and lower throughput can be acceptable. We need to look into ways of increasing throughput and performance of this proposed ship instead. A ship with 2 take off runways and 1 angled runway can be ideal. Probably the ski jump can be upgraded to a lower power EMALS system that we can make without causing delays to the ships deployment time-frame. If such a ship can be built in 4 years it would be fantastic.

On the aircraft side planes using an early crop of Turkish made engines would be ideal. Twin engine planes for crewed flight and single engines for uncrewed flight. This way we can make a painless transition to an AC faring nation. A second step would be taken further down the road to upgrade to a more powerful ship.

 

[Tornadoss]

An AC for TN is a waste of money. This money can be spend on more necessary things.

 

[I_Love_F16]

I am of the opinion that an AC for TN without CATOBAR and nuclear propulsion is a wast of fund and ressources. Better spend that money for ships like additional frigates or at least a kind of enhanced Anadolu for Kizilelma and Anka 3 drones.

 

[Sanchez]

Moved most of the new info and discussion on the new carrier program to a new thread. From now on, this is the new general thread for carrier, LHD(including Anadolu), LPD, LST, LCT and every other amphibious ship vessel news, programs and discussion for Turkish Navy. Thank you.

 

[Rooxbar]

If we're gonna waste money (which we do a lot), I'd much rather it be wasted on an AC to gain know-how and retain technician and engineering knowledge continuity from Anadolu, rather than it be wasted on much more unnecessary things.

 

[Tornadoss]

If we're gonna waste money (which we do a lot), I'd much rather it be wasted on an AC to gain know-how and retain technician and engineering knowledge continuity from Anadolu, rather than it be wasted on much more unnecessary things.

You need dedicated ships to accompany to an AC, there is also some needed for Anadolu, then you need some in Aegean, Black Sea and Mediterranean. And we don't have economy to support that.

 

[dBSPL]

It should also be noted that Trakya and AC are not the same ships. In other words, in the mid-2030s, not 2 but 3 carriers with open decks for fixed wing air platforms will be in the navy inventory. An armada with these 3 ships at its center can carry roughly around 80, maybe over 100 fixed wing manned and unmanned combat jets. Compounded, this is more than the air power of more than a hundred countries in the world.

If we look at it from this perspective, I am in favor of the AC program moving forward with a sortie density-oriented design. I even have the idea that we should somehow acquire a catapult system for this ship. There will already be two platforms that can be configured for STOBAR operation of UCAVs, albeit with low density sortie capacities.

Also, maybe it's early, but since the forum thread is new, I would like it to appear on the first pages: the most appropriate name for this ship would be Atatürk.

 

[godel44]

It should also be noted that Trakya and AC are not the same ships. In other words, in the mid-2030s, not 2 but 3 carriers with open decks for fixed wing air platforms will be in the navy inventory. An armada with these 3 ships at its center can carry roughly around 80, maybe over 100 fixed wing manned and unmanned combat jets. Compounded, this is more than the air power of more than a hundred countries in the world.

If we look at it from this perspective, I am in favor of the AC program moving forward with a sortie density-oriented design. I even have the idea that we should somehow acquire a catapult system for this ship. There will already be two platforms that can be configured for STOBAR operation of UCAVs, albeit with low density sortie capacities.

Also, maybe it's early, but since the forum thread is new, I would like it to appear on the first pages: the most appropriate name for this ship would be Atatürk.

I would agree but let's not name any platform Ataturk unless we know we can protect it in time of war. There seems to be a lot of missing pieces of the puzzle that would provide enough protection to the AC so that it doesn't go down first at the start of war.

Also, what use is putting Hurjet on it? It would likely be not enough to do A-A combat against a serious adversary and for ground bombing we have better options with drones.

I view this whole initiative as I view Kanal Istanbul. Nice as an idea but I hope we spend the money elsewhere.

 

[uçuyorum]

Naval Anka 3 would be great for this.

Is it possible to fit a thin and wide version of MURAD so it fits the body and provides more or less same coverage with adjusted beam steering algorithm?

 

[Anmdt]

It should also be noted that Trakya and AC are not the same ships. In other words, in the mid-2030s, not 2 but 3 carriers with open decks for fixed wing air platforms will be in the navy inventory. An armada with these 3 ships at its center can carry roughly around 80, maybe over 100 fixed wing manned and unmanned combat jets. Compounded, this is more than the air power of more than a hundred countries in the world.

If we look at it from this perspective, I am in favor of the AC program moving forward with a sortie density-oriented design. I even have the idea that we should somehow acquire a catapult system for this ship. There will already be two platforms that can be configured for STOBAR operation of UCAVs, albeit with low density sortie capacities.

Also, maybe it's early, but since the forum thread is new, I would like it to appear on the first pages: the most appropriate name for this ship would be Atatürk.

Imho the AC can be called "Vatan", which is the sum of Trakya and Anadolu in a different sense. The ship will be able to project whatever TR has in terms of military power.

 

[Zafer]

TCG Zafer would be the most appropriate name for the new carrier ship.

 

[Radko]

TCG Zafer would be the most appropriate name for the new carrier ship.

That would be better suited for TF-2000s imo

 

[dBSPL]

Imho the AC can be called "Vatan", which is the sum of Trakya and Anadolu in a different sense. The ship will be able to project whatever TR has in terms of military power.

We have seen navy ships named carried the title of Ottoman sultans, but is there a special reason why they are not named after our national heroes of the Republican era? Atatürk is more than a national hero, he is the eternal leader of our nation, the founder of the republic and our first president. If a republican-era monument is to be named after him, I don't know what could be better than the flagship of the navy. The aircraft carrier will not only be the flagship of the navy, but also a symbol of its face in the new century.

 

[fushkee]

ATA would be great.

 

[dBSPL]

TCG Zafer would be the most appropriate name for the new carrier ship.

ATA would be great.

After a couple of weeks, let's add the 7-8 most popular suggestions to the thread as a poll. @Sanchez

 

[uçuyorum]

After a couple of weeks, let's add the 7-8 most popular suggestions to the thread as a poll. @Sanchez

I wanted İstiklal for KAAN, so lets instead do TCG İSTİKLAL

 

[dBSPL]

I would agree but let's not name any platform Ataturk unless we know we can protect it in time of war. There seems to be a lot of missing pieces of the puzzle that would provide enough protection to the AC so that it doesn't go down first at the start of war.

Also, what use is putting Hurjet on it? It would likely be not enough to do A-A combat against a serious adversary and for ground bombing we have better options with drones.

I view this whole initiative as I view Kanal Istanbul. Nice as an idea but I hope we spend the money elsewhere.

So in a possible war, you seem to have immediately discarded the aircraft carrier. Maybe we will win that war with the aircraft carrier that destroyed the traditional combatant organization of the enemy, don't be so sure that we can't protect it. Even if its name is Zafer (Victory), even if its name is Vatan (Homeland), even if its name is Atatürk . In the next 10-15 years, the navy's only planning is not aircraft carriers and naval combat aviation, but a spectrum ranging from BMD, to TBMs from submarines.

 

[Anmdt]

We have seen navy ships named carried the title of Ottoman sultans, but is there a special reason why they are not named after our national heroes of the Republican era? Atatürk is more than a national hero, he is the eternal leader of our nation, the founder of the republic and our first president. If a republican-era monument is to be named after him, I don't know what could be better than the flagship of the navy. The aircraft carrier will not only be the flagship of the navy, but also a symbol of its face in the new century.

I have no objection to Atatürk's name being given to a ship, or to the largest and most powerful ship ever seen in the Navy's flotilla. However, this is a ship that will be in service for 40 or even 50 years, but who knows what the future holds, in 20 years we may be talking about a larger aircraft carrier with EMALS.

Just as 10 to 15 years ago there was no talk of an aircraft carrier, only an LHD, although the Navy's decades-long ambition for an aircraft carrier was well known, we were also expecting a 40-50,000 tonne ship, whereas we know we have 60,000 tonnes to start with.

So in a scenario where we happen to have a 100,000 tonne carrier, what are we going to do?

For these reasons, I wanted to take Atatürk's name off the list. And I came up with a name that met both of these criteria;

- to complete Anadolu - Trakya in the context
- greater than Anadolu - Trakya

For Atatürk's name, which can be given to the CSG flotilla, rather than assigning it to an entity seems more reasonable. We are lesslikely to have another group command in addition to kuzey - guney ( or maybe kuzey - bati - guney if speaking for combatants flotillas), or very lesslikely to have more than one CSG to feel to urge to call them by numbers as US does, or China will do, so calling it ' Atatürk Flotilla / Battle Group ' seems very reasonable. Note this, we referred the ships which held the ceremony in Istanbul Strait, in 100th year of Republic as 'Flotilla of Republic'.

 

[boredaf]

don't be so sure that we can't protect it

To properly protect Anadolu, Trakya AND a proper aircraft carrier we would need around 15-18 new ships, most of which focused on air defence. And simply putting corvettes or frigates with limited VLS capability wouldn't cut it either. On top of that, we would need support and logistic ships to accompany them, perhaps even a refueler as they are not going to be nuclear powered.

I swear, whenever this issue comes up people really underestimate and oversimply the operation and protection of aircraft carriers/carrier groups. They are vulnerable on their own and they would be the first target for any enemy in a war. We can't build a carrier safe in the knowledge that we are going to have NATO ships always accompany them like UK did. So, either we put a plan and structure in place to create honest to god carrier groups that are capable of working on their own, (whether 1 giant group with Trakya, Anadolu and new carrier together, or maybe one bigger group for new carrier and smaller groups for Trakya and Anadolu) or we shouldn't waste any resources on this project at all.