TR Aircraft Carrier & Amphibious Ship Programs

[BaburKhan]

Hürjet is only 60% of an F16, does this make it a big plane, NO. Kaan is 240% of an F16, yes Kaan is a big plane, alright. Planes rated by their engine power.

Hürjet is a Trainer and light Attack Aircraft, far away from being a multi-Role Capable Plane like the F-35 or Air Superiority Capable like Kaan. In an Combat Scenario were the Carrier Wing not only face Groups like IS, Al-Shabab or third aworld Countries it wouldn't stand any Chance.

Rafale is Superior than Hürjet.

 

[Zafer]

Hürjet is a Trainer and light Attack Aircraft, far away from being a multi-Role Capable Plane like the F-35 or Air Superiority Capable like Kaan. In an Combat Scenario were the Carrier Wing not only face Groups like IS, Al-Shabab or third aworld Countries it wouldn't stand any Chance.

Rafale is Superior than Hürjet.

Why do you have to be warring with the US or China with this AC.

 

[BaburKhan]

Why do you have to be warring with the US or China with this AC.

I mean not to go to War with the US or China. This Carrier is planned to show Presence in the Mediterran, red Sea and arabian Sea. There will be more Competitor than Al-Shabab or some third World Countries. Alone in the Mediterran you have:

- Russia(deployed in Syria)
- Italy(possible in North Africa)
- France(likely)
- Spain(different strategic Interest on Morocco)

For the arabian Sea we will have India a likely Competitor.

These likely Competitor posses more capable Aircraft than Hürjet. In any Confrontation with some of these Powers the Carrier with a light Attack Aircraft can become a sitting Duck.

 

[Zafer]

I mean not to go to War with the US or China. This Carrier is planned to show Presence in the Mediterran, red Sea and arabian Sea. There will be more Competitor than Al-Shabab or some third World Countries. Alone in the Mediterran you have:

- Russia(deployed in Syria)
- Italy(possible in North Africa)
- France(likely)
- Spain(different strategic Interest on Morocco)

For the arabian Sea we will have India a likely Competitor.

These likely Competitor posses more capable Aircraft than Hürjet. In any Confrontation with some of these Powers the Carrier with a light Attack Aircraft can become a sitting Duck.

That same AC will have unmanned fighters that the opponents have not matched as of yet. Some may argue that our Kızılelma or Anka3 have not matured yet but I should remind them that we are expecting them to come out of production line in a year.

 

[Zafer]

This aircraft carrier is just a bigger TCG Anadolu, we don't need it.
This aircraft carrier project is not worth it. Not worth it, unless you're going for nuclear propulsion (CATOBAR). Because you will have problems with EMALS (Electro-Magnetic Aircraft Launch System). And if you use steam catapults you will be behind the more modern CATOBAR ACs in the 2040s.

The Future French PANG AC will eat this thing up. They've got EMALS, Nuclear Propulsion, and Rafales.
View attachment 67551

If this is the design they come up with..
No Nuclear Propulsion, No EMALS, No Navalised Kaan.

View attachment 67552

You can partner up with another country to develop nuclear propulsion and EMALS. Or just do the better thing, and go spend that money on more frigates/destroyers.

This is an intermediate ship until a future nuclear propulsion AC becomes possible as otherwise you need to wait longer to have an AC. A lower power EMALS can be made to fly smaller planes up to Hürjet size. A ship that can fly Kaan can only be made with nuclear propulsion. You make the ship affordable and you can make two for the price of one.

 

[Zafer]

Are you saying they could retrofit an AC conventionally powered to nuclear powered? I feel like that's a pipe dream.
This project is still a big waste of money unless we can get F35Bs which won't happen.

It would probably be inconvenient to make the ship adaptable to both turbine and nuclear as their requirements may be vastly different which I am not aware of. So this one ship is to be made with today's tech and a future ship can be made with the latest tech we will have in the future. Better have the ship than not.

 

[B_A]

We should have nuclear submarines at first.

even Chinese didn’t building nuclear aircraft carrier

 

[Zafer]

I do agree that we have come far with UCAVs but we are sometimes forgetting that the road between RC controlled toy planes and UCAVs like Akıncı are shorter than the road between UCAVs and real unmanned fighter jets. We have years to go, tech is not even here yet.

Americans are testing them already

USAF AI Vs. Human ‘Dogfights’ Show Progression Of Autonomy Tests | Aviation Week Network

The service has been relying on the X-62 Variable In-flight Simulator Test Aircraft (VISTA).

aviationweek.com

Yes we have years but not decades, and few years at that.
But we have like a decade to the Aircraft Carrier.

Projections on the progression of AI is not exponential but at some point the graph will go straight up leaving no time for laggards to catch up.

 

[valarmogu]

Specifications of Turkey's aircraft carrier: 60,000 tons displacement (more than twice that of the Anadolu), 285 meters long, 72 meters wide at its widest point, angled flight deck and 10.1 meters draft. Additionally, the carrier will be equipped with Combined Gas Turbine and Gas Turbine (COGAG) propulsion, ensuring a maximum speed of 25 knots. ( LM2500)

The Aircraft Carrier is intended to carry manned and unmanned aircraft, including Bayraktar TB3 and Kızılelma, as well as Anka 3 and Turkish Aerospace Industries' Hurjet light fighter jet. In total capacity, the carrier will be able to carry 50 aircraft, 30 in the hangar and 20 on deck.

Although it is stated that the naval version of Kaan is also among the plans, we should point out that this is not official information at the moment.

TÜRK Donanması : 60 Bin Tonluk Uçak Gemisi Programı! - ULU Savunma

Türk Donanması, 60. Bin tonluk Gelecekteki Uçak Gemisi geliştirme programına odaklandı...

www.ulusavunma.com

 

[BaburKhan]

This is an intermediate ship until a future nuclear propulsion AC becomes possible as otherwise you need to wait longer to have an AC. A lower power EMALS can be made to fly smaller planes up to Hürjet size. A ship that can fly Kaan can only be made with nuclear propulsion. You make the ship affordable and you can make two for the price of one.

So far I understand the first Aircraft Carrier are built in a modular Way and later a Sister Ship will join TN with Nuclear Propulsion, EMALS and Naval Kaan.

 

[Zafer]

So far I understand the first Aircraft Carrier are built in a modular Way and later a Sister Ship will join TN with Nuclear Propulsion, EMALS and Naval Kaan.

That seems to be the intent. Some may argue Kaan is too big for shipborne operation but there is no solid arguement against it.

 

[B_A]

That seems to be the intent. Some may argue Kaan is too big for shipborne operation but there is no solid arguement against it.

Too big meant the big jet(like Su33) cant flight with full load without aircraft catapult

 

[Lool]

It seems 1 angled landing deck and 3 take-off lines. Even in this STOBAR configuration, showing that high sortie density is targeted. Definitely not a flag display ship, but a strategic force multiplier ship is coming. The article envisages a capacity of around 50 manned and unmanned combat aircraft, and the deck layout shows that this fleet is intended to be used at high capacity.

TB-3, KE and Hürjet-N are illustrating on the deck. Probably ANKA-3 and or derived variant will also catch up. The fact that fixed-wing reconnaissance and combat platforms will be ready before the aircraft carrier itself will be an important plus factor. The article also mentions that a study could be conducted on KAAN in the future.

The configuration of 4 CIWS and 32-cell MIDLAS indicates that the ship will have a countermeasure capability above the usual, which, as dear Uçuyorum said, could be a plus factor in task force planning.

The fact that it will the AC will run on traditional gas engines such as the LM2500 is a bad sign. A massive 60,000 tons that runs on gas will be a money sinkhole for the Turkish navy.

IMO, UntilTurkey masters nuclear tech and nuclear propulsion, they should build more Istif class vessels and concentrate more efforts on national submarines program since these arethe ones with the highest invest amd returns ratio

The current AC seems underwhelming in relation to its competitors and its specs is just a catastrophe

 

[Zafer]

The fact that it will the AC will run on traditional gas engines such as the LM2500 is a bad sign. A massive 60,000 tons that runs on gas will be a money sinkhole for the Turkish navy.

IMO, UntilTurkey masters nuclear tech and nuclear propulsion, they should build more Istif class vessels and concentrate more efforts on national submarines program since these arethe ones with the highest invest amd returns ratio

The current AC seems underwhelming in relation to its competitors and its specs is just a catastrophe

So we can't afford the gas the ship will burn, then we should stop having a navy altogether.

UK ships are gas powered too. Until a nuclear propulsion becomes available we can have a ship that has everything else. We have other strong sides like UAVs to compensate for lack of nuclear propulsion and we can make more ships as the cost of every ship will be cheaper. We will also have the valuable operational experience for when we have nuclear ships. Nuclear shines when you wage a war far from home while we expect to use these ships without crossing big oceans.

 

[Sanchez]

The fact that it will the AC will run on traditional gas engines such as the LM2500 is a bad sign. A massive 60,000 tons that runs on gas will be a money sinkhole for the Turkish navy.

IMO, UntilTurkey masters nuclear tech and nuclear propulsion, they should build more Istif class vessels and concentrate more efforts on national submarines program since these arethe ones with the highest invest amd returns ratio

The current AC seems underwhelming in relation to its competitors and its specs is just a catastrophe

Petrol is not cheap. Building and maintaining nuclear reactors however is much more expensive.

from a quick glance, US Department of Energy spent 2.1 billion dollars in 2023 to service US Navy’s 96 nuclear reactors, 20 millions+ each and will spend another 7 billion between 2024 and 2027.

https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-04/doe-fy2023-budget-volume-1-nr.pdf

If you can’t undertake the costs of conventional powerplants, nuclear propulsion is out of your reach, fiscally.

 

[Zafer]

On the AC turbine propulsion:

A possible marine version of the upcoming Kaan engine will likely have more power than the GE LM2500 engines so a shift from 4 turbine engines to 2 turbines like the HMS QE2 can be possible given the amount of time there is to the building timeline of the MUG.

 

[No Name]

Is there a reason why Turkey's aircraft carrier doesn't have an angled runway?

 

[B_A]

Is there a reason why Turkey's aircraft carrier doesn't have an angled runway?

Dont have?

 

[Zafer]

Is there a reason why Turkey's aircraft carrier doesn't have an angled runway?

Because we need to use the whole length of the ship to launch some of our planes as we will not have catapults on the first incarnation of the ship. We do have an angled runway but it is angled inwards not outwards.

 

[Yasar_TR]

All military grade Marine gas turbines are derived from high bypass turbofan engines. This is due to the fact that in a high-bypass design, the ducted fan and nozzle produce most of the thrust. A turbofan engine is actually related to a turboprop in principle because they both transfer some of the gas turbine's gas power, using ancillary equipment, to a bypass stream leaving less work for the hot nozzle to convert to kinetic energy.

The most popular Military Gas turbine, LM2500 is derived from GE’s CF6-6 high bypass 55000lbf + class domestic airline aircraft engine. The newest version can develop 47000HP+ shaft power output.
Due to their high power density and rotational speeds, Gas Turbines impart to the ships on to which they are installed, quick sprint and sustained high speed capabilities. Also as their speed can be easily modulated and they can be quickly stopped and started, makes them very convenient.
Although they are thirstier than Diesels for sustained higher speeds, their advantages outweigh their downsides for navies like US’s where extra fuel consumption cost can be tolerated and accommodated.

So for Aircraft-Carrier Propulsion where higher sustained speeds are needed to assist with aircraft take-off and landing operations, Gas turbines are a necessity if nuclear power is not available. To move a behemoth of a ship like a carrier at 25+ knots speeds, you will use a lot of fuel. QE2 carries around 7 million litres of fuel. 4 million litres for itself and 3 million litres for the aircrafts she has onboard. That is supposed to last the ship for a 10000Nm range if used carefully at a sensible speed.