TR Aircraft Carrier & Amphibious Ship Programs

chngr

Active member
Messages
62
Reactions
1 160
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
MUGEM should have EMALS

MUGEM bigger than it seems...Landing runway length almost similar as US supercarriers...Maybe it can operate KAAN like big birds with EMALS

Until we can have carrier with EMALS..We should buy F-35B for our LHDs
 

Ripley

Contributor
USA Correspondent
Messages
651
Reactions
15 1,855
Nation of residence
United States of America
Nation of origin
Turkey
Until we can have carrier with EMALS..We should buy F-35B for our LHDs
Of course, you mean “if we could only buy F35Bs” because as we all know it simply is beyond our desires due to political tensions and unnamed embargoes
 
Last edited:

Zoth

Active member
Messages
89
Reactions
5 157
Nation of residence
Greece
Nation of origin
Turkey
MUGEM should have EMALS

MUGEM bigger than it seems...Landing runway length almost similar as US supercarriers...Maybe it can operate KAAN like big birds with EMALS

Until we can have carrier with EMALS..We should buy F-35B for our LHDs
Someone with more knowledge should correct me but without a nuclear reactor, providing the energy needed for EMALS is really difficult, not impossible but not efficient at the same time. In a smaller ship you can possibly get an EMALS working with a diesel/gas turbine but what's the point, you can just go with stobar or catobar for a smaller ships that launch small aircraft.

EMALS is designed to launch relatively big jet fighters with close to full load capacity and that requires so much energy surge in a very short span of time, to achieve this with a classic diesel/gas turbine system, you would need so many batteries and generators that it would take so much space and add into weight.
The reason why nuclear is a default for EMALS is not random, best way to provide a lot of energy with relatively small space.
 

Yasar_TR

Experienced member
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
3,252
Reactions
142 16,313
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Turkey
MUGEM should have EMALS

MUGEM bigger than it seems...Landing runway length almost similar as US supercarriers...Maybe it can operate KAAN like big birds with EMALS

Until we can have carrier with EMALS..We should buy F-35B for our LHDs
We all have aspirations for better and more powerful weapons. But there are limits to what we can afford and what we can technically manufacture.
Electro Magnetic Aircraft Launch System is a very expensive system. Even more expensive is to develop it. That is why the French are contemplating purchasing the US system at a price of 1.321 billion dollars. (See below US govt document)

Apart from USA and China no other country have immediate access to this technology. India is working towards attaining it.

Developing it may take longer than we can envisage. Spain, Italy and Thailand use V/STOL planes on their carriers. UK carriers have redundant parallel runway with all catapult system ready to be installed, should the need arise. But in the meantime they operate F35B Vertical take off and landing capable planes. Russians have one STOBAR ski lift carrier that is still not operational. Indians operate STOBAR system on their carriers. Japan has a number of Helicopter Dock Destroyers that will operate F35Bs as well.

Most economical and convenient system, if conventional aircraft’s are to be used, is the STOBAR with a ski lift take off. But it may restrict your operating weight for the planes, to narrow tolerances. EMALS gives you more widespread use; But at a price. And re: @Zoth ’s post, Nuclear power is not a prerequisite. Chinese Navy Ship Fujian is claimed to be able to generate enough energy without the need for nuclear power for it’s EMALS.

 
Last edited:

Baklava Consumer

Active member
Messages
81
Reactions
3 212
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Does anybody know how many take-off runways the carrier will have in CATOBAR configuration?
3 takeoff
1 landing
??
 
Last edited:

Baklava Consumer

Active member
Messages
81
Reactions
3 212
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Maybe we can buy nuclear reactors for carrier from China, they are working on it. And buy EMALS from them until we can develop indigenously?
 

Sanchez

Experienced member
Moderator
Think Tank Analyst
DefenceHub Diplomat
Messages
2,348
Reactions
79 10,751
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Maybe we can buy nuclear reactors for carrier from China, they are working on it. And buy EMALS from them until we can develop indigenously?
Apologizing for my bluntness but who are you for China to even think about transferring two of their most prized technologies with you? These are not old B611 SRBMs. No one is sharing tech for naval nuclear reactors to be used for power projection save for their closest allies. We are not allies with China, we are not even at their periphery.
 

Baklava Consumer

Active member
Messages
81
Reactions
3 212
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Apologizing for my bluntness but who are you for China to even think about transferring two of their most prized technologies with you? These are not old B611 SRBMs. No one is sharing tech for naval nuclear reactors to be used for power projection save for their closest allies. We are not allies with China, we are not even at their periphery.
Buying is not sharing the technology, and we are not a threat to China.
 

boredaf

Contributor
Messages
1,414
Solutions
1
Reactions
16 3,936
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Turkey
Buying is not sharing the technology, and we are not a threat to China.
We are in NATO, we are by definition a threat to China and not to mention our troops already fought against their proxies in Korea. And buying *is* sharing as it would allow us, or anyone in the NATO we would allow, to take a look at under the hood so to speak. Why do you think so many of what Ukraine captured from Russia ended up in US or UK?
 

chngr

Active member
Messages
62
Reactions
1 160
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Both Nimitz and Gerald Ford class carriers are about 50 metres longer than our plans, how are they almost similar?
i'm talking about LANDING runway...angled one

its very important for aircraft capacity

MUGEM vs Kitty Hawk

1000002147.png

1000002146.png
 

dBSPL

Experienced member
Think Tank Analyst
DefenceHub Ambassador
Messages
2,296
Reactions
96 11,844
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
The questions that are usually asked are the difficulty of acquiring the catapult system, its high cost, the fact that it increases the cost of shipbuilding, and the expert workforce, know-how and time required to develop it if it is a domestic solution.

However, if we assume that we will not have access to the F-35B; would it be less costly and faster to develop the CATOBAR variant of the KAAN or to develop a STOBAR combatant with a new airframe?

Other options are to conduct a shipbuilding program relying on the F-35B that we can obtain 'maybe one day in the future' (in return for fully complying with US policies and giving up on some critical national security issues); or to go for a ready-made STOBAR solution that already has non-NATO examples.

The last option is to convert light attack jets into sea-based control aircraft and focus directly on unmanned combatants.
 

UkroTurk

Experienced member
Land Warfare Specialist
Professional
Messages
2,684
Reactions
55 4,801
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
How much will MUGEM app cost us?


Non-nuclear , 65000 ton HMS Queen Elizabeth (R08) costs 3 billion pound. American nuclear Ford class AC 13 billion USD dollars.
French future nuclear AC will cost 10billion usd.

Construction of AC is not a Construction of LHD that cost us 650 million USD.

Then Turkish Navy will invest min 3 billion in MUGEM for what?
 
Last edited:

uçuyorum

Contributor
Messages
940
Reactions
13 1,549
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
How much will MUGEM app cost us?


Non-nuclear , 65000 ton HMS Queen Elizabeth (R08) costs 3 billion pound. American nuclear Ford class AC 13 billion USD dollars.
French future nuclear AC will cost 10billion usd.

Construction of AC is not a Construction of LHD that cost us 650 million USD.

Then Turkish Navy will invest min 3 billion in MUGEM for what?
I doubt it will be as expensive as Queen Elizabeth, probably somewhere halfway between that and Anadolu initially. However, the aircraft wing to put on the carrier might cost another billion by itself.
 

UkroTurk

Experienced member
Land Warfare Specialist
Professional
Messages
2,684
Reactions
55 4,801
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
I doubt it will be as expensive as Queen Elizabeth, probably somewhere halfway
MUGEM will weight 60000ton as same as Queen Elizabeth.

3 billion cost was 10years ago, i didn't calculate inflation of prices🤑
Queen Elizabeth Christined 10 years ago and commissioned in 2017😁
 

Huelague

Experienced member
Messages
3,950
Reactions
5 4,146
Nation of residence
Germany
Nation of origin
Turkey
We are in NATO, we are by definition a threat to China and not to mention our troops already fought against their proxies in Korea. And buying *is* sharing as it would allow us, or anyone in the NATO we would allow, to take a look at under the hood so to speak. Why do you think so many of what Ukraine captured from Russia ended up in US or UK?
You know that China helped to build our BM program (Yildirim-1)?
 

Yasar_TR

Experienced member
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
3,252
Reactions
142 16,313
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Turkey
MUGEM will weight 60000ton as same as Queen Elizabeth.

3 billion cost was 10years ago, i didn't calculate inflation of prices🤑
Queen Elizabeth Christined 10 years ago and commissioned in 2017😁
Two ships, QE2 & Prince of Wales together cost 7.6 billion pounds in 2017. Inflation corrected to today’s money, that is 10.3 billion pounds which translates to 13.3 billion dollars. They were each, supposed to be home to 36 F35B jets. Although UK cut the overall order of F35 planes by nearly half, 73 F35B jets have been bought. 36 F35s naked will be worth 4.2 billion dollars. Add to that the helicopters like Merlins, Apaches, wildcats and Chinooks; best part of 5.5 billion dollars per ship is also needed. So each ship fully equipped will be worth 11.5 billion dollars. Add to this, 96 million dollars a year of operating costs too. That is the running cost of the ship itself. The aircrafts’ running costs are separate.

 

dBSPL

Experienced member
Think Tank Analyst
DefenceHub Ambassador
Messages
2,296
Reactions
96 11,844
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
The design and classification of the ship, the building of the hull and superstructure blocks, all the systems, the installations, equiping, (except for the ship propulsion systems) and all weapon systems and the air platforms it will carry will be the product of domestic companies and workforce. Although there are cost factors originating from imported intermediate products in many subsystems, we generally have the infrastructure to develop and produce naval vessels at much lower costs than Western Europe or USA. I cannot be sure about the ship that has not been produced yet at this size and will be the first in its class, but if we go by a ready example; I cannot even give a 1% chance that a frigate similar to the I class that will come out of British design offices can be launched in British shipyards at the same costs as the TCG Izmir or TCG Izmit. (The story of the Istanbul frigate is a little different and a bit of a mess was made in that process.) And if I'm not mistaken, Britain's last aircraft carrier program, although it saved about 5-6 shipyards from the brink of bankruptcy, was a very unsuccessful project model from a cost-oriented perspective.
 
Last edited:

dBSPL

Experienced member
Think Tank Analyst
DefenceHub Ambassador
Messages
2,296
Reactions
96 11,844
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Just thinking out loud: If the purchase of EF for the air force is finalized, can we become an industrial participant of this aircraft by undertaking the development cost of the STOBAR variant of EF, which has been prepared for several tenders before but has not received an order and therefore has not yet emerged, but the project was ready to start?

(The following excerpt is a worth reading post with concentrated information on the development of Navalize Typhoon in past.)
The option of a ‘marinised’ Typhoon has been studied several times, first as the only STOBAR aircraft type to be considered by the original FCBA/JCA studies.

Early pre-feasibility studies of a Eurofighter Typhoon (N) (using the possible service name - Sea Typhoon) were undertaken in early 1996 by British Aerospace's Military Aircraft and Aerostructures. (BAE Systems initially suggested that costly airframe strengthening and a new undercarriage for Typhoon (N), as traditionally required for the ‘navalisation’ of a land based aircraft, could be avoided by using sophisticated computer controlled precise landing systems and other aids to reduce arrested landing stresses to within existing Typhoon limits. These ideas were not accepted by the MOD, however, and a fully navalised STOBAR Typhoon was drawn up).

A further 27 month contract was let in 1997 to study both catapult-launched (CTOL) and STOBAR variants in more detail.

Both variants would have required a large conventional aircraft carrier with an angled flight deck and arrester wires.

Both featured a strengthened undercarriage and an arrestor hook, and consideration was given to providing a larger thicker wing with power folding and more powerful vectored thrust EJ200 engines.


In May 2001 Sir Robert Walmsley, Head of the Defence Procurement Agency, dismissed the possibility of a navalised Eurofighter pointing out that Typhoon was "not currently designed so that it could use a carrier. We could change the design but we would be faced with a huge piece of work. The materials would probably have to be changed in order to avoid corrosion; the weight of the undercarriage would have to be doubled to support carrier landing which would eat into the payload margin; and the wing roots would have to be strengthened in order to take the full inertia forces on landing. That sounds to me like a very substantial redesign. It is always possible, but it would cost a huge amount of money and it would certainly add very considerably to the cost of the aircraft.”

There had also been fears that the flight deck clearance of external weapons would be dangerously low for the robust nature of carrier launch and landing events, and that the canards would dangerously restrict the pilots view during high angle of attack carrier landings. These fears were dismissed after studies.

Walmsley’s conclusions were not shared by those who’d undertaken the studies, and the possibility of a navalised Typhoon re-emerged in late 2005, as a "Plan B" in the event of a JSF cancellation.

BAE engineers had concluded that navalising Typhoon appeared to be "practical and relatively inexpensive", and that navalising later RAF tranches "might be of interest". The view over the nose was not necessarily inadequate and there were a number of options for reducing sink rate. Of these only the increased angle of attack option would would require the addition of a pilot periscope or a higher seat position and higher canopy roofline.

The studies indicated a 340 kg weight increase for the STOBAR version, and 460 kg for the CTOL catapult launched variant.

STOBAR was considered preferable to CTOL, flight control system changes would be necessary to guarantee "precision landings" but there would be little change to structural layout, and there would certainly be no need for a major rework for the aircraft to survive arrested landings.

The Typhoon’s advanced flight-control system could be programmed to reduce the stresses of landing, particularly if integrated with a carrier-landing datalink. This would have a number of advantages. For instance, sudden pitching of the carrier deck would be recognised by the system, which would feed in last-second control corrections, ensuring that the aircraft landed within set limits. This would permit the airframe to be strengthened only as required for operations within those parameters.

Thrust vectoring, already being planned for the Typhoon, coupled with a high-lift wing design, could provide near-optimal short-takeoff-and-landing capabilities for a ‘Sea Typhoon.’ The use of a ski ramp would only enhance STOL performance.

As an alternative to JSF, it was claimed that Typhoon (N) would offer higher speed, range and payload, although it would be less stealthy. A Typhoon (N) would also have the advantage of considerable commonality with the 232 Eurofighter Typhoon's already planned for the RAF – if, indeed, the third Tranche was not completed in a Typhoon (N) configuration.

The UK was not the only potential customer for a navalised Typhoon, Eurofighter GmbH briefed the Italian Navy during 2000 about a low-cost, reduced weight, arrestor landing/angled deck variant of the while the company offered ‘another customer’ (probably India) a “more radically modified naval version of the aircraft”, presumably the STOBAR variant studied for the UK.

 

BalkanTurk90

Contributor
Messages
658
Reactions
5 1,028
Nation of residence
Albania
Nation of origin
Turkey
Any news about AC 5gen fighter aircraft ??
I dont think navy will only take trainer aircraft and drones in that AC
If u want full Carrier than 5gen fighter aircraft is the must .
TAI can work to make a derivate from KAAN Like shorter 17-18 meter , Folded Wings and other changes for AC .
 

Follow us on social media

Top Bottom