TR Aircraft Carrier and Amphibious Ship Programs

Afif

Experienced member
Moderator
Bangladesh Correspondent
DefenceHub Diplomat
Bangladesh Moderator
Messages
3,986
Reactions
64 7,252
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
What @Anmdt thinks about it? Is a non-catabor carrier really worth the effort and resources for Turkish strategic context?
 

_Mu_

Active member
Messages
57
Reactions
4 194
Nation of residence
Egypt
Nation of origin
Egypt
To better visualize the 60k ton aircraft carrier give a look on current Commissioned carriers in order by tonnage
0000000.PNG

 

TR_123456

Experienced member
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
4,756
Reactions
11,675
Nation of residence
Nethelands
Nation of origin
Turkey
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

Experienced member
Messages
4,448
Reactions
6 7,115
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
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.
 
Last edited:

I_Love_F16

Contributor
France Correspondent
Messages
723
Reactions
10 1,515
Nation of residence
France
Nation of origin
France
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

Experienced member
Moderator
Think Tank Analyst
DefenceHub Diplomat
Messages
1,634
Reactions
56 7,415
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
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

Contributor
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
463
Reactions
41 1,487
Nation of residence
Nethelands
Nation of origin
Turkey
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

Contributor
Messages
1,329
Reactions
4 2,533
Nation of residence
Czechia
Nation of origin
Turkey
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

Experienced member
Think Tank Analyst
DefenceHub Ambassador
Messages
2,052
Reactions
77 10,614
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
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.
 
Last edited:

godel44

Active member
Messages
112
Reactions
8 393
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
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

Contributor
Messages
715
Reactions
9 1,154
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
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

Experienced member
Naval Specialist
Professional
Messages
5,132
Solutions
2
Reactions
95 22,871
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
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.
 

dBSPL

Experienced member
Think Tank Analyst
DefenceHub Ambassador
Messages
2,052
Reactions
77 10,614
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
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.
 

dBSPL

Experienced member
Think Tank Analyst
DefenceHub Ambassador
Messages
2,052
Reactions
77 10,614
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
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.
 
Last edited:

Follow us on social media

Top Bottom