TR Aircraft Carrier and Amphibious Ship Programs

[Ripley]

President Erdogan: "We're negotiating with UK. We're going to make twice as big of that (TCG Anadolu)"

He told earlier that “it would be one time larger” and now says “twice as big of that”

I think, coming from the president, we, rightfully, assume that these are the confirmations from the highest authority in the country. However, we must also remember that he is not a technical guy and really doesn’t know the difference between a CV and LHD or he is just, in his mind perhaps, trying to tell the public with a simple language by a visual comparison.

 

[Tuncay]

He told earlier that “it would be one time larger” and now says “twice as big of that”

To be fair they are practically the same measurement , one times larger is the same as 2x . He mostly reads from a transcript so the topic matter is real but they manipluate and exagarate it when announcing it to the public for obvious reasons.

 

[karakova]

South Korea‘s development plans for CVX have changed, still in evaluation phase.

From ligh to medium aircraft carrier:

• 50,000+ empty displacement
• 60,000+ full displacement
• Conventional propulsion
• CATOBAR (EMALS, AAG)
• KF-21N navalized, no F-35B

South Korea Eyeing Larger Aircraft Carrier for its CVX Program - Naval News

South Korea’s Ministry of Defense will soon begin working on preliminary policy research on the feasibility of building a 50,000-tons CVX aircraft carrier.

www.navalnews.com

PS: IMO you can‘t land a navalized heavy bird like MMU/TFX on a carrier. Would be like landing a F-22 on the Gerald R. Ford supercarrier.

F-14 is not heavy?

 

[Zafer]

He told earlier that “it would be one time larger” and now says “twice as big of that”

I think, coming from the president, we, rightfully, assume that these are the confirmations from the highest authority in the country. However, we must also remember that he is not a technical guy and really doesn’t know the difference between a CV and LHD or he is just, in his mind perhaps, trying to tell the public with a simple language by a visual comparison.

Twice the size is twice the tonnage and not twice the geometrical dimensions.

 

[uçuyorum]

So 55-60,000 tons. A full-scale carrier is coming. This also indicate that the MMU will be part of the project.

Queen Elizabeth-class STOVL carrier 65,000 tons

S. Korea's CVX project, I think, is currently progressing on a ship design of 45,000 tons. Both countries will be focusing on STOVL; and later maybe SRVL aviation (when the F-35B related tests are completed).

The Italian Cavour is also in this class, although it is a lighter ship.

We don't have access to the F-35B. It doesn't look like we will, we are moving towards our own naval fixed wing solutions. So there is a very small chance that the carrier designed will be a STOVL. We need to look at other groups.

On the angled landing deck side, the STOBAR type is not very common in western naval aviation and has been largely abandoned. India, China, are the biggest users, and plus Russia if Kuznetzov can maintain accident free operation for 2 years in a row.

I think the reason why we are moving to such a big platform is that CATOBAR aviation is the target.

The other issue is the ship propulsion system. China and India are the two countries that have both CATOBAR and non-nuclear conventional/IEP propulsion aircraft carrier projects.

I think we will be the third country in this regard. The ship will most likely not be nuclear, but in terms of sortie capacity and impact, it could be a ship of around 300 meters that can be a match for the French PA-NG project.

I think it is also worth discussing whether the British are planning to balance the Russians on the surface but also the French with the Turks in the background.

Don't forget the old clemencau class. That ship was lighter than TCG Anadolu with CATOBAR and conventional propulsion.

 

[Yasar_TR]

So 55-60,000 tons. A full-scale carrier is coming. This also indicate that the MMU will be part of the project.

Queen Elizabeth-class STOVL carrier 65,000 tons

S. Korea's CVX project, I think, is currently progressing on a ship design of 45,000 tons. Both countries will be focusing on STOVL; and later maybe SRVL aviation (when the F-35B related tests are completed).

The Italian Cavour is also in this class, although it is a lighter ship.

We don't have access to the F-35B. It doesn't look like we will, we are moving towards our own naval fixed wing solutions. So there is a very small chance that the carrier designed will be a STOVL. We need to look at other groups.

On the angled landing deck side, the STOBAR type is not very common in western naval aviation and has been largely abandoned. India, China, are the biggest users, and plus Russia if Kuznetzov can maintain accident free operation for 2 years in a row.

I think the reason why we are moving to such a big platform is that CATOBAR aviation is the target.

The other issue is the ship propulsion system. China and India are the two countries that have both CATOBAR and non-nuclear conventional/IEP propulsion aircraft carrier projects.

I think we will be the third country in this regard. The ship will most likely not be nuclear, but in terms of sortie capacity and impact, it could be a ship of around 300 meters that can be a match for the French PA-NG project.

I think it is also worth discussing whether the British are planning to balance the Russians on the surface but also the French with the Turks in the background.

Both UK carriers have two parallel runways with already installed facilities to accommodate CATOBAR operation of fixed wing aircrafts should the need arise. So The carriers, expected to remain in service for fifty years, were designed for but not with catapults and arrestor wires. Making them future proof.
They both have non-nuclear propulsion. The length of the ship is 284 metres.
UK has been studying to implement CATOBAR operation on these ships. But their study shows that an aircraft the size of F35C brings a financial burden a little too much for being feasible. But using UCAVs and lighter aircrafts can be more applicable.

 

[Cabatli_TR]

This also indicate that the MMU will be part of the project.

In last TV program, It is the first time Mr. Demir hinted that there might be a future version of MMU for AC operations in future.

 

[Cabatli_TR]

Turkiye analyzes the changing trend very well and takes serious steps in this regard. With the proliferation of unmanned aircrafts/drones, aircraft carriers will also enter the process of changing and will be built in an order which manned/unmanned mixed fleets will be carried. In this direction, our industry which has built and delivered a 28000ton LHD in 7/8 years, will built a 55000 ton aircraft carrier in a period of 9-10 years. At best, we can think that this ship will be ready for delivery by 2035, if construction starts in 2025. In 2035, Turkiye's manned/unmanned fleets will have already reached a serious level of maturity with their own gas turbine engine solutions. All that remains is an aircraft carrier which these platforms will take off and steps taken are not related to the planning of today but of the next 15/20 years. in this direction, Carrier fleet will be clearly formed like that;

• 2x Drone/Helicopter Carrier/LHD Mini-AC (TCG Anadolu-28000ton class, TCG Trakya- ~30000ton(?))
• 1x TT Aircraft carrier 550000ton(Manned/Unmanned Combat/Fighter aircrafts)

YNUG (New generation AC) is the name used by Navy for 2x heavier AC program. As I said the plan was like;

• TCG Anadolu + Heavier TCG Trakya
• YNUG

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1648574237991481345

 

[Anmdt]

Both UK carriers have two parallel runways with already installed facilities to accommodate CATOBAR operation of fixed wing aircrafts should the need arise. So The carriers, expected to remain in service for fifty years, were designed for but not with catapults and arrestor wires. Making them future proof.
They both have non-nuclear propulsion. The length of the ship is 284 metres.
UK has been studying to implement CATOBAR operation on these ships. But their study shows that an aircraft the size of F35C brings a financial burden a little too much for being feasible. But using UCAVs and lighter aircrafts can be more applicable.

Parallel / Inclined runways are also about operational efficiency. You may watch it in documentaries how fast USN dispatches an air wing from those inclined runways using multiple catapults or how frequently they may land as one runway is cleared asap making space for another landing or take off.
This is not possible in case of parallel runway due to the safety reasons. The runway is always occupied regardless of what has landed and should be kept cleared.

 

[Chocopie]

F-14 is not heavy?

Variable sweep-wings for stealth fighter airframe?

 

[Zafer]

As a surprise development they want to operate the Akıncı from TCG Anadolu too.

SSB Başkanı Demir açıkladı! İkinci S-400 paketi için Türkiye'den kritik şart

Ekonomi - Prof. Dr. İsmail Demir, savunma sistemiyle ilgili olarak son gelişmeler hakkında değerlendirmelerde bulundu. SSB Başkanı Prof. Demir, Hürjet'ten, Milli Muharip Uçağa, Altay tankına ve ikinci S-400 paketine ilişkin konuştu.

ekonomi.haber7.com

 

[Agha Sher]

As a surprise development they want to operate the Akıncı from TCG Anadolu too.

View attachment 56349

SSB Başkanı Demir açıkladı! İkinci S-400 paketi için Türkiye'den kritik şart

Ekonomi - Prof. Dr. İsmail Demir, savunma sistemiyle ilgili olarak son gelişmeler hakkında değerlendirmelerde bulundu. SSB Başkanı Prof. Demir, Hürjet'ten, Milli Muharip Uçağa, Altay tankına ve ikinci S-400 paketine ilişkin konuştu.

ekonomi.haber7.com

they are putting too many things on Anadolu. Waste of resources

 

[dBSPL]

South Korea‘s development plans for CVX have changed, still in evaluation phase.

From ligh to medium aircraft carrier:

• 50,000+ empty displacement
• 60,000+ full displacement
• Conventional propulsion
• CATOBAR (EMALS, AAG)
• KF-21N navalized, no F-35B

South Korea Eyeing Larger Aircraft Carrier for its CVX Program - Naval News

South Korea’s Ministry of Defense will soon begin working on preliminary policy research on the feasibility of building a 50,000-tons CVX aircraft carrier.

www.navalnews.com

PS: IMO you can‘t land a navalized heavy bird like MMU/TFX on a carrier. Would be like landing a F-22 on the Gerald R. Ford supercarrier.

So we have a very close or even similar approach to Korea. We're coming after you, buddy. Thank you for the additional information.

By the way, MMU is the name of a program, not a single variant, and it is very likely that different variants will emerge in the long run. We base these views on official statements, it is debatable how valid they may be in practice.

 

[Anmdt]

they are putting too many things on Anadolu. Waste of resources

Navy would operate starship from Anadolu if given a chance. They once studied F-4 / F-16 possibility as well.

 

[Anmdt]

YNUG (New generation AC) is the name used by Navy for 2x heavier AC program. As I said the plan was like;

• TCG Anadolu + Heavier TCG Trakya
• YNUG

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1648574237991481345

MoU is signed with SEDEF for Trakya. But it is still unclear as of now whether the second hull will be Trakya as planned (larger version of Anadolu oriented to be drone mothership, and limited fixed aircraft capability) or YNUG.

 

[Zafer]

they are putting too many things on Anadolu. Waste of resources

I wouldn't say so.

These are the varieties of platforms that can be operated from the ship not necessarily to be deployed all at the same time. Also these planes are looking for export opportunities, we may not even have to put them in service on our ships but we need to make them work on similar ships to our export customers'. This is common sense.

 

[Chocopie]

So we have a very close or even similar approach to Korea. We're coming after you, buddy. Thank you for the additional information.

By the way, MMU is the name of a program, not a single variant, and it is very likely that different variants will emerge in the long run. We base these views on official statements, it is debatable how valid they may be in practice.

To be honest: Korean aircraft carrier plans (light or medium) are too expensive. A waste of manpower and resources, economically non-viable and strategically questionable at best.

 

[UkroTurk]

To be honest: Korean aircraft carrier plans (light or medium) are too expensive. A waste of manpower and resources, economically non-viable and strategically questionable at best.

I also can't understand Turkish Navy really needs an Aircraft carrier?
Do we have enemies beyond the Pacific? Or do we have interests in the oceans?

Are you ready to invest in Aircraft carrier strike group? Count the destroyers in the photo please!

Carrier strike group - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Having a Landing Helicopter Dock is understandable but A/C is just totally reprehensible under this economical conditions...

What's wrong with the frigates? Just go for modern frigates and submarines..

Using from land MMU, Hurjet, ANKA 3, KızılElma and etc, Turkish Air Force couldn't deal with our real threats??

 

[I_Love_F16]

I also can't understand Turkish Navy really needs an Aircraft carrier?
Do we have enemies beyond the Pacific?

Having a Landing Helicopter Dock is understandable but A/C is just totally reprehensible under this economical conditions...

What's wrong with the frigates? Just go for modern frigates and submarines..

Using from land MMU, Hurjet, ANKA 3, KızılElma and etc Turkish Air Force couldn't deal with our real threats??

I don’t understand too, it is unbelievably expensive to built and maintain an AC. Also their maintenance takes a lot of times.

 

[Zafer]

So yeah, what do you want to show when the next time the enemy want to show us their carriers like France did in support of Greece. Today's enemies can be joined by others in the future and you need to be prepared.