TR Navy Conceptual & Technology-Demonstration Designs

[Anmdt]

Anadolu shipyard is going to introduce few more designs at the DIMDEX 2022, here are the few of them as a teaser:
At the moment Anadolu shipyard seems to be fixed on Qatar Navy's needs. TAIS, however might introduce other few designs for the export market.

ANADOLU SHIPYARD

www.adik.com.tr

Water-jet powered LCU Roll-On, 100 tons displacement and 30 meters LOA
Maximum speed in range of 30 to 40 knots, capacity 2 4x4 vehicle (Ejer Yalçın given for example)

Similar but Ambulance version, 78 tons displacement nearly 30 meters LOA
Maximum speed 41+ knots capable of carrying decompressing chamber for multi-factor emergency conditions.

Water-jet powered catamaran NOTC transfer boat
Maximum speed 25 & 29+ knots at different MCR, capacity 50 passenger with equipments.

Ambulance boat & Training boat, both water-jet powered and catamaran, identical propulsion and dimensions.
Maximum speed 30+ knots.

Meanwhile updated renders of two known vessels; NTFBP (ADIK's submission for TTHB) and OPV74
Both seems to progress into functional & contract design stage for unknown reasons (possible customer, or marketing)

 

[Anmdt]

FAC-65, then & now (up or left & down or right image respectively)

Dearsan has updated the FAC-65, the update had taken place with an on-going design effort and i would wonder why would they need to iterate the design without passing to the contract design stage (or maybe they did and we will see this on export page soon)?.

The VLS had been relocated to the Aft-section right before the Air-intakes and exhaust, number of AShM increased to 8, new SATCOM and ESM modules are added.
The radar now looks like MAR-D or ARDA X band AESA 3D search radar instead of a 2D / 2.5 D PESA radar.

 

[Anmdt]

As expected, TAIS also have added a new design FACM-70 before the DIMDEX,
More to come from different shipyards and TAIS by this week

FACM-70 (GM-FPB 70):

• 800 tons Displacement
• CODAG propulsion
• 40 knots maximum / 20 knots economical speed
• 7 days endurance, 1600 NM Range
• 8 Anti-Ship missiles
• Gökdeniz CIWS
• Smart-S Radar, ESM, Fire-control radar
• 76mm main cannon
• 2x 12.7 Stabilized machine gun platform
• 43 complement

@FPXAllen could belong to early rumored acquisition of Indonesian Navy.

 

[Anmdt]

OPV90 (above), a new OPV design based on the Cadet Training Ship(below) of Anadolu shipyard, HD images will be added soon.

 

[FPXAllen]

As expected, TAIS also have added a new design FACM-70 before the IDEX,
More to come from different shipyards and TAIS by this week

FACM-70 (GM-FPB 70):

• 800 tons Displacement
• CODAG propulsion
• 40 knots maximum / 20 knots economical speed
• 7 days endurance, 1600 NM Range
• 8 Anti-Ship missiles
• Gökdeniz CIWS
• Smart-S Radar, ESM, Fire-control radar
• 76mm main cannon
• 2x 12.7 Stabilized machine gun platform
• 43 complement

View attachment 41040

@FPXAllen could belong to early rumored acquisition of Indonesian Navy.

Maybe it's just me, but apparently I have a thing or two for such design which reminds me a bit of our Klewang-class' bow. In short: it looks fast, futuristic, cool but also mean serious business at the same time

Re: rumored acquisition by our navy: It's possible although it's still too early to tell right now. All I have at hand for the time being is still around some 60 meters patrol craft and FACs, as well as a 90 meters OPV that we're currently building until 2024.

But still, I would love to see this TAIS' offer comes into fruition and acquired by our navy.

 

[legionairre]

View attachment 41043

OPV90 (above), a new OPV design based on the Cadet Training Ship(below) of Anadolu shipyard, HD images will be added soon.

Any expertise behind this project, know how demonstration, past experience, proof of doability, or credibility (quality or power of inspiration)? Or is it yet another technical drawing to say “on your demand“, we can do this for you?

 

[Anmdt]

Any expertise behind this project, know how demonstration, past experience, proof of doability, or credibility (quality or power of inspiration)? Or is it yet another technical drawing to say “on your demand“, we can do this for you?

Cadet training ship, 2 produced and delivered to Qatar.

Both CTS and OPV shares the same configuration, in fact CTS was converted from the OPV which has reached interim design stage after concept level.

Maybe it's just me, but apparently I have a thing or two for such design which reminds me a bit of our Klewang-class' bow. In short: it looks fast, futuristic, cool but also mean serious business at the same time

Re: rumored acquisition by our navy: It's possible although it's still too early to tell right now. All I have at hand for the time being is still around some 60 meters patrol craft and FACs, as well as a 90 meters OPV that we're currently building until 2024.

But still, I would love to see this TAIS' offer comes into fruition and acquired by our navy.

There was once a rumor about acquiring 68 meters Fast Patrol Boat from TAIS, thus i suspected this design might be related with it.
They might add more designs to the website as well.

 

[dustdevil]

Some of the designs I don’t understand, I don’t want to disrespect the work and I’m not knowledgeable to criticise but they look too lazy.

Too much openings (for doors), exposed missile tubes, angled bridge walls for tilted windows. Do they not increase radar visibility? What about resistance to shock effects (including thermobaric/nuclear stuff)?

Maybe it’s not very important but if they are developing new concepts they should implement signature reduction & survivability features. Does it make the ship too expensive?

Example low RCS ship, note the continuous surfaces and angle:

 

[Anmdt]

Some of the designs I don’t understand, I don’t want to disrespect the work and I’m not knowledgeable to criticise but they look too lazy.

Too much openings (for doors), exposed missile tubes, angled bridge walls for tilted windows. Do they not increase radar visibility? What about resistance to shock effects (including thermobaric/nuclear stuff)?

Maybe it’s not very important but if they are developing new concepts they should implement signature reduction & survivability features. Does it make the ship too expensive?

If you are referring to the FACM 70 design.

Those are not doors/hatches but air intakes for engines and generators, below the mast. That was a rather smart move in my opinion, they have to place those air intakes at some position either with a secondary island or behind the supper structure. Moving up allowed those parts to be integrated with mast.

Exposed canisters are user preference, there possibly will be removable side-covers on the aft-deck, similar to the fore deck that will reduce the RCS slightly.

The tilted bridge doesn't affect RCS if applied properly with proper construction details otherwise it will ruin it. Again that is mainly preference of the user.

The mast is weak, totally agree on that. Possibly again the user doesn't have a certain limit on shock resistance.

And i agree in the end, the design could have been better but they have opted for a classical lay-out. If they manage to handle the supper structure as design evolves, that will lead to somewhere good.

 

[Zafer]

Some of the designs I don’t understand, I don’t want to disrespect the work and I’m not knowledgeable to criticise but they look too lazy.

Too much openings (for doors), exposed missile tubes, angled bridge walls for tilted windows. Do they not increase radar visibility? What about resistance to shock effects (including thermobaric/nuclear stuff)?

Maybe it’s not very important but if they are developing new concepts they should implement signature reduction & survivability features. Does it make the ship too expensive? View attachment 41048 View attachment 41049 View attachment 41050

Example low RCS ship, note the continuous surfaces and angle:

View attachment 41051

SSB / Navy should be doing independent testing of some sort and not relying on makers data.
We don't want to end up with bad products just because the industry didn't come up with good ones.

 

[Anmdt]

SSB / Navy should be doing independent testing of some sort and not relying on makers data.
We don't want to end up with bad products just because the industry didn't come up with good ones.

They do have it for decades.
TN has a division called Project Control Office that is delivering their requests to the designers and checking whether the design is in lieu with their criteries. PKO does this for outsources projects.

Design project office carries out the in-house design studies for TN.

All criterias-requirement then evaluated via methods accepted by TN and reported, some of those tested on the field and cross-checked.

SSB doesn't care about the properties or requirements all they care about is the project management/finance/consistency/accountability.

What is a navy getting is entirely about their own capability of settting requirements and governing the progress, otherwise the builders will always go for the cheapest / easiest option. This never changes.

 

[dustdevil]

If you are referring to the FACM 70 design.

Those are not doors/hatches but air intakes for engines and generators, below the mast. That was a rather smart move in my opinion, they have to place those air intakes at some position either with a secondary island or behind the supper structure. Moving up allowed those parts to be integrated with mast.

Exposed canisters are user preference, there possibly will be removable side-covers on the aft-deck, similar to the fore deck that will reduce the RCS slightly.

The tilted bridge doesn't affect RCS if applied properly with proper construction details otherwise it will ruin it. Again that is mainly preference of the user.

The mast is weak, totally agree on that. Possibly again the user doesn't have a certain limit on shock resistance.

And i agree in the end, the design could have been better but they have opted for a classical lay-out. If they manage to handle the supper structure as design evolves, that will lead to somewhere good.

FACM 70 looks better than the other two. (I edited the post to provide examples).

But again for example the door on the front of the structure behind the gun. Instead of attaching the door to a continuous surface they created a pocket there which could be bad for explosion resistance and it may magnify radar reflections too.

On the sides of the superstructure there are differences, I marked them with a line. I understand without a very smooth surface it might not matter and it also depends on the ship type (patrol/OPV vs fast attack boat) but still…

 

[Anmdt]

FACM 70 looks better than the other two. (I edited the post to provide examples).

But again for example the door on the front of the structure behind the gun. Instead of attaching the door to a continuous surface they created a pocket there which could be bad for explosion resistance and it may magnify radar reflections too.

On the sides of the superstructure there are differences, I marked them with a line. I understand without a very smooth surface it might not matter and it also depends on the ship type (patrol/OPV vs fast attack boat) but still…

The front door / hatch could be on a inclined surface like Ada-Class or simply like this. When it is applied like this, the hatch itself is cheaper and construction is easier. The RCS doesn't vary much in majority of the angles because that hatch is either shadowed by the main gun or the walls.

Note they also haven't used a fake-deck like Ada-Class to cover the equipments on the forecastle. They simply used board extensions to shadow the equipments and gun installation foundation.

Those sidewalks on side of the bridges are possibly required by the user if there exists to be any. Otherwise there is no reason for them to not extend supper structure and increase space, lower the RCS further.

For Dearsan's FAC65 there always have been something off with that design. The stuff you have marked are mainly as a result of their effort to integrate 8-cell VLS.

You can go for an ultimately low RCS like Visby class but that just multiplicates the price.

 

[Zafer]

They do have it for decades.
TN has a division called Project Control Office that is delivering their requests to the designers and checking whether the design is in lieu with their criteries. PKO does this for outsources projects.

Design project office carries out the in-house design studies for TN.

All criterias-requirement then evaluated via methods accepted by TN and reported, some of those tested on the field and cross-checked.

SSB doesn't care about the properties or requirements all they care about is the project management/finance/consistency/accountability.

What is a navy getting is entirely about their own capability of settting requirements and governing the progress, otherwise the builders will always go for the cheapest / easiest option. This never changes.

Navy's capability to know what to ask for in order to maximize its strength must be superb as the money they spend is very big. I believe this matter should not be left to the Navy alone.

 

[Anmdt]

Looks like Turkish Coast Guard modernization project is reviving. Ares Shipyard introduces an updated design (above) of ARES 65 OPV in CG role.
Notice the new ULAQ variant at the aft-platform. The specs are saying, the side-RHIB stations also supports a variant of ULAQ.

The old design (below) is given for the reference to notice the changes, probably related to an updated requirement.

 

[Anmdt]

FACM 70 looks better than the other two. (I edited the post to provide examples).

But again for example the door on the front of the structure behind the gun. Instead of attaching the door to a continuous surface they created a pocket there which could be bad for explosion resistance and it may magnify radar reflections too.

On the sides of the superstructure there are differences, I marked them with a line. I understand without a very smooth surface it might not matter and it also depends on the ship type (patrol/OPV vs fast attack boat) but still…

It looks better in here, TAIS FACM70

 

[legionairre]

View attachment 41083

View attachment 41084
Looks like Turkish Coast Guard modernization project is reviving. Ares Shipyard introduces an updated design (above) of ARES 65 OPV in CG role.
Notice the new ULAQ variant at the aft-platform. The specs are saying, the side-RHIB stations also supports a variant of ULAQ.

The old design (below) is given for the reference to notice the changes, probably related to an updated requirement.

Quite a few raved RMK’s design as perfect for the job, does it stand a chance (disregarding AKP‘s crush on Koc) in such competition?

 

[dustdevil]

View attachment 41362


It looks better in here, TAIS FACM70

Ah I understand now what those side lines are for. In the CG version they looked like unnecessary parts.

 

[Anmdt]

Quite a few raved RMK’s design as perfect for the job, does it stand a chance (disregarding AKP‘s crush on Koc) in such competition? View attachment 41377

RMK has disbanded the design team long ago, thus i don't think they will be bidding anymore in any project. At least not until they receive a green light to establish a new team.

However, they hold the design rights and all necessary drawings maybe they will collaborated with an external design bureau to complete it if bidded. They didn't bid for any export projects if i remember correctly.

 

[Combat-Master]

Quite a few raved RMK’s design as perfect for the job, does it stand a chance (disregarding AKP‘s crush on Koc) in such competition? View attachment 41377

This is a Rolls-Royce design ?