In English literature, US naval and NATO standard codings are generally used. Otherwise, what really matters is what the Turkish navy will use this ship for. The Turkish navy's vision and the unmanned system projects it is conducting/supporting in relation to the Anadolu ship certainly have a pioneering role. For this reason, the ship is already being evaluated in the foreign press as a very new approach. But other countries will follow.
All navies will need drone capabilities on amphibious ships, helicopter landing ships, and even offshore patrol ships. Inevitably, including the main combatant ships, almost all naval platforms will have to incorporate these new concepts into their capability sets. So, in essence, every new platform design is in some sense a drone carrier. From this point of view, I think compartmentalizing the targeted capabilities on different platforms will yield better results. We will try everything we can on Anadolu, but in the medium term, the importance of specialized ships will increase.
If you ask me, I'd keep Anadolu like LHD/LAC. In addition to helicopter and drone capabilities, this ship will enable the transition to main-combatant fixed-wing naval aviation for 15-20 years and pave the way to a full size aircraft carrier.
For the 3rd and 4th LST ships (which was planning as the follow-up of the Bayraktar class LSTs), create an amphibious ship class that is more similar to the LPD, with more emphasis on helicopter operations and have aviation hangars for 3/4 helicopters.
As third group; Design a mothership-like, low-cost and inexpensive to operate platform(compared to LPD and LHD-like well-dock platforms) for USV/UUV and tactical UAVs. For example, instead of 10 HISAR OPVs, this number can be reduced to 8 and the last 2 ships can be mother-ships for unmanned systems. This class of ship can provide flexibility for a wide range of support missions, not only surface warfare or area control, but also underwater and air tactical picture continuity and anti-mine activities.