TR Naval Programs

Brave Janissary

Well-known member
Messages
303
Reactions
5 623
View attachment 58632
Ok it is the last one. No more photos.


-16 cell VLS
-4x14: 56 SHORAD missiles
- 4 X 35mm CIWS would be effective for all you?
İskele(port) and sancak(starboard) baş-kıç(fore-aft) omuzluks (shoulders) must be clear on ships.

1687387771732.jpeg
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Anmdt

Experienced member
Naval Specialist
Professional
Messages
5,049
Solutions
2
Reactions
94 22,404
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
İskele(port) and sancak(starboard) baş-kıç(fore-aft) omuzluks (shoulders) must be clear on ships.

View attachment 58639
Unless your bridge is positioned high enough for a clear view.
Then there is no space at all.
@Anmdt Dear what would you say?
It can be utilized if necessary as long as it is not blocking bridge's view of forward and quarters. Thus the extended parts on each side of bridge exists for port maneuvers.
 

Brave Janissary

Well-known member
Messages
303
Reactions
5 623
From my personel perspective our navies most important priority is integration siper blok 0's to Midlas and Mk-41 carrier ships. And integration quadpack essm's to midlas.


So İf we got them . We use Tcg İstanbul and 2x Babaros Block II's like a fleet light aaw frigates. 2x Barbaros Blok I's, 4x Gabya Modded ones (vls) for anti surface frigate and 3 ada class for anti submarine warfare. Other 4x gabya, 4x yavuz and 1x Ada class for replenishment, creating another small fleets etc. All of that core fleet ships have Cenk / Smart-s /Mar-d , Genesis, and national electronics standart. That Can be 2023-2025 standart.

In 2025- Until Tf-2000's

4x İ class + 2x Barbaros Mlu Track II for AAW
2x Barbaros Block I Mlu + 4x Yavuz Class + 4x Gabya Mlu Vls Mod +2 Akhisar Class for Asuw
4x Ada Class + 2x Akhisar Class for Asw .

After the Tf-2000 its diffrent story. In this two scenario even if siper block 0 is not doublepacked this scenario is ok . On the other hand we continue to increase land attack asw and asuw capabilities of our ships.

All of us know that most of the our same ships located to same bases. So I mean if you want a create a small fleet with 1 gabya 1 meko 1 ada class , you need make a small mission force from different bases. That's about the our naval ships have different logistics . That problem will solve when milgem program ships totally.

But for this reason we can create a fleets meko aaw's with meko asuw etc.
 

UkroTurk

Experienced member
Land Warfare Specialist
Professional
Messages
2,112
Reactions
26 3,741
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Unless your bridge is positioned high enough for a clear view.

It can be utilized if necessary as long as it is not blocking bridge's view of forward and quarters. Thus the extended parts on each side of bridge exists for port maneuvers.
So still there is chance for 4x Göker or Gökdeniz ER.
1687872203156.png
 
Last edited:

dBSPL

Experienced member
Think Tank Analyst
DefenceHub Ambassador
Messages
2,006
Reactions
73 10,299
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
So still there is chance for 4x Göker or Gökdeniz ER.
View attachment 58858
How much more effective 4 CIWSs can be than two CIWSs is an open question. I think a close air defense that would provide engagement in both directions in all types of maneuvers of the ship would be very good. But four, I don't know, I don't think there is an example of this in modern naval ships, I mean, these configurations are being tested in very detailed simulation environments, even if it could be a concept study, we should have seen it. In my humble opinion, regarding the ship's self-defense: I would prefer that extra power and displacement reserve that can be allocated should be much more powered configurations of ECMs, long-range chaff / decoy and RF deception systems etc. As an example, I can cite the Israeli navy's countermeasure approaches almost equivalent to destroyers, even in tiny missile boats.

In terms of armament: I think this ship could have higher strategic multiplier than the FREMMs if it had extra CIWS on the bridge side and an additional 8-cell VLS on the mid-deck.
 

UkroTurk

Experienced member
Land Warfare Specialist
Professional
Messages
2,112
Reactions
26 3,741
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
How much more effective 4 CIWSs can be than two CIWSs is an open question. I think a close air defense that would provide engagement in both directions in all types of maneuvers of the ship would be very good. But four, I don't know, I don't think there is an example of this in modern naval ships, I mean, these configurations are being tested in very detailed simulation environments, even if it could be a concept study, we should have seen it. In my humble opinion, regarding the ship's self-defense: I would prefer that extra power and displacement reserve that can be allocated should be much more powered configurations of ECMs, long-range chaff / decoy and RF deception systems etc. As an example, I can cite the Israeli navy's countermeasure approaches almost equivalent to destroyers, even in tiny missile boats.

In terms of armament: I think this ship could have higher strategic multiplier than the FREMMs if it had extra CIWS on the bridge side and an additional 8-cell VLS on the mid-deck.
İf you think it is over loaded let it be just two-sided 2x Gökdeniz ER without autocannon. And let alone Korkut-D at the back.

2x14 : 28 missiles plus Korkut's 400 smart rounds could stop multiple 24 antiship missile attacks.

.

So wouldn't have to add extra Expensive VLS. Also You could use your VLS for Areal Defense with 16 SİPER.
İf you could quadpack those SİPER missiles, and you would have an air defense frigate. Monster 💀

Gökdeniz ER/ Levent will immensely increase your lethality. Please note you also could launch cheap SUNGURs -that can stop Cruise missiles -from Gökdeniz launcher.

You could kill Hellfire loaded Helis, low/medium range drones using relatively cheaper missiles.
 

Afif

Experienced member
Moderator
Bangladesh Correspondent
DefenceHub Diplomat
Bangladesh Moderator
Messages
3,736
Reactions
62 6,530
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
İf you think it is over loaded let it be just two-sided 2x Gökdeniz ER without autocannon. And let alone Korkut-D at the back.

2x14 : 28 missiles plus Korkut's 400 smart rounds could stop multiple 24 antiship missile attacks.

.

So wouldn't have to add extra Expensive VLS. Also You could use your VLS for Areal Defense with 16 SİPER.
İf you could quadpack those SİPER missiles, and you would have an air defense frigate. Monster 💀

Gökdeniz ER/ Levent will immensely increase your lethality. Please note you also could launch cheap SUNGURs -that can stop Cruise missiles -from Gökdeniz launcher.

You could kill Hellfire loaded Helis, low/medium range drones using relatively cheaper missiles.

You are proposing CIWS as ship's only point defense. Which may work for corvettes, but sound unrealistic for frigates, which operates in high intensity environments regardless of its role.

CIWS missiles usually have only one shot at a single target in a given scenario. Which defeats the purpose of having a layered air defence solution, thus increasing the probability of taking hit. Specially for frigates, which operates in relatively high-intensity environments.

That is why every modern frigate has two layers of point defence.

1. Primarily, an interceptor with a range of 25-50 km. For example, sea captor, ESSM, Aster 15, etc.

2. CIWS (which could be autocannons like PHALANX, Gökdeniz, or low cost short range missiles like RIM116 or levent) as the last line of defence if somehow Primarily interceptor fails or being overwhelmed. (Also, it is important to note, success probability of CIWS against supersonic missiles are lower compared to subsonic counterparts)
 
Last edited:

UkroTurk

Experienced member
Land Warfare Specialist
Professional
Messages
2,112
Reactions
26 3,741
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
You are proposing CIWS as ship's only point defense.
Where did i say it? İstanbul frigate has 16 cell VLS which i adore .


+++
Look at the image that i shared:
There are
16 cell VLS (64p. SİPER 100km ranged)
plus 4 Göker Hybrid launcher (56p. SAM 10+ranged+ 1600smart rounds)


+++++
Then i offered
16 cell VLS quadpacked SİPER (64 pieces 100km ranged SAM)

plus Korkut-D (400 smart rounds)
plus 2 x Gökdeniz ER ( 28 pieces 10+km ranged SAM)
+++++
Are there any examples of such heavily loaded Corvette?

French /Greek frigates how many Aster-30 could have?
 

Afif

Experienced member
Moderator
Bangladesh Correspondent
DefenceHub Diplomat
Bangladesh Moderator
Messages
3,736
Reactions
62 6,530
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
Where did i say it? İstanbul frigate has 16 cell VLS which i adore .


+++
Look at the image that i shared:
There are
16 cell VLS (64p. SİPER 100km ranged)
plus 4 Göker Hybrid launcher (56p. SAM 10+ranged+ 1600smart rounds)


+++++
Then i offered
16 cell VLS quadpacked SİPER (64 pieces 100km ranged SAM)

plus Korkut-D (400 smart rounds)
plus 2 x Gökdeniz ER ( 28 pieces 10+km ranged SAM)
+++++
Are there any examples of such heavily loaded Corvette?

French /Greek frigates how many Aster-30 could have?

1. 100km long range high altitude SIPER interceptors (single packed or quad packed) in VLS are not suitable for point defnece.

2. Göker hybrid launchers or Gökdeniz ER or Levent all are classified as CIWS.(CIWS is a term that is used for both autocannon and SHORAD on the ship)

That is why i said-

CIWS missiles usually have only one shot at a single target in a given scenario. Which defeats the purpose of having a layered air defence solution, thus increasing the probability of taking hit. Specially for frigates, which operates in relatively high-intensity environments.


2. CIWS (which could be autocannons like PHALANX, Gökdeniz, or low cost short range missiles like RIM116 or levent) as the last line of defence if somehow Primarily interceptor fails or being overwhelmed. (Also, it is important to note, success probability of CIWS against supersonic missiles are lower compared to subsonic counterparts)


Conclusion- Given long range high altitude SIPER interceptors are not suitable for point defence, Primarily point defence of the ship would be CIWS (whether it's hybrid Göker, Gökdeniz ER or Levent)
 
Last edited:

UkroTurk

Experienced member
Land Warfare Specialist
Professional
Messages
2,112
Reactions
26 3,741
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
1. 100km long range high altitude SIPER interceptors (single packed or quad packed) in VLS are not suitable for point defnece.

2. Göker hybrid launchers or Gökdeniz ER or Levent all are classified as (CIWS is a term that is used for both autocannon and SHORAD on the ship)

That is why i said-




Conclusion- Given long range high altitude SIPER interceptors are not suitable for point defence, Primarily point defence of the ship would be CIWS (whether it's hybrid Göker, Gökdeniz
1. 100km long range high altitude SIPER interceptors (single packed or quad packed) in VLS are not suitable for point defnece.

2. Göker hybrid launchers or Gökdeniz ER or Levent all are classified as (CIWS is a term that is used for both autocannon and SHORAD on the ship)

That is why i said-




Conclusion- Given long range high altitude SIPER interceptors are not suitable for point defence, Primarily point defence of the ship would be CIWS (whether it's hybrid Göker, Gökdeniz ER or Levent)
Still i can't understand why did you respond and give irrelevant examples to my post. anyway
we might be in two different languages.
 

Afif

Experienced member
Moderator
Bangladesh Correspondent
DefenceHub Diplomat
Bangladesh Moderator
Messages
3,736
Reactions
62 6,530
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
Still i can't understand why did you respond and give irrelevant examples to my post. anyway
we might be in two different languages.

And I don’t understand which part is irrelevant.

In your proposed models, it’s only SIPER interceptors in VLS (Whether, single packed or quad packed) and various kind of CIWS, like Hybrid Göker, Gokdeniz ER/Levent. (As I mentioned before, Auto cannons like Gokdeniz as well as short range missiles systems like Gokdeniz-ER, Levent and hybrid Goker are all classified as CIWS)

So, if the SIPER interceptors are not well suited for point defence, then the primary role of point defence is left to CIWS in your models.

That is why in my first response I wrote-
”You are proposing CIWS as ship's only point defence.”
 
Last edited:

UkroTurk

Experienced member
Land Warfare Specialist
Professional
Messages
2,112
Reactions
26 3,741
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
@Afif
With Aster 30 +Aster 15 combination which CIWS do the French use in their frigates?

How comes when there is SİPER, you must not rely on your CIWS? and your frigate must have additional Aster15/ESSM/Hisar-N ?

How comes Siper can't hit anti-ship missiles at 30-50 km range but Aster 15/ Hisar-N can?



64 Siper plus 4 Gökdeniz ER combination is great and effective.

Even let Siper not be quadpacked, 16 pieces Siper with 56Gökdeniz/Levent missiles would be great for İ-Class.

BTW Gökdeniz ER will have longer range than RIM-116, so dont confuse it with RAM which has j max 10km range.

On the other hand SİPER is not SM-2. İ think Siper Block 2 will be more agile.
 
Last edited:

Afif

Experienced member
Moderator
Bangladesh Correspondent
DefenceHub Diplomat
Bangladesh Moderator
Messages
3,736
Reactions
62 6,530
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
@Afif
With Aster 30 +Aster 15 combination which CIWS do the French use in their frigates?

How comes when there is SİPER, you must not rely on your CIWS? and your frigate must have additional Aster15/ESSM/Hisar-N ?

How comes Siper can't hit anti-ship missiles at 30-50 km range but Aster 15/ Hisar-N can?

Technically SIPER interceptors (block i/ii) can shoot down AShM.

However, interceptors that meant for long range and high altitude is not economically feasible for point defence.

That is why every country including Turkey has more cost effective medium category of missiles for point defence like (HISAR-N, ESSM, sea captor, BARAK-8)

And secondly, SIPER interceptors are not quick reaction missiles. Which usually have TVC or altitude control thrusters to quickly direct it to the targets, this saves few second and this is critical given short reaction time after missiles appears in the horizon.

ESSM, BARAK-8 VL-SRSAM and ASTER-15 all has TVC.

Sea captor, G40 has altitude control thrusters.

Even though HISAR-N doesn't have any of it, still it can direct itself toward targets relatively faster than a SIPER interceptor.

64 Siper plus 4 Gökdeniz ER combination is great and effective.

Even let Siper not be quadpacked, 16 pieces Siper with 56Gökdeniz/Levent missiles would be great for İ-Class.


Between long range high altitude interceptors and CIWS there has to be medium range interceptors like ESSM or HISAR-N.

Otherwise, you have to use expensive SIPER interceptors for point defence when enemy cruise missiles appears in the horizon, (which are also not meant for quick reaction) or wait until those missiles gets within range of CIWS. Which is uncomfortably (and dangerously) close and increases the probability of taking a hit.
@Anmdt

Maybe when SIPER block ii is inducted you model would be more effective as I suspect SIPER block ii (without booster) would have same reaction time as HISAR-N.
 

UkroTurk

Experienced member
Land Warfare Specialist
Professional
Messages
2,112
Reactions
26 3,741
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Technically SIPER interceptors (block i/ii) can shoot down AShM.

However, interceptors that meant for long range and high altitude is not economically feasible for point defence.

That is why every country including Turkey has more cost effective medium category of missiles for point defence like (HISAR-N, ESSM, sea captor, BARAK-8)

And secondly, SIPER interceptors are not quick reaction missiles. Which usually have TVC or altitude control thrusters to quickly direct it to the targets, this saves few second and this is critical given short reaction time after missiles appears in the horizon.

ESSM, BARAK-8 VL-SRSAM and ASTER-15 all has TVC.

Sea captor, G40 has altitude control thrusters.

Even though HISAR-N doesn't have any of it, still it can direct itself toward targets relatively faster than a SIPER interceptor.




Between long range high altitude interceptors and CIWS there has to be medium range interceptors like ESSM or HISAR-N.

Otherwise, you have to use expensive SIPER interceptors for point defence when enemy cruise missiles appears in the horizon, (which also not meant for quick reaction) or wait until those missiles gets within range of CIWS. Which is uncomfortably (and dangerously) close and increases the probability of taking a hit.
@Anmdt

Maybe when SIPER block ii is inducted you model would be more effective as I suspect SIPER block ii (without booster) would have same reaction time as HISAR-N.
Siper is just booster added HisarRF. There is no nuclear science. İt's neither SM2 nor SM3 which are totally expensive.

Siper as extended ranged Hisar RF very suitable for medium/long range interception to 70-80km. Please recall that we don't know the exact numbers about Siper range. They said it reached 100km but how ?
While there is no G40 or ESSM for İ-class, Siper fulfilling this role.

No worries Gökdeniz ER not worse than sea ceptor.
 
Last edited:

Afif

Experienced member
Moderator
Bangladesh Correspondent
DefenceHub Diplomat
Bangladesh Moderator
Messages
3,736
Reactions
62 6,530
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
Siper is just booster added HisarRF. There is no nuclear science.

Not nuclear science.
Still, HISAR-N would do a quicker 90 degrees turn immediately after the launch compared HISAR-RF with booster (SIPER block i)
 

UkroTurk

Experienced member
Land Warfare Specialist
Professional
Messages
2,112
Reactions
26 3,741
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Not nuclear science.
Still, HISAR-N would do a quicker 90 degrees turn immediately after the launch compared HISAR-RF with booster (SIPER block i)
Where is the source? Edit: however Siper could be launched earlier than Hisar-N since it has longer range.
 

Follow us on social media

Top Bottom