TR Naval Programs

[Strong AI]

260-280m aircraft carrier

Charles de Gaulle (R91): 262m, 42.000t, 40 aircraft
HMS Queen Elizabeth (R08): 284m, 65.000t, 40 aircraft

 

[Anmdt]

Mr Tatlıoğlu: "There were some adjustments on TTAB project. It was too big in terms of tonnage and its speed was low. We wanted to increase the speed because speed is very important for us."

View attachment 63967

It was TN that increased the size of the platform, with additional requirements for space and equipment, which led to a decrease in the maximum speed. It's like "Oops, it got too big, let's make it smaller again".

That's how we got the MPAC-type design instead of the FAC-55, which was smaller and more agile.

It looks like they are looking for ways to scrap STM's design and go with Yonca or Onuk (via TAIS).

Also, at some point it was TN again who desired to revise the design and make it almost as big as Corvette.

 

[Sanchez]

Commander of Turkish Naval Forces Admiral Ercüment Tatlıoğlu:

"Work is continuing on the development of a 260-280m aircraft carrier, which is larger than the TCG Anadolu, for our Naval Forces."

Deniz Kuvvetleri Komutanı Oramiral Tatlıoğlu: Bir sonraki hedef uçak gemisi -

Deniz Lisesi ve Deniz Harp Okulu (DHO) kuruluşunun 250’nci yıl töreninde Deniz Kuvvetleri Komutanı Oramiral Ercüment Tatlıoğlu, MarineDeal

www.marinedealnews.com

Wording is interesting. It's of course unofficial in its tone so maybe not smart to take a meaning from there but he says "a larger Anadolu" and "an aircraft carrier". Length itself doesn't mean much. America Class also come about at 260 meters. Kaga is about 250.

Wish we knew about specifics. Will it have a welldeck like Anadolu? It probably won't have CATOBAR. if we are thinking about fixed wing operations, it will probably have an angled deck? Not much to go with.

It was TN that increased the size of the platform, with additional requirements for space and equipment, which led to a decrease in the maximum speed. It's like "Oops, it got too big, let's make it smaller again".

That's how we got the MPAC-type design instead of the FAC-55, which was smaller and more agile.

It looks like they are looking for ways to scrap STM's design and go with Yonca or Onuk (via TAIS).

Also, at some point it was TN again who desired to revise the design and make it almost as big as Corvette.

Issue of the new type FAC has been going on for years. Maybe a doctrine change is afoot and they can't make up their minds on what a future small combatant should look like?

 

[uçuyorum]

It was TN that increased the size of the platform, with additional requirements for space and equipment, which led to a decrease in the maximum speed. It's like "Oops, it got too big, let's make it smaller again".

That's how we got the MPAC-type design instead of the FAC-55, which was smaller and more agile.

It looks like they are looking for ways to scrap STM's design and go with Yonca or Onuk (via TAIS).

Also, at some point it was TN again who desired to revise the design and make it almost as big as Corvette.

Honestly I'd love if we did something with similar tonnage and weapons load to Karakurt Class corvette, so that they would be able to operate further in east med even without frigates and heavy corvette like ada class that's used like frigate by export customers. Don't know if smaller and faster is the right way to go

 

[Anmdt]

Commander of Turkish Naval Forces Admiral Ercüment Tatlıoğlu:

"Work is continuing on the development of a 260-280m aircraft carrier, which is larger than the TCG Anadolu, for our Naval Forces."

Deniz Kuvvetleri Komutanı Oramiral Tatlıoğlu: Bir sonraki hedef uçak gemisi -

Deniz Lisesi ve Deniz Harp Okulu (DHO) kuruluşunun 250’nci yıl töreninde Deniz Kuvvetleri Komutanı Oramiral Ercüment Tatlıoğlu, MarineDeal

www.marinedealnews.com

He also adds that new Amphibious Assault Ships (maybe Landing Ships?) are in the queue. I'm not quite sure if this is a reference to the acquisition of older LSTs, or if it's a reference to additional ships.

Besides, there are other crucial vessels that TN falls in the need of;

• Next Generation Mine hunter vessel
• Research Vessel (Hydrographic Survey)
• Ocean-going tug
• Additional RAT Vessel (Multi-purpose OSV)

 

[Knowledgeseeker]

It was TN that increased the size of the platform, with additional requirements for space and equipment, which led to a decrease in the maximum speed. It's like "Oops, it got too big, let's make it smaller again".

That's how we got the MPAC-type design instead of the FAC-55, which was smaller and more agile.

It looks like they are looking for ways to scrap STM's design and go with Yonca or Onuk (via TAIS).

Also, at some point it was TN again who desired to revise the design and make it almost as big as Corvette.

Is the TTAB, and the TTHB the same project? Will we see any changes for the MPAC version that is intended for export as well?

 

[Anmdt]

Wording is interesting. It's of course unofficial in its tone so maybe not smart to take a meaning from there but he says "a larger Anadolu" and "an aircraft carrier". Length itself doesn't mean much. America Class also come about at 260 meters. Kaga is about 250.

Wish we knew about specifics. Will it have a welldeck like Anadolu? It probably won't have CATOBAR. if we are thinking about fixed wing operations, it will probably have an angled deck? Not much to go with.


Issue of the new type FAC has been going on for years. Maybe a doctrine change is afoot and they can't make up their minds on what a future small combatant should look like?

It is in the Bermuda Triangle; SSB - MSB - TN. The files go round in circles for years and years waiting for an answer to opinions and views.
I have seen the worst of it, and this is even worse than that.

 

[Anmdt]

Is the TTAB, and the TTHB the same project? Will we see any changes for the MPAC version that is intended for export as well?

TTAB is TTHB in English, MPAC is STM's design that can be modified to suit the customer's needs.

 

[boredaf]

It is in the Bermuda Triangle; SSB - MSB - TN. The files go round in circles for years and years waiting for an answer to opinions and views.
I have seen the worst of it, and this is even worse than that.

This type of indecision and bureaucracy has made us lose too much time on too many projects.

 

[UkroTurk]

It was TN that increased the size of the platform, with additional requirements for space and equipment, which led to a decrease in the maximum speed. It's like "Oops, it got too big, let's make it smaller again".

That's how we got the MPAC-type design instead of the FAC-55, which was smaller and more agile.

It looks like they are looking for ways to scrap STM's design and go with Yonca or Onuk (via TAIS).

Also, at some point it was TN again who desired to revise the design and make it almost as big as Corvette.

Which one of these would be best for us in your opinion?
Speed and agility in compact size VS big size?

 

[Sanchez]

This type of indecision and bureaucracy has made us lose too much time on too many projects.

I mean, there's not much you can do about this. TN has its own ideas in its own future. MSB has the job of managing the budget they are allocated fully and to the best of its capabilities for all branches. SSB has the mission of maximizing defence sector participation and needs so that it can survive and cherish. This is the best case scenario where there's no petty infighting. And over the years we've seen that there's plenty of infighting to go around. What's a better way?

Navy usually moved without rocking the boat re its future plans for the last 2 decades because they had plans. Those plans came out of working groups and inner bureaucracy like this. I wouldn't want to be sitting on those tables, that's for sure.

 

[TheInsider]

Yeah MPAC is a bad design. It is a fucking light Corvette not a FAC. I would rather get a 1000-1300 ton light corvette than MPAC those two vessels will have comparable speed the latter will carry more equipment including USVs and will have more endurance and will be operational at higher sea state. A FAC shouldn't be heavier than 500 tons and should have cutting-edge speed, IR, and RCS reduction. It should travel quickly, attack and deploy its weapons quickly return to its base/safe area quickly.

It seems the Navy wants a mid-sized(40-60k tons) CV rather than a second LHD (25-30k tons).

 

[Anmdt]

I mean, there's not much you can do about this. TN has its own ideas in its own future. MSB has the job of managing the budget they are allocated fully and to the best of its capabilities for all branches. SSB has the mission of maximizing defence sector participation and needs so that it can survive and cherish. This is the best case scenario where there's no petty infighting. And over the years we've seen that there's plenty of infighting to go around. What's a better way?

Navy usually moved without rocking the boat re its future plans for the last 2 decades because they had plans. Those plans came out of working groups and inner bureaucracy like this. I wouldn't want to be sitting on those tables, that's for sure.

The Navy has long-term plans, but when it comes to fulfilling the plans, they don't know how to freeze the requirements or what they need explicitly to realise the plan. This is also the case with DIMDEG.

Which one of these would be best for us in your opinion?
Speed and agility in compact size VS big size?

At this point my opinion is: just do whatever they want or however they want to incorporate it into operational concepts or within the doctrine.

My personal opinion: It is hard to find an optimised point, you either drop to 30 knots by assuming large spaces and stern ramp for USVs, or you drop below a size with sufficient EW, sensor and weapon suite (which TN requires to be present) with the higher speed. To satisfy both, we need to rethink the unorthodox design philosophies that TN is not open to. And higher speed can be achieved by means other than the vessel alone (drones, USVs, dedicated fast boats, etc.).

 

[UkroTurk]

The Navy has long-term plans, but when it comes to fulfilling the plans, they don't know how to freeze the requirements or what they need explicitly to realise the plan. This is also the case with DIMDEG.


At this point my opinion is: just do whatever they want or however they want to incorporate it into operational concepts or within the doctrine.

My personal opinion: It is hard to find an optimised point, you either drop to 30 knots by assuming large spaces and stern ramp for USVs, or you drop below a size with sufficient EW, sensor and weapon suite (which TN requires to be present) with the higher speed. To satisfy both, we need to rethink the unorthodox design philosophies that TN is not open to. And higher speed can be achieved by means other than the vessel alone (drones, USVs, dedicated fast boats, etc.).

Then TN could use two different type of ships? One is light, compact manned rapid FAC. The second is larger and more complex. ???

Actually what do they need? Fast Attack Craft?? İ can't understand their requirements.

Regarding USVs, for instance for UAVs, Turkish Air forces don't sacrifice manned light fighters like F-16 or Hürjet and Hürkuş.

 

[UkroTurk]

FAC55

 

[Ripley]

Then TN could use two different type of ships? One is light, compact manned rapid FAC. The second is larger and more complex. ???

Actually what do they need? Fast Attack Craft?? İ can't understand their requirements.

I think that’s exactly what @Anmdt was trying to tell.

The Navy has long-term plans, but when it comes to fulfilling the plans, they don't know how to freeze the requirements or what they need explicitly to realise the plan. This is also the case with DIMDEG.

The sudden shift of requirements, a change on doctrine, a change of heart. Whatever it is, it happens while the project is moving toward the earlier determined product. This, in return, creates the grueling task of redesign for the shipyards and hence the confusion and inevitable delays

 

[UkroTurk]

I think that’s exactly what @Anmdt was trying to tell.

The sudden shift of requirements, a change on doctrine, a change of heart. Whatever it is, it happens while the project is moving toward the earlier determined product. This, in return, creates the grueling task of redesign for the shipyards and hence the confusion and inevitable delays

He mentioned Unorthodox solution:" Hamina class:The vessel's hull is constructed of aluminum and the superstructures are constructed of reinforced carbon fiber composite. "

Hamina class weights just 250tonnes and length is 50m! Speed +30knots. But it has 500 miles range.

Or another unorthodox solution: " Visby class:The hull is constructed with a sandwich design consisting of a PVC core with a carbon fibre and vinyl laminate.There are multiple advantages to using composite materials in ship hulls"
650tones, stealth, 35knott speed. Range :2500miles!!!


Or this one

Skjold-class corvette - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Or PLAN's aliminium structure

Type 22 missile boat - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Or this one

Tuo Chiang-class corvette - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[dBSPL]

Mr Tatlıoğlu: "its speed was low."

View attachment 63967

I knew they'd say that one day. lol We're back to +++50 knots again. Or maybe the navy never backed down on that. lol. TTHB was a concept that everyone biased or unbiased and even a lot of really respected navy enthusiasts really saw as the optimum point. But for our navy, it is too slow.

The program could have been partially started with 4 TTHBs at least year ago, and we could have proceeded with different tonnages and concepts in packages of 4. The renewal of our navy in the main combat fleet has been prolonging for years for many reasons. But whether low-tonnage high-speed navy ships, can maintain a high level of readiness for decades beyond their planned service life like frigates of thousands of tons, I think this is one of the issues that Anmdt üstad can enlighten us on.

On the other hand, the insistence on this issue (increasing corvette-sized warships to extraordinary speeds) also constitutes a very clear and concrete definition of the Navy's doctrinal approach. Ironically, when you go back hundreds of years in Turkish naval tradition, it is possible to see similar traces. Turkish dominance of the Mediterranean was largely based on maneuverability rather than firepower.

He also adds that new Amphibious Assault Ships (maybe Landing Ships?) are in the queue. I'm not quite sure if this is a reference to the acquisition of older LSTs, or if it's a reference to additional ships.

Besides, there are other crucial vessels that TN falls in the need of;

• Next Generation Mine hunter vessel
• Research Vessel (Hydrographic Survey)
• Ocean-going tug
• Additional RAT Vessel (Multi-purpose OSV)

For the third and fourth planned LST ships, I am of the opinion that the existing Bayraktar class LSTs should be largely modified to have hangars for more than one heavy duty helicopter. In fact, I think these next ships could be a multi-role logistics and multi-function support ship, closer to the LPD approach, rather than an LST.

 

[Anmdt]

I knew they'd say that one day. lol We're back to +++50 knots again. Or maybe the navy never backed down on that. lol. TTHB was a concept that everyone biased or unbiased and even a lot of really respected navy enthusiasts really saw as the optimum point. But for our navy, it is too slow.

To be honest, they started from 60+ (which was only reached with 1x25000+ 4x5000 SHP GTs), so I would say 50 is a fair point to settle . I think a ship based on MPAC could also reach 50+ with an adjustment to the propulsion unit (opting for one large GT for booster waterjet instead of 2 small GTs), if the available space in the main engine room allows it. I have concerns that this would lengthen the hull by 5 metres, increase displacement, use up more fuel for cruising, improve the range, compromise manoeuvrability and so on. (Note: all based on assumptions. It is an educated guess).

But if they really fancy a high-speed, agile, compact attack boat with the old school feel then the MRTP51 from Yonca Shipyard is the only way to go.

For the third and fourth planned LST ships, I am of the opinion that the existing Bayraktar class LSTs should be slightly modified to have hangars for more than one heavy duty helicopter. In fact, I think this ship could be a multi-role logistics and multi-function support ship, closer to the LPD approach, rather than an LST.

We should adopt a similar approach for LCTs. It would be wise to have a deck cover (hence the drone attacks) and a small landing pad for the use of G-IHA.

 

[dBSPL]

To be honest, they started out at 60, so I would say that 50 is a fair point at which to settle down .


We should adopt a similar approach for LCTs. It would be wise to have a deck cover (hence the drone attacks) and a small landing pad for the use of G-IHA.

For emergency situations, its Ok you can push the engines and the ship, but I find it still incredibly high that ships of these dimensions are maneuvering with a standard full speed of 60 knots, as standard speed of deployment. Üstad, you know better than all of us what this means, don't misunderstand me, this is addressed to the general, I would love my friends who see these speeds as normal to get on a speedboat that reaches these speeds on the sea. Then I would like them to imagine what they feel in a ship about 50 times bigger and in 2-3 sea states... And then to take into account that the hundreds of systems inside that ship must serve like clockwork for 30 years... It's like this, one day the air force command saying that standard fighter jets have a top speed in the range of 1.8-2 mach, we want jets that can reach 3 mach.