TR Naval Programs

[Anmdt]

It is said that before the final decision, the navy lobbied for a 5000-ton ship, but they had to settle for the İstif class. They insistently wanted a ship that could sail into the ocean.

The deal has been going on for a while, and I think the 5000+ tonnes is still on the table, but only for later (when the 4 upgraded Gabya are retired). The current plan is to replace 4 Yavuz class with 4 I class and 4 Gabya with another 4 I+ class. Meanwhile the Type 23 plan gets dropped.

Note that TCG Anadolu and future AC flotillas need this multi-purpose frigate.

Decisions of going from not being oceangoing to being oceangoing are political too as well as economical rather than being simply technical. I wonder if we will see more roadblocks when going to larger ships as we still get the engines from foreign vendors.

TN needs to evolve into (or adopt the doctrines of) a blue-water navy in order to become a navy beyond the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean.

 

[Anmdt]

About that, India and China despite having multiple AC and nuclear submarine fleet are not considered blue water navy. Because it is assumed that they don't have the doctrinal and logistical set up for that (yet). Do you think a blue water set up like French or Royal navy would be the best naval posture for Turkey from a strategic stand point? I am only saying this, because pretty much the only reason UK and France's blue water force posture make sense is because if they were to fight a peer adversary, it is always going to be alongside USN in a multi national task group. However, if it wasn't the case and UK and France were left on their own, I think they would have gone for a different force design to make the most efficient use of limited resources.

My personal view is that there is the US Navy and then there are the blue-water navies. There is no other navy that can possibly match it in terms of logistics and power projection (in the short term). I use the term "blue water" for navies that can sustain naval warfare (limited air defence, anti-submarine, anti-surface, anti piracy-insurgency etc.) in areas not adjacent to home ports. Meanwhile, the US Navy has the capability to sustain any kind of warfare globally. If it is necessary to use the right terms then I would say blue water navy level 2/3 and that will be what France - UK / India - China have at the moment.

Blue-water navy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Let's say Blue Water Navy 2 to 3 is the point I'm referring to, while TN is already at 4 (well should be if Egypt and Brazil is there).

 

[Zafer]

My personal view is that there is the US Navy and then there are the blue-water navies. There is no other navy that can possibly match it in terms of logistics and power projection (in the short term). I use the term "blue water" for navies that can sustain naval warfare (limited air defence, anti-submarine, anti-surface, anti piracy-insurgency etc.) in areas not adjacent to home ports. Meanwhile, the US Navy has the capability to sustain any kind of warfare globally. If it is necessary to use the right terms then I would say blue water navy level 2/3 and that will be what France - UK / India - China have at the moment.

Blue-water navy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Let's say Blue Water Navy 2 to 3 is the point I'm referring to, while TN is already at 4 (well should be if Egypt and Brazil is there).

Good thing we are sailing under the radar.

 

[Anmdt]

What could be the possible timeline be on those projects?

Could we see a 5000+ ton frigate be slotted into production before TF2000? Or rather a project left to the mid 2030s?

Not sure if I said this before, but Type-23 (and conversion/upgrade) and I-Class were even in terms of schedule and cost. An I+ class with VDS and USV capability can replace the Type-23 in all aspects except seakeeping.

For the remaining, I+ class, I expect to see them in service before 2029, with construction starting in 2025 for the first hull.

For TF-2000 we are certainly looking at 2032 and onwards for commissioning (due to the complex radar and EW suites and the timeline associated with them) hence, assuming the design phase of TF-2000 progresses well, it is a "why not" situation to have the smaller-lighter, or a less equipped hull for the interim solution with a fixed face X-band radar (CFR) of the CAFRAD suite, a mediocre EW suite, CENK-S (larger version) in rotary configuration (to compensate for UMR) and AKREP CWI for illumination and missile guidance (to compensate for AYR).

 

[Afif]

Not sure if I said this before, but Type-23 (and conversion/upgrade) and I-Class were even in terms of schedule and cost. An I+ class with VDS and USV capability can replace the Type-23 in all aspects except seakeeping.

For the remaining, I+ class, I expect to see them in service before 2029, with construction starting in 2025 for the first hull.

For TF-2000 we are certainly looking at 2032 and onwards for commissioning (due to the complex radar and EW suites and the timeline associated with them) hence, assuming the design phase of TF-2000 progresses well, it is a "why not" situation to have the smaller-lighter, or a less equipped hull for the interim solution with a fixed face X-band radar (CFR) of the CAFRAD suite, a mediocre EW suite, CENK-S (larger version) in rotary configuration (to compensate for UMR) and AKREP CWI for illumination and missile guidance (to compensate for AYR).

I don't understand why illumination radar is still relevant when SAPAN and SIPER block 1/2 has active seekers? Shouldn't data link antenna be enough for passing guidance data? For example, new generation Frigates like FREMM or FDI doesn't even have any illumination radar.

 

[uçuyorum]

I don't understand why illumination radar is still relevant when SAPAN and SIPER block 1/2 has active seekers? Shouldn't data link antenna be enough for passing guidance data? For example, new generation Frigates like FREMM or FDI doesn't even have

If you have 4 static radars you won't need it but rotating radars will lose target for a good while during rotation. That's why you have AKR-D. In terms of active seeker, small seeker on missiles are no match for a full sized radar, those will become more relevant as target is closer.

 

[UkroTurk]

If you have 4 static radars you won't need it but rotating radars will lose target for a good while during rotation. That's why you have AKR-D. In terms of active seeker, small seeker on missiles are no match for a full sized radar, those will become more relevant as target is closer.

So one rotating PESA (smart-s) plus 4 compact fixed AESA would be great solution. ( İmagine as if Ada-Class would have 4 panels)You wouldn't spend for additional radars for FCR and for helicopter approach.

AFAIK AESA radars also could detect periscope of submarines from 30km. IMO our every Corvette, MPAC and frigates must have 4 fixed panels.
YTKBs could have rotating MAR-D. İt is first step for modern naval warfare.

 

[B_A]

Fatih Mehmet Küçük said in today's broadcast that there are rumors of revision in the TF-2000s after Ukraine hit the Moskva cruiser.


Correction: They will increase the tonnage to 9 thousand tons. 96 VLS is coming.

So it will like a Maya-class destroyer or Jeongjo the Great class...

 

[B_A]

in Turkiye How many cities are there which starts with İ ?

İdil	12,905	19,123	21,329	22,496	23,663	Şırnak
96	Iğdır	38,917	59,880	75,927	75,824	75,721	Iğdır
574	Ilgaz	8,136	-	6,981	7,051	7,121	Çankırı
190	Ilgın	25,032	26,698	31,178	30,892	30,606	Konya
343	Ilıca	2,929	16,807	4,467	8,978	13,489	Antalya
251	İmamoğlu	21,484	30,428	21,331	20,848	20,365	Adana
262	İncirliova	15,870	17,548	18,335	18,921	19,507	Aydın
472	İnebolu	8,350	9,486	9,747	9,465	9,183	Kastamonu
43	İnegöl	73,258	119,710	154,698	158,575	162,452	Bursa
493	İpsala	9,212	8,471	7,851	8,318	8,785	Edirne
381	İscehisar	10,071	10,542	11,721	11,773	11,825	Afyon
571	Işıklar	5,014	7,334	7,118	7,135	7,152	Afyon
38	İskenderun	154,807	159,149	177,294	176,374	175,454	Hatay
258	İskilip	19,624	19,648	20,782	20,251	19,720	Çorum
191	İslahiye	34,607	38,770	31,963	31,204	30,445	Gaziantep
535	İsmil	6,576	7,317	5,930	6,909	7,888	Konya
42	Isparta	112,117	148,496	184,735	175,815	166,895	Isparta
1	Istanbul	6,629,431	8,803,468	10,861,463	10,878,360	14,025,646	Istanbul
3	İzmir	1,758,780	2,232,265	2,644,531	2,672,126	2,847,691	İzmir
23	İzmit

 

[Sanchez]

Isparta and Iğdır(I instead of İ but still) probably would be chosen. Unless they plan to retire İskenderun it's taken. Same with İnebolu. Wonder what the other 2 would be called if they stick with I naming scheme.

 

[Afif]

If you have 4 static radars you won't need it but rotating radars will lose target for a good while during rotation. That's why you have AKR-D.

FREMM uses Rotating KRONOS NAVAL. Yet it doesn't require illumination radar to guide ASTER interceptors afaik.

In terms of active seeker, small seeker on missiles are no match for a full sized radar, those will become more relevant as target is closer.

Yes, but i am not sure what you meant by the comparison? We are talking about Illuminating radar.

"A target illumination radar is a special continuous wave radar for the semi-active missile guidance system. It is a bistatic radar whose transmitter is on the ground and whose receiver is inside the missile."

Target Illumination Radar - Radartutorial

www.radartutorial.eu

When missile has active seeker it does not require illumination. Only mid-course guidance update. Which can be pass through data link (by dedicated data link antenna or by using the AESA radar antenna itself)

 

[Anmdt]

I don't understand why illumination radar is still relevant when SAPAN and SIPER block 1/2 has active seekers? Shouldn't data link antenna be enough for passing guidance data? For example, new generation Frigates like FREMM or FDI doesn't even have any illumination radar.

I just threw it in, just in case. Otherwise, I am well aware that CFR is capable of beamforming, ie APAR illumination mode. Nevertheless, CAFRAD has a dedicated illumination radar (AYR) to beamform to illuminate or serve as a data link, which I believe was thought to take the burden off CFR so that CFR can allocate more resources to tracking,updating and classification while AYR is on guidance and data links. It is also worth bearing in mind that active radar seeker equipped missiles do not have the seeker on from the go (as the power output is limited) and rely on the data link, GPS - INS correction in mid-course. Illumination could make it easier for a missile in semi-active mode to plot a better course during mid-course, or to be guided precisely to the target in the presence of clutter, decoys, jamming or object separation (bombs, missiles etc. that may separate from the target and pose a bigger threat). These are all my assumptions by the way.

 

[Anmdt]

FREMM uses Rotating KRONOS NAVAL. Yet it doesn't require illumination radar to guide ASTER interceptors afaik.



Yes, but i am not sure what you meant by the comparison? We are talking about Illuminating radar.

"A target illumination radar is a special continuous wave radar for the semi-active missile guidance system. It is a bistatic radar whose transmitter is on the ground and whose receiver is inside the missile."

View attachment 64461

Target Illumination Radar - Radartutorial

www.radartutorial.eu

When missile has active seeker it does not require illumination. Only mid-course guidance update. Which can be pass through data link (by dedicated data link antenna or by using the AESA radar antenna itself)

Illumination radars can also act as data link (primarily) or sector scanning radars if required, and speaking of adequacy, I think a proper X/C/S band AESA radar would be sufficient to accurately track-update a target and pass this information via data link to most modern missiles. But yes, it is my personal decision to have excessive amount of sensors.

Note that CAFRAD's illumination radar - AYR is a fixed face radar. I thought Navy may demand a compensation for absence of it.

 

[Afif]

I just threw it in, just in case. Otherwise, I am well aware that CFR is capable of beamforming, ie APAR illumination mode. Nevertheless, CAFRAD has a dedicated illumination radar (AYR) to beamform to illuminate or serve as a data link, which I believe was thought to take the burden off CFR so that CFR can allocate more resources to tracking,updating and classification while AYR is on guidance and data links. It is also worth bearing in mind that active radar seeker equipped missiles do not have the seeker on from the go (as the power output is limited) and rely on the data link, GPS - INS correction in mid-course. Illumination could make it easier for a missile in semi-active mode to plot a better course during mid-course, or to be guided precisely to the target in the presence of clutter, decoys, jamming or object separation (bombs, missiles etc. that may separate from the target and pose a bigger threat). These are all my assumptions by the way.

Thank you, that actually solves all the questions. It really make sense if there is a deticated AYR creating data links then CFR can allocate more resources to tracking updating and classification even though technically CFR AESA antenna can create data links.

Also, it totally slipped my mind that Active seekers also has semi active mode and having illumination from Illuminators really adds extra layer of redundancy in all those different scenarios that you mentioned.

 

[uçuyorum]

FREMM uses Rotating KRONOS NAVAL. Yet it doesn't require illumination radar to guide ASTER interceptors afaik.



Yes, but i am not sure what you meant by the comparison? We are talking about Illuminating radar.

"A target illumination radar is a special continuous wave radar for the semi-active missile guidance system. It is a bistatic radar whose transmitter is on the ground and whose receiver is inside the missile."

View attachment 64461

Target Illumination Radar - Radartutorial

www.radartutorial.eu

When missile has active seeker it does not require illumination. Only mid-course guidance update. Which can be pass through data link (by dedicated data link antenna or by using the AESA radar antenna itself)

Active seeker of missiles have limited range with its own power output but can still detect signals from a more powerful radar. But say a larger missile like Siper Urun-2 is probably much more capable.

 

[Afif]

Active seeker of missiles have limited range with its own power output but can still detect signals from a more powerful radar.

You are right, seekers have a semi active mode. It slipped my mind.

 

[Luwian]

İdil	12,905	19,123	21,329	22,496	23,663	Şırnak
96	Iğdır	38,917	59,880	75,927	75,824	75,721	Iğdır
574	Ilgaz	8,136	-	6,981	7,051	7,121	Çankırı
190	Ilgın	25,032	26,698	31,178	30,892	30,606	Konya
343	Ilıca	2,929	16,807	4,467	8,978	13,489	Antalya
251	İmamoğlu	21,484	30,428	21,331	20,848	20,365	Adana
262	İncirliova	15,870	17,548	18,335	18,921	19,507	Aydın
472	İnebolu	8,350	9,486	9,747	9,465	9,183	Kastamonu
43	İnegöl	73,258	119,710	154,698	158,575	162,452	Bursa
493	İpsala	9,212	8,471	7,851	8,318	8,785	Edirne
381	İscehisar	10,071	10,542	11,721	11,773	11,825	Afyon
571	Işıklar	5,014	7,334	7,118	7,135	7,152	Afyon
38	İskenderun	154,807	159,149	177,294	176,374	175,454	Hatay
258	İskilip	19,624	19,648	20,782	20,251	19,720	Çorum
191	İslahiye	34,607	38,770	31,963	31,204	30,445	Gaziantep
535	İsmil	6,576	7,317	5,930	6,909	7,888	Konya
42	Isparta	112,117	148,496	184,735	175,815	166,895	Isparta
1	Istanbul	6,629,431	8,803,468	10,861,463	10,878,360	14,025,646	Istanbul
3	İzmir	1,758,780	2,232,265	2,644,531	2,672,126	2,847,691	İzmir
23	İzmit

to complete the above...

- İçel, as former name of Mersin (Until 2002, the province was called İçel).
and
- Iznik, is missing - a district in Bursa Province, The town lies at the eastern end of Lake İznik.

 

[Sanchez]

Look at the coincidence, just 36 hours after SSİK and Istif class being increased to 8, Brits now think about scrapping two Type 23s. I had projected that if a deal was to happen, Argyll would be one of the ships we would be interested in acquiring.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1743035226735927694

 

[B_A]

This is very ambitious; you would need a nuclear-powered reactor to power the electromagnetic CATOBAR system.
There are lots of technologies that we don't have.
Electromagnetic catapults, nuclear reactors, and a CATOBAR-capable naval version of Kaan.

Alternatively, you could go for steam-powered catapults, which uses conventional power systems. But this is old tech.

We have to develop a nuclear-powered reactor of our submarines but still a white paper until now.

Steam powered catapult is old but even Russian and Chinese decides not to develop that.That s stupid to waste money on that.

If we just build a CV.That are only Mig-29k we can get…..

 

[uçuyorum]

The most logical option for us would be to build Trakya, but change its design enough to make it primarily a drone carrier, for TB3, KE and Anka-3. We don't need an aircraft carrier that we can't protect, hell, we can't even properly protect Anadolu right now. Only after building all of our projected warships, we can protect it. Not to mention, our options for getting a carrier into any ocean is controlled by other countries, what happens if things change and we aren't allowed to pass? Then we end up with a carrier we can't use on 2 of our 3 seas and we don't really need it for the third. And even if we tried to use it there, we would need to relocate most of our Navy to just protect it.

It isn't an "ambitious" project, it is just vain. We would be much better served if we focused the resources it would require to our submarine and destroyer project and establish ourselves as *the* regional power when it comes to naval power.


That was the first estimate, then it was revised to a billion but its true cost was never revealed.

First, we have good relations with Morocco and Gibraltar is subject to UNCLOS so we can pass. We have presence in Somalia and since Milgem is being built in Karachi shipyards as well we have a friendly shipyard with technical know how of our systems should we need repairs and what not. But even in mediterranean and Libya it could serve a purpose.

Nonetheless it's a long project, it is for tomorrows needs, and resources aren't necessarily being cut short for TF2000 and Milden, hopefully. Request for Anadolu was made in 1995, and they first wanted a carrier back then.