TR Navy Naval Programs

[B_A]

The US, the UK and France are all tied togather as a collective west. When the US develops a technology orhers will not duplicate it, they just simply share at a cost. We don't belong to the group so we develop ourselves. It shouldn't be hard as railguns that we have already worked on supposedly use similar technology.

Also we can use the situation of Russia to get some technology from them especially nuclear power of submarines or surface ships.

We can have a modern version of Alfa class submarine.

 

[Zafer]

Also we can use the situation of Russia to get some technology from them especially nuclear power of submarines or surface ships.

We can have a modern version of Alfa class submarine.

We certainly need nuclear propulsion technology but it is best if we develope it ourselves, like Thorium molten salt reactors. It is my wish to see some succes in this field and we can implement it on our carrier ship.

 

[B_A]

We certainly need nuclear propulsion technology but it is best if we develope it ourselves, like Thorium molten salt reactors. It is my wish to see some succes in this field and we can implement it on our carrier ship.

Yes.

We also need a 3000-5000 ton class fast and quiet nuclear attack submarine that we can send them to the high sea to theat enemy's navy.

Nowadays every enemy think their fleet is safe if they stay 1000km far from our land.

 

[B3H4VE]

We certainly need nuclear propulsion technology but it is best if we develope it ourselves, like Thorium molten salt reactors. It is my wish to see some succes in this field and we can implement it on our carrier ship.

MSR is not a good idea for a non static frame because of the fuel infused liquids involved. Also used molten products require a lot of in field conditioning, which is not very trivial to do in a naval platform. They make sense in scale where space is not constrained and "plumbing" is perfectly secure.

Compact PWR's are a good development target for naval platforms.

 

[Zafer]

MSR is not a good idea for a non static frame because of the fuel infused liquids involved. Also used molten products require a lot of in field conditioning, which is not very trivial to do in a naval platform. They make sense in scale where space is not constrained and "plumbing" is perfectly secure.

Compact PWR's are a good development target for naval platforms.

Probably, but is there any research in this field going on, I know there was some for Thorium.

 

[B_A]

Of course no need a titanyum hull.

We should have a nuclear submarine like this.

3000 ton and 30 crew,we should develop a new type nuclear reactor on that.

 

[KhanOfEurasia]

First, we have good relations with Morocco and Gibraltar is subject to UNCLOS so we can pass.

Spain have also an Word to say, Gibraltar is an Oversea Terretory of Britain and Morocco will become strategic important for us to connect the sub-Sahara Muslim Countries to international Sea Lanes. Also the Role as an Link for Trade Routes to western Africa, Morocco will Play an important Role.

A future turkish CSG will show presence in the whole Mediterran, Horn of Africa and arabian Sea. There can be different Actors in that Regions from strong States like India, middle-Power like France, Regional Power like Spain, Iran and different non- state Actors. Beside weak States and Non-State Actors all other can pose a serious Threat for the future turkish CSG.

 

[Zafer]

The countries that have AC also have great nuclear deterrence. Noone could dare attacking USN, RN, FN,PLAN and Indian Navy thank to nuclear weapons.

We could use AC against just small African tribes that wouldn't have Antiship capabilities. On the other hand, until Turkish AC is comissioned most of little countries will have Antiship capabilities.

Remember Falkland war. With limited several exocets from super etendars , how could Argentina challenge Royal Navy.
If GB hadn't been nuclear power, Argentina could have gone further.

There is the obvious solution to that problem, go nuclear in due time.

 

[Saithan]

Need to add +2 I-stif and 2 OPV to the estimated amount. Why, national interests in Libya and its EEZ.

 

[Sanchez]

Need to add +2 I-stif and 2 OPV to the estimated amount. Why, national interests in Libya and its EEZ.

TBH i'm counting every Hisar added to the fleet as a +1 new ship. Buraks they are replacing are on death bed with little to no operational capacity for some time afaik. SSİK did say more OPHs but no clear numbers there. We should be seeing new contracts for at least 2-4 ships this year i think. Bringing Hisars up to 8 vessels, would be a great boon.

 

[UkroTurk]

I know bro, I still have the journal "ulusal strateji" from 1999 in which the navy was advocating for an aircraft carrier. But tell that to some who cannot differentiate between state policy and political party policy.

All these political arguments kill the discussions and make it stray from technical to political preferences. Makes me kinda fed up.

Please don't take it personal. We are not saying "Before AC , first we should build 100 frigates then 20 destroyers then time for AC like PLAN"

We would agree the size of Royal Navy surface fleet.

But our Navy fleet is really poor.

İnstead of AC , If President of Türkiye offered building 3 destroyers plus 10 medium frigates, 15 corvettes , wouldnt TN be happy ? ( İ am Just exaggerating don't take it as serious. )

Heavy frigates aren't the Priority currently?

 

[B_A]

The geographical situation of Turkish navy is like world war German and cold war Soviet (also the ottoman empire but that's too ancient)

Western naval powers can block them(and us) very easy in war time.
So we depend on submarines to the high sea.The aircraft carrier and surface fleet are mainly for defend and little war against little countries.

Japanese Chinese or Indian are different stories,their navy can easily go to high ocean to fight US.

 

[Zafer]

We are not China we need to move smarter rather than harder, LOL.

 

[B_A]

We are not China we need to move smarter rather than harder, LOL.

1or 2 CV is needed but no more.

We need 40+ submarine including 10 nuclear one.

Chinese will finally have 8-10 CV group

 

[Huelague]

There is the obvious solution to that problem, go nuclear in due time.

There is a reason why we involve Pakistan to our TFX project. LRBM and Nuke technology from Pakistan.

 

[Sanchez]

A nice set of graphics could help better illustrate where we at right now.

Released yesterday, top ten largest navies by tonnage on Jan 1 2024.

Turkey is 11th on this list, per the author, just shy of 300000 tonnes at 297000. Once Istanbul is officially inducted into the service, we will have a 300000 tonnes navy. When Derya is inducted, possibly the 10th largest, beating Indonesia.

 

[Anmdt]

A nice set of graphics could help better illustrate where we at right now.

Released yesterday, top ten largest navies by tonnage on Jan 1 2024.

Turkey is 11th on this list, per the author, just shy of 300000 tonnes at 297000. Once Istanbul is officially inducted into the service, we will have a 300000 tonnes navy. When Derya is inducted, possibly the 10th largest, beating Indonesia.

Nice set of information but the most ridiculous order (top navies by tonnage) ever to show where we are now. We will then count each land vehicle to rank the ground forces, including Scooby-Doo minibuses.

 

[dBSPL]

A nice set of graphics could help better illustrate where we at right now.

Released yesterday, top ten largest navies by tonnage on Jan 1 2024.

Turkey is 11th on this list, per the author, just shy of 300000 tonnes at 297000. Once Istanbul is officially inducted into the service, we will have a 300000 tonnes navy. When Derya is inducted, possibly the 10th largest, beating Indonesia.

We also have some very special conditions. First of all, the Black Sea to the north of us is a maritime zone under our control, restricted to the navies of non-contiguous countries, where the US and Chinese and western European navies cannot be based, but can only act through proxy forces. We are not an archipelago country like Indonesia, but also not Mexico, between two unconnected seas that passage between under not our control. One of these geographical features dictates a very large inventory consist of fast crafts, while the other requires building almost disconnected forces in each sea. We have the advantages of two peninsulas with inland seas in territorial defense and control of trade routes (the Island Sea issue is ofc worth discussing), and the task group that will be deployed in case of a crisis may have extraordinary muscle power. If this navy reaches the tonnage to be included in the list above, its effects will be felt in a wide region.

The more distinctive feature of the 5 navies and 2.5 globalpowers out of the 7 major powers (USN-CN-RN, +2 NATO navy), excluding Japan and India, is that they have advanced sea basing and overseas base support in accordance with their global naval doctrines. The most important organizational development of the Turkish Navy in the last quarter of a century is precisely related to this issue.

All of the countries on this list are also oceanic countries. Although Turkiye is essentially a Mediterranean country, its navy will de facto become an ocean navy in the near future. There are many things worth talking about here, but let me draw attention to one: the Iraq-Turkiye prosperity road initiative. (And the Yemen issue, the Palestine war and the Suez Canal should be evaluated on the same plane.) I'm not even talking about overseas bases, an example of expansion that is characteristic of the global navies in the chart above. Turkish interests are increasingly affected by a wider geography and therefore they feel the need to play an active role in a wider geography. Navies are the most important assets of a country that sustain its interests.

 

[Sanchez]

Nice set of information but the most ridiculous order (top navies by tonnage) ever to show where we are now. We will then count each land vehicle to rank the ground forces, including Scooby-Doo minibuses.

Oh come on, this is no global firepower. Of course it fluctuates and not every ton is equal. But it does somewhat give an idea on which is where if you have some idea of what to look for, like the huge number of AORs US employs, lack of AORs French employ, submarines the Russians employ, RFA being counted as part of RN etc. Indonesian Navy doesn't have the surface power and it greatly lacks in submarines, can hardly be called a blue water navy, but they do have a pretty big amphib element, being an island nation, which has its own power to it. As a littoral power, where do we fit in?

If this navy reaches the tonnage to be included in the list above, its effects will be felt in a wide region

Exactly my point.

 

[Anmdt]

Oh come on, this is no global firepower. Of course it fluctuates and not every ton is equal. But it does somewhat give an idea on which is where if you have some idea of what to look for, like the huge number of AORs US employs, lack of AORs French employ, submarines the Russians employ, RFA being counted as part of RN etc. Indonesian Navy doesn't have the surface power and it greatly lacks in submarines, can hardly be called a blue water navy, but they do have a pretty big amphib element, being an island nation, which has its own power to it. As a littoral power, where do we fit in?

Exactly my point.

Unless a navy is run by 2-digit IQ commanders, AOR - combatants would be in natural balance, whereas amphibious and submarine forces should be excluded from this because they are part of the specific doctrines (Hence your example of Indonesia). Spanish Navy lacks a submarine force but has solid combatant, AOR and amphibious fleets.

Will Iranian Navy become the 7th Navy next year if They add 2 more Makran-class tankers and calls them FOB? If they add 2 more later, would they beat India in the list?

How is this any different from Global firepower that has counted every vehicle as '1' unit and then put countries in order based on this.