TR Naval Programs

[Ripley]

When you look at the specifications of the Pakistani MILGEM ”corvettes” , you can’t help wonder why they are still called “corvettes”.
The width of the ships have increased by 0.4m.
The length of it is 108.2 metres instead of 99 metres.
Hence the weight has become 2985 tons instead of 2300 tons.
They are more like a frigate than a corvette.

One can not help wonder if these 3 new frigates of the ISTIF class can be stretched like the Pakistani ships, to make them closer to the tf4500 , some of us seem to aspire to?
@Anmdt ?

View attachment 52858

There is this “contemporary“ take on modern designations by @Nilgiri and here is his post if you haven’t seen it yet

More than tonnage, it is endurance that navies tend to prefer to use when delineating between corvette--->frigate---->destroyer.

Ref: https://defencehub.live/threads/out...e-50-ship-fleet-vision.1942/page-2#post-15925

This is why you can get some overlap as you have ships that pack tonnage with more weapons/sensors/armour rather than fuel capacity.

So a 3000 ton ship with lot of the former over the later can still be a corvette to that navy (as this is what determines its operational reach say at peak wartime when all fuel ships have to be stretched and prioritised).

Whereas another 3000 ton ship can be a frigate as it forgoes the former for more fuel to stay out at sea longer and endure in its mission longer (without support or return to base etc).

A similar thing happens between frigates and destroyers. Some very heavy frigates are out there these days (heavier than many destroyers in other navies), but they are frigates to that navy given the role/endurance profile they occupy in the force structure.

My understanding is that modern navies are more keen to designate warships around two components.
Punch power (Sensors, weapons load) vs endurance (operational range with necessary hit power)
So, in PN case, the addition of VLS might explain the weight and size increase of the ship thus opting for punch over endurance.
it’s more like purpose rather than tonnage and size in definition, I think.

I like to think these little big hitters as “pocket” frigates (yeah, I totally invented the term myself )

 

[Knowledgeseeker]

When you look at the specifications of the Pakistani MILGEM ”corvettes” , you can’t help wonder why they are still called “corvettes”.
The width of the ships have increased by 0.4m.
The length of it is 108.2 metres instead of 99 metres.
Hence the weight has become 2985 tons instead of 2300 tons.
They are more like a frigate than a corvette.

One can not help wonder if these 3 new frigates of the ISTIF class can be stretched like the Pakistani ships, to make them closer to the tf4500 , some of us seem to aspire to?
@Anmdt ?

View attachment 52858

Let me mention a few ideas.


1. Turkey can wait for 2 more years until the end of 2024 when they will finish the contract-detail design stage for the TF-2000. @Anmdt mentioned that Armerkom and DPO worked on TF2000 in a way that, a new lighter design can be derived easily similar to the Type 31.

2. @Anmdt "Technically at this stage they can work on a lighter version alternatively from another company that was rivaling the selected company. But is it financially possible? I don't know"

3. Stretching the I-class if possible?

4. Dearsan Frigate F-142 but "could" be unlikely since the Turkish navy likes to go by its own design.

5. The Jinnah class is supposed to be a 4500+ ton ship and if I'm not mistaken its a Pakistani design that is assisted by Armerkom, so perhaps they could do some modifications if the design would also be suitable for the Turkish navy. ( I know it's a Pakistani design tailored to their needs). This point goes hand in hand with point nr 2.

 

[Brave Janissary]

When we are talking about old Type 23's İtalian navy's first opv (actually unweaponized destroyer) Thaon Di Revell shows us his interior. When Compared Counterparts it's really show us future a little bit.

Before that I didnt sea a bridge and cic a very close like that.

 

[Anmdt]

When you look at the specifications of the Pakistani MILGEM ”corvettes” , you can’t help wonder why they are still called “corvettes”.
The width of the ships have increased by 0.4m.
The length of it is 108.2 metres instead of 99 metres.
Hence the weight has become 2985 tons instead of 2300 tons.
They are more like a frigate than a corvette.

One can not help wonder if these 3 new frigates of the ISTIF class can be stretched like the Pakistani ships, to make them closer to the tf4500 , some of us seem to aspire to?
@Anmdt ?

View attachment 52858

It has two reasons;
1, the major, PN tailors an operational profile which suits to corvette classification.

2, the minor, Initially it was supposed to not deviate from Ada-Class at this extend. However, later it grew to the current size with evolving requirements.

This was once discussed in PN Milgem thread within Pakistan section.

 

[BalkanTurk90]

Turkish navy in 2023 if i am correct will take in service
1x-LHD Anadolu
1x- Type 214 Reis AIP Submarine
1x- Istanbul Frigate
1x-MLU modernised Barbaros Frigate (?)
1x- Tcg Derya support ship 200 meter

-Still no news about FAC project ?. I am waiting 10 years to start this project

 

[zio]

FAC project is not urgent,they will wait for tei 6000 lbf motor

 

[Fairon]

I think we are redefining our FAC requirements considering the developments in the unmaned sector. Lots of concepts may potentially be able to take the role of the FAC's and we may not require as much as FAC's as before.

 

[Brave Janissary]

When the siper bl 1 can fully operational and deployable in the navy , most of thing will change in the navy.

Just because many ships main role will change to Air Defence Frigates and manies will change also for gap his place.

We will see.

Actually packing this baby minimum double will solve most of the platforms in the navy.

 

[TR_123456]

When i wrote this (20 Oct), far before than SSIK, STM-TAIS visited each other to discuss partnership being enforced by SSB, the decision was in fact made before SSIK.

Bro,as usual you were right again.
But bro dont trust that Murican( @Ripley ),he is on the Blacklist.

 

[dBSPL]

Turkiye buying frigates from UK?

MSB İngiltere’den fırkateyn alıyor - MarineDeal News

Millî Savunma Bakanlığı, Kraliyet Donanması’ndan Type-23 fırkateynlerinden satın alıyor.

www.marinedealnews.com

It is no secret that Turkiye has been seeking additional OHP frigates from the US since the mid-2000s. (If my memory serves me correctly, for 2 ships) This process, like the Patriot issue, has been protracted and protracted, at times by the US side and at times by the Turkish side. In fact, if you scan Turkish forums from about 10 years ago, you can see that this was one of the most popular topics of discussion. Dear ANMDT is probably much more familiar with the details of the story than we are. Anyway, I don't follow the US grant and second-hand sales plans and congressional decisions, but I think this window of opportunity is closed. It doesn't seem politically possible at the moment anyway.

Type-23s are ships that need a lot of different logistic planning than our current ships. However, if they will come at a bargain price or even as a grant, I don't think the Ministry of Defense can say no to this. There were also a lot of people criticizing when Aviso classes were taken, but it solved a very important problem at the very right time.

 

[Ripley]

Bro,as usual you were right again.
But bro dont trust that Murican( @Ripley ),he is on the Blacklist.

Hmm. A little on the harsh side but safe, good advice. So, that makes you the “Dutch Uncle“ of the forum

 

[Ripley]

It is no secret that Turkiye has been seeking additional OHP frigates from the US since the mid-2000s. (If my memory serves me correctly, for 2 ships) This process, like the Patriot issue, has been protracted and protracted, at times by the US side and at times by the Turkish side. In fact, if you scan Turkish forums from about 10 years ago, you can see that this was one of the most popular topics of discussion. Dear ANMDT is probably much more familiar with the details of the story than we are. Anyway, I don't follow the US grant and second-hand sales plans and congressional decisions, but I think this window of opportunity is closed. It doesn't seem politically possible at the moment anyway.

Type-23s are ships that need a lot of different logistic planning than our current ships. However, if they will come at a bargain price or even as a grant, I don't think the Ministry of Defense can say no to this. There were also a lot of people criticizing when Aviso classes were taken, but it solved a very important problem at the very right time.

Alright, are the British gonna give them to us as tokens (free, for instance) to sweeten the other arm deals as some people suggest?
And if it’s the case, like you and others said before, not a single weapon and electronic system on the ship compatible with TN systems. Wouldn’t it at least take a couple years to bring them up to a standart TN mission configuration where it can perform adequately with other fleet ships?

 

[Anmdt]

It is no secret that Turkiye has been seeking additional OHP frigates from the US since the mid-2000s. (If my memory serves me correctly, for 2 ships) This process, like the Patriot issue, has been protracted and protracted, at times by the US side and at times by the Turkish side. In fact, if you scan Turkish forums from about 10 years ago, you can see that this was one of the most popular topics of discussion. Dear ANMDT is probably much more familiar with the details of the story than we are. Anyway, I don't follow the US grant and second-hand sales plans and congressional decisions, but I think this window of opportunity is closed. It doesn't seem politically possible at the moment anyway.

Type-23s are ships that need a lot of different logistic planning than our current ships. However, if they will come at a bargain price or even as a grant, I don't think the Ministry of Defense can say no to this. There were also a lot of people criticizing when Aviso classes were taken, but it solved a very important problem at the very right time.

I remember speech of some admirals back then ' Turkiye will not receive used ships anymore, we can design and build our own ships '.
I don't know how to put this in english but Type 23 will fit : 'astari, yuzunden pahali '.
In short term it seemd to be an affordable option, saves the day (eventhough not quite so but from the simplest point of view neglecting th technical depth, it seems to be so).

1- upfront, payment for the ships
2 - upgrade planning, construction planning
3 - upgrade, should be slightly extensive depending on the intended mission profile.
4 - maintenance, up to a year this will keep ship at the profitable end, beyond 4-5 years it will be a nightmare.

One might say, 'isn't gabyas technically fit to 4th, but we will keep them'. TN knows gabya inside out, and Gabyas in TN nearly refurbished in 2000s since they were intended to be used in long term. Also note that, many equipment were common with other ships, or made to be common through the time. TN has 20+ years experience on Gabya and they can stay at sea for 6-7 months even repair it at sea if anything malfunctions. But, this won't be the case for Type 23s.

There are lots to be told, but Type 23s are not fit TN's active combat duty.

We could use them as SINKEX targets, or as a test platform to mount Cafrad and MIDLAS to test and train TF2000 personnel but not as an active com

 

[Anıl Mert Taşkın]

Turkish navy in 2023 if i am correct will take in service
1x-LHD Anadolu
1x- Type 214 Reis AIP Submarine
1x- Istanbul Frigate
1x-MLU modernised Barbaros Frigate (?)
1x- Tcg Derya support ship 200 meter

-Still no news about FAC project ?. I am waiting 10 years to start this project

Here;

Update on TT-FAC project

2 alternative designs were delivered to Turkish Navy on June 2022. A comprehensive report is prepared for both of the designs, in favor of one, but adressing none. The report is then submitted to SSB for project management - organization duties. Also note that, the 2 alternative designs, resembling STM's MPAC but with more systems installed, had been prepared in cooperation with Turkish Navy, via Project Control Office. The final conclusion is not known, but Turkish Navy demands a Fast Attack Platform that is capable of operating at higher states than submitted design, as well as, attaining longer - higher endurance (range) and survivability with higher weapon payload (surface to air missiles).

 

[Nilgiri]

There is this “contemporary“ take on modern designations by @Nilgiri and here is his post if you haven’t seen it yet



My understanding is that modern navies are more keen to designate warships around two components.
Punch power (Sensors, weapons load) vs endurance (operational range with necessary hit power)
So, in PN case, the addition of VLS might explain the weight and size increase of the ship thus opting for punch over endurance.
it’s more like purpose rather than tonnage and size in definition, I think.

I like to think these little big hitters as “pocket” frigates (yeah, I totally invented the term myself )

Yes if you look at where PN would expect to fight nearly all its battles, it would be the northern 1/3rd - half of the Arabian Sea....fairly close to their coastline and harbours.

Thus the pugilist assets they have make more sense to be front-loaded in sensing and punching power relative to legs so to speak...keeping the anti-surface, anti-ground, anti-air and anti-sub mission profile optimized however it is already.

If a Navy expects more of its battles (worst case scenarios within 30 year horizon etc) to be much further away in comparison, it would have to balance more legs for that...to meet that foreseen reach requirement.

Hence moving to more frigate and destroyer size etc compared to corvette in the endurance definition....and also start to worry more about armour and survivability too.

Consider how destroyer heavy the USN is for example with almost no corvettes traditionally and the fairly limited scope of the LCS program currently. FFGX (constellation FREMM class) "frigate" is pretty much destroyer tonnage and endurance for most navies....but for USN its relatively less compared to the destroyer arsenal...hence its a frigate for them.

In USN case its all is due to building requirements outwards from the carrier battle groups (being able to endure and keep up with them effectively).

Some navies just dont need that reach in their prioritization as it stands now....simply the likeliest battles (as they see it relative to what they can afford) will occur close to home so its matter of bringing the maximum power possible within that zone.

Your "pocket frigate" corvettes thus fill that niche in optimized way in asset capability compared to its cost and shipyard time+resources etc.

There is also the armour consideration where again payload and/endurance is sacrificed for better survivability among the likely strikes that could happen to the asset. The FFGX (and differences between Italian and French FREMM) is good study material about this.

 

[Ripley]

Yes if you look at where PN would expect to fight nearly all its battles, it would be the northern 1/3rd - half of the Arabian Sea....fairly close to their coastline and harbours.

Thus the pugilist assets they have make more sense to be front-loaded in sensing and punching power relative to legs so to speak...keeping the anti-surface, anti-ground, anti-air and anti-sub mission profile optimized however it is already.

If a Navy expects more of its battles (worst case scenarios within 30 year horizon etc) to be much further away in comparison, it would have to balance more legs for that...to meet that foreseen reach requirement.

Hence moving to more frigate and destroyer size etc compared to corvette in the endurance definition....and also start to worry more about armour and survivability too.

Consider how destroyer heavy the USN is for example with almost no corvettes traditionally and the fairly limited scope of the LCS program currently. FFGX (constellation FREMM class) "frigate" is pretty much destroyer tonnage and endurance for most navies....but for USN its relatively less compared to the destroyer arsenal...hence its a frigate for them.

In USN case its all is due to building requirements outwards from the carrier battle groups (being able to endure and keep up with them effectively).

Some navies just dont need that reach in their prioritization as it stands now....simply the likeliest battles (as they see it relative to what they can afford) will occur close to home so its matter of bringing the maximum power possible within that zone.

Your "pocket frigate" corvettes thus fill that niche in optimized way in asset capability compared to its cost and shipyard time+resources etc.

There is also the armour consideration where again payload and/endurance is sacrificed for better survivability among the likely strikes that could happen to the asset. The FFGX (and differences between Italian and French FREMM) is good study material about this.

At the risk of repeating myself, I will echo your words and add that the term “pocket frigate” is not just a cute moniker but a legit one defining a role where designations fall short of doing the job. It definitely doesn’t describe a doctrine but helps clarify the distinction between corvette and frigate. Perfectly filling a custom tailored role, a niche as you put it.

Israeli Sa’ar class comes to mind to fit the bill. Speaking of bang for the buck! That corvette in my book is definitely a “pocket frigate”

 

[babayetu]

Anyone knows how the MILDAS project progressing? Is it gonna be ready in 6 months for TCG Istanbul? Are they working for HISAR-RF to be quad-packed? How technically difficult would it be? Isn't like our main issue for TN is not having enough capable air-defence platforms? Isn't this project should be prioritized?

 

[Cabatli_TR]

Mr Demir:

"Within the scope of the project, each of Anadolu, Sedef and Sefine shipyards, is planned to construct an I-class frigate simultaneously.

The three ships are scheduled to be delivered in 36 months. TCG Istanbul, the first of the I-class frigates, has a local rate of %75. However, around 80 local subcontractors are involved in the project. The total number of companies working on the project is about 200."

 

[Cabatli_TR]

Mr Demir:

"National solutions such as close air defense system Gökdeniz, 3D search radar Cenk, fire control radar Akrep, illumination radar, torpedo tube, National Vertical Launch System MIDLAS, Hisar-D are included in the configuration"

 

[Cabatli_TR]

This development will bring many other important news as well. Within 36 months, each of 3 shipyards will produce 1 I class frigate simultaneously and the cradle of military shipyard will be empty. This means that preparations for Tf2000 will begin... @Anmdt