TR Navy Naval Programs

[Anmdt]

Hisar-D, Siper Block 1D and Sapan.

First of all do we know what Sapan now officially even is?
Secondly Block 1D for Siper. What are Block 1A-1C then?

View attachment 70664

Better look at those 64 Cells in the middle.

@Anmdt also interestingly what ever they had in the last imagine in the middle besides the VLS cells seems to be missing now?

Also looks like first steel cut will happen soon. Though that means nothing as the first cut for TCG Istanbul was done in 2017 and then nothing happened for a while until subsystems were actually ready.

I think Sapan is Siper Block-2 and Block-2ER (or Block-3)

Block-1D refers to "Deniz", it is Siper B1 adapted to ship based systems.

More interestingly;

TF-2000 will have kamikaze USV (and possibly other USVs for ASW / Patrol etc) and these USVs will likely have a dedicated space,a hangar.

pneumatic UAV launcher and swarm drone (quadcopters etc.) launchers are also noteworthy. Might be used against anti-symmetric threats.

 

[dBSPL]

Finally a new infographic on TF-2000. Details I haven't seen before include, "kamikaze USV, mini UAV launchers, swarm uav" integration, as well as a landing pad for a single 15ton helicopter(so will be able to accommodate T925) and hangar space 2 Seahawk and 2 helicopter UAVs. Start of construction is real soon now.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1837107077837103559

I wonder if Gürbağ's GSPT-U type launchers will be integrated into naval platforms? As we know, with the hydro-launcher, they have recently created a family of products qualified up to 200kg mtow uavs/loitering systems.

 

[Sanchez]

these USVs will likely have a dedicated space,a hangar

But, under the helipad or to the sides? An aft launcher could be interesting to deploy USVs(along boats for SAT insertion of course). But is there ample space for a hangar to keep at least 3 boats there?

 

[dBSPL]

Considering the current I-class frigate production program and the estimated launch dates of the 5th-6th-7th ships, and if we take into account the acceleration in the naval construction programs: I think it will not be impossible for the navy to reach a fully indigenously designed main combatant fleet consisting of 8-10 OPV/MMV + 4 ASW corvettes (perhaps some retrofit work on ADA class), 7-8 multi-role frigates and 7-8 destroyers, by 2033. This, of course, does not include missile boats under 1000 tons or other combatant elements. If we can maintain this pace, the advantages provided by the civilian shipyards in parallel production will enable the Turkish navy to complete its national naval-industrial development to a great extent by the 2030s, when it will begin to expand quantitatively.

 

[Khagan1923]

Considering the current I-class frigate production program and the estimated launch dates of the 5th-6th-7th ships, and if we take into account the acceleration in the naval construction programs: I think it will not be impossible for the navy to reach a fully indigenously designed main combatant fleet consisting of 8-10 OPV/MMV + 4 ASW corvettes (perhaps some retrofit work on ADA class), 7-8 multi-role frigates and 7-8 destroyers, by 2033. This, of course, does not include missile boats under 1000 tons or other combatant elements. If we can maintain this pace, the advantages provided by the civilian shipyards in parallel production will enable the Turkish navy to complete its national naval-industrial development to a great extent by the 2030s, when it will begin to expand quantitatively.

I would be very suprised to see 7-8 TF2000 enter service in under 10 years. Especially combined with other projects of the Navy ongoing (AC+OPV+TTHB+MILDEN) I think budget wise it is impossible. I would be satisfied with having 3 ships in service by that date honestly and 2-3 more under contract.

 

[Sanchez]

I would be very suprised to see 7-8 TF2000 enter service in under 10 years. Especially combined with other projects of the Navy ongoing (AC+OPV+TTHB+MILDEN) I think budget wise it is impossible. I would be satisfied with having 3 ships in service by that date honestly and 2-3 more under contract.

As 4+4 number is being touted for the last few months, I expect that around the time Istifs are completed first TF-2000 will have been completed by the military shipyard and design will be given to private shipyards just like with Istif, where we'll see simultaneous building of hulls. Actual issue might be the subsystem and missile construction still.

 

[Khagan1923]

As 4+4 number is being touted for the last few months, I expect that around the time Istifs are completed first TF-2000 will have been completed by the military shipyard and design will be given to private shipyards just like with Istif, where we'll see simultaneous building of hulls. Actual issue might be the subsystem and missile construction still.

Good point no one talks about. What is the rate of production on these missiles? They will be shared with the ( yes naval version will have modifications) Land Forces and Air Force. Building multiple ships with 96 VLS cells and then not being able to actually equip all those cells would be emberassing to say the least.

 

[TheInsider]

First TF-2000 will be ready in 5 years so 2029/2030. Siper block 2/3 capability will be added when those systems are ready.

 

[dBSPL]

I would be very suprised to see 7-8 TF2000 enter service in under 10 years. Especially combined with other projects of the Navy ongoing (AC+OPV+TTHB+MILDEN) I think budget wise it is impossible. I would be satisfied with having 3 ships in service by that date honestly and 2-3 more under contract.

Üstad, really I don't know if the share of the naval forces in the defense budget will increase, but the total amount allocated to construction activities will continue to increase at very significant rates. My forecast is that the dramatic increases in the overall budget will continue. Of the three main topics that make up this forecast, the first one is regional and national risk factors, the other one is that the delayed procurement planning will start back-to-back as the efforts that have been going on for more than 20 years finally start to materialize, and my forecasts for the macro-economic structure in 2025-2035.

As a concrete example, I think one of the most important indicators is the focus on the launch of aircraft carrier construction activities between 2025 and 2027. By the time this platform is in active service - let's assume 2034-35 - the Turkish navy should have a fleet structure capable of carrying an aircraft carrier. The other issue is the overseas basing strategies and the navy's doctrines of relevance, which are becoming more and more evident. As you know, it was recently decided to send another frigate to Somalia. When the strategic rapprochement and logistical cooperation with Iraq is evaluated within the framework of cooperation with Qatar, there is another sea area from Basra to the Oman Sea where the Turkish navy's effectiveness will definitely increase. the issue is not limited to these, in fact, there are some plans that go as far as ASEAN zone, but there will be too much speculative discussions yet. In short, the work underway today is not in today's conditions, but in the years that are planned to be in service... Even now, frigates going to Somalia are a significant burden for the Turkish navy.

As a matter of fact, while 3 frigates are in the slipway and a new construction decision has just been taken for 3 frigates, there is an extraordinary effort to start the construction of the first destroyer in 2024. From this point of view, I am of the opinion that, just like the I class, after the production of the first ship in Pendik, parallel production of the Air Defense Destroyers will be initiated in parallel while the sea tests are still in progress. Private shipyards may very well deliver the first ships to the navy in 36 months and the secondary ships in 48-60 months. Maybe the final date for the example above will be 2035 and not 2033, but I don't doubt it, because regional conditions indicate that a regional risk is imminent and the acceleration in naval programs confirms that this risk is taken seriously.

By the way, while I was writing in many places around 2017 that the same shipyards would build a total of 8 I-classes with parallel production in 2 batch and justifying this with the statements of the then naval forces and and naval shipyards commanders of that time and some other developments, many of our friends were producing counter-arguments such as only 4 I-classes would be produced, then TF-2000 and finally TF-100. Because that was what was accepted in the forums. I would like to share this as an anecdote also...

 

[Anmdt]

But, under the helipad or to the sides? An aft launcher could be interesting to deploy USVs(along boats for SAT insertion of course). But is there ample space for a hangar to keep at least 3 boats there?

It should be possible to store more than 3 at the 'hangar' below the helipad but i am more doubting for a winch to transfer these boats. Since this ramp/space can be used for companion USVs as well, they will need a proper ceiling winch attached to the helipad.

The ship will also need C-ESM / ECCM payloads.

 

[Sanchez]

"For the TF-2000 HSH[Hava Savunma Harbi/Air Defence Warfare/ADW] Destroyer, the multi-surface double chimney (split chimney) concept was preferred for better ventilation, better cooling and to further reduce the thermal signature. We learned that the two rectangular structures located just in front of the stack are ventilation supply (suction) compartments, not areas allocated for additional VLSs."

"The TF-2000 HSH Destroyer will be equipped with National Vertical Launch System (MİDLAS) VLS launchers with a total of 96 cells, 32 cells in the bow and 64 cells in the transom. The decision to use 96 cells has been finalized. Of these launchers, 64 can be configured for SAPAN Guided Missiles (G/M) HİSAR-D (G/M-1) and SİPER Block-ID (G/M-2), while 16 of the 32-cell MİDLAS can be configured for ATMACA Guided Missile and GEZGİN Cruise Missile, or 16 cells can be configured for a total of 64 HİSAR-D RF Block-II G/Ms in Quad-Pack configuration. It is expected to be clarified in time how many of the MIDLAS VLSs, which are expected to be Strike models, will be Quad-Pack capable."

"On the TF-2000 HSH Destroyer, there will be both one ULAQ KAMA Expendable Unmanned Naval Vehicle (Kamikaze UAV), a product of METEKSAN Defence, and a total of 4 SAPAN Mobile Drone System Launchers around the funnel for SAPAN Drones, which are designed for protection purposes and will enter between the ship and the threat anti-ship G/M. It is planned to create a shield around the ship when the anti-ship G/M threat is detected with these small drones called SAPAN, which will destroy the threat with physical contact. 30-40 SAPAN Drones (Rotary Wing Swarm UAVs) will be launched from 4 separate launchers, and these drones will fly around the ship, creating a protection shield. The development of SAPAN Drones, which will destroy the threat with kinetic energy/physical contact, was ongoing at the time."

Top Content on LinkedIn

Explore top LinkedIn content from members on a range of professional topics.

www.linkedin.com

This is like the 3rd or 4th Sapan name system for the navy. Sünnetci chimes in: "My guess is that they think of it as part of the SAPAN Ship Integrated Air / Missile Defense System; like SAPAN Drone, SAPAN CIWS, SAPAN HİSAR and SAPAN SİPER Family...."

@Anmdt , for the first quote in regards to extra ventilation system. You think that's just for ventilation needs of the ship and/or to cool the exhaust to help IR signature? If it's just for ventilation, could it have a better, smaller solution? Looks to be taking so much space right in the middle.

 

[dBSPL]

The 4 launcher defense system consist of 30-40 mini drones and the surface drones, which can be used for both protection and kamikaze, presumably carrying explosives, demonstrate the Turkish navy's awareness of innovations in ongoing warfares during concept development. Ships of this displacement and firepower have traditionally not been equipped with additional systems at this level against asymmetric threats, but I believe that these systems will be included in standard equipment in the coming period.

One of the other topics to be highlighted in this article is the target of 85% localization rate for the first ship of the class. Although I am not sure, there must be 3 , maximum 4 countries in the world that can build destroyers with this level of localization rate.

 

[UkroTurk]

İn this picture, I see the answer to a technical question that I have been wondering about for a long time ."Two automatic cannons are at the front of the ship and at a lower level, so it means the turrets will have contact with strong waves and sea water." Then this is not a big problem. Conclusion : 2x 35mm CIWS can also be placed on both sides in front of the ship.

 

[Sanchez]

No more Nazar DIRCM on the rear?

Sünnetçi says there are still two, one in the back, but can't see it on this.

Conclusion : 2x 35mm CIWS can also be placed on both sides in front of the ship.

With Levent/Göksur and DIRCM, bow looks to be nicely protected to be honest. If the main gun can act as a semi CIWS as well, bow is the most protected side fo the ship. On the contrary, placing CIWS there, superstructure would block most of the aft looking angles.

 

[uçuyorum]

Protective swarm drone shield sounds very cutting edge. I like this.

 

[Anmdt]

@Anmdt , for the first quote in regards to extra ventilation system. You think that's just for ventilation needs of the ship and/or to cool the exhaust to help IR signature? If it's just for ventilation, could it have a better, smaller solution? Looks to be taking so much space right in the middle.

Exhaust cooling systems do not occupy such large spaces on ships typically, but they could be after additional cooling systems to further assure the funnels being cool enough or not standing out and contributing to the ship's IR signature greatly. There are two common ways:

Davis Engine Exhaust Suppression

For eductor the typicaly mixing is 1-1 and they might need additional air supply to cool the tower altogether, plus the "safe and redundant" intakes might require such a space.

The answer to the question; it is only for ventilation (or rather eductor/swi/reductor) systems. But they could be planning additional gears for exhaust IR management, this space has been there since the first iteration.

 

[Anmdt]

Sünnetçi says there are still two, one in the back, but can't see it on this.


With Levent/Göksur and DIRCM, bow looks to be nicely protected to be honest. If the main gun can act as a semi CIWS as well, bow is the most protected side fo the ship. On the contrary, placing CIWS there, superstructure would block most of the aft looking angles.

The one on the back seems to be Ahtapot-EO to me, but still not sure.

 

[Radko]

The one on the back seems to be Ahtapot-EO to me, but still not sure.

Indeed, too samll to be Nazar

 

[dBSPL]

I think the stabilized guns on the port and starboard side on the hangar aft deck are Aselsan STOP with 25mm cannons. It is a proven system that can operate in a wide variety of modes with high reliability and fully integrated into combat management systems. I don't know at what stage the production of ATOM air burst ammunition in 25mm caliber is at and whether it will be used in naval systems, but it is clear that these auxiliary weapon systems have gained serious importance, especially in the recent period, as surface asymmetric threats have evolved to another point with unmanned systems.

Surely very detailed calculations of all configurations are simulated. However, I can't help but wonder what a system with a much higher rate of fire per minute that can also engage surface kamikaze drones (like all of stabilized guns) would be like. Like MKE's Phalanx-like CIWS project. Probably the maximum firing range would be lower, also the total weight of the turret would be higher, and depending on the layout, can blind spots against guided munitions coming from the port and starboard sides of Gökdeniz which is main close-in defense system in the stern of the ship may create , but on the other hand, it can offer a better asymmetric surface defense and naturally a total close-air defense capability. I am of the opinion that everything that can be used in the self-defense of these ships against unmanned asymmetric threats, both electronically and hardkill, should be put in ship.

Ultimately, all of these weapon systems will be locally produced, not export products. We are moving towards a very privileged position in the world in terms of naval weapon systems. There are only a few navies in the world in this position.

 

[Anmdt]

I wonder, will they use STM's or HAVELSAN's Swarm concept?

The drones seem to be Alpagu/Alpagut, the quadcopter was not shown in the render. I managed to count 40 pneumatic launcher for Alpagu/Alpagut, likely can be recharged.

The quadcopter count would have been higher.

I don't see this as a self defence system for guided missiles only, but also an anti-uav / anti-kamikaze system and counter measures. Low cost and mobile / modular self defence block that is customized as per the environmental threats at the port. Alpagu/Alpagut and quadcopter may serve as a good anti - usv / kamikaze/ antisymmetrical threat defence measures. Other kind of drones could be used to defend ship from uav/drone/gliding munitions threats.