TR Navy Naval Programs

[Passenger]

Chinese had already had YJ-20 on Type 055s; last month they tested it on a smaller Type 052D.

View attachment 82913

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2082440117365449137

New 054B maybe have VLS capability also.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2086833842837692469

 

[Yasar_TR]

What's the feasibility of putting the anti-ship variant of Tayfun on a destroyer? I know it would need a completely new design compared to TF-2000. But as far as I'm aware there is no examples of ship-launched BMs.

Is this because ships are more susceptible to being hit by submarines this it's not worth adding such weapons as they will be one big fat juicy target? Or are there genuine hurdles to adding BMs to a ship, other than just the size? Whilst we're on this topic, what would be the feasibility of adding the AShW variant of Tayfun to a submarine?

Really stupid questions, but I'm very curious.

@Anmdt

Logically, if it is possible to accommodate ICBM range ballistic missiles in a submarine, it should be possible to fit a medium range anti ship ballistic missile like Tayfun Missile on a destroyer.
As per @Sanchez ’s post, Chinese had originally fitted medium range YJ20 AShBMs to their 15units of 13000ton type055 mega destroyers. But recently they added them to their 35 units of 7700ton 052D destroyers too.
YJ 20 missiles’s has a diameter of less then 850mm, and a length of under 9metres. So it needs a special VLS to accommodate this size.

Our MIDLAS strike size is 1.2 to 1.4 metre per cell width and 8m in length.
Tayfun block-3 has probably a diameter of 610mm like the block-1, and an approximate length of 6.5m to 8m. A special cell configuration should allow fitting this missile in to our destroyers.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1977983308504916450

 

[Sanchez]

Logically, if it is possible to accommodate ICBM range ballistic missiles in a submarine, it should be possible to fit a medium range anti ship ballistic missile like Tayfun Missile on a destroyer.
As per @Sanchez ’s post, Chinese had originally fitted medium range YJ20 AShBMs to their 15units of 13000ton type055 mega destroyers. But recently they added them to their 35 units of 7700ton 052D destroyers too.
YJ 20 missiles’s has a diameter of less then 850mm, and a length of under 9metres. So it needs a special VLS to accommodate this size.

Our MIDLAS strike size is 1.2 to 1.4 metre per cell width and 8m in length.
Tayfun block-3 has probably a diameter of 610mm like the block-1, and an approximate length of 6.5m to 8m. A special cell configuration should allow fitting this missile in to our destroyers.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1977983308504916450

You are looking at the Chinese setup from an American centric viewpoint. They have 3 types of VLS in service. Older Soviet revolver style, Mk-41 adjacent one and the new universal one. The one we could call an Mk-41 equivalent was placed on Type 054 frigates. Older Type 052Cs all use the Soviet style VLS for S300. But all their modern destroyers, that is the Type 052D and the Type 055 come with the new much larger "universal" VLS, that also come in two sizes. But the base length universal VLS is larger and taller than the strike length Mk-41. Strike Length new Chinese VLS as I understand are placed on all new destroyers, at least 2x8 form. Those are not YJ-20 specific, their other modern ASM, the YJ-18 is also very long.

There are lessons for us here. In 2026, American naval superiority is still built around carriers and air launched munitions. We will never have that kind of advantage. MIDLAS being near 1/1 that of Mk-41 is less workload for development, but I'm not sure how much sense it makes sense from a doctrinal standpoint. We need more land batteries, and better armed ships. VLS replaced the arm launchers and outside batteries that carried ASMs. But it's not an end all solution, there's still lots of room to improve.

 

[Pokemonte13]

Perhaps we will also follow the same design as the koreans with their vls setup. Having a mixed layout could improve the missile capacity instead of making the missile fit we make the vls fit and could ease quadpack integration.

 

[Anmdt]

What's the feasibility of putting the anti-ship variant of Tayfun on a destroyer? I know it would need a completely new design compared to TF-2000. But as far as I'm aware there is no examples of ship-launched BMs.

Is this because ships are more susceptible to being hit by submarines this it's not worth adding such weapons as they will be one big fat juicy target? Or are there genuine hurdles to adding BMs to a ship, other than just the size? Whilst we're on this topic, what would be the feasibility of adding the AShW variant of Tayfun to a submarine?

Really stupid questions, but I'm very curious.

@Anmdt

Roketsan hasn't had much oppurtunity to work on a common cell size for future application, neither did The TN i presume. We went ahead with Mk41 dimensions for sake of the commonality for whatever we have or don't have.
I needed to provide a prelude, this made us stuck at some point which we are restricted with munition size and packing capabilities, this applies to Tayfun as well. To fit one, or two Tayfun we need to make a super cell, combining 4 common cells and fitting Tayfuns inside.
Is it feasible? Definitely not for I-Class, maybe for landing ships, maybe for TF-2000.
Adding Tayfun or other BMs to a submarine does not need a dedicated VLS, it requires its own VLS, like a silo integrated to pressure hull. It is doable if the pressure hull made this way to accomodate BMs or others in a silo.

 

[UkroTurk]

Do we really need 1000km ranged, huge , fire hazardous ballistic missiles launch from frigates at the moment? IMO no. Turkish Navy should adapt USVs, UAV in frigates. İstif class could carry and maintain 2-3 USV?

Is it possible to fit Marlin USV in İstif class?

 

[Pokemonte13]

Do we really need 1000km ranged, huge , fire hazardous ballistic missiles launch from frigates at that moment? IMO no. Turkish Navy should adapt USVs, UAV in frigates. İstif class could carry and maintain 2-3 USV?
View attachment 82924
Is it possible to fit Marlin USV in İstif class?
View attachment 82925

I class is a bit to small for adequate USV. Large surface vessels like TF2000 or other ships be it a new frigate or support ship. I do think a dedicated USV carrier is useful kinda like aircraft carrier but with USVs. Also Larger vls like KVLs II can be used for longer ranged interceptors and make it easier for lets say Roketsan to integrate their missiles.

 

[UkroTurk]

dedicated USV carrier is useful

IMO dedicated USV carrier is wrong strategy. Navy could multiply effectiveness of current warships using USB. İntegration of USVs with İstif class would double its ASW as well as antiship and air defense capabilities. It is more reasonable than expensive destroyers.

Please notice AESA plates and AIM9x sidewinders.

This could be loitering autonomous point defense system of İstif class. İmagine two ULAQ USV - with 4x Bozdoğan missiles - floating around İstif class.

 

[MonteCarlo]

I think most useful and cost effective USV for us rn would be something carrying aesa radar and 10x containerized Eren like the air defence version Roketsan showcased.

Eren is already launch platform agnostic, has very long range for its size, is cheap and can target both air targets and moving/stationary surface targets

So in a single usv you get air defence/denial against helicopters, Male and kamikaze drones. Strike capability against ships. And can engage the islands from safe distance.

 

[boredaf]

İntegration of USVs with İstif class would double its ASW as well as antiship and air defense capabilities.

You cannot just integrate an USV onto an existing ship as if putting on another rhib, a Marlin USV weighs 20 tons, you cannot just put it on anywhere. Even smaller ones like Ulaq weighs 6-8 tons and these numbers are with smaller payloads.

 

[UkroTurk]

You cannot just integrate an USV onto an existing ship as if putting on another rhib, a Marlin USV weighs 20 tons, you cannot just put it on anywhere. Even smaller ones like Ulaq weighs 6-8 tons and these numbers are with smaller payloads.

Then need to create long range (4000-5000 miles)and big (200-250 ton) unmanned warships. Like ocean going trawlers. Kinda naval loyal wingman.

 

[MonteCarlo]

Taygan interceptor drones developed by Han Robotics were delivered to the Navy as a C-uas system for Ships

#taygan #hanrobotik #savunmasanayii #i̇ha #antidrone #drone #yerliteknoloji #milliteknoloji | Tolgahan Akbulut

TAYGAN, gemi koruma görevine başladı. 🇹🇷 HAN Robotics olarak tamamen öz kaynaklarımızla geliştirdiğimiz TAYGAN İHA önleme sistemi, başarılı yeni bir teslimatın ardından gemilerin kamikaze saldırı dronlarına karşı korunması amacıyla sahada kullanılmaya başlandı. Bugün TAYGAN’ın sahada aktif...

tr.linkedin.com

 

[boredaf]

Then need to create long range (4000-5000 miles)and big (200-250 ton) unmanned warships. Like ocean going trawlers. Kinda naval loyal wingman.

That is definitely one option and several countries have been actually looking it into it as far as I can remember. And the other option is, obviously, a dedicated USV mothership that could deploy them when necessary and resupply and rearm them for 2 or 3 deployments at least in water. Basically a 100-120 meter ship, at the very least, with space within its hull fully dedicated to being an USV (and UUV) workshop while the deck space is used for sensors and mid/short range air defence to create a local area of denial to protect itself.

 

[Saithan]

I think it's necessary to have a new vessel designed for what is being suggested, unless LHD types can be used for same purpose, the USV would need to be on small wheeled trailer types that can be used to put them in water for missions.

I am more in favor of smaller USV with cirit and umtas launchers.

 

[uçuyorum]

Navy naturally gravitates towards large, multi purpose systems. It's slow and expensive to haul crew a long way, and to protect them you need everything you can put on there. So there's entry cost to building a platform, it has to come with space and logistics infra for humans, must come with self defence, etc. And the bigger ship you make, the more you want to load it to benefit more from it since you move it such long distances at great cost. Army is the opposite, they prefer to divide into multiple small pieces and be harder to take down multiple capabilities with one hit. Navy would do it if it was feasible but it simply goes against the nature of naval operation. A dedicated usv ship is kind of like the middle road, but it has to be seen if it brings more problem than it solves. Aircraft carriers are large, vulnerable platforms loaded with high value targets, and they are used despite that and protectes by large groups because the benefit outweighs the negatives, addes air power is simply too big a game changer if you can handle the cost. USV carrier has the negatives of other carriers but only a small portion of the benefit. So if we are gonna have USV ships, multiple small csrriers that carry 5-6 or maybe 10 at best are more doable. But then if you can carry 3-4 of them with destroyer and don't need extra ships, why risk it?

 

[UkroTurk]

The US company Saildrone has introduced its latest product: the Spectre, measuring up to 52 meters long and weighing 250 tons. Like its smaller sister, it is an “autonomously navigating robot ship”

The dimensions are as same as Tuzla class Unmanned Tuzla class ship could lunch torpedoes, AShM, SAMs

 

[dBSPL]

If Turkish Navy had today couple Dearsan's F142 frigates(5500tons) , even US Navy would be interested in.

View attachment 82888
View attachment 82889
Anyways, is there any chance if Göksur VLS applied to İstif class without deck penetration since high end CENK-D radar deserves more missiles?
View attachment 82887
View attachment 82890

If the Turkish Navy is going to focus on a 5000-6000 tons intermediate class, making this ship all about surface weapons or overloading it with AAW missiles makes zero sense. We already have the 8500+ ton TF-2000 project coming up for heavy area air defense duties anyway. Also, keeping Istif class within its own tonnage limits is way better for engineering stability instead of trying to cram everything in there.

An intermediate class of this size should primary focus on blue-water Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW). But making a real ASW ship isnt just about putting a sonar and torpedos on it. Submarines fight with their ears, so how quiet the ship itself is what actually matters. A standard surface combatant and a proper ASW frigate are completely different under the hood. An ASW ship needs a hybrid propulsion system like CODLAG so it can shut down its main engines and cruise almost completely silent on electric motors while hunting submarines. The whole acoustic design must be built around this. Engines and generators need to sit on special shock mounts (raft mounting) to stop vibrations from leaking into the water, and the hull shape needs to be perfectly optimized to minimize cavitation noise. Instead of wasting precious space with tons of VLS cells, the design should prioritize low-frequency towed array sonars (TASS/VDS) and a large hangar that can operate two ASW helos and/or sub-hunting USVs at the same time.

Long story short, if we are spending budget on a 5500-ton platform, the goal shouldn't be packing it with missiles, it should be building an acoustically flawless, ultra-quiet hunter that can stay at deep seas for weeks.

From a budgetary and fleet planning perspective, it makes way more sense to limit the expensive TF-2000 destroyers to 6 hulls and shift that massive funding to build 6 units of this intermediate ASW class. In the long run, with around 8 to 12 Istif class frigates keeping the baseline, 6 hulls of this 5500-ton ASW ship would be perfect. Based on the 1/3 logistics rule; having 6 ships guarantees that we can constantly deploy 2 of them to support ocean going task groups at any given time. Giving up a couple of over-expensive TF-2000 air defense platforms creates enough budget to build a solid 6-ship ASW backbone, providing a much healthier balance for blue-water operations without breaking the bank.

Besides, if we look at the baseline, from the second ship onwards, Istif class already gained its strategic VLS capability. If we think about the future potential batch like hulls 9 to 12, a very limited tonnage increase and a smart revision on the main mast can significantly boost its mid-layer air defense capability. Since the Turkish Navy operates surrounded by enclosed internal seas like the Aegean and Black Sea, upgrading the future Istif hulls this way turns the baseline into a much more comprehensive, all-round capability. It effectively secures our inner seas while allowing the 5500-ton dedicated ASW hunter and TF-2000 to project power in the deep blue waters. To sum it up, if we are spending budget on a 5500-ton platform, the goal shouldn't be packing it with missiles; it should be an ultra-quiet hunter, while leaving the mid-tier defense to an evolved Istif baseline.

 

[Oublious]

The Turkish Frigate That Makes Greece and Israel Think! I Took a Detailed Look at TCG Istanbul

 

[Anmdt]

If the Turkish Navy is going to focus on a 5000-6000 tons intermediate class, making this ship all about surface weapons or overloading it with AAW missiles makes zero sense. We already have the 8500+ ton TF-2000 project coming up for heavy area air defense duties anyway. Also, keeping Istif class within its own tonnage limits is way better for engineering stability instead of trying to cram everything in there.

An intermediate class of this size should primary focus on blue-water Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW). But making a real ASW ship isnt just about putting a sonar and torpedos on it. Submarines fight with their ears, so how quiet the ship itself is what actually matters. A standard surface combatant and a proper ASW frigate are completely different under the hood. An ASW ship needs a hybrid propulsion system like CODLAG so it can shut down its main engines and cruise almost completely silent on electric motors while hunting submarines. The whole acoustic design must be built around this. Engines and generators need to sit on special shock mounts (raft mounting) to stop vibrations from leaking into the water, and the hull shape needs to be perfectly optimized to minimize cavitation noise. Instead of wasting precious space with tons of VLS cells, the design should prioritize low-frequency towed array sonars (TASS/VDS) and a large hangar that can operate two ASW helos and/or sub-hunting USVs at the same time.

Long story short, if we are spending budget on a 5500-ton platform, the goal shouldn't be packing it with missiles, it should be building an acoustically flawless, ultra-quiet hunter that can stay at deep seas for weeks.

From a budgetary and fleet planning perspective, it makes way more sense to limit the expensive TF-2000 destroyers to 6 hulls and shift that massive funding to build 6 units of this intermediate ASW class. In the long run, with around 8 to 12 Istif class frigates keeping the baseline, 6 hulls of this 5500-ton ASW ship would be perfect. Based on the 1/3 logistics rule; having 6 ships guarantees that we can constantly deploy 2 of them to support ocean going task groups at any given time. Giving up a couple of over-expensive TF-2000 air defense platforms creates enough budget to build a solid 6-ship ASW backbone, providing a much healthier balance for blue-water operations without breaking the bank.

Besides, if we look at the baseline, from the second ship onwards, Istif class already gained its strategic VLS capability. If we think about the future potential batch like hulls 9 to 12, a very limited tonnage increase and a smart revision on the main mast can significantly boost its mid-layer air defense capability. Since the Turkish Navy operates surrounded by enclosed internal seas like the Aegean and Black Sea, upgrading the future Istif hulls this way turns the baseline into a much more comprehensive, all-round capability. It effectively secures our inner seas while allowing the 5500-ton dedicated ASW hunter and TF-2000 to project power in the deep blue waters. To sum it up, if we are spending budget on a 5500-ton platform, the goal shouldn't be packing it with missiles; it should be an ultra-quiet hunter, while leaving the mid-tier defense to an evolved Istif baseline.

In my opinion the plan is almost obvious for the future fleet, and i very much doubt I+ class at this point;
1-8 I-Class as is (2-8 is different to first hull).
1-4 Tepe (TF-2000 as is)
From 5th, it will be a TF-2000 light configuration with 48 VLS. The first hull will be laid down after 1st Tepe has been launched. It will likely be 1+5 hulls.
Ada Class ships will receive an upgrade after Barbaros MLU.

Why do i doubt the I+ class:
Navy needs a capable multi purpose ship class for light patrol / flotilla escort duties prioritizing comfort of the crew, endurance, large hangar area for multi-purpose operations, towed array sonar / VDS capability and USV/UUV operations. An upscaled I-Class may not answer to these needs, and foremost, Navy is almost sure that 48 VLS is the minimum requirement for a multi purpose frigate given current threat scenarios.

 

[Saithan]

In my opinion the plan is almost obvious for the future fleet, and i very much doubt I+ class at this point;
1-8 I-Class as is (2-8 is different to first hull).
1-4 Tepe (TF-2000 as is)
From 5th, it will be a TF-2000 light configuration with 48 VLS. The first hull will be laid down after 1st Tepe has been launched. It will likely be 1+5 hulls.
Ada Class ships will receive an upgrade after Barbaros MLU.

Why do i doubt the I+ class:
Navy needs a capable multi purpose ship class for light patrol / flotilla escort duties prioritizing comfort of the crew, endurance, large hangar area for multi-purpose operations, towed array sonar / VDS capability and USV/UUV operations. An upscaled I-Class may not answer to these needs, and foremost, Navy is almost sure that 48 VLS is the minimum requirement for a multi purpose frigate given current threat scenarios.

I wanted to ask for a while, but keep forgetting, but looking at Sea of Islands (Aegean), what type of naval vessel would be good for patroling the area ?

If we implement a Smart Buoy network for various reasons we've mentioned in the past. What type of Naval vessel would be ideal to patrol the area ?