TR Navy Naval Programs

[Turkic]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2095537283986260457

The İstif project is progressing well. We are also looking forward to the additional frigates—which we might call "İstif+"—that will feature an expanded weapons payload.

Interesting

@Anmdt I remember your posts about Istif class being in the limits of the design. Do you still think the same and do you happen to know anything about an Istif+ project?

 

[Pokemonte13]

@Anmdt I remember your posts about Istif class being in the limits of the design. Do you still think the same and do you happen to know anything about an Istif+ project?

As i remember Istif has reached its limits though a design based around the Milgem family design is likely using similar design elements but a ship that we envision with 5-6 thousand displacement should look different.

 

[Turkic]

As i remember Istif has reached its limits though a design based around the Milgem family design is likely using similar design elements but a ship that we envision with 5-6 thousand displacement should look different.

In that case "Istif+" would not be Istif+. It would be a new class in Milgem family. Which would be a weird branding because 3k and 5-6k tons are in different classes. One being light frigate while the other being a heavy frigate. If that's the case, I will assume Istif+ is a name to brand the speculation. Otherwise, no sense to me.

 

[Pokemonte13]

There is a high likelihood that after 4 Tf2000 a new more "cost effective" frigate/destroyer will come there was even an article to that in TurDef, because Tf2000 will cost 3 to 4 as much as I class and a ship similar to european destroyer designs could be more useful because you could have 2 light destroyers for 1 TF2000.

 

[Yasar_TR]

@Anmdt can add or subtract from below ınfo as he sees fıt. But according to my limited research in to frigates and in naval architecture, designing a naval frigate you need balancing a number of competing demands on the performance requirements.

A naval frigate needs to be a stable weapon platform that is capable of carrying heavy weapons whilst withstanding heavy weather conditions and a degree of combat damage.

There are 3 basic dimensions that affect a frigate’s stability:

Length
Beam
Draft

These 3 dimensions also govern a frigate’s seaworthiness.

Longer a frigate the better it rides over waves.

Wider the beam the more stable is the frigate. But it would also give a harsher and stiffer sailing.

Deeper drafts improve seakeeping or seaworthiness. But too deep a draft would reduce freeboard (distance between waterline and edge of deck) giving waves freedom to go over the deck and reducing excess weight allowance.

Frigates generally are designed with high length-to-beam ratios making them fairly slender.
Length has a negligible effect on side-to-side stability. However, a longer ship has vastly superior longitudinal stability.

The beam is the single most critical factor for side to side stability.

Draft determines how deeply the hull sits in the water.

A wide beam causes a snappy, uncomfortable roll and a narrow beam risks capsizing under heavy weapon payloads. So modern frigates find a middle ground.

The Japanese Mugami frigate fills in all the boxes needed for an ocean faring frigate. (Aussies have chosen this frigate’s advanced version for their navy).

Mugami
length : 133m
beam : 16.3m
draft : 4.5m
5500tons fully laden

Advanced Mugami
Length : 142m
Beam: 17m
Draft: 5m
6200 ton fully laden

Chungnam (SKorean)
Length : 129m
Beam: 14.8m
draft : 4.2m
4300ton fully laden

Gabya
length : 135.6m
Beam: 13.7m
Draft : 4.5m (6.7m with sonar)
4100ton fully laden

Istif
Length : 113.3m
Beam : 14.2m
draft: 4.05m
3200 ton fully laden


Gabya has a deep draft to make up for the rather slender beam it has.
İstif looks too lightweight among these ships

If the notion is to have a blue water navy, İstif Class is not the way forward.
A frigate like Advanced Mugami class is the way forward. Limit Tepe with 2 ships. Produce 8 more 5-6 ton frigates like advanced Mugami.


EDIT
The draft of 6.7m given for Gabya in most sites is the draft that includes the sonar at the bottom of the hull. So it was edited as per @Anmdt ’s post to 4.5m.

 

[UkroTurk]

@Anmdt can add pr subtract from below ınfo as he sees fıt. But according to my limited research in to frigates and in naval architecture, designing a naval frigate you need balancing a number of competing demands on the performance requirements.

A naval frigate needs to be a stable weapon platform that is capable of carrying heavy weapons whilst withstanding heavy weather conditions and a degree of combat damage.

There are 3 basic dimensions that affect a frigate’s stability:

Length
Beam
Draft

These 3 dimensions also govern a frigate’s seaworthiness.

Longer a frigate the better it rides over waves.

Wider the beam the more stable is the frigate. But it would also give a harsher and stiffer sailing.

Deeper drafts improve seakeeping or seaworthiness. But too deep a draft would reduce freeboard (distance between waterline and edge of deck) giving waves freedom to go over the deck and reducing excess weight allowance.

Frigates generally are designed with high length-to-beam ratios making them fairly slender.
Length has a negligible effect on side-to-side stability. However, a longer ship has vastly superior longitudinal stability.

The beam is the single most critical factor for side to side stability.

Draft determines how deeply the hull sits in the water.

A wide beam causes a snappy, uncomfortable roll and a narrow beam risks capsizing under heavy weapon payloads. So modern frigates find a middle ground.

The Japanese Mugami frigate fills in all the boxes needed for an ocean faring frigate. (Aussies have chosen this frigate’s advanced version for their navy).

Mugami
length : 133m
beam : 16.3m
draft : 4.5m
5500tons fully laden

Advanced Mugami
Length : 142m
Beam: 17m
Draft: 5m
6200 ton fully laden

Chungnam (SKorean)
Length : 129m
Beam: 14.8m
draft : 4.2m
4300ton fully laden

Gabya
length : 135.6m
Beam: 13.7m
Draft : 6.7m
4100ton fully laden

Istif
Length : 113.3m
Beam : 14.2m
draft: 4.05m
3200 ton fully laden


Gabya has a deep draft to make up for the rather slender beam it has.
İstif looks too lightweight among these ships

If the notion is to have a blue water navy, İstif Class is not the way forward.
A frigate like Advanced Mugami class is the way forward. Limit Tepe with 2 ships. Produce 8 more 5-6 ton frigates like advanced Mugami.

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

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

 

[Anmdt]

@Anmdt can add or subtract from below ınfo as he sees fıt. But according to my limited research in to frigates and in naval architecture, designing a naval frigate you need balancing a number of competing demands on the performance requirements.

A naval frigate needs to be a stable weapon platform that is capable of carrying heavy weapons whilst withstanding heavy weather conditions and a degree of combat damage.

There are 3 basic dimensions that affect a frigate’s stability:

Length
Beam
Draft

These 3 dimensions also govern a frigate’s seaworthiness.

Longer a frigate the better it rides over waves.

Wider the beam the more stable is the frigate. But it would also give a harsher and stiffer sailing.

Deeper drafts improve seakeeping or seaworthiness. But too deep a draft would reduce freeboard (distance between waterline and edge of deck) giving waves freedom to go over the deck and reducing excess weight allowance.

Frigates generally are designed with high length-to-beam ratios making them fairly slender.
Length has a negligible effect on side-to-side stability. However, a longer ship has vastly superior longitudinal stability.

The beam is the single most critical factor for side to side stability.

Draft determines how deeply the hull sits in the water.

A wide beam causes a snappy, uncomfortable roll and a narrow beam risks capsizing under heavy weapon payloads. So modern frigates find a middle ground.

The Japanese Mugami frigate fills in all the boxes needed for an ocean faring frigate. (Aussies have chosen this frigate’s advanced version for their navy).

Mugami
length : 133m
beam : 16.3m
draft : 4.5m
5500tons fully laden

Advanced Mugami
Length : 142m
Beam: 17m
Draft: 5m
6200 ton fully laden

Chungnam (SKorean)
Length : 129m
Beam: 14.8m
draft : 4.2m
4300ton fully laden

Gabya
length : 135.6m
Beam: 13.7m
Draft : 6.7m
4100ton fully laden

Istif
Length : 113.3m
Beam : 14.2m
draft: 4.05m
3200 ton fully laden


Gabya has a deep draft to make up for the rather slender beam it has.
İstif looks too lightweight among these ships

If the notion is to have a blue water navy, İstif Class is not the way forward.
A frigate like Advanced Mugami class is the way forward. Limit Tepe with 2 ships. Produce 8 more 5-6 ton frigates like advanced Mugami.

I should correct Gabya's draft. It shoul be 4.5~ meters. There are few sources which also accounts for the keel mounted sonar dome, and assumes the keel line below that. The DWL of OHP frigates are 14'4" also as shown in this drawing.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/Oliver_Hazard_Perry-class_frigate_%28long_hull%29_outboard_profile.jpg?utm_source=commons.wikimedia.org&utm_campaign=index&utm_content=original

Also i should add;
The draft is not free to adjust, we are often limited with harbor capacity / berthing requirements. While length and beam are being left as the only parameters to adjust the tonnage.

I-class, as its based on Milgem dimension and structural layout, can not grow further through an 'update' in design. It needs a new design, that also may look like I-class but designed from scratch. Does it worth to go for all the burden for a ship around the same tonnage for +16 VLS, absolutely not. What we need is quadpacking, for Hisar-D and Siper-1D.

I quoted the 'update' since I-Class was neither an easy process of re-design but since it was based on a concept that has already gone through building and delivery, the design circle was readied and straightforward for most of the decisions - one may also call feasibility study. Whereas for a new design all these will be reverted and checked again, step by step.

Logically we need a design derived from TF-2000 layout for the multi purpose frigate and given contemporary threats we need to think of 48 VLS cells at minimum. Plus, on top of all, the source is not quite credible.

 

[Samba]

What is it that makes to implement vls onto ships?

 

[Yasar_TR]

What is it that makes to implement vls onto ships?

My understanding is that, square meterage of deck space is of prime value in a naval vessel. Instead of using deck space to position missiles, by using the depth available in vessels, more missiles can be accommodated. Also stationary inclined missile launchers facing one direction when the target is on the other side, would create a problem to steer the ship to the correct launch direction eating in to your response time..
A vertical Launch System gets rid of these three ( space, direction, reaction time) basic problems. You may pack more missiles in to a given area, and you may fire at any target with 360degrees at your disposal, and quickly.

 

[Anmdt]

What is it that makes to implement vls onto ships?

Modularity? The VLS system is a highly modularized concept. Fixed cell size, fixed connectors, containers ready to fit and connect. It is both easy for the design (center of gravity changes) and ease of installation / integration and ventilation of exhaust of missiles.

 

[Mis_TR_Like]

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

 

[Sanchez]

But as far as I'm aware there is no examples of ship-launched BMs.

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

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

 

[TR_123456]

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

No question is stupid,people need to ask more!

 

[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.