TR Naval Programs

[chngr]

We have 21 Phalanx
8 G Class frigate
2 Akar tankers
1 Osmangazi LST
4 Bayraktar LST
2 TCG Anadolu

So avaliable 4 Phalanx in Stocks for Barbaros.

TCG İstanbul with Gökdeniz İDEF 2019

 

[Fuzuli NL]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1020010030349869056

View attachment 12731

View attachment 12733

View attachment 12732

Özden Örnek (1943-2018), one of the most important names of the Milgem project. All of his life, he had to deal with fake plots against him to stop his work. They did it until he became sick physically. Without him Milgem project wouldn't be possible.

Thank you Mr. Örnek! Rest in Peace!
And thank you @Reviewbrah for this post. He shall not be forgotten.

 

[Balamir]

Differences between Gökdeniz and Phalanx with the explanation of Aselsan engineer.

 

[corsair255]

Again, I say that Gökdeniz is not enough, not that it is not in the same class as the Phalanx. If there was a Phalanx in stock, the Phalanx would be used in the F515. If Gökdeniz İDEF 2019 was not fully ready, we would not have seen Gökdeniz in the corvette that Dearsan sold to Turkmenistan. Having both in the Barbaros modernization brings to mind the question that Gökdeniz alone may not be enough. But there is no such question anymore. If there is no Phalanx in the inventory, there will be double Gökdeniz in Barbaros due to CAATSA.

It is unnecessary to be so persistent on it, as if the phalanx is a very adequate / perfect system. If that were the case, at the time, Americans wouldn't have consumed a lot of time and energy to test and evaluate the Goal Keeper or they wouldn't try to switch to Sea Ram. Of course, every system have its pros or cons, but if a barreled system is to be decided, the most natural and most suitable for us is to continue with Gökdeniz.

 

[Balamir]

It is unnecessary to be so persistent on it, as if the phalanx is a very adequate / perfect system. If that were the case, at the time, Americans wouldn't have consumed a lot of time and energy to test and evaluate the Goal Keeper or they wouldn't try to switch to Sea Ram. Of course, every system have its pros or cons, but if a barreled system is to be decided, the most natural and most suitable for us is to continue with Gökdeniz.

I gladly scratched Gökdeniz's preference so I wrote goodbye Phalanx in previous posts. However, if Gökdeniz, which I am interested in, can fully respond to the needs, why is Phalanx still preferred even in projects that will come into service in the mid-2020s. Because Phalanx is a combat proven system that has proven itself in the CIWS category. CAATSA is the only explanation for choosing Gökdeniz instead of Phalanx and MİDLAS instead of Mk41 VLS. This is also a good thing. Sanctions are good for emerging defense industries. If there are local products, their shortcomings are seen and corrected and they will be combat proven. Ultimately, they turn into net export products, as in UCAVs.

 

[adenl]

Again, I say that Gökdeniz is not enough, not that it is not in the same class as the Phalanx. If there was a Phalanx in stock, the Phalanx would be used in the F515. If Gökdeniz İDEF 2019 was not fully ready, we would not have seen Gökdeniz in the corvette that Dearsan sold to Turkmenistan. Having both in the Barbaros modernization brings to mind the question that Gökdeniz alone may not be enough. But there is no such question anymore. If there is no Phalanx in the inventory, there will be double Gökdeniz in Barbaros due to CAATSA.

Perhaps the Barbaros is more geared for close in fighting looking at its added (close-in-fighting and long range) weapons and sensors after the upgrade. This tells me the Barbaros class is going to be used heavily in the littoral (Agean) while the similarly sized I-class is a little less weaponized and is going to be used more in the Mediterranean sea and perhaps beyond.

 

[corsair255]

I gladly scratched Gökdeniz's preference so I wrote goodbye Phalanx in previous posts. However, if Gökdeniz, which I am interested in, can fully respond to the needs, why is Phalanx still preferred even in projects that will come into service in the mid-2020s. Because Phalanx is a combat proven system that has proven itself in the CIWS category. CAATSA is the only explanation for choosing Gökdeniz instead of Phalanx and MİDLAS instead of Mk41 VLS. This is also a good thing. Sanctions are good for emerging defense industries. If there are local products, their shortcomings are seen and corrected and they will be combat proven. Ultimately, they turn into net export products, as in UCAVs.

Agreed. Even without CATSAA, it would still be right to continue with Gökdeniz. Without CATSAA it would be another excuse, we know this instinctively, just look at past experiences. It is necessary to start somewhere and somehow then as we continue on the way, necessary corrections / updates are made on the system. This is what called development.

 

[AzeriTank]

Differences between Gökdeniz and Phalanx with the explanation of Aselsan engineer.

as i said, range and airburst is better..

 

[AzeriTank]

It is unnecessary to be so persistent on it, as if the phalanx is a very adequate / perfect system. If that were the case, at the time, Americans wouldn't have consumed a lot of time and energy to test and evaluate the Goal Keeper or they wouldn't try to switch to Sea Ram. Of course, every system have its pros or cons, but if a barreled system is to be decided, the most natural and most suitable for us is to continue with Gökdeniz.

Phalanx were not able to protect Israeli ship against chinese anti ship missile just some years ago.. and he call it battle proven.. against whom?

 

[Anmdt]

I gladly scratched Gökdeniz's preference so I wrote goodbye Phalanx in previous posts. However, if Gökdeniz, which I am interested in, can fully respond to the needs, why is Phalanx still preferred even in projects that will come into service in the mid-2020s. Because Phalanx is a combat proven system that has proven itself in the CIWS category. CAATSA is the only explanation for choosing Gökdeniz instead of Phalanx and MİDLAS instead of Mk41 VLS. This is also a good thing. Sanctions are good for emerging defense industries. If there are local products, their shortcomings are seen and corrected and they will be combat proven. Ultimately, they turn into net export products, as in UCAVs.

Combat proven? How many times it has intercepted a threat in the service? And probably it was involved in friendly fire more than it was involved in protection.

It is not a combat proven but continously developed updated system undergoing hundreds of tests throughout its lifetime, and moreover still having a place for itself on destroyers,ACs etc proves it is capable of fulfilling its mission.
The discussion is not related to which is superior by purely comparing types of round shells, technique, range, rate of fire. Since these two platforms are relying on different techniques and not the same type.
Your statements are based in some visual facts from models or web, relating that gokdeniz wasn't on I-Class initially and still there is Phalanx on Barbaros MLU, you are obviously claiming Gokdeniz is not adequate for Turkish Navy (or not preferred by) thus Phalanx was considered initially and still present on Barbaros class.
My claims are from direct sources.
In fact, like most of other subsystems ,Turkish Navy actively took place in development and test stages of Gokdeniz, there wouldn't be a final product if it didn't need requirements (there has been several others which haven't fruited).
And i have already explained reasons why there was a Phalanx in I-class in initial mock-up yet you still kept insisting, and why still there is one on Barbaros, i have tried to explain it as well. It is not related to superiority of one system on another, or Caatsa. Turkish Navy was considering to switch to Gokdeniz since it was being developed. So repeating once more maybe 4th time in this thread:
There was a Phalanx in I-Class because it wasn't updated until Idef, the first sketches were made when there wasn't even a mention or a bolt of Gokdeniz wasn't around.
It was updated for Idef to display to public, and gokdeniz was avaliable thus put on there.
For Barbabors there are 3 reasons and i have already told it.

As i told before, we will see TF-2000 with gokdeniz as well, not because of Caatsa but because it was already planned such since development of Gokdeniz has started. Believe me you will see some twitter guys claiming this is happening because of Caatsa

Mock-up models mean nothing to me, i rarely pay attention to them because they are irrevelant or not bound to anything official. They are updated only when they needed to be shown to public, notice the 3d model difference of tcg ufuk before and after construction, or difference on I class' mast.

Gokdeniz also has dual feed mode, with a 1000+ rpm rate of fire of two barrels (of a new kind to be developed in future) (equaling ~3000 rpm) in the next variants it can also use HE shells or any kind of new type shells in hit to kill mode, instead of using ATOM airburst shells.
With a newer barrel a smaller variant can be developed as well .(If Turkish Navy doesn't persist on 3000+ rpm) , or at least, it can be done for export.

 

[Balamir]

Combat proven? How many times it has intercepted a threat in the service? And probably it was involved in friendly fire more than it was involved in protection.

It is not a combat proven but continously developed updated system undergoing hundreds of tests throughout its lifetime, and moreover still having a place for itself on destroyers,ACs etc proves it is capable of fulfilling its mission.
The discussion is not related to which is superior by purely comparing types of round shells, technique, range, rate of fire. Since these two platforms are relying on different techniques and not the same type.
Your statements are based in some visual facts from models or web, relating that gokdeniz wasn't on I-Class initially and still there is Phalanx on Barbaros MLU, you are obviously claiming Gokdeniz is not adequate for Turkish Navy (or not preferred by) thus Phalanx was considered initially and still present on Barbaros class.
My claims are from direct sources.
In fact, like most of other subsystems ,Turkish Navy actively took place in development and test stages of Gokdeniz, there wouldn't be a final product if it didn't need requirements (there has been several others which haven't fruited).
And i have already explained reasons why there was a Phalanx in I-class in initial mock-up yet you still kept insisting, and why still there is one on Barbaros, i have tried to explain it as well. It is not related to superiority of one system on another, or Caatsa. Turkish Navy was considering to switch to Gokdeniz since it was being developed. So repeating once more maybe 4th time in this thread:
There was a Phalanx in I-Class because it wasn't updated until Idef, the first sketches were made when there wasn't even a mention or a bolt of Gokdeniz wasn't around.
It was updated for Idef to display to public, and gokdeniz was avaliable thus put on there.
For Barbabors there are 3 reasons and i have already told it.

As i told before, we will see TF-2000 with gokdeniz as well, not because of Caatsa but because it was already planned such since development of Gokdeniz has started. Believe me you will see some twitter guys claiming this is happening because of Caatsa

Mock-up models mean nothing to me, i rarely pay attention to them because they are irrevelant or not bound to anything official. They are updated only when they needed to be shown to public, notice the 3d model difference of tcg ufuk before and after construction, or difference on I class' mast.

Gokdeniz also has dual feed mode, with a 1000+ rpm rate of fire of two barrels (of a new kind to be developed in future) (equaling ~3000 rpm) in the next variants it can also use HE shells or any kind of new type shells in hit to kill mode, instead of using ATOM airburst shells.
With a newer barrel a smaller variant can be developed as well .(If Turkish Navy doesn't persist on 3000+ rpm) , or at least, it can be done for export.

Phalanx CIWS - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Afganistan

 

[Anmdt]

C-RAM and Phalanx are two different platforms based on the same gun.
Just because they look the same it doesn't mean they are same in software and engagement plan level. CIWS is a part of whole self defence system on a ship.
C-RAM is specifically designed to engage hard shell targets (artilleries) with self -detenoting and tracing munition.
Yeah i know those tracing rounds look so cool.

 

[Bogeyman]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1353632161535041537

TCG GÜR submarine successfully fired the AKYA Talim Torpedo in the Sea of Marmara.

 

[Turko]

Phalanx were not able to protect Israeli ship against chinese anti ship missile just some years ago.. and he call it battle proven.. against whom?

You meant this event? According to wiki INS Hanit doesn't have Phalanx but it has Barak

INS Hanit - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Stimpy75]

Nope it has a phalanx ciws

Eilat Class Multi Mission Naval Corvettes

In the early 1980s, the Israeli Navy awarded a contract to Northrop Grumman Ship Systems (formerly Litton Ingalls Shipbuilding) to…

www.naval-technology.com

Either the ciws or a 76 mm otomelara

 

[Turko]

Nope it has a phalanx ciws

Eilat Class Multi Mission Naval Corvettes

In the early 1980s, the Israeli Navy awarded a contract to Northrop Grumman Ship Systems (formerly Litton Ingalls Shipbuilding) to…

www.naval-technology.com

Either the ciws or a 76 mm otomelara

İnteresting. When she was hit there wasnt 76mm gun.

Phalanx failed to engage nonetheless their legendary Barak 1 also failed .

 

[Stimpy75]

I remember reading that the officer in charge during the attack didn't turn on the Phalanx Automatic defence system i.e. it was set on manual

 

[Anmdt]

İnteresting. When she was hit there wasnt 76mm gun.

View attachment 12795

Phalanx failed to engage nonetheless their legendary Barak 1 also failed .

Nope it has a phalanx ciws

Eilat Class Multi Mission Naval Corvettes

In the early 1980s, the Israeli Navy awarded a contract to Northrop Grumman Ship Systems (formerly Litton Ingalls Shipbuilding) to…

www.naval-technology.com

Either the ciws or a 76 mm otomelara

Probably entire self -defense system was turned off, even radar may be on stand by thus and unattended (according the investigation the officer disabled system and left his station)
It is ordinary for systems to remain on stand by or remain in power saving mode to save power.
Automation is important for this case, for system to detect a possible target and increase power supply by sending a command to gensets, activating ciws and ready to engage in 1-2 seconds.
With manual systems it takes 10-15 seconds at best case if all officers-engineers at their station.
And probably nowadays consoles are not split, rather merged and another officer can foresee and approval for engagement if the responsible one has missed it.
In most of the failed cases the phalanx was in stand by -disabled mode so it wasn't responsible for what happened.

 

[adenl]

Now in Full HD:

 

[Test7]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1353685219505819648