TR Navy Navy|News & Discussions

[Anmdt]

@Anmdt , bro is it possible to equip submarines with cavitation propulsion?

What is a cavitation propulsion?

 

[Sanchez]

"That’s what has changed – the maturation of group 3 UAV systems since that time."

“They launched from about 40 kilometers from the front, flew 100 kilometers past the front line of troops and then found these SA-11 surface-to-air missiles [on] 11 Buks, targeted them, called in HIMARS airburst rounds,” said Brandon Tseng, president and co-founder of Shield AI, the San Diego-based maker of the V-BATs.

That destroyed the SAMs—and, Tseng said, marked a big operational test for the V-BATs: flying, collecting targeting data, and relaying it to artillery units, all in the face of the most sophisticated electronic warfare tactics on earth. "

US-made jam-resistant drones helped Ukrainians cut through Russia EW

Shield AI’s V-BATs are giving Kyiv new range, capabilities.

www.defenseone.com

We need more miniaturized systems, for navy and for general use.

 

[Fatman17]

 

[UkroTurk]

“They launched from about 40 kilometers from the front, flew 100 kilometers past the front line of troops and then found these SA-11 surface-to-air missiles [on] 11 Buks, targeted them, called in HIMARS airburst rounds,” said Brandon Tseng, president and co-founder of Shield AI, the San Diego-based maker of the V-BATs.

That destroyed the SAMs—and, Tseng said, marked a big operational test for the V-BATs: flying, collecting targeting data, and relaying it to artillery units, all in the face of the most sophisticated electronic warfare tactics on earth. "

US-made jam-resistant drones helped Ukrainians cut through Russia EW

Shield AI’s V-BATs are giving Kyiv new range, capabilities.

www.defenseone.com

We need more miniaturized systems, for navy and for general use.

Since the Turkish Naval Forces Command anticipates an additional 57 Gökbey helicopters, with plans underway to commence serial production to fulfill their requirements and since there was unmanned ATAK 2 , would unmanned Gökbey ASW Helicopter not be more efficient?

I would love to see naval unmanned Gökbey instead of ATAK. İmagine: Unmanned Gökbey was carrying deep sonar and light torpedoes.

 

[Khagan1923]

ASELSAN TO UNVEIL 20-MISSILES GÖKSUR - ASELSAN

www.aselsan.com

20-Missile Göksur Launcher...

Different configurations of GÖKSUR PDMS, GÖKSUR 100-N VLS (flexible and modular Vertical Launcher System) and GÖKSUR 100-N/StA (turret with the ability to operate stand-alone) are also available, providing users with modular air and missile defense solutions.

 

[UkroTurk]

ASELSAN TO UNVEIL 20-MISSILES GÖKSUR - ASELSAN

www.aselsan.com

20-Missile Göksur Launcher...

"GÖKSUR 100-N VLS (flexible and modular Vertical Launcher System)"
we want see it right now!

 

[somegoodusername]

I think we should procure J-35 from China for our aircraft carrier. Naval Kaan is near impossible, HÜRJET is not a capable plane. USA won't sell us F-35C, even if they sell us it's cost is our national sovereignty. Most important part of an aircraft carrier is it's planes, and we don't have any good plane to operate in our aircraft carrier.

 

[chngr]

I think we should procure J-35 from China for our aircraft carrier. Naval Kaan is near impossible, HÜRJET is not a capable plane. USA won't sell us F-35C, even if they sell us it's cost is our national sovereignty. Most important part of an aircraft carrier is it's planes, and we don't have any good plane to operate in our aircraft carrier.

View attachment 71825

Why naval kaan impossible? Why F-35 is cost our national sovereignty but not J-35?

 

[somegoodusername]

Why naval kaan impossible? Why F-35 is cost our national sovereignty but not J-35?

Kaan would be THE largest naval jet plane in the entire world, and we can't launch it without a catapult. Between USA and China only one of them has problem with the current borders of the Turkey, supports terrorist organizations against Turkey, and put embargos on us. We have no conflict of interest with China.

 

[chngr]

Kaan would be THE largest naval jet plane in the entire world, and we can't launch it without a catapult. Between USA and China only one of them has problem with the current borders of the Turkey, supports terrorist organizations against Turkey, and put embargos on us. We have no conflict of interest with China.

SU-33 and F-14 also big...

 

[somegoodusername]

SU-33 and F-14 also big...

SU-33 takes off with less payload than F-18, and most likely, not with full fuel tank. If naval Kaan was a possibility we would have seen it in mockups of out aircraft carrier project.

 

[boredaf]

I think we should procure J-35 from China for our aircraft carrier. Naval Kaan is near impossible, HÜRJET is not a capable plane. USA won't sell us F-35C, even if they sell us it's cost is our national sovereignty. Most important part of an aircraft carrier is it's planes, and we don't have any good plane to operate in our aircraft carrier.

View attachment 71825

We really need an eye rolling reaction in the forum. You really want to make another S-400 level mistake, hell even worse than that? And for what? An aircraft carrier that *might* be in our future around 15 years down the line? That is a very long time for things to change especially as the world is moving really fast right now. Not only that would cause unacceptable delays in our own projects right now, it would also damage our economy unnecessarily while it is already teetering on the edge of a knife.

China would never, ever sell us one of their most advanced planes while we are still in NATO. And, we are balls deep in NATO, whether you like it or not. And China is a literal slave master, you might want to look at how they treat their Muslims or the nations that are indebted to them.

 

[uçuyorum]

I think this aircraft carrier will not be our only, just the first. But I am talking beyond 20 years if at all.

 

[boredaf]

I think this aircraft carrier will not be our only, just the first. But I am talking beyond 20 years if at all.

Why do we need more than one, when even one is not a necessity for the security of our country in the first place? Not to mention all other ships that has to go with that AC, from warships to auxiliaries?

 

[uçuyorum]

Why do we need more than one, when even one is not a necessity for the security of our country in the first place? Not to mention all other ships that has to go with that AC, from warships to auxiliaries?

Strategy of china and india was also to start with old soviet carriers and build up improved ones with that experience. This AC is a good capability on its own but strategically more of a stepping stone for a longer game.

 

[somegoodusername]

Now tell us what can this plane do more than a twin-engine KE or twin-engine ANKA-3?

Decision-maker. There are thousands of machines, devices that could be unmanned or automated but haven’t been, due to the desire to keep a human decision-maker involved in the process. Don't fall into this "unmanned mania" too early.

 

[boredaf]

Strategy of china and india was also to start with old soviet carriers and build up improved ones with that experience. This AC is a good capability on its own but strategically more of a stepping stone for a longer game.

Both of those countries have unimpeded access to open ocean, two of our three seas have no use for carriers, and the other one is boxed in (as vast as it is) by Gibraltar and Suez. Good luck getting an aircraft carrier out on the ocean if the tide turns and they decide to close the gates on us.

This AC is more of a vanity project than an absolute necessity in my eyes. We barely have overseas presence far away to justify it, and what we have we'd be far better served by having permanent military/naval bases on those countries. Several billions we are going to have to spend to build the carrier, warships to protect it and auxiliaries to support it (on top of planes) would be far better served expanding our warships and submarines or diverting those resources to other branches. Hell, you can probably make Trakya and 2 more like it focused on drones for the price one carrier alone let alone multiple.

And what longer game are you talking about? We aren't even the dominant power in our region, what game necessitates using our limited resources on more than one carrier?

 

[uçuyorum]

Both of those countries have unimpeded access to open ocean, two of our three seas have no use for carriers, and the other one is boxed in (as vast as it is) by Gibraltar and Suez. Good luck getting an aircraft carrier out on the ocean if the tide turns and they decide to close the gates on us.

This AC is more of a vanity project than an absolute necessity in my eyes. We barely have overseas presence far away to justify it, and what we have we'd be far better served by having permanent military/naval bases on those countries. Several billions we are going to have to spend to build the carrier, warships to protect it and auxiliaries to support it (on top of planes) would be far better served expanding our warships and submarines or diverting those resources to other branches. Hell, you can probably make Trakya and 2 more like it focused on drones for the price one carrier alone let alone multiple.

And what longer game are you talking about? We aren't even the dominant power in our region, what game necessitates using our limited resources on more than one carrier?

The navy has its own ambitions, they had since 70s-80s, that's why we got Anadolu, now that they finally have appreciation, funding and capacity to build their platforms while air force and army are lacking in their planning, they are pushing for it. Somalia and Libya are already very important, and regardless of our current situation, they have to think with future in mind.

 

[Yasar_TR]

Both of those countries have unimpeded access to open ocean, two of our three seas have no use for carriers, and the other one is boxed in (as vast as it is) by Gibraltar and Suez. Good luck getting an aircraft carrier out on the ocean if the tide turns and they decide to close the gates on us.

This AC is more of a vanity project than an absolute necessity in my eyes. We barely have overseas presence far away to justify it, and what we have we'd be far better served by having permanent military/naval bases on those countries. Several billions we are going to have to spend to build the carrier, warships to protect it and auxiliaries to support it (on top of planes) would be far better served expanding our warships and submarines or diverting those resources to other branches. Hell, you can probably make Trakya and 2 more like it focused on drones for the price one carrier alone let alone multiple.

And what longer game are you talking about? We aren't even the dominant power in our region, what game necessitates using our limited resources on more than one carrier?

I fully agree with you with respect to the unnecessity of a Carrier for our Navy. More than a vanity project it is probably a political project though.
However, even the study of the project will open our horizons.
2 LHDs,, one of them a UAV carrier, and at least 2 more LSTs would normally suffice for us.
But this political move now is in a way godsend to us. For one thing this aircraft carrier we are talking about, won’t happen before 2040. (Look at the TF2000 example). But come 2030’s and further, both our economical standing should improve and the world sociopolitical outlook will change. To be ready to project force away from our own seas and protect our overseas concerns and assets will come in real handy.

With respect to being locked in to the Mediterranean, I again agree with you. But Italy has the same situation. After 1960, they no longer have any overseas territory. So they too don’t need a carrier. Yet they have a carrier in hand. (Garibaldi was recently decommissioned)
They don’t really need to project power overseas. They definitely don’t need a carrier for Sardinia and Sicily. LHDs would have sufficed.
But they want to be able to keep the expertise of high end ship building alive in the country and be a part of the world community to protect NATO and European assets.

 

[boredaf]

I fully agree with you with respect to the unnecessity of a Carrier for our Navy. More than a vanity project it is probably a political project though.
However, even the study of the project will open our horizons.
2 LHDs,, one of them a UAV carrier, and at least 2 more LSTs would normally suffice for us.
But this political move now is in a way godsend to us. For one thing this aircraft carrier we are talking about, won’t happen before 2040. (Look at the TF2000 example). But come 2030’s and further, both our economical standing should improve and the world sociopolitical outlook will change. To be ready to project force away from our own seas and protect our overseas concerns and assets will come in real handy.

With respect to being locked in to the Mediterranean, I again agree with you. But Italy has the same situation. After 1960, they no longer have any overseas territory. So they too don’t need a carrier. Yet they have a carrier in hand. (Garibaldi was recently decommissioned)
They don’t really need to project power overseas. They definitely don’t need a carrier for Sardinia and Sicily. LHDs would have sufficed.
But they want to be able to keep the expertise of high end ship building alive in the country and be a part of the world community to protect NATO and European assets.

Italian comparison isn't exactly fair mate, they don't have the tense relationship with the West we do and are far less likely to suffer because of that. It is very weird that even people who are vehemently against the West don't seem to consider this when they want an aircraft carrier, not talking about you, they just brush it off as if we are guaranteed access to oceans forever. Also, Italty have had access to naval jets we never had, and still don't btw best we have are plans for now, and their aircraft carrier is actually smaller than the one we are planning.

And I don't see a carrier changing a lot for us on the political stage as well, we are already participating almost everything we can with NATO and its not like they are hurting for carriers at the moment, existing fleets can barely cover them already. Hell, even Royal Navy can't protect its carriers without compromising its naval presence elsewhere, that's why they made a deal with Netherlands. Not only we could be better served by focusing on TF2000 and maybe even a bigger missile cruiser but we could also contribute to NATO carrier groups in that way.

It is an enormous undertaking for us and in my opinion not playing to our strengths. We can probably build Trakya and then add another pair just like Anadolu and Trakya for the price of one carrier (from design to launch). But as you said, we are at least about 15 years away, we'll see how things will change.