TR Navy Navy|News & Discussions

[Turkic]

Even Hitler who obsessed with dimensions knew aircraft carrier was unnecessary. Nazis didn't use aircraft carriers why?

Graf Zeppelin?

 

[boredaf]

Well, 10 years later is too late for SSN. They should have asked for it at least 10 years back. You can keep up with the speed and follow an enemy aircraft carrier with nuclear driven submarine, which is a real deterrence. Hence, we should have been producing these things even without any aim to have our own carrier.

Just as a reminder: the first SSN was built by France in 1983, and by Britain in 1963 !!! Okay, Britain at the time was little away from the old and glorious british empire so let them do it. But why are we more than 50 years (even 60 years if we consider 2043) behind France?? That means we have been sleeping as usual....

Or, real world is not a computer game or the perfect world of "on paper" and we weren't as advanced in a economical and technological sense and it was quite literally unthinkable for us to have a nuclear submarine given the fact that we didn't even have a nuclear power plant.
It had nothing to do with being asleep, logic and reason doesn't work like that.

What the hell are they teaching in school nowadays???

Why ask for less instead of more, I never get it.

Because some people live in the real world, not in a computer game where all you have to do is click on a small icon.

 

[Sanchez]

Well, 10 years later is too late for SSN. They should have asked for it at least 10 years back. You can keep up with the speed and follow an enemy aircraft carrier with nuclear driven submarine, which is a real deterrence. Hence, we should have been producing these things even without any aim to have our own carrier.

Just as a reminder: the first SSN was built by France in 1983, and by Britain in 1963 !!! Okay, Britain at the time was little away from the old and glorious british empire so let them do it. But why are we more than 50 years (even 60 years if we consider 2043) behind France?? That means we have been sleeping as usual....

Navy has been studying SSNs for a decade and have been writing about them openly for 3-4 years. Nükden was presented last year.

You're aware that France!! is a UN security council permanent member and a nuclear triad owner for about 60 years, right?

 

[Ripley]

Navy has been studying SSNs for a decade and have been writing about them openly for 3-4 years. Nükden was presented last year.

You're aware that France!! is a UN security council permanent member and a nuclear triad owner for about 60 years, right?

Below is a contemporary map of French Overseas Territories.
Not a map of French bases over the globe.
Not a map of French Colonial possessions from the turn of the 20th Century.

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_France

 

[Ripley]

Graf Zeppelin?

Never fully completed. All the material allocated was channeled to other projects during mid-war.

 

[Turkic]

Never fully completed. All the material allocated was channeled to other projects during mid-war.

But not that they didn't want to have an aircraft carrier, right? I'm not saying it was logical for the Nazis to have one, but they intended to.

 

[Ripley]

But not that they didn't want to have an aircraft carrier, right? I'm not saying it was logical for the Nazis to have one, but they intended to.

They tried. Kriegsmarine wanted to have it but it was a too little too late. Not enough materials.

 

[AlperTunga]

Or, real world is not a computer game or the perfect world of "on paper" and we weren't as advanced in a economical and technological sense and it was quite literally unthinkable for us to have a nuclear submarine given the fact that we didn't even have a nuclear power plant.
It had nothing to do with being asleep, logic and reason doesn't work like that.

What the hell are they teaching in school nowadays???


Because some people live in the real world, not in a computer game where all you have to do is click on a small icon.

Well, apparently some other nations were not playing games, and instead working hard to come ahead. Also it seems they were teaching better stuff in schools. Just to remind you our first test nuclear reactor was built in 1961 in Kücükcekmece and they were making good progress on the stuff. But because of political instability (Turks fighting each other), economic weakness (as usual) etc. no further progress was made. Probably also complacency (being protected by Nato) played a role as we usually only had Plan A and no other backup plans.

 

[Pokemonte13]

The Aircraft carrier is just to early and without a proper airwing and without an EMALS it can't reach it's full potential but i guess the navy had more solid projects than the air force (still in development) and army(who knows what they are doing). I still hope after the first 4 Tepe we chose a more economical approach in greater numbers 6+ (one long range s Band + four fixed MFR x Band) like indonesia.

 

[Pokemonte13]

Also nuclear is too expensive for our limited resources. Rather 2 Milden than one Nukden.
Quantity is a quality of his own

 

[Pokemonte13]

Similar to this radar composition but on a larger vessel and with more weapons and Cenk 350 instead of Cenk 400.

 

[Gessler]

Also nuclear is too expensive for our limited resources. Rather 2 Milden than one Nukden.
Quantity is a quality of his own

SSNs are worth the extra money. But it really depends on what your requirements are, what geography you're navigating and what kind of targets you're looking to hunt in that geography.

If you're not gonna be operating in open oceans most of the time, and if your perceived enemies have no sizeable fleets (or SSNs of their own that you need to counter, or SSBNs that you may need to hunt down), then SSN is indeed a waste of resources.

If it's being pursued purely for the prestige of having a nuclear submarine (kind of like Brazil is doing), then it's a different matter.

But it must be kept in mind that an SSN with the wrong reactor configuration (no natural-circulation design) can turn into a liability in littoral waters as it would be considerably noisier than a comparable diesel/AIP boat. Speaking of the reactor, is there any information regarding it for the NUKDEN project?

I would imagine a 40-60 MWth LEU reactor would be the most economical & lowest risk way to go (again, similar to Brazil's program). Keeping the uranium enrichment level at ~5% or so would minimize the required build-out of enrichment facilities and allow you to get control of the fuel cycle as soon as possible. LEU comes with some operational downsides in the long run but for a prestige project that shouldn't matter much.

I think South Korea is looking to pursue a similar reactor for their planned SSN, or at least it seems to be among the primary options being studied.

 

[Yasar_TR]

SSNs are worth the extra money. But it really depends on what your requirements are, what geography you're navigating and what kind of targets you're looking to hunt in that geography.

If you're not gonna be operating in open oceans most of the time, and if your perceived enemies have no sizeable fleets (or SSNs of their own that you need to counter, or SSBNs that you may need to hunt down), then SSN is indeed a waste of resources.

If it's being pursued purely for the prestige of having a nuclear submarine (kind of like Brazil is doing), then it's a different matter.

But it must be kept in mind that an SSN with the wrong reactor configuration (no natural-circulation design) can turn into a liability in littoral waters as it would be considerably noisier than a comparable diesel/AIP boat. Speaking of the reactor, is there any information regarding it for the NUKDEN project?

I would imagine a 40-60 MWth LEU reactor would be the most economical & lowest risk way to go (again, similar to Brazil's program). Keeping the uranium enrichment level at ~5% or so would minimize the required build-out of enrichment facilities and allow you to get control of the fuel cycle as soon as possible. LEU comes with some operational downsides in the long run but for a prestige project that shouldn't matter much.

I think South Korea is looking to pursue a similar reactor for their planned SSN, or at least it seems to be among the primary options being studied.

If I remember correctly we were looking in to RR compact reactors that were HEU type which are suggested for Aukus program and are used in Astute and Trafalgar class SSNs.
Also there were discussions with US regarding compact reactors, which I believe also of HEU type. Both these reactors are suitable for commercial energy generation too. As Turkey’s energy needs are increasing every year, we are looking for quick fix for environmentally cleaner energy sources too.
Although it is the most common practice in nuclear power stations, LEU route is still not very common for SSNs. Apart from France and may be China, the other SSN operators all use HEU route.

 

[boredaf]

Well, apparently some other nations were not playing games, and instead working hard to come ahead.

You go on ahead and completely overlook the whole context of the those times and the whole history and economics realities between now and then.

 

[Gessler]

If I remember correctly we were looking in to RR compact reactors that were HEU type which are suggested for Aukus program and are used in Astute and Trafalgar class SSNs.
Also there were discussions with US regarding compact reactors, which I believe also of HEU type. Both these reactors are suitable for commercial energy generation too. As Turkey’s energy needs are increasing every year, we are looking for quick fix for environmentally cleaner energy sources too.
Although it is the most common practice in nuclear power stations, LEU route is still not very common for SSNs. Apart from France and may be China, the other SSN operators all use HEU route.

That's true - only France & China use LEU. But this list could increase as more countries acquire SSNs, namely Brazil and (possibly) S Korea.

HEU is certainly the way to go, but requires much more investment in terms of enrichment infrastructure & long-term commitment. One way to do it is to obtain sealed life-of-type reactors that will not require refueling over the course of the submarine's life (this is what Virginia, AUKUS & all future US/UK boats will have). But this is highly sensitive, strategic technology that is at the cutting edge of what the US/UK have or will have in the near future. I wonder if it would ever be shared with any country who's security policies the US doesn't fully control.

SMRs & commercial reactors are a different thing as they would only be sold or operated under IAEA safeguards. I'm not aware of many commercial designs that use HEU. Are you sure you're not talking about HALEU?

Older HEU PWRs (like those in Los Angeles, Trafalgar) would require refueling. Even without building the enrichment infrastructure yourself, you could get into an agreement to source the fuel from somewhere else as well, subject to whatever approvals/assurances are necessary for that.

 

[Tornadoss]

I don't look up to Hitler but I look up to big militaries who went up from 300 meter long carriers to 333 meter ones for better seakeeping. Who am I to judge their decisions.

You also need to look up their Economies.

 

[Yasar_TR]

That's true - only France & China use LEU. But this list could increase as more countries acquire SSNs, namely Brazil and (possibly) S Korea.

HEU is certainly the way to go, but requires much more investment in terms of enrichment infrastructure & long-term commitment. One way to do it is to obtain sealed life-of-type reactors that will not require refueling over the course of the submarine's life (this is what Virginia, AUKUS & all future US/UK boats will have). But this is highly sensitive, strategic technology that is at the cutting edge of what the US/UK have or will have in the near future. I wonder if it would ever be shared with any country who's security policies the US doesn't fully control.

SMRs & commercial reactors are a different thing as they would only be sold or operated under IAEA safeguards. I'm not aware of many commercial designs that use HEU. Are you sure you're not talking about HALEU?

Older HEU PWRs (like those in Los Angeles, Trafalgar) would require refueling. Even without building the enrichment infrastructure yourself, you could get into an agreement to source the fuel from somewhere else as well, subject to whatever approvals/assurances are necessary for that.

You are correct. RR current commercial SMRs use LEU. But they are investigating the HALEU usage. US predominantly use HALEU fuel in their SMRs. .

 

[Gessler]

You are correct. RR current commercial SMRs use LEU. But they are investigating the HALEU usage. US predominantly use HALEU fuel in their SMRs. .

HALEU can be an interesting middle-road option. I cannot really comment on the possibility of using current/future SMR designs for marine propulsion though. Typically, for submarine use you need reactors with high design confidence, and most SMRs (who's designs are heavily optimized for mass-production rather than traditional considerations) are pretty much unproven at the moment. Additionally, SSNs will have power delivery patterns that are very unlike what is expected from a typical commercial SMR (fast ramp-up & ramp-down of output depending on motive needs rather than smooth, consistent power delivery), so not only the core itself but the auxiliary equipment will have to be certified for a totally different use-case.

As a long-term research project, it's a good program. But if you're looking for design freeze on the SSN configuration within the next ~10 years, a proven LEU design might be the most reliable way to go.

Are agencies in Turkiye pursuing traditional LEU designs? If not I'd say joining up with S Korea on their R&D program might be an option. France is the go-to for LEU marine propulsion as they have the most experience in that field (Brazil's program would've been pretty much impossible without French help), but I understand France-Turkiye relations aren't great.

But either way, the reactor is gonna have to be operated in a shore-based configuration for several years before putting it on a submarine. Not just to prove the config under all conditions but also to train the engineers on operating it.

 

[UkroTurk]

But not that they didn't want to have an aircraft carrier, right? I'm not saying it was logical for the Nazis to have one, but they intended to.

If Hitler had wanted, German defense industry would have constructed. They just knew, submarine based naval doctrine was more suitable for 3rd Reich

 

[Iskander]

If Hitler had wanted, German defense industry would have constructed. They just knew, submarine based naval doctrine was more suitable for 3rd Reich

In 1939, Germany had 57 submarines, but during the war, only 1,170 were built—significantly more than the entire anti-Hitler coalition combined and all the countries of the world combined.
Simply fantastic!