TR Navy Navy|News & Discussions

[TR_123456]

"Signed on 8 April in Ankara, the agreement establishes a flexible contractual structure enabling the Turkish Navy to procure maintenance, repair and technical services from Navantia on a periodic or as-needed basis through request-for-quotation procedures. The framework will remain in force for three years, with an option to extend for a further three years."

So,they couldnt have trained Turkish personnel during the build?
This is a big disappointment.

 

[AlperTunga]

You are very much mistaken I am afraid.
Those calculations are done sparingly, taking today’s money in consideration. Come 2030s those figures will have increased pro rata, with inflation.

The destroyers and frigates you have to allocate to your battle group is for the battle group. Your naval force proper has its own destroyers and frigates. They may be used for either job. But in terms of numbers you have to have extra for your battlegroup. Otherwise we end up like Brits, who are having to borrow escort vessels from Dutch Navy because they haven’t produced 12 Daring Class destroyers as planned and only have 6 instead.

You don’t produce navalised fighter jets for your land located airforce. Naval airforce is separate. (That is why there is a Rafale Marine and there is a F35-C)

I hope we will have the finance to afford such extravagance.
But just look at our Assault ship. What makes it a power multiplier is the number and variety of helicopters it has. At the moment we don’t have enough helicopters to place on it. Heck! We had to revert to using land forces’ cast off of 40 + year old obsolete attack helicopters. None of our Chinooks are navalised.
It hasn’t got proper protection either. All it has is 2 old pre used phalanx CIWS. It also needs a Tepe destroyer. Why is it lacking all these? Bad planning? Financial constraints? Bad policies?

If we were good in planning & policies we wouldn't have a per capita GDP of $15K today but rather > $50K.

I have read somewhere that 1+3 Tepe class are planned for production and for MUGEM 2 more may be produced. So look at the bright side, without MUGEM we would have only 4 Tepe! And that 2 additional TEPE is always a plus. So building MUGEM (irrespective of the reason) would still be useful

Not sure how relevant is this idea in a military sense but also think about the sudden attack scenario from Greece and Israel. If during that time MUGEM is in indien ocean that means we will have a carrier strike group as well as 50 fighter jets (or KE etc.) untouched and ready to come for help.

 

[dBSPL]

If we were good in planning & policies we wouldn't have a per capita GDP of $15K today but rather > $50K.

I have read somewhere that 1+3 Tepe class are planned for production and for MUGEM 2 more may be produced. So look at the bright side, without MUGEM we would have only 4 Tepe! And that 2 additional TEPE is always a plus. So building MUGEM (irrespective of the reason) would still be useful

Not sure how relevant is this idea in a military sense but also think about the sudden attack scenario from Greece and Israel. If during that time MUGEM is in indien ocean that means we will have a carrier strike group as well as 50 fighter jets (or KE etc.) untouched and ready to come for help.

When the project was first announced in the late 1990s, the goal was to build (or acquire) a total of 6 air defense frigates. This was the target when the Request for Information (RFI) was published in 1996. Due to the 1999 Gölcük earthquake and the subsequent economic crisis in the early 2000s, the project's budget and scope were affected, or rather, it became the subject of some speculation, with some publications suggesting that the planned number of ships was reduced to 4. When the MİLGEM project was reconsidered as its final phase, as far as I remember, the initial IDEF launch mentioned 7 ships, and this was later written and discussed as 4 + 4 (Block I and subsequent phases). Currently, the target is to have 8 air defense destroyers.

In short, except for a brief period in the early 2000s, I don't think the TF-2000 (Tepe) project ever being limited to four, and even then, the goal was to proceed in blocks. However, I think the most accurate statement here would be that the Turkish Navy has truly needed at least four air defense vessel for a very long time (about 20 years).

The Turkish Navy is under significant expansion pressure, as its sphere of influence and the maritime area it must control are expanding as much as possible. The MUGEM program makes some needs even more critical. Perhaps in the future, we will be operating two different task forces in two different seas, and while these are on active duty, we will be trying to maintain the cycle required by numerous overseas bases, as well as the security of the territorial waters and exclusive economic zone of a homeland surrounded by seas on three sides.

Some defense enthusiasts often consider all ships to be on active duty when looking at the inventory and/or planning. However, while some ships are on active duty, others are in reserve, some are conducting training/exercises, and others are undergoing maintenance in the shipyard.

TL;DR, TCG Anadolu and perhaps MUGEM, which we will see in the 2030s, will inevitably change the silhouette of the Turkish navy. You might be able to manage just barely in peacetime, but I believe that even the current plan consisting of 8 destroyers will not be sufficient when the waters get really hot. Yes, each one will be astronomically expensive, but that's the reality. IMHO, MUGEM's indirect impact will be roughly equivalent to creating a medium-sized navy.

 

[boredaf]

Those destroyers, frigates, and MILDEN you are counting in the cost are already needed. The fighter jets are also needed anyhow (they being navalized does not hurt).

No, they are not. We need those ships and submarines in our own waters, so, we need more to put around a carrier. And, Milden is useless in a carrier group, we would need to develop a nuclear submarine from scratch. And turning a jet into a naval jet is not something done willy nilly, nor could it be done to all of the jets, so they have to be specifically made for a carrier as well.

All of these will be costs that are added upon the cost of the carrier AND on top of all the ships and jets we need for our navy and air force.

That 5-6bn dollars will largely be spent domestically, so it will support national production through multiplier effect.

I fucking hate this rhetoric, military spending does not go beyond very specialised segments of the economy, it is not an overall "stimulus package". Given that majority of those companies will be private or have shareholders, most of that money will end up as profit in a bank account.

Also, we can use MUGEM in various ways to project power, and also as a springboard to deploy missiles and drones, including Super Simsek for targets that are trying to attack us from a further distance.

We don't bloody need an aircraft carrier to launch drones or bloody target drone turned kamikaze drones.

Not sure how relevant is this idea in a military sense but also think about the sudden attack scenario from Greece and Israel. If during that time MUGEM is in indien ocean that means we will have a carrier strike group as well as 50 fighter jets (or KE etc.) untouched and ready to come for help.

Good fucking luck to any carrier group trying to go through the Red Sea or Suez during war time, that would be like sitting ducks holding barrels full of fish with big targets painted on them. In your scenario, best that carrier group can hope for is India staying neutral and not joining in to hunt them while they try to dock in Pakistan, that's it.

Just thinking out loud. What if MUGEM will sail as part of NATO ((GB/Italy/Spain) another pact doesn't make sense) until we can learn everything about it and have sufficient number of everything it needs?

If people in charge are making plans based on that assumption, they are utter fucking morons. We are not the UK. We cannot make our plans based on our current allies will remain so in case of a war. UK cannot even form a carrier group around her own carriers without leaving its shores bare, can you really expect them to send warships to us? Spain barely has a navy worth talking about as of now, (they have what 5 modern frigates?) and Italy has its own carrier and LHDs to protect.

And never mind all of that, if we cannot protect a carrier from the moment it is commissioned with the necessary warships AND supply/fuel it with auxiliary ships WITHOUT leaving our other fleets short, we have no business even talking about one. And let's not even talk about thinking about putting damned Hürjet on a carrier in 2040s.

 

[boredaf]

IMHO, MUGEM's indirect impact will be roughly equivalent to creating a medium-sized navy.

We can do all of that without adding the unnecessary financial burden of a carrier that can get locked in the Mediterranean in case of a real war.

 

[AlperTunga]

No, they are not. We need those ships and submarines in our own waters, so, we need more to put around a carrier. And, Milden is useless in a carrier group, we would need to develop a nuclear submarine from scratch. And turning a jet into a naval jet is not something done willy nilly, nor could it be done to all of the jets, so they have to be specifically made for a carrier as well.

All of these will be costs that are added upon the cost of the carrier AND on top of all the ships and jets we need for our navy and air force.


I fucking hate this rhetoric, military spending does not go beyond very specialised segments of the economy, it is not an overall "stimulus package". Given that majority of those companies will be private or have shareholders, most of that money will end up as profit in a bank account.


We don't bloody need an aircraft carrier to launch drones or bloody target drone turned kamikaze drones.


Good fucking luck to any carrier group trying to go through the Red Sea or Suez during war time, that would be like sitting ducks holding barrels full of fish with big targets painted on them. In your scenario, best that carrier group can hope for is India staying neutral and not joining in to hunt them while they try to dock in Pakistan, that's it.


If people in charge are making plans based on that assumption, they are utter fucking morons. We are not the UK. We cannot make our plans based on our current allies will remain so in case of a war. UK cannot even form a carrier group around her own carriers without leaving its shores bare, can you really expect them to send warships to us? Spain barely has a navy worth talking about as of now, (they have what 5 modern frigates?) and Italy has its own carrier and LHDs to protect.

And never mind all of that, if we cannot protect a carrier from the moment it is commissioned with the necessary warships AND supply/fuel it with auxiliary ships WITHOUT leaving our other fleets short, we have no business even talking about one. And let's not even talk about thinking about putting damned Hürjet on a carrier in 2040s.

Somehow people do not seem to understand my argument. Without MUGEM they wont be building up to 8 Tepe ships. And maybe no NUKDENs either. I See this also as Navy having the excuse to demand more assets. Also additional assets are always additional. In war time I can call back them all to defend the country.

As I stated many times I would not have embarked on this project at this moment. I‘d have probably used the money to produce couple of thousands missiles (or equivalent effective deterrence) to make sure I am untouchable in the next years.

 

[Yasar_TR]

Somehow people do not seem to understand my argument. Without MUGEM they wont be building up to 8 Tepe ships. And maybe no NUKDENs either. I See this also as Navy having the excuse to demand more assets. Also additional assets are always additional. In war time I can call back them all to defend the country.

As I stated many times I would not have embarked on this project at this moment. I‘d have probably used the money to produce couple of thousands missiles (or equivalent effective deterrence) to make sure I am untouchable in the next years.

I am sorry mate. But you don’t seem to understand what people are telling you either.

1. We don’t need a MUGEM.
2. We don’t need Tepe Class destroyers.

They are both too expensive and unnecessary expenses on our already strained economy.

We don’t have access to open Oceans.
We don’t have overseas territories to protect.

The only way to access open oceans is via Suez canal; and we don’t have control of that. Other option is through the strait of Gibraltar and round Africa. Well good luck with that!

Before contemplating of Mugem we need :
1. Develop a navalised and contemporarily modern and capable aircraft.
2. Develop necessary technologies to build such a ship.
3. Develop necessary protection weapons and equipment.
4. Most importantly have the money to afford it.
5. Few MILDEN with Li-Ion batteries as AIP subs find it difficult to keep up with a Carrier especially in Blue Waters. Preferably a Nuclear powered sub for which we have no access to its reactor and its related technologies.

Tepe destroyers will cost over 1.5 billion each. For that money we can easily have 2 x 5500ton frigates that can do the job just as well for the waters we are supposed to protect.

 

[dronie]

Somehow people do not seem to understand my argument. Without MUGEM they wont be building up to 8 Tepe ships. And maybe no NUKDENs either. I See this also as Navy having the excuse to demand more assets. Also additional assets are always additional. In war time I can call back them all to defend the country.

As I stated many times I would not have embarked on this project at this moment. I‘d have probably used the money to produce couple of thousands missiles (or equivalent effective deterrence) to make sure I am untouchable in the next years.

You guys really had a good thing going on with the drone carrier Anadolu. Building more of them would have been the way to go. The Mediterranean is gonna be the worst place for any carrier to be in during wartime.

 

[Zafer]

If you don't have the top gun you are undergunned

 

[Saithan]

You guys really had a good thing going on with the drone carrier Anadolu. Building more of them would have been the way to go. The Mediterranean is gonna be the worst place for any carrier to be in during wartime.

We don't need a drone carrier.

The cost of building such a vessel for fighting what ? Alshabab in Somalia ? It is much cheaper and better to have bases as we already have.

Also in war you can see how lowtech Shaheed with it's warhead can do enough damage, so investing in ego projects are dumb.

Türkiye as of now and 3-5 years ahead or so, should have all it's Frigates replaced with new ones.

I am of the opinion the Government is on purpose postponing renewing and rearming Turkish Navy, Landforce, and Airforce.

 

[dBSPL]

Frankly, I don't believe the concept design of MUGEM was done with the Eastern Mediterranean in mind. For me, even MILDEN and the Tepe class. TR is establishing a strong presence in Somalia, with some strategic investments projected for 50-80 years. TR wants to set up its naval presence in a triangle stretching from the Horn of Africa to the Umman Sea and the Gulf, and from there to the South Asia up to Java Sea.

Behind this projection are actually highly explainable economic goals. While uncertainties in the Strait of Hormuz and the Gulf of Aden have the potential to seriously affect world freight trade for many years, Turkiye and Syria aim to open an economic corridor extending to the Arabian Gulf and descending southwards in two main branches (the Hejaz Route and the Basra Development Route). Both projects involve a series of railway transit highways, port/customs integrations, organized industrial zones, oil/gas, electricity, and water transmission lines. Land transport cannot completely replace sea freight, but it is vital, especially during times of crisis. Another issue here is China's alternative southern trade routes. If such a projection exists, the only force capable of maintaining these routes in the connected seas is the Turkish navy. Not SA, or Pakistan.

One of the consequences of an Iran-Israel-US war is the inevitable rapprochement with some Arab countries in both trade and defense. I won't give a long speech on the effects of the Iran-Israel war, as we all see the situation Europe is in and how this has turned into a long-term erosion.

While striving for Somalia's territorial integrity and its liberation from terrorism, interdependence is deepening. Turkiyeaims to achieve space access with its own capabilities, with Somalia at the center. We are investing billions of dollars in hydrocarbons, infrastructure, and especially in the development of security institutions. Unfortunately, Somalia was abandoned to its fate for a period internationally, which is why our activities are attracting attention, but the target sphere of influence of Turkish foreign policy is not limited to Somalia, nor even just East Africa. There are very critical nodes within the triangle I mentioned, and in short, my final conclusion is that the Turkish navy is preparing for the Indian Ocean for the 2030s. While I respect the idea that Türkiye should limit its sphere of influence to the Eastern Mediterranean and that the Greek issue must be dealt with first, I am fundamentally opposed to the notion that all of this is for the Mediterranean if we are currently discussing what is being built rather than our own ideas. Political will always promises something, even tending towards populist behavior, but it is the navy that instrumentalizes this and places it within a suitable projection.

Normalization with Egypt, military-industrial integration with Italy and Spain, maintaining position in Libya, and the revolution in Syria have already preserved the situation in the Eastern Mediterranean to a certain extent. Cyprus and now Lebanon remain serious minefields. Greece, with its traditional foreign policy approach, does not hesitate to side with whichever country creates tension with Turkiye; in other words, nothing has changed there.

 

[boredaf]

Normalization with Egypt, military-industrial integration with Italy and Spain, maintaining position in Libya, and the revolution in Syria have already preserved the situation in the Eastern Mediterranean to a certain extent. Cyprus and now Lebanon remain serious minefields. Greece, with its traditional foreign policy approach, does not hesitate to side with whichever country creates tension with Turkiye; in other words, nothing has changed there.

Greece and Cyprus are not alone. Israel, India and France are making plays around us through military sales and cooperation with Greece, Cyprus and Armenia. And normalisation with Egypt means fuck all in the long term as things could change far faster than they "normalised". Do I really need to remind you that we "normalised" with Israel multiple times??? Egypt will turn on us the second someone plops their economical balls on the table; remember, they were fucking bribing the yank Senator that opposed us the most as well.

Believing that waters around us are stabile or safe is naivete beyond belief while Israel is making every possible plays to take down any possible opposition to them in the MENA region. One would have to be blind to not see the similarities between how there isn't a single nation that can oppose the US in the Western hemisphere, how US worked to destabilise the countries in the Central and Southern Americas and what has been happening in the MENA region in the last decades. Primary focus must be our own country first and foremost as long as we are not the top regional power.

Chasing dreams of glory in overseas regions before even securing the region around our borders and waters is just vanity, not "vision". We can secure whatever interest we have in Somalia through a base with UAVs and USVs, without spending 10+ billions on a carrier group while so much of our military is in desperate need of upgrades and outright replacements.

urkiye and Syria aim to open an economic corridor extending to the Arabian Gulf and descending southwards in two main branches (the Hejaz Route and the Basra Development Route). Both projects involve a series of railway transit highways, port/customs integrations, organized industrial zones, oil/gas, electricity, and water transmission lines. Land transport cannot completely replace sea freight, but it is vital, especially during times of crisis.

And every single one of the are within bombing range of Israel, as Iran showed, none of those would survive long into an actual war.

 

[boredaf]

2. We don’t need Tepe Class destroyers.

They are both too expensive and unnecessary expenses on our already strained economy.

I don't necessarily agree with that mate, we can have 1 or 2 destroyers in fleets in our waters for intercepting ballistic threats. However, I believe air defence for warships will have to change focus just like land forces had to in the last years. I think the main danger for ships will come from swarms now as it has become far easier than ever to create them and 1 or 2 CIWS cannons or RAM launchers can't really handle them in high enough numbers.

Imagine if we sent 6 USVs with 8 Eren launchers each while also sending another 6 with Çakır's or Atmaca. 100 km means an USV can launch them without endangering itself, causing massive issues. It could also be used against us as well, we need to start planning for that, not just expensive anti-ship missiles or torpedoes.

 

[Ripley]

All I want for Christmas is my LHD back as a really needed force multiplier with enhanced capabilities like launching drones for certain roles and couple destroyers (alright. Or few heavy frigates) to give a substantial AD protection to form the core of a moderate task force around my LHD.
Use them wherever your political and diplomatic power allows.

 

[Yasar_TR]

I don't necessarily agree with that mate, we can have 1 or 2 destroyers in fleets in our waters for intercepting ballistic threats. However, I believe air defence for warships will have to change focus just like land forces had to in the last years. I think the main danger for ships will come from swarms now as it has become far easier than ever to create them and 1 or 2 CIWS cannons or RAM launchers can't really handle them in high enough numbers.

Imagine if we sent 6 USVs with 8 Eren launchers each while also sending another 6 with Çakır's or Atmaca. 100 km means an USV can launch them without endangering itself, causing massive issues. It could also be used against us as well, we need to start planning for that, not just expensive anti-ship missiles or torpedoes.

If we had the money and didn‘t need other platforms like frigates and helicopters, I would love to have 4 or even 6 of these Tepe Destroyers.
But 2 x 5500ton frigates can easily perform all the duties of a Tepe Class with similar fire power. This way you don’t put all your eggs in one basket too. In case of a “Moskva” event it would hurt a lot. But if you have 8 x 5500ton frigates they can be more useful to us and in the event one is lost you would still have plenty more to fall back on.

I fully agree on your views about changing the way sea wars to be fought. Just like tanks becoming major targets, bigger ships will be the main targets in marine warfare.

 

[AlperTunga]

If we had the money and didn‘t need other platforms like frigates and helicopters, I would love to have 4 or even 6 of these Tepe Destroyers.
But 2 x 5500ton frigates can easily perform all the duties of a Tepe Class with similar fire power. This way you don’t put all your eggs in one basket too. In case of a “Moskva” event it would hurt a lot. But if you have 8 x 5500ton frigates they can be more useful to us and in the event one is lost you would still have plenty more to fall back on.

I fully agree on your views about changing the way sea wars to be fought. Just like tanks becoming major targets, bigger ships will be the main targets in marine warfare.

Dont forget you need to find many more navy personnel for 8 frigates of 5500ton compared to 4 tepe class. Their maintenance, fuel consumption etc. does not necessarily scale down linearly. I think your argument for no Tepe does not really make much sense. Not sure CAFRAD could be fully utilized in a frigate. 4 tepe class is essential for our country for various reasons including extending the protection area of Steel Dome. Note this last bit I mentioned before and it is crucial. Also you can fire Gezgins more easily from Tepe. If we in addition also produce 4 frigates of 5000ton class then it will be real cool.

 

[Sanchez]

We can do all of that without adding the unnecessary financial burden of a carrier that can get locked in the Mediterranean in case of a real war.

There's no point to do all that without a carrier on top.

If we had the money and didn‘t need other platforms like frigates and helicopters, I would love to have 4 or even 6 of these Tepe Destroyers.
But 2 x 5500ton frigates can easily perform all the duties of a Tepe Class with similar fire power. This way you don’t put all your eggs in one basket too. In case of a “Moskva” event it would hurt a lot. But if you have 8 x 5500ton frigates they can be more useful to us and in the event one is lost you would still have plenty more to fall back on.

I fully agree on your views about changing the way sea wars to be fought. Just like tanks becoming major targets, bigger ships will be the main targets in marine warfare.

Tepe Class is built around the radar suite. It was a 6500 ton ship 5-7 years ago with 48-64 cells. It grew more in size due to navy requirements. In a hot war 48 cells will be enough for a single engagement, they will burn through munitions like candy. I'd think in its current form Tepe is already the smallest it can be given what's asked from it; completely handling theater air defence duties. It needs to be able to defend itself from ASMs, aircraft, drones, other munitions and dish out the same damage. In a world where premier navies in SEA and even Italy is now working on 10000 ton destroyers, it might even fall small 10 years later.

Ships like Tepe and even Mugem are what navy asked for over 20 years. 10 years later, they will ask for an SSN. Turkish navy sees itself as a middle power navy with blue sea aspirations and tasks. Like Italians, like Russians.

 

[Zafer]

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

 

[UkroTurk]

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

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

 

[Zafer]

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

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.