TR Navy FAC-FIC Designs

[Anmdt]

Not yet but soon we will see it.


We shouldn't expect Air defence frigate role from FACs . Both RAM and FL3000N are best defense systems against cruise missiles since they aren't launched vertically.
Moreover FAC's mere threat is cruise missiles.

UAVs , Fighters and other threats which fly at higher altitudes are the business of air defense frigates and land based long range SAMs.


Remember our ADA-class has just RAM.

Apaches equippes with NLOS missiles,
Drones equipped with guided precision bombs.
The war has changed remarkably since then, i am sure we will see some AAD capability on Ada class earlier than MLU.

 

[Turko]

Apaches equippes with NLOS missiles,
Drones equipped with guided precision bombs.
The war has changed remarkably since then, i am sure we will see some AAD capability on Ada class earlier than MLU.

For ADA class, EDAS loaded with G40s

I was wondering if RIM-116 could engage Hellfires, NLoS and MAM-L?

 

[Anmdt]

For ADA class, EDAS loaded with G40s

I was wondering if RIM-116 could engage Hellfires, NLoS and MAM-L?

Hellfire/NLOS morelikely because they have got a strong IR signature,
MAM-L is literally zero, it is business of gun-based or radar guided systems. But because of the SAL guidance, the ships will be aware of the designating platform and can shoot it down instead (unless there is an USV around designating the target), if not with Radar (In case of being suppressed with EW or stealthy form), the UAV can be tracked with IRST/EO or Laser warning system.
A gliding type munition with stand-off capabillity can provide an advantage to pass through missile-based CIWS.

 

[Turko]

Hellfire/NLOS morelikely because they have got a strong IR signature,
MAM-L is literally zero, it is business of gun-based or radar guided systems. But because of the SAL guidance, the ships will be aware of the designating platform and can shoot it down instead (unless there is an USV around designating the target), if not with Radar (In case of being suppressed with EW or stealthy form), the UAV can be tracked with IRST/EO or Laser warning system.
A gliding type munition with stand-off capabillity can provide an advantage to pass through missile-based CIWS.

Then İn order to prevent MAM-L attacks little warships need IIR missiles that can reach 7-8 km altitude where Bayraktar type UAVs fly. 15km range will be enough.
All requirements are match by Hisar A+ and Bozdoğan)
I would prefer horizontal launcher with 4 Bozdoğans rather than HisarA+ VLS since horizontal launcher have lower minumum range.(Hisar A+ minumum range must be 4 km) minumum range is very important against sea skimming cruise missiles.

 

[CAN_TR]

I hope there is enough space on Ada-class to put at least some VLS without major internal reconstruction.

 

[Turko]

Is there any possibility that a future FAC might carry Gökdeniz as a main gun?

I think tungsten air defence rounds can probably chew through some naval targets as well. Considering how unarmored modern warships are..

It was said that Gökdeniz is too bulky so they are designing compact 20 mm CIWS. In my humble opinion FACs will have Turkish RAM.

 

[Anmdt]

It was said that Gökdeniz is too bulky so they are designing compact 20 mm CIWS. In my humble opinion FACs will have Turkish RAM.

FAC is not the old FAC-55 we have seen. Maybe they will reveal the latest form in IDEF.

 

[Spook]

Is there any possibility that a future FAC might carry Gökdeniz as a main gun?

I think tungsten air defence rounds can probably chew through some naval targets as well. Considering how unarmored modern warships are..

MKE nationalizing standardized TWIN 40l70 Compact gun for patrol boats. Gokdeniz most attractive capability is ATOM airburst munition with ammo switch capability. MKE also produces high explosive incendiary ammo. If Tungsten 35mm is developed (ammo not pellets) it could be used for small armored targets much better at longer ranges etc. We could definitely experiment with it.

 

[Yasar_TR]

Configuration Changed for Turkish Fast Attack Craft | TURDEF

STM published a render of the Turkish Fast Attack Craft on social media, underlining that it is a multipurpose craft for reconnaissance and patrol missions.

turdef.com

The FAC/Turkish fast attack boat design has been changed.
Instead of CODAG propulsion set up with diesel and gas turbines, it is being redesigned to be powered by CODAD, diesel and diesel to give better stability to the boat. Also the tonnage has been increased from 620 to 700 tonnes. In the old design there were 3 water jets. The new design has 4 water jets.
Weapons wise the boat will have a 76mm main naval gun , 8 Atmaca anti ship missiles and a Point Defence Missile System package plus a RCWS for close-range defence.

 

[uçuyorum]

So it has come to where I wanted, our version of Karakurt corvette. I hope all our ships with atmaca can optionally deploy gezgin or kara atmaca as well.

 

[Anmdt]

Configuration Changed for Turkish Fast Attack Craft | TURDEF

STM published a render of the Turkish Fast Attack Craft on social media, underlining that it is a multipurpose craft for reconnaissance and patrol missions.

turdef.com

The FAC/Turkish fast attack boat design has been changed.
Instead of CODAG propulsion set up with diesel and gas turbines, it is being redesigned to be powered by CODAD, diesel and diesel to give better stability to the boat. Also the tonnage has been increased from 620 to 700 tonnes. In the old design there were 3 water jets. The new design has 4 water jets.
Weapons wise the boat will have a 76mm main naval gun , 8 Atmaca anti ship missiles and a Point Defence Missile System package plus a RCWS for close-range defence.

View attachment 73245

Old design had 4 engines and 3 water-jets. Number of engines do not dictate number of water-jets. Often that one waterjet (center) configured as a booster.

And with gas turbines one gets acceleration, for efficiency, both diesel+diesel or diesel+gas are not efficient above the cruise (or high-cruise) speed. Since in diesel + gas or diesel + diesel, only sideward waterjets and the engines (diesels in both) connected to them is enabled, both becomes identically efficient, hence invalidating the arguments.

At high seas and high sea-states, gas-turbines give a bigger hand.

Admiral Tatlıoğlu a year ago has delivered a speech on TTHB and told that they are slimming the design down in favor speed and agility. Where does it fit among these, whose words we are going to follow? I will honestly wait official renders (instead of MPAC and old TTAB design) and lay-outs. I haven't commented much on his words back then since i also have known that a particular division of Navy favors sea-keeping abilities and is in favor a larger platform, while another group was conceptualizing TTHB + USV packs.

At this point while i have explicit details on project, i would recommend people to be cautious and wait for official disclosure. Since information leaking from individual sources within companies, offices may not reflect the truth.

 

[uçuyorum]

Old design had 4 engines and 3 water-jets. Number of engines do not dictate number of water-jets. Often that one waterjet (center) configured as a booster.

And with gas turbines one gets acceleration, for efficiency, both diesel+diesel or diesel+gas are not efficient above the cruise (or high-cruise) speed. Since in diesel + gas or diesel + diesel, only sideward waterjets and the engines (diesels in both) connected to them is enabled, both becomes identically efficient, hence invalidating the arguments.

At high seas and high sea-states, gas-turbines give a bigger hand.

Admiral Tatlıoğlu a year ago has delivered a speech on TTHB and told that they are slimming the design down in favor speed and agility. Where does it fit among these, whose words we are going to follow? I will honestly wait official renders (instead of MPAC and old TTAB design) and lay-outs. I haven't commented much on his words back then since i also have known that a particular division of Navy favors sea-keeping abilities and is in favor a larger platform, while another group was conceptualizing TTHB + USV packs.

At this point while i have explicit details on project, i would recommend people to be cautious and wait for official disclosure. Since information leaking from individual sources within companies, offices may not reflect the truth.

Which one would you prefer? I feel like however fast the FAC goes, in close proximity they will be very vulnerabke to other elements. Whereas with higher displacement and endurance, they can be more versatile and take different missions around mediterranean.

 

[uçuyorum]

Which one would you prefer? I feel like however fast the FAC goes, in close proximity they will be very vulnerabke to other elements. Whereas with higher displacement and endurance, they can be more versatile and take different missions around mediterranean.

To add further to this I would think that in an increasingly difficult sea environment to maneuver in, we should focus more on submarines, small and large, like russia used then as kalibr carriers. Usvs come second to that. All surface vessels are very vulnerable