TR Navy Turkish Navy|News & Discussions

[Strong AI]

"Destroyer"

 

[Boz]

 

[Strong AI]

NAZAR?

 

[uçuyorum]

View attachment 66092

Is this the most recent?
Aselsan Göksur is nice an glad to see they didn't give up 64 VLS.

 

[cr33pt3d]

is this the final design ? meaning we can expect a decision to start production of the first ship this year ?

 

[Altay_TR]

View attachment 66092

The length of the ship has been shortened, its draft, displacement and speed reduced. In addition, 16xAtmaca SSM launchers were replaced by 32xMİDLAS (total number of VLSs 96). Also, the UMR, CFR, AYR configuration has been changed to UMR and CFR configuration.

 

[uçuyorum]

O

The length of the ship has been shortened, its draft, displacement and speed reduced. In addition, 16xAtmaca SSM launchers were replaced by 32xMİDLAS (total number of VLSs 96). Also, the UMR, CFR, AYR configuration has been changed to UMR and CFR configuration.

Can you see 32 more? I can't quite tell, but it could be 80 or 96 I guess. I didn't notice lack of ATMACA until you said it.

 

[Sanchez]

I think Atmaca launchers are just not shown on the new images. No way navy goes for vertical launched ASM and bring about all that new development cost and lose VLS space.

 

[Afif]

80x VLS. That is actually a great decision.

16x cells= 64x HISAR D block ii. (Quad packed)
32x cells= 32x SIPER block ii.
16x cells= 16x Gezgin
16x cells= 16x Atmaca/future supersonic AShM

 

[Anmdt]

View attachment 66092

Perhaps the basic design reached somewhere between 9500 and 10000 tonnes and Occam's razor had to be wielded. And there was a reduction in length. Not a fan of the new exhaust funnel-aft mast configuration. I hope they will merge these two structures and give in to something like the Omega design frigate. (Not exactly, but you get the idea).

I don't see any loss of capability with the CFR here. The module of CFR was of that size and they have compacted the installation and 45 degrees orientation is also a bonus, seem Mogami class for example, Japanese have oriented X-band AESA by 45 degrees offset in the latter block after trials (Someone studying the design well here). This is good news for most of our platforms. We have a compact X-band AESA installation for fixed configuration.

Nazar's new position is a big bonus for surface threats, UMTAS launchers are gone (it seems). I hope they keep the rear position for the 2nd Nazar.

Either we have unlocked AN-SPY6 level digitisation technology or we are cutting costs.

Nevertheless, with the new update in design i am assured of the second batch.​

 

[UkroTurk]

@Anmdt
Which one is ÇFR and which one is UMR?
ÇFR is bigger or vice versa?
Yellow UMR? Green ÇFR?
Çafrad seems poor

 

[Anmdt]

View attachment 66098
@Anmdt
Which one is ÇFR and which one is UMR?
ÇFR is bigger or vice versa?
Yellow UMR? Green ÇFR?
Çafrad seems poor

Yellow CFR, green UMR. CFR's core was also about that size before, but with UMR now I have no idea about the size of the core. I think that with this size, from bridge to deck, the Navy has bet everything on this UMR. If they put in some proper data links then I might doubt the necessity of AYR as well (if UMR is as good as promised to track with finer quality than before). So yeah there seems to be a little downgrade here, but in my opinion the price is not being affected that much. Notice inclusion of Göksur (However the model looks like Levent) PDMS there, it is folding price of Gökdeniz.

And if, as promised, they get multi-static capability on the UMR by the time of commissioning or the test phase, that would be the crème de la crème.​

 

[Afif]

Yellow CFR, green UMR. CFR's core was also about that size before, but with UMR now I have no idea about the size of the core. I think that with this size, from bridge to deck, the Navy has bet everything on this UMR. If they put in some proper data links then I might doubt the necessity of AYR as well (if UMR is as good as promised to track with finer quality than before). So yeah there seems to be a little downgrade here, but in my opinion the price is not being affected that much. Notice inclusion of Göksur (However the model looks like Levent) PDMS there, it is folding price of Gökdeniz.

And if, as promised, they get multi-static capability on the UMR by the time of commissioning or the test phase, that would be the crème de la crème.​

So, in essence UMR will provide fire control beyond the range of CFR? Also, how likely it is that Aselsan got their first long range naval AESA sensor as good as SPY-6?

 

[Radonsider]

I guess they went with UMR being better and yeeting ESSMs, so not having AYR cuts down costs, weight and electrical power

 

[uçuyorum]

I mean surely all of these developments are result of siper system maturing, if EIRS and CENK-S perform good, we shouldn't worry. Regardless of whether UMR is on same level as AN/ SPY-6, it seems to at least work on same principle.

 

[Anmdt]

So, in essence UMR will provide fire control beyond the range of CFR? Also, how likely it is that Aselsan got their first long range naval AESA sensor as good as SPY-6?

Fire control in essence, but not as a whole (note that despite SPY-6, American BMD ships had tracking radars for long range precision/illumination). It will track the targets within a certain range, but I think something will remain as a task of the CFR (like ammunition separation, TBMD, UAV detection and so on).

This is something I would doubt, but they eventually foresee a capability equivalent to SPY-6 in the 2030s and hope to reap the fruits of multi-static studies.

 

[Kartal1]

Britain's cash-strapped Navy 'may be forced to sell off its £3.5 billion aircraft carrier the HMS Prince of Wales' amid funding issues​

Britain's Navy 'may be forced to sell off the HMS Prince of Wales'

Senior figures fear HMS Prince of Wales, which cost £3.5billion to build, could be mothballed or sold for a knockdown price to a friendly nation, over the fleet's flagship HMS Queen Elizabeth.

www.dailymail.co.uk

What's the chance?

 

[Sanchez]

Britain's cash-strapped Navy 'may be forced to sell off its £3.5 billion aircraft carrier the HMS Prince of Wales' amid funding issues​

Britain's Navy 'may be forced to sell off the HMS Prince of Wales'

Senior figures fear HMS Prince of Wales, which cost £3.5billion to build, could be mothballed or sold for a knockdown price to a friendly nation, over the fleet's flagship HMS Queen Elizabeth.

www.dailymail.co.uk

What's the chance?

In a world where PoW is not mired with issues, it's near useless as a carrier without F-35B without major modifications.

 

[UkroTurk]

Britain's cash-strapped Navy 'may be forced to sell off its £3.5 billion aircraft carrier the HMS Prince of Wales' amid funding issues​

Britain's Navy 'may be forced to sell off the HMS Prince of Wales'

Senior figures fear HMS Prince of Wales, which cost £3.5billion to build, could be mothballed or sold for a knockdown price to a friendly nation, over the fleet's flagship HMS Queen Elizabeth.

www.dailymail.co.uk

What's the chance?

Noway. Hell no. We could produce 7 destroyer for 3.5 million* pounds. Edit: billion

 

[Afif]

Noway. Hell no. We could produce 7 destroyer for 3.5 million pounds

In that case Turkish Navy's budget would be sufficient to domitane USN and PLAN simultaneously.