What's new

Current Numbers of the NAVY and the Coast Guard

Yay, the JMSDF! BTW What is that photo about?
It's a South Turkestan flag, Japan protests violence and killing in South Turkestan Uighur region done by Chinese military while Turkey plays the three-monkeys.
 
. . .
With completion of program (2016-17), TF-2000 frigates will be able to counter coming ballistic missiles, aircrafts, cruise missiles and many other s from long ranges. Coverage area of CAFRAD would be similar to the image presented under.

893623A46HYS2CIAAcaxo1.jpg

I'm not the brightest one when it gets to naval warfare, but does the illustration above mean that our main air defensive assets will be based on frigates carrying the radars and interceptor missiles? If so, isn't safer to host them on land?

Forgive my ignorance and thanks in advance!
 
.
Baykuş;4499451 said:
I'm not the brightest one when it gets to naval warfare, but does the illustration above mean that our main air defensive assets will be based on frigates carrying the radars and interceptor missiles? If so, isn't safer to host them on land?

Forgive my ignorance and thanks in advance!

Maybe yes or no they will. But that doesn't mean that we will rely on the Navy for air defence. T-LORADMIS will be the main Missile&Air Defence assets of Turkey. This statement is a right one. Because more %70 of our borders are with the seas, which means we should have a perfect reliable Naval AAW capability. Other than "area aerial defence" role it will conduct successful Task Force ops. It'll be also used in situations like this;
Let's say Ukrain or Egypt or Libya started their own nuclear program (just geographical examples) . And they have the bomb. And let's say they are aggressor elements for Turkey. And they are threating us. What we gonna do? We can't go for a war. We'll just dispatch 2 TF-2000s to the opens of The Country X that it'll block all of their missile range when the ship takes the silos under it's range. It will be the perfect way of using Deterrence which US does that well, and achieves it's goal.
 
.
Maybe yes or no they will. But that doesn't mean that we will rely on the Navy for air defence. T-LORADMIS will be the main Missile&Air Defence assets of Turkey. This statement is a right one. Because more %70 of our borders are with the seas, which means we should have a perfect reliable Naval AAW capability. Other than "area aerial defence" role it will conduct successful Task Force ops. It'll be also used in situations like this;
Let's say Ukrain or Egypt or Libya started their own nuclear program (just geographical examples) . And they have the bomb. And let's say they are aggressor elements for Turkey. And they are threating us. What we gonna do? We can't go for a war. We'll just dispatch 2 TF-2000s to the opens of The Country X that it'll block all of their missile range when the ship takes the silos under it's range. It will be the perfect way of using Deterrence which US does that well, and achieves it's goal.

Very well, sir. Sounds like a solid and effective plan now that I understand it better. Thanks for the explanation and example! :)
 
.
You should take a look to Greek Navy to better apprehend the matter. There are still unsolved problems on Aegean among Greece and Turkiye.

I did take a look at the Greek Navy long ago, and it actually pales in comparison to the Turkish Navy - even though Greece has up to 6,000 islands and thus a real need for a larger navy (not that it can afford it).

Thus, Greek Navy has only 13 frigates in active service and 8 submarines in active service. See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Hellenic_Navy_ships

They can't even afford more, they are a bankrupt state. Just in case, let's check Greek Cyprus - but they don't have frigates or submarines: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyprus_Navy

Yet Turkey, which has less islands, has 27 frigates and 14 submarines - i.e., twice (!) more than Greece. So a reasonable question - and proposal - is to cut it, saving a lot of money in the process, and beef up much more important airforce and land forces.
 
.
Definitely as you said especially on airforce, without a strong air force what is the point of land force. I could always bomb you from the air. The only exception is if we had a very very strong air defence which we don't also. We should cut the land force budget by half and transfer to air force.

It's hard to agree with this. As U.S. and NATO have found out, there is a severe limit on the "non-contact" and otherwise air warfare, as well as on what UAV's can do. At the end of the day, power of any state and nation depends on its sovereignty over territory - preferably as large territory as possible and as fertile or otherwise rich in resources as possible. It is no accident than such large states as U.S., China, Russia, Canada, Brazil, Japan, Australia, France, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, and Kazakhstan and a few others are geopolitically more important than others, have larger economies, and large armies.

It's also no accident than in both invasions, of Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. and NATO had to rely on up to 100,000 or more boots on the ground if we count all contractors. This is despite overwhelming superiority in the air as well as in special forces that could be parachuted anywhere for a short-term mission.

It is the reason that NATO or U.S. are not taking more aggressive steps towards Syria and Iran, for example, as it means committing troops, which means casualties - as domination in the sky is not enough, plus never assured - let's remember Serbia war when 30-year old Soviet anti-aircraft systems downed the "stealth" F-117 and other planes, the 2008 war in Georgia when Georgians downed multiple Russian jet fighters including the strategic bomber Tu-95MS,

Turkey's power are its land forces, its army. The day Turkey decides to "save" money on its soldiers and instead get more airplanes or more frigates, would be the day when Turkish security would decrease, and the nation would start suffering a downfall.
 
.
Baykuş;4499451 said:
I'm not the brightest one when it gets to naval warfare, but does the illustration above mean that our main air defensive assets will be based on frigates carrying the radars and interceptor missiles? If so, isn't safer to host them on land?

Forgive my ignorance and thanks in advance!

Why to have it on land if you can intercept the incoming threat further away from your land? Just think of it as an aircraft carrying air intercept missiles instead of SAM installations on ground to prevent the bombers.
 
.
Yet Turkey, which has less islands, has 27 frigates and 14 submarines - i.e., twice (!) more than Greece. So a reasonable question - and proposal - is to cut it, saving a lot of money in the process, and beef up much more important airforce and land forces.
We're even more dominant in land forces with a mind blowing 402.000 active personnel and the ability to mobilize a couple of millions of at a time of crisis. Thanks to conscription we have a trained population that can be re-trained and re-instated shortly. I'm not even mentioning the Jandarma. We have some heavy equipment that needs modernization but that's about it, projects are underway to fix that problem. Our only real need for the land forces is a modern, reliable heavy lift helicopter. Gören-2 project will also be exciting and addition of A400M to the fleet will give us far greater logistical capabilities.

As for the Air Force right now only ones that can match us in the region are the Israeli, and until yesterday they've never been considered a threat. By ordering some 200+ CFTs and forming a couple of new F16 squadrons we can quickly match them. procurement of some more BWR missiles might be in order but that's about it.

We have superior AEW&C capabilities, we have superior air-refueling capabilities to any country in the region, first one also applies for Russia and Israel. TurAF is doing just fine.

That being said, navy is extremely important. Even with all the exciting projects such as Milgem and Atmaca, we can't forget the needs of our navy. Some SM2 equivalent of air-defense missile is a great need. AIP modernization for U209-1400s also might be in order.

With the procurement of the LHD we'll need to form a permanent fleet to roll with her, the navy must be ready.
That's awesome :D! I'm guessing that it's an Atago class destroyer. I guess the Japanese got more balls than Erdogan (No offence lol).
Dam right Japanese got more balls than Erdo. I'm a great fan of Japanese navy, their ASW capabilites are second to none. Some of their mitsubishi F2s got critically damaged during the tsunami that caused the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster and they need replacement but other than that they still possess great military strength despite the fact that their defence budget is only less than %1 of their GDP :) If it isn't epic, I don't know what is.
 
.
We're even more dominant in land forces with a mind blowing 402.000 active personnel and the ability to mobilize a couple of millions of at a time of crisis. Thanks to conscription we have a trained population that ran be re-trained and re-instated shortly. I'm not even mentioning the Jandarma. We have some heavy equipment that needs modernization but that's about it, projects are underway to fix that problem. Our only real need for the land forces is a modern, reliable heavy lift helicopter. Gören-2 project will also be exciting and addition of A400M to the fleet will give us far greater logistical capabilities.

As for the Air Force right now only ones that can match us in the region are the Israeli, and until yesterday they've never been considered a threat. By ordering some 200+ CFTs and forming a couple of new F16 squadrons we can quickly match them. procurement of some more BWR missiles might be in order but that's about it.

We have superior AEW&C capabilities, we have superior air-refueling capabilities to any country in the region, first one also applies for Russia and Israel. TurAF is doing just fine.

That being said, navy is extremely important. Even with all the exciting projects such as Milgem and Atmaca, we can't forget the needs of our navy. Some SM2 equivalent of air-defense missile is a great need. AIP modernisation for U209-1400s also might be in order.

With the procurement of the LHD we'll need to form a permanent fleet to roll with her, the navy must be ready.

We can't trick ourselves and be deluded, which seems you are. Israel is way ahead in terms of air force fighters and equipment right now, Russia is way way ahead though we are ahead of all the others nearby us. Israel has 310+ F-16 and 80+ F15 while our airforce consists of around 240 F-16 and 40+ F-4. We just ordered the new AWACS which we haven't received all yet (4). We have a very large submarine fleet though (14) and also getting new U214 though we getting them very late and our naval ships except gabya class (which has SM1 range upto 170km) are very weak in air defence against enemy aircraft. I don't know what the hell they was thinking by getting MEKO class, they are useless, must be the corruption and love of giving money to Germans.
 
.
We can't trick ourselves and be deluded, which seems you are. Israel is way ahead in terms of air force fighters and equipment right now, Russia is way way ahead though we are ahead of all the others nearby us. Israel has 310+ F-16 and 80+ F15 while our airforce consists of around 240 F-16 and 40+ F-4. We just ordered the new AWACS which we haven't received all yet (4). We have a very large submarine fleet though (14) and also getting new U214 though we getting them very late and our naval ships except gabya class (which has SM1 range upto 170km) are very weak in air defence against enemy aircraft. I don't know what the hell they was thinking by getting MEKO class, they are useless, must be the corruption and love of giving money to Germans.
You're not telling anything I don't know of so STFU? I'm not deluded, I know our weaknesses and strengths.

I won't take lectures from a boy who deems MEKO useless.
 
.
You're not telling anything I don't know of so STFU?

I'm just saying don't be deluded because of deluded people like you the country makes a lot of mistakes like erdoğan is one. He's makes people in village think we are growing at like 10% a year because they are too stupid to do any research, whatever they hear they believe.
 
. .
Guys, relying on the army is completly wrong. Think about the ME. All of them heavily relied on Army. Think smartly, try to beat the enemy from his weak point. Plus army is pretty well equipped when compared to HvKK and DzKK. That's why should and do rely on AF and Navy. We're doing good. Currently the big piece in the budget goes to the Navy, then AF, then the Army.
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom