Turkish LHD Program | News & Discusions

[cabatli_53]

 

[Neptune]

Bro can you give us specifications about Levent class LHD and its differences from Juan Carlos. Also

1- Isn't it possible to station VTOL aircraft in it?

2- Does Navy have any plans to equip the ship with F-35B since the JSF orders are 100 with an option with 16?

 

[xxxKULxxx]

Bro can you give us specifications about Levent class LHD and its differences from Juan Carlos. Also

1- Isn't it possible to station VTOL aircraft in it?

2- Does Navy have any plans to equip the ship with F-35B since the JSF orders are 100 with an option with 16?

1- Yes...

LHD "Juan Carlos I" (L-61) - Ships - Armada Española - Ministerio de Defensa - Gobierno de España

2- I strongly believe, yes...

 

[Zarvan]

Bro can you give us specifications about Levent class LHD and its differences from Juan Carlos. Also

1- Isn't it possible to station VTOL aircraft in it?

2- Does Navy have any plans to equip the ship with F-35B since the JSF orders are 100 with an option with 16?

Which Missiles this ship can fire ? If any ?

 

[cabatli_53]

Bro can you give us specifications about Levent class LHD and its differences from Juan Carlos. Also

1- Isn't it possible to station VTOL aircraft in it?

2- Does Navy have any plans to equip the ship with F-35B since the JSF orders are 100 with an option with 16?

1- Indeed bro.
2-It is known that Turkey has a strong interest for F-35B variant of JSF.

 

[Neptune]

1- Indeed bro.
2-It is known that Turkey has a strong interest for F-35B variant of JSF.

Thanks. Any specs about Levent LHD if revealed?

 

[Neptune]

Which Missiles this ship can fire ? If any ?

Since it'll be a 28,000 tonne LHD, probably RIM-166 RAM or ESSM if the national equalivents Hisar-O and Hisar-A don't get ready before commission.

 

[cabatli_53]

The Turkish LPD main characteristics are as follows:

MAIN DIMENSIONS
Length overall: 224.50 m
Maximum Breadth: 32.00 m
Draft at full load end of life 7.08 m
Design draught: 6.80 m
Maximum displacement: 27430 t

Main Characteristics And Capacities

Full Electric Propulsion 1 GT +2 DDGG with 2 x POD @ 11 MW
Maximum sustained speed 21 knots
Range 9000 n.m. at 15 knots (economical speed)
Endurance with troops 50 days offshore (20 d. transit)
Accommodation capacity 1223 personnel
Dock Capacity (1165 m2): 4 x LCM 1E + 4 x Supercat, or 2 x LCAC 2 x LCVP Mk5 + 1 x commander boat in the flight deck
Hangar Capacity (990 m2) 12 x NH-90 or 8 x CH-47 Chinook
Light Cargo Garage (1880 m2) Light vehicles, containers and helicopters
Heavy Cargo Garage (1410 m2): Heavy vehicles, Containers
Fight Deck (4750 m2) 6 spots for NH-90, or 4 spots for CH-47 or CH-53
Aft spot capable for V-22 and runway for VSTOL

http://defenceturkey.com/www/dergi/53295e7e26f36_51.pdf

 

[ANMDT]

2- Does Navy have any plans to equip the ship with F-35B since the JSF orders are 100 with an option with 16?

the strong belief on this question is yes, because. navy asks for Jet blast resistant coating on flight deck which is similar to ones used in ACs. If i am not mistaken its included in RfP ,or in the files of design reqirements. For legal source i may not show any,just need to wait.

 

[egolfs]

2- Does Navy have any plans to equip the ship with F-35B since the JSF orders are 100 with an option with 16?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought I read somewhere that the ski jump for the "Turkish" juan carlos' was not wanted......a very sad decision if true

 

[xxxKULxxx]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought I read somewhere that the ski jump for the "Turkish" juan carlos' was not wanted......a very sad decision if true

F-35B doesn't need ski jump... Runway is enough...

 

[egolfs]

F-35B doesn't need ski jump... Runway is enough...

Juan Carlos 231m long

Previous trials were on USS Wasp (LHD 1) - 257 m long

At Maximum Take Off Weight (MTOW) - F35B needs about 167m for a rolling take off ( I hope this is enough )

- With ski jump F35B needs only 136m

 

[Hexciter]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought I read somewhere that the ski jump for the "Turkish" juan carlos' was not wanted......a very sad decision if true

The existing LHD design is made with Harrier in mind. Contary to Harrier, the JSF has large and very powerful engine which means large amount of heat and pressure while vertical landing. So, ship deck must be specially coated to handle that. I read smowhere that the newest LHA had to be retrofitted to handle these. That added weight which will effect the stability in the rough sea and performance. Apart from these upper hangar height must be increased to accomadate JSF which is taller than Harrier and elevators must be stronger to handle increased weight of JSF. Added weight again. The Osprey had similar issues like JSF, but lesser in weight. Solution simply adding a special aft landing spot is solution which was already present in the tender requirement. JSF can use this spot for occasional landings but not for routine.
Adding ski-jump is used for shorter take-off with larger take-off weight. No ski-jump is not means JSF cannot take-off.
Over all the problem is not just having ski-jump or not.

 

[xenon54 out]

The existing LHD design is made with Harrier in mind. Contary to Harrier, the JSF has large and very powerful engine which means large amount of heat and pressure while vertical landing. So, ship deck must be specially coated to handle that. I read smowhere that the newest LHA had to be retrofitted to handle these. That added weight which will effect the stability in the rough sea and performance. Apart from these upper hangar height must be increased to accomadate JSF which is taller than Harrier and elevators must be stronger to handle increased weight of JSF. Added weight again. The Osprey had similar issues like JSF, but lesser in weight. Solution simply adding a special aft landing spot is solution which was already present in the tender requirement. JSF can use this spot for occasional landings but not for routine.
Adding ski-jump is used for shorter take-off with larger take-off weight. No ski-jump is not means JSF cannot take-off.
Over all the problem is not just having ski-jump or not.

The heat problem might be solved with this special coating.

Remember a few weeks ago when we ran the picture above showing an F-35B Joint Strike Fighter hovering over what appears to be a new deck coating aboard the USS Wasp?

We wondered is the coating was designed to absorb the F-35B’s hot exhaust that many had worried would melt the ship’s deck. Well, the Navy has just put out a little more detail on the coating in a press release announcing the end of F-35B sea trials.

It turns out, this is indeed a new, heat-resistant deck coating called Thermion. It’s made of bonded ceramic and aluminum and was applied to landing spot nine on the Wasp’s flight deck — “a small area used for vertical landings,” according to the Navy.

The press release quotes a Navy technician who worked on the deck coating as saying, “the Thermion shows no signs of heat stress, which is good for the F-35, and eventually good for all surface ships.”


Interesting. I wonder if Thermion will be applied to the entire flight deck on amphibious assault ships slated to carry F-35Bs or is it too heavy and expensive to apply to the entire flight deck?

The Bravo isn’t slated to return for more sea trials aboard the Wasp until 2013, “after Wasp receives additional modifications for F-35B operations,” states the release.

Speaking of modifications, we also noticed that a large radome has been removed from the ship’s port side, just off the flight deck area where the F-35s were landing. Relocating this radome could be one of the modifications the release is talking about.

Read more: The Wasp's New Heat-Resistant Deck Coating | Defense Tech
Defense.org

 

[Hakan]

-----------------------------

Turkey’s new carrier alters eastern Mediterranean energy and security calculus
(From Jerusalem Post)

​

In late December 2013 Turkey took a major step in altering the naval balance in the eastern Mediterranean by contracting the construction of a multi-purpose amphibious assault ship that can function as an aircraft carrier, potentially providing Turkey an unprecedented measure of sea control in the region.

The heightened threat perception for Israel, Cyprus and Greece will impact the imminent decision regarding whether Israel will export its natural gas to a planned Cypriot LNG terminal with a European export route through Greece, or build a subsea pipeline to Turkey. Turkey’s next diplomatic moves could make the difference between a comprehensive regional agreement for a Turkish export route for eastern Mediterranean offshore energy, or a naval arms race which Turkey economically cannot win.

Background In March 2012, then-commander of the Turkish navy Admiral Murat Bilgel outlined Turkey’s strategic objective “to operate not only in the littorals but also on the high seas,” with “high seas” referring to the eastern Mediterranean. Bilgel identified the Turkish navy’s intermediate goals for the coming decade as “enhancing sea denial, forward presence, and limited power projection capacity.”

Turkey’s new Landing Helicopter Dock (LHD) will cost between one half to one billion dollars and will provide Ankara with its desired forward presence in the eastern Mediterranean, which Greece, Cyprus and Israel cannot afford to ignore.

The new Turkish LHD, to be built by the Turkish shipyard SEDEF and Spanish shipbuilder Navantia, will be a variant of Navantia’s Juan Carlos I class L-61 ship used by the Spanish Navy. After Spain, Turkey will be only the second country to possess a Juan Carlos I class vessel.

The Australian navy’s two Navantia-built ships, the HMAS Canberra and HMAS Adelaide, once commissioned, will constitute the Australian fleet’s largest vessels. Similarly, Anakara’s new LHD will dwarf the Turkish fleet’s largest ships.

While ships in Turkish Navy’s Gabya class have a 4,100 ton displacement, Turkey’s new Juan Carlos I class LHD will have a displacement of 27,079 tons.

Providing the Turkish Navy with blue-water capabilities, Ankara’s new LHD is game-changer in the eastern Mediterranean. The main mission profile of the Juan Carlos I class LHD is power projection to any theater of operation. As an amphibious assault ship, it can transport a battalion-sized unit of 1,000 troops along with 150 vehicles, including battle tanks, for a marine landing.

Even more significantly, the Juan Carlos I class LHD is an aircraft carrier substitute. The ship has already replaced Spain’s aircraft carrier the Principe de Asturias. In Spanish, the LHD ship is referred to by the abbreviation BPE, standing for Buque de Proyeccion Estrategica or Strategic Power Projection Ship, more accurately reflecting its purpose.

As an aircraft carrier, Turkey’s LHD will feature a flight deck with a 12° ski-jump enabling it to host both V/STOL (Vertical and/or Short Take-Off and Landing) and STOVL (Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing) fighter aircraft. While six fighter aircraft can be parked on its flight deck, the ship also has a hangar bay that can house 12 additional fighter aircraft.

As Turkey’s first aircraft carrier, the LHD will be capable of sailing non-stop for 30 days with a range of 1,700 nautical miles (3,148 km). In combination with Turkey’s existing naval assets, the LHD will provide Ankara with the ability to project significant force in the areas of Cyprus and Israel’s offshore natural gas facilities, giving Turkey, in the short term, a greater measure of sea control in the region.

Implications Turkey’s LHD acquisition constitutes part of Ankara’s $3 billion “National Warship” Project, known by its Turkish abbreviation MILGEM, whose goal is to expand Turkey’s capability to deploy combat forces far from its coasts. In September 2013, shortly after assuming his post as Turkey’s new naval commander, Admiral Bülent Bostanoglu asserted in a national speech related to the MILGEM project that Turkey’s maritime threat perception is “energy-based” and identified defending Turkey’s interests in the eastern Mediterranean as the navy’s “highest priority.”

In this context, Turkey’s LHD procurement will impact Israel’s decision-making process about how to export off-shore natural gas from its Tamar and Leviathan fields. Israel’s Tamar field is already in commercial production and in December 2013 additional reserves of up to 20 billion cubic meters were discovered. Israel’s Leviathan field is estimated to contain 510 billion cubic meters of natural gas.

The developers of the Israeli gas fields, the American firm Noble Energy and their Israeli partners Avner and Delek, signed a June 2013 MOU with Cyprus to build a Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) terminal in Vasilikos on the southern Cypriot coast. Because Cyprus’s Aphrodite gas field, also developed by Noble and Delek, is too small to attract sufficient investment to finance a gas liquefaction plant, cash-strapped Cyprus needs the volume of Israeli gas exports for a viable LNG terminal.

The arrangement also raises the possibility of a European market export route via Greece that would bypass Turkey.

The evolution of this possible export arrangement is the product of the trilateral cooperation in energy development and defense among Israel, Cyprus and Greece that arose in the context of the deteriorating relations between Israel and Turkey from 2008 to 2012.

In 2010, Turkey’s National Security Policy Document (Milli Guvenlik Siyaseti Belgesi), commonly known as “The Red Book,” began to list Israel as a threat to regional security, while Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan famously promised that the “Eastern Mediterranean will see Turkish battleships frequently.”

A more cost-effective export route for Israeli natural gas would be via a subsea pipeline from the Leviathan field to Turkey. According to estimates from JP Morgan, the pipeline would yield a higher and faster return on investment than the construction of the planned LNG plant in Cyprus.

The Turkish firm Zorlu Energy and, more recently, Turcas Petrol have been pursuing the pipeline option with Israel.

However, Ankara’s LHD acquisition in the context of the antagonistic posture toward Israel by Prime Minister Erdogan, Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu and other high-ranking Turkish ministers creates a heightened threat perception in Israel in which Jerusalem cannot afford to jeopardize its strategic relations with Nicosia and, by extension, Athens.

Moreover, the proposed Leviathan- Turkey pipeline would transverse Cyprus’s continental shelf requiring permission from Nicosia. Without a significant breakthrough for a political settlement on Northern Cyprus, Ankara’s LHD acquisition similarly heightens Nicosia’s threat perception, altering the strategic calculus for both Nicosia and Athens.

Ankara has laid down a strategic marker with its enhanced naval capabilities in the eastern Mediterranean. If Turkey does not follow with diplomatic overtures to secure a comprehensive energy export agreement with Israel, Cyprus and Greece that meets Turkey’s interests, Ankara will have wasted a valuable opportunity.

Instead, Ankara will have initiated a naval arms race which Turkey does not have the economic resources to win.

Israel does not need to match Turkey’s procurement program to effectively counter a Turkish bid for greater sea control in the eastern Mediterranean.

Israel can respond with the less costly augmentation of its anti-access and area-denial capabilities. Both countries best interests are served by not becoming trapped in this kind of naval competition.

Conclusions Even though Turkey’s new carrier and other naval assets have yet to be commissioned, their procurement has already altered the strategic balance in the eastern Mediterranean and the terms Turkey will be able to demand from its neighbors.

Greece, Cyprus and Israel will each need to recalibrate their strategic calculus. Unless these three can come to a regional agreement that incentivizes Turkey as a distribution hub for the sale of eastern Mediterranean natural gas, Greece, Cyprus and Israel will need to consider enhanced collective security arrangements to ensure their maritime interests.

A subsea pipeline from Israel’s Leviathan gas field to Turkey, one that also compensates Cyprus with revenue sharing and excess gas for the development of its LNG terminal, offers economic incentives to all the principal actors to reach a comprehensive arrangement for the security of the eastern Mediterranean.

For its part, Turkey will need to restore full and friendly relations with Israel while engaging Cyprus on a political settlement.

Such a shift in Turkish diplomacy will transform Turkey’s naval build-up into an incentive for regional cooperation.

Without such a shift, Turkey will be committing itself to a long-term naval escalation in the eastern Mediterranean which its economy cannot sustain.

The author is a Fellow at the Shalem College Department of Middle East and Islamic Studies, and at the Asia and Middle East Units of the Hebrew University’s Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace. He also teaches in Tel Aviv University’s Departments of Middle Eastern History and East Asian Studies.

Turkey’s new carrier alters eastern Mediterranean energy and security calculus
Turkish Navy selects the Spanish Juan Carlos for LHD Project
--------------------
@xxxKULxxx

Bu kim?