What's new

Turkish Naval Programs

Yes almost a 100 meter. Also Anadolu's runway is not designed to handle 27 tons jet landing (approach angle , weight , speed etc). If you try to land
F35 A to Anadolu as it is then you dont have to worry about the length of the landing deck cos' you would have a huge hole on your ship
 
Is that the Turkish LHD?

When was the island lifted into place and even more when was it painted? When did they add the ramp

Keel was laid 13 months ago how did they manage to build faster than Navantia?

Even more why did it take 10 year to build 4 x Ada class corvette?

If this is the standard to go by that was hell of a pace unbelievable

Seems like building is not rate determining step but rather the politics

Things happen like this in shipbuilding industry,

Modules ( called blocks) ,are built, painted and mounted. It is more like parallel processing of CPUs while building the hull. It turns to a serial processing while fitting of equipments take a place. Moreover, navantia has built it in two separate shipyards and when the ship was launched it was almost ready. Took another year for tests. Here it goes;

Not a success particularly, just a ship being launched at the time it has meant to be. There is not much stuff to celebrate for steel cutting and welding process assisted by Navantia we have been doing that for years already. We should be proud the first day a fixed wing craft has taken off and landed back.

There are at least 3-4 years to commission it. Add 1-2 years to make flight deck fully operational. Canberra class took another 3 years for fitting following the launch. We can not consider Juan Carlos I as a reference for schedule here,it was launched with all fittings and gone through tests on the following year and later commisioned. Canberra has been launched as a steel hull like Anadolu,and took another 3 (4) years for fitting of equipments process. For our case it could go even longer because of the flight deck.
 
Non stovl aircrafts can take off without landing on ship is more than no aircraft on ship,these aircrafts can refuel on air repeatly and at the end returns to land on your own or ally airports but the problem is how you first land on ship
Almost a impossible mission if you are outside Turkeys borders.
 
Yes almost a 100 meter. Also Anadolu's runway is not designed to handle 27 tons jet landing (approach angle , weight , speed etc). If you try to land
F35 A to Anadolu as it is then you dont have to worry about the length of the landing deck cos' you would have a huge hole on your ship
If it was related to weight then F35C woudnt be designed. Which means its highly related to jet itself. Requires a strengthened hull for hooking.
It is not about weight, it is about not utilizing a conventional landing system(wires) on Anadolu,which is highly expensive and not needed. It is meant to operate STOVL or non-STOVL jets which could make use of a ski-jump and land at nearby ally port (in case of deploying aircrafts nearby to your homeland and eventually let them return after completing the mission)
@Bismarck , sometimes things cost more when you have tried to remove them a few tonnes isnt a big deal for such a huge ship. Ski-jump isnt a sole system to let for take offs, the deck and deck coating is even upgraded for jet landing and take off.
 
Why does TCG ANADOLU have ski-jump? Still F35B deal is obscure even we might say USA wouldnt allow any f35s. Now TCG ANADOLU is just LHD, not an aircraft carrier.
Actually Turkey can use UAVs in the future to fly from LHD..
 
Yes almost a 100 meter. Also Anadolu's runway is not designed to handle 27 tons jet landing (approach angle , weight , speed etc). If you try to land
F35 A to Anadolu as it is then you dont have to worry about the length of the landing deck cos' you would have a huge hole on your ship

What is this than?

A fking huge C130 lands and takes of from a 75 meter runway.

 
Ada Class variant for surveillance and intelligence gathering is slightly heavier than the standard Ada class despite having no weapons and associated fire control systems

So what kind of equipment is on board then, must be serious load on that ship who got the contract for the out fitting foreign or national company ?
 
If it was related to weight then F35C woudnt be designed. Which means its highly related to jet itself. Requires a strengthened hull for hooking.
It is not about weight, it is about not utilizing a conventional landing system(wires) on Anadolu,which is highly expensive and not needed. It is meant to operate STOVL or non-STOVL jets which could make use of a ski-jump and land at nearby ally port (in case of deploying aircrafts nearby to your homeland and eventually let them return after completing the mission)
@Bismarck , sometimes things cost more when you have tried to remove them a few tonnes isnt a big deal for such a huge ship. Ski-jump isnt a sole system to let for take offs, the deck and deck coating is even upgraded for jet landing and take off.

I respect your opinions but I disagree with you in this case .I am not gonna argue about sinking speed , approach angle, weight of the fighter and stress on the landing deck and decks length . Pls correct me If I understood you correctly So in your mission planning we load our F35A fighters into the LHD , they take off from Anadolu without catapult help and after mission they land on friendly country . If that is correct I have no further question
 
Last edited:
Ada Class variant for surveillance and intelligence gathering is slightly heavier than the standard Ada class despite having no weapons and associated fire control systems

So what kind of equipment is on board then, must be serious load on that ship who got the contract for the out fitting foreign or national company ?
No serious equipment but food, water and diesel . that is provide it for 45 days of endurance vs 15 days of regular ada.
 
What is this than?

A fking huge C130 lands and takes of from a 75 meter runway.


what was the modifications on that plane and why Americans decided not to pursue this . How many c130 are landing on LHDs today ? What is the minimum take off and landing distance for F35A's ? How many F35A's has took off from USS Wasp LHD so far. Why stupid Americans decided to create 3 diff version of F35s for different ships and requirements.
 
What is this than?

A fking huge C130 lands and takes of from a 75 meter runway.

300px-USS_Forrestal_%28CVA-59%29_underway_at_sea_on_31_May_1962_%28KN-4507%29.jpg


You are comparing totally two different ships.

Why do we look down on Harriers?
Harriers get along with ski-jumps
 
Last edited:
300px-USS_Forrestal_%28CVA-59%29_underway_at_sea_on_31_May_1962_%28KN-4507%29.jpg


You are comparing totally two different ships.

Why do we look down on Harriers?
Harriers get along with ski-jumps

We dont , I dont at least . There are no operational Harrier in British Navy or inventory for our LHD. They sold the operational ones to US Marines.
 
what was the modifications on that plane and why Americans decided not to pursue this . How many c130 are landing on LHDs today ? What is the minimum take off and landing distance for F35A's ? How many F35A's has took off from USS Wasp LHD so far. Why stupid Americans decided to create 3 diff version of F35s for different ships and requirements.

You claim that the 100-meter aircraft deck is too short to land a 27-ton jet fighter. A C-130 Hercules easily weighs 60 tons with fuel. There was absolutely no adjustment made to the carrier for a C-130 landing. After many thouch and go tests, the pilots were able to land the C-130 and came to a complete stop withint 80 meters. They did take off and land the plane without the support of a catapult and arresting gear. Also F-4's took off and landed on USS Forrestal. With that weight difference the jets didnt even need a long runway to take off with full payload or land.

You talk straight up bs about the number of meters that a flight deck needs to land or take off jets.

300px-USS_Forrestal_%28CVA-59%29_underway_at_sea_on_31_May_1962_%28KN-4507%29.jpg


You are comparing totally two different ships.

Why do we look down on Harriers?
Harriers get along with ski-jumps

It was more about the meters a jet needs to take off or come to a complete stop after landing. This with a catapult and arresting gear ofc. I dont know if they gonna implement this kind of features in the future. But there is also a very short take off video of a mig29 jetfighter:

 
You claim that the 100-meter aircraft deck is too short to land a 27-ton jet fighter. A C-130 Hercules easily weighs 60 tons with fuel. There was absolutely no adjustment made to the carrier for a C-130 landing. After many thouch and go tests, the pilots were able to land the C-130 and came to a complete stop withint 80 meters. They did take off and land the plane without the support of a catapult and arresting gear. Also F-4's took off and landed on USS Forrestal. With that weight difference the jets didnt even need a long runway to take off with full payload or land.

You talk straight up bs about the number of meters that a flight deck needs to land or take off jets.



It was more about the meters a jet needs to take off or come to a complete stop after landing. This with a catapult and arresting gear ofc. I dont know if they gonna implement this kind of features in the future. But there is also a very short take off video of a mig29 jetfighter:



Forget about my stupid and bs claims and lets assume you are right. A simple question for you; How many F35A was purchased for LHD operations in the world?. How many orders for F35B for LHDs ?
 
Back
Top Bottom