What's new

Turkish Naval Programs

TAIS has such a concept. There are also preliminary designs for Malaysia's Multirole Support Ship (MRSS) project. However, I mentioned that a solution can be produced through the Bayraktar class to shorten the design process. In this way, a platform around 9k tons, which preserves the ability to cover the beach, but also supports all type helicopter operations, can be gained.(Of course there is no such project, I'm just saying my opinion)
overview%2BBayraktar.jpg

1. Waiving the vehicle park on the upper deck of the ship and placing the cranes and LCVPs in this section.(Slightly reducing the amphibious landing capability)

2a. Extension of the Accomodation / Bridge to the cranes&LCVPs section currently, thereby creating space for the hangar at the bottom. (Acquisition of flight operations capability) 2b. Extending back deck length of the ship for 1 more helicopter spot.
tcg-lpd-levent-image2.jpg


Something like this?
 
. . .
Yantar Shipyard's preliminary design of the improved(block2?) Ivan Gren-class LST (Project 11711), for the Russian Navy. (Attack helicopters in the draft are also an important detail.)
Yantar-Shipyard-Unveils-Design-of-Improved-Project-11711-Ivan-Gren-class-LST-770x410.jpg

Yantar-Shipyard-Unveils-Design-of-Improved-Project-11711-Ivan-Gren-class-LST-2.jpg


On the other hand, the Korean navy's first-new-generation LSTs (Cheon Wang Bong-class) also has spot for two heavy-class helicopters on deck, although there is no hangar area inside accommodation block .
_I5onHH_FuXJy3SpBs5mFtuXuvz4uXipWroXDnFhSXU.png


Dear ANMDT rightly explained some technical difficulties. Also He know better from us the difficulty of designing a ship from the scratch. I always respect his opinions about which situation will lead to better time and resource management. The basic basis of my opinion was focused on simple solution, not based on technical parameters.

On the other hand, as far as I can see, close helicopter support and air logistic network between land and ships are gaining importance in amphibious operations, including disaster support etc...

This requires more and more qualified navalized helicopters with various capabilities and a sufficient number of platforms for the operation of these vehicles. When I examine the plans of the Navies for the near future, I clearly see the effects of this. This is one side of coin.

On the other side of the coin, there are unique conditions of the Turkish navy. Challenging resource management planning, "yet" limited military building capacity, especially due to the pressure of the schedule in the main combat elements; but increasing geopolitical risks...

In some necessary areas we should be able to deploy simple-cheap-fast solutions. Tuzla class patrol boats from the recent past are a very successful example in this sense.

TCG Anadolu is a huge platform. Moreover, it is a very expensive ship. Because it promises operational capabilities that we don't have yet. However, we are very experienced in LST ships and rotary wing maritime aviation. As an intermediate solution, we can combine these two issues in line with our own unique needs. When our TCG Anadolu operation capability deepens, we can plan forward steps better.

tcg-lpd-levent-image2.jpg


Something like this?
This was a well dock ship design. LCVP, LCM or other vehicles can be launch to water by ballasting the LPD. But what I am talking about are flat keel ships that use traditional cranes and have beaching ability, except for the Korean navy example.
 
Last edited:
.
As a unprofessional fan of forum what i have noticed is that Bayraktar's 4 Landing Crafts for personal and Bayraktar's crane can hold max 30tonnes. Bayraktars Landing Crafts arent for tanks. However the Korean LST 2 has stronger crane and larger 2 Landing Crafts for a main battle tank.
Also i have noticed Bayraktar is conventional landing ship which can beach-debeach whereas Korean LST 2 can't.
Korean LST 2 has more closer specifications to LPD TCG Anadolu.
 
.
However the Korean LST 2 has stronger crane and larger 2 Landing Crafts for a main battle tank.

The Korean ship has 3 landing crafts. The last one is in well dock. However it is nowhere close to Juan Carlos I class (on which LDP Anadolu is based) in terms of specs. Personally I believe Royal Australian Navy should have not bought Canberra Class (another Juan Carlos I class ship) if they had intended to use them as a carrier for F-35B rather than a helicopter carrier.
 
. . .
The Korean ship has 3 landing crafts. The last one is in well dock. However it is nowhere close to Juan Carlos I class (on which LDP Anadolu is based) in terms of specs. Personally I believe Royal Australian Navy should have not bought Canberra Class (another Juan Carlos I class ship) if they had intended to use them as a carrier for F-35B rather than a helicopter carrier.
??? You meant RAN shouldn't have bought juan carlos, because They are going to use f35b?? What should have RAN bought?
Bayraktar has beaching and debeaching capability like other conventional LSTs however both Carlos and Korean LST are using submersible stern for landing and LCM. Two different methods separate two classes.

This is not how LSTs work.
yes I've got it. Conventional LSTs use beach landing. Anyway Korean LST2's Cranes are not for loading tanks onto LCMs.
Instead of keeping 3 LCMs in hull , Koreans put 2 of them on deck.
 
. .
??? You meant RAN shouldn't have bought juan carlos, because They are going to use f35b?? What should have RAN bought?

RAN probably should have bought something without a ski jump since they are more suitable as a helicopter carrier. Canberra class can operate only a handful of F-35B after heavy modification which would severely hurt its capability as an amphibious vessel and cost Australia a lot of money.

If they had planned to operate F-35B or C to begin with, they should have bought something much larger and probably a proper aircraft carrier.
 
.
The Korean ship has 3 landing crafts. The last one is in well dock. However it is nowhere close to Juan Carlos I class (on which LDP Anadolu is based) in terms of specs. Personally I believe Royal Australian Navy should have not bought Canberra Class (another Juan Carlos I class ship) if they had intended to use them as a carrier for F-35B rather than a helicopter carrier.
Most of LHD with sufficient deck area and properties can operate F-35B (following minor modifications, adding electronics-communications needed). Considering that ships are long term acquisition (about 40 years with possible extends), leaving a skip-jump on a ship which allows for easier conventional take off is a bonus. Moreover, there were other perks of Juan Carlos I made it chosen for Canberra class*.
Removing the ski-jump physically** will not increase number of simultaneous heli operations on the deck***, it could provide additional flat area for elevators but Juan Carlos I has sufficient area for those as well. The other parts related with aviation, ie. hangars, facilities below flight deck can be optimized for mixed use or rotary aircraft only, will conclude whether its most efficient for heli or jets.

*it was larger, allowed for more space, more personnel, more assets to be carried.
** %60 of the ski-jump is provided thanks to extension of the fore profile. once its made flat, this part would be diminished (or even up to %80, since in this case it will have a blunt fore, instead of pointy one ( like mistral) ). refer to the image below.
***However it can affect landings approaching from the fore

L61-Juan-Carlos-I-04.jpg

Note that, this image assumes the profile would remain same,however it would be altered slightly that yellow line would have been shifted towards stern more than shown in here.
Red line- flight deck's base
Orange- possible extension of flat deck
Yellow- actual extension of the flat deck
Green - end of the current operational deck.

Correction: removing ski-jump and extending flight deck up to the foremost point can enable one more landing spot at the fore if it was extended up the foremost point. In case of a flat flight deck, Juan Carlos I will also have a blunt (flat) fore like mistral, which again may not be able to provide any additional landing spot.
Mistral, which was the rival of Juan Carlos I for Canberra class has 6 landing spots as well. DCNS has offered slightly larger version, i doubt if it would add another landing spot.

RAN probably should have bought something without a ski jump since they are more suitable as a helicopter carrier. Canberra class can operate only a handful of F-35B after heavy modification which would severely hurt its capability as an amphibious vessel and cost Australia a lot of money.

If they had planned to operate F-35B or C to begin with, they should have bought something much larger and probably a proper aircraft carrier.
F-35C is never an option for Juan Carlos, it doesn't have catapult or arrest wires, yet the sufficient place for those.
We are living in a time where light AAW and multi-role frigates are gaining an interest in most of the navies, thus it is reasonable for RAN and TN to choose Juan Carlos I, it is multi-role*. One step above, you will end up having an aircraft carrier which will take you into another league. RAN could consider and afford** having an AC but this isn't the case for TN.
Finally, operating F-35Bs from an LHD does not yield to "major modifications" as you have thought or reduce its amphibious capabilities***. USS Wasp operated F-35Bs, Japan has been interested in operating F-35Bs on its LHD. There are other countries considering to operate these aircrafts on their flat-deck LHDs. It is a cheap solution compared to purchasing an AC and maintaining it.

*However it takes longer time for the ship to be "fully operational". A navy purchasing a multi-role platform is as well aware of the burden to keep it active for all the role,and the crew trained.
**None of the countries with capabilities to build an AC would sell it to Turkey, neither turkey would buy it. But once Australia declares an interest, there would be several offers.
***If you mention simultaneous amphibious and aviation activities, yes it would reduce. But this is already expected. Pure amphibious or pure aviation capabilities would remain the same.
 
Last edited:
.
Most of LHD with sufficient deck area and properties can operate F-35B (following minor modifications, adding electronics-communications needed). Considering that ships are long term acquisition (about 40 years with possible extends), leaving a skip-jump on a ship which allows for easier conventional take off is a bonus. Moreover, there were other perks of Juan Carlos I made it chosen for Canberra class.

It is not a question whether Juan Carlos I Class can operate a fleet of F-35B after heavy modifications, but whether it is efficient to spend that money to apply modifications to the ship. My point is that the ship can only operate a handful of F-35B and it would make the ship a high profile target. Many navy isn't the US navy where they have a lot of ships that protect the carrier. RAN doesn't have that. I am sure Turkish Navy doesn't have that either.

It is nice to have a "multi-purpose" ship, but it is not optimal to operate a full-pledge carrier and the ski-jump is an obsolete as Harrier is no longer an option. I don't want RAN to spend money to remove the ski-jump on Canberra Class ships, but RAN should have bought something larger with aircraft catapult if they had intended to use it as an aircraft carrier.

Edit : The ski-jump ramp of Canberra-Class was never intended by RAN and the ship was originally planned to use a landing helicopter dock.

RAN could consider and afford having an AC
Exactly, hence my complaint. Being a "multi-purpose" could potentially mean that the ship does not excel at any purpose.
 
Last edited:
.
It is not a question whether Juan Carlos I Class can operate a fleet of F-35B after heavy modifications, but whether it is efficient to spend that money to apply modifications to the ship. My point is that the ship can only operate a handful of F-35B and it would make the ship a high profile target. Many navy isn't the US navy where they have a lot of ships that protect the carrier. RAN doesn't have that. I am sure Turkish Navy doesn't have that either.

It is nice to have a "multi-purpose" ship, but it is not optimal to operate a full-pledge carrier and the ski-jump is an obsolete as Harrier is no longer an option. I don't want RAN to spend money to remove the ski-jump on Canberra Class ships, but RAN should have bought something larger with an aircraft catapult if they had intended to use it as an aircraft carrier.


Exactly, hence my complaint. Being a "multi-purpose" could potentially mean that the ship does not excel at any purpose.

I am quite sure that everyone here agree on that Juan Carlos isn't anything but a multirole support ship. Whether you have F35B or helicopters would be the choice of the navy in charge of naval security. We've had this discussion ever since it was said we were going to have Juan Carlos (I remember because ppl were having heated discussion about AC or LHD).

Found an interesting read about Spain wanting to replace their 18 Harrier with F35B (I doubt there can be more than 6-7 at a time on the ship though).
https://www.defensenews.com/global/...s-for-the-f-35-despite-european-fighter-push/
https://thediplomat.com/2019/02/the-f-35b-and-australias-canberra-class-still-a-chance/
 
Last edited:
.
My point is that the ship can only operate a handful of F-35B and it would make the ship a high profile target
Turkey is planning to form a battle group to protect TCG Anadolu (eventhough it wont have F-35B anytime soon-maybe never), it may not be fully fledged as Carrier battle groups of the US. I think RAN also would provide sufficient protection for these vessels. The question is, is RAN anyhow interested in having an AC in short to mid term plans?
Exactly, hence my complaint. Being a "multi-purpose" could potentially mean that the ship does not excel at any purpose.
It is duty of the navies to keep their ships' role active and polish during peace time with exercises.
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom