Turkish Naval Programs

[ANMDT]

Those things that look like windows behind the plastic cover on railing?

navylive.dodlive.mil/2013/10/29/pcu-zumwalt-ddg-1000-water-under-the-keel/
there are more picture to see bridge.
Yes its a littler upper, or behind of plastic cover (in this perspective of picture) a line of windows.

 

[xenon54 out]

navylive.dodlive.mil/2013/10/29/pcu-zumwalt-ddg-1000-water-under-the-keel/
I couldnt tag it as link, there are more picture to see bridge.
Yes its a littler upper, or behind of plastic cover (in this perspective of picture) a line of windows.

Ahh ok, what is the cover on windows for? Stealthy?

 

[Exocet]

Can you see now @xenon54

 

[xenon54 out]

Can you see now @xenon54

Yeah i have seen it now but im asking why they covered the windows.

 

[ANMDT]

Don't understand it wrong.Durand De La Penne is a Destroyer.I meant that some ships that around 5000 tonnes can be classified as a destroyer as a response to @xenon54 @isoo

Its more about the navies , they call ships with some titles up to them, so for zumwalt USN has reason to call as destroyer, for ticenderoga they have reason to call cruiser , for the DDG based CG(X) cruiser, they have a reason to call cruiser. Its same for our milgem and TF-2000 too ,just navy's decision.
DDG is exception, even its size is large, crew is smaller than equivalent ships. So even crew based comparison doesnt work anymore and i mentioned this in early posts.
We dont get it wrong,but even a navy within itself doesnt bring a logical classification,so how come we solve the relation between size ,crew,capability and a title?
Iran calls a 80 m corvette as destroyer What about this

 

[Exocet]

Is it a cover? i think it's just darkness @xenon54
Surely
@isoo

 

[xxxKULxxx]

Its more about the navies , they call ships with some titles up to them, so for zumwalt USN has reason to call as destroyer, for ticenderoga they have reason to call cruiser , for the DDG based CG(X) cruiser, they have a reason to call cruiser. Its same for our milgem and TF-2000 too ,just navy's decision.
DDG is exception, even its size is large, crew is smaller than equivalent ships. So even crew based comparison doesnt work anymore and i mentioned this in early posts.
We dont get it wrong,but even a navy within itself doesnt bring a logical classification,so how come we solve the relation between size ,crew,capability and a title?
Iran calls a 80 m corvetter as destroyer What about this?

What about firepower title ?

 

[Exocet]

For firepower zumwalt is superior to both of them for ASuW despite that it has less cells.Because it's carries air defence weapons just for self defence.Much of its cells are loaded with tomahawks.Also it has two AGS so it can be called as successor to battleships.

 

[ANMDT]

What about firepower title ?

Firepower is a scale, but on firepower scale our assault boat (PB) will be same as milgem,so should we call it corvette? Sure no;
If we try to generalize, firepower/sensors are on one side , range/autonomy ,is other side ,endurance/survability is other side . So its choose of a navy,they can shift this triangle to the side,which they want to make their ship strong in there. Crew number used to be indication for weapons/sensors, i said "used to be " because new ships having less crew.

Its not like a ship has displacement and then filled into with equipments, at 1st the requirements considered, then all requirements put into a design and then optimum design is searched ( smallest size with requirement of weapon/sensor , range ,endurance ). And design which is nearest to optimum one is picked as design to be built. So title is given according to the this.

For range and autonomy matters,our assault boat is a boat, for weapon /sensors its a corvette ,but we call it as boat ,because its mission to be boat.

For those titles, they have a history since pre WWII , its not just their tonnage which make them having title, some search on google gives information about this. After reading about these, then it can be seen actually nowadays those titles,doesnt matter at all.

 

[xxxKULxxx]

Firepower is a scale, but on firepower scale our assault boat (PB) will be same as milgem,so should we call it corvette? Sure no;
If we try to generalize, firepower/sensors are on one side , range/autonomy ,is other side ,endurance/survability is other side . So its choose of a navy,they can shift this triangle to the side,which they want to make their ship strong in there. Crew number used to be indication for weapons/sensors, i said "used to be " because new ships having less crew.

Its not like a ship has displacement and then filled into with equipments, at 1st the requirements considered, then all requirements put into a design and then optimum design is searched ( smallest size with requirement of weapon/sensor , range ,endurance ). And design which is nearest to optimum one is picked as design to be built. So title is given according to the this.

For range and autonomy matters,our assault boat is a boat, for weapon /sensors its a corvette ,but we call it as boat ,because its mission to be boat.

For those titles, they have a history since pre WWII , its not just their tonnage which make them having title, some search on google gives information about this. After reading about these, then it can be seen actually nowadays those titles,doesnt matter at all.

With my very limited knowledge i think naval ships should be classified according these titles...

1- Firepower ( including ammunition capacity, range of weapons)
2- Range of ship
3- Radar range(maybe no need for this because mostly it's directly proportional with weapon range)

Ammunition capacity & range of ship titles can seperate a boat from a corvette because you need a bigger ship to have more fuel & ammunition...

 

[Exocet]

A good point
1.Firepower: it's tend to increase with displacement. Generally true
2.Range: it's possible for long or short range but for fuel it's not compeletely true because of nuclear propulsion. We should also include food but it's generally enough for almost every ship
3.Radar range: it's not defines the class of ship itself but important for effectively engaging targets far from ship for example an ICBM should be detected almost at it's launch because of high velocities of it and the time that is required for an ABM to intercept it.

 

[xxxKULxxx]

A good point
1.Firepower: it's tend to increase with displacement. Generally true
2.Range: it's possible for long or short range but for fuel it's not compeletely true because of nuclear propulsion. We should also include food but it's generally enough for almost every ship
3.Radar range: it's not defines the class of ship itself but important for effectively engaging targets far from ship for example an ICBM should be detected almost at it's launch because of high velocities of it and the time that requires an ABM to intercept it.

But nuclear reactor is a huge i think alone... And really better remove 'radar'... I think Firepower & range titles are suitable for classifying the ship...

 

[Exocet]

Not that big. See USS Truxtun

 

[xxxKULxxx]

Not that big. See USS Truxtun

Even if it's not big enough you can give top score to a vessel for 'ship range' title directly...

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

Ok guys it seems we got HQ-9... Do you think TF-2000 will have naval HQ-9 ?..

@cabatli_53 @Combat-Master @Neptune @isoo

Bakan Yılmaz’dan Çin füzesi yanıtı: NATO sistemine entegre edilmeyecek!

 

[Neptune]

Even if it's not big enough you can give top score to a vessel for 'ship range' title directly...

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

Ok guys it seems we got HQ-9... Do you think TF-2000 will have naval HQ-9 ?..

@cabatli_53 @Combat-Master @Neptune @isoo

Bakan Yılmaz’dan Çin füzesi yanıtı: NATO sistemine entegre edilmeyecek!

I don't think so. DZKK has been using Standard Missile family for decades. And all plans are made for RIM-156 SM-2 Block IV, if not SM-3. The HQ's choice would be that too. But we had the same in T-LORADMIS as well. So it's a little bit unpredictable.