What's new

Turkeys LHD Will have V/STOL Capability

lol without being a nucleaur power we are nothing isnt that right cabatli also we need to develop better missiles and ballistic

kardes istersen 1000 ucagimiz olsun nukleer bomba olmadiktan sonra o caydiricilik bile olmaz yanlismiyim

the world doesn't resolve around nukes. we are a part of NATO... USA.. ring any bells!? we are under nuclear umbrella. if someone attack us they will feel the wrath of the mightiest militaries of the world.

According to the news it will cost 1.5 billion $.

Such a wast of money. Turkey needs to priortet TF-X

Swedes manadged to develop Gripen for almost that money.

Turkey don't need AC but it definitely needs to invest in space and airborne tech
And in many many many more fields.

Grippen and TF-X can't be compared.

grippen was made in the 80's TF-X will be a stealth 5th gen fighter(?)

and beside, the grippen still uses american made engine, not Swedish.
 
But I still think the money should be spent on a Turkish fighter then a lousy carrier.
TEI can develop a great engine with some "extra founding". And Sweden and the Italians
Are willing to "help" with TF-X.
I don't think turks can develop a 5th gen fighter. But an 4.9th gen. is perhaps possible.
 
lol without being a nucleaur power we are nothing isnt that right cabatli also we need to develop better missiles and ballistic

kardes istersen 1000 ucagimiz olsun nukleer bomba olmadiktan sonra o caydiricilik bile olmaz yanlismiyim

It is understood that You are overestimating the place of Nuclear bombs in battlefield. Personelly, I prefer development of aircrafts instead nuclear bombs. There are many reasons leading me to this conclusiıon. Nuclear bombs don't have a place like you stationed them in battlefield. It just provides bloody aversiveness against non-nuclear countries in peace times but Once War break out, Using a Nuclear bomb over another one requires a huge huge ballzzz. Countries deploy nuclear bombs as last resource to use If own country started taking destructive damages against enemies or Stooping the war with conventional methods become impossible or The Horizon is really dark to reach in battlefields. Main aim to use a Nulear bomb is to give enemy same destructive results you took as soon as possible to stop the war in a ballance with commiting a humanitarian crime...

After the war, You have to give accounts of your crime to International community, Then compensations, land requests...etc

If Using Nuclear bombs is such an easy thing as you mentioned against enemy, USA wouldn't have given thousands of death in Irak wars and just drop 2-3 nuclear bomb over Iraki cities to finish the job...
 
But I still think the money should be spent on a Turkish fighter then a lousy carrier.
TEI can develop a great engine with some "extra founding". And Sweden and the Italians
Are willing to "help" with TF-X.
I don't think turks can develop a 5th gen fighter. But an 4.9th gen. is perhaps possible.

it isn't something that is going to be made right away... a fifth gen fighter takes time. we wont see a prototype before 2020 atleast

and no, the armed forces has it's needs. and if an LHD is something they need then they will get it. that doesn't affect the TF-X as it is a long term project for us.
 
It is understood that You are overestimating the place of Nuclear bombs in battlefield. Personelly, I prefer development of aircrafts instead nuclear bombs. There are many reasons leading me to this conclusiıon. Nuclear bombs don't have a place like you stationed them in battlefield. It just provides bloody aversiveness against non-nuclear countries in peace times but Once War break out, Using a Nuclear bomb over another one requires a huge huge ballzzz. Countries deploy nuclear bombs as last resource to use If own country started taking destructive damages against enemies or Stooping the war with conventional methods become impossible or The Horizon is really dark to reach in battlefields. Main aim to use a Nulear bomb is to give enemy same destructive results you took as soon as possible to stop the war in a ballance with commiting a humanitarian crime...

After the war, You have to give accounts of your crime to International community, Then compensations, land requests...etc

Does that apply to tactical nukes too ? I agree that a strategic nuclear weapon is pretty much unusable but I'm sure that the Turkish Army wouldn't say no to a 100-200 Km ranged tactical nuclear missile like the Al-Nasr - enough to obliterate anything in a 1mile radius...perhaps to stop advancing armour columns or deal with a blockading flotilla. And yet severely lacking when it comes to inducing a proportionate reaction on a strategic level i.e another Hiroshima.
 
Does that apply to tactical nukes too ? I agree that a strategic nuclear weapon is pretty much unusable but I'm sure that the Turkish Army wouldn't say no to a 100-200 Km ranged tactical nuclear missile like the Al-Nasr - enough to obliterate anything in a 1mile radius...perhaps to stop advancing armour columns or deal with a blockading flotilla. And yet severely lacking when it comes to inducing a proportionate reaction on a strategic level i.e another Hiroshima.

Noone regret deploying/development of strategic or tactical nuclear bombs. I am also the one who support Turkey to reach those capabilities with my heart but I am talking about a different story. We live in a century that Let using Tactical-Strategical Nuclear Bombs over enemy cities aside, Using Cluster Bombs on point targets in BF is prohibited with international agreements so Using Nuclear Bombs isn't such an easy turn for countries Even If you have so My priority is different...
 
İt seems like turkey has abandond the soft power doctrine and now
Going to a more provocative approje .
What I want to know is if this was a military or a political dessision with the AC.
 
Noone regret deploying/development of strategic or tactical nuclear bombs. I am also the one who support Turkey to reach those capabilities with my heart but I am talking about a different story. We live in a century that Let using Tactical-Strategical Nuclear Bombs over enemy cities aside, Using Cluster Bombs on point targets in BF is prohibited with international agreements so Using Nuclear Bombs isn't such an easy turn for countries Even If you have so My priority is different...

Indeed sir, though one might argue that if you're at the right side of the divide and by all current world dynamics, you are; wouldn't a tactical nuclear capability be more of an insurance policy against any exceptional circumstances that may arise. I mean, in the foreseeable future I don't think that Turkey may engage in an all out war but that your entanglements are going to be pretty darn localized and against a proportionately poorly armed adversary. As such in such a context you don't need any substantial further conventional military expenditure either because neither the Kurds, or the Taliban or the Greeks or some obscure warlord in countless dozen countries out there are remotely comparable with the existing capabilities of the Turkish Armed Forces. Why then does Turkey invest for the future...why then does anyone do that ? Answer : Because you never know what might be lurking around the curve and preparedness is crucial for survival...so if Turkey does develop conventional nuclear capability she'd be preparing herself a contingency against any possible, however improbable, situation where she may be called onto use them. In such a situation not only Turkey's membership of NATO bring naught in value but she'd be facing an existentialist threat.

Now a strategic nuke is more a bluff than a deterrent because, to use Pakistan and India as an analogy, whereas neither of the two countries can ever use one to take out either's cities, a tactical nuke is a completely different ball game...where the deterrent part gets truly pronounced at a localized level. India may not take Pakistan's bluff of nuking Delhi quite seriously but she sure as hell would think a thousands times before crossing the International Border over to my Land, because I have tactical nukes focused towards them. Would that escalate the situation - Yes, would that bring about international condemnation - Yes, would it bring about certain sanctions - Yes, but would it ensure that Pakistan isn't severed in two because of advancing Indian Armies - A resounding Yes, and would it induce a disproportionate response of nuking my city because I used a battlefield nuke on their flotilla blockading my only port - No. And would the Indians factoring in my use of a tactical nuke in their war plans think that any aggression against Pakistan has the propensity of inducing greater casualties then had we conventional weapons only, abandon the plan altogether - Almost definitely. Case in point would be '02 and later the Mumbai Attacks where neither side attacked the other despite all the buildup at the borders and high alert because the stakes are far too great.

As such I believe that if Turkey truly wants to roll with the Big Boys - she has the economy, she has the conventional forces, she has the national cohesion and a nuclear capability would be equally imperative, because perception matters - don't use it...but a tactical one induces enough fear to make the cost of any probable skirmish against you to far exceed any possible gains to be had.

Plus, then theres the other perception that goes with a nuke - the haves getting respect from the have-nots and how much that appreciates your political currency.
 
im not saying get a nuke and use it at every war as i said its not to use its to stop countries attacking you knowing that if you ever try to destroy them they have nukes its a weapon of last resort e.g lets say today turkey gets invaded and lets say we arent part of nato what can we do against a very strong country?? we can use our weapons and little bombs but if we have nukes we can atleast give a message if you try to destroy me i will give your country big problems and damage
 
İt seems like turkey has abandond the soft power doctrine and now
Going to a more provocative approje .
What I want to know is if this was a military or a political dessision with the AC.


With best defence is a good offence principle, Turkey is concantrating more on offensive weapon systems as well (F-35B, F-35A, LHD, Cruise Missiles, Electronic Attack systems, Anti-Radiation UAV's, Long range ballistic Missiles...etc). Nothing wrong in here. A country like Turkey never cares the other's thinkings While commencing a project...
 
in 2023 we need nukes of our own , a strong navy tbh now our navy isnt that strong we need atleast 2-3 destroyers , some type of carrier or lhd or something and in my opinion a 450,000 full professional army

we need to also improve our country defence in my opinion we should spend alot of money and build such a defence first lets ensure that if anyone tries to attack including very strong country we can do so much harm to their air force especially and we need missiles i see these little weak syria has alot of missiles we need cruise and ballistic and even icbm till 2023
 
im not saying get a nuke and use it at every war as i said its not to use its to stop countries attacking you knowing that if you ever try to destroy them they have nukes its a weapon of last resort e.g lets say today turkey gets invaded and lets say we arent part of nato what can we do against a very strong country?? we can use our weapons and little bombs but if we have nukes we can atleast give a message if you try to destroy me i will give your country big problems and damage

That's what I have tried to tell with aversiveness word in peace times but What I have implied about Nuclear bombs that They aren't simple toys to be used without a deadly reason as a last chance in war times, While an Aircraft is the main toy of battlefield to give the destructive results to enemy...
 
That's what I have tried to tell with aversiveness word in peace times but What I have implied about Nuclear bombs that They aren't simple toys to be used without a deadly reason as a last chance in war times, While an Aircraft is the main toy of battlefield to give the destructive results to enemy...

The political Situation has dramaticly changed during the last Years, now we see turkish Influence is reaching Central Asia, the Indian Border, northern Africa, Balkan and arabian Peninsula. Who has thought some Years before that Turkey could Face a Confrontation with Israel, such Scenario is in Todays Times possible. Israel is Nuclear Power, it's Jericho Missiles can easyly reach Turkey !

The Gas Fiels around Cyprus could also be interesting for european Powers, Turkey could probably be forced to Confront an multinational European Force. In such Scenario I doubt Turkey can stand a long Time against an Conventional Superior Force, in this Case Turkey could need Nukes as last Resort !
 
Go open a "we want nuke" thread and stop derailing this thread. It was such a nice discussion until someone started babbling about nukes.

I still believe Turkey is better off without a nuke because we'll be able to develope a lot of other things without the international community beginning to expect hostile action (as is the case with Iran because the west fears the "potential" of nuclear weapon capability).

I am all for having a big professional army, however our current army of nearly 500.000 are mostly conscripts, and turning those into professional would probably be overkill, because it costs a lot of money! :)

Which is why it's better to develop stronger weapons to avoid having our soldiers losing their lives. Which is why I like the SOM, UMTAS etc. :)
 

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom