Turkish Naval Programs
- Thread starter Quwa
- Start date
Harpoon speed subsonic, Sea sparrow MACH3,5. Like a Russian Antiship missiles. May be, it is the first level of Turkish supersonic antiship missile?
-------
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2009
- Messages
- 5,801
- Reaction score
- 58
- Country
- Location
definitely not, if we take into consideration the only image we have of Atmaca, a 3D one at that..
Next year is delivery date, surely they can show us something :/
GOKHAN TAYLAN
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2014
- Messages
- 265
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
bosses it cant be atmaca (lets say atmaca missile families block 1 ) if it is atmaca why its blast effects is not so big ?????
ı think we will make some variants of atmaca missiles block 1 block 2 maybe block 3
?????ı think we will make some variants of atmaca missiles block 1 block 2 maybe block 3
ANMDT
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2014
- Messages
- 1,278
- Reaction score
- 10
- Country
- Location
This is actually what they mean by saying batch II and batch III , if the batch III was the exactly same milgem they would just make a tender for production in private shipyard ,while Pendik Naval Shipyard is moving on the production of batch II and design of TF-2000
While there is batch II milgem which is providing the capabilities of MEKO frigates, what will be use of TF-100 ? While milgem ship hull desing and RCS is proven to be good and since the sizes of milgem is almost like multi role frigate, unlike difference between TF-2000 and milgem, TF-100 could be developed onto current milgem which is the logical and cost effective option. So far i know there were some studies to have a more flexible milgem design in terms of weapon platforms.
In some articles i have seen TF-100 mentioned as Regional AAW frigate , while TF-2000 is something more advanced . Also i dont know how clear for this information but ships else than TF-2000 always mentioned with code of "MILGEM- X" , the corvette design for serial production is mentioned as MILGEM-S (So far i remember 2 years ago in RMK when the files delivered from Pendik naval shipyard ) there was also MILGEM-G , MILGEM-L and as much i could peek into those files i have seen integration of a more complicated ASW instruments on the stern side of milgem, like towed array ,also dive type midship sonar and so on. It was long time ago as mentioned and maybe i am not sure about the designations
@cabatli_53 is also described it with sources that TF-100 design shaped around Milgem-G .
On the other hand, making a new design for each 4 ship isnt cost effective, at first it was 12 ship of milgem, now 8 and finally 4. if modification of milgem takes 3 year to milgem -G , then will TF-100 design be completed in 2025 ? @xxxKULxxx in the article you shared the information is told by Naval projects manager in SSM and he also said about 3 batch with each of them upgraded ,it becomes confusing so had better to wait until they say something clear about TF-100 and its role.
Will they seriosly use those fins as canards ? i think they are used with experimentai purposes , in some posters atmaca has been illustrated with exoced like canards. like this ;
Next year is delivery date, surely they can show us something :/
Last edited:
xxxKULxxx
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2013
- Messages
- 4,504
- Reaction score
- 30
- Country
- Location
Guys what do you think about ADİK's LHD/LST ?.. I really like hybrid solutions so much...
IDEF 2015: ADIK Shipyard unveiled a new LHD/LST concept
During the IDEF 2015 defense exhibition (held recently in Istanbul, Turkey) Turkish shipyard ADIK (Anadolu Shipyard) unveiled a fairly unique Landing Helicopter Dock (LHD) concept: The design has a flat top to accomodate several helicopters as well as a well deck like any LHD, but it is also uniquely fitted with a large door at its bow (similar to Russia's Ivan Gren class). This LHD design would therefore be able to perform beaching operations like a Landing Ship Tank (LST).
The new LHD concept on ADIK Shipyard stand during IDEF 2015
According to ADIK Shipyard, the new LHD has the following specifications:
Length: 153 meters
Beam: 29.60 meters
Full load displacement: 9500 tons
Speed: 18+ knots
Endurance: 30 days
Range: 5000 nautical miles
Power: 4x 3860 Kw
Personnel: 242 Ship crew + 360 Marines
Cargo Capacity:
4 to 6 helicopters
2 LCM in dock
4 LCVP
18 Main Battle Tanks or 60 Armored Personnel Carriers or 65 UNIMOG trucks
Two LCMs inside the LHD well deck
Based on the model, ADIK Shipyard's LHD is fitted with 2x Oto Melara FAST FORTY 40mm turrets fitted at the bow, 2x Phalanx CIWS (located in front and behind the island) and 4x 12.7 mm remote weapon stations (possibly Aselsan STAMP).
There are four helicopter spots on the flat deck but no elevators (therefore no hangar space for helicopters in the hull). The LHD model at IDEF showed four CH-53 Heavy-lift cargo helicopters on board.
ADIK's LHD concept with a bow door for beach landing
ADIK shipyard is designer and builder of 1000 tons class LCTs currently in service with the Turkish Navy.
ADIK also started constructing a 7000 tons LST for the Turkish Navy
IDEF 2015: ADIK Shipyard unveiled a new LHD/LST concept
IDEF 2015: ADIK Shipyard unveiled a new LHD/LST concept
During the IDEF 2015 defense exhibition (held recently in Istanbul, Turkey) Turkish shipyard ADIK (Anadolu Shipyard) unveiled a fairly unique Landing Helicopter Dock (LHD) concept: The design has a flat top to accomodate several helicopters as well as a well deck like any LHD, but it is also uniquely fitted with a large door at its bow (similar to Russia's Ivan Gren class). This LHD design would therefore be able to perform beaching operations like a Landing Ship Tank (LST).
The new LHD concept on ADIK Shipyard stand during IDEF 2015
According to ADIK Shipyard, the new LHD has the following specifications:
Length: 153 meters
Beam: 29.60 meters
Full load displacement: 9500 tons
Speed: 18+ knots
Endurance: 30 days
Range: 5000 nautical miles
Power: 4x 3860 Kw
Personnel: 242 Ship crew + 360 Marines
Cargo Capacity:
4 to 6 helicopters
2 LCM in dock
4 LCVP
18 Main Battle Tanks or 60 Armored Personnel Carriers or 65 UNIMOG trucks
Two LCMs inside the LHD well deck
Based on the model, ADIK Shipyard's LHD is fitted with 2x Oto Melara FAST FORTY 40mm turrets fitted at the bow, 2x Phalanx CIWS (located in front and behind the island) and 4x 12.7 mm remote weapon stations (possibly Aselsan STAMP).
There are four helicopter spots on the flat deck but no elevators (therefore no hangar space for helicopters in the hull). The LHD model at IDEF showed four CH-53 Heavy-lift cargo helicopters on board.
ADIK's LHD concept with a bow door for beach landing
ADIK shipyard is designer and builder of 1000 tons class LCTs currently in service with the Turkish Navy.
ADIK also started constructing a 7000 tons LST for the Turkish Navy
IDEF 2015: ADIK Shipyard unveiled a new LHD/LST concept
Last edited:
BordoEnes
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2011
- Messages
- 3,752
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Ordering one wouldnt hurt now would it :p
Seriously though, i think the concept is quite perfect for the Turkish navy for several reason.... *cough* Greece
xxxKULxxx
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2013
- Messages
- 4,504
- Reaction score
- 30
- Country
- Location
I don't know but this news from same source says LST procurement is 2 + 2 optional... So if this 2+2 is true then why not having other 2 with this LHD/LST configuration... Did ADİK make this design for something ?!.
But as i know LST deal is for 2 ships only... Also SSM says it's 2 and i don't know the rest...
Landing Ship Tank (LST) Project
Turkish Shipyard ADIK showcasing its Landing Ship Tank (LST) project at IDEF 2013
Neptune
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2013
- Messages
- 4,730
- Reaction score
- 53
- Country
- Location
Sorry a little late but anyways as other guys mentioned, from it's angle and shape it seems to have been launched horizontally from surface. So it must be RIM-7. To be more specific, It's either RIM-7P or RIM-7M with TAS upgrade fired by a Yavuz-class frigate, IDK the participant ships.
These are legendary missiles but even the variants we use are at least 36-38 years old technology. We have to retire them soon.
As for the second one. Its definitely not Penguin which is the missile our naval aviators like to use during exercises. I think Hellfire can't have such shaped canards (not really sure). As far as we know Mızrak-D has been introduced. It seemed more like the live testing of Mizrak-D since our president also loves to make rant on our defence products. @cabatli_53 @isoo @Combat-Master IDK bros don't you think it looks like Mizrak-D.
ANMDT
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2014
- Messages
- 1,278
- Reaction score
- 10
- Country
- Location
Bow doors dont come with the advantage unless it is needed. For LST bow door is compulsory for beach landing,while for an Docked landing platfor ie. LPD , the dock is used for LCAC /LCM to land equipments, even there are some studies on establishing a deployable elastic bridge between sea and shore in US due to the bow doors are sensitive,they encounter the strongest forces (slamming) on the ship. There were a incident because that door is relieved and water flooded , and it needs to be checked often than the ship itself ,so this is a handicap for repair.
This design has logical error, while doing beach landing draught of ship will be low,specially on the bow side because it will be about to land ( usually drops until 1.5 meters on the bow ) and ship will stay inclined on longitidunal way (trimmed). In this case the equipment on the deck shouldnt stay there,because it will bring the stability in fragile condition when there is weight on top side. if we think there is unloading in such condition which will bring the stability in a dynamic shift, it can end of with a landing of the ship by rolling on one side which can not be revived.
Without bow door option they can improvise the design,since what they do in LST can pave a way for LPD and with some deck application knowledge to LHD , specially their cannon on the bow will become useless as near to beach, since the vision will be lost on the front side surface of the ship. Cannon platform is too high and they could think something innovative for cannons to make them effective in landing. In my opinion this design isnt creditable for purchase ,it will be a less effective way to use money the reason is that, objectives and needs of both design doesnt meet in a hybrid point ,their needs and objectives are crossing each other.
EDIT
I have checked LST design carefully , and made a quick list of weight of both LST and LST/LPD hybrid ,what i have seen they modified the weight and in their new design the weight doesnt shift to upward ,eventhough what i said negatively about stability issue,i need to remark that there is no such issue also the side enlarged about 10 meters in beam. In LST design there is a huge supperstructure and deck equipment, while in LPD hybrid these weights are converted to an island and deck+helo+gun systems.
But still the stability issue in landing position exist according to my simple calculation. Also the vision angle of bow cannon are still limited , they can improvise it by giving an inclination to platform downright
Last edited:
xxxKULxxx
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2013
- Messages
- 4,504
- Reaction score
- 30
- Country
- Location
What about sending some vehicles and troops with LCACs/LCMs when ship is away from land. Also cannons will provide these units' safety at that stage of landing. And when these vehicles and troops make the beach safe this time this ship will make beach landing and deploy all remaining vehicles & troops...
I don't know. Just this idea came to my mind...
Worf
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2012
- Messages
- 940
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
@isoo @cabatli_53 I have a question, I was wondering why the TN opted for the Type 214 instead of the 212? I know that the Type 214 submarine is derived from 212 and is export variant. However the Type 212 was ordered by Italian navy and leased by the polished navy. The Type 214 lacks some features which the 212 has such as non-magnetic hull etc.
ANMDT
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2014
- Messages
- 1,278
- Reaction score
- 10
- Country
- Location
answer is in your question, it is an export variant and it wouldnt be exported to turkey ,also we put many issues in deal to fit our local systems on submarine,they wouldnt feel good open their classified systems for us.
About that non-magnetic hull, they supply the feature by material,there is also other active-passive degaussing methods, i dont know if DzKK introduced an active degaussing for milgem,but for passive one ,i know they dont have.
BordoEnes
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2011
- Messages
- 3,752
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Italy has a share in the development of the Type212 AFAIK, thus they are able to buy these. Though its hardly that big of a difference of the Type214 from what i know (not that i actually know the difference myself).
Defense Minister Vecdi Gönül stated that Turkish industrial participation in the project would be worth around 80 percent of the total value of the deal.
TURKEY - Turkey, Germany ink sub deal
Worf
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2012
- Messages
- 940
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
Thanks for the answers @isoo @BordoEnes . I've heard they started developing a type 216; but I guess 214 is going to be the last submarine brought directly from abroad. I really hope Turkey coop with Saab naval for the allegedly 'indigenous' Submarine.
Similar threads
