via deutsch-tuerkische-zeitung.de
Turkey wants to build its own aircraft carrier. This was decided on Tuesday in Ankara, the National Security Council at the last meeting. In the, under the chairmanship of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan held meeting of the National Security Council, a far-reaching military decision was made. Turkey wants to 2019 the first aircraft carrier homemade handed over to the Navy's inventory. The spa located already in active planning dock landing with a helicopter platform (LPD), will now be built as an aircraft carrier with a plan revision. The military dock landing with a helicopter platform was initially intended for the transport and the use of occupation, amphibious vehicles, and helicopters operating Turkish naval units. Now, should by installing a tilting by 12 percent starting ramp (ski-jump method) built the LPD ship as an aircraft carrier. The ski-jump method allows aircraft, with only half the normal starting Bahnes to withdraw. On the ship, the new combat aircraft of the type F-35 will be deployed. This gives the Turkish navy first opportunity with a crew of 700 soldiers in global crisis areas to operate independently. With a fully equipped hospital in the aircraft carrier and its use in natural disaster areas should be possible.It happened again.
The Marine Corps started a meme (one that I often parroted) and its eventually going to bite the naval services in the ass.
Have you noticed that the term "aircraft carrier" is being dumbed down?
Instead of Turkey building a big deck LHA/LHD (by US terminology) they're building an aircraft carrier?
On a separate note, this could have ramifications for the F-35 program. What happens if the Turks move from buying A's to B's? If they split their current order? I have no idea what that would do to the price. I seriously doubt that they would increase their buy though. This is another project that bears watching.
This is local media's ignorance plus political propaganda that turned a snowball into an avalanche.
ReplyDeleteTurkey has a project for license production of a foreign LPD design. The requirements of the project actually called for an LPH, but nevermind, the officials call it LPD.
Navantia was selected with a modified design of Juan Carlos, minus the ski jump. Latest news indicate that the 12 degree ski jump is put into the list again, signalling Turkish Navy's tendency to operate F-35B's.
If indeed Turkey goes for F-35B, this will most likely be an addition to the planned order for 100 F-35A's (for the Air Force).
thanks for the info. on what basis do you think they will increase their buy though? from over here i would think a split would be more in the cards. Turkey was VERY enthusiastic about the program but has since moved much more slowly since its time to actually buy the plane. additionally the Turkish President has had some pretty inflammatory things to say about the West. mix that in with the decision to place two maintenance facilities in Europe almost next to each other and i don't see the same fire in the belly for the plane.
DeleteArda Mevlutoglu is right on, except who knows what Turkey might order.
DeleteThis is the same ship of Juan Carlos design that Australia has bought, and now Turkey will take it with the ship-standard ski-jump. We've discussed the Australia "Canberra" before, and the fact that it is propelled by Azipods, which are not dependable and are not a non-standard design for naval ships. Netherlands has a similar ship "Johan de Witt" which has had problems with the electric-motor pods.
medium.com on the Canberra:
" The Canberras are amphibious warships first. They can support helicopters just fine, but they lack the munitions and aviation fuel storage to support intensive fixed-wing flight operations. Training, deck organization and personnel for helicopters differ significantly compared to those for fighters. Moreover, flying JSFs from the Canberras would impair the vessels’ ability to carry out their primary mission by taking up deck space and storage and splitting training time... The Canberras wouldn’t make great carriers or even good carriers."
Turkey has been "ordering F-35" for years. But of course they want a genuine combat-capable fighter which JSF can't currently offer, and won't be able to offer for many years. The latest problem is that the feeble gun can't be fired, so I say: If it can't shoot, give it the boot."
Cutaway photo here and exterior photo here.
DeleteThe Canberra is NOT meant to support F35 flight operation (much to what Lock-Mart PR machine says). The fuel capacity of the Juan Carlos class ship cannot support even a semi-sustained F35 flight operation.
DeleteThe ship is meant to be an aircraft transport ship. Get to the place, let the amphibious boys establish a safe beachhead and then the second wave will bring in a land-based F35 into the theatre. Same goes for helicopters. I mean what are the helicopters meant for in a ship like that?
Whoever from Australia will claim that the HMAS Canberra (and sister ships) CAN/WILL support F35, I will always ask them this question: State the fuel storage capacity, in litres, of the ship that will be used EXCLUSIVELY for the F35.
@ Mark Kram
DeleteIt's been proposed.
news report: Jun 3, 2014
Jump jets on navy's agenda as Tony Abbott orders air strike rethink
Prime Minister Tony Abbott's order to examine turning the navy's amphibious assault ships into aircraft carriers for jump jets will require a major rethink by Defence, top military brass have indicated.
Facing a Senate hearing on Monday, Defence chiefs said little work had so far been done on the possibility of buying a short take-off and vertical landing variant of the Joint Strike Fighter - an idea that has seized the interest of the Prime Minister.
Defence chiefs said little work had so far been done on the possibility of buying a short take-off and vertical landing variant of the Joint Strike Fighter
DeleteExactly. LITTLE WORK. Meaning the aircraft transport ship HMAS Canberra (and other sister ship) is meant to do just that: Transport the a/c & helicopter.
Besides, wait until government finds out the cost to actually retrofit (and sustain) the ship to support F35 combat/strike opereration and that idea will be shoved under the carpet faster than anyone can say "shazzam".
@ Mark Kram
DeleteThat little work increased last summer on the PM's orders, in preparation for the 2015 Defence White Paper.
They cant afford it. Why do everyone forget cost? Again and again people forget that money is THE factor that rules them all...
ReplyDeletei've always said that the only F-35 that made sense is the B. but thats if the cost could be controlled and it hasn't been. i'm curious but don't know the economics of the what if with regards to a partner going from the A to the B. does that increase the costs of the A while decreasing B? does it jilt the entire program? is it even possible at this late date to even achieve the cost savings being discussed (i believe it is too late).
DeleteThe F-35 cost is out of control. The latest unit procurement cost of the A is $185 million, a cost that has steadily risen and will continue to do so. It is unaffordable in any quantity, especially for a prototype, and the B &C are much more, well over $200 million each.
DeleteThe ship itself costs half a billion dollars, or some three F-35Bs.
DeleteSad thing is, those F35s maybe cost same or more to run than the entire ship.... Operating costs will be too high to justify the 'increased capability' that these bring. If they want a STOVL plane they should just build new harriers.
DeleteComments about an hypothetical future F-35B operating from and "Independent" Turkish naval task force would probably be more contingency and poker playing at the moment, more than anything. Mind you, any such loaded public commentary could come with various benefits attached, e.g., negotiating leverage, or disinformation for whatever reason, etc, etc. Be advised to take such a report with a grain of sand, in my opinion at least.
ReplyDeletePerhaps they could operate Naval Tejas too? Or any number of other lighter, cheap, modified amphibious/naval fixed wing aircraft able to launch off a ski jump? The options of course would be leveraged in the relevant decision making to come and not relegated to absolute decisions made today.
has anyone anywhere ever attempted to operate STOL aircraft off an LHA/LHD? i can't recall of anyone doing it except the USMC with the OV-10. interesting idea.
DeleteIndeed, a future oriented OV-10-type, or Super Tucano-type aircraft could likely be operated from this sized modified deck (230m) too. But just put me in the innovative camp of thought I guess, wanting to see if a RATO-boosted LCA-type fighter/drone could also be launched from an LHD-sized deck under special requirements?
DeleteThe Mig-29K seems like a decent fit for a STOL off a LHA/LHD.
DeleteThere is some info on what it takes to operate a fast jet on a 300 m carrier without arrest wires.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uPWjq23vL0
An approach speed of 60 knots toward a carrier cruising at 25 knots(A net speed of 35 knots) will result in a rolling stop distance of 200 feet, no arrest wire needed.
Increase the carrier cruise speed to 30 knots, and the approach speed to 75 knots(A net speed of 45 knots), and the rolling stop distance might be increased to 300 feet, which is still accetable even after adding 200 feet of safety margins back and front of this rolling distance for a total of 700 feet.
So is it possible to produce a fast jet with an approach speed of 75 knots when a Super Hornet approach speed is 125 knots? The answer is yes, you can add a number of lift generating techniques such as TVC, BLS, etc to cut down on approach speed. This is far more realistic and cheaper than trying to make the F-35B vertical landing work and pay for the cost of it.
On a side note.. 'We' as in the west should stop considering Turkey an ally. Erdogan is a mini- Putin with a religious sauce put over it. Under his leadership they are moving away from the westernized nation Turkey was to an ultra nationalist Muslim one bent on recapturing former glory.
ReplyDeleteNo one can read a crystal ball, but I think there is a real possibility of arming the next enemy, like we have done so many times before.
But.. no one is going to ban the sale of anything to a NATO partner, specially when they are wiling to spend cold hard cash..
By the way, how does the Austin Class stack up on this amphib assault class ship comparison ? We had purchased the USS Trenton and renamed it INS Jalashwa and I was wondering how good this ship/class of ships is in the modern day ?
ReplyDeleteIts troop carrying capacity of a 1000 is certainly very good.