Turkish Aircraft Carrier concept

Hrm. Between the two designs shown, my recommendation for the Turks would be the one with the angled deck. So that if/when you put a catapult or three onto the thing, you have less rework to do.

SK2 said:
Not really, there are quite a few of new technology they are planning to use on the 003, and it will serve as both a technology demonstrator and operational CV. If you are familiar with PLAN developments you should know that they are famous for play safe in new design.
Click to expand...
We'd also see a brand new nuke plant get built, with all the technicians strangely marching around...


SK2 said:
Referring to big production halls, every major shipyards are building them as it will be weather-proof, thus reducing the delays in production due to weather, and with proper lighting and ventilation workers can operate 24/7 inside (Unions: what?)
Click to expand...
Unions: That will cost you extra.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Hrm. Between the two designs shown, my recommendation for the Turks would be the one with the angled deck. So that if/when you put a catapult or three onto the thing, you have less rework to do.
Click to expand...
I think the modular design and the space for the possible catapult adition are for in case they decide to go for a Naval Kaan. Otherwise both designs seemingly have two different conops altogether. They'd probably go for the revision during the MLU around 2050+, which makes a lot of sense.

By the time the construction begins, it'll be 2030s already and 2050+ by the time of the MLU, so you gotta expect the unexpected and prepare for it.

But in the meawhile I'm satisfied with Naval Hürjet, Kizielma and Anka-3. You'd have a deep strike capability with Anka-3 and a LW with Kizilelma already, so you don't need a stealth fighter on top of this if you're not trying to take on China.

Also, acc. to a Naval Architect in an another forum; the design without the angled deck is probably the old design, not a competing design.
 
An interesting question is: what for? What for this massive Turkish military effort? Where are the threats?
We Westerners (North Americans and Europeans) watched passively the hughe Russian military built-up since around 2005, without asking -or daring to ask- ourselves why it was taking place, what was the objective, even after Putin's 2007 Munich CSP speech, even after the annexation of Crimea he himself later described as the first true Russian response to the (alledgely Western-manipulated) collapse of the USSR. Since February 2022 we know that this massive rearmament aims at reinstating a Russian empire (ie domination over non-Russian nations and territories). Perhaps it would be a good idea to start asking the same question about Turkey, especially in NATO (is Turkey still an ally?) and the EU, where fortunately Turkey has remained a candidate-country since 1964.
 
BROF said:
An interesting question is: what for? What for this massive Turkish military effort? Where are the threats?
We Westerners (North Americans and Europeans) watched passively the hughe Russian military built-up since around 2005, without asking -or daring to ask- ourselves why it was taking place, what was the objective, even after Putin's 2007 Munich CSP speech, even after the annexation of Crimea he himself later described as the first true Russian response to the (alledgely Western-manipulated) collapse of the USSR. Since February 2022 we know that this massive rearmament aims at reinstating a Russian empire (ie domination over non-Russian nations and territories). Perhaps it would be a good idea to start asking the same question about Turkey, especially in NATO (is Turkey still an ally?) and the EU, where fortunately Turkey has remained a candidate-country since 1964.
Click to expand...
You've answered your own question. The Russian Empire and the Turks have fought a lot.
 
Archibald said:
rearm like crazy
Click to expand...
actually the military budget is significantly below the 2% NATO target, and for a large country that needs a lot of equipment and coverage, Turkey is actually not arming at all. Compared to 20 years ago, most of the inventory is quite ancient now; most of the budget goes to R&D instead.

Maybe that is because most of the equipment of significance became online only recently, but by the time the AC starts contruction, expect an increase in the budget. When the procurements are made, even the Navy alone will jump at least 300% in capability.
 
tahsin said:
The usual. Tries the usual work on voters. Claims the Arab streets like the brilliant leadership of the country and the jealous Arab monarchies and dictators reject the wisdom. If you want to, really say that you will declare a Caliphate and all those weapons are to be used in furthering of that goal. Instead of the momentum has reached a high point and the country will still have a high potential for war when the current political landscape changes. All those non-Turks will not be voting afterall.
Click to expand...
This is what the Navy demands, not what Erdogan demands although I'm sure he doesn't mind it that much. The Navy has been planning this surface fleet ever since the fall of the USSR, dude. Had the !999 Earthquake not happened, they'd have gone for it probably much sooner.

It is not about the usual "Caliphate" propaganda of anti-Turkish folk. It is about the fact that we're living in a multipolar World now and everyone who wants a slice of the pie needs to show the flag every once in a while.
 
Combat-Master said:
MUGEM aircraft carrier
https://twitter.com/x/status/1827690726358127069
View: https://x.com/T_Nblty/status/1827690726358127069

Source - https://www.trthaber.com/haber/bilim-teknoloji/mavi-vatana-milli-ucak-gemisi-geliyor-874479.html

View attachment 738140

View attachment 738141

View attachment 738142
MUGEM (National Aircraft Carrier)

Aircraft​

Minimum 50 manned and unmanned aircraft
  • Baykar, TB-3
  • TUSAŞ, ANKA-3
  • TUSAŞ, HÜRJET
  • Baykar, KIZILELMA

Personnel​

  • 400-500 personnel
  • Role-2 Level Medical Facilities

Other Capabilities​

  • 10,000 nautical miles range at 14 knots (6104 km)
  • Maneuvering ability in sea state 6 and higher
  • Logistic support capability with two helicopters

Main Propulsion System (ATS)​

The main propulsion system has high reliability, performance enhancement, and cost-effective COGAG configuration.
  • COGAG Configuration
  • Bow Thruster: Easier docking
  • 4 Gas Turbines: High maneuverability
  • 2 Variable Pitch Propellers (CPP): Efficient maneuverability
General Specs
  • Full length: 285 meters
  • Maximum width: 72 meters
  • Draft: 10.1 meters
  • Displacement: 60,000 tons
  • Maximum speed: 25 knots
  • Aircraft Landing/Take-off System: STOBAR
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Looks like it will have 4x MIDLAS VLS total 32x cells and 4x GOKDENIZ CIWS for self defence
View attachment 738143
Click to expand...
Kinda strange to think that a carrier the size of a Midway needs a ski jump for modern aircraft...

I suspect that the Turks will discover that they need a higher efficient-cruise speed for their carrier, so it can do flight ops at cruise speed instead of at a sprint. More like 21-24 knots, not 14.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Kinda strange to think that a carrier the size of a Midway needs a ski jump for modern aircraft...

I suspect that the Turks will discover that they need a higher efficient-cruise speed for their carrier, so it can do flight ops at cruise speed instead of at a sprint. More like 21-24 knots, not 14.
Click to expand...

Well, without catapults, you need some take off assistance. British and Russian carriers of similar displacement have a ski jump. The lighter Italian and Spanish ones as well.
They are advertising the possibility of switching "easily" to a flat deck + catapults in the future.

I guess the area of operation for this carrier will be 95% of the time restricted to the Mediterranean Sea, so the transit speed is not that important.
 
Which leads to the question of the Dardanelles and the strait of Bosporus!
Does the Turkish Navy's own carrier allowed to transit there?
Does the 1936 Montreux Convention which is still in place has an article regarding any Turkish aircraft carriers?
 
Tzoli said:
Which leads to the question of the Dardanelles and the strait of Bosporus!
Does the Turkish Navy's own carrier allowed to transit there?
Does the 1936 Montreux Convention which is still in place has an article regarding any Turkish aircraft carriers?
Click to expand...
Both this ship and the LHD(s) of the Turkish Navy are going to be based in Aksaz, which means that they are procured for operations that are out of Turkey's strike range. So imagine Eastern Central Atlantic and (primarily) the Indian Ocean.

If these ships were procured for operations within Turkey's means of force projection and reach, i.e. East Med and the Black Sea, they would've been based in Istanbul instead.

GVwn3iJWYAErrF6.jpg
 
Tzoli said:
Which leads to the question of the Dardanelles and the strait of Bosporus!
Does the Turkish Navy's own carrier allowed to transit there?
Does the 1936 Montreux Convention which is still in place has an article regarding any Turkish aircraft carriers?
Click to expand...

Reading the text, it's not 100% clear but the purpose of the Convention was to largely return sovereignty over the Strait to Turkey, so I suspect Turkish vessels can pass unencumbered by the convention.
 
Where it based what it's planned operational zone is two different things. They can easily relocated or redirected for a black sea mission.
 
Yavuz was always heavier than 15000 tons, nobody has ever said Ex-Goeben could not sail into the Blacksea after 1936.

Much impressed by the planned operational area of Atlantic. Of course they will silently snicker it is all about impressing the Moroccans for some reason but l guess the secret open reason is shadowing the likes of Iranian Makran after the pivot to the Pacific...
 
okakac said:
Yavuz was always heavier than 15000 tons, nobody has ever said Ex-Goeben could not sail into the Blacksea after 1936.
Click to expand...

There's a clause allowing single ships larger than 15,000 tons to transit one at a time anyway, with two destroyers as escort. (Article 11)
 
okakac said:
Yavuz was always heavier than 15000 tons, nobody has ever said Ex-Goeben could not sail into the Blacksea after 1936.

Much impressed by the planned operational area of Atlantic. Of course they will silently snicker it is all about impressing the Moroccans for some reason but l guess the secret open reason is shadowing the likes of Iranian Makran after the pivot to the Pacific...
Click to expand...
Battleships and Battlecruisers were allowed passage, Carriers were forbidden (Hence the Moskvas, Kievs and Kuznetsovs was designated aviation cruisers.
 
Actually looked it up and found one source in full legal terms 1936 style. 11 basically stops any moves to legally interdict Soviet Blacksea shipyards in production of capital ships. While 17 allows USN of 1945 to visit Istanbul with 2000 ships, 100 of them carriers. Or a fantasy Russian fleet of dozens of aviation cruisers visiting Istanbul as long as they return in the way they came.

Basically nothing stops us Turks. Trust me on this.
 
Manuducati said:
Well, without catapults, you need some take off assistance. British and Russian carriers of similar displacement have a ski jump. The lighter Italian and Spanish ones as well.
They are advertising the possibility of switching "easily" to a flat deck + catapults in the future.

I guess the area of operation for this carrier will be 95% of the time restricted to the Mediterranean Sea, so the transit speed is not that important.
Click to expand...
It's not transit speed so much as wind speed over deck.
 
I'm a bit late to share this but the construction has started:

www.defensenews.com

Turkish navy starts construction of three new warships

Turkish officials plan to add three domestically designed vessels to the navy's roster: a submarine, an aircraft carrier and an air-defense destroyer.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com

Latest update:

Director of Naval Forces Design Project Office Assoc. Prof. Dr. Colonel Uçar:

"In this way, we have also determined the propulsion power and propulsion system that the ship will need. We have carried out multidimensional maritime analyses to ensure that our ship can operate even in the worst weather conditions in the world's seas. We are working on the ship's three-dimensional layout plans. In order for our air vehicles to be deployed to MUGEM to safely perform take-off tests from the flight ramp, we first designed the land-based flight ramp. The construction of the test ramp is currently underway.

We are following the development of our national pride KAAN with great appreciation and wish to have it on our National Aircraft Carrier. KAAN was designed to take off and land from conventional runways. Special modifications are required for it to be able to operate from an aircraft carrier. We are continuing to exchange information with TUSAŞ so that KAAN, whose prototype production is currently ongoing, can take off and land from our ship in the event that its naval version is produced.

As a result of the design studies, the ship will have a displacement of approximately 60 thousand tons (the amount of water displaced), a width of 72 m and a full length of 285 m. The flight deck will have two take-off runways with 3 raceways and 1 landing runway. The short-range take-off and rope-catch system STOBAR for aircraft will also be installed. It will be able to travel 10 thousand nautical miles without refueling. In other words, it will be able to go from Istanbul to New York and back. It will be able to reach a maximum speed of 25 knots (45 km) with its main propulsion system consisting of 4 gas turbines. It will be able to perform sea missions with a capacity of at least 50 manned and unmanned aerial vehicles.
Click to expand...

 
Any ideas as to what the main fighter for the aircraft carrier will be? A navalised KAAN? Or a new type that has yet to be revealed.
 
FighterJock said:
Any ideas as to what the main fighter for the aircraft carrier will be? A navalised KAAN? Or a new type that has yet to be revealed.
Click to expand...
This the planned airwing:

Unbenannt.png
1000004157-jpg.744946

One of these aircraft has just entered LRIP, and the other two are also nearing that stage. However, the Navy's pragmatism regarding the airwing of a ship that is still about 10 years away from sea trials has been a subject of criticism for some.

1000021391.jpg 1000021392.jpg 1000021393.gif

You might wanna read this:
snne said:
I think the modular design and the space for the possible catapult adition are for in case they decide to go for a Naval Kaan. Otherwise both designs seemingly have two different conops altogether. They'd probably go for the revision during the MLU around 2050+, which makes a lot of sense.

By the time the construction begins, it'll be 2030s already and 2050+ by the time of the MLU, so you gotta expect the unexpected and prepare for it.

But in the meawhile I'm satisfied with Naval Hürjet, Kizielma and Anka-3. You'd have a deep strike capability with Anka-3 and a LW with Kizilelma already, so you don't need a stealth fighter on top of this if you're not trying to take on China.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
on the topic of the KAAN,
I heard claims that the next model will be significantly revised and may be smaller?
any other details on airframe changes?
a smaller KAAN would make it easier to navigate around a potential aircraft carrier.
 
My thoughts also helmutkohl, a smaller single or twin engined KAAN derivative along with the Kizielma UCAV and a Hurjet would make for a good airwing for the aircraft carrier.
 
helmutkohl said:
on the topic of the KAAN,
I heard claims that the next model will be significantly revised and may be smaller?
any other details on airframe changes?
a smaller KAAN would make it easier to navigate around a potential aircraft carrier.
Click to expand...
No, the revised dimensions were for P0, this misunderstanding was caused by people misinterpreting outdated data on TAI's website, which belonged to the early design whose mockup was revealed in 2018.

Image-1-TAI-TF-X-Stealth-Fighter.jpg


For the first time since June 17, 2019, the technical specifications were updated by TAI itself.

Wingspan from 14 meters to 13.4 meters

Lenght from 21 meters to 20.3 meters

Height from 6 meters to 5 meters

Wing area from 70m2 to 71.6m2
Click to expand...

Old

Screenshot 2025-02-18 195840.png 		New

Screenshot 2025-02-18 195905.png

and this was @paralay 's initial estimation back in 2023:

20-jpg.699524


Notice how close his estimate was?

The CDR is already completed, P1 is already in assembly and only minor optimisations are expected between P0/GTU-0 and P1. Those who expect major changes in dimensions don't know what they're talking about...
 
Last edited:
Tzoli said:
Battleships and Battlecruisers were allowed passage, Carriers were forbidden (Hence the Moskvas, Kievs and Kuznetsovs was designated aviation cruisers.
Click to expand...
The interesting question whether a Turkish aircraft carrier (more than 20,000 tons of displacement) could pass unencumbered by the convention through the Bosporus has already been answered by the TCG Anadolu, in my opinion.
tcg-anadolu-sarayburnuna--817_2-41.jpg
I know, without the F-35B's not really an airplane carrier but the possibility is there and helicopter/UAVs are aircraft as well.
 
Last edited:
had said:
The interesting question whether a Turkish aircraft carrier (more than 20,000 tons of displacement) could pass unencumbered by the convention through the Bosporus has already been answered by the TCG Anadolu, in my opinion.
View attachment 760649
I know, without the F-35B's not really an airplane carrier but the possibility is there and helicopter/UAVs are aircraft as well.
Click to expand...
That's an LHD, not a carrier.

I expect that once Putin is gone the issue will relax a lot and Turkey will change their minds on real carriers being allowed. As per this 2013 link, no carriers of any size are allowed. Whether they're Turkish, Russian, or anyone else's.
web.archive.org

From Rep. of Turkey Ministry of Foreign Affairs

web.archive.org web.archive.org
Aircraft carriers whether belonging to riparian states or not, can in no way pass through the Turkish Straits.
Click to expand...
 
Could be, but If I were a Lawyer, I would point out that in 1936 they would probably not differentiate between a Aircraft carrier and a swimming helicopter landing dock (carrier) with the possibility of housing VSTOL fixed-wing and unmanned Aircraft.
But I don't want to get Turkey in trouble : )

Fun fact, the HMS Argus (1918-1944) was 172.2 m long with a displacement of 14,450 long tons - The TCG Anadolu is 231m long and 27,436 of displacement tonnage.
 
Last edited:
had said:
Could be, but If I were a Lawyer, I would point out that in 1936 they would probably not differentiate between a Aircraft carrier and a swimming helicopter landing dock (carrier) with the possibility of housing VSTOL fixed-wing and unmanned Aircraft.
But I don't want to get Turkey in trouble : )
Click to expand...
Right, but that's why the Soviet carriers were officially "aircraft carrying cruisers" with a significant missile battery.

When the Montreaux Convention was signed, it was normal for cruisers and larger ships to carry a few aircraft as spotters etc. Not that the Japanese ever sent a ship through the Dardanelles, but their floatplanes were even capable of dropping a few bombs!

Sending an LHD or even LPH through the Straits would only run into problems with the limit on displacement.

As soon as they call it a CV, it's banned.

But like I said, as soon as Putin is gone it'll be possible to renegotiate that treaty or even let it lapse and operate under the more general UNCLOS.
 
According to the treaty, Turkey is the controlling agent - I cannot see Turkey ever denying their own Navy passage - no matter how large or what type the vessel.
 
BlackBat242 said:
According to the treaty, Turkey is the controlling agent - I cannot see Turkey ever denying their own Navy passage - no matter how large or what type the vessel.
Click to expand...
I was under the impression that Turkey was simply considered a Black Sea nation.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I was under the impression that Turkey was simply considered a Black Sea nation.
Click to expand...
No, Turkey is given power to control passage of vessels through the straights.


Note that aircraft carriers are NOT banned from passage.
Of specific interest is article 11:
Black Sea Powers may send through the Straits capital ships of a tonnage greater than that laid down in the first paragraph of Article 14, on condition that these vessels pass through the Straits singly, escorted by not more than two destroyers
Click to expand...
Note that while the treaty uses the definitions of warships as presented in the 1936 London Naval Treaty (under which aircraft carriers are NOT capital ships), Turkey accepted the USSR's characterization of "aircraft-carrying cruiser" for Kuznetsov in allowing passage under the "capital ship" clause.

Therefore, all Turkey needs to do is to NOT designate their carrier as an aircraft carrier, and it can be allowed.
 
Ai sensi dell'articolo 11, gli stati del Mar Nero sono autorizzati a far transitare navi capitali di qualsiasi tonnellaggio attraverso lo stretto, ma l'allegato II esclude specificamente le portaerei dalla definizione di nave capitali. Nel 1936, era comune che le corazzate trasportassero velivoli d'osservazione . Pertanto, le portaerei erano definite come navi che erano "progettate o adattate principalmente allo scopo di trasportare e far funzionare velivoli in mare". L'inclusione di velivoli su qualsiasi altra nave non la classifica come portaerei.

L'Unione Sovietica designò le sue navi di classe Kiev e Kuznetsov come " incrociatori portaerei " perché erano armate con missili da crociera P-500 e P-700 , che costituiscono anche l'armamento principale dell'incrociatore di classe Slava e dell'incrociatore da battaglia di classe Kirov . Il risultato fu che la Marina sovietica poté inviare i suoi incrociatori portaerei attraverso lo Stretto in conformità con la convenzione, ma allo stesso tempo la Convenzione negò l'accesso alle portaerei della NATO, che superavano il limite di 15.000 tonnellate.

(Under Article 11, Black Sea states are permitted to transit capital ships of any tonnage through the strait, but Annex II specifically excludes aircraft carriers from the definition of capital ships. In 1936, it was common for battleships to carry observation aircraft. Thus, aircraft carriers were defined as ships that were ‘designed or adapted primarily for the purpose of carrying and operating aircraft at sea’. The inclusion of aircraft on any other ship does not classify it as an aircraft carrier.

The Soviet Union designated its Kiev and Kuznetsov class ships as ‘aircraft carrier cruisers’ because they were armed with P-500 and P-700 cruise missiles, which are also the main armament of the Slava class cruiser and Kirov class battlecruiser. The result was that the Soviet Navy could send its carrier cruisers through the Strait in accordance with the Convention, but at the same time the Convention denied access to NATO carriers, which exceeded the 15,000-tonne limit.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom