Turkey's newly announced 300+ metre STOBAR Aircraft carrier

By: JSR - 24th May 2018 at 15:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

it also means it makes it much easier for NATO to side with Greece during a dispute. Also supporting the Kurds.

Greece or others wont matter once Russia side with Turkey as it will be using it such way that other problems will become more pressing.

Without wanting to be condescending, I don't think you have any idea how complex this little 'update' would actually be, given that the flying platform never actually went into production

you should reread the whole thing more thoroughly. At $3b to $4b Russia can easily develop a export class VTOL fighter. which will be fraction of what Turkey will be spending on F35B with no export or modification rights. The plan is already in motion for post 2025 cruiser and carriers.
http://tass.com/defense/956811

Turkey is already look to use TAEC Turbo-fan engines on the new Heavy lift aircraft dubbed An-188 by Antanov of Ukraine.

I doubt Ukraine can develop anything even with 99% imported parts and that will become more obvious.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-russia-gas-eu/eu-says-ukraine-to-offer-gazprom-discounted-transit-fees-idUSKCN1IJ2J1

By: haavarla - 24th May 2018 at 18:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

JRS vs Bayar Alert!
Altough i,m not the slightest surprised of the content.
I am quite dissepointed at some senior members give this thread the undeserving attention..

By: KGB - 25th May 2018 at 05:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

The Soviets were doing this a long time ago. Small STOVL carriers seems to be the trend these days. UK, Japan and now Turkey wants to do it this way.

By: Sintra - 25th May 2018 at 14:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

The Soviets were doing this a long time ago. Small STOVL carriers seems to be the trend these days. UK, Japan and now Turkey wants to do it this way.

Not exactly "small", the two RN ships have a bigger displacement than the Kusnetsov or the Liaoning.

By: FBW - 25th May 2018 at 17:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

United States navy announces plans for it’s first star cruiser, the USS Enterprise (NCC-701) it will be built to replace the yet to be built Ford class carrier USS Enterprise when it is removed from service 45 years hence.

By: JSR - 25th May 2018 at 19:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Not exactly "small", the two RN ships have a bigger displacement than the Kusnetsov or the Liaoning.

It is not size of ship but the size of fight in ship aka fighter/weopon capability in ships that determine its size. Unless UK built large support bases in Pacific and Mediteranean the sustainability of ships will be not much. Kuzentov made a lot of sorties despite not having big support near Syria.
This RN ships not getting full fighter wing well beyond 2025. by that time even attack choppers will be capable of 1000km missiles.

By: Marcellogo - 26th May 2018 at 19:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Not exactly "small", the two RN ships have a bigger displacement than the Kusnetsov or the Liaoning.

And a way bigger one compared to the nuclear powered, CTOL carrier Charles De Gaulle , fully capable (when not broken) to operate Hawkeyes.

By: djcross - 26th May 2018 at 23:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Reliance on Russian aviation design prowess has not played well for the Indian's FGFA. The Russian design bureaus could not pay their engineers in the 1990s so they all quit. For many their income was higher if they drove a taxi cab. When they left, the Russian design bureaus lost the expertise needed to field a workable weapon system. After the T-50 prototype rollout, the Russians seem to struggle with maturing it into an operational airplane.

Will the Russians suddenly develop the skills to help Turkey develop an airplane for a new aircraft carrier? I doubt it. Best to check with Dassault and see if they will sell Ms.

By: swerve - 26th May 2018 at 23:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

The Soviets were doing this a long time ago. Small STOVL carriers seems to be the trend these days. UK, Japan and now Turkey wants to do it this way.

I think you are confusing the present with the 1970s to 1990s. That's when the UK built small STOVL carriers, as did Italy & Spain, while India & Thailand bought one each.

The UK currently has two large STOVL carriers afloat. Italy has one small & one very small. Japan & Turkey have or are building ships the same size as Italy's bigger, newer carrier, but not designed as primarily STOVL carriers.

Not much of a trend compared to 30 years ago.

By: KGB - 27th May 2018 at 01:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Reliance on Russian aviation design prowess has not played well for the Indian's FGFA. The Russian design bureaus could not pay their engineers in the 1990s so they all quit. For many their income was higher if they drove a taxi cab. When they left, the Russian design bureaus lost the expertise needed to field a workable weapon system. After the T-50 prototype rollout, the Russians seem to struggle with maturing it into an operational airplane.

Will the Russians suddenly develop the skills to help Turkey develop an airplane for a new aircraft carrier? I doubt it. Best to check with Dassault and see if they will sell Ms.

Russian design bureau's weren't getting things done in the 90's..yeah.

By: JSR - 27th May 2018 at 01:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Reliance on Russian aviation design prowess has not played well for the Indian's FGFA. The Russian design bureaus could not pay their engineers in the 1990s so they all quit. For many their income was higher if they drove a taxi cab. When they left, the Russian design bureaus lost the expertise needed to field a workable weapon system. After the T-50 prototype rollout, the Russians seem to struggle with maturing it into an operational airplane.

Will the Russians suddenly develop the skills to help Turkey develop an airplane for a new aircraft carrier? I doubt it. Best to check with Dassault and see if they will sell Ms.

India simply not have the money to pay market price of 5.5G technology at this point.
T-50 has already flown 4000km non stop if not more in 2013.
http://aviationweek.com/defense/russias-t-50-makes-first-long-range-flight
it has already launched heavy missiles and carried heavy external fuel tanks. The strength of airframe with 3D TVC already proven.
Russian design bureaus paid well for the cost of living the competent people at the locations factories are operating. Just look at Sukhoi Superjet. Only 3 flying prototypes in less than 3 years of flight testing it entered into service. while Boeing need help from Russians to get B777 and B787 design with more testing. MS-21 flight testing with advanced composite materials. how big is the antenna on A-100 AWACS and the wingtip pods?. let Airbus put this size of antenna.
Dassualt/ Airbus are joke compared to UAC. Airbus/Dassualt lack of expertise make even small upgrades expensive and slow to implement. offcourse everything is hidden inside Euro system for now. I don't see any one else can help Turkey with its medium size VTOL fighter that can land smaller carriers beside UAC.

By: Deino - 27th May 2018 at 07:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

When did you begin to determine what thread is deserving of attention and what is not? Do you really need to derail all my threads with ad hominem attacks at other users? If you dont like the discussion just do not take part in them!

Dear Bayar, the problem is not that we don’t like the discussion, but merely that fact what you are presenting, the way you present these information and most of all that – I would say with a lot of nationalistic fewer included – a normal decent discussion is simply not possible:

You are a presenting completely illusion plans, projects a country like the USA, Russia and China or multinational projects by the EU can barely manage with their budget and their vast expertise and experience and you even more present timelines and a budget, no one with the slightest sense of logic and understanding in aerospace matters would rate possible.

You are presenting lists of projects ranging from stealth fighters, trainers, transports, helicopters, AUVS, UCAVs and carriers that even the biggest aerospace countries have issues to manage and finance and you are presenting them as it would be some sort of plug-and-play.

One has to remember – and that’s not to diminish any Turkish achievements – but a fact: so far Turkey has not developed and fielded any significant major project on their own, none: No combat aircraft, no transport, no helicopter , … in fact NOTHING. All TAI so far has done was participating in local co-production and / or license manufacturing.

So I beg you to stay realistic and accept that there are not few who remain most skeptical on what will ever happen.

These projects – in fact – NONE could be taken seriously.

Even more you are oversimplifying the political background: the current path president Erdogan follows is most likely wrong, this playing one side against the other with the UE, USA and Russia will never ever ease the situation and make such projects even more unlikely to come to fruition. And that’s my third point of concern …

The Soviets were doing this a long time ago. Small STOVL carriers seems to be the trend these days. UK, Japan and now Turkey wants to do it this way.

This was once a time … and is long out … no nation follows the trend of small carriers with small useless VSTOL aircraft like the Yak-38 and -41. And to compare the ambitions by the UK and Japan to field the F-35B with the Yak-38 shows even more how far you off.

Sorry to say so, but to be taken seriously in such a forum – both as a poster and a nation in the fields of aerospace - one has to earn respect and can only be measured by the results, not by endless lists of phantasy projects and fancy PR-CGs.

Deino

By: djcross - 27th May 2018 at 12:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Russian design bureau's weren't getting things done in the 90's..yeah.

The one airplane you point to was started in the 1980s. And the majority of the design work was also completed in the 1980s.

This isn't intended to be a bash of Russia. The United States did the same stupid thing of eliminating its experienced design workforce in 1993 (Google Les Aspin and the last supper). That is one reason why F-35 has been a development disaster -- inexperienced leadership, inexperienced design team and a supplier base which cannot provide products on time which meet performance requirements.

By: Glendora - 27th May 2018 at 13:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Turkey’s TCG Anadolu is a highly modified derivative of the Juan Carlos class LHD designed as a light VTOL carrier- it cannot not operate STOVL aircraft.

If it’s really modfied to such a degree, good luck with the F-35B you referred in your limk, if Turkey will ever get them. I assume you know what is the maximum payload of the F-35B in Vertical take off.

Turkey’s newly announced 300m + vessel will however use a STOVL aircraft. Most likely a TFX naval variant

So your bombastic original post about a STOBAR (btw the links you provided referred just to the construction of a dry dock, which could be used i.e. for commercial and cruise vessels, nothing more) was incorrect?
Now you talk about a 300+ m STOVL carrier. Such a pity, the QE class is just 280 m, I thougt that the most advanced shipbuilders and engineers in the world could have squeezed something more then UK with 20 m more in lenght. :D