Turkish Navy : News & Discussion

 
Turkey's LHD TCG ANADOLU L400 - Will be able to carry around 50 TB-3 UCAVs'

1666810939132.png
1666810949039.png
 

Turkish Carrier Design
 
Ashwin said:

Turkish Carrier Design
Click to expand...
This is the kind of ski-jump design the Vikrant should have had, imo. Would have looked similar to the Viraat.
 
_Anonymous_ said:
What're the advantages ?
Click to expand...
I think the British ski-jump design (as seen on the ex-HMS Hermes turned INS Viraat) is superior as it is does not extend beyond the bow, (therefore no overhang). I'm no naval expert but that probably helps during TO. Besides the aesthetics are so much better than Russian carriers.

I'd have hoped that after operating the Viraat for decades the IN would have asked for the rounded ski jump config. But since the Russians did the flight deck and aviation facilities on the Vikrant, the IN decided to go along with the Russian style config as seen on the Kuznetsov.

The end result is that the Vikrant is a hodgepodge between European (island and funnel stack based on the Italian Cavour carrier) and Russian (ski-jump) design philosophies. The IN probably had no choice in the matter since she was designed around the 29K.
 
Speedster1 said:
I think the British ski-jump design (as seen on the ex-HMS Hermes turned INS Viraat) is superior as it is does not extend beyond the bow, (therefore no overhang). I'm no naval expert but that probably helps during TO. Besides the aesthetics are so much better than Russian carriers.

I'd have hoped that after operating the Viraat for decades the IN would have asked for the rounded ski jump config. But since the Russians did the flight deck and aviation facilities on the Vikrant, the IN decided to go along with the Russian style config as seen on the Kuznetsov.

The end result is that the Vikrant is a hodgepodge between European (island and funnel stack based on the Italian Cavour carrier) and Russian (ski-jump) design philosophies. The IN probably had no choice in the matter since she was designed around the 29K.
Click to expand...

The length & angle of the ski-jump depends on the weight of the aircraft it's expected to launch. The ramp on the Vikrant works well with both Russian medium-weight fighters like 29K as well as Western ones like Rafale/F18SH (SBTF is modelled after the same ramp).

I can't speak to the aesthetic preferences. Some like the sharp look of the overhang as opposed to the blunted one on British/Italian designs. It's a personal thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amarante and Ashwin
Parthu said:
The length & angle of the ski-jump depends on the weight of the aircraft it's expected to launch. The ramp on the Vikrant works well with both Russian medium-weight fighters like 29K as well as Western ones like Rafale/F18SH (SBTF is modelled after the same ramp).
Click to expand...
The British only fly STOVL jets (Harrier, F-35B) from their carriers while the Russian carriers have their Su-33s and MiG-29K. The Russian ski-jump covers the bow in its entirety while on the QE class only part of the bow is taken up by the ski-jump.

I just think that if the Vikrant design had extended the flight deck ahead of the bow with only the ski-jump protruding upward, it would have been more contemporary.

But of course the IN has a long history of marrying Eastern and Western design philosophies, weapons and sensors, (Leander+ Styx bow launchers, for example), so they are keeping up with tradition in the case of the Vikrant. Par for the course.

I know our ships will never look as good as Italian or French designs, though they are very competitive in terms of capability.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom