Turkey Unveils Plans to Construct Massive 60,000-Ton Aircraft Carrier

In a move signifying its aspirations for heightened naval power, Turkey has unveiled plans to construct its first domestically-built aircraft carrier. This ambitious program, announced by President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in February 2024, aims to not only bolster Turkey's naval capabilities but also potentially surpass India's current carrier program in terms of size.

The new carrier, whose technical specifications were recently presented by the Istanbul Naval Shipyard, will boast an impressive length of 285 meters and a displacement of 60,000 tons. While details are still emerging, the project emphasizes self-reliance, with Turkey aiming to design and construct the carrier entirely in-house.

Focus on Size: This focus on size is significant, as India's sole operational carrier, INS Vikramaditya, has a displacement of around 45,000 tons. Should Turkey successfully execute its plans, the new carrier would be demonstrably larger than its Indian counterpart.

Beyond Size: The specifics unveiled also showcase Turkey's vision for the carrier's operational capabilities. A STOBAR (Short Take-Off But Arrested Recovery) system is planned, along with an eventual domestically developed catapult system. The initial airwing is expected to comprise 50 aircraft, including domestically produced Hurjet light attack aircraft and potentially navalized drones. Defensive systems will include a 32-cell vertical launch system and close-in weapon systems.

Challenges and Considerations: This ambitious project undoubtedly faces challenges. Building a functional aircraft carrier is a complex undertaking requiring significant technological expertise and resources. Additionally, integrating novel aircraft onboard will necessitate rigorous testing and training.

Expert Commentary: Analysts caution against solely focusing on size comparison. While surpassing India's carrier in physical dimensions is noteworthy, operational effectiveness will ultimately depend on factors like crew training, embarked airwing capabilities, and overall integration with the broader Turkish navy.

Turkey's aircraft carrier program represents a significant step forward in its quest for a more robust navy. The successful development and deployment of this vessel would undoubtedly solidify Turkey's position as a major regional naval power.

However, the international community will be keenly observing whether Turkey can navigate the technical hurdles and translate its ambitious plans into a truly operational and impactful carrier force.

 

[Anant]

I may be wrong, but what are they going to do with the AC? Do they really need it? Their inflation rates have sky-rocketed to ~65%. Cherry on the cake, they are going to operate Hürjet on it.

The middle East is going to see a leadership race with Iran using its proxies (against Israel) to gain popularity, Saudi going the America-way, and Tharki getting its hands on some of the top of the notch technology.

You aren't wrong. They have no strategic need for a carrier. In fact, if they instead invested that money on 2-3 sister ships to the Anadolu, they would be far better off.

This is just Erdogan pandering to his ego and his Islamic hardliners supporters about his dream to reinstate the Ottoman Empire. The only problem with that is that Tharki's economy is in the dumps, and unless something is done quickly, recovery will be ever-more painful.

 

[Anant]

Astra missile was undergoing ground test from 2003 to 2014! It was amde operational in 2017-18. Brahmos was indigenised to a good extent & can even be fully indigenised except for Russian share. Scorpene submarines were not even allowed to deliver a single submarine despite contract signed in 2004. Now all submarines are delivered (last one in sea trial). Tejas was discarded as failure which is now successful & more variants like TEDBF, Tejas MK2, AMCA are launched. Akash SAM was perfected, MRSAM, LRSAM (Barak-8 derivative) indigenisation going well, BMD developed for upto MRBM range

Not exactly. Here are the responses to your various points:

1. The Astra missile had a very protracted, albeit very detailed, testing period that lasted between 2003 and 2015-16, not 2012. Most of that blame goes to DRDO with its trail schedules.

2. Indigenisation of the BrahMos was planned from the early days, though the extent was not as great as it is now. That is thanks to the NDA's focus on indigenous development, so I will agree that the credit for this goes to them.

3. The Kalvari-class submarines weren't being held-up in deliveries. There was no case of MDL not being allowed to deliver the boats (on an alternative note, do you realise how stupid that sounds and would be?). Construction on Kalvari began in 2006-07, but the contract signed in 2005 was missing a lot of specifics, and negotiations for those components took longer, meaning the submarine was only launched in 2015. Can't exactly blame UPA for those delays. It was a fault of the contract negotiators and MDL.

4. The Tejas was never dismissed as a failure. The IAF always had plans for purchasing the type. What has happened under NDA, however, is that there has been an increased level of trust from the IAF, leading to larger orders. So, partical credit.

5. The Tejas Mk 2 was sanctioned for development in 2009, under UPA-2. AMCA development began as a parallel endeavour to India's participation in the Su-57 program way back in 2010. Only the TEDBF program has its origins in the NDA era. Moreover, aircraft projects don't get approved for production on Day 1. There is a sizeable time difference between the start of a project and its clearing. As such, even though the projects you mentioned got clearance in recent years, they still date back quite a while, except the TEDBF. So again, maybe partial credit.

6. The Akash was deployed operationally in 2009, and had been "perfected" by then. What has happened since is that it has been Improved further, culminating in the recently-tested Akash NG missiles. Development of the Barak 8 also dates to the early 2000s, with first tests in 2010. The Barak 8 has also seen a decent level of indigenisation except the first set of orders. Even the BMD program dates back to the NDA government under Sh. Vajpayee rather than more recent governments. See, the thing with defence development is that it takes years and doesn't happen overnight. That said, the NDA government has a lot of things that have happened in their time (IAC-2, Project 75I, Arjun Mk 2 and FMBT development, indigenous artillery development, etc.). They have also, to their great credit, opened up India's defence industry quite substantially to the private sector. However, in order to see the main effects and results of this, we will have to wait another decade.

 

[desigandu]

Sir, I would say we need 4 LHDs rather than LPDs. More expensive, but far more versatile, and (theoretically), a LHD could take a lightened Tejas N, though the details would have to be worked out in detail.

Agree, but I don't see a Naval Tejas or TEDBF (VTOL) anytime soon...maybe we thinking of getting the F-35B/Cs for our big nuclear carriers and LHDs...say we get 4 LHDs (Juan Carlos Class) by 2035, we will need about 36-48 planes in F-35Bs type configuration or a variant of TEDBF...TEDBF is required if we get IAC-2 by 2032 and then IAC-3/4 by 2035/2040...

 

[Shrujanam Syama]

Not exactly. Here are the responses to your various points:

1. The Astra missile had a very protracted, albeit very detailed, testing period that lasted between 2003 and 2015-16, not 2012. Most of that blame goes to DRDO with its trail schedules.

2. Indigenisation of the BrahMos was planned from the early days, though the extent was not as great as it is now. That is thanks to the NDA's focus on indigenous development, so I will agree that the credit for this goes to them.

3. The Kalvari-class submarines weren't being held-up in deliveries. There was no case of MDL not being allowed to deliver the boats (on an alternative note, do you realise how stupid that sounds and would be?). Construction on Kalvari began in 2006-07, but the contract signed in 2005 was missing a lot of specifics, and negotiations for those components took longer, meaning the submarine was only launched in 2015. Can't exactly blame UPA for those delays. It was a fault of the contract negotiators and MDL.

4. The Tejas was never dismissed as a failure. The IAF always had plans for purchasing the type. What has happened under NDA, however, is that there has been an increased level of trust from the IAF, leading to larger orders. So, partical credit.

5. The Tejas Mk 2 was sanctioned for development in 2009, under UPA-2. AMCA development began as a parallel endeavour to India's participation in the Su-57 program way back in 2010. Only the TEDBF program has its origins in the NDA era. Moreover, aircraft projects don't get approved for production on Day 1. There is a sizeable time difference between the start of a project and its clearing. As such, even though the projects you mentioned got clearance in recent years, they still date back quite a while, except the TEDBF. So again, maybe partial credit.

6. The Akash was deployed operationally in 2009, and had been "perfected" by then. What has happened since is that it has been Improved further, culminating in the recently-tested Akash NG missiles. Development of the Barak 8 also dates to the early 2000s, with first tests in 2010. The Barak 8 has also seen a decent level of indigenisation except the first set of orders. Even the BMD program dates back to the NDA government under Sh. Vajpayee rather than more recent governments. See, the thing with defence development is that it takes years and doesn't happen overnight. That said, the NDA government has a lot of things that have happened in their time (IAC-2, Project 75I, Arjun Mk 2 and FMBT development, indigenous artillery development, etc.). They have also, to their great credit, opened up India's defence industry quite substantially to the private sector. However, in order to see the main effects and results of this, we will have to wait another decade.

Why would you blame DRDO for Astra? Every DRDO action requires sanction by central govt. UPA was intentionally holding back.

Even Kalvari was delayed due to USA holding back funds. There was no fault of MDI or negotiator as French were set to do most of the work. So, no delay from MDI was even possible

As for Tejas Mk2 & AMCA, yes they were sanctioned in 2010 but the fun fact is that they would regularly change aerodynamic designs of Tejas MK2 & AMCA for 7 years and thereby no actually go into any detailed work. It was only after 2017-18 that it became more serious and internal work and design started. They were sanctioned only as a pretension to slow to down Tejas Mk1. It is common sense that without actual feedback and flight data, it is impossible to develop any planes. So, making Tejas Mk1 as tech demonstrator was always critical which was intentionally sabotaged.

 

[Anant]

Why would you blame DRDO for Astra? Every DRDO action requires sanction by central govt. UPA was intentionally holding back.

Even Kalvari was delayed due to USA holding back funds. There was no fault of MDI or negotiator as French were set to do most of the work. So, no delay from MDI was even possible

As for Tejas Mk2 & AMCA, yes they were sanctioned in 2010 but the fun fact is that they would regularly change aerodynamic designs of Tejas MK2 & AMCA for 7 years and thereby no actually go into any detailed work. It was only after 2017-18 that it became more serious and internal work and design started. They were sanctioned only as a pretension to slow to down Tejas Mk1. It is common sense that without actual feedback and flight data, it is impossible to develop any planes. So, making Tejas Mk1 as tech demonstrator was always critical which was intentionally sabotaged.

DRDO can be blamed for Astra rather than the government because the money for Astra was released on time (2004). It was the delayed testing schedules that caused such great delays in the Astra.

Money for the Kalvari-class wasn't necessarily held back. Unless you have defininitive proof or sources for the same, that claim is nonsensical. Moreover, the delays in the Kalvari-class, as covered by the MDL investor transcripts, was due to post-contract negotiations for certain parts and accidents.

Regarding the Tejas Mk 2 and AMCA, designs changed over the years, because that is how preliminary design work works (pardon the pun). As for your claims about them being cleared to slow down the Tejas Mk 1, again, either show your proof or evidence, or just don't make nonsensical statements.