"Turkey Aircraft Carrier to Deploy F-35B Jets " Topic

"Turkish-German media Deutsch Tuerkische Zeitung is reporting that during the last meeting of the Turkish National Security Council (in presence of the Turkish President) the decision was made to built the future LHD (Turkish designation: LPD Project) as an aircraft carrier capable to deploy the F-35B, the short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) variant of the Lockheed Martin built Joint Strike Fighter. The vessel should be delivered to the Turkish Navy by 2019.

Turkey's Undersecretariat for Defense Industries (SSM) announced in December 2013 that it selected Sedef shipyard as winner of its LPD tender and that final contract negotiations with this shipyard could begin. Sedef shipyard in Turkey offers a design based on Juan Carlos LHD under the collaboration with Spain's Navantia…"

Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

I guess Turkey is serious about becoming a world power…

Any one else uneasy selling a high tech weapon to a possible future enemy?

What makes you think they'd become enemies? Enemy to whom? They are a member of NATO and heavily subsidized by the USA. Leaving NATO means no more expensive toys.

They may not help with military missions against Moslem nations, but that doesn't mean they'd go to war against any Western country. Turkey would prefer to sit in the middle and play the West against the Arabs as well as the Russians. They've been very good at this.

Why not sell them our old harriers? No reason to give them the latest and greatest to reward their middle ground positions. We seem to be dumping a lot of expensive and current military equipment to countries with less than solid partnership ideas.

Yes deliver your only new, top notch technology to a not so same only " mildly islamic" ally but only not too ally.

Or maybe as this expensive thing barely works is it a ploy so they won't have another that might work from someone else one day?

Lets hope these have some secret backdoor software code to disable on command :)

I wouldn't. Turkey is an ally in name only at the moment.

If they want the benefits of Western military technology then they need to help deal with the bad actors on their doorstep instead of hindering us.

They need to make a decision to either join the civilized nations in helping the middle east grow out of its current barbarism (and yes, it is barbarism) or get kicked out of NATO.

VonTed, they can write it into the gun trigger software, they have a couple years to get it right.

Warlock, I have to point out the flaws in your thinking. You seem to think that Western nations have some sort of duty to enforce its values on the way people of the Middle East think and behave. -As if anyone want us to meddle in their lives. Whether or not you think they are barbaric has no relevance.

In addition, please read NATO's charter and point out to me the section that commits member nations to provide troops and military bases for operations beyond defending member states.

Any one else uneasy selling a high tech weapon to a possible future enemy?

So, no selling weapons, then?

Seriously, the Turks are unlikely to become enemies any time soon, and they sure as heck wouldn't be much threat to the actual US even if they did. If Europe's worried, maybe they should consider having actual militaries, again.
-Kle.

Ah, the old Europe doesn't have any military chestnut, despite the EU spending 192,535,000,000 euros a year on the 1,551,038 active military personnel. The 544 commissioned warships are obviously irrelevant, as are the 2025 fighter and ground attack aircraft.

Yes, Europe is totally defenceless and dependent on the US for everything military.

Sounds nice….but consider some of the biggest NATO powers ran out of PGMs in less than 30 days of low-intensity air operations ( link )

Also, from Wiki ( link ) the EU's sustained deployable strength is about ~110,000, less than the US's sustainable deployed strength of ~180,000.

Combine a low level of deployable with poor ammo stockpiles and suddenly that 1.5 million troops and 2000+ aircraft starts to look a bit like a paper tiger.

More on-topic though…..

Fixed-wing CAS aircraft and AAVs = Turkish MEU equivalent.
Where are the Turkish trying to project power that it needs a naval delivery platform? This question isn't answered in the article, and is far more important than whether they order F-35s or not.

If anything they just navalize the T129 or buy AH-1Z SuperCobras.( link ).

Cwlinsj I have to point out some flaws in YOUR thinking.

Turkey is a component of NATO and beholden by treaty to support the actions of member nations under attack. If you do not construe the continuing terror attacks being committed by ISIS/Daesh as a threat then you are sadly mistaken.

There have been terror attacks in the US, UK, France, and several other EU nations in support of Islamic jihad.

Turkey has the option of withdrawing from NATO.

Perhaps true for the EU's spending, and troop levels.

However, how many combat-ready tanks can the EU field today, and what percentage of those are owned by Poland?

I concur, Turkey shouldn't be given F-35s, especially under the current, Islamic-leaning leadership. However, on the plus side, they won't be able to fire their guns until 2019, or later. ;-)

If Turkey goes to war with Greece, which side is NATO obligated to defend?

However, how many combat-ready tanks can the EU field today, and what percentage of those are owned by Poland?

I'll be surprised if it's LESS than 50% owned by Poland?

Allegiances aren't forever. And under Erdogan Turkey has been turning away from Western orientation to Eastern orientation.

Turkey's looking to expand influence in middle east and has become openly hostile to Israel (even revealing Mossad agent identities to Iran and threatening naval action against Gaza blockade).

The Turks have also been getting more beligerent towards Israel, Greece and Cyprus due to oil/gas exploration in the Aegean.

Turkey even tried buying Chinese IADS which is a real anti-NATO step. They've since canned the buy under intense diplomatic pressure.

If Turkey goes to war with Greece, which side is NATO obligated to defend?

I've always wondered myself.

I'll be surprised if it's LESS than 50% owned by Poland?

Except a third of Poland's tanks (c.300) are obsolete basic T-72s in storage and will be replaced by a mere 50 additional Leo 2s (bringing total Leo 2 numbers to 250-ish). The rest of the fleet is upgraded T-72s or PT-91s (indigenous version of T-72). The upgrades aren't all up to date either.

The Poles still have huge amounts of 1980s Warpac gear in service and lack the funds to replace it all.

They done better than most Eastern European countries by actually maintaining some sort of capability.

I'll be surprised if it's LESS than 50% owned by Poland?

Except a third of Poland's tanks (c.300) are obsolete basic T-72s in storage and will be replaced by a mere 50 additional Leo 2s (bringing total Leo 2 numbers to 250-ish). The rest of the fleet is upgraded T-72s or PT-91s (indigenous version of T-72). The upgrades aren't all up to date either.

The Poles still have huge amounts of 1970s and 1980s Warpac gear in service and lack the funds to replace it all.

They done better than most Eastern European countries by actually maintaining some sort of capability.

So you found the part in NATO's charter that obligates members to provide troops or bases beyond defending member states yet?

People who complain about Turkey's new President Erdogan don't seem to recall 2001 when Turkey refused to allow US/Coalition troops to use Turkish bases for the invasion of Afghanistan. Heard the same complaints back then.

Can't say I'm a "friend" of Turkey, never been there, but I can understand that they play the politics of their region.

I agree with Deadone, Turkey is a likely enemy.

That doesn't mean they're going to go to war with the U.S., but it does mean that they either are, or likely will, support our enemies by supporting ISIS, etc. They're tacitly supporting ISIS now by allowing recruiting and fundraising on Turkish territory, and preventing or inhibiting resupply of Kurdish factions who are fighting ISIS.

A friend of my enemy is my enemy.

'Any one else uneasy selling a high tech weapon to a possible future enemy?'

Selling very high-tech, high-maintenance gear to folks tends to make them more dependent on you. Yeah, Iran still manages to get F15s in the air, but not very often and they could not compare to more modern models. Cut the supply train, parts and software updates to an F35 and I am guessing you'd see a fairly rapid fall-off in flight hours and performance.

And of course, the USA would know exactly how to deal with not-quite-state-of-the-art F35s – possibly right down to having profiles of every individual pilot who they train to fly it.

Anyway, these puppies are so damn expensive, they need every customer they can get to spread the cost.

I believe you mean F14s for Iran.

They don't have any F15s.

Perhaps the idea is to shackle/erode Turkey's ability to fight an air war by selling them some complete turkeys…

Geddit? :)

John T

Ah, the old Europe doesn't have any military chestnut, despite the EU spending 192,535,000,000 euros a year on the 1,551,038 active military personnel. The 544 commissioned warships are obviously irrelevant, as are the 2025 fighter and ground attack aircraft.

Yes, Europe is totally defenceless and dependent on the US for everything military.

Yes, Europe's paper tiger looks pretty darn tiger-y, on paper.

Britain and France still have the remnants of their militaries, and are reasonably effective, within their capabilities. They are both mere shadows of their former strength, though.

The former WarPac NATO members have some decent numbers, but training and equipment quality are questionable.

The continent has a decent number of reasonably modern aircraft, but their stocks of advanced weapons and support services are limited.

Germany's a joke, nowadays. Every time I think back to the '80s, and how kickass the WG forces were in all those WW3 games, In just about die laughing. Ask anyone who served with them in Afghanistan what they thought of their performance. Belgium and the Netherlands, Spain and Portugal, Denmark, have basically completely disarmed. Italy has a navy, and at least tries to have an army, but it is tiny.

OTOH, Europe handled Yugoslavia just fine without us… oh, wait.
-Kle.

What about Luxemburg?… (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

People who complain about Turkey's new President Erdogan don't seem to recall 2001 when Turkey refused to allow US/Coalition troops to use Turkish bases for the invasion of Afghanistan. Heard the same complaints back then.

In 2001 they weren't selling Mossad agents to Teheran or threatening to bust open Israel's Gaza blockade with Turkish forces, supporting Hamas or supporting Islamists in Syria or threatening Israeli-Cypriot-Greek oil exploration or buying non-NATO compatible IADS. And they were slowly creeping back into some sort of Islamist dictatorship either.

All of which are against American/Western interests.

Erdogan was only elected in 2002.

'I believe you mean F14s for Iran.

They don't have any F15s.'

Yes, indeed. My mistake, thanks. The same conclusion applies though. High-tech weapons need a lot of tender loving care, and it is harder to keep them running if you are not speaking to the guys who made them.

"People who complain about Turkey's new President Erdogan don't seem to recall 2001 when Turkey refused to allow US/Coalition troops to use Turkish bases for the invasion of Afghanistan. Heard the same complaints back then."

If people 'recall' that, they should stay off the recreational drugs, as that categorically did not happen.

Quite the reverse, in fact, as the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan was a NATO operation, to which Turkey not only voted in support of but also played a part. Turkey actually OFFERED basing and logisitcal support to US and other NATO allies. Turkey later supplied around 300-500 troops to ISAF.

You might be confused with the Iraq invasion of 2003, when the Turkish Government initially agreed to allow Turkey to be used as a launchpad for invasion. This was despite despite deep reservations regarding the undoubted assistance that removing Saddam would give to Kurdish separatism.

However, in the event, the Turkish Government put their participation to parliamentary vote due to strong public opposition (as did many US allies). Turkey's participation in the coming war was then narrowly defeated by parliament. Hardly an outright 'refusal'. In fact, Turkish bases continued to be used for logistics and for ongoing operations in Afghanistan, as well as the Northern Iraq No-Fly Zone, which continued until the end of major combat operations in 2003.

Bloody TMPbug!

"Turkey Aircraft Carrier to Deploy F-35B Jets "

They probably won't be deploying them against Deash …

Why would they? Daesh is crap, but they are happily killing the terrorists, the Kurds, who have a fondness for blowing up people on Turkish beaches.

Even with US assistance, can the Turks actually afford to operate the F-35? They would probably be better off with harriers.