Fair enough, not seen the film since I walked out of the cinema in disgust how ever many years ago. I seem to remember they recycled the clip from an earlier bond film where a type 23 fires a cruise missile (!!!) at a chinese arms fair. Damn useful ship the Type 23 is in Bond world, make you wonder why we are even buying T45s. 😀

I confirm, the movie was “Tomorrow never dies” and indeed the footage is directly copy-pasted on “Die another day”, except that the missile’s fins are somewhat larger. Also in the same movie we can see an L-39 carrying a duo of… nuclear torpedoes 😀

I don’t really mind with certain attrocities by the moviemakers, after all it’s a movie. So what if the protagonist runs and hundreds of bullets are fired upon him but all miss. It’s called poetic licence, I can live with that, after all if the protagonist dies, the movie ends, what’s the point of watching it then? But certain errors in details make no sense, like this one.

I mean, it’s not like they saved so much money by making a model ship and a CGI missile. They could easily get a video with a missile launch from either US Navy or RN. They would both be happy to provided it for free welcoming publicity, thus making the scenes far more credible and real.

Anyway, it’s just a movie.

When it says domestic are we just talking about the hull being built in Turkey and then most likely fitted out with say AEGIS system and standard and sea sparrow missiles? It would be very interesting news if it was to be a domestic in hull building and the major and majority of systems. Turkey seems to have large armed forces so maybe the development costs are an investment due to the numbers built, other applications etc.
From looking at the current Turkish fleet and it’s AAW requirement on Wiki it appears these will be interesting ships. There is certainly a requirement for more than 4 ships as the Knox class and perry class and Meko require replacement. The dates these ships were brought into service is quite recent but these are mostly used ships so will maybe not last more than 20 years. I’m not sure of the utilization of these ships and how hard worked they are so they maybe will last longer.
One big question not just relating to the Turkish navy is will the US start to sell it Burke’s. This will be an interesting development and whether Turkey would meet it’s needs with some of these i don’t know. There is not to much on the AAW used market without requiring major system upgrade so Turkey is probably as well to put these systems on new domestic hulls rather than used ones(more perry’s for example)
Does anyone consider Turkey building AAW ships to be a big jump into the unknown or more a big step in a path of development.
One last consideration is the export potential these ships could hold for Turkey. Is there any?

The truth is nobody knows the answers to these otherwise obvious questions, not even the Turks themselves. They have been overambitious with this program, since they first projected the need for those frigates back in the nineties. A major projection was as much domestic involvement and IMHO that was a significant drawback by itself. This article is I think highly relevant, eventhough it discusses another case.

………………………………………………..
……………………………………………….

Disgracefully indeed, buying a hugely more powerful Arleigh Burke type ship would have actually been a lot cheaper than Type 45; and we could still have handed out a bit of good news to politically-important UK shipyards. South Korea’s KDX-IIIs, essentially Arleigh Burkes in locally built hulls, are estimated (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/rok/kdx-3.htm) to cost 1.2 trillion won apiece. That’s less than half the price of a Type 45 at today’s rates, for a hugely better ship. And the Korean shipyards got lots of lovely government work on KDX-III, just as Clydeside did with Type 45.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/23/type_45_cpac_slammage/print.html

For the time being, they only seem to investigate options.

Thats exactly my point, not landing, just parking. Look at the picture in this thread and look how much apron space is taken up by unloade cargo and cargo movement vehicles. Leave the actual heavy birds in the concrete apron and put the lighter ons such as the 727 in the picture on the steel matting.

Can it work?

Regards

Hammer

For parking alone I suppose it could work fine. I mean we can see even helicopters landing on the soil. They could perhaps place a few of these to points with no landing zones, at least for the choppers. But I don’t know we it hasn’t been implemented, I can’t think of a reason… They have to be transported from far away but then again, so does everything else…

USAF alone has so many airmen and engineers on the ground, I’m sure they must have thought of it already, so I guess there must be a good reason for this…

Hello Mr. Troll.

Agreed, but we need to be a little more creative than this…