Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Turkey’s new carrier alters eastern Mediterranean energy and security calculus
The Jerusalem Post ^ | 02/04/2014 | MICHA’EL TANCHUM

Posted on 02/09/2014 6:35:33 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki

Turkey took a major step in altering the naval balance in the eastern Mediterranean by contracting the construction of a multi-purpose amphibious assault ship.

In late December 2013, Turkey took a major step in altering the naval balance in the eastern Mediterranean by contracting the construction of a multi-purpose amphibious assault ship that can function as an aircraft carrier, potentially providing Turkey an unprecedented measure of sea control in the region.

The heightened threat perception for Israel, Cyprus and Greece will impact the imminent decision regarding whether Israel will export its natural gas to a planned Cypriot LNG terminal with a European export route through Greece, or build a subsea pipeline to Turkey. Turkey’s next diplomatic moves could make the difference between a comprehensive regional agreement for a Turkish export route for eastern Mediterranean offshore energy, or a naval arms race which Turkey economically cannot win.

Background In March 2012, then-commander of the Turkish navy Admiral Murat Bilgel outlined Turkey’s strategic objective “to operate not only in the littorals but also on the high seas,” with “high seas” referring to the eastern Mediterranean. Bilgel identified the Turkish navy’s intermediate goals for the coming decade as “enhancing sea denial, forward presence, and limited power projection capacity.”

Turkey’s new Landing Helicopter Dock (LHD) will cost between one half to one billion dollars and will provide Ankara with its desired forward presence in the eastern Mediterranean, which Greece, Cyprus and Israel cannot afford to ignore.

The new Turkish LHD, to be built by the Turkish shipyard SEDEF and Spanish shipbuilder Navantia, will be a variant of Navantia’s Juan Carlos I class L-61 ship used by the Spanish Navy. After Spain, Turkey will be only the second country to possess a Juan Carlos I class vessel.

The Australian navy’s two Navantia-built ships, the HMAS Canberra and HMAS Adelaide, once commissioned, will constitute the Australian fleet’s largest vessels. Similarly, Anakara’s new LHD will dwarf the Turkish fleet’s largest ships.

While ships in Turkish Navy’s Gabya class have a 4,100 ton displacement, Turkey’s new Juan Carlos I class LHD will have a displacement of 27,079 tons.

Providing the Turkish Navy with blue-water capabilities, Ankara’s new LHD is game-changer in the eastern Mediterranean. The main mission profile of the Juan Carlos I class LHD is power projection to any theater of operation. As an amphibious assault ship, it can transport a battalion-sized unit of 1,000 troops along with 150 vehicles, including battle tanks, for a marine landing.

Even more significantly, the Juan Carlos I class LHD is an aircraft carrier substitute. The ship has already replaced Spain’s aircraft carrier the Principe de Asturias. In Spanish, the LHD ship is referred to by the abbreviation BPE, standing for Buque de Proyeccion Estrategica or Strategic Power Projection Ship, more accurately reflecting its purpose.

As an aircraft carrier, Turkey’s LHD will feature a flight deck with a 12° ski-jump enabling it to host both V/STOL (Vertical and/or Short Take-Off and Landing) and STOVL (Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing) fighter aircraft. While six fighter aircraft can be parked on its flight deck, the ship also has a hangar bay that can house 12 additional fighter aircraft.

As Turkey’s first aircraft carrier, the LHD will be capable of sailing non-stop for 30 days with a range of 1,700 nautical miles (3,148 km). In combination with Turkey’s existing naval assets, the LHD will provide Ankara with the ability to project significant force in the areas of Cyprus and Israel’s offshore natural gas facilities, giving Turkey, in the short term, a greater measure of sea control in the region.

Implications Turkey’s LHD acquisition constitutes part of Ankara’s $3 billion “National Warship” Project, known by its Turkish abbreviation MILGEM, whose goal is to expand Turkey’s capability to deploy combat forces far from its coasts. In September 2013, shortly after assuming his post as Turkey’s new naval commander, Admiral Bülent Bostanoglu asserted in a national speech related to the MILGEM project that Turkey’s maritime threat perception is “energy-based” and identified defending Turkey’s interests in the eastern Mediterranean as the navy’s “highest priority.”

In this context, Turkey’s LHD procurement will impact Israel’s decision-making process about how to export off-shore natural gas from its Tamar and Leviathan fields. Israel’s Tamar field is already in commercial production and in December 2013 additional reserves of up to 20 billion cubic meters were discovered. Israel’s Leviathan field is estimated to contain 510 billion cubic meters of natural gas.

The developers of the Israeli gas fields, the American firm Noble Energy and their Israeli partners Avner and Delek, signed a June 2013 MOU with Cyprus to build a Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) terminal in Vasilikos on the southern Cypriot coast. Because Cyprus’s Aphrodite gas field, also developed by Noble and Delek, is too small to attract sufficient investment to finance a gas liquefaction plant, cash-strapped Cyprus needs the volume of Israeli gas exports for a viable LNG terminal.

The arrangement also raises the possibility of a European market export route via Greece that would bypass Turkey.

The evolution of this possible export arrangement is the product of the trilateral cooperation in energy development and defense among Israel, Cyprus and Greece that arose in the context of the deteriorating relations between Israel and Turkey from 2008 to 2012.

In 2010, Turkey’s National Security Policy Document (Milli Guvenlik Siyaseti Belgesi), commonly known as “The Red Book,” began to list Israel as a threat to regional security, while Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan famously promised that the “Eastern Mediterranean will see Turkish battleships frequently.”

A more cost-effective export route for Israeli natural gas would be via a subsea pipeline from the Leviathan field to Turkey. According to estimates from JP Morgan, the pipeline would yield a higher and faster return on investment than the construction of the planned LNG plant in Cyprus.

The Turkish firm Zorlu Energy and, more recently, Turcas Petrol have been pursuing the pipeline option with Israel.

However, Ankara’s LHD acquisition in the context of the antagonistic posture toward Israel by Prime Minister Erdogan, Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu and other high-ranking Turkish ministers creates a heightened threat perception in Israel in which Jerusalem cannot afford to jeopardize its strategic relations with Nicosia and, by extension, Athens.

Moreover, the proposed Leviathan- Turkey pipeline would transverse Cyprus’s continental shelf requiring permission from Nicosia. Without a significant breakthrough for a political settlement on Northern Cyprus, Ankara’s LHD acquisition similarly heightens Nicosia’s threat perception, altering the strategic calculus for both Nicosia and Athens.

Ankara has laid down a strategic marker with its enhanced naval capabilities in the eastern Mediterranean. If Turkey does not follow with diplomatic overtures to secure a comprehensive energy export agreement with Israel, Cyprus and Greece that meets Turkey’s interests, Ankara will have wasted a valuable opportunity.

Instead, Ankara will have initiated a naval arms race which Turkey does not have the economic resources to win.

Israel does not need to match Turkey’s procurement program to effectively counter a Turkish bid for greater sea control in the eastern Mediterranean.

Israel can respond with the less costly augmentation of its anti-access and area-denial capabilities. Both countries best interests are served by not becoming trapped in this kind of naval competition.

Conclusions Even though Turkey’s new carrier and other naval assets have yet to be commissioned, their procurement has already altered the strategic balance in the eastern Mediterranean and the terms Turkey will be able to demand from its neighbors.

Greece, Cyprus and Israel will each need to recalibrate their strategic calculus. Unless these three can come to a regional agreement that incentivizes Turkey as a distribution hub for the sale of eastern Mediterranean natural gas, Greece, Cyprus and Israel will need to consider enhanced collective security arrangements to ensure their maritime interests.

A subsea pipeline from Israel’s Leviathan gas field to Turkey, one that also compensates Cyprus with revenue sharing and excess gas for the development of its LNG terminal, offers economic incentives to all the principal actors to reach a comprehensive arrangement for the security of the eastern Mediterranean.

For its part, Turkey will need to restore full and friendly relations with Israel while engaging Cyprus on a political settlement.

Such a shift in Turkish diplomacy will transform Turkey’s naval build-up into an incentive for regional cooperation.

Without such a shift, Turkey will be committing itself to a long-term naval escalation in the eastern Mediterranean which its economy cannot sustain.

The author is a Fellow at the Shalem College Department of Middle East and Islamic Studies, and at the Asia and Middle East Units of the Hebrew University’s Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace. He also teaches in Tel Aviv University’s Departments of Middle Eastern History and East Asian Studies.


TOPICS: Australia/New Zealand; Foreign Affairs; Germany; Israel; News/Current Events; Russia; United Kingdom; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: aerospace; australia; carrier; cyprus; europeanunion; germany; greece; israel; lebanon; nato; navair; russia; turkey; unitedkingdom; waronterror

The Juan Carlos

1 posted on 02/09/2014 6:35:33 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki
Here's another view.
2 posted on 02/09/2014 6:42:32 AM PST by AnAmericanAbroad (It's all bread and circuses for the future prey of the Morlocks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki
ME spun, out of their senses.

3 posted on 02/09/2014 6:43:37 AM PST by skinkinthegrass (The end move in politics is always to pick up a gun..0'Caligula / 0'Reid / 0'Pelosi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

The new fad in the 21st century. Everyone wants a carrier! Everyone wants to force project and show how big their peen is...


4 posted on 02/09/2014 6:46:50 AM PST by miliantnutcase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki
small compliment of planes types, no angled deck,
no dual land/take-off ability..a one shot ship?

5 posted on 02/09/2014 6:49:19 AM PST by skinkinthegrass (The end move in politics is always to pick up a gun..0'Caligula / 0'Reid / 0'Pelosi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

So with the ski slope, are the Turks planning to purchase F-35Bs?


6 posted on 02/09/2014 6:52:01 AM PST by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

It may be a beautiful well designed ship but it would be a leap to rate it an effective warship even if deployed. Foreign navies especially the Chinese all want carriers. However while they may be able to build them or procure them, what they can not readily have are experienced competent crews. The American Navy has over ninety years of carrier experience including much combat. The value of that experience and the constant passing of knowledge cannot be easily created. You can steal plans, buy or produce materials but you cannot easily create competent personnel. It will be a very long time if ever before these foreign navies have effective carriers that can function far from their shores.


7 posted on 02/09/2014 6:56:18 AM PST by allendale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

Easy to dismiss a single LHA/LHD as an insignificant bit of power compared to US standards. But in the Eastern Med it could indeed change the regional power game. I trust Turkey knows there’s a long learning period before they can employ it effectively. And as a point-centric power platform, it’s a high-value target.

TC


8 posted on 02/09/2014 6:57:51 AM PST by Pentagon Leatherneck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanAbroad

Sub bait.


9 posted on 02/09/2014 7:00:37 AM PST by Tallguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tallguy

Carriers are indeed sub bait. Many years ago, there was an argument between two Soviet admirals; one favored greater development of submarines, the other favored aircraft carriers and large capital ships.

The latter admiral won the argument at that time; the losing admiral was, if I recall correctly, shot. This was during Stalin’s reign.


10 posted on 02/09/2014 7:05:07 AM PST by AnAmericanAbroad (It's all bread and circuses for the future prey of the Morlocks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Tallguy
Sub bait.

That was exactly my thought.

The real story isn't Turkey's quest for power projection, it's the graft involved in building that ridiculous thing.

11 posted on 02/09/2014 7:07:09 AM PST by Gunslingr3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanAbroad

Funny.

If Billy Mitchell had been born a Russian, he would have been shot for advocating air power.


12 posted on 02/09/2014 7:10:37 AM PST by DariusBane (Liberty and Risk. Flip sides of the same coin. So how much risk will YOU accept?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Pentagon Leatherneck

There isn’t any place in the eastern Med that isn’t within striking distance of a country with 1st class land-based strike aircraft. If this thing isn’t targeted by a sub it will spend all it’s limited deck space hauling interceptors to protect itself.

Really effective carriers have to ship a balanced air wing that can perform ASW, strike & air defense. Smaller carriers sacrifice capability in 1 or more areas.


13 posted on 02/09/2014 7:11:12 AM PST by Tallguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

Spaniards build beautiful warships. Always have. Put a Spanish ship into the hands of the English Royal Navy and you have something!


14 posted on 02/09/2014 7:12:31 AM PST by DariusBane (Liberty and Risk. Flip sides of the same coin. So how much risk will YOU accept?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw; Cachelot; Nix 2; veronica; Catspaw; knighthawk; Alouette; Optimist; weikel; Lent; GregB; ..
Middle East and terrorism, occasional political and Jewish issues Ping List. High Volume

If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.

..................

15 posted on 02/09/2014 7:13:52 AM PST by SJackson (the Democrats take back control, we donÂ’t make (this) kind of naked power grab, J Biden)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DariusBane

“Always have. Put a Spanish ship into the hands of the English Royal Navy and you have something!”

During Nelson’s time the Spaniards did that quite a lot.


16 posted on 02/09/2014 7:22:04 AM PST by Tallguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Tallguy

Yup, that was the era I was referencing. The Spaniard is a lover, not a fighter!


17 posted on 02/09/2014 7:33:22 AM PST by DariusBane (Liberty and Risk. Flip sides of the same coin. So how much risk will YOU accept?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: rlmorel
ping...
18 posted on 02/09/2014 8:03:47 AM PST by Chode (Stand UP and Be Counted, or line up and be numbered - *DTOM* -vvv- NO Pity for the LAZY - 86-44)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DariusBane
Probably....though a lot of Russian aircraft designers wound up in Gulag for various reasons. Some of them maybe for interesting, if ludicrous, ideas like this: The Kalinin K-7. "The K-7 first flew on 11 August 1933. The very brief first flight showed instability and serious vibration caused by the airframe resonating with the engine frequency. The solution to this was thought to be to shorten and strengthen the tail booms, little being known then about the natural frequencies of structures and their response to vibration. The aircraft completed seven test flights before a crash due to structural failure of one of the tail booms on 21 November 1933." Seeing as how resonance wasn't really understood back in the early 1930s, I'll give 'em a pass on that one.
19 posted on 02/09/2014 8:12:42 AM PST by AnAmericanAbroad (It's all bread and circuses for the future prey of the Morlocks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Tallguy

That’s my take on it to. Where do the Turks intend to project power? This won’t help them against their immediate neighbors, where they have real interests and conflicts, and some prospect of exerting real power. And I don’t see them sending this thing to somewhere like the Persian Gulf.
Alternately its a bargaining piece to use to trade services with some other power. Something for the Saudis to rent, as part of some Sunni coalition effort far from Turkey. And far from Israel.


20 posted on 02/09/2014 8:16:59 AM PST by buwaya
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanAbroad

That looks Russian!

Never do a job with tweezers if a sledge hammer is available.


21 posted on 02/09/2014 9:01:44 AM PST by DariusBane (Liberty and Risk. Flip sides of the same coin. So how much risk will YOU accept?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: miliantnutcase

given the possible turkish enemies in the med, land-based maritime patrol and attack aircraft, land-based SSMs, and submarines this is a target unless they also build an escort group which i am sure tirkey cannot afford.


22 posted on 02/09/2014 9:14:12 AM PST by bravo whiskey (We should not fear our government. Our government should fear us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

....... And, the Israelis will wait until the thousand troops are on board with the 150 vehicles and tanks before sinking her..........

To an absolute certainty, this ships life depends entirely upon some future Israeli prime minister not getting too upset at Turkey.


23 posted on 02/09/2014 9:14:28 AM PST by Cen-Tejas (it's the debt bomb stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DariusBane
It was Russian; and nowhere near as awesome as the photoshopped version once aviation geeks got done with it: Your move, B-29 Superfortress.
24 posted on 02/09/2014 9:22:03 AM PST by AnAmericanAbroad (It's all bread and circuses for the future prey of the Morlocks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: skinkinthegrass

The Brits did ok with their “one shot” VSTOL carriers in the Falklands in the early 1980s.

As it is, this probably isn’t meant to function in it’s “carrier” role, but rather to put troops various places under the protective cover of the Turkish Air Force.

As to it being sub bait ... what’s the Israeli equivilant of the Navy Cross again?


25 posted on 02/09/2014 9:29:37 AM PST by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: miliantnutcase

It’s obvious that the days of big ships is over.

The money is better spent on counterintelligence, SF, and smart missiles.

WWII was a long time ago. Just ask my daddy (active USMC 1944-1974). He’s seen some changes.


26 posted on 02/09/2014 9:44:07 AM PST by warchild9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo
So with the ski slope, are the Turks planning to purchase F-35Bs?

More likely a training platform for the 2018 winter olympics.......

27 posted on 02/09/2014 9:47:51 AM PST by Hot Tabasco (I think I've lost my mojo.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter

The British didn’t have to worry about proper fighter aircraft protecting the anti shipping strike planes. If the Argentines had the bases to run escort Mirages over their Etendards and Skyhawks the British would have been in serious trouble.
In the Eastern Med there are plenty of bases for dangerous aircraft.


28 posted on 02/09/2014 9:49:04 AM PST by buwaya
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanAbroad

I’ve just received a book in the mail about Admiral Gorshkov and this very subject.

Hope to have it read soon.

Currently reading one on Wehrmacht reconnaissance units that I bought online. More my specialty.


29 posted on 02/09/2014 9:49:11 AM PST by warchild9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

Regarding the ski jump, allegedly it is an integral part of the hull design engineering. At least that’s what the Aussies said in denying that they were going to buy F-35Bs to go along with their As and use it as a true light carrier.

But it will certainly allow the Turks and Aussies to operate F-35s, if they choose to do so at some point down the road.


30 posted on 02/09/2014 9:56:48 AM PST by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: buwaya

I thought the Argies could run proper top cover ( they were using Mirages for shipping strikes in addition to their SuEs and A-4s), just chose for the small flight low level penetration mission to avoid the Shars and ship based AAW (Sea Dart).

As it is, this ship will probably not need to operate outside the protective CAP provided by the Turkish AF. So it’s a focus on the ships assault capabilities. Of course having some F-35s on board for nearby/quick turnaround CAS wouldn’t hurt, with land based fighters providing top cover.


31 posted on 02/09/2014 10:03:20 AM PST by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter

IIRC the Mirages didn’t have the fuel to get into fights with the Harriers and so wouldnt. They could do shipping strike with the range,but unescorted.


32 posted on 02/09/2014 10:17:29 AM PST by buwaya
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter

Falklands you say?

How many of Turkey’s neighbors have an old Exocet collecting dust.
Just waiting for that special day?


33 posted on 02/09/2014 2:18:20 PM PST by DUMBGRUNT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanAbroad

Thanks for the posting. Germans also developed four and six engine long range flying boats. Not many reports about their effectiveness. Or notice from anywhere else including US during WWII has been paid to them.

Re long and medium ranging anphibian supersonic aircraft fighters and bombers. Could be the solution for small nations which cannot afford or maintain expensive aircraft carriers including the complex defence of such. The last time we toyed with that concept was the “Skate”. These things wether used solitary or a group (wing) could be supplied by subs. Sooner rather than later FR’s will be seeing a posting on this concept.


34 posted on 02/09/2014 6:38:51 PM PST by mosesdapoet (Serious contribution pause.Please continue onto meaningless venting no one reads.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter
Regarding the ski jump, allegedly it is an integral part of the hull design engineering. At least that’s what the Aussies said in denying that they were going to buy F-35Bs to go along with their As and use it as a true light carrier.

It's more a matter that changing it is more trouble than it's worth - cost savings and performance improvement would be very marginal.

And it does keep options for the future - both in terms of operating our own STOVL aircraft in the future (which would, at present, of course, mean purchasing F-35Bs) or as additional decks for allied ships we're operating alongside.

35 posted on 02/10/2014 1:40:52 AM PST by naturalman1975 ("America was under attack. Australia was immediately there to help." - John Winston Howard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Tallguy

Really? What’s the standoff range of an Exocet? I am thinking five Gripens could easily sent that thing into the drink. Do the Turks have any frigates or destroyers to escort her?


36 posted on 03/10/2014 8:30:32 PM PDT by MSF BU (n)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson