DOCSLIB.ORG

Powerpoint Sunusu

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Powerpoint Sunusu Overview of Turkish Shipbuilding Industry & 1 Opportunities for Cooperation and Partnerships HISTORY Founded on 07 July 1971 98 Members 2 TURKISH SHIPBUILDING HISTORY 600 years old tradition 1455 - Haliç Shipyard Largest shipyards in the world in 16th Century 3 CURRENT SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY 2006 - 59 Shipyards 2019 -80 Active Shipyards 4 TURKISH SHIPYARDS 6 NEW BUILDING What Can We Build? Ferries (Zero-Emission Battery Powered, Hybrid, LNG Fuelled Ferries) Energy Ships (Innovative Floating Supply of Energy from Ship to Shore for Non Developed Countries) Tugboats (The World’s 1st Remotely Operated Commercial Vessel & LNG Fuelled Escort Tug) Platform Supply Vessels 7 Naval Ships & Coast Guard Boats (Apprx. 100 Naval Ships/Boats, Experience in Complex Ship Design & Construction) NEW BUILDING What Can We Build? Mega Yachts & Yachts (3rd in Yacht Building) Fishing Vessels (The World’s 1st Battery-LNG Fuelled Purse Seiner Trawler & The World’s Largest Live Fish Carrier) Oil Tankers&Asphalt Tankers Chemical Tankers(1st in Small Tonnage Chemical Tankers 2002- 2012) Bulk Carriers & Containers 8 Heavy Lifting Ships Multipurpose Vessels NEWBUILDING CAPACITY 700.000 tons steel processing 9 4.47 million DWT shipbuilding REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE 25 Million DWT Capacity 10 DOCK CAPACITIES Floating Docks 32 15 20 11 10 QUANTITY 0 2003 2008 2019 YEARS Dry Docks 7 10 10 4 11 0 QUANTITY 2002 2008 2019 YEARS BIG FLOATING DOCKS UP TO 350 m x 85 m 12 SOME EXAMPLES OF INNOVATIVE & ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY PROJECTS 13 14 Trailer Ferry (Hybrid) 15 16 17 Karadeniz Powership İrem Sultan 111 MW, Mozambique Karadeniz Powership Orhan Bey 203 MW, Lebanon 18 World’s Largest Live Fish Carrier (116 m) 19 THE MALTESE FALCON Perini Navi Istanbul-Yıldız Shipyard 20 MEGA YACHTS LOA: 72 M 21 MEGA YACHT BUILDING 2015-2018 2016 The 3rd 3,517 m Annual volume of 300 m € 2018 rd The 3 22 3,594 m. Source: Boatinternational INNOVATIVE SYSTEM (PARTLY FUNDED AS R&D) FOR LENGTHENING & CONVERSION OF SHIPS 23 RETROFIT INSTALLATIONS OF BALLAST WATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS AND SCRUBBERS FOR ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY SHIPS (GREEN UPGRADES) Huge retrofit demand on tens of thousands 24 of ships REPAIR WORKS Before After 25 Repaired within 25 days OFFSHORE VESSELS Repair & Conversion 26 NAVY & COAST GUARD PROJECTS 27 Navy & Coast Guard Projects Coast Guard Search & Rescue Ships 28 Navy & Coast Guard Projects New Type Patrol Boats 29 Navy & Coast Guard Projects Coast Guard Boats & Ultra Fast Boats 30 Navy & Coast Guard Projects LCT – Landing Craft Tanks Anadolu Shipyard 31 Navy & Coast Guard Projects LST - Landing Ship Tank Anadolu Shipyard 32 Navy & Coast Guard Projects Submarine Rescue Mother Ship (MOSHIP) & Rescue and Towing (R&T) Ship 33 Logistic Support Ship Project (LDG) 34 Navy & Coast Guard Projects Landing Platform/Dock (LPD) 35 MILGEM (National Corvette) Project (RFQ 4 SHIPS) 36 Naval Multipurpose Offshore Tug Boat (RFQ 3 SHIPS) 37 600 Type Coast Guard Ship Project (RFI) 38 NAVAL TF-2000 Anti-air Warfare Ship (RFQ 2017) 39 Emergency Rescue and Diving Boat (RFQ) 40 Turkish Fast Patrol Boat (RFQ 2017 10 UNITS) 41 Naval Fleet Replenishment Ship (RFQ 1 UNIT) 42 Naval Floating Dock (RFQ) 43 WHY TURKISH SHIPYARDS ? Reliability Production Quality & On Time Delivery Authorized Equipment Suppliers & Classification Societes in Turkey Good Communication Between Clients and Shipyards High Quality Supply Chain 44 COOPERATION WITH OTHER NGOs 45 46 COOPERATION ON COMMON GOALS FOR SUSTAINABLE & GREENER MARITIME INDUSTRY OF TURKEY 47 Thank you... 48.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Cost of the Navy's New Frigate
    OCTOBER 2020 The Cost of the Navy’s New Frigate On April 30, 2020, the Navy awarded Fincantieri Several factors support the Navy’s estimate: Marinette Marine a contract to build the Navy’s new sur- face combatant, a guided missile frigate long designated • The FFG(X) is based on a design that has been in as FFG(X).1 The contract guarantees that Fincantieri will production for many years. build the lead ship (the first ship designed for a class) and gives the Navy options to build as many as nine addi- • Little if any new technology is being developed for it. tional ships. In this report, the Congressional Budget Office examines the potential costs if the Navy exercises • The contractor is an experienced builder of small all of those options. surface combatants. • CBO estimates the cost of the 10 FFG(X) ships • An independent estimate within the Department of would be $12.3 billion in 2020 (inflation-adjusted) Defense (DoD) was lower than the Navy’s estimate. dollars, about $1.2 billion per ship, on the basis of its own weight-based cost model. That amount is Other factors suggest the Navy’s estimate is too low: 40 percent more than the Navy’s estimate. • The costs of all surface combatants since 1970, as • The Navy estimates that the 10 ships would measured per thousand tons, were higher. cost $8.7 billion in 2020 dollars, an average of $870 million per ship. • Historically the Navy has almost always underestimated the cost of the lead ship, and a more • If the Navy’s estimate turns out to be accurate, expensive lead ship generally results in higher costs the FFG(X) would be the least expensive surface for the follow-on ships.
    [Show full text]
  • Worldwide Equipment Guide Chapter 1: Littoral Systems
    Dec 2016 Worldwide Equipment Guide Chapter 1: Littoral Systems TRADOC G-2 ACE Threats Integration Ft. Leavenworth, KS Distribution Statement: Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. Worldwide Equipment Guide Chapter 1: Littoral This chapter focuses on vessels for use in littoral ("near the shore") operations. Littoral activities include the following: - "brown water" naval operations in coastal waters (out to as far as 200+ km from shore), - amphibious landing operations or port entry (opposed and unopposed), - coastal defense actions (including patrols, engaging enemy, and denying entry) - operations in inland waterways (rivers, lakes, etc), and - actions in large marshy or swampy areas. There is no set distance for “brown water.” Littoral range is highly dependent on specific geography at any point along a coast. Littoral operations can be highly risky. Forces moving in water are often challenged by nature and must move at a slow pace while exposed to enemy observation and fires. Thus littoral forces will employ equipment best suited for well-planned operations with speed, coordination, and combined arms support. Littoral forces will employ a mix of conventional forces, specialized (naval, air, and ground) forces and equipment, and civilian equipment which can be acquired or recruited for the effort. Each type of action may require a different mix of equipment to deal with challenges of terrain, vulnerability, and enemy capabilities. Coastal water operations can utilize naval vessels that can operate in blue water. Naval battle groups for deep water also operate in littoral waters. Submarines and anti-submarine warfare (ASW) systems conduct missions in littoral waters. But challenges of shallow waters and shoreline threats also require use of smaller fast-attack boats, patrol craft, cutters, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Seakeeping Performance of a New Coastal Patrol Ship for the Croatian Navy
    Journal of Marine Science and Engineering Article Seakeeping Performance of a New Coastal Patrol Ship for the Croatian Navy Andrija Ljulj 1 and Vedran Slapniˇcar 2,* 1 Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Croatia, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia; [email protected] 2 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, University of Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 9 June 2020; Accepted: 12 July 2020; Published: 15 July 2020 Abstract: This paper presents seakeeping test results for a coastal patrol ship (CPS) in the Croatian Navy (CN). The full-scale tests were conducted on a CPS prototype that was accepted by the CN. The seakeeping numerical prediction and model tests were done during preliminary project design. However, these results are not fully comparable with the prototype tests since the ship was lengthened in the last phases of the project. Key numerical calculations are presented. The CPS project aims to renew a part of the Croatian Coast Guard with five ships. After successful prototype acceptance trials, the Croatian Ministry of Defence (MoD) will continue building the first ship in the series in early 2020. Full-scale prototype seakeeping test results could be valuable in the design of similar CPS projects. The main aim of this paper is to publish parts of the sea trial results related to the seakeeping performance of the CPS. Coast guards around the world have numerous challenges related to peacetime tasks such as preventing human and drug trafficking, fighting terrorism, controlling immigration, and protecting the marine environmental. They must have reliable platforms with good seakeeping characteristics that are important for overall ship operations.
    [Show full text]
  • Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress
    Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress Updated October 29, 2020 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov RS22478 Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress Summary Names for Navy ships traditionally have been chosen and announced by the Secretary of the Navy, under the direction of the President and in accordance with rules prescribed by Congress. Rules for giving certain types of names to certain types of Navy ships have evolved over time. There have been exceptions to the Navy’s ship-naming rules, particularly for the purpose of naming a ship for a person when the rule for that type of ship would have called for it to be named for something else. Some observers have perceived a breakdown in, or corruption of, the rules for naming Navy ships. Section 1749 of the FY2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) (S. 1790/P.L. 116-92 of December 20, 2019) prohibits the Secretary of Defense, in naming a new ship (or other asset) or renaming an existing ship (or other asset), from giving the asset a name that refers to, or includes a term referring to, the Confederate States of America, including any name referring to a person who served or held leadership within the Confederacy, or a Confederate battlefield victory. The provision also states that “nothing in this section may be construed as requiring a Secretary concerned to initiate a review of previously named assets.” Section 1749 of the House-reported FY2021 NDAA (H.R. 6395) would prohibit the public display of the Confederate battle flag on Department of Defense (DOD) property, including naval vessels.
    [Show full text]
  • Coast Guard Operations During Operation Iraqi Freedom
    CRM D0010862.A2/Final October 2004 Coast Guard Operations During Operation Iraqi Freedom Basil Tripsas • Patrick Roth • Renee Fye 4825 Mark Center Drive • Alexandria, Virginia 22311-1850 Approved for distribution: October 2004 This document represents the best opinion of CNA at the time of issue. It does not necessarily represent the opinion of the Department of the Navy. Distribution limited to DOD agencies. Specific authority: N00014-00-D-0700. For copies of this document call: CNA Document Control and Distribution Section at 703-824-2123. Copyright 2004 The CNA Corporation Contents Introduction . 1 Activities . 2 Summary of observations . 3 Data sources . 5 Interviews . 5 Messages and situation reports . 7 Reconstructions . 8 Coast Guard forces used in OIF . 9 Forces involved . 9 Units deployed to the Arabian Gulf . 10 Training and deployment . 17 Training & equipment . 17 Deployment. 18 Summary . 21 Command and control . 23 Chain of command. 23 Communications equipment and connectivity . 25 Operations . 27 Boutwell. 28 Walnut . 29 Patrol boats . 30 PSUs. 31 Summary . 33 Out-load security . 35 Summary of major issues . 39 Training . 39 Equipment . 40 i Supply. 41 Operations . 41 Appendix A . 45 Walnut . 45 Patrol boats . 46 Boutwell. 47 Port security Units . 48 Glossary . 49 References . 51 List of figures . 53 ii Introduction In late 2002, the United States Coast Guard (USCG) began prepara- tions for its participation in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). This became its largest overseas deployment since the Vietnam War. The USCG sent two major cutters, a buoy tender, eight patrol boats, numerous port security units, and their support units out of country in support of this war.
    [Show full text]
  • Navy Filing Manual, 1950
    fC NAVY FILING MANUAL FIFTH EDITION 19050 ( NAVEXOS P-20(Rev.) i Administrative Office NAVY DEPARTMENT - - Washington 25, D. C. ( THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY Washington 10 February 1950. From: Secretary of the Navy. To: All Ships and Stations. Subj: Navy Filing Manual, Fifth Edition, NAVEXOS P-20 (REV). 1. The Secretary of the Navy on 5 July 1923 directed that the Navy Filing Manual be adopted for use and placed in effect in the Naval Establishment. The original edition was fol­ lowed by the Second (1931), Third (1939), and Fourth (1941) Editions, each of which super­ _3 _ A.I__ * o-Aj2 seded the previous edition. 2. The Fifth Edition of the Navy Filing Manual supersedes the Fourth Edition and may be Establishment Edition shall be installed in the Naval placed in effect upon receipt. The Fifth from the Administrative by 1 January 1951. Assistance in making installations is available Officer, Navy Department, from Records Officers in the several Bureaus and Offices and in in the from District Records Management Officers Headquarters, U. S. Marine Corps, and present files In installing the Fifth Edition of the Manual, Headquarters of each Naval District. should remain unchanged under the system now in use, whether that prescribed by the Fourth Edition or otherwise; instead, installation should take the form of establishing a new series of files as of a convenient date (e.g., 1 July 1950 or 1 January 1951). 3. The filing system presented in this Manual is intended as a basic framework, as explained in the instructions thereto. The Manual may be expanded or supplemented by local instrue­ set forth in this Edition are not counter to the rocedures oitns rovided such instructions Bureaus and Offices and the U.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. COAST GUARD BUOY TENDERS, 180' CLASS HAER No
    U.S. COAST GUARD BUOY TENDERS, 180' CLASS HAER No. DC-57 U.S. Coast Guard Buoy Tenders U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 2nd Street Southwest Washington District of Columbia County District of Columbia PHOTOGRAPHS WRITTEN HISTORICAL AND DESCRIPTIVE DATA HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior 1849 C St. NW Washington, DC 20240 HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD U.S. COAST GUARD BUOY TENDERS, 180' CLASS HAER No. DC-57 RIG/TYPE OF CRAFT: Cutter TRADE: Buoy tending (government) PRINCIPAL DIMENSIONS: Length: 180' Beam: 37' Depth: 14' Displacement: 93 5 tons (The listed dimensions are "as built," but it should be noted that draft and displacement were subject to change over time.) LOCATION: Various (See individual histories) DATES OF CONSTRUCTION: September 16, 1941 - September 22, 1944 DESIGNER: The preliminary design work was done by the U.S. Light-House Service (USLHS). The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) modified the USLHS designs to suit the expanded missions of the new vessels. Minor design changes were undertaken by A.M. Deering of Chicago, Illinois and Marine Iron and Shipbuilding of Duluth, Minnesota during the production run. BUILDER: All but one of the vessels were built by Marine Iron and Shipbuilding Company of Duluth, Minnesota and Zenith Dredge Company, also of Duluth. The lone exception, IRONWOOD, was built in the U.S. Coast Guard Shipyard at Curtis Bay, Maryland. PRESENT OWNER: Various (See individual histories) PRESENT USE: Various (See individual histories) SIGNIFICANCE: These vessels were built to serve as 180' U.S. Coast Guard cutters. A total of thirty-nine of these cutters, built in three subclasses, were purchased by the government from 1942-1944.
    [Show full text]
  • China Near Seas Combat Capabilities
    U.S. Naval War College U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons CMSI Red Books China Maritime Studies Institute 2-2014 China Near Seas Combat Capabilities Andrew S. Erickson Ryan D. Martinson Peter A. Dutton Follow this and additional works at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cmsi-red-books Recommended Citation Erickson, Andrew S. and Martinson, Ryan, "China Near Seas Combat Capabilities" (2014). CMSI Red Books, Study No. 11. This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the China Maritime Studies Institute at U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in CMSI Red Books by an authorized administrator of U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. China’s Near Seas Combat Capabilities Peter Dutton, Andrew S. Erickson, and Ryan Martinson, Editors CHINA MARITIME STUDIES INSTITUTE U.S. NAVAL WAR COLLEGE Newport, Rhode Island www.usnwc.edu/Research---Gaming/China-Maritime-Studies-Institute.aspx Naval War College The China Maritime Studies are extended research projects Newport, Rhode Island that the editor, the Dean of Naval Warfare Studies, and the Center for Naval Warfare Studies President of the Naval War College consider of particular China Maritime Study No. 11 interest to policy makers, scholars, and analysts. February 2014 Correspondence concerning the China Maritime Studies President, Naval War College may be addressed to the director of the China Maritime Rear Admiral Walter E. Carter, Jr., U.S. Navy Studies Institute, www.usnwc.edu/Research---Gaming/ Provost China-Maritime-Studies-Institute.aspx. To request ad- Amb.
    [Show full text]
  • From the Early Settlements to Reconstruction
    The Laird Rams: Warships in Transition 1862-1885 Submitted by Andrew Ramsey English, to the University of Exeter as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Maritime History, April 2016. This thesis is available for Library use on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement. I certify that all material in this thesis which is not my own work has been identified and that no material has previously been submitted and approved for the award of a degree by this or any other University. (Signature) Andrew Ramsey English (signed electronically) 1 ABSTRACT The Laird rams, built from 1862-1865, reflected concepts of naval power in transition from the broadside of multiple guns, to the rotating turret with only a few very heavy pieces of ordnance. These two ironclads were experiments built around the two new offensive concepts for armoured warships at that time: the ram and the turret. These sister armourclads were a collection of innovative designs and compromises packed into smaller spaces. A result of the design leap forward was they suffered from too much, too soon, in too limited a hull area. The turret ships were designed and built rapidly for a Confederate Navy desperate for effective warships. As a result of this urgency, the pair of twin turreted armoured rams began as experimental warships and continued in that mode for the next thirty five years. They were armoured ships built in secrecy, then floated on the Mersey under the gaze of international scrutiny and suddenly purchased by Britain to avoid a war with the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • The Erie-Class Gunboats Were Prewar Guardships for the Vital Panama Canal Area
    Sea Classics July 1995 Volume 28, Number 7 Copyright © 1995 by Challenge Publications, Inc. Pages 20-24, 26-27 and 59-60. Designed to expand the traditional role of gunboats, the hybrid Erie-class ships became the basis of the highly successful prewar Treasury-class Coast Guard cutters BY ROD REDMAN "They were ships unique unto themselves; too large for the usually defined tasks of a gunboat and too lightly armed to be effective warships. Intended for the tropics, they better resembled a millionaire's yacht; the choicest duty for peacetime black shoe sailors. They were built to display the American flag in Central America; to be naval diplomats," recalls AI Deeming of his time spent aboard the gunboat USS ERIE (PG-50) in the warm spring of 1940. Gunboats indeed held a unique status in the US Navy. By international definition they were small heavily armed ships used for coastal or riverine patrol conducted in the policing of colonial waters. Most were slow, shallow-draft steam-powered vessels rated well under a thousand-ton displacement. A gunboat's primary mission was to keep order in distant domains that were under the protection of a major power; to provide security for nationals ashore; to quell uprisings by insurgents or bandits; and to maintain an obvious high visibility national presence in territorial waters. Designed to operate alone and far from the shores of the nation they represented, the traditional gunboat was unsuited for fleet operations. One or two medium caliber rapid-fire deck guns was its principal authority_ These were augmented with a few machine guns and a detachment of armed sailors or marines who could quickly storm ashore to put down any signs of trouble or rebellion within the native populace.
    [Show full text]
  • Naval Documents of the American Revolution, Volume 9, Part 4
    Naval Documents of The American Revolution Volume 9 AMERICAN THEATRE: Jun. 1, 1777–Jul. 31, 1777 EUROPEAN THEATRE: Jun. 1, 1777–Sept. 30, 1777 AMERICAN THEATRE: Aug. 1, 1777– Sept. 30, 1777 Part 4 of 5 United States Government Printing Office Washington, 1986 Electronically published by American Naval Records Society Bolton Landing, New York 2012 AS A WORK OF THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THIS PUBLICATION IS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. AMERICAN THEATRE From August 2,1777, to September 30,1777 ' AMERICAN THEATRE From August 1, 1777, to September 30, 1777 SUMMARY The large British fleet numbering several hundred naval vessels and trans- ports sailed into Delaware Bay briefly, and then abruptly put to sea again. This feint, for such it was, caused General Washington to acknowledge that: "We are yet intirely in the dark as to the destination of the Enemy." After an extremely stormy passage from the Delaware, Admiral Howe brought his fleet past the Virginia Capes and stood up Chesapeake Bay. Frantic preparations were made to defend Baltimore and Annapolis. However, the British continued on course to the head of the Bay wherk the troops were landed. After debarking the troops, the naval vessels departed the Chesapeake for the Delaware to again support the British army moving on Philadelphia. America's capital city fell to General Howe as September drew to a close. While participating in the defense of Philadelphia, the new Continental ~av~ frigate Delaware grounded and was captured. Captain Nicholas Biddle, with the frigate ~andoiph,after observing that he could have been to sea three months earlier if privateers had not been running off with his men, cleared the Charleston bar for a short, very successful cruise.
    [Show full text]
  • Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress
    Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress Updated September 14, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov RS22478 Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress Summary Names for Navy ships traditionally have been chosen and announced by the Secretary of the Navy, under the direction of the President and in accordance with rules prescribed by Congress. Rules for giving certain types of names to certain types of Navy ships have evolved over time. There have been exceptions to the Navy’s ship-naming rules, particularly for the purpose of naming a ship for a person when the rule for that type of ship would have called for it to be named for something else. Some observers have perceived a breakdown in, or corruption of, the rules for naming Navy ships. Section 370 of the FY2021 NDAA (H.R. 6395/P.L. 116-283 of January 1, 2021) establishes a commission regarding the removal and renaming of certain assets of the Department of Defense (including ships) that commemorate the Confederate States of America or any person who served voluntarily with the Confederate States of America. For ship types now being procured for the Navy, or recently procured for the Navy, naming rules can be summarized as follows: The first and second SSBN-826 class ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) have been named Columbia (in honor of the District of Columbia) and Wisconsin. The Navy has not stated the naming rule for this class of ships. Until recently, Virginia (SSN-774) class attack submarines have generally been named for states, but the four most recently named Virginia-class boats have instead been named in honor of earlier U.S.
    [Show full text]