TR UAV/UCAV Programs | Anka - series | Kızılelma | TB - series

guest12

Well-known member
Messages
440
Reactions
2 926
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
There is a trade off between MTOW and speed, mach 0.6 is pretty much the lower limit for a jet powered aircraft. It depend on what the user needs to use the available power for either MTOW or the speed of the plane. Now the user needs a plane that can land on a very short strip. If need be another variety of MIUS could fly faster with less payload. Until of course a more powerful engine enters the picture when you can envision the whole range of capabilities from scratch.
I was writing a comment about how 0.6 mach is a joke for an UCAV promoted as an interceptor but noticed that 0.6 mach is Seyir Hızı(Cruise Speed) if its so maximum speed has to above it(hopefully its minimum 0.9 mach).
 

Zafer

Experienced member
Messages
4,683
Reactions
7 7,389
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
I was writing a comment about how 0.6 mach is a joke for an UCAV promoted as an interceptor but noticed that 0.6 mach is Seyir Hızı(Cruise Speed) if its so maximum speed has to above it(hopefully its minimum 0.9 mach).
That's good news, a big relief.
I've just lost my donkey and found it back.
 

TheInsider

Experienced member
Professional
Messages
4,052
Solutions
1
Reactions
34 14,433
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Cruise speed(0.6 mach) and maximum speed(0.8-0.9 mach) are two different metrics. Most of the time aircraft fly lower than their maximum speed to conserve fuel. 5-hour flight endurance is also calculated at MTOW with cruise speed.
 

Combat-Master

Baklava Consumer
Moderator
Messages
3,667
Reactions
15 25,473
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Turkey
Baykar DIHA

OCTOPUS - EPSILON 180 MULTI-MISSION EO/IR SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM
1632235110812.png


Erin Motor Baykus
1632235280372.png


 

Anmdt

Experienced member
Naval Specialist
Professional
Messages
5,458
Solutions
2
Reactions
114 24,635
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey

Kartal1

Experienced member
Lead Moderator
Messages
5,174
Reactions
105 19,194
Nation of residence
Bulgaria
Nation of origin
Turkey
Aselsan-Roketsan Kamikaze Drone
View attachment 31751
I am thinking about its camera configuration. The thing I don't like the most in Kargu is its cameraS. The package comes with two inside for day and night operations and I find this as not needed and additional weight. It will be a better option if the EO system comes with integrated camera capable of operating in day/night conditions without the need for further configuration of the drone.
 

Spook

Contributor
Messages
607
Reactions
2,106
Nation of residence
Albania
Nation of origin
Turkey

Hexciter

Experienced member
Messages
2,575
Reactions
4 11,451
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey

An International Export Success: Global Demand For The Bayraktar TB2 Reaches All Time High​

By Stijn Mitzer and Joost Oliemans

It is not often that a type of weapon system is proving so popular that countries are waiting in line to buy it. Ironically, this appears to be the situation with the Bayraktar TB2. In a recent interview with Baykar's Chief Technical Officer (CTO) Selçuk Bayraktar it was stated that new export agreements were signed with more than 10 countries for the export of Bayraktar TB2 so far, and that Baykar Savunma currently generates more than 70 percent of its revenues from exports. [1]

Current operators of the TB2 are known to include Turkey, Qatar, Libya, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan, with Morocco currently in the process of receiving its first TB2s. Poland is set to receive its first examples in 2022 and will be the second NATO country to operate the type. Currently in service with (or on order by) at least seven foreign countries (excluding Turkey), the Bayraktar TB2 is the most commercially successful UCAV to this date. With new export agreements having been signed with several countries, there is little doubt that the Bayraktar TB2 will continue to expand on its lead over other UCAVs for years to come.
 

Ardabas34

Contributor
Messages
537
Reactions
1,001
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
A comment caught my attention.

Biraz tirübinlere oynanmış insanlar sanıyor ki uçak gemileri çok gelişmiş olduklarından saldırılamıyor uçak gemilerinin üstünde gezen ve çok daha uzaktan düşmanı tespit edebilen uçakalar gezer tb3 te radar sistemi adına hiç bir şey yok bu gemiyi hava radar desteksiz seyahate çıkarırsanız ömrü pek uzun olmaz o yüzden yakınlarında ona destek olabilecek uçaklar gemiden değil karadan kaldırılırsa operasyon maliyeti yüksek olur uzun süre anakarasından uzak kalamaz ve çok hasas operasyonlar dışında bu risk alınamaz. tahminen havada kalma süresine güenerek akdeniz açıklarında görev yapsın diye donatılır bir de anfibik operasyonlarda da kullanılabilir. bu tb 3 de bakın gemiden kaldırabiliruz demekten fazla öteye gidemiyor. Bu gemiyi koruyabilecek uçak f35 ti onu da yalan ettiler.
English translation:
''A little bit played to the audiance, people assume that carrier ships are unattackable due to being so advanced. There are planes that doing sorties? above and capable of detecting the enemy from much further away. There is nothing regarding a radar system within TB-3. If you send this ship without air radar support it wont live long. So if you take off planes from land for support, the operation will be a lot costlier, it wont be able to stay away from land for a long time and this risk wont be taken except for very important operations. I suppose relying on the endurance, it will be equipped for the tasks in Mediterranian shores and can also be used in amphibious operations. This doesnt fall to distant to ''see, we can take off TB-3s from ships''. It was F-35 that could protect this ship but they cancelled that.''

What do you guys think about this? I mean apart from the F-35 part which I guess we have talked enough on.

What is wrong with MK-2 radar system of the ship?
 
Last edited:
E

Era_shield

Guest
A comment caught my attention.


English translation:
''A little bit played to the audiance, people assume that carrier ships are unattackable due to being so advanced. There are planes that doing sorties? above and capable of detecting the enemy from much further away. There is nothing regarding a radar system within TB-3. If you send this ship without air radar support it wont live long. So if you take off planes from land for support, the operation will be a lot costlier, it wont be able to stay away from land for a long time and this risk wont be taken except for very important operations. I suppose relying on the endurance, it will be equipped for the tasks in Mediterranian shores and can also be used in amphibious operations. This doesnt fall to distant to ''see, we can take off TB-3s from ships''. It was F-35 that could protect this ship but they cancelled that.''

What do you guys think about this? I mean apart from the F-35 part which I guess we have talked enough on.

What is wrong with MK-2 radar system of the ship?
Helicopters don't have them either (LHDs usually only carry helicopters), so it can't be that bad. Also, maybe they can come up with some way for there to be a team of TB3s and one of them carries just a radar and the others have weapons, EO, etc. The MILDAR project's 3rd phase is a UAV radar so we will probably see something like this.
 

Anmdt

Experienced member
Naval Specialist
Professional
Messages
5,458
Solutions
2
Reactions
114 24,635
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
A comment caught my attention.


English translation:
''A little bit played to the audiance, people assume that carrier ships are unattackable due to being so advanced. There are planes that doing sorties? above and capable of detecting the enemy from much further away. There is nothing regarding a radar system within TB-3. If you send this ship without air radar support it wont live long. So if you take off planes from land for support, the operation will be a lot costlier, it wont be able to stay away from land for a long time and this risk wont be taken except for very important operations. I suppose relying on the endurance, it will be equipped for the tasks in Mediterranian shores and can also be used in amphibious operations. This doesnt fall to distant to ''see, we can take off TB-3s from ships''. It was F-35 that could protect this ship but they cancelled that.''

What do you guys think about this? I mean apart from the F-35 part which I guess we have talked enough on.

What is wrong with MK-2 radar system of the ship?
Whoever has written this; i suggest him to have a look a carrier strike group to understand why the carrier is unattackable, it is not the airplanes with some radars.
 
Last edited:

Cypro

Contributor
Messages
665
Reactions
3 1,799
Nation of residence
Northern Cyprus
Nation of origin
Northern Cyprus
View attachment 31664

-Automated Landing and Takeoff
-LOS and BLOS dual communications
-Capable of landing and taking off from short runways

Length8.35m
Height2.6m
Wingspan14m
Useful Payload280kg
Max Liftoff weight1450kg
Cruise Speed125knots
Max Speed160knots
Endurance+24 hours
PowerplantTEI-PD222ST @ 220hp
Expected First Flight2022
Directly in the same class with Anka, TAI out Baykar in for Navy
 

Anmdt

Experienced member
Naval Specialist
Professional
Messages
5,458
Solutions
2
Reactions
114 24,635
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Directly in the same class with Anka, TAI out Baykar in for Navy
Anka for Navy -> Aksungur for Navy.
TB3 is for Anadolu, Trakya. Check the engine specs here it makes it clearer for which purposes the engines are developed. i think PD222DT exists somewhere too,
TEI - Turbodiesel Aviation Engines'
TEI-PD180ST
View attachment 31670
TEI-PD222ST
View attachment 31671
Engine ConfigurationStraight 4 CylinderStraight 4 CylinderStraight 4 Cylinder
Displacement2,1 Liters2,1 Liters2,1 Liters
Fuel Consumption207 g/kWh220 g/kWh220 g/kWh
Air SupplyTwo-Stage Serial TurbochargerSingle-Stage TurbochargerSingle-Stage Turbocharger
Take-off Power (5 minutes)172 HP180 HP222 HP
Continuous Power172 HP170 HP200 HP
High-Altitude Power (@20.000 ft.)170 HP170 HP180 HP
High-Altitude Power (@30.000 ft.)130 HP115 HP115 HP
FuelJP-8 or Jet-A1JP-8 or Jet-A1JP-8 or Jet-A1
Electrical Power Generation2 x 4,5 kW2 x 4,5 kW2 x 4,5 kW
Dry Weight162 kg158 kg163 kg
 
M

Manomed

Guest
A comment caught my attention.


English translation:
''A little bit played to the audiance, people assume that carrier ships are unattackable due to being so advanced. There are planes that doing sorties? above and capable of detecting the enemy from much further away. There is nothing regarding a radar system within TB-3. If you send this ship without air radar support it wont live long. So if you take off planes from land for support, the operation will be a lot costlier, it wont be able to stay away from land for a long time and this risk wont be taken except for very important operations. I suppose relying on the endurance, it will be equipped for the tasks in Mediterranian shores and can also be used in amphibious operations. This doesnt fall to distant to ''see, we can take off TB-3s from ships''. It was F-35 that could protect this ship but they cancelled that.''

What do you guys think about this? I mean apart from the F-35 part which I guess we have talked enough on.

What is wrong with MK-2 radar system of the ship?
He is right
 

Follow us on social media

Top Bottom