- India INS Arighaat: All About India's 2nd Nuclear Ballistic Submarine
- India India Nears Its Quantum Moment — Completion of First Quantum Computer Expected Soon
- Ukraine Palyanitsya missile-drone shown in Ukraine
- Bangladesh Coca-Cola’s Ad Flop: When Trying To Fight Boycott Turns Into A PR Aisaster
- TR Joint patrol in Syria by Turkish and Russian armies
Huelague
Experienced member
- Messages
- 3,731
- Reactions
- Nation of residence
-
- Nation of origin
-
Can some one explain the front part (nose) of the plane which makes the UAV damn un-aerodynamic.
Strong AI
Contributor
- Messages
- 755
- Reactions
- Nation of residence
-
- Nation of origin
-
Intake (also inlet) of the engine
Please show us your calculations. Or why did you claim that?
Huelague
Experienced member
- Messages
- 3,731
- Reactions
- Nation of residence
-
- Nation of origin
-
You dont need a calculation for that, as a circle is more aerodynamic than an rectangle.
But why place the inlet on the nose?
- Messages
- 3,151
- Reactions
- Nation of residence
-
- Nation of origin
-
Why would Tusas produce a flying wing form as Anka-3?
Main notion that lies behind that is the fact that a flying wing has parameters that imparts stealthiness.
Stealthiness is not achieved by adhering to just specific geometry or materials alone. It is the sum of all different parts of the equation that makes a plane stealthy.
A good example is Typhoon. Due to the delta wing it has inherent stealth characteristics. But it has a canard and has to carry missiles and bombs under its wings that will detract from its stealth. To compensate for that the lines are aggressively designed to keep frontal view as stealthy as possible. Then all the weapons placements are in recessed positions under the wings to keep them away from radar signals. Only 15% of the aeroplane’s body contains metal to make it harder to bounce radar signals.
“Typhoon EW suite employs a range of electronic countermeasures that allows the aircraft to digitally hide its signature, becoming invisible to radar, or to digitally create a complex and confusing picture (noise) for a threat operator, denying them a clean targeting opportunity and preventing them from launching a missile in the first place.”
Anka-3 has the major prerequisite already in place. It has the lowest achievable stealthiness due to the shape of the flying wing. No canards, no vertical stabilisers. Once the TF6000 engine is in situ it will have another part of the puzzle in place as well. It is mainly manufactured from stealth friendly composite materials. When ready, an Aesa radar will most likely be put in place to give it more capabilities including EW to help improve its electronic stealthiness.
Having produced KAAN and now ANKA-3, you can be rest assured that Tusas knows what it is doing. These tests with ammunition under its belly is to provide data and give them an idea about what to expect when stealth is reduced. You can’t expect this plane not to carry weapons under its wings, as @dBSPL has explained above. It will carry Super-Şimşek and a host of other bombs that may detract from its stealth. But not to such an extent that will make it impossible to use them; especially in case-specific instances, where you know what your adversary’s radar capabilities are like.
Main notion that lies behind that is the fact that a flying wing has parameters that imparts stealthiness.
Stealthiness is not achieved by adhering to just specific geometry or materials alone. It is the sum of all different parts of the equation that makes a plane stealthy.
A good example is Typhoon. Due to the delta wing it has inherent stealth characteristics. But it has a canard and has to carry missiles and bombs under its wings that will detract from its stealth. To compensate for that the lines are aggressively designed to keep frontal view as stealthy as possible. Then all the weapons placements are in recessed positions under the wings to keep them away from radar signals. Only 15% of the aeroplane’s body contains metal to make it harder to bounce radar signals.
“Typhoon EW suite employs a range of electronic countermeasures that allows the aircraft to digitally hide its signature, becoming invisible to radar, or to digitally create a complex and confusing picture (noise) for a threat operator, denying them a clean targeting opportunity and preventing them from launching a missile in the first place.”
Anka-3 has the major prerequisite already in place. It has the lowest achievable stealthiness due to the shape of the flying wing. No canards, no vertical stabilisers. Once the TF6000 engine is in situ it will have another part of the puzzle in place as well. It is mainly manufactured from stealth friendly composite materials. When ready, an Aesa radar will most likely be put in place to give it more capabilities including EW to help improve its electronic stealthiness.
Having produced KAAN and now ANKA-3, you can be rest assured that Tusas knows what it is doing. These tests with ammunition under its belly is to provide data and give them an idea about what to expect when stealth is reduced. You can’t expect this plane not to carry weapons under its wings, as @dBSPL has explained above. It will carry Super-Şimşek and a host of other bombs that may detract from its stealth. But not to such an extent that will make it impossible to use them; especially in case-specific instances, where you know what your adversary’s radar capabilities are like.
- Messages
- 3,151
- Reactions
- Nation of residence
-
- Nation of origin
-
Subsonic case : round/circular nose is more aerodynamic
Supersonic case : pointed nose is more aerodynamic.
But in stealth designs you need flat surfaces and sharp edges rather than rounded to stop radar signals from bouncing back.
Strong AI
Contributor
- Messages
- 755
- Reactions
- Nation of residence
-
- Nation of origin
-
There is a big difference between this
and this
Also:
and this
Also:
- Flat Surfaces: Stealth aircraft often feature flat, angular surfaces. These flat panels are oriented in such a way that incoming radar waves are deflected away from the radar source rather than directly back. This reduces the radar signature of the aircraft.
- Sharp Edges: Sharp edges are used instead of rounded ones to create a facet-like surface, which helps to scatter radar waves in multiple directions rather than reflecting them back. Rounded surfaces tend to reflect radar waves more directly back to their source, increasing the radar signature.
I didnt get the downwards quite right as it is bell shaped (gonna be included in remake after I'm done with KIZILELMA) so it doesnt represent the form %100.
And the thing under the nose is TOYGUN EOTS which ASELSAN hinted to be included for ANKA-3. For now, we are going with a gimbal.
And the thing under the nose is TOYGUN EOTS which ASELSAN hinted to be included for ANKA-3. For now, we are going with a gimbal.
somegoodusername
Active member
- Messages
- 28
- Reactions
- Nation of residence
-
- Nation of origin
-
Is using a flying wing for the role of tanker UAV optimal? Can't we develop something closer to Stingray UAV with a small budget?
Strong AI
Contributor
- Messages
- 755
- Reactions
- Nation of residence
-
- Nation of origin
-
Very tiny small budget indeed.
“The MQ‑25 program is an acquisition category 1B Major Defense Acquisition Program with an estimated cost of $16.5 billion, including $3.1 billion for research, development, test, and evaluation, $12.6 billion for procurement, and $747.5 million for military construction,” according to DODIG’s review. Navy budget documents estimate that the average unit cost for each MQ-25 will be just under $150 million, not counting various ancillary items.
MQ-25 Stingray Tanker Delays, Risks Come Into View
A new report warns about the risks of the Navy's aggressive plans for the MQ-25 as Boeing gets millions in new funding for its development.
www.twz.com
Well for a tanker drone you want to maximize payload and have it stable as the fuel amount drops while it is refueling and matching other jets pace and movement. So a flying wing may not be suitable
somegoodusername
Active member
- Messages
- 28
- Reactions
- Nation of residence
-
- Nation of origin
-
That is US procurement culture, not Turkish. Look how fast Turkish UAV projects are advancing and with very affordable budgets. Tanker UAV doesn't need to be technologically advanced unlike Anka-3 or Kızılelma.Very tiny small budget indeed.
“The MQ‑25 program is an acquisition category 1B Major Defense Acquisition Program with an estimated cost of $16.5 billion, including $3.1 billion for research, development, test, and evaluation, $12.6 billion for procurement, and $747.5 million for military construction,” according to DODIG’s review. Navy budget documents estimate that the average unit cost for each MQ-25 will be just under $150 million, not counting various ancillary items.
MQ-25 Stingray Tanker Delays, Risks Come Into View
A new report warns about the risks of the Navy's aggressive plans for the MQ-25 as Boeing gets millions in new funding for its development.
Strong AI
Contributor
- Messages
- 755
- Reactions
- Nation of residence
-
- Nation of origin
-
You made my day, thank you.
- Messages
- 655
- Reactions
- Nation of residence
-
- Nation of origin
-
another major problem with a future ANKA 3 variant as a fuel tanker drone is that drones use refueling basket
which requires a refueling probe at the reciving end
and non of our planes have it I mean refueling probe
what we have is maned refueling boom with an operator
For KAAN and for Hürjet we can come up with retractable refueling probe For Hürjet may be but may be it can be fixed one as well....
However, for KAAN as we know we will have side looking AESA radar panels and side weapon bays so I belive KAAN will continue using refueling boom sure this is speculation ........
in short ANKA refueling drone may refuel only other drons like KE, ANKA3 which doesnt have e refueling capability yet and never done befor by anyone as far as I know….. a drone refueling another drone
and may be but may be HÜRJET and preferably NAVAL HÜRJET
-or eurofighter typhoon if we ever have it
which requires a refueling probe at the reciving end
and non of our planes have it I mean refueling probe
what we have is maned refueling boom with an operator
For KAAN and for Hürjet we can come up with retractable refueling probe For Hürjet may be but may be it can be fixed one as well....
However, for KAAN as we know we will have side looking AESA radar panels and side weapon bays so I belive KAAN will continue using refueling boom sure this is speculation ........
in short ANKA refueling drone may refuel only other drons like KE, ANKA3 which doesnt have e refueling capability yet and never done befor by anyone as far as I know….. a drone refueling another drone
and may be but may be HÜRJET and preferably NAVAL HÜRJET-or eurofighter typhoon if we ever have it
Last edited:
somegoodusername
Active member
- Messages
- 28
- Reactions
- Nation of residence
-
- Nation of origin
-
Compared to Kızılelma for example, a UCAV designed to be a unmanned fighter jet. Do I have to spell everything here, like explaining to a five year olds?
