Lost the engine, autopiloted, landed smoothly. Kudos to engineers, a flying lost the engine but not flight stability.
what do u mean ?
I talk about the dude taking photos and uploading it for everyone to see as if his live depend on it. Not the people that work on the project.
There was a airport there so they try to land it to airfiled but perhaps with no engine power and force landed at ground closse to airport
According to what I heard, the engine lost power. Looks like an engine malfunction. UCAV glided without engine power. First, they thought of an unpowered landing on the road, but decided to land on an empty field, not to risk a driver.www.instagram.com
Landing intact after hitting a roadway lamp and cutting some leaves. That's very stable for a flying wing.
That's a good call and the fact that it suffered such (seemingly) minimal damage is impressive. Fucking engines mate, I'm having nightmares about engines of all kinds thanks to our defence projects.
I read that large aircraft carriers can survive sea state 9. However from 60.000 ton to 100.000 ton displacement carriers gain like 55% more operability in adverse weather. While survivable is one thing operable is another. Different sea regions have different characters so you've got to know how each sea will behave to evaluate if the conditions are operable. Warships have lesser survivability in high seas than merchant ships because they are made for speed and maneuverability unlike the merchant ships. An interesting fact is that warships do not want to get caught in a storm while in port and would rather be at sea as the sea will take the ship and bang it on the port for failing to sail off. In history commanders even sailed into the storm not to get caught in a storm while in port.
I'd say so. Probably choppers too.
Sure I guess but Kemankeş carries at least 5-10 kilo warhead, it's a pretty horrible use of a PGM.
If the planned unit cost is true and if it can be achieved, wouldn't that make it a great capability?
Baykar did not disclose a per unit price for the Kemankes. But a company engineer, speaking on the condition of anonymity as he was not authorized to talk to the press, told Defense News his team has tried to minimize the cost to “less than $20,000 per unit.”
Turkey’s Baykar unveils cruise missile for drones
The missile can fly at a speed of Mach 0.7 and carry a 30-kilogram payload.www.defensenews.com
guns have a limited range but are still viable best choice would be cirit or a sungur with a cheap ir seeker or just high power laser with 25 watt range
ATOM 35 mm has a 4 km effective range, that is more than enough for quad drones as they have to get right on top of you to do any damage in the first place.
Ukrainians found Gepards to be the most effective way to counter long range kamikaze drones, despite having plethora of different air defence systems around. They have also been pretty effective against cruise missiles. Russia launches dozens to hundreds of these drones when they attack, any enemy we might face will do the same in the future. And as I said above, 4 km effective range to create a cloud of tungsten would be more than enough to counter slow moving drones if we have them in enough numbers. These are not blind shooting AA guns of WWII; but with radar guidance and smart fuses they are as accurate and deadly as can be.
This bird has a “stated” maximum payload capacity of 280kg. The day we can fit an Orka torpedo (220kg) under it’s belly or a CAKIR AShM (275kg without booster) , will be the day when this UCAV is going to be a monster advantage for the TCG Anadolu. Especially if it can can be fitted and take off quickly from get go.
