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

[Sanchez]

just curious what is the success rate and CEP of a contemporary cruise missile???

For a modern western missile like Taurus, SOM, JSM etc it's easily <1m, that's what most aims for in adequate conditions.

 

[Yasar_TR]

just curious what is the success rate and CEP of a contemporary cruise missile???

Tomahawk‘s is less than 10m. But if fitted with IIR seeker, it is 1-2 metres.
JSM Kongsberg ‘s is 1m
SOM is similar to JSM.
Atmaca proved to be less than 3m.
heck! Even Bora has hit it’s target within a metre.

At the end of the day they need to be extra precise. (Remember over a decade ago SOM going through the front windscreen of a bus!) Roketsan is working on higher degree of precision more than range.

If a missile is of cruising type and has a seeker head that follows contours of the terrain, at terminal phase it should perform manoeuvres to make it difficult for anti missile systems. Quite often it may have to go high and come down at perpendicular to hit the target to evade anti missile CIWS. (Both SOM and Atmaca can do those moves)

 

[Sanchez]

Tomahawk‘s is less than 10m. But if fitted with IIR seeker, it is 1-2 metres.

I think Baykar's chasing for a closed loop image recognition system supported by AI for Kemankeş and the future that will not be affected by enemy EW and jamming. That is a very long road and will probably take years to perfect, and even then it won't be great and will probably result in higher collateral damage, but; that's the future.

 

[Zafer]

I'd be 2 meter tall if I was 30cms taller Miss is a miss, it's okay that's what testing is for.

I care for the truth and not how things look on the surface.

 

[boredaf]

Yes it hit the dirt but that dirt is a pile of dirt with like a meter of height, if it weren't there the missile could hit the white.

Lmao, from the angle it was coming at, it is quite literally impossible for it to hit the target. It's a test, you don't have to get your knickers in a bunch to defend it .

 

[boredaf]

Orka, CAKIR or a bit modified İHA 230 would be a nice addition to TB3 and therefore to ANADOLU

None of those things can be carried by TB3 under its wings. Çakır and UAV-230 weigh almost as much as the entire payload capacity of TB3. And I don't think Orka is any lighter than 200 kg as well.

 

[Yasar_TR]

None of those things can be carried by TB3 under its wings. Çakır and UAV-230 weigh almost as much as the entire payload capacity of TB3. And I don't think Orka is any lighter than 200 kg as well.

Bro, check my post in previous page #13462
Either 1 CAKIR or 1 ORKA can be carried by TB3 individually.
Important thing is getting them integrated on to the UCAV and being able to take off with them. Also being able to land with them if we dont want to waste the munitions by dropping them in to the sea.

TB3 has a max payload capacity of 280kg.

Bayraktar <br> TB3

The Bayraktar TB3 UCAV is an armed unmanned aerial vehicle system, currently being developed indigenously by Baykar and capable of takeoff and landing

baykartech.com

 

[boredaf]

Bro, check my post in previous page #13462
Either 1 CAKIR or 1 ORKA can be carried by TB3 individually.
Important thing is getting them integrated on to the UCAV and being able to take off with them. Also being able to land with them if we dont want to waste the munitions by dropping them in to the sea.

TB3 has a max payload capacity of 280kg.

Bayraktar <br> TB3

The Bayraktar TB3 UCAV is an armed unmanned aerial vehicle system, currently being developed indigenously by Baykar and capable of takeoff and landing

baykartech.com

I know its max payload, but that is the sum total of what all of its hard points can carry. It has, what, 6 hard points? I doubt they can carry that much weight in one of them. And, it doesn't have any room under its body to carry anything, not to mention it has to take off from a ski jump.

 

[TheInsider]

Bro, check my post in previous page #13462
Either 1 CAKIR or 1 ORKA can be carried by TB3 individually.
Important thing is getting them integrated on to the UCAV and being able to take off with them. Also being able to land with them if we dont want to waste the munitions by dropping them in to the sea.

TB3 has a max payload capacity of 280kg.

Bayraktar <br> TB3

The Bayraktar TB3 UCAV is an armed unmanned aerial vehicle system, currently being developed indigenously by Baykar and capable of takeoff and landing

baykartech.com

Can TB3 handle the asymmetrical load, though? Can a single pylon handle the weight of a Çakır? TB3 has no central pylon to mount ammunition.

 

[Zafer]

They can always modify the TB3 to make it work for new purposes as long as the modification does not change its major characteristics by a big margin. TEI is making the higher power engines based on the same original engine block geometry and to fit in the same nacelle space so you can replace the PD170 engine with PD180 or the PD222 or the hinted PD300 in the future. The engine boost alone can increase the flyer's lift capacity by increasing its speed. You can also increase the wing area if you need to add more lifting capacity without increasing speed much. The underbelly central position can be fitted with hardpoints to carry the load. The release of the load will not change the center of gravity and knock the flyer off balance as the load is already in the center position. So yes, if there is a need there is a way.

 

[TheInsider]

Even if TB3 can handle the asymmetrical load, I doubt any of the 6 hardpoints can carry a missile as heavy as Çakır. It is like all of the TB3 payload limit concentrated in a single hardpoint. It is not a matter of engine power. It is related to structure, balance, and aerodynamics.

 

[Sanchez]

Even if TB3 can handle the asymmetrical load, I doubt any of the 6 hardpoints can carry a missile as heavy as Çakır. It is like all of the TB3 payload limit concentrated in a single hardpoint. It is not a matter of engine power. It is related to structure, balance, and aerodynamics.

It would also need a larger, sturdier launcher. That's up to Baykar to study. FLIR could also be removed for such missions, don't need it to chase subs.

Also being able to land with them if we dont want to waste the munitions by dropping them in to the sea.

This is probably the hardest part of this problem structural wise.

 

[boredaf]

It would also need a larger, sturdier launcher. That's up to Baykar to study. FLIR could also be removed for such missions, don't need it to chase subs.



This is probably the hardest part of this problem structural wise.

UAV-122 would be a far more realistic option for TB3, weighs just 75 kgs, so 2 of them shouldn't be a problem for hard points and maybe it can carry 4 if/when it gets a more powerful engine and its range was about 70 km iirc.

 

[Yasar_TR]

As it is, it doesn’t seem possible. Yet as said above, if there is a will there is a way. Still, TB3 has the max load capability. But not the space to accommodate it. The only place available is under the belly (as I had mentioned earlier). Flir is a problem. It is up to the engineers to find a solution.
It is a waste if you can’t utilise the full payload capacity and the range advantage this plane would give for delivering more lethal munitions.
Smaller and lighter munitions is like going to a gun fight with a knife. We should be able to project the sort of deterrence a torpedo or an AShM would project from stand off distances and provide more defensive posture to TCG Anadolu.

 

[Sanchez]

As it is, it doesn’t seem possible. Yet as said above, if there is a will there is a way. Still, TB3 has the max load capability. But not the space to accommodate it. The only place available is under the belly (as I had mentioned earlier). Flir is a problem. It is up to the engineers to find a solution.
It is a waste if you can’t utilise the full payload capacity and the range advantage this plane would give for delivering more lethal munitions.
Smaller and lighter munitions is like going to a gun fight with a knife. We should be able to project the sort of deterrence a torpedo or an AShM would project from stand off distances and provide more defensive posture to TCG Anadolu.

TB3 will find its stride in ISR, I don't think this will change. For ASW, if they can fit sonobuoy launchers in realistic numbers, it'd be more than enough.

-
Gendarme took delivery of 1 system of Akıncı ucavs with 1 GCS and 3 birds.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1941214680179228745

 

[Strong AI]

When you think about it, both ANKA-3 and KE will be able to launch from TCG Anadolu. There will be no need for TB3 to attack bigger ships.
TB3 should be used as a sensor network and to deploy sonobuoys.

 

[Sanchez]

When you think about it, both ANKA-3 and KE will be able to launch from TCG Anadolu

Remains to be seen.

 

[Strong AI]

Remains to be seen.

They said the same thing about TB3 but here we are.

 

[Quasar]

I guess here the main issue is

Does ANADOLU need or will need a long range heavy punch with high survivability??? I believe eventually such a concern will raise then we can consider available platforms /future platorms and weapons. Survivability will always remains the key point i.e saturation ... speed.... then we can talk about range, precision... warhead

in its sipmlest form

Orka torpedo - high survivability - high precision - 45? kg warhead

Çakır type ASM - lower survivability - high precision - 70 kg warhead

İHA 122-230 - high survivability- lower precision - 13,5 / 42 kg warhead

Kuzgun ..........
,
,
,
,
,

 

[Yasar_TR]

They said the same thing about TB3 but here we are.

TB3‘s main handicap was the avoidance of that big lift at the back, almost in the way of run way. Otherwise having gone through simulations and land tests it was ready to be tested on Anadolu. So far, with auto landing etc it seems to have succeeded. But it still is not ready for full operation. We need to see it taking off and land with full fuel and weapons load and in adverse weather conditions. Hence all the current testing being done.

KE and Anka-3 need arrester wires and hook landing (Selçuk Bayraktar himself admitted it for KE). That is not an easy Task. You would have to destroy part of the expensive deck surface that was treated with special materials to withstand F35B’s excessive heat generation during it’s landing.
Navy knows that where as normal aircraft operations are cancelled in certain weather conditions, F35Bs carry on landing due to their vertical landing capability. As long as there is a chance to purchase F35Bs, that surface is untouchable.