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

Angry Turk !!! said:

I'd keep an eye on the people that immediately show those pictures to the open. I know it's the Anatolian Eagle but still. Maybe some skulls need to be cracked to be fair.

Click to expand...

what do u mean ?
I was wondering why all those projects and there arw so little crashs in Turkiye drone / jet programs , i remember only hurkus is crashed .
Those crashes make them better , mature them .
Look at USA all their fighter jets get crashed and they make them better and better . No skull should be cracked , just find the problems and fix it make it alot safer and better .

BalkanTurk90 said:

what do u mean ?
I was wondering why all those projects and there arw so little crashs in Turkiye drone / jet programs , i remember only hurkus is crashed .
Those crashes make them better , mature them .
Look at USA all their fighter jets get crashed and they make them better and better . No skull should be cracked , just find the problems and fix it make it alot safer and better .

Click to expand...

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.

Strong AI said:

It landed next to a public road, what do you mean? (look at the picture on the right, it is visible between the last trees there)

View attachment 76097

Click to expand...

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

Landing intact after hitting a roadway lamp and cutting some leaves. That's very stable for a flying wing.

Turkic said:

Avionot on Instagram: "ANKA-3 arıza sonrası kontrollü acil iniş gerçekleştirdi."

1,107 likes, 158 comments - avionot.savunma on June 25, 2025: "ANKA-3 arıza sonrası kontrollü acil iniş gerçekleştirdi.".

www.instagram.com

Landing intact after hitting a roadway lamp and cutting some leaves. That's very stable for a flying wing.

Click to expand...

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.

TheInsider said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

mTT said:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1938648617327227373

Click to expand...

Control test of a KUSV via data link

Strong AI said:

With its low cost, precision strike capability, and high maneuverability, the game-changing technology of surface warfare: the kamikaze unmanned surface vessel, PİRANA!

View attachment 75586

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1930211695747584013

Click to expand...

Anmdt said:

This is significant wave height we are speaking, most military ships have survivability limit at sea state 7. Beyond sea state 5 they only care about surviving it out. (Unless it is a whooping 100K tonnes carrier, or a submarine). Above sea state 3 requires inhumane piloting skills at helicopter operations.

Click to expand...

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.

Also merchant ships can take weather better than warships as warships are made for speed and maneuverability unlike the merchant ships. In the third week of my career as a seaman I was on a ship sailing from Aliağa to Le Havre of France. Our ship was passing the Biscay region between north of Spain and west of France where any land was many hours away and it is a deep rough see. The ship was a tanker which is exactly the size of an Ada class corvette with 100 meter length. The captain was an old retired navy colonel. When it was already dark the captain asked me to replace him in his shift when I was not trained for it at all. He drew a 3 km circle on the radar and told me to give him a call if any ship gets into the circle and went to the officers mess to play cards, to gamble. The sea state was 7 and no less as the ship was diving and jumping like a dolphin. I had to call the captain 3 times in the course of an hour as there were signals in the radar. Each time he checked he said it is the waves showing in the radar. The next day we cleaned the bridge from the mess of the broken flower pots and dirt from the flowers the captain kept at the bridge. I newer saw such a weather in the years after when I sailed the seven seas..

It touches the flag, does that mean it can be used for instance to kill drones in the air???

Nutuk said:

It touches the flag, does that mean it can be used for instance to kill drones in the air???

Click to expand...

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.”

Nutuk said:

It touches the flag, does that mean it can be used for instance to kill drones in the air???

Click to expand...

I'd say so. Probably choppers too.

Nutuk said:

It touches the flag, does that mean it can be used for instance to kill drones in the air???

Click to expand...

Sure I guess but Kemankeş carries at least 5-10 kilo warhead, it's a pretty horrible use of a PGM.

I think actual point of a flying target is to not lose the prototypes during testing, not striking flying targets. With this, they can gain altitude back and make the same runs over and over again with the same test article, improving accuracy, reducing the costs of testing greatly.

It is a good secondary capability. It also improves AI for other products.

neosinan said:

I'll give my prediction here, I think the reason we are seeing a lot of Kemankeş videos with emphasis on reusability, is Kemankeş will be a drone Hunter similar to Andruil's Anvil As a second mission. Kemankeş will be a great Shahed hunter. Since there is a lot of tb2s and Akıncıs. We can use them in large scale and they will be more flexible compare to Andruil Anvil since they can be launched from any point with longer range. It is perfect solution to Shahed style cheap drones World is facing.

Click to expand...

mTT said:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1938924166087938539

Click to expand...

Nutuk said:

It touches the flag, does that mean it can be used for instance to kill drones in the air???

Click to expand...

Strong AI said:

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

Click to expand...

As I said earlier (and It wasn't accepted here) this is really good use for Kemankeş, It appears Baykar also has similar opinion to me. And Under 20k$ is also really good price, especially considering Ukrainian quadcopters for anti drone warfare cost around 3-4k$ and they can speed around the half of Kemankeş's speed. This is great news for both Baykar and Turkey, We really needed some sort of defense against quadcopters and Iranian Shahed. İnşallah We will also hears news about local quadcopters with anti drone capabilities.

If we are talking about stopping cheap quad drones here 20 thousand to hunt 1 quad is unsustainable. Air burst rounds and modified 70 mm rockets (or Cirit) would be the way to as you cannot go cheaper than that. Hell, I still wish Roketsan would modify Mete to kill drones, it is small enough to be carried by a soldier and placed on tanks or armoured vehicles in good numbers if necessary.

boredaf said:

If we are talking about stopping cheap quad drones here 20 thousand to hunt 1 quad is unsustainable. Air burst rounds and modified 70 mm rockets (or Cirit) would be the way to as you cannot go cheaper than that. Hell, I still wish Roketsan would modify Mete to kill drones, it is small enough to be carried by a soldier and placed on tanks or armoured vehicles in good numbers if necessary.

Click to expand...

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

boredaf said:

If we are talking about stopping cheap quad drones here 20 thousand to hunt 1 quad is unsustainable. Air burst rounds and modified 70 mm rockets (or Cirit) would be the way to as you cannot go cheaper than that. Hell, I still wish Roketsan would modify Mete to kill drones, it is small enough to be carried by a soldier and placed on tanks or armoured vehicles in good numbers if necessary.

Click to expand...

I would say if Kemankes will have that capability, it will be used against long range kamikaze drones.
If you can detect those kamikaze drones at long range, then why don't destroy them at long range? And with that planned unit cost, imo Kemankes would be the cheapest option for that.

Pokemonte13 said:

guns have a limited range

Click to expand...

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.

Strong AI said:

I would say if Kemankes will have that capability, it will be used against long range kamikaze drones.
If you can detect those kamikaze drones at long range, then why don't destroy them at long range? And with that planned unit cost, imo Kemankes would be the cheapest option for that.

Click to expand...

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.

I'm not against other systems, Kemankes or otherwise, but the single most cost effective and proven system so far has been AA guns with air burst rounds. I also expect lasers to be extremely useful around important locations like power stations, if they are strong enough to have adequate range and power to quickly dispatch targets.