TR Air Forces|News & Discussion

[Saithan]

We have a saying, burnu biraz sürtülsün. Which means it's time to get down from that high horse.

Like @Yasar_TR said he's fortunate to have right connections.

 

[TR_123456]

He has truly boo-booed big time here.
Mixed up cost of manufacture with cost of buying whilst exaggerating out of proportions to make a point.

@TheInsider has made it clear in his posts as well.

The guy is a genius in his field. He has the good luck of being well connected. He should know better to rein in his salesmanship impulses.

The KE is the future of air combat. But with a turbofan jet engine, a state of the art Murad Aesa radar and avionics, plus munitions that are suitable for such a platform and ground control units, it’s cost to prospective buyers is not going to be too far off most manned aircrafts like JF17 and baseline f16. One mustn’t forget the fact that good capable ground operators/pilots are also needed for these.

Yes by his logic the KE would cost $80 million devided by 20 which is $4 million a piece and what makes it cheaper then the TB-2 at $5 millon a piece.
Acting like its done without having a NATO standard engine is also a ridiculous claim.
But why not,if they eat it just feed them more.

 

[Zafer]

Selçuk Bayraktar is talking about when fighter jets are offered to some buyers at premium prices like the ones custom made for the UAE. In those cases the prices go up exponentially. He should tone down his narrative to the perception capability of the audience who mixes up hypothetical talk with reality.

 

[Turkic]

Yes by his logic the KE would cost $80 million devided by 20 which is $4 million a piece and what makes it cheaper then the TB-2 at $5 millon a piece.
Acting like its done without having a NATO standard engine is also a ridiculous claim.
But why not,if they eat it just feed them more.

Ig you didn't read the thread.

He didn't say that

He said Kızılelma will be 5-10 times cheaper than manned fighter jets.

Later Fulya forced him on the topic and he said "I can't say if it will be 20 times cheaper. Fighter jets aren't sold for fixed prices. It can be 20-30 times cheaper if you count all (referring to the Eurofighter/Rafale sales with a price tag of up to 300 million euros per jet when all spare parts and others added)"

It's not the exact conversation. I translated with what's left in my mind from last night but that was what he said. He said 5-10 times cheaper than 5th gen manned fighters. When he said 20-30 times was after Fulya asked him if it will be 20 times cheaper than F-16.

So it's not Selçuk's fault but media's.

 

[Ripley]

‘Tis Sick, bruh

the best visual of the shoot is at 1:38

Hope they release higher res images as well.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1953491646647017492

“The Turkish Stars Acrobatic Team soared over Beyşehir Lake; our Göktürk-1 Satellite immortalized this moment from space.

This moment, where courage in the skies met space technology (the Turkish Stars Acrobatic Team flying at an altitude of 100 meters with a speed of 740 km/hour, and Göktürk-1 at an orbital altitude of 686 km with an orbital speed of 7.5 km/second), became a photograph of a national harmony and coordination locked onto its target.”

 

[Sanchez]

‘Tis Sick, bruh

the best visual of the shoot is at 1:38

Hope they release higher res images as well.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1953491646647017492

“The Turkish Stars Acrobatic Team soared over Beyşehir Lake; our Göktürk-1 Satellite immortalized this moment from space.

This moment, where courage in the skies met space technology (the Turkish Stars Acrobatic Team flying at an altitude of 100 meters with a speed of 740 km/hour, and Göktürk-1 at an orbital altitude of 686 km with an orbital speed of 7.5 km/second), became a photograph of a national harmony and coordination locked onto its target.”

Bigger news is that they have 7 aircraft simultaneously. They've been flying with 6 for so long. Maintenance guys must have saved up another airframe, heroes.

 

[Quasar]

-I am hoping that we solve the engine issue for KIZILELMA and ANKA 3 as soon as possibe with domestic engines sure it may effect the price tag of KIZILELMA and ANKA 3. Further, I strongly belive that both KIZILELMA and ANKA3 will have diffrent configurations so making price comparisons to F 16 is mainly for public consumption I guess.

-Contrary to the common assumption ( which lacks sound arguments to support it) KIZILELMA & ANKA have unprecedented potantial as a complementary assets in BVR engagement in network centric warfare and Even in some cases they have the potantial to hold the ground even when they are alone without a manned fighter aircraft. Making them operational and developing a doctrine and strategies is vital.

-I think we may all agree that in Air to Air engagements not only the platform but also the A2A missles you have is equally important and in some cases even more important.

 

[Strong AI]

-I think we may all agree that in Air to Air engagements not only the platform but also the A2A missles you have is equally important and in some cases even more important.

Missile, Sensors, Datalink, Sensor Fusion, EW and Stealth. Also the launching platform should be able to fly high (+40k feet) and at supersonic speeds. Türkiye will have all of them in the near future.

 

[godel44]

‘Tis Sick, bruh

the best visual of the shoot is at 1:38

Hope they release higher res images as well.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1953491646647017492

“The Turkish Stars Acrobatic Team soared over Beyşehir Lake; our Göktürk-1 Satellite immortalized this moment from space.

This moment, where courage in the skies met space technology (the Turkish Stars Acrobatic Team flying at an altitude of 100 meters with a speed of 740 km/hour, and Göktürk-1 at an orbital altitude of 686 km with an orbital speed of 7.5 km/second), became a photograph of a national harmony and coordination locked onto its target.”

For the record, IIRC Gokturk-1 has 0.5 m resolution in panchromatic spectra and it captures flying jets very well. It makes you think what would happen if we were to have continuous monitoring with multiple satellites in relevant areas and were able to detect stealth jets in real time.

 

[Zafer]

For the record, IIRC Gokturk-1 has 0.5 m resolution in panchromatic spectra and it captures flying jets very well. It makes you think what would happen if we were to have continuous monitoring with multiple satellites in relevant areas and were able to detect stealth jets in real time.

A satellite constellation like the Starlink is essentially an AESA radar network with global coverage. We need one for ourselves too and we can put visual observation on top of it to zoom into movement with a smaller number of optical satellites.

 

[Samba]

A satellite constellation like the Starlink is essentially an AESA radar network with global coverage. We need one for ourselves too and we can put visual observation on top of it to zoom into movement with a smaller number of optical satellites.

I assume this is why Elon Musk is shouting that stealth is just a gimmick. They may be seeing all f35s and f22s with the use of Starlink

 

[Zafer]

I assume this is why Elon Musk is shouting that stealth is just a gimmick. They may be seeing all f35s and f22s with the use of Starlink

Probably but satellite transmission is probably only half of the trick, I would say possibly ground antenna transmission complements the detection process. So it is absolutely necessary to avoid Starlink service in the regions of interest to us. But this is just my guess.

 

[Yasar_TR]

For the record, IIRC Gokturk-1 has 0.5 m resolution in panchromatic spectra and it captures flying jets very well. It makes you think what would happen if we were to have continuous monitoring with multiple satellites in relevant areas and were able to detect stealth jets in real time.

How are you going to follow planes over cloud cover?
You need large (and I mean humongous) antennae to give you Synthetic Aperture Radar pictures over cloud cover.

Also you need satellites that are at geosynchronous orbit (not geostationary or in line with the equator) to have continuous coverage. That is a satellite some 38K km above earth.
Not 685km above us like Göktürk, that has a sun synchronous orbit and allows the satellite to visit over a 640km wide specific area every 2.5 days.

 

[godel44]

How are you going to follow planes over cloud cover?
You need large (and I mean humongous) antennae to give you Synthetic Aperture Radar pictures over cloud cover.

Also you need satellites that are at geosynchronous orbit (not geostationary or in line with the equator) to have continuous coverage. That is a satellite some 38K km above earth.
Not 685km above us like Göktürk, that has a sun synchronous orbit and allows the satellite to visit over a 640km wide specific area every 2.5 days.

The point about cloud cover is valid but this is a sensor fusion game where you combine optic sensors and SAR, the latter of which is not affected by clouds. For example, you can even now use ESA's Sentinel-1 to get free SAR data if the optical Sentinel-2 suffers from cloud cover. You definitely don't need humongous antennae either. Modern SAR satellites like ICEYE and Capella have 3-5 meter deployable reflectors and still get 0.25–1 m resolution through clouds.

With regards to orbits, you would actually want to stay in low earth orbit and have a constellation for this type of task so that you shorten revisit times to minutes. Starlink has proven this type of density is feasible technically. If you were to go to geosynchronous orbit, you sacrifice a lot of geospatial resolution simply because you are that high up. This is why most observation satellites (except for meteorology) are at low earth orbit.

So, in theory, with a large enough LEO constellation combining SAR and optical (including NIR and other relevant infrared bands) and some efficient computer vision algorithms, you can detect stealth jets. It comes down to cost and engineering effort, but I bet somebody will do it in the end. In Turkey's case the areas you want to monitor are not that large (seas around us and Syria), so it should be quite doable at some time in the future if there is a will.

 

[hugh]

The point about cloud cover is valid but this is a sensor fusion game where you combine optic sensors and SAR, the latter of which is not affected by clouds. For example, you can even now use ESA's Sentinel-1 to get free SAR data if the optical Sentinel-2 suffers from cloud cover. You definitely don't need humongous antennae either. Modern SAR satellites like ICEYE and Capella have 3-5 meter deployable reflectors and still get 0.25–1 m resolution through clouds.

With regards to orbits, you would actually want to stay in low earth orbit and have a constellation for this type of task so that you shorten revisit times to minutes. Starlink has proven this type of density is feasible technically. If you were to go to geosynchronous orbit, you sacrifice a lot of geospatial resolution simply because you are that high up. This is why most observation satellites (except for meteorology) are at low earth orbit.

So, in theory, with a large enough LEO constellation combining SAR and optical (including NIR and other relevant infrared bands) and some efficient computer vision algorithms, you can detect stealth jets. It comes down to cost and engineering effort, but I bet somebody will do it in the end. In Turkey's case the areas you want to monitor are not that large (seas around us and Syria), so it should be quite doable at some time in the future if there is a will.

your answer reads like chatgpt. please use it as much as you desire(hell, i must be reading over 50 prompts daily) but don't paste it directly here. it is so obvious for the initiated. i already blocked a few people here for their incessant abuse(despite several warnings). i've never seen you doing it before. so please don't go that way.

to counter your last point, it does not matter if Turkey is big or as small as Vatican. that's not how LEO works. if you want constant coverage you need a constellation. and a LEO constellation cannot be regional, it has to be global. you can limit the constellation to lower latitudes and save some satellites from venturing the poles but, again, the satellites won't be stationary and will circle the earth.

 

[godel44]

your answer reads like chatgpt. please use it as much as you desire(hell, i must be reading over 50 prompts daily) but don't paste it directly here. it is so obvious for the initiated. i already blocked a few people here for their incessant abuse(despite several warnings). i've never seen you doing it before. so please don't go that way.

to counter your last point, it does not matter if Turkey is big or as small as Vatican. that's not how LEO works. if you want constant coverage you need a constellation. and a LEO constellation cannot be regional, it has to be global. you can limit the constellation to lower latitudes and save some satellites from venturing the poles but, again, the satellites won't be stationary and will circle the earth.

I wasn't using chatgpt mate. I was told in the past I come across as formal but I never was accused of that specifically before.

Regarding your point about LEO: It should have been obvious that I am not talking about LEO satellites staying above one specific region. I was talking about the constellation constantly imaging one specific region. You can design a LEO constellation with inclined orbits so that it passes over your area of interest frequently. That way you always get coverage from at least one satellite in the constellation. So while the individual LEO sat circles the whole Earth, the constellation will always get image from the area of interest. While you dismiss this as "that's not how LEO works," this is common practice in space industry. And yes, Turkey's seas being a smaller area than, say, the whole Pacific Ocean does make Turkey's job easier than America's.

 

[hugh]

Regarding your point about LEO: It should have been obvious that I am not talking about LEO satellites staying above one specific region. I was talking about the constellation constantly imaging one specific region. You can design a LEO constellation with inclined orbits so that it passes over your area of interest frequently. That way you always get coverage from at least one satellite in the constellation. So while the individual LEO sat circles the whole Earth, the constellation will always get image from the area of interest. While you dismiss this as "that's not how LEO works," this is common practice in space industry. And yes, Turkey's seas being a smaller area than, say, the whole Pacific Ocean does make Turkey's job easier than America's.

this is wrong. you cannot have a LEO constellation that has more satellites passing over your region than other regions. what you can do, at most, is, like i said, launch your satellites to lower latitude(inclination) orbits so that you don't have to serve polar regions. but the satellites will visit Brazil as often as they visit Syria.

This is how a LEO constellation looks like. If we optimize it to use in our region, the top(highest inclination) satellites would not be included in our solution and serve only between, say, -50 and 50 degrees latitudes, which still wouldn't make sense to me as it would leave out Russia.

If you're not agreeing with this, please point me to a LEO constellation that has regional coverage and not global, and by regional I mean a specific area(like a country or continent), not an area covered between two latitudes.

 

[godel44]

this is wrong. you cannot have a LEO constellation that has more satellites passing over your region than other regions. what you can do, at most, is, like i said, launch your satellites to lower latitude(inclination) orbits so that you don't have to serve polar regions. but the satellites will visit Brazil as often as they visit Syria.

This is how a LEO constellation looks like. If we optimize it to use in our region, the top(highest inclination) satellites would not be included in our solution and serve only between, say, -50 and 50 degrees latitudes, which still wouldn't make sense to me as it would leave out Russia.

If you're not agreeing with this, please point me to a LEO constellation that has regional coverage and not global, and by regional I mean a specific area(like a country or continent), not an area covered between two latitudes.

I don't want to veer off too much from the topic of the thread but I will give a final reply as you are either moving goalposts or honestly not understanding what I am saying. When I say "regional" I don't mean satellites that stay fixed above a region and don't pass over other regions. These LEO satellites still orbit around Earth and cover the whole latitude band but their revisit frequency is optimized for a certain region. You can do this with inclinations that skip the poles and clustering RAANs so the sats in the constellation visit the region one after another. You can even take images of the area from other orbits off-nadir depending on sensors you have onboard. In your example, even if the satellites overfly other regions (say Brazil), the constellation can still hit Syria reliably without significant gaps.

As I said, this is common practice and nothing controversial, but if you insist on an example, the ICEYE constellation I mentioned previously serves as an example. When the war in Ukraine started, they tasked multiple (already existing) SAR satellites to that region and started getting hourly passes. So Ukraine got almost continuous SAR access. Other countries in the same latitude band can potentially get the same frequency of access but that is not the mission. If you still object to this existing, I would refer you to talk to them.

 

[Yasar_TR]

The point about cloud cover is valid but this is a sensor fusion game where you combine optic sensors and SAR, the latter of which is not affected by clouds. For example, you can even now use ESA's Sentinel-1 to get free SAR data if the optical Sentinel-2 suffers from cloud cover. You definitely don't need humongous antennae either. Modern SAR satellites like ICEYE and Capella have 3-5 meter deployable reflectors and still get 0.25–1 m resolution through clouds.

Sentinel 1 Antenna is 0.821m x 12.3m. At 693km altitude for a 400km wide sweep it gives 40m x 40m resolution. For a 100km wide sweep you would get 20m x 20m resolution. For a 80km wide sweep the resolution increases to 5m x 5m. Originally developed to stop ship collisions; Sentinel-1 does this by receiving Automatic Identification Signals from ships directly. (I don’t think enemy will send signals to your satellite) . Due to its SAR capability it is also used in weather forecasting and terrain mapping. This is a civilian radar system with limited visit times. Revisit time could be 6-12 days.

taken from NASA:
quote:
The spatial resolution of radar data is directly related to the ratio of the sensor wavelength to the length of the sensor's antenna. For a given wavelength, the longer the antenna, the higher the spatial resolution. From a satellite in space operating at a wavelength of about 5 cm (C-band radar), in order to get a spatial resolution of 10 m, you would need a radar antenna about 4,250 m long. (That's over 47 football fields!)
unquote.

So with SAR this difficulty is alleviated to a degree by using the right frequency and sacrificing swath length and resolution.

A military use SAR satellite like German Lupe is comparatively small but has good resolution. There are 5 of them. They take swath length of 8km at a time and to put together a ground map takes 10 hours. This is the time it takes from when an image is requested to when the resulting image is delivered to the user

ICEYE satellites may give near real time imaging with a full complement of a large constellation. If 30 satellites were sweeping say London, that is still only a revisit of 15 times a day. In real life delivery of image to user times can be as long as 1 hour to 8 hours. As of January 2025 there were 44 ICEYE satellites with a further 20 to be placed. To get good resolution the swath distances are very short; 5km being typical for strip sweep.

Starlink has proven this type of density is feasible technically. If you were to go to geosynchronous orbit, you sacrifice a lot of geospatial resolution simply because you are that high up. This is why most observation satellites (except for meteorology) are at low earth orbit.

Starlink is going to place 30thousand + satellites in space to give instant total coverage and no delay. At the moment their coverage is a bit sketchy and has to divert and redirect satellite angles to specific areas to provide continuous signal.

Your last paragraph sums it up. May be one day!

 

[godel44]

Sentinel 1 Antenna is 0.821m x 12.3m. At 693km altitude for a 400km wide sweep it gives 40m x 40m resolution. For a 100km wide sweep you would get 20m x 20m resolution. For a 80km wide sweep the resolution increases to 5m x 5m. Originally developed to stop ship collisions; Sentinel-1 does this by receiving Automatic Identification Signals from ships directly. (I don’t think enemy will send signals to your satellite) . Due to its SAR capability it is also used in weather forecasting and terrain mapping. This is a civilian radar system with limited visit times. Revisit time could be 6-12 days.

taken from NASA:
quote:
The spatial resolution of radar data is directly related to the ratio of the sensor wavelength to the length of the sensor's antenna. For a given wavelength, the longer the antenna, the higher the spatial resolution. From a satellite in space operating at a wavelength of about 5 cm (C-band radar), in order to get a spatial resolution of 10 m, you would need a radar antenna about 4,250 m long. (That's over 47 football fields!)
unquote.

So with SAR this difficulty is alleviated to a degree by using the right frequency and sacrificing swath length and resolution.

A military use SAR satellite like German Lupe is comparatively small but has good resolution. There are 5 of them. They take swath length of 8km at a time and to put together a ground map takes 10 hours. This is the time it takes from when an image is requested to when the resulting image is delivered to the user

Starlink is going to place 30thousand + satellites in space to give instant total coverage and no delay. At the moment their coverage is a bit sketchy and has to divert and redirect satellite angles to specific areas to provide continuous signal.

Your last paragraph sums it up. May be one day!

Agree on much of what you said. But if I may nitpick:
- The 40m resolution you mention for Sentinel-1 is not quite correct. Sentinel-1 actually provides data in different modes with different resolutions (ground ranges ranging from 5m to 20m) and the one you would use for this task is the Stripmap mode with Single Look Complex processing, which gives you a 4m x 4m resolution (range x azimuth).
- The detection of ships with AIS is like an add-on feature and it's not relevant here. But, ships with their transponders off can still be detected with SAR. I had once written a deep learning algorithm to do just that using Sentinel-1.
- This is actually a moot point since I just used Sentinel-1 as an example of a very popular SAR satellite that can see through clouds without a huge antenna. For the detection of stealth jets it is obviously not viable due to long revisit times. That's why I said a special constellation of satellites. Also probably not with C-SAR but with L-SAR as RCS of stealth fighters tend to be optimized for C band anyway.
- Agree on the computation challenge, but things tend to improve fast in that domain.

But yes, one day.