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

[guest12]

There is a trade off between MTOW and speed, mach 0.6 is pretty much the lower limit for a jet powered aircraft. It depend on what the user needs to use the available power for either MTOW or the speed of the plane. Now the user needs a plane that can land on a very short strip. If need be another variety of MIUS could fly faster with less payload. Until of course a more powerful engine enters the picture when you can envision the whole range of capabilities from scratch.

I was writing a comment about how 0.6 mach is a joke for an UCAV promoted as an interceptor but noticed that 0.6 mach is Seyir Hızı(Cruise Speed) if its so maximum speed has to above it(hopefully its minimum 0.9 mach).

 

[Zafer]

I was writing a comment about how 0.6 mach is a joke for an UCAV promoted as an interceptor but noticed that 0.6 mach is Seyir Hızı(Cruise Speed) if its so maximum speed has to above it(hopefully its minimum 0.9 mach).

That's good news, a big relief.
I've just lost my donkey and found it back.

 

[TheInsider]

Cruise speed(0.6 mach) and maximum speed(0.8-0.9 mach) are two different metrics. Most of the time aircraft fly lower than their maximum speed to conserve fuel. 5-hour flight endurance is also calculated at MTOW with cruise speed.

 

[Test7]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1440317032377958400

 

[Combat-Master]

Baykar DIHA

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1440208491700916230

OCTOPUS - EPSILON 180 MULTI-MISSION EO/IR SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM

Erin Motor Baykus

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1440294995672461314

 

[Cabatli_TR]

Aselsan-Roketsan Kamikaze Drone

 

[Anmdt]

Baykar DIHA

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1440208491700916230

OCTOPUS - EPSILON 180 MULTI-MISSION EO/IR SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM
View attachment 31708

Erin Motor Baykus
View attachment 31709

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1440294995672461314

Make the wings foldable and self-deployable, then put it on USVs, FACs, LSTs, LCTs, even corvettes.

 

[Manomed]

Aselsan-Roketsan Kamikaze Drone
View attachment 31751

Why we don't make drones like harop?

 

[Kartal1]

Aselsan-Roketsan Kamikaze Drone
View attachment 31751

I am thinking about its camera configuration. The thing I don't like the most in Kargu is its cameraS. The package comes with two inside for day and night operations and I find this as not needed and additional weight. It will be a better option if the EO system comes with integrated camera capable of operating in day/night conditions without the need for further configuration of the drone.

 

[Combat-Master]

 

[Spook]

Baykar DIHA

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1440208491700916230

OCTOPUS - EPSILON 180 MULTI-MISSION EO/IR SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM
View attachment 31708

Erin Motor Baykus
View attachment 31709

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1440294995672461314

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1440246794307260425

8K COTS TV Camera

I made few posts before, laser designation and other advanced capabilities is pretty impressive for UAV of this size.

 

[Combat-Master]

 

[Hexciter]

An International Export Success: Global Demand For The Bayraktar TB2 Reaches All Time High​

By Stijn Mitzer and Joost Oliemans

It is not often that a type of weapon system is proving so popular that countries are waiting in line to buy it. Ironically, this appears to be the situation with the Bayraktar TB2. In a recent interview with Baykar's Chief Technical Officer (CTO) Selçuk Bayraktar it was stated that new export agreements were signed with more than 10 countries for the export of Bayraktar TB2 so far, and that Baykar Savunma currently generates more than 70 percent of its revenues from exports. [1]

Current operators of the TB2 are known to include Turkey, Qatar, Libya, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan, with Morocco currently in the process of receiving its first TB2s. Poland is set to receive its first examples in 2022 and will be the second NATO country to operate the type. Currently in service with (or on order by) at least seven foreign countries (excluding Turkey), the Bayraktar TB2 is the most commercially successful UCAV to this date. With new export agreements having been signed with several countries, there is little doubt that the Bayraktar TB2 will continue to expand on its lead over other UCAVs for years to come.

An International Export Success: Global Demand For Bayraktar Drones Reaches All Time High

www.oryxspioenkop.com

 

[Ardabas34]

A comment caught my attention.

Biraz tirübinlere oynanmış insanlar sanıyor ki uçak gemileri çok gelişmiş olduklarından saldırılamıyor uçak gemilerinin üstünde gezen ve çok daha uzaktan düşmanı tespit edebilen uçakalar gezer tb3 te radar sistemi adına hiç bir şey yok bu gemiyi hava radar desteksiz seyahate çıkarırsanız ömrü pek uzun olmaz o yüzden yakınlarında ona destek olabilecek uçaklar gemiden değil karadan kaldırılırsa operasyon maliyeti yüksek olur uzun süre anakarasından uzak kalamaz ve çok hasas operasyonlar dışında bu risk alınamaz. tahminen havada kalma süresine güenerek akdeniz açıklarında görev yapsın diye donatılır bir de anfibik operasyonlarda da kullanılabilir. bu tb 3 de bakın gemiden kaldırabiliruz demekten fazla öteye gidemiyor. Bu gemiyi koruyabilecek uçak f35 ti onu da yalan ettiler.

English translation:
''A little bit played to the audiance, people assume that carrier ships are unattackable due to being so advanced. There are planes that doing sorties? above and capable of detecting the enemy from much further away. There is nothing regarding a radar system within TB-3. If you send this ship without air radar support it wont live long. So if you take off planes from land for support, the operation will be a lot costlier, it wont be able to stay away from land for a long time and this risk wont be taken except for very important operations. I suppose relying on the endurance, it will be equipped for the tasks in Mediterranian shores and can also be used in amphibious operations. This doesnt fall to distant to ''see, we can take off TB-3s from ships''. It was F-35 that could protect this ship but they cancelled that.''

What do you guys think about this? I mean apart from the F-35 part which I guess we have talked enough on.

What is wrong with MK-2 radar system of the ship?

 

[Era_shield]

A comment caught my attention.


English translation:
''A little bit played to the audiance, people assume that carrier ships are unattackable due to being so advanced. There are planes that doing sorties? above and capable of detecting the enemy from much further away. There is nothing regarding a radar system within TB-3. If you send this ship without air radar support it wont live long. So if you take off planes from land for support, the operation will be a lot costlier, it wont be able to stay away from land for a long time and this risk wont be taken except for very important operations. I suppose relying on the endurance, it will be equipped for the tasks in Mediterranian shores and can also be used in amphibious operations. This doesnt fall to distant to ''see, we can take off TB-3s from ships''. It was F-35 that could protect this ship but they cancelled that.''

What do you guys think about this? I mean apart from the F-35 part which I guess we have talked enough on.

What is wrong with MK-2 radar system of the ship?

Helicopters don't have them either (LHDs usually only carry helicopters), so it can't be that bad. Also, maybe they can come up with some way for there to be a team of TB3s and one of them carries just a radar and the others have weapons, EO, etc. The MILDAR project's 3rd phase is a UAV radar so we will probably see something like this.

 

[Anmdt]

A comment caught my attention.


English translation:
''A little bit played to the audiance, people assume that carrier ships are unattackable due to being so advanced. There are planes that doing sorties? above and capable of detecting the enemy from much further away. There is nothing regarding a radar system within TB-3. If you send this ship without air radar support it wont live long. So if you take off planes from land for support, the operation will be a lot costlier, it wont be able to stay away from land for a long time and this risk wont be taken except for very important operations. I suppose relying on the endurance, it will be equipped for the tasks in Mediterranian shores and can also be used in amphibious operations. This doesnt fall to distant to ''see, we can take off TB-3s from ships''. It was F-35 that could protect this ship but they cancelled that.''

What do you guys think about this? I mean apart from the F-35 part which I guess we have talked enough on.

What is wrong with MK-2 radar system of the ship?

Whoever has written this; i suggest him to have a look a carrier strike group to understand why the carrier is unattackable, it is not the airplanes with some radars.

 

[Cypro]

View attachment 31664

-Automated Landing and Takeoff
-LOS and BLOS dual communications
-Capable of landing and taking off from short runways

Length	8.35m
Height	2.6m
Wingspan	14m
Useful Payload	280kg
Max Liftoff weight	1450kg
Cruise Speed	125knots
Max Speed	160knots
Endurance	+24 hours
Powerplant	TEI-PD222ST @ 220hp
Expected First Flight	2022

Directly in the same class with Anka, TAI out Baykar in for Navy

 

[Anmdt]

Directly in the same class with Anka, TAI out Baykar in for Navy

Anka for Navy -> Aksungur for Navy.
TB3 is for Anadolu, Trakya. Check the engine specs here it makes it clearer for which purposes the engines are developed. i think PD222DT exists somewhere too,

TEI - Turbodiesel Aviation Engines'

	TEI-PD170 View attachment 31669​	TEI-PD180ST View attachment 31670​	TEI-PD222ST View attachment 31671​
Engine Configuration	Straight 4 Cylinder	Straight 4 Cylinder	Straight 4 Cylinder
Displacement	2,1 Liters	2,1 Liters	2,1 Liters
Fuel Consumption	207 g/kWh	220 g/kWh	220 g/kWh
Air Supply	Two-Stage Serial Turbocharger	Single-Stage Turbocharger	Single-Stage Turbocharger
Take-off Power (5 minutes)	172 HP	180 HP	222 HP
Continuous Power	172 HP	170 HP	200 HP
High-Altitude Power (@20.000 ft.)	170 HP	170 HP	180 HP
High-Altitude Power (@30.000 ft.)	130 HP	115 HP	115 HP
Fuel	JP-8 or Jet-A1	JP-8 or Jet-A1	JP-8 or Jet-A1
Electrical Power Generation	2 x 4,5 kW	2 x 4,5 kW	2 x 4,5 kW
Dry Weight	162 kg	158 kg	163 kg

 

[Manomed]

A comment caught my attention.


English translation:
''A little bit played to the audiance, people assume that carrier ships are unattackable due to being so advanced. There are planes that doing sorties? above and capable of detecting the enemy from much further away. There is nothing regarding a radar system within TB-3. If you send this ship without air radar support it wont live long. So if you take off planes from land for support, the operation will be a lot costlier, it wont be able to stay away from land for a long time and this risk wont be taken except for very important operations. I suppose relying on the endurance, it will be equipped for the tasks in Mediterranian shores and can also be used in amphibious operations. This doesnt fall to distant to ''see, we can take off TB-3s from ships''. It was F-35 that could protect this ship but they cancelled that.''

What do you guys think about this? I mean apart from the F-35 part which I guess we have talked enough on.

What is wrong with MK-2 radar system of the ship?

He is right

 

[Test7]

Credit: Cem Dogut