MIUS ¦ Akinci ¦ Aksungur | Plus Various Turkish Unmanned Autonomous Programs

Yasar

Contributor
Professional
Joined
Oct 13, 2020
Messages
998
Reaction score
3,526
Points
93
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Turkey
BTW <13m wingspan is a lot for a 5-6 tonne aircraft. It is more than enough.


MİUS will have "cooperative target detection" capability. This will be a big advantage against other 5th gen aircraft.
Smart squadron ability. A MiUS squadron can work with each other and with friendly aircraft to form a distributed sensor network.
~5 tonnes of MTOW.
Subsonic at first supersonic later the aim is Mach 1.2-1.4 range. The body will be designed for supersonic speeds from the start.
Extreme agility it will easily do over 9G turns.
It will be able to take off from LHD Anadolu without a catapult and it can land with a hook and arrestor.
It will have different variants like Akıncı probably with different engine selections.
It will be extremely stealthy both in RF and IR spectrum.
Internal weapons bay. It will carry 4 BVR and 2 WVR missiles internally and ground weapons when no AA missiles are needed but stealth is needed.
Aselsan AESA, all Turkish air-to-air air-to-ground weapons. A set of different pods.
EO Targeting system.
Satcom and classic datalink
~1.5-tonne payload.
5-6 hour endurance.
The aim is to keep flyaway costs under 30 million $
The first flight is in 2023. Initial delivery will be made and initial operational capability will be gained in 2025.

Now let's make some basic calculations regarding the operability of MİUS from the LHD Anadolu.
Lenght of LHD Anadolu is 232 m with a runway length of 202m. Let's round it down to 200m
Let's assume that the MTOW of Mius is 5000kg
Lets assume take-off speed is 200 km/h--->56m/s (for reference F-16 take-off speed is around 250km/h)

Vs^2=Vo^2+2ax
56^2=0+2a*200
a=7,84m/s^2

F=m.a
F=5000*7,84
F=39200 N

Let's convert N to lbf 39200N=8812 lbf

So MIUS needs an engine with at least 8812lbf thrust to take-off from Anadolu LHDs 202 m runway. AL-322F can provide 4200 kgf/ 9260lbf with an afterburner so the engine of the MİUS needs to be at least similar to that. At this point engines like AL-25TL is not an option for the MİUS.
Good simple straightforward maths calculation.
But, different airframes and different designs behave differently with respect to lift and speed through air.
One simple example is F414 engine;
Mako/Heat plane does max 1.6 Mach (single engined)
Gripen jet does 2 Mach (single engined)
HAL TED BF does 1.6 Mach (twin f414 engines - very short take off)
HAL Tejas mk2 does 2 Mach (Single engined)
Each plane have very different characteristics with respect to take off speed and take off distance. And are different in size and shape.
 

Anmdt

Experienced member
Professional
Joined
Aug 24, 2020
Messages
2,380
Reaction score
8,257
Points
113
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
After searching the Web for the Engine I found out something that might help with the Performance Data.

I found a Plane that went into Admission Tests.
"German Aerospace Center (DLR) recently carried out the tests in Oberpfaffenhofen on behalf of Dornier Seawings GmbH, a Sino-German joint venture."

The Test is from 05/19/2021 the Name of the Plane is "Dornier Seastar"

View attachment 26338

It uses the Identical Engines: PT6A-135.
But all the other Data seems very similiar to AKINCI.


Data Dornier Seastar


Drive: 2 x Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-135A Takeoff
power: 480 kW each (650HP)
Travel power: 370 kW each (500HP)
Length: 12.7 m
Height: 4.73 m
Wingspan: 17.74 m
Wing area : 30.6 m2
Max. Takeoff weight: 5100 kg
Payload: 1300 kg
Max. Range: 1665 km
Max. Cruising speed: 180 knots (333km/h)
Max. Flight altitude: 15000 ft


Compared to BAYKAR AKINCI

View attachment 26341

That Could give us an Idea.
PT6A was among the 3 engines(PD222, Al and PT) to be tested, i think it was leaked earlier as well.
 

Anmdt

Experienced member
Professional
Joined
Aug 24, 2020
Messages
2,380
Reaction score
8,257
Points
113
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Guys, what would be the theory behind having cavitation at the rear of MIUS where the engine is? I'm thinking it'll hide the IR signature of the engine to a certain extent, but does it create any other positive benefit?

View attachment 26320
Maybe some sort of thrust control mechanism to ease landing and take off at short distances?
 

Bogeyman 

Experienced member
Joined
Sep 21, 2020
Messages
1,617
Reaction score
6,974
Points
113
Website
twitter.com
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey

Cabatli_53

Experienced member
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Aug 23, 2020
Messages
2,337
Reaction score
15,176
Points
113
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Mr. Selçuk Bayraktar: "We expect MIUS to take off from TCG Anadolu type ships without the help of Catapult and it will be able to land on the ship with the help of hooks. The element that distinguishes the design of our aircraft from other unmanned warplanes is its horizontal and vertical tails. The MIUS has horizontal tails at the front and vertical tails at the rear, which many drones lack. Thanks to these control surfaces, it will have aggressive maneuverability. Thus, it will be able to autonomously perform avoidance, evasive and close combat maneuvers thanks to the AI computers we have developed. MIUSs with different capabilities will be able to work together with friendly warplanes thanks to "intelligent fleet autonomy" equipped with artificial intelligence. Again, thanks to the same smart fleet autonomy, MIUS will be able to fight against warplanes with higher capacity. I think it will break new ground in air combat with all the advantages of unmanned combat, as well as smart fleet autonomy and cost effectiveness."
 

Saithan

Experienced member
Moderator
Joined
Aug 24, 2020
Messages
5,021
Reaction score
11,470
Points
113
Nation of residence
Denmark
Nation of origin
Turkey
I think this is a good answer for the who questioning.

“Bayraktar TB3 and MİUS will work together in TCG ANADOLU for the security of the Mavi Vatan.”


“We also have a dream...”

Dreams are meant to be broken. 😀

I think ppl should chill a bit and please remember that we are fortunate to have professinals who’re actually working in the field with the right stuff. If Selcuk hasn’t spoken to Naval Architects, then it is as he stated in his tweet, a dream. It’s fine you may be critical and hoping Selcuk is right, but let it hang there and wait.

Who knows maybe TB3 may turn into a VTOL....

Also it was explained that heavy modification of Anadolu was necessary to prepare the runway for STOL with arrest systems.

My take is I will be optimistic and proper professionsls will be involved in due time. But I’d rather wait for s full scale AC if necessary.
 

Philips

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2021
Messages
308
Reaction score
761
Points
93
Nation of residence
Nethelands
Nation of origin
Netherlands
2.jpg
If the wingspan is 8m then the length is 10m with a wing area of 19m2 (including the main body covered under the trapezoidal shape of both wings). Wings only is 11m2. If the MTOW is 6000kg, the wing load is 315kg/m and 545kg/m2 respectively. To put it in perspective, the F-15C wingload is 545kg/m2 at MTOW and the EF-2000 458kg/m2 at MTOW.

This gives a rough indication of the performance.
 

Al Lablabi

Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2021
Messages
22
Reaction score
51
Points
13
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Planning on making different configurations payload wise as well
 

Saithan

Experienced member
Moderator
Joined
Aug 24, 2020
Messages
5,021
Reaction score
11,470
Points
113
Nation of residence
Denmark
Nation of origin
Turkey
I noticed something.

Baykar AKINCI Serial Production in the latest video from the Factory.
As Selcuk Bayraktar walks across the Factory he slanders by 3 Serial Production AKINCIs
But one of them has diffrent Engine.

View attachment 26326

The Yellow parts imply it isn't the MOTOR SICH AI-450T.

It is the Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A

View attachment 26327

This Engine is also used by TAI for the Hürkus Turboprop Plane.
Specifically the 1600 shp PT6A-68T Pratt & Whitney Canada Turboprop Motor
> Its likely a different variant because 3200 shp would be a lot.

I guess I found out which one is it.

The Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A- 135 (750HP)

View attachment 26335

- > That means the 450HP*2 variant on Baykars Website is from MOTOR SICH and the 750HP*2 from P&W .
- > So we can expect a Serial Produced AKINCI with 1500HP soon.



I found data from EASA from Europe. The Engine is quite sparse with info on the Web.


View attachment 26336



That's all I could find.




The next to that AKINCI is one with the MOTOR SICH AI-450Ts

View attachment 26330

MOTOR SICH AI-450


View attachment 26333

After searching the Web for the Engine I found out something that might help with the Performance Data.

I found a Plane that went into Admission Tests.
"German Aerospace Center (DLR) recently carried out the tests in Oberpfaffenhofen on behalf of Dornier Seawings GmbH, a Sino-German joint venture."

The Test is from 05/19/2021 the Name of the Plane is "Dornier Seastar"

View attachment 26338

It uses the Identical Engines: PT6A-135.
But all the other Data seems very similiar to AKINCI.


Data Dornier Seastar


Drive: 2 x Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-135A Takeoff
power: 480 kW each (650HP)
Travel power: 370 kW each (500HP)
Length: 12.7 m
Height: 4.73 m
Wingspan: 17.74 m
Wing area : 30.6 m2
Max. Takeoff weight: 5100 kg
Payload: 1300 kg
Max. Range: 1665 km
Max. Cruising speed: 180 knots (333km/h)
Max. Flight altitude: 15000 ft


Compared to BAYKAR AKINCI

View attachment 26341

That Could give us an Idea.

@Nilgiri can you tell us some good stuff about this engine 😋
 

Nilgiri

Experienced member
Moderator
Canada Moderator
India Moderator
Joined
Aug 23, 2020
Messages
4,033
Reaction score
8,066
Points
113
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India
@Nilgiri can you tell us some good stuff about this engine 😋

The PT6? It is arguably the gold standard in its category (turboprop/turboshaft of this thrust or power rating).

I have some time to spare right now, so something larger to think about for all interested readers in thread:

What some may not know (that is unique to it and has influenced a huge amount of engines in its category) is that half of its initial design engineering was influenced not only by the basic performance/efficiency goals but also ease of maintenance + simplicity.

To really understand what makes the PT-6 (and all the later engines it has influenced) unique, one must understand this approach to simplicity + reliability as the priority in the whole larger system (rather than think only in conventional layout terms).

i.e to think in concept of Engine performance + Engine MRO rather than just the former.

This is why the (at that point novel) unorthodox layout inside (back to front) which provides:

A) Elegant answer to driving the prop from (free) power turbine, i.e much shorter+reliable shaft

B) Quick access to (esp on field) engine core by removing the prop + power turbine assembly for field maintenance. Lot less hours needed and saves money and downtime.

You can see A and B advantage in this video around 1 minute mark especially (a regular layout would mean you just cannot take power+prop so easily like this as they would be on different ends with long shaft connecting them that you need to account for):


From beginning to end in that video....doing exact same stuff would take way longer with a regular "front to back" layout turboprop....as prop + PT modularity is immense time saver.

It is even bigger timesaver if a quick inspection is all that is warranted....as its quick take A off B, look at B....put A back on etc.

There are cpl minor errors in this following video, but it does a good job (it is not field or hangar maintenance but rather full overhaul which takes much longer time, but it illustrates lot of similar pertinent points):


It is a somewhat lesser known side of an "engine" (people often think mostly of the upstream development and acquisition and use side only...i.e what is the "buying" price and fuel cost per hour etc) so I took this tangent this time to add something a bit different.....since knowing this side more gives fuller picture of all the decision making for a prospective buyer with an application requirement to make optimal call.

Given dearth of experience and heritage with PT6 now (and the way the family of its variants has grown from the original), there is immense MRO capacity for it that keeps the total cost (for any client) very low. This is why you see it in huge number of aircraft today.

Think of same thing with a mass produced good quality reliable automobile, nearly every garage will have parts for it given volume and ubiquity....saving you (the client) time and effort especially if you plan on using the car regularly and day to day. Same (larger cost) concept applies.

@VCheng @Anmdt et al.
 

Titanium100

Committed member
Joined
Jul 19, 2021
Messages
174
Reaction score
202
Points
43
Nation of residence
Denmark
Nation of origin
Denmark
The carrier is lowkey like a light-weight aircraft carrier for the MIUS.. It has very good space to carry several MIUS

ea95414c2abe6558637e8a004161dbc6_auto_x2-png.26332


Unmanned or not this is a fighter jet imo so technically they are building two fighter jets TFX and MIUS. I can't believe this thing will be active from 2023.. I could imagine MIUS eating fighter jets..

I was not following MIUS cloesly but rather TFX so this rapid development of MIUS comes as pleasant surprise
 
Last edited:

Philips

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2021
Messages
308
Reaction score
761
Points
93
Nation of residence
Nethelands
Nation of origin
Netherlands
If the wingspan is 8m then the length is 10m with a wing area of 19m2 (including the main body covered under the trapezoidal shape of both wings). Wings only is 11m2. If the MTOW is 6000kg, the wing load is 315kg/m and 545kg/m2 respectively. To put it in perspective, the F-15C wingload is 545kg/m2 at MTOW and the EF-2000 458kg/m2 at MTOW.

This gives a rough indication of the performance.
The MIUS might have a wingspan closer to 10m and a corresponding length of 12-13m if this picture is true to its size. The ski-jump has a width of 18.2 m excluding the safety nets on the edges.

E6uKkDTXMBcc5mh
 
Last edited:

Zafer

Experienced member
Joined
Sep 9, 2020
Messages
1,518
Reaction score
2,775
Points
113
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
it's not wide..

View attachment 26279


This is wide
There has even been talk about it that there is some cavity around the engine which shows that the fuselage is wider than for 4th generation fighters to accommodate internal weapons bay. The plane in the picture is a tanker, a totally different design and is irrelevant.
 
Top Bottom