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

Radonsider

Contributor
Messages
1,470
Reactions
14 2,807
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Bosnia & Herzegovina
GUYS PLEASE CALM DOWN. THERE IS NOTHING RIDICULOUS ABOUT THE PICTURE!!

I don't get why you are so keen on them showing pylons? Didn't we also see them in KE illustrations? They are OPTIONAL, I mean can't you see that big a*s internal weapons bay?

This thing really looks similar to what I saw and MADDOG also confirmed from landing gear design, as it was patented by TAI,

Round nozzle is because of avoiding thrust loss, this shape is the most optimal for net thrust, the more it's flat, the more thrust you lose, both USA and Russia tested them, from Russia's testing we know that a flat nozzle makes you lose about 20% of your net thrust,


it will probably be changed when we get a higher thrust engine, ok?


Now everyone please calm down
 

Radonsider

Contributor
Messages
1,470
Reactions
14 2,807
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Bosnia & Herzegovina
GUYS PLEASE CALM DOWN. THERE IS NOTHING RIDICULOUS ABOUT THE PICTURE!!

I don't get why you are so keen on them showing pylons? Didn't we also see them in KE illustrations? They are OPTIONAL, I mean can't you see that big a*s internal weapons bay?

This thing really looks similar to what I saw and MADDOG also confirmed from landing gear design, as it was patented by TAI,

Round nozzle is because of avoiding thrust loss, this shape is the most optimal for net thrust, the more it's flat, the more thrust you lose, both USA and Russia tested them, from Russia's testing we know that a flat nozzle makes you lose about 20% of your net thrust,


it will probably be changed when we get a higher thrust engine, ok?


Now everyone please calm down
Another thing to add is munitions loaded into pylons look like Teber-82, you might say L-JDAM but their front fins are not that big
20221224_113813.jpg
1625740862_teber-cover.jpg
 

Agha Sher

Experienced member
DefenceHub Diplomat
Messages
2,769
Reactions
11 9,352
Nation of residence
Denmark
Nation of origin
Afghanistan
I'm guessing Ukrainian. Why u doubting it?

The source. TAI usually communicate via their own channels. The surface is not smooth unlike all other shapes wings. Stealth has been sacrificed for manoeuvrability, which doesn’t make sense for a deep strike bomber. Intake is placed too far in the front again sacrificing stealth. Engine outlet is not buried in the frame, again sacrificing stealth. In general this is poor work and most likely fan art. I have a hard time seeing TAI produce this given their track record of quality and attention to detail.
 

Zafer

Experienced member
Messages
4,683
Reactions
7 7,389
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Remember this plane is already on the assembly line and is expected to fly in a few months. So our curiosity is to be satisfied with photographs and videos before long.
 

Radonsider

Contributor
Messages
1,470
Reactions
14 2,807
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Bosnia & Herzegovina
The source. TAI usually communicate via their own channels. The surface is not smooth unlike all other shapes wings. Stealth has been sacrificed for manoeuvrability, which doesn’t make sense for a deep strike bomber. Intake is placed too far in the front again sacrificing stealth. Engine outlet is not buried in the frame, again sacrificing stealth. In general this is poor work and most likely fan art. I have a hard time seeing TAI produce this given their track record of quality and attention to detail.
Everything you have said is wrong.

1-Stealth is not sacrificed fro manoeuvrability
2-Engine outlet not buried≠not stealth
3-WTF is wrong with intake? There is a S duct inside, the intake is absolutely not a problem


Surface not being smooth is probably related into rendering
 

TheInsider

Experienced member
Professional
Messages
4,123
Solutions
1
Reactions
35 14,679
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
I understand that you are all excited. Of course, the round engine nozzle increases the radar signature to some extent. However, we already have a 7-ton flying wing UAV with a relatively small size and a very small radar signature. We do not have the radar signature analysis done in the design program and we do not know how much the round nozzle contributes to the total radar signature of the aircraft. The round nozzle results in no loss of thrust, lower costs, better aerodynamics, and less manufacturing complexity. This is an engineering question: how much extra radar signature increase is acceptable in return for these benefits? Going from 0.001 square meters to 0.002 square meters is a %100 increase but it is not meaningful on the battlefield.

There are reasons why the Ohotnik, the Neuron, and the X-47 are still prototypes and cost more than the 5th-generation aircraft. Turkish UAVs, on the other hand, are practical war machines that can be produced in large numbers, are cost-effective, has great technology, and have high combat readiness rates.

The Chinese UAVs look very nice, but after the Turkish UAVs came out, even countries with Chinese UAVs lined up to buy Turkish UAVs. On paper, Chinese UAVs like Wing Loon and CH-4 are better than TB-2 and Ankas but Turkish UAVs rule the skies.
 

MADDOG

Contributor
Türkiye Correspondent
Professional
Messages
1,220
Reactions
31 8,007
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Cyprus
The source. TAI usually communicate via their own channels. The surface is not smooth unlike all other shapes wings. Stealth has been sacrificed for manoeuvrability, which doesn’t make sense for a deep strike bomber. Intake is placed too far in the front again sacrificing stealth. Engine outlet is not buried in the frame, again sacrificing stealth. In general this is poor work and most likely fan art. I have a hard time seeing TAI produce this given their track record of quality and attention to detail.
The surface is smooth, I don't know what you're referring to exactly. Maneuverability? Nope. You can't say anything regarding the placement of the intake unless you did proper studies on the aircraft. The engine nozzle does not need to be buried inside the frame. It probably will be in the future when TF-6000 and its derivatives are ready. There is nothing wrong with the quality either. TAI might give engineering drawings (which I believe is the case) to media channels. This isn't anything new. I don't trust Yeni Şafak either, but the design sticks. And it has been posted by major defense channels so it most likely is real.
 

Agha Sher

Experienced member
DefenceHub Diplomat
Messages
2,769
Reactions
11 9,352
Nation of residence
Denmark
Nation of origin
Afghanistan
Everything you have said is wrong.

1-Stealth is not sacrificed fro manoeuvrability
2-Engine outlet not buried≠not stealth
3-WTF is wrong with intake? There is a S duct inside, the intake is absolutely not a problem


Surface not being smooth is probably related into rendering

we will see in a few weeks/months. I don’t want to enter detailed discussion now. However, strongest argument is that this a dubious source and TAI does not communicate in this way.
 

MADDOG

Contributor
Türkiye Correspondent
Professional
Messages
1,220
Reactions
31 8,007
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Cyprus
we will see in a few weeks/months. I don’t want to enter detailed discussion now. However, strongest argument is that this a dubious source and TAI does not communicate in this way.
The guy you're replying to literally saw the aircraft with his own eyes. He is the strongest argument. But like you said, we will see.
 

Agha Sher

Experienced member
DefenceHub Diplomat
Messages
2,769
Reactions
11 9,352
Nation of residence
Denmark
Nation of origin
Afghanistan
The guy you're replying to literally saw the aircraft with his own eyes. He is the strongest argument. But like you said, we will see.

a few points.

1. This is an international forum with no verification. People could make all sorts of claims. He might have seen it, he might not have seen it.

2. Even if he has seen it, he hasn’t seen the final assembled product, because it is still under assembly. Therefore, he had no chance to observe the details (and we are talking details, because all wing shaped UAVs more or less look similar in structure form)

3. regarding the argument on landing gear looking right. The patent is public information and surely the person behind this potential fan art has seen the patent and designed the fan art accordingly. I.e. the landing gear proves nothing

Anyways, we will see soon enough. I can’t wait!
 

Mis_TR_Like

Contributor
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
1,435
Reactions
30 5,620
Nation of residence
Australia
Nation of origin
Northern Cyprus
Anka3 showed itself. Engine start in April, followed by the first flight

View attachment 51809 View attachment 51810

Source: Yenişafak
That huge circle on top looks like it can open up... We can only speculate why there is such a huge opening there. But I'm guessing we will hear wild theories over the next few days including lift fans for VTOL and multidirectional countermeasures. I'm going to take the safe route and say that it is nothing :censored: :coffee:
 

Pilatino

Well-known member
Messages
338
Reactions
3 675
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
LoL it was hilarious to read all that messages about how bad it is. We've produced a stealth bomber and there are bad reviews about it. Oh man what a luxury. I believe TUSAŞ is going to shock all of us when the reveal it soon.
 

MADDOG

Contributor
Türkiye Correspondent
Professional
Messages
1,220
Reactions
31 8,007
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Cyprus
a few points.

1. This is an international forum with no verification. People could make all sorts of claims. He might have seen it, he might not have seen it.

2. Even if he has seen it, he hasn’t seen the final assembled product, because it is still under assembly. Therefore, he had no chance to observe the details (and we are talking details, because all wing shaped UAVs more or less look similar in structure form)

3. regarding the argument on landing gear looking right. The patent is public information and surely the person behind this potential fan art has seen the patent and designed the fan art accordingly. I.e. the landing gear proves nothing

Anyways, we will see soon enough. I can’t wait!
Whilst I appreciate your approach, the probability of this being a fan-art is close to none. Because not many people know about the existence of the patent to begin with. This is a forum and we can't verify any information obtained at any given moment. However we can speculate, and that's what we are doing. This is not a fan-art, it's the actual thing. And this is highly probable. However I don't wish to derail the thread. So that's that...
 
Top Bottom