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

[Oublious]

View attachment 65027

AESA radar&SIGINT...

 

[Zafer]

With air to air capability TB3 can be a multi-role, long endurance, naval capable, small footprint fighter.

 

[uçuyorum]

TB3s with 2 Bozdoğan can shoot down a few cruise missiles at least I guess ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Zafer]

You can station half a dozen TB3 in the air effectively covering 300 km of line of defense to shoot down approaching targets.

 

[IC3M@N FX]

With air to air capability TB3 can be a multi-role, long endurance, naval capable, small footprint fighter.

The thing flies at a maximum speed of 300-400 km/h and has no stealth properties whatsoever, so you could fly towards the enemy aircraft unnoticed and shoot it with a BVRAAM.
By the time this opportunity arises for some inexplicable reason, the drone has already been shot down.

What would be possible, however, is to equip them with a small, powerful AESA radar.
They could extend the radar performance of the aircraft carrier & ships by several kilometers/nautical miles by forwarding the telemetry in real time.
This would give them more options for attack or defense.

 

[Zafer]

The thing flies at a maximum speed of 300-400 km/h and has no stealth properties whatsoever, so you could fly towards the enemy aircraft unnoticed and shoot it with a BVRAAM.
By the time this opportunity arises for some inexplicable reason, the drone has already been shot down.

How many TB2 were shot down by enemy fighters that you claim TB3 has no stealth? TB3 is disposable and has no fear of being shot down.

 

[dBSPL]

Very low speed, almost completely composite construction, almost zero thermal and chemical footprint. Tactical UAVs will never be on a par with fighter jets, but on the other hand, I don't think they are that easily detectable. Also, if an adversary jet engages a TB-3, it will clearly reveal its location. If you engage a TB-3 at a distance of 40-60km, you may wish you had never seen it.

 

[Afif]

Also, if an adversary jet engages a TB-3, it will clearly reveal its location. If you engage a TB-3 at a distance of 40-60km, you may wish you had never seen it.

How so? And I am pretty sure a capable fighter will be able to see & track TB-3 beyond 100km. At best I can see its RCS being 0.5m². The big spherical FLIR will contribute significantly at RCS increase IMO.

 

[Bogeyman]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1750576093264752910

The USA wants to develop UCAV with the Japanese. It doesn't have much to do with us. But due to the paywall I can't open a new topic for 2 words.


Therefore, it is possible that new competitors will emerge on the horizon for Kızılelma.

 

[IC3M@N FX]

Very low speed, almost completely composite construction, almost zero thermal and chemical footprint. Tactical UAVs will never be on a par with fighter jets, but on the other hand, I don't think they are that easily detectable. Also, if an adversary jet engages a TB-3, it will clearly reveal its location. If you engage a TB-3 at a distance of 40-60km, you may wish you had never seen it.

I am sure that at least 4.5+ Gen Fighter with an AESA radar can track a conventional MALE drone (Turboprob) without any problems. In this case TB2/3, Anka S, if this were not the case, then the USA would not have shot down a drone of ours with an F-16 in Syria or Iraq a few weeks ago.
It is completely impossible that a drone of a smaller type (MALE) could take on a fighter jet, you would have to be extremely lucky and fly like Top Gun in low flight through the mountains and with extremely good luck know that a fighter jet will fly by soon to take it out from ambush with a BVRAAM, something like that is totally unrealistic.

 

[dBSPL]

I am sure that at least 4.5+ Gen Fighter with an AESA radar can track a conventional MALE drone (Turboprob) without any problems. In this case TB2/3, Anka S, if this were not the case, then the USA would not have shot down a drone of ours with an F-16 in Syria or Iraq a few weeks ago.
It is completely impossible that a drone of a smaller type (MALE) could take on a fighter jet, you would have to be extremely lucky and fly like Top Gun in low flight through the mountains and with extremely good luck know that a fighter jet will fly by soon to take it out from ambush with a BVRAAM, something like that is totally unrealistic.

I would bet that the radar analysis of a composite structure with a wing cross-sectional area of less than 60-80 cm cannot be analyzed as if it were a fighter jet. I also believe that the electro-optical detection of an object with a sub-meter cross-sectional lenght on airframe and much less on wings that also produces almost no heat incomparable to turbofans in terms of thermal production is not a simple matter as mentioned.

In a real combat scenario, how possible is it to compare a UAV and an aggressor fighter jet in complete isolation? I am not talking about a tactical UAV engaging a fighter jet, UAVs here are a system of systems, which is why I emphasize that a one-to-one comparison of these two platforms is not possible. If you notice this drone at 60-80 km in the forward line as an aggressor force and not in your own territory, it probably means that you are around combat air, ground or naval elements that share the same tactical picture and tactical data network with this drone. If the target UAV has avionics that can analyze the angular coordinates of the incoming missile, this engagement can even make the attacking aircraft a target.

 

[Oublious]

I am sure that at least 4.5+ Gen Fighter with an AESA radar can track a conventional MALE drone (Turboprob) without any problems. In this case TB2/3, Anka S, if this were not the case, then the USA would not have shot down a drone of ours with an F-16 in Syria or Iraq a few weeks ago.
It is completely impossible that a drone of a smaller type (MALE) could take on a fighter jet, you would have to be extremely lucky and fly like Top Gun in low flight through the mountains and with extremely good luck know that a fighter jet will fly by soon to take it out from ambush with a BVRAAM, something like that is totally unrealistic.

lol

they did shoot it down because you could see it in the sky.

 

[uçuyorum]

I think it would be possible to build a drone in tactical class that is small and stealthy, but even that would have difficulty achieving WVR opportunity kill. Plus modern fighters have lots of passive sensors. But we don't even know id TB3 can be considered stealthy. It might just catch some older russian fighters off guard

 

[dBSPL]

I think it would be possible to build a drone in tactical class that is small and stealthy, but even that would have difficulty achieving WVR opportunity kill. Plus modern fighters have lots of passive sensors. But we don't even know id TB3 can be considered stealthy. It might just catch some older russian fighters off guard

Tactical UAVs have brought many innovations to the battlefield, but I think they are also a modern interpretation of one of the oldest warfare tactics. One of the most striking tactics in this regard in recent years was the liberation of Karabakh by the glorious Azerbaijani army, where AN-2s flown unmanned in the Karabakh war devastated Russian air defense systems, and as Armenian forces engaged these decoy aircraft, they became the target of other armed UAVs and elements of the Azerbaijani air force.

A $100 million jet and a fighter pilot is an extraordinary loss, but a tactical drone is just a flying system that you can replace in a few days and whose design philosophy is to be as cost-effective as possible. Their purpose is not to protect national airspace, they are small but highly capable tactical systems for their cost. In the example I gave above, the AN-2 was a decoy aircraft. But a much more sophisticated system with a wider range of mission capabilities is directly part of the combatant layers, I mean operate under whole C4I structure.

 

[Kartal1]

Why are we discussing UAVs like TB-3 taking place in scenarios against 4th Gen air threats? I don't think that any MALE UAV we have in inventory or in development right now can survive a BVR or WVR engagement with such a threat.

The only thing that may have some chance of surviving would be a super-sonic Kizilelma with an AESA radar and Gokdogan load. The only reason I think it may survive is the stealth design and a strong radar and it is still debatable.

UAVs like Kizilelma can serve very well within the Loyal Wingman concept of operations and can deliver great support to the main punching force which would be a manned fighter. While all this is based on a supportive role of the drone I don't think they are capable enough to take the primary role in these air to air engagements.

 

[FaTiHan]

kızılelma ve anka 3 gökhan füzesi ile radnetten(tümleşik hava sahası resmi)gelen verilerle ülke hava sahasını çok rahat korur.
Kendi hava sahamızda anka 3 ve kızılelma mius larımaza kuyruktan saldıramazlar

 

[Zafer]

TB3 Ambush Master

 

[IC3M@N FX]

I have to laugh , here are people who really think a Tutboprob MALE drone running on crutches with its 300-400 km/h has a chance against a GEN 4.5+ or 5 fighter jet because it can carry BVR missiles.
Apparently people have forgotten the concept of what these drones are for.
Reconnaissance, surveillance over a longer period of time, targeted destruction of a target on the ground as soon as it has been selected as a valuable target. Everything else is pure fantasy and wishful thinking.

2023 Turkish drone shootdown - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Zafer]

I have to laugh , here are people who really think a Tutboprob MALE drone running on crutches with its 300-400 km/h has a chance against a GEN 4.5+ or 5 fighter jet because it can carry BVR missiles.
Apparently people have forgotten the concept of what these drones are for.
Reconnaissance, surveillance over a longer period of time, targeted destruction of a target on the ground as soon as it has been selected as a valuable target. Everything else is pure fantasy and wishful thinking.

You didn't even know that TB3 is already meant to be equipped with an AESA radar before you assert your argument.

 

[uçuyorum]

You didn't even know that TB3 is already meant to be equipped with an AESA radar before you assert your argument.

With 9 kW total energy, it's likely more a SAR radar