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

Yasar_TR

Experienced member
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
3,179
Reactions
136 15,769
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Turkey
Why would Tusas produce a flying wing form as Anka-3?
Main notion that lies behind that is the fact that a flying wing has parameters that imparts stealthiness.
Stealthiness is not achieved by adhering to just specific geometry or materials alone. It is the sum of all different parts of the equation that makes a plane stealthy.

A good example is Typhoon. Due to the delta wing it has inherent stealth characteristics. But it has a canard and has to carry missiles and bombs under its wings that will detract from its stealth. To compensate for that the lines are aggressively designed to keep frontal view as stealthy as possible. Then all the weapons placements are in recessed positions under the wings to keep them away from radar signals. Only 15% of the aeroplane’s body contains metal to make it harder to bounce radar signals.
Typhoon EW suite employs a range of electronic countermeasures that allows the aircraft to digitally hide its signature, becoming invisible to radar, or to digitally create a complex and confusing picture (noise) for a threat operator, denying them a clean targeting opportunity and preventing them from launching a missile in the first place.”

Anka-3 has the major prerequisite already in place. It has the lowest achievable RCS and highest stealthiness due to the shape of the flying wing. No canards, no vertical stabilisers. Once the TF6000 engine is in situ it will have another part of the puzzle in place as well. It is mainly manufactured from stealth friendly composite materials. When ready, an Aesa radar will most likely be put in place to give it more capabilities including EW to help improve its electronic stealthiness.

Having produced KAAN and now ANKA-3, you can be rest assured that Tusas knows what it is doing. These tests with ammunition under its belly is to provide data and give them an idea about what to expect when stealth is reduced. You can’t expect this plane not to carry weapons under its wings, as @dBSPL has explained above. It will carry Super-Şimşek and a host of other bombs that may detract from its stealth. But not to such an extent that will make it impossible to use them; especially in case-specific instances, where you know what your adversary’s radar capabilities are like.
 
Last edited:

Yasar_TR

Experienced member
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
3,179
Reactions
136 15,769
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Turkey
You dont need a calculation for that, as a circle is more aerodynamic than an rectangle.
But why place the inlet on the nose?
Subsonic case : round/circular nose is more aerodynamic
Supersonic case : pointed nose is more aerodynamic.
But in stealth designs you need flat surfaces and sharp edges rather than rounded to stop radar signals from bouncing back.
1725278614029.jpeg

1725278738735.jpeg
 

Strong AI

Contributor
Messages
870
Reactions
32 3,561
Nation of residence
Germany
Nation of origin
Turkey
There is a big difference between this

damn un-aerodynamic

and this

a circle is more aerodynamic than an rectangle

Also:

  • Flat Surfaces: Stealth aircraft often feature flat, angular surfaces. These flat panels are oriented in such a way that incoming radar waves are deflected away from the radar source rather than directly back. This reduces the radar signature of the aircraft.
  • Sharp Edges: Sharp edges are used instead of rounded ones to create a facet-like surface, which helps to scatter radar waves in multiple directions rather than reflecting them back. Rounded surfaces tend to reflect radar waves more directly back to their source, increasing the radar signature.
 

Kaan Azman 

Well-known member
DH Visual Specialist
Messages
388
Reactions
22 1,563
Age
21
Website
twitter.com
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
I didnt get the downwards quite right as it is bell shaped (gonna be included in remake after I'm done with KIZILELMA) so it doesnt represent the form %100.

And the thing under the nose is TOYGUN EOTS which ASELSAN hinted to be included for ANKA-3. For now, we are going with a gimbal.
 

somegoodusername

Active member
Messages
110
Reactions
1 191
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Is using a flying wing for the role of tanker UAV optimal? Can't we develop something closer to Stingray UAV with a small budget?

1725289127026.png
1725289080343.png
 

Strong AI

Contributor
Messages
870
Reactions
32 3,561
Nation of residence
Germany
Nation of origin
Turkey
Can't we develop something closer to Stingray UAV with a small budget?

Very tiny small budget indeed.

“The MQ‑25 program is an acquisition category 1B Major Defense Acquisition Program with an estimated cost of $16.5 billion, including $3.1 billion for research, development, test, and evaluation, $12.6 billion for procurement, and $747.5 million for military construction,” according to DODIG’s review. Navy budget documents estimate that the average unit cost for each MQ-25 will be just under $150 million, not counting various ancillary items.

 

uçuyorum

Contributor
Messages
885
Reactions
11 1,441
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Is using a flying wing for the role of tanker UAV optimal? Can't we develop something closer to Stingray UAV with a small budget?

View attachment 70374 View attachment 70373
Well for a tanker drone you want to maximize payload and have it stable as the fuel amount drops while it is refueling and matching other jets pace and movement. So a flying wing may not be suitable
 

somegoodusername

Active member
Messages
110
Reactions
1 191
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Very tiny small budget indeed.

“The MQ‑25 program is an acquisition category 1B Major Defense Acquisition Program with an estimated cost of $16.5 billion, including $3.1 billion for research, development, test, and evaluation, $12.6 billion for procurement, and $747.5 million for military construction,” according to DODIG’s review. Navy budget documents estimate that the average unit cost for each MQ-25 will be just under $150 million, not counting various ancillary items.

That is US procurement culture, not Turkish. Look how fast Turkish UAV projects are advancing and with very affordable budgets. Tanker UAV doesn't need to be technologically advanced unlike Anka-3 or Kızılelma.
 

Quasar

Contributor
The Post Deleter
Messages
674
Reactions
46 3,009
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
another major problem with a future ANKA 3 variant as a fuel tanker drone is that drones use refueling basket

1725292464698.png
1725298972407.png


which requires a refueling probe at the reciving end

1725292540277.png


and non of our planes have it I mean refueling probe

what we have is maned refueling boom with an operator

1725292688488.png


For KAAN and for Hürjet we can come up with retractable refueling probe For Hürjet may be but may be it can be fixed one as well....

1725298761855.png


However, for KAAN as we know we will have side looking AESA radar panels and side weapon bays so I belive KAAN will continue using refueling boom sure this is speculation ........

in short ANKA refueling drone may refuel only other drons like KE, ANKA3, AKINCI.... which doesnt have refueling capability yet and never done beforEby anyone as far as I know….. a drone refueling another drone which will happen eventually I think :devilish: and may be but may be HÜRJET and preferably NAVAL HÜRJET

-or eurofighter typhoon if we ever have it


1725298828021.png

 
Last edited:

Yasar_TR

Experienced member
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
3,179
Reactions
136 15,769
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Turkey
Members are asked not to mock each other, and at the same time must adhere to writing intelligible posts whereby English Grammar rules are watched as much as possible.
Posts with no commas or full stops or correct grammar, lose meaning and become like a puzzle to solve.
 

Heartbang

Experienced member
Messages
2,529
Reactions
8 3,908
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
another major problem with a future ANKA 3 variant as a fuel tanker drone is that drones use refueling basket

View attachment 70375 View attachment 70384

which requires a refueling probe at the reciving end

View attachment 70376

and non of our planes have it I mean refueling probe

what we have is maned refueling boom with an operator

View attachment 70377

For KAAN and for Hürjet we can come up with retractable refueling probe For Hürjet may be but may be it can be fixed one as well....

View attachment 70382

However, for KAAN as we know we will have side looking AESA radar panels and side weapon bays so I belive KAAN will continue using refueling boom sure this is speculation ........

in short ANKA refueling drone may refuel only other drons like KE, ANKA3 which doesnt have e refueling capability yet and never done befor by anyone as far as I know….. a drone refueling another drone :devilish: and may be but may be HÜRJET and preferably NAVAL HÜRJET

-or eurofighter typhoon if we ever have it


View attachment 70383

We could develop a buddy pod with a refueling boom, just like the Americans.

 

RMZN

Active member
Messages
99
Reactions
2 234
Nation of residence
Germany
Nation of origin
Turkey
another major problem with a future ANKA 3 variant as a fuel tanker drone is that drones use refueling basket

View attachment 70375 View attachment 70384

which requires a refueling probe at the reciving end

View attachment 70376

and non of our planes have it I mean refueling probe

what we have is maned refueling boom with an operator

View attachment 70377

For KAAN and for Hürjet we can come up with retractable refueling probe For Hürjet may be but may be it can be fixed one as well....

View attachment 70382

However, for KAAN as we know we will have side looking AESA radar panels and side weapon bays so I belive KAAN will continue using refueling boom sure this is speculation ........

in short ANKA refueling drone may refuel only other drons like KE, ANKA3 which doesnt have e refueling capability yet and never done befor by anyone as far as I know….. a drone refueling another drone :devilish: and may be but may be HÜRJET and preferably NAVAL HÜRJET

-or eurofighter typhoon if we ever have it


View attachment 70383

 

Attachments

  • 3.JPG
    3.JPG
    42.4 KB · Views: 63
  • 2.JPG
    2.JPG
    49.2 KB · Views: 68

Sanchez

Experienced member
Moderator
Think Tank Analyst
DefenceHub Diplomat
Messages
2,111
Reactions
70 9,468
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Emirati Block 60s don't have regular CFTs but CARTS, Conformal Air Refueling Tank System that feeds fuel directly to the main tanks, not the CFTs. It's one way to refuel F-16s with probe and drogue. I doubt we'd either procure or make our own equivalent just so that they could be tanker UAV refueled when we already have a tanker fleet, something UAE didn't have.
 

RMZN

Active member
Messages
99
Reactions
2 234
Nation of residence
Germany
Nation of origin
Turkey
Were additional CFTs in the the Turkish F-16 B70 procurement plan ? If TurAF gets A330 MRTT they would also offer drogue refueling capabilities. Same as with the A400M.
 

Sanchez

Experienced member
Moderator
Think Tank Analyst
DefenceHub Diplomat
Messages
2,111
Reactions
70 9,468
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Were additional CFTs in the the Turkish F-16 B70 procurement plan ?
Yes.

If TurAF gets A330 MRTT they would also offer drogue refueling capabilities
As mentioned above, CARTS is not a regular CFT.

And A330 MRTT can already be configured with a regular boom. In fact, most MRTT users have it with a boom, including France.
 

Follow us on social media

Top Bottom