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

[Yasar_TR]

How much stealthier do you think the design can get? Only thing they can do, imo, is to make sure the build quality is solid and coat it in RAM paint.

Correct. Just to add a few more points:

1. That canard would detract from the stealthiness of the plane. It is there to give the plane more manoeuvrability. But since without cutting edge AI interface to give one to one dogfighting capability, the plane doesn’t need to be that much manoeuvrable. There are other means with which it can have high manoeuvrability. (Tejas doesn’t hava canards) . An overall airframe redesign may be ??
2. Nose can be made with more flat surfaces instead of being that round.
3. Engine needs to be a stealthy designed engine like TF10000.

 

[Yasar_TR]

@Strong AI ,
What @Test7 has written is valid to a certain extent. But, if we check the examples given, you will find that the X36 had a limited canard structure to help with manoeuvrability and had no vertical stabilisers to further improve and compensate canards’ adverse impact on stealth. It was to have TVC to give it good manoeuvring edge to make up for it’s deficiency in that area. (It is a cancelled program.)

Can you see any canards on the Advanced Tactical fighters YF22 and yf23?

yf23

yf22

J20 is the only stealthy aircraft that actually use the canards actively.
It does this to improve it’s close air combat capability at the expense of stealth.

Below is the take on why J20 uses canards:

The J-20 was designed for air superiority and within-visual-range engagements, where extreme manoeuvrability and rapid pitch control are crucial for generating high-lift, high-drag conditions. While the canards are sometimes seen as a stealth compromise, analyses suggest their impact is minor at acceptable angles, and the manoeuvrability gained outweighs the potential loss of stealth in combat scenarios where stealth is less critical.

Canards’s adverse effects on stealth can be minimised by flying in certain attack angles and not presenting them too much to radar signals, employing special flight modes engineered in and having RAM would help too.

Canards are extra surfaces that move on an aircraft that would reflect radar signals. That is a fact. But if they have to be used in situations where a compromise is necessary, then there are methods to minimise their effects on stealth. But that doesn’t detract from the fact that they are not conducive to good stealth.

 

[uçuyorum]

Canards have multiple benefits. One of its simple benefits is contributing to lift, because in classic tail stabilizer configuration, the stabilizers push down alongisde center of gravity to counteract center of lift that is behind the center of gravity. In delta canard, canards and wings push up and center of gravity is in the middle. Also I think whild in cruise and stealthy mode it may be possible to make canards remain stealthy by shaping and by keeping them static until they need to be used actively.

 

[TR_123456]

@Strong AI ,
What @Test7 has written is valid to a certain extent. But, if we check the examples given, you will find that the X36 had a limited canard structure to help with manoeuvrability and had no vertical stabilisers to further improve and compensate canards’ adverse impact on stealth. It was to have TVC to give it good manoeuvring edge to make up for it’s deficiency in that area. (It is a cancelled program.)
View attachment 77289

Can you see any canards on the Advanced Tactical fighters YF22 and yf23?

yf23

View attachment 77290

yf22
View attachment 77291

J20 is the only stealthy aircraft that actually use the canards actively.
It does this to improve it’s close air combat capability at the expense of stealth.

Below is the take on why J20 uses canards:

The J-20 was designed for air superiority and within-visual-range engagements, where extreme manoeuvrability and rapid pitch control are crucial for generating high-lift, high-drag conditions. While the canards are sometimes seen as a stealth compromise, analyses suggest their impact is minor at acceptable angles, and the manoeuvrability gained outweighs the potential loss of stealth in combat scenarios where stealth is less critical.

Canards’s adverse effects on stealth can be minimised by flying in certain attack angles and not presenting them too much to radar signals, employing special flight modes engineered in and having RAM would help too.

Canards are extra surfaces that move on an aircraft that would reflect radar signals. That is a fact. But if they have to be used in situations where a compromise is necessary, then there are methods to minimise their effects on stealth. But that doesn’t detract from the fact that they are not conducive to good stealth.

You know what i think of the J-20.

 

[Yasar_TR]

You know what i think of the J-20.

Can you remind me pls?

My understanding is:

-It is overhyped by the US and China itself.
-Engine still suspect.
-Too big as a fighter plane.
-It’s stealthiness can be questionable.
- It is being produced in high quantities to give quantitative edge to Chinese rather than qualitative.
- Carrying extra long range missiles that may not be usable against stealthy US targets.
- It’s air to ground performance is also suspect.

 

[TR_123456]

Can you remind me pls?

My understanding is:

-It is overhyped by the US and China itself.
-Engine still suspect.
-Too big as a fighter plane.
-It’s stealthiness can be questionable.
- It is being produced in high quantities to give quantitative edge to Chinese rather than qualitative.
- Carrying extra long range missiles that may not be usable against stealthy US targets.
- It’s air to ground performance is also suspect.

Nothing more to add.

 

[Merzifonlu]

-It is overhyped by the US and China itself. ------------> Probably true.

-Engine still suspect. -----------------> Why?

-Too big as a fighter plane.---------------------> It's debatable. I don't think it's big, especially for the Pacific region.

-It’s stealthiness can be questionable. ---------------------> Again, why?

- It is being produced in high quantities to give quantitative edge to Chinese rather than qualitative. ---------------> They may have found the balance between quantity and quality.

- Carrying extra long range missiles that may not be usable against stealthy US targets.---------------------> If the missile has multiple sensors and is fed data by a widespread satellite and AWACS network, it may well be able to hit.

- It’s air to ground performance is also suspect. --------------------> That performance is now entirely related to the performance of the ammunition, not the performance of the fighter.

 

[Sanchez]

Can you remind me pls?

My understanding is:

-It is overhyped by the US and China itself.
-Engine still suspect.
-Too big as a fighter plane.
-It’s stealthiness can be questionable.
- It is being produced in high quantities to give quantitative edge to Chinese rather than qualitative.
- Carrying extra long range missiles that may not be usable against stealthy US targets.
- It’s air to ground performance is also suspect.

I think all this is about 5 years out of date thinking. Per what's available, J-20 doesn't have anything missing over the F-22; save for the F119.

 

[Yasar_TR]

Engine still suspect. -----------------> Why?

Most of the current J20 stock carry AL31 class Russian engines. These engines are not powerful enough to carry a big plane like J20. Planes that has WS15 have a low life expectancy. When they were first being fitted to the planes it was 500hours. Then according to their own statements a year ago, the engine was good for 1500hours.
It is definitely not in same league as the F119, an engine that is over 20 years older.

Too big as a fighter plane.---------------------> It's debatable. I don't think it's big, especially for the Pacific region.

Just look at the large SU57 and see the difference.
Compared to F22’s 18.9m length, J20 is 21.2 m long.
This greater size allows the J-20 to carry more fuel and payload at the expense of stealth (if carried outside) and agility.

U

It’s stealthiness can be questionable. ---------------------> Again, why?

Just look at the size of those canards.
Even their own RCS values give a figure of 0.01m2. It may well be higher. F22 in comparison is thought to have an RCS of 0.0001m2 (100 times stealthier)
It is thought to have a smaller inner weapon bays at the sides when the large ones are occupied with PL15s, and not able to carry a variety of air to ground munitions. If it has to then stealth is compromised. It is predominantly designed for stand off air combat.

 

[IC3M@N FX]

The real issue in the Pacific isn’t just about technology, it’s about range, numbers, and geography.

The F-35 isn’t really built to be the tip of the spear in a large-scale air war over the Pacific. It’s great at sensor fusion, stealth, and networking, but it lacks the range and raw performance to dominate as a front-line fighter in Dogfight and Midrange Fights (Stealth vs Stealth).
It’s better suited as a “second wave” platform or as a battle network hub.

The F-22 is still the strongest jet in terms of stealth and dogfighting, but the U.S. only has about 125 combat-ready Raptors. For a theater as vast as the Pacific, that’s simply not enough—especially when you factor in long distances, tanker dependence, and limited basing options.

China, on the other hand, is fielding the J-20 in larger numbers. It’s not on the same level as the F-22, but it has the range and role flexibility to go after high-value targets like tankers and AWACS. That makes it a real problem in the Pacific.

The F-15EX or Super Hornet can’t really compensate for this gap because they lack stealth, which makes them very limited against J-20s and modern air defense systems.

So in the end: the U.S. still has the better quality, but China has the quantity and the home-field advantage. The real American answer will likely come with NGAD in the 2030s. Until then, the balance in the Pacific leans toward China.

 

[Huelague]

F22 in comparison is thought to have an RCS of 0.0001m2 (100 times stealthier)

What is the reason behind that minimize RCS? RAM paint, design or raw materials?

 

[Pokemonte13]

What is the reason behind that minimize RCS? RAM paint, design or raw materials?

size of the aircraft is it large like a b2 or like F35, overall construction material some composite materials absorb electromagnetic emissions better than others but mostly design as angular surfaces deflect emissions better than round ones(Same reason why the f22 is still considered stealthier than an f35 even though the f35 Tech is more modern and smaller) The Ram paint does the rest absorbing the little emissions that could reflect. ideal form is actually the B2 smooth surface all the way

 

[Yasar_TR]

What is the reason behind that minimize RCS? RAM paint, design or raw materials?

If I had known the answer to that question, I would have been working for LM and Boeing.

Simple answer is : Probably all the above.

As per @Pokemonte13 ’s post, the materials used and geometry of the plane’s surfaces has been so well engineered that the radar waves do not return back to transmitter; but mostly scattered or absorbed.

I had read somewhere that the nozzle “cost” per plane was more than the price of some fighter planes. No wonder the 196 planes cost the US best part of 70billion dollars!

It uses saw-tooth edged cockpit, fins and wings which helps bounce radar waves in undefined random deflections, making the plane difficult to trace. There are no protruding extensions that could detract from low observability.

 

[Pokemonte13]

Same reason why people don't see SU 57 is not regarded as stealth fighter

 

[Yasar_TR]

Same reason why people don't see SU 57 is not regarded as stealth fighter

Sorry mate! But;

Two negatives in your sentence makes it meaningless.
Did you mean?
Same reason why people don't see SU 57 as a stealth fighter, since it is not regarded as one.

 

[Pokemonte13]

Sorry mate! But;

Two negatives in your sentence makes it meaningless.
Did you mean?
Same reason why people don't see SU 57 as a stealth fighter, since it is not regarded as one.

was a typo error but yeah more or less

 

[Huelague]

If I had known the answer to that question, I would have been working for LM and Boeing.

Simple answer is : Probably all the above.

As per @Pokemonte13 ’s post, the materials used and geometry of the plane’s surfaces has been so well engineered that the radar waves do not return back to transmitter; but mostly scattered or absorbed.

I had read somewhere that the nozzle “cost” per plane was more than the price of some fighter planes. No wonder the 196 planes cost the US best part of 70billion dollars!

It uses saw-tooth edged cockpit, fins and wings which helps bounce radar waves in undefined random deflections, making the plane difficult to trace. There are no protruding extensions that could detract from low observability.

I could understand the „design argument“ as the almost most perfect design. But what do we know about RAM paint technology from today, compared with the ones from 90‘s. Same goes for materials (composite)? It can be expected, that we are more advanced in the field of RAM paint and composite than from the past.
Nevertheless, the F-22 is still more advanced than F-35. One some aspects.
Curious.

 

[Oublious]

BayraktarTB3 PT-2 R | AI Supported Fully Automatic Takeoff and Landing Tests


Toplam Sorti: 172




172 time tested on TCG Anadolu.

 

[Agha Sher]

BayraktarTB3 PT-2 R | AI Supported Fully Automatic Takeoff and Landing Tests


Toplam Sorti: 172




172 time tested on TCG Anadolu.

Interesting. If I remember correctly, this is the first time we see PT-2 operate from TCG Anadolu. We've only seen PT-3 and PT-4 do it before.

What does the R stand for in PT-2R?

 

[Oublious]