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

[buraktunahan]

No one is aware of it yet, but by making Anka 3, we actually made the F-117 Nighthawk. Or a small B-2 Spirit.

Anka-3 will not resemble either TB-2, Akıncı, or Kızılelma.

This aircraft will increase our firepower and strike capacity incredibly. Infiltrating deep into enemy lines unseen, Anka 3 will cause incredible destruction to the enemy.

Only those who remember the Gulf War know what this means. F-117 was the pride of America in the Gulf War, the legendary deep attack aircraft. Just like Anka 3, it carried 2 guided GBU or JDAM series bombs in its hull. It hit important targets at great depths without being caught on the radar, and its impact was great.

 

[zio]

I once said about Akıncı, "We will benefit greatly from the meat and feathers of this bird." I said so, and so it happened. Akıncı even became a test plane for radar, what else can you ask for? I expect Akıncı to become the "flying Gökhan launcher" within 1-2 years. Launching Siper HSS missiles from the ground is of course a capability. But firing the Siper HSS missile or Gökhan missile from 8 km above with an initial speed of 750 km is a completely different thing. This application can be considered a revolution in air combat!

Now I say the same for Anka-3, we will benefit a lot from the flesh and feathers of this bird, soo much. In due time, the twin-engine Anka-3 will take over Akıncı's flying "Siper HSS or Gökhen launcher" function. The enemy will not be able to detect the location of the fired Siper missile or Gökhan missile until it is too late. Akıncı will still have this opportunity, because Akıncı is not stealth. Anka-3, on the other hand, will not give the enemy that chance of early detection. Anka-3 will be the "Sniper of air wars".

You mean akıncı will search and track and anka 3 will fire AA missile,all the platforms are unmanned its too early for us to do so.

 

[Boz]

 

[Merzifonlu]

You mean akıncı will search and track and anka 3 will fire AA missile,all the platforms are unmanned its too early for us to do so.

Think of it like an aerial sniper team. As the team's spotter, Akıncı will search&track the target as a member of the herd of AWACS-UAV. Anka-3, on the other hand, will fire very long-range AA missiles like a sniper wearing ghillie camouflage. Kızılelma, on the other hand, will engage the enemy from relatively closer distances. The entire system will operate autonomously.

And no, it's not too early for us, it's right on time.

 

[DBdev]

Think of it like an aerial sniper team. As the team's spotter, Akıncı will search&track the target as a member of the herd of AWACS-UAV. Anka-3, on the other hand, will fire very long-range AA missiles like a sniper wearing ghillie camouflage. Kızılelma, on the other hand, will engage the enemy from relatively closer distances. The entire system will operate autonomously.

And no, it's not too early for us, it's right on time.

Akinci would be the weak link to attack since it is slow and not stealthy at all just like all AWACS systems. Therefore it needs active DIRCM to survive incoming multiple AA missiles.

As an alternative if a future ANKA-3+/4 can hide it's heat signature better by mixing exhaust with cold air and spreading it throughout the back not in just one very hot spot like B-2. And also match or even come half way close to -70db multi-spectrum (UHF/VHF/S/LX) stealth of 6th generation long range bomber drone, B-21 Raider, it could potentially take on even the enemy stealth fighters with a passive radar like F-22 does.

A Closer Look At Stealth | Aviation Week Network

A look at the fundamentals of stealth technology and highlight some key features of the F-117, B-2, F-22 and F-35.

aviationweek.com

 

[buraktunahan]

(I'm leaving aside the nuclear attack capacity and carpet bombing capability.)

In fact, I think Anka 3 etc. class aircraft are more effective bombers than B-2, B-21 etc. strategic bombers.

1- First of all, they are both stealth deep attack aircraft. So they serve the same purpose. They were developed to hit valuable targets deep behind enemy lines. Instead of sending one B-2 deep into the enemy's depths, you send 10 Anka 3s as scattered targets, and you will achieve the same goal. You also become a messy and difficult target for enemy air defenses.

2- Second; They are very cheap compared to the B-2 and B-21, which cost about $1 billion. Almost 1/40th the price. Even if you get shot, it won't hurt you. You won't even lose pilots and ammunition. But if a B-2 is shot down, not only will you lose 2 pilots, you will lose 1 billion dollars and lose dozens of valuable ammunition. When you try to attack the enemy, you feel like you are being attacked.

3- Third; You can use it effectively in low-intensity conflicts and in the fight against terrorism.

4- Fourth; You can attack scattered targets simultaneously. For example, in a war with a country consisting of islands, you can launch a shock raid on all military facilities on all islands at the same time.

So, with these and similar capabilities, I think Anka 3 will be a very effective and deterrent aircraft.

 

[Afif]

You are comparing cheap unmanned tactical systems with expensive billion dollars
strategic manned assets. B-2 and B-21 are operated by USAF Global Strike Command for conventional and unconventional strikes. The very name 'Global Strike Command' suggest a different mission set, Tactics and methods of employment.

It is not about how many ANKA-3 can carry and deliver the same payload of B-2. (Which would require approximately 30) It is more about the Strategic reach that these bombers has to offer. The very ability to fly non-stop from the mainland US and strike targets on the other side of the Globe is highly prized for the military planners.

 

[BaburKhan]

Anka 3 offer a regional Strike Capabillity together with with manned Aircraft, ballistic and cruise Missiles. It's perfekt for Power Projection to Aegean, eastern Mediterran, black Sea, Caucasus, ME Countries which share a Border with Turkey and till to Libya. For Anti - Access / Area Denial on the Horn of Africa / arabian Sea, Atlantic Coast of Morocco and Parts deep inside Central Asia, there is a need for strategic Bombers like the B-2.

 

[Zafer]

Anka 3 offer a regional Strike Capabillity together with with manned Aircraft, ballistic and cruise Missiles. It's perfekt for Power Projection to Aegean, eastern Mediterran, black Sea, Caucasus, ME Countries which share a Border with Turkey and till to Libya. For Anti - Access / Area Denial on the Horn of Africa / arabian Sea, Atlantic Coast of Morocco and Parts deep inside Central Asia, there is a need for strategic Bombers like the B-2.

That's when operating out of Türkiye, if you can operate out of a ship then you can have longer range.

 

[Soldier30]

Turkish jet UAV ANKA-3 made its first flight. The ANKA-3 heavy UAV was developed in 2022 by Turkish Aerospace Industries. The ANKA-3 UAV can perform many tasks, such as control and communication relay, reconnaissance, surveillance, and destruction of ground and air targets. The drone can hit enemy helicopters, propeller-driven aircraft and UAVs with air-to-air ammunition; to destroy ground targets, including radar and air defense systems, the drone has air-to-ground ammunition. The drone can also use large ammunition such as SOM-J, MK-82 and miniature SDB bombs. The ANKA-3 UAV can rise to a height of up to 12,000 meters, with a payload of up to 1,200 kilograms

 

[Bogeyman]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1740772272879624676

ASELSAN General Manager Ahmet Akyol announced some of the payloads of Anka-III.

- IRST
- AESA Radar
- EOST

 

[BaburKhan]

That's when operating out of Türkiye, if you can operate out of a ship then you can have longer range.

You have a longer Range when you operate out of a Ship. Carriers for example will be important Targets for any Enemy. They are threaten'd by enemy Submarines, ASBM, Fighters with AShM etc. Bombers have the Advantage they conduct an Airstrike were Several Fighters are needed. In Areas with no Sea Aircraft Carrier are useless as a Tool for Power Projection, like in Central Asia.

 

[UkroTurk]

Once I saw a image of multiple drone that I can't find now.
There was a multiple core chassis, avionics, electronics and engine. For instance when you want to produce stealth Bomber drone just put on outer shell.
When you need supersonic fighter drone , there was another shell. Finally there was subsonic attack drone .

Those 3 UAVs share ,Same core, electronics,avionics, engine, etc.
So it could reduce production costs and time and maintenance.

Just changing the outer shell of the ANKA-3, you could get subsonic attack drone or supersonic fighteruav.

Fotoğrafı bulamadım. Adam tek bir ortak kasa yapmış, aynı çekirdek kasadan üç farklı uçak üretiyor. ANKA3 den de böyle bir platform çıkabilir.

 

[Zafer]

You have a longer Range when you operate out of a Ship. Carriers for example will be important Targets for any Enemy. They are threaten'd by enemy Submarines, ASBM, Fighters with AShM etc. Bombers have the Advantage they conduct an Airstrike were Several Fighters are needed. In Areas with no Sea Aircraft Carrier are useless as a Tool for Power Projection, like in Central Asia.

An aircraft carrier is useful by guarding your six when you deal with the target in your sights. You can send a fuel tanker along your strike plane to extend range which a version of Anka3 is to play this roll. We do need bombers but only after we have everything else.

 

[Bürküt]

Which engine did the ANKA 3 use?

It must be AI25TLT engine . Which has a lower thrust (I remember it was around 4000 lbs) and doesn't have an afterburner if we compare it with AI322F.

 

[Heartbang]

Once I saw a image of multiple drone that I can't find now.
There was a multiple core chassis, avionics, electronics and engine. For instance when you want to produce stealth Bomber drone just put on outer shell.
When you need supersonic fighter drone , there was another shell. Finally there was subsonic attack drone .

Those 3 UAVs share ,Same core, electronics,avionics, engine, etc.
So it could reduce production costs and time and maintenance.

View attachment 64311

Just changing the outer shell of the ANKA-3, you could get subsonic attack drone or supersonic fighteruav.

Fotoğrafı bulamadım. Adam tek bir ortak kasa yapmış, aynı çekirdek kasadan üç farklı uçak üretiyor. ANKA3 den de böyle bir platform çıkabilir.

You mean this?

 

[UkroTurk]

You mean this?

Yeah absolutely THX.

ANKA-3 could be evolved such program?

ANKA-3 with AESA

 

[uçuyorum]

I expect a couple dozen at best but it'd be nice if we had like 48+ Ankas. Also yeah I hope we make a fighter drone that resembles the concepts of 6th gen fighter after Anka 3 as a prelude to 6th generation and beyond.

 

[Emin25]

Why do I see a lot of experts saying "Just to be able to fly a flying wing design aircraft is a huge success."? Is it really that hard to fly these? I mean of course it is something to celebrate that we will have such capable drone and we are getting better and better building them. I am genuinly happy. I know to keep the flying wing design aircraft stable is relatively hard. because of it's inherent unstable design, it needs high amount of processing power and delicate actuators to stay stable. But isn't it the same with with hurjet and kizilelma too. They are designed with an unstable body too. Maybe not as unstable as anka 3 but still the same kind of problem. It may have been a hard problem back in nineties or eighties but now even middleschoolers using PID control on chips that would make nineties' superpower's jealous. Is it still that hard to fly them. Are there things I am unaware of that makes flying wing designed aircrafts so difficult for a company working on a 5th generation jet? We are still telling "it is good that we managed to do that". If there is someone who can tell with technical details, I would be grateful.

 

[Samba]

Why do I see a lot of experts saying "Just to be able to fly a flying wing design aircraft is a huge success."? Is it really that hard to fly these? I mean of course it is something to celebrate that we will have such capable drone and we are getting better and better building them. I am genuinly happy. I know to keep the flying wing design aircraft stable is relatively hard. because of it's inherent unstable design, it needs high amount of processing power and delicate actuators to stay stable. But isn't it the same with with hurjet and kizilelma too. They are designed with an unstable body too. Maybe not as unstable as anka 3 but still the same kind of problem. It may have been a hard problem back in nineties or eighties but now even middleschoolers using PID control on chips that would make nineties' superpower's jealous. Is it still that hard to fly them. Are there things I am unaware of that makes flying wing designed aircrafts so difficult for a company working on a 5th generation jet? We are still telling "it is good that we managed to do that". If there is someone who can tell with technical details, I would be grateful.

From GPT:

One significant challenge is stability and control. Traditional aircraft designs with distinct fuselages and tails provide inherent stability and control surfaces, making them easier to handle. Flying wings require sophisticated fly-by-wire systems and control algorithms to ensure stability.