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

[fushkee]

For aggressive manoeuvres, you have to have titanium structure in the aircraft. I don’t remember that KE has a titanium body structure.

 

[IC3M@N FX]

For more than a year, they’ve been tinkering with these config – but a Kızılelma with just a single engine makes no sense, especially with the one currently installed. Even a TF-10000 as a standalone engine wouldn’t make much of a difference.
From the very beginning, a twin-engine concept would have been the logical choice because thrust-to-weight ratio. After all, the drone is meant to serve both the land and naval forces – so why limit it in this way is beyond me.

It feels like a flying concrete block, you can tell that the drone is underpowered.

 

[Yasar_TR]

For more than a year, they’ve been tinkering with these config – but a Kızılelma with just a single engine makes no sense, especially with the one currently installed. Even a TF-10000 as a standalone engine wouldn’t make much of a difference.
From the very beginning, a twin-engine concept would have been the logical choice because thrust-to-weight ratio. After all, the drone is meant to serve both the land and naval forces – so why limit it in this way is beyond me.

I understand your dissatisfaction. But if we have to go by your logic then f404 on a heavy -14000kg- Gripen shouldn’t work either. Yet it can easily do +9g and -3g manoeuvres. Also flies at 2mach.
If the airframe is designed properly, KE with “composite” main structure and 5-6000lbf dry thrust and/or 9-10000lbf wet thrust engine, can do what we are all expecting from it. Increasing engine quantity will only facilitate longer range and more payload plus a bigger plane. Not necessarily its agility. In fact it can be the other way round. (F16 is more agile than f15).

 

[Zafer]

I think they want to expand maneuvering agility envelope incrementally, why risk a crash rushing testing.

 

[BalkanTurk90]

For more than a year, they’ve been tinkering with these config – but a Kızılelma with just a single engine makes no sense, especially with the one currently installed. Even a TF-10000 as a standalone engine wouldn’t make much of a difference.
From the very beginning, a twin-engine concept would have been the logical choice because thrust-to-weight ratio. After all, the drone is meant to serve both the land and naval forces – so why limit it in this way is beyond me.

It feels like a flying concrete block, you can tell that the drone is underpowered.

İ dont support drone with 2 engines , it will be too expensive and maintenance headache even f35 and f16 have 1 engine . Kizilelma just need more powerful engine and tf 10k is enough.
Aslo Kizilelma but aslo Anka 3 needs to be more steathy perhaps Anka 3 it is but at rear its not . We hear all kinds of test about kizilelma but never agaist a modern Radar. From how far can it be spotted ?
So basically Kizilelma needs stealth & more powerful engine with stealth design, or against powerful opponents it will be downed like a fly from the sky.

 

[MonteCarlo]

İ dont support drone with 2 engines , it will be too expensive and maintenance headache even f35 and f16 have 1 engine . Kizilelma just need more powerful engine and tf 10k is enough.
Aslo Kizilelma but aslo Anka 3 needs to be more steathy perhaps Anka 3 it is but at rear its not . We hear all kinds of test about kizilelma but never agaist a modern Radar , how far can it spotted ?
So basically Kizilelma needs steath & more powerful engine with steath design or agaist powerful opponets will be downed like a fly from the sky

I don't think they will ever publish stealth tests because there isn't much to show and it is one of the more guarded topics. But Ahmet Akyol has said that they are collabarating with Baykar on things like sensors but also on the stealth. I would guess that includes testing against best radars Aselsan got. Kubilay Yıldırım had a nice Twitter thread about how each prototype has improved on the stealth features

 

[IC3M@N FX]

I don’t see a problem here: two AI-322F engines are cheaper than most other engines worldwide. This is a Soviet-era design from the 1980s, and if produced under license — for example, with a 10-year contract — the costs could be reduced even further. By 2032, the TF-10000 would also be ready and in serial production.
There is therefore no reason why costs should spiral out of control with two of these Ukrainian engines.

A single engine of this class only provides a thrust-to-weight ratio of about 0.30–0.40 (dry) or 0.50–0.60 (wet). That is not competitive for a loyal wingman concept — it is simply underpowered.

With two engines, however, the ratio would reach around 0.70–0.80 (dry) and 1.0–1.10 (wet).
A drone powered by just one AI-322F or TF-10000 would be at a clear disadvantage — lacking the kinetic performance for BVR engagements in Mid Range and offering virtually no agility in a dogfight.

The drones should operate like a wolf pack – fast, agile, and in coordination. Light, highly maneuverable drones take on the role of scouts and first-contact assets in air combat. They disrupt the enemy, force defensive maneuvers, and simultaneously act as forward sensors.

Kızılelma functions as a combat drone in the front and mid-range, capable of employing its own air-to-air missiles. Anka-3, operating from greater distance, serves both as a “stealth bomber” and, more importantly, as an AAM truck. Carrying a large payload of long-range missiles (e.g., Gökhan, Gökbora, six to eight units), it amplifies firepower while remaining concealed further back.

The KAAN fighter jet acts as the command and data-fusion hub. It deliberately holds its own missiles in the internal bays until the decisive moment. This layered approach forces adversaries into a defensive posture: they must constantly react to swarming drones and BVR (beyond visual range) threats, while KAAN remains in control and chooses when to strike.

The synergy of these systems – swarm drones in close/mid range with Kızılelma as a flexible combat drone, and Anka-3 as a long-range missile carrier – creates a distributed and resilient air combat ecosystem. The opponent loses initiative, while the Turkish side maximizes its striking power through networking, sensor fusion, and tactical layering.

This is the air combat doctrine of the 21st Century, System of Systems in Network.

 

[Pokemonte13]

As far as i remember baykar will make its own 20.000 Lbs engine similar to a f414 but im guessing(hoping) a bit more advanced reduced ir signature more efficient. So maybe single engine will be that and twin engine the tf10000. Also kizilelma will be more stealthier that any 4/4.5 gen aircraft maybe not as stealthy as 5th gen aircraft but against an f16 or an f15 it could probably engage it earlier than vise versa. And a more powerful engine is needed for the aircraft carrier

 

[Huelague]

Can we expect some (significant) design changes? A more matured stealth design.

 

[boredaf]

A more matured stealth design.

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.

 

[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.

 

[Strong AI]

Others have raised doubts about the use of canards on a low-observable design, stating that canards would guarantee radar detection and a compromise of stealth.[67][68] However, canards and low-observability are not mutually exclusive designs. Northrop Grumman's proposal for the U.S. Navy's Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) incorporated canards on a stealthy airframe.[69][70] Lockheed Martin employed canards on a stealth airframe for the Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) program during early development before dropping them due to complications with aircraft carrier recovery.[71][72] McDonnell Douglas and NASA's X-36 featured canards and was considered to be extremely stealthy.[73] Radar cross-section can be further reduced by controlling canard deflection through flight control software, as is done on the Eurofighter.[74][75]

 

[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.