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

Yasar_TR

Experienced member
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
3,699
Reactions
209 18,907
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Turkey
It’s normal alright to first try it under the wings with time it will get better it will take years until Kizilelma is combat ready same with anka
Years is very open ended. 2 to 9 years qualify the statement you’ve made.

If they allocate the right resources, Anka3 will definitely be ready in under 3 years, if not quicker. The only parameter that will hold it back is the TF6000.

KE should follow Anka3 once the TF10000 is ready.

So in reality the ball is in TEI’s court. The quicker they provide the engines the quicker these planes can be operational.

Although these are the first trials to see if the planes can perform as envisaged by the designers, and these firings are governed by the Circular Error Probable laws; Tolun hitting the bulls eye in it’s first Anka3 IWB firing is very heartening. Well done to all Tusas engineers!
 
Last edited:

Zafer

Experienced member
Messages
4,967
Reactions
8 7,647
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Once ammunition test is started it will probably go through all the outside ammo and continue with IWB ammo without a break. This also depends on whether the ammo is ready off course. I am guessing we will see completion of tests with available ammo within 3 months.
 

Huelague

Experienced member
Messages
4,671
Reactions
14 4,766
Nation of residence
Germany
Nation of origin
Turkey

If you sell these drones to countries that don’t have a modern airforce and they try to utilise them like modern attack fighters, this is what you get. Even some rebels now have alr defence missiles. Also countries like China can easily supply the AD missiles to these rebels as they would love to see the name of Bayraktar tarnished.

Third Akinci brought down in that area now. We shouldn’t sell these to any “Tom, Dick and Harry”. We should be choosier in supplying these drones. Also there should be specific guidelines about the use of these with regards to where and how.
Two more points. Reputation and advertising.
 

Huelague

Experienced member
Messages
4,671
Reactions
14 4,766
Nation of residence
Germany
Nation of origin
Turkey
People that buy military hardware don't use twitter much. Anyone that looks at it sees what this thing is and isn't.
I cant say what kind of social media military employee use, or if any of that. We can expect that this kind of news will be not escape by the responsible people.
 

Sanchez

Experienced member
Moderator
Think Tank Analyst
DefenceHub Diplomat
Messages
3,411
Reactions
104 15,486
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Italian Air Force and Army chiefs and navy vice chief visited Baykar today, along with a delegation from Leonardo and deputy PM.

LBA is going to hit big.
"Funds of 2.4 billion of €, for the Air Force's new UCAVs program, with €242 million already this year. All the pieces are falling into place, with LBA System ready. Given the amount financed, i think it's the largest allocation founds in European Union on this regard."

 

Strong AI

Experienced member
Messages
2,343
Reactions
53 7,658
Nation of residence
Germany
Nation of origin
Turkey
I wish they would also include how much payload it could carry, it looks rather small.

According to this, 120 kg take-off weight and 25 kg warhead.

 

boredaf

Experienced member
Messages
1,823
Solutions
1
Reactions
28 5,178
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Turkey
According to this, 120 kg take-off weight and 25 kg warhead.

Better than I expected, lighter than I would've wanted. It could still be very effective if its precision is good; after all, 25 kg of high explosive is nothing to turn your nose up at.
 

Yasar_TR

Experienced member
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
3,699
Reactions
209 18,907
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Turkey
Better than I expected, lighter than I would've wanted. It could still be very effective if its precision is good; after all, 25 kg of high explosive is nothing to turn your nose up at.
Jet engines are not cheap. Then there are two of them here. Couldn’t they find a single engine to fly 120kg to ~350km away at 500km/hr?
I wonder which jet engines they will use to propel this kamikaze UAV?

25k of explosives is not too bad. But then it is about the explosive content in 4 x 155mm artillery shells. This UAV doesn’t look like having a stealthy geometry. Hence susceptible to being intercepted by AD systems quite easily. It is supposed to fly autonomously via visual odometric means to its target without GPS. If that means a form of IIR seeker head in action, again that is expensive.

All of that to convey 25kg of explosives over such a long distance. Would it be worth it?
 

UkroTurk

Experienced member
Land Warfare Specialist
Professional
Messages
2,819
Reactions
58 5,000
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Jet engines are not cheap. Then there are two of them here. Couldn’t they find a single engine to fly 120kg to ~350km away at 500km/hr?
I wonder which jet engines they will use to propel this kamikaze UAV?

25k of explosives is not too bad. But then it is about the explosive content in 4 x 155mm artillery shells. This UAV doesn’t look like having a stealthy geometry. Hence susceptible to being intercepted by AD systems quite easily. It is supposed to fly autonomously via visual odometric means to its target without GPS. If that means a form of IIR seeker head in action, again that is expensive.

All of that to convey 25kg of explosives over such a long distance. Would it be worth it?
İt will have longer range then Kemankeş which also has 20kg warhead.
 

boredaf

Experienced member
Messages
1,823
Solutions
1
Reactions
28 5,178
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Turkey
et engines are not cheap. Then there are two of them here. Couldn’t they find a single engine to fly 120kg to ~350km away at 500km/hr?
I wonder which jet engines they will use to propel this kamikaze UAV?
I wondered about that, too. It is a weird choice to have two smaller engines instead of one. Those two engines together must be cheaper than an engine of equal thrust, or, since it is MKE, they are just "doing a favour" to whatever company is making them.
25k of explosives is not too bad. But then it is about the explosive content in 4 x 155mm artillery shells. This UAV doesn’t look like having a stealthy geometry. Hence susceptible to being intercepted by AD systems quite easily.
I don't know about that mate, Shaheds/Gerans (I'm using this as an example because can't think of something more similar right now) have been the bane of Ukraine's air defences and they aren't exactly stealth either; biggest difference being the delta wing Gerans have, on the other hand, they also have propellers. This would be much better with delta wings as well I wish they had gone for that, but, at least its engines are sticking out like sore thumbs. If the body is made from composites, it would be another point in its favour, but I kinda doubt that. Also, this thing is small, like really small that would also make it harder to detect, I think.

Best defence against these drones have been AA cannons, according to Ukrainians, so this thing being more than twice as fast would be an advantage. Even if it is intercepted, I think it would force them to waste an AA missile on it, rather than getting shot down by AA cannons. So, it would be costly for an enemy to shoot it down. And since it is fast, and in all likelihood quite a bit cheaper than a cruise missile, it could be shot alongside them to overwhelm/confuse enemy AA.

It is supposed to fly autonomously via visual odometric means to its target without GPS. If that means a form of IIR seeker head in action, again that is expensive.
I didn't see anything resembling an IIR seeker in the video, and they are usually at the front end, right? This thing doesn't look like it has the space for it there. I think it is more likely they are doing it with a camera setup, something like 2 or 3 lenses feeding information to onboard computer? Those wouldn't be hard to embed in the body, hence why we can't see anything in the video.

All of that to convey 25kg of explosives over such a long distance. Would it be worth it?
By itself? Maybe not, but as a part of a aerial assault with other missiles? I think it would be. Check out this drone next to that guy in the video. This thing is small, we could possibly launch, I don't know, a dozen or more of this from a truck, alongside (let's say) Kara Atmaca against a target stationary target. I think that has a lot of potential, as it has been really effective for Russia and they are going up against almost all of the Western air defences every day.

This is all speculation on my part, of course. We simply need more information and knowing how slow our companies are at updating their websites, we probably won't see detailed information any time soon. 🙄
 

Follow us on social media

Top Bottom