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

[Quasar]

When communication jamming actually occurs, I am genuinely curious about the operational effectiveness of these wingman concepts. When two air forces with equally high electronic warfare capabilities face each other, especially during a night in full stealth profile, dozens of these possible vulnerabilities tested (and untested) during peacetime may need to be multiplied over tens. In any case, I believe that an approach that addresses combine the internal sensors of unmanned systems with internal decision-making (AI) and mission autonomy capabilities will prove to be a more suitable approach for real combat conditions. Perhaps not for different types of unmanned aerial vehicles, but when it comes to air-to-air warfare, unmanned jets will also need increasingly sophisticated sensor packages and decision-making systems to replace the pilot, if not as ammunition payloads as heavy fighters.

I am not an expert on the subject, but my limited view is that the main approach here will eventually have to be based on standalone capable platforms. The Wingman concept may involve reusable systems that can be carried under the wing, focused on sensors/payloads (illumination, jamming, EW).

Side note, I also do not believe that the transition to unmanned systems will reduce the air force's system replacement costs.

Valid concerns! Guess there is one thing common for manned and unmanned systems... both has potential to operate more effectively when they are a part of a network i.e when they can receive data from other platforms and provide data.... but as you stated this is an ideal situation without ''possible vulnerabilities tested (and untested) during peacetime.''

As you stated'' internal decision-making (AI) and mission autonomy capabilities will prove to be a more suitable approach for real combat conditions Perhaps not for different types of unmanned aerial vehicles, but when it comes to air-to-air warfare ''

Human role can be confined to pre authorizations and updating mission parameters not a constant control... Rest will be/ should be done autonomously.... yet mission autonomy may or should still needs to cover possible scenarios involving teaming up with manned and other unmanned systems which necessitates data exchange.

it would be unfair and a bit unrealistic to expect Kızılelma to read the whole (probably contantly changing) tactical situation in Air soley with its own sensor suite , evaluate and execute autonomous actions.

Guess in a way since The Battle of Britain during WW2 fundamental approach has not much changed, First Land based radar and command and later airborne radar and command for effective coordination of air-to-air warfare

Moreover, if we want to focus on low observability further our data link should evolve accordingly as well i.e as a part of low observablty concept we may need to use low probability of intercept (LPI) datalinks eventually.


All we know is we are one of the pioneers entering into an uncharted territory

 

[Sanchez]

The continuously elusive 800hp Akıncı-C engine is GE's H-80? Avio is Europe based with Italian subestablishments taking the lion's share. I can easily see if Italy orders Akıncı, it could be with H-80s.

"General Electric announced in its 2024 company presentation that it is conducting a program to integrate the 800 horsepower class GE H-80 turboprop engine into the Bayraktar Akıncı UAV."

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1999015528988553714

 

[Samba]

I know we all eagerly wait for TF-10000 to be ready for KızılElma. I wonder how much of a performance boost it will bring after AI-322F? Is it mosly anticipated for unreliablilty of Ukranian supply or for the use of a domestic engine?

 

[Shtr]

I guess it is mostly about radar cross section not performance.

 

[Pokemonte13]

Actually it’s both it will have a little more thrust than the Ukrainian but most importantly lower ir signature and greater electric output

 

[Afif]

When communication jamming actually occurs, I am genuinely curious about the operational effectiveness of these wingman concepts.

Well, there is a physical aspect to this. Not matter how advanced your EW capabilities are, you can't jam directional data links unless you put your jammer physically between two or several aircrafts that are communicating.

 

[Quasar]

Well, there is a physical aspect to this. Not matter how advanced your EW capabilities are, you can't jam directional data links unless you put your jammer physically between two or several aircrafts that are communicating.

I dont think he is specifically/necessarily talking about data link only since he uses a general term '' communication jamming''

 

[Yasar_TR]

I know we all eagerly wait for TF-10000 to be ready for KızılElma. I wonder how much of a performance boost it will bring after AI-322F? Is it mosly anticipated for unreliablilty of Ukranian supply or for the use of a domestic engine?

As per @Pokemonte13 has pointed out, when fully mature, the TF10000 should give 10% or maximum 15% more thrust than the Ukranian engine (going by the performance of TEI on TS1400). The TF10000 has slightly bigger diameter than AI322F. (65cm vs 62.4cm) . It is only logical to expect a higher level of thrust from it.
Using single crystal turbine blades and more advanced parts and technology in it’s design, should result in a much more reliable engine than an old Soviet engine.

But most importantly, TF10000 is being designed to be used in a stealthy aircraft. Hence all parts including fan blades and compressor blades and airflow management should be designed to give minimum reflection of radar signals.

So both, TF6000 and TF10000 engines should outperform the corresponding Ukranian engines both in thrust and definitely in stealth.

 

[Afif]

I dont think he is specifically/necessarily talking about data link only since he uses a general term '' communication jamming''

I mean, there isn't much general about it.

Communication between 5th gen platforms and its autonomous loyal wingman will occur through directional data links. Just like between two other manned 5th gen platforms.

I think this should be taken into consideration when wondering about the operational effectiveness of loyal wingman concept in electromagnetically contested environment.

 

[Quasar]

Moreover, if we want to focus on low observability further our data link should evolve accordingly as well i.e as a part of low observablty concept we may need to use low probability of intercept (LPI) datalinks eventually.

I mean, there isn't much general about it.

Communication between 5th gen platforms and its autonomous loyal wingman will occur through directional data links. Just like between two other manned 5th gen platforms.

I think this should be taken into consideration when wondering about the operational effectiveness of loyal wingman concept in electromagnetically contested environment.

You are definitely right about directional data links!!! thanks guess this is an interesting subject which ı was looking for an opportunity to discuss which is also relevent to operational effectiveness of loyal wingman as you stated ... for instance F-35s can send information to F-22s directly via Link 16 which is omnidirectional and in a far more widely adopted waveform and not very LPI/LPD ( low probability of intercept/low probability of detection) in nature... not good enough ... if you are concerning with remaining as stealthy as possible.

it was long time ago I may need to be updated but F-35 was using Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL) and F 22 was using Intra-Flight Data Link (IFDL) and both were highly directional broadcasting concepts which are known as Millimeter Wave Systems... and extremely difficult to jam. İn the long run defenitly something we should work on.

Furter, F 22 and F 35 were using an U 2 as a gateway to share target tracks... since they have different systems

 

[hugh]

it was long time ago I may need to be updated but F-35 was using Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL) and F 22 was using Intra-Flight Data Link (IFDL) and both were highly directional broadcasting concepts which are known as Millimeter Wave Systems... and extremely difficult to jam. İn the long run defenitly something we should work on.

we already have Ku-band terminals for stealth communication. ASELSAN has displayed them in this year's defence fair

 

[Huelague]

Is TIUS ANKA-4 ?

 

[Zafer]

Is TIUS ANKA-4 ?

That would be TİSU, Türk Insansız Savaş Uçağı

 

[zio]

we already have Ku-band terminals for stealth communication. ASELSAN has displayed them in this year's defence fair

View attachment 78587

View attachment 78589

What is data rate of it?.Aselsan T-link is 1 MB/sec,that is very slow if you compare to F-35 which has more than 200 MB per second.I think link 16 has lower than 1MB/sec.

 

[Pilatino]

What is data rate of it?.Aselsan T-link is 1 MB/sec,that is very slow if you compare to F-35 which has more than 200 MB per second.I think link 16 has lower than 1MB/sec.

You’re comparing apples and oranges.

Link-16, Link-22 and T-Link aren’t meant to push huge data rates.
They exist to pass small but critical stuff like tracks, IDs, shoot cues) reliably and under jamming, not to stream raw sensor data.

The “200+ MB/s F-35” number is internal sensor processing inside the jet, not what it broadcasts. Most of that data never leaves the aircraft anyway.


Here:

- Link-16 (0.015 MB/s): The post–Cold War NATO standard. Slow on paper, solid where it matters.
- Link-22 (0.05 MB/s): Basically a Link-16 upgrade, tuned for naval use and longer ranges.
- T-Link (1 MB/s): A modern national link, more flexible and higher-capacity by design. ASELSAN <3

 

[TheInsider]

Aselsan has an 80 MB/s link to send sensor data. For example, FLIR footage.

Its name is Trustlink.

TRUSTLINK 10/PP, 10 NET - ASELSAN

www.aselsan.com

Aselsan also develops an exclusive data link for KAAN.

 

[Quasar]

Fundemental point is if we want to focus on low observability for KIZILELMA, ANKA 3 and KAAN , (low probability of intercept/low probability of detection) directional data links i.e Millimeter Wave Systems is not an alternative to other data links but a necessity for data link communications between low observable aircrafts and in this regard ASELSAN ICNAIR is not any less important than MURAD 100 or TOYGUN and it demonstrates our dedication to low observablty

 

[boredaf]

When looked at the developments of Kizilelma, ANKA-3 and ANKA-4 in development I just hope that we did not waste $10bln for nothing.

I can't get used to the idea of EF2000, like an allergic reaction

There is no Anka-4 except for perhaps on a computer somewhere, Anka-3 is not a fighter and covers a completely different set of missions. KE even at its best would only be able to carry a fraction of EF's payload and wouldn't be able to be the work horse our air force needs.

Yeah, yours is like an allergic reaction. Illogical.

 

[Khagan1923]

When looked at the developments of Kizilelma, ANKA-3 and ANKA-4 in development I just hope that we did not waste $10bln for nothing.

I can't get used to the idea of EF2000, like an allergic reaction

ANKA-4 is nothing more than an render on the work computer of a TAI engineer. Anka-3 and Kizilelma will be limited in their capabilities until they are fitted with better engines (TF6000 and TF10000) and those engines still need a couple years until they enter serial production.

F-16 Özgür II first deliveries were supposed to be made this month and radio silence on that front.

If securing your skies and bolstering your Air Force is a "waste" than that is one I will gladly agree with.

We currently and for the near future have nothing that comes close to the package that EF + Meteor gives us.

 

[Turkic]

Let's not forget the only thing we know about Anka-4 is its name. That "design" is not a conceptual design by TAI. It's an art belonging to someone else. I will even doubt if the project is canceled or not unless @TheInsider abi says it is not.

Here is the original of the photo:

https://www.artstation.com/artwork/n0xzRK

Third picture from the bottom.