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

[fushkee]

They have now

Only one of them for now.

 

[GoatsMilk]

World’s First: Autonomous Close-Formation Flight by Two Unmanned Fighter Aircraft

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2005190544784556376

To me this is what winning looks like.

 

[Oublious]

We still did not see the IWB in action, not bombs but it should fire cruisemissiles.

 

[Agha Sher]

Interesting how PT4 has not been seen for a very long time. PT5 and PT3 have been doing flights regularly.

Also, did PT5 get its stealth coating - seems more polished than before.

 

[Yasar_TR]

We still did not see the IWB in action, not bombs but it should fire cruisemissiles.

It is the most vital capability of this aircraft.
Since it is a Low Observable plane by nature, it has to make use of this trait. Carrying a couple of SOM-J missiles for stand off attack for heavier ships and up to 4 x CAKIR MrRAShM for lower weight naval targets should be within it’s munition carrying envelope.

 

[Pokemonte13]

It is the most vital capability of this aircraft.
Since it is a Low Observable plane by nature, it has to make use of this trait. Carrying a couple of SOM-J missiles for stand off attack for heavier ships and up to 4 x CAKIR MrRAShM for lower weight naval targets should be within it’s munition carrying envelope.

4 Cakir wouldn’t fit maybe 3 side by side

 

[Yasar_TR]

4 Cakir wouldn’t fit maybe 3 side by side

4 x CAKIR may be not if side by side placement is the only way.
But SOM-J has a stowed width of 480mm.
CAKIR has a diameter of 275mm .
4 x 275 = 1100 mm
2 x 480 = 960 mm.
If they can find 15-20cm more width inside the IWB then it is possible (after all as we have full authority over the plane, it is up to Baykar engineers to see if they can find the space) .
But otherwise 3 x CAKIR is achievable as you pointed out.

There is a lot of space there under its belly. I hope they have made it available to be used by the IWB s. When it has a 10000lbf engine it should have more MTOW capability too. Also wing area of KE is substantial, and should give it good amount of lift.

PS. Additionally, you don’t have to place missiles side by side. If space is available you may stack them on top of each other.
Also not to forget “sidekick” mechanism of f35-A and C versions.

 

[TheInsider]

Interesting how PT4 has not been seen for a very long time. PT5 and PT3 have been doing flights regularly.

Also, did PT5 get its stealth coating - seems more polished than before.

PT-5 has some stealth treatment, but it is still not the final product. You can see the serrated lines if you look upclose.

 

[Pokemonte13]

4 x CAKIR may be not if side by side placement is the only way.
But SOM-J has a stowed width of 480mm.
CAKIR has a diameter of 275mm .
4 x 275 = 1100 mm
2 x 480 = 960 mm.
If they can find 15-20cm more width inside the IWB then it is possible (after all as we have full authority over the plane, it is up to Baykar engineers to see if they can find the space) .
But otherwise 3 x CAKIR is achievable as you pointed out.

View attachment 78817
View attachment 78818
There is a lot of space there under its belly. I hope they have made it available to be used by the IWB s. When it has a 10000lbf engine it should have more MTOW capability too. Also wing area of KE is substantial, and should give it good amount of lift.

PS. Additionally, you don’t have to place missiles side by side. If space is available you may stack them on top of each other.
Also not to forget “sidekick” mechanism of f35-A and C versions.

View attachment 78819

i think that last picture is edited if you look closely the missiles have all the same shadow

 

[Yasar_TR]

i think that last picture is edited if you look closely the missiles have all the same shadow

Bro, edited or not, it is the idea and here is another one showing how it is possible.

F-35 Closer To Carrying Six AIM-120 Missiles Internally

Known as Sidekick, the upgrade will give F-35As and Cs the ability to go from four to six AIM-120 missiles in their internal bays.

www.twz.com

 

[Ahlatshah]

- Within the scope of the Bayraktar KIZILELMA Unmanned Fighter Aircraft Project; our KIZILELMA Unmanned Fighter Aircraft communicated with each other via the Azra National Data Link (MDL) and executed patrol duties in a fully autonomous manner under swarm UAV command.

-During this mission, a close autonomous formation flight between unmanned fighter aircraft was successfully achieved for the first time in the world with two KIZILELMA approaching within approximately 15 meters of each other.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2005230889597300790

I wonder if this system could be applied to our F16s, at least Özgürs. I mean KE with sensors and AZRA datalink, can interact with flying F16s or not? If it is so, that is you know...The real footsteps of MUM-T

 

[Yasar_TR]

@Boykaz bro,
I don’t know why you had my post translated in to Turkish. It has mistakes in Turkish.

To answer your question; With SADAK-4 it may be possible to fit 8 of them if the IWB of KE can handle 360-370cm length . (SOM-J is 390cm long)

 

[boredaf]

@Boykaz bro,
I don’t know why you had my post translated in to Turkish. It has mistakes in Turkish.

To answer your question; With SADAK-4 it may be possible to fit 8 of them if the IWB of KE can handle 360-370cm length . (SOM-J is 390cm long)

View attachment 78830

These are the Sadak 4T dimension from Aselsan's brochure, though it is no longer on their website

Dimensions : 3210 mm x 356 mm x 212 mm

Oh, and its weight

Weight : 175 kg (empty), 731 kg (loaded)

https://wwwcdn.aselsan.com/api/file/SADAK-4T_ENG.pdf

 

[Quasar]

seems that for now Aselsan ICNAIR inter vehicle data link (IVDL) AESA LRU ''stealth communication'' shown during this year's defence fair is not available yet or not required for KIZILELMA for now..or ICNAIR is for KAAN only.....or both ICNAIR and Azra will be used simultaneously by KIZILELMA in the future.... or may be SOMETIMES Kızılema will use Azra with receive-only or in Low-profile operation mode.

And most probably there will be no integration but coordination and interoperability between Azra and NATO data link 16 through controlled gateways....

 

[TheInsider]

seems that for now Aselsan ICNAIR inter vehicle data link (IVDL) AESA LRU ''stealth communication'' shown during this year's defence fair is not available yet or not required for KIZILELMA for now..or ICNAIR is for KAAN only.....or both ICNAIR and Azra will be used simultaneously by KIZILELMA in the future.... or may be SOMETIMES Kızılema will use Azra with receive-only or in Low-profile operation mode.

And most probably there will be no integration but coordination and interoperability between Azra and NATO data link 16 through controlled gateways....

It is available, but Kızılelma is Baykar's platform, and Baykar may choose to develop a new datalink on its own or use a datalink from other sources. On the other hand TUSAS has to use Aselsan's datalink as Aselsan is an official partner of the MMU project and is responsible for electronic subsystems. Aselsan is mentioned in the MMU project document.

 

[Quasar]

It is available, but Kızılelma is Baykar's platform, and Baykar may choose to develop a new datalink on its own or use a datalink from other sources. On the other hand TUSAS has to use Aselsan's datalink as Aselsan is an official partner of the MMU project and is responsible for electronic subsystems. Aselsan is mentioned in the MMU project document.

-Aselsan Toygun Aselsan Murad AESA are already on KIZILELM.

-directional data links should not be widespread since it is a requriment for LO platforms

-commonality of directional data link amoung KAAN KIZILELMA ANKA 3 is vital otherwise we would live the exact same issue with F 22 (IFDL) F 35 (MADL) B 21(MADL) yet a survivable issue

-Azra is more than sufficent for now and I strongly believe directional data link can be added if required in the future since it not Sine qua non FOR NOW ..... this is the most logical scenario

 

[TheInsider]

-Aselsan Toygun Aselsan Murad AESA and curret data link are already on KIZILELM.

-directional data links should not be widespread since it is a requriment for LO platforms

-commonality of directional data link amoung KAAN KIZILELMA ANKA 3 is vital otherwise we would live the exact same issue with F 22 (IFDL) F 35 (MADL) B 21(MADL) yet a survivable issue

-Azra is more than sufficent for now and I strongly believe directional data link can be added if required in the future since it not Sine qua non FOR NOW ..... this is the most logical scenario

It doesn't matter. Kızılelma is a Baykar project. Baykar has the right to decide which subsystem will be used on its platforms. Tomorrow, Baykar can remove Toygun and replace it with a Leonardo product. It is their platform, their choice. On the other hand, Turkish Armed Forces might ask for a specific subsystem to be integrated on Kızılelma; in that case, Baykar has to integrate whatever the customer wants from them or lose the customer. Maybe Azra can work with the IVDL of Aselsan. We don't know. Commonality between platforms is not Baykar's problem it is TAF's and SSB's problem.

 

[TheInsider]

Chinese mobile electromagnetic catapult that can launch big UCAVs.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2005560562613407978

 

[Azeri441]

Chinese mobile electromagnetic catapult that can launch big UCAVs.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2005560562613407978

LOL, EMALS on carriers requires 60 Mw of power to function, they gonna be carrying a mini nuclear reactor to power that?

Also whats even the point since those UCAVs need airfield to land anyway.

 

[Quasar]

It doesn't matter. Kızılelma is a Baykar project. Baykar has the right to decide which subsystem will be used on its platforms. Tomorrow, Baykar can remove Toygun and replace it with a Leonardo product. It is their platform, their choice. On the other hand, Turkish Armed Forces might ask for a specific subsystem to be integrated on Kızılelma; in that case, Baykar has to integrate whatever the customer wants from them or lose the customer. Maybe Azra can work with the IVDL of Aselsan. We don't know. Commonality between platforms is not Baykar's problem it is TAF's and SSB's problem.

who cares about what choices or options Baykar have or who cares about the commonlity between a Turkisk KIZILELMA and lets say an Italian one, I am talking about KIZILELMAs which will enter TAF's inventory.. '

'Commonality between platforms is not Baykar's problem it is TAF's and SSB's problem.'' ???

unfortunatly things dont work this way in real world... Baykar puts whatever TAF and SSB ask them for OUR KIZILELMAs... as everybody knows!


-commonality of directional data link amoung KAAN KIZILELMA ANKA 3 is clearly and undeniably vital!!!