Pokemonte13
Contributor
i think there will be one or two LCA for testing around 2030 and since navy wants its own naval variant it would make sense for the air force as a replacement for the F16 starting from the 2035
Latest Thread
Hürjet cannot replace F-16, it has less than half of its payload and cannot really carry heavier loads. I highly doubt any of its hardpoints can carry MK84, which weighs as much as almost third of its total weapon payload capacity.it would make sense for the air force as a replacement for the F16 starting from the 2035
All F-16s will undergo Özgür and the structural upgrade. None will be retired from 2035.replacement for the F16 starting from the 2035
I guess that would be Akıncı with Fulmar 500, Antidot 2 electronic support pod to listen for radar and Aselflir-600 from the current stock and whatever Aselsan might come up with later on.I still want to see an unmanned AEW.
i think with air to air function they meant locating low flying kamikaze drones and maybe cruise missilesTo me Fulmar 500 is optimized for Air-to-Ground operations. Air-to-Air is listed but they don't emphasize it much.
FULMAR 500-A
The FULMAR 500-A System is a multi-function Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) reconnaissance and surveillance radar system integrated into UAVs and manned reconnaissance aircraft. It features sea search, detection/tracking of surface/air/land targets to create a comprehensive surface picture, as well as surface ISAR imaging and terrestrial SAR imaging functions.
The FULMAR 500-A System possesses the advanced features listed below and has been developed to meet the day/night and all-weather operational requirements of Naval Forces.
More importantly it should have bigger IWB to accommodate larger missiles like Som-j. The larger wing area together with the prospective higher output thrust from TF6000 will give higher performance to the plane and the indigenous engine’s inherent stealthy structure would help with the low observability of the aircraft as a whole.So Anka 3 will now be able to carry 1600kg, they also increased the wingspan and the length. Hopefully that extra meter of length means they're finally covering the nozzle.
There are changes in the new brochure for the Tusaş ANKA III Unmanned Aerial Vehicle System:
Length: 8.9 m (previously 7.9 m)
Wingspan: 13.1 m (previously 12.5 m)
Height: 2.6 m (previously 2.5 m)
Take-off weight: 7,250 kg (previously 6,500 kg)
Payload: 1,600 kg (previously 1,200 kg)
Average Turkish consistency
Can it at least carry HGK 83 then?The increase in the aircraft's MTOW appears to have increased both structural and fuel weight. In addition to the structural weight increase resulting from the dimensional growth, we can estimate that approximately 100-150 kg of this increase has gone towards additional fuel capacity thanks to the expanded wing and fuselage volume.
Most probably, the most critical benefit of the structural growth is the estimated 20-25% increase in the internal weapon bay (IWB) volume. A rough geometric calculation yields a new volume ratio of 1.126 (length) x 1.04 (height) x 1.05 (width) = 1.23. While this is an optimistic estimate, it's certain that the weapon bay directly benefits from this growth. A 23% increase in IWB volume may have brought the ammunition length that can fit inside the bay to the critical threshold of 3.8-4.0 meters. Also onsidering that the payload capacity of each station within the IWB was 650 kg in the old specifications, we can talk about a maximum ammunition carrying capacity of 900 kg in the new structure, ideally around 750-800 kg. This increase represents a very critical geometric transformation that can roughly double the destructive power of ANKA-3 on the target in its full stealth mission profile.
My amateur opinion and rough calculation suggest that the main reason for this expansion is indeed tailored for the 83-series bombs and guidance kits, as the primary constraint was physical length. Of course, until the exact internal dimensions of the IWBs are officially released, we can only speculate.Can it at least carry HGK 83 then?
In the info graphic i only saw MK82.
Folding wings can cause a considerable weight penalty in a flying wing airframe. To this, let's add the need for corrosion-resistant and reinforced structures, as well as the possible need for landing gear reinforcement. I don't know if it's a benchmark, but if I remember correctly, the navalization penalty in the conceptual specifications of the Hürjet-D variant was around 6% (from 5500 to 5830). I don't remember where I saw this information; it may not be official. Nevertheless, I believe that TUSAŞ's aircraft structural and advanced composite capabilities will enable them to keep the navalization penalty of the ANKA-3 to a minimum.Then they should start working on the folding wings for the Anka 3 right now, rather than waiting until the Aircraft Carrier (MUGEM) arrives to begin development. The same applies to the Hürjet and Kizilelma—the project should be completed by the time the Aircraft Carrier is officially commissioned. They have the time now and can develop it.
They should finally remove that ugly nozzle when the TF-6000 is integrated. Who knows, maybe we’ll get lucky and TEI can squeeze 7,000–8,000 lbf out of the TF-6000 Design—then the Anka 3 should be able to fly just over Mach 1.2 even without an afterburner.
Please don’t go a miss that ; Extension of length by a meter automatically increases the wing area by a good amount which is the real parameter that matters when it comes to “lift”. Coarsely calculated it should be 18-20% increase in wing area.Furthermore, the wingspan increased by a mere 5%.
?Is it possible to add RAL to Anka3 and Hürjet, mat they lack power to tale off with maximum load?