Turkey Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

CasualObserver

Junior Member
Registered Member
Congratulations to Turkey. So how Anka III and Kizillema will fit together ? as both seems to be overlapped in capability.
One is going to be more of a deep striker, and intel platform (Anka 3 inherently has low RCS and it can also stay in the air for 10 hours meaning large combat radius) while the other is going to act as an aerial sensor and a bomb truck. This is evident in the difference between their respective design philosophies.

There's also plans for trialing an Anka-3 with refueling pods to see if it is operationally viable (to refuel other drones?)

Also, you've done a rough RCS calculation of Kizilelma back when the mockup was first revealed, are you planning to do one for Anka 3 as well with its round nozzle? It could be interesting to see exactly how much the round nozzle increases a flying wing's RCS.
 

Stealthflanker

Senior Member
Registered Member
Anka is designed mainly for air-to-ground/surface roles, has longer endurance and should have lower RCS.
KE is more geared toward air-to-air roles with multi-role capability, should be faster and more maneuverable.

I see. Air to air role is going to be complex tho as since the platform needs to maneuver, delays in ground control input have to be compensated by onboard AI.

Also, you've done a rough RCS calculation of Kizilelma back when the mockup was first revealed, are you planning to do one for Anka 3 as well with its round nozzle? It could be interesting to see exactly how much the round nozzle increases a flying wing's RCS.

Maybe, as a commission.
 

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
There's also plans for trialing an Anka-3 with refueling pods to see if it is operationally viable (to refuel other drones?)
Speaking of which, why did the USN pick the wing-body-tail design of the MQ-25 as the aerial refueling UAV, instead of the flying-wing design of the X-47?

In the meantime, having U(C)AVs that can refuel other friendly U(C)AVs (whether as buddy tanker or specialized refueling tanker) is definitely a very crucial and significant capability step-up for U(C)AV operations across the board.
 
Last edited:

BoraTas

Captain
Registered Member
Speaking of which, why did the USN pick the wing-body-tail design of the MQ-25 as the aerial refueling UAV, instead of the flying-wing design of the X-47?

In the meantime, having U(C)AVs that can refuel other friendly U(C)AVs (whether as buddy tanker or specialized refueling tanker) is definitely a very crucial and significant capability step-up for U(C)AV operations across the board.
My gut feeling says flying wings are still expensive and don't have much internal space. The B-2's range and payload are not good for its size either.
 

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
My gut feeling says flying wings are still expensive and don't have much internal space. The B-2's range and payload are not good for its size either.
If what you want is internal space, the best design is a lifting body. Maybe something like the Sukhoi T-4MS.

1703827529766.jpeg

A design like the MQ-25 or the XQ-58 Valkyrie will probably have less range because it has less lift.
 
Top