Turkey Military News, Reports, Data, etc.


Skywatcher

Captain
Especially for smaller Eastern European countries this is a far more cost-effective solution at countering Russian armor than investing in dedicated manned attack aircraft/attack helos.

Do you know if they are purchasing the EW suite alongside with the TB-2s?
They (at least Poland) could develop their own EW suite with Turkish help/input/suggestions.
 

schrage musik

New Member
Registered Member
IMO, TAI has been severely underperforming with the Anka. Contract signed for the development in 2004, first flight in 2010 that ended in a crash. 11 years later, only 28 have been delivered to the Turkish military. It seems TAI is redeeming itself with the Anka-NG and Aksungur. Not long ago we could see Anka number 59 in production at TAI, so it seems they are ramping up production. Luckily, Turkey has another UAV producer that is more successful..
They have a winner in the Aksungur. The platform can be enlarged and with more powerful engines (e.g. AL-450 or AL-450T as in Akinci), it can be turned into a truly heavy SIGINT/MPA/ASW platform that can compete with the EuroMALE, Heron TP and RQ-4
 

sequ

Junior Member
Registered Member
They have a winner in the Aksungur. The platform can be enlarged and with more powerful engines (e.g. AL-450 or AL-450T as in Akinci), it can be turned into a truly heavy SIGINT/MPA/ASW platform that can compete with the EuroMALE, Heron TP and RQ-4
The Aksungur has more room for growth into various specialized versions compared to the Akinci, but the Akinci has a higher speed potential, altitude, air-to-air avionics and weapons carrying capability because of the its inherent design. The Akinci is also classified by Baykar as more of an attack UAV (taarruz).

Fitting AL-450 on the Aksungur will probably endanger the airframe while the Akinci can carry improved versions of the AL-450 with 750hp easily. And there have been more powerful MS-500V-S engines under test at Baykar:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The engine on the right:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Tirdent

Junior Member
Registered Member
More importantly, going from 2x170hp diesels to 2x450shp turboprops is going to absolutely demolish Aksungur's endurance. Not a clever plan.
 

Tirdent

Junior Member
Registered Member
Endurance as range/fuel consumption rate?

Basically, yes. Diesels are heavier than turboprops for the same output, but also much more efficient. For low-speed aircraft with long loiter duration requirements, the saving in fuel weight will typically more than compensate. As a result you get more payload for the same time on station or longer endurance with the same load. Compare Akinci to the similarly-sized Russian Altius-M.

IMO, TAI has been severely underperforming with the Anka. Contract signed for the development in 2004, first flight in 2010 that ended in a crash. 11 years later, only 28 have been delivered to the Turkish military. It seems TAI is redeeming itself with the Anka-NG and Aksungur. Not long ago we could see Anka number 59 in production at TAI, so it seems they are ramping up production. Luckily, Turkey has another UAV producer that is more successful..

I'd cut TAI some slack here - as a state-owned enterprise they were obviously operating under a political mandate to maximize indigenous content. Therefore they sought to use a Turkish engine, Turkish EO turret and so on at entry into service. That significantly increased overall risk, and some of that caught up to them - not surprising. Baykar on the other hand simply bought proven components (Rotax engine, Wescam EO) off the shelf from experienced international suppliers, and consequently enjoyed a smoother ride. Now they are incorporating more Turkish systems, but many of these owe their relative maturity (and possibly their very existence) to TAI ironing out the kinks on Anka. It's an unfair comparison.
 

sequ

Junior Member
Registered Member
I'd cut TAI some slack here - as a state-owned enterprise they were obviously operating under a political mandate to maximize indigenous content.
I'm not so sure about that.

Therefore they sought to use a Turkish engine
The Anka-A/B and even some S use the Thielert Centurion 2.0S, the PD-155/170 came only later on.

Turkish EO turret
Besides the Aselflir-300T, the Anka has flown with MX-15's and Safir-380HD's

Baykar on the other hand simply bought proven components (Rotax engine, Wescam EO) off the shelf from experienced international suppliers, and consequently enjoyed a smoother ride.
I'm not so sure how a foreign EO turret contributes to a smoother development. And the engines were from foreign origin on the Anka, until recently.

but many of these owe their relative maturity (and possibly their very existence) to TAI ironing out the kinks on Anka
Again, I'm not so sure of that.

It's an unfair comparison.
A state owned and funded institution failed where a brilliant MIT student succeeded who started in a garage designing UAV's. It's thanks to the TB-2 that Turkish foreign policy could to be upheld in Syria, Libya and in Azerbaijan. The Anka with their relatively high price and low-rate of production would not have accomplished what the TB-2 has accomplished. A small, tactical and relatively cheap UAV beat a bigger, strategic and more expensive UAV.

Like I said, it seems TAI is picking up pace in their UAV department. Now with various UAV designs coming online in Turkey, the Anka is becoming redundant by more capable platforms. It's not a surprise to me that the Turkish government requested that some Anka production slots to be converted into Aksungurs.
 

Tirdent

Junior Member
Registered Member
What was TAI going to do when the domestic alternatives failed to be ready (or reliable enough) in time? Also, these are only examples - there are more imported components on the TB-2.
 

sequ

Junior Member
Registered Member
What was TAI going to do when the domestic alternatives failed to be ready (or reliable enough) in time?
Keep using foreign components? But I don't know if that was the issue of its unsuccessful career. TAI is tight-lipped about it.

Also, these are only examples - there are more imported components on the TB-2.
Mostly COTS non-critical components, which has currently improved to a 93% indigenous rate. Whereas Baykar has been very open through their excellent PR, TAI is tight-lipped about the contents of their UAV's. We don't know where a lot of the Anka's systems come from.

The Anka started to become redundant as soon as the TB-2 came online, especially with the TB-2S with added SATCOM, the Aksungur, Akinci and finally the TB-3 where the nails in the Anka coffin. Bar some export succes here and some niche ELINT variant there, I would consider the Anka a failure while at the same time acknowledge its importance as a predecessor and technology validator for the Aksungur. The Anka is a crucial step in the TAI UAV development, it just wasn't as successful as it should've been.
 
Last edited:

Tirdent

Junior Member
Registered Member
Keep using foreign components? But I don't know if that was the issue of its unsuccessful career. TAI is tight-lipped about it.

That might have helped, but then both TAI and Baykar would still be stuck with imported components - I'm not sure that is politically desirable.

Mostly COTS non-critical components, which has currently improved to a 93% indigenous rate. Whereas Baykar has been very open through their excellent PR, TAI is tight-lipped about the contents of their UAV's.

I don't know about that... it seemed that the info trickled out not from Baykar so much as suppliers (when they announced embargoes) and the occasional wreckage of a shoot-down.

Both had their roles to play in the Turkish UAV programme and, by and large, succeeded.
 

Top