What's new

The Fight against PKK Terrorism

Well if we look at engines;

Anka : less than 170hp
Bayraktar : 100hp

Cost of fuel consuption is less than Ford Fiesta :lol:
2015-Ford-Fiesta-ST-side-in-motion.jpg
 
If we compare bayraktar and ANKA armed versions in just hunting terrorists in mountain areas, how much better are the ANKA for this purpouse than bayraktar? Is there any upper hand for anka or are they just equal good for this kind of tasks?
 
I assume that Bayraktar can operate 18.000/20.000 feet altitute with bomb payload (i take old flightradar24 data as basement of this claim), which is enough to avoid MANPADS and even low range vehicle-mounted air defense systems. Bayraktar can only operate 150-200km away from antennas, but you can put more antennas to cover more land inside of your country. Still, very limited usage potential in foreign airspace.

ANKA can fly at 30.000 feet, so it can avoid MANPADS threat, most of low/medium range air defense systems. It can also be operated far away from Turkish airspace via SatCom, where the satellite have cover.

Bayraktar is a perfect system to be used against terrorists inside of our country and/or close to our borders where less mountains exist.

ANKA can be operated in very mountainous areas including Northern Iraq, or even in deep Afghanistan geography. ANKA an even be used against Iraq-Syria kind armies where air defense is not very effective in all of their countries, since even most of the medium range air defense systems won't be able to hit ANKA.
 
Maybe an high ranked pkk member?

When they kill a high ranked PKK member, they tell.

Like "Today a terrorist named Zübük Kıllıbacak whom in the Grey list killed"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
can only operate 150-200km away from antennas, but you can put more antennas to cover more land inside of your country.
Or trasformation of a cargo plane to a command control center which controls many of them from far away. No need to increase uav's weight with satcom .
 
Maybe an high ranked pkk member?
High rank or not, wasting money at operations is never a good idea.

Using as less money as usable and losing as less men as possible makes you incredibly durable at the long run. UAVs and light helicopters are very good alternatives for that purpose. Flying a F16 is just extremly costly and I think it shall be used only you need that massive firepower.
 
Or trasformation of a cargo plane to a command control center which controls many of them from far away. No need to increase uav's weight with satcom .
This 100% minus flying CCC. CCC can be just land based for cost and latency issues..

Through satellite there is a huge latency too, also adding weight and making the plane less aero-dinamic.

Add 20 antennas all over Turkey and you can fly UAVs all around the country with like no latency for views and attack orders. And from one centralized control center too!
 
When they kill a high ranked PKK member, they tell.

Like "Today a terrorist named John Doe whom in the Grey list killed"
You sure because the name John Doe is given to the corpses whose identitiy hast been figured out yet.
Im pretty sure his real name wasnt John Doe.


John Doe
 
You sure because the name John Doe is given to the corpses whose identitiy hast been figured out yet.
Im pretty sure his real name wasnt John Doe.


John Doe
Yeah, i just entered a random name. Now you mention it, it looks like i'm implying things. Gonna edit. Thanks, bro.
 
Bayraktar can only operate 150-200km away from antennas, but you can put more antennas to cover more land inside of your country. Still, very limited usage potential in foreign airspace.

Bir adet faturalı hat alınır. Uluslar arası dolaşıma açılır.Bu hattın takıldığı tel İHA'nın veri sistemine entegre edilir. Böylece üzerinde uçtuğu ülkenin altyapısı üzerinden veri transferi sağlanır. (Benzin bitene kadar.) :azn:
Edit: Kapsama alanına girmeyen yerlerde sıkıntı olur ama.

En iyisi Uydu üzerinden haberleşme gibi görünüyor.
 
Back
Top Bottom