Although it is not yet 100% certain, it appears that Turkey is following through on plans to modify a LHD amphibious ship (the Anadolu, L400) to act as a drone carrier after having the option of operating F-35Bs terminated due to political issues and removal from the F-35 program.
As previously reported by Defense News, the Turkish government hopes to convert its landing helicopter dock Anadolu into a carrier ship for attack drones because the Turkish navy lost the ability to launch a fixed-wing aircraft from Anadolu after the United States removed Turkey from the F-35 project.[1]
Anadolu will be capable to deploy between 30 and 50 Bayraktar TB3 folding-wing drones.[1]
Let’s take a closer look at Turkey’s UAV carrier.
Air Wing
As with any carrier, the carrier’s value lies entirely in its air wing. In this case the air wing consists entirely of unmanned UAV drones.
 |
| Turkish UAV Carrier Anadolu |
The Turkish UAV carrier will use an indigenously designed and built drone, the TB3, based on the Baykar TB2 family.
The new armed drone will have a takeoff weight of 1450 kilograms [ed. 3190 lbs] and will be able to fly 24 hours a day, according to an infographic in the presentation. In addition, the TB-3 will be able to fly at high altitudes, and its wings will fold when on the ship.[1]
Turkey’s Defence Industry Chief Ismail Demir stated that Anadolu will be capable to deploy between 30 or 50 Bayraktar TB-3 drones.[5]
 |
Turkish UAV Carrier Concept Illustration - Note Size of Aircraft and Folding Wings |
The TB3 is a modification of the TB2, already in operation. The TB3 will launch using a ‘roller’ and pulley/cable mechanism powered by an electric motor [4] and recover by flying into a net, the belief being that having the propellers mounted to the rear will allow the net recovery with no damage. Other reports have suggested that aircraft recovery will be via a ‘hook’ of some sort.[5]
 |
| TB3 Drone |
 |
| Roller Style Launch System |
Here’s some basic specs and features of the TB3 [2]:
|
TB3 Drone Specs and Features |
|
|
Wingspan |
14 m (45.9 ft) |
|
Length |
8.35 m (27.4 ft) |
|
Height |
2.6 m (8.5 ft) |
|
Max Take Off Weight |
1450 kg (3190 lb) |
|
Cruise Speed |
125 knots |
|
Max Speed |
160 knots |
|
Max Payload |
280 Kilograms (616 lb) |
|
Endurance |
24+ hrs (one report claims 50 hrs[8]) |
|
Communications |
Line Of Sight and Beyond Line Of Sight |
|
Take Off and Landing |
Fully Autonomous |
As shown in the specs, this is a big drone. It’s about the same size as the well known MQ-1 Predator.
Turkey is also developing an unmanned air-to-air combat UAV.
Selcuk Bayraktar [Chief Technology Officer of Baykar Co.] also stated that MIUS, an unmanned combat aircraft currently in concept design, would operate alongside the TB-3 on the LHD Anadolu. A MIUS prototype is planned to fly in 2023. LHD Anadolu would deploy two types of fixed-wing unmanned air assets once trials were completed.[1]
The first flight of prototype MIUS is expected in 2023. Currently in design phase, MUIS will be jet-powered, with a payload of up to 1.5 tons, Baykar top boss added. The autonomously maneuvering craft will be capable of operating in tandem with piloted aircraft, and may carry air-to-air missiles.[3]
“MIUS will operate at a cruising speed close to the speed of sound; the further prototypes will fly at the supersonic speed. It will have a payload of around 1500 kilograms. It will be able to deploy air-to-air, air-to-ground missiles and cruise missiles.”[5]
 |
| Turkish MIUS Combat Drone Illustration |
It appears that Turkey is attempting to develop both a strike/ISR and an air combat drone and their schedule is extremely aggressive.
On a related note, Turkey has developed a UAV air-to-surface weapon, the MAM-L smart micro munition. It is 1m long, weighs 22 kg, and has a range of 8-15 km, depending on options.[6]
CONOPS
We have no formal information about the Turkish UAV Carrier Concept of Operations (CONOPS), however, we can reason out a general concept.
Turkey is clearly aiming to develop combat drones as opposed to surveillance drones although I’m sure they’ll use the drones for surveillance, as needed. This would provide them with a carrier-mobile strike/combat aviation capability to replace the lost F-35B capability, to a degree. The TB3, in particular, seems to be a surveillance drone with a surface-to-ground missile capability, likely akin to the US Hellfire equipped drones. The MIUS drone, on the other hand, appears to be a pure combat UAV.
Of note is the fairly large number of embarked drones. Numbers in the 30-50 range have been reported.[7] This is significant in that it allows for massing of firepower effects to produce a militarily significant impact and allows for inevitable attrition.
Note: some reports have suggested that simultaneous control is limited to around 10 UAVs.[8] If true, this would limit the massing benefit.
On the negative side, the Turkish TB3 drones are large and slow and, as has been demonstrated in the real world, large, slow drones will have a very short life over a high end battlefield. The MIUS, as described, would be quite fast and maneuverable, making it potentially quite suitable for high end combat.
All of this suggests that the carrier is intended to operate in lower threat scenarios (as opposed to a China/US type high end combat setting) where the larger, slower TB3 can still be effective. The apparent control limit of ten or so UAVs also suggests lower threat scenarios where the UAV can provide situational awareness and an ‘aerial sniper’ type of ground support/attack as opposed to mass attacks.
If successfully developed (an ambitious undertaking by any standard!), the MIUS will be fully capable of high end combat and would, presumably, come to eventually comprise the majority of the air wing.
All of this strongly suggests that the UAV carrier will be used as a ground support platform rather than a stand alone strike asset. The MIUS would be used to establish local air superiority thereby allowing the TB3 drones to conduct sniper attacks on ground targets. An ambitious concept, if correct!
Summary
As stated, the value of any carrier is its air wing. Turkey’s UAV carrier air wing is, currently, mostly conceptual although the scope of that concept is impressive, to say the least. Of course, as the US has seen, repeatedly, the road from concept to working asset is difficult and, more often than not, results in failure. The more ambitious the concept, the greater the chance of failure and Turkey’s concept is ambitious in the extreme with the envisioned MIUS supersonic air combat vehicle as the cornerstone of the concept. It will be fascinating to see whether they can make it work.
ComNavOps has long advocated a UAV carrier although with a different intended mission from Turkey’s LHD. The Turkish CONOPS may work for whatever uses Turkey has in mind but they would not work for the US. The US has many different forms of strike and air-to-air capability, all far more efficient and effective than a large, slow drone or even an air-to-air combat UAV. What the US needs is a large amount of small, cheap, expendable surveillance drones for which a UAV carrier would be ideal. Similar ships, different CONOPS.
One cannot help but admire the vision and ambition of the Turkish arms development industry. If they can transform their visions into successful, working assets they will, if not revolutionize, certainly significantly impact the future conduct of war. The US Navy considered a combat UAV but ultimately settled on an unmanned tanker, instead. Our vision was more restrained, opting to take the safer route and develop unmanned carrier operating experience before revisiting the combat UAV. Which country’s approach will prove more successful (or both, or neither) remains to be seen.
I find it embarrassing that Turkey is exploring a UAV carrier when the US Navy will not. We have amphibious ships to, literally, throw away and it is nothing short of criminal to not use one as a prototype for a UAV carrier. The USS Whidbey Island (LSD-41), for example, is being retired this year and could easily serve as a prototype for a year or two.
We’re enamored with unmanned aircraft and yet, inexplicably, we seem to have no interest in figuring out how to integrate them into the fleet.
______________________________________
[1]Defense News, “Turkey’s Baykar preparing shipborne fleet of combat drones”, Tayfun Ozberk, 6-Aug-2021,
[2]https://baykartech.com/en/bayraktar-tb3/
[3]https://www.defenseworld.net/news/30761/Baykar_to_Test_Bayraktar_TB3_Sea_Based_UAV#.YiFGcfZFyM8
[5]Naval News website, “Turkey to deploy MIUS unmanned combat aircraft from LHD Anadolu”,Tayfun Ozberk, 22-Jul-2021,
[7]Defense News, “Turkey plans to deploy attack drones from its amphibious assault ship”, Tayfun Ozberk, 11-Mar-2021,
[8]https://vpk.name/en/579043_in-turkey-the-flight-of-the-deck-bayraktar-was-announced.html
Re the Turkish TB2s drone the successful predecessor to the TB3 - have had a surprisingly big impact on Congress and driving them to fund $374 million for Army for C-UAS in FY2022 NDAA, don't know which particular Army system/s, maybe the Stryker IM SHORAD with its RADA radars, Stingers, 30mm Bushmasters and Hellfires, the Dynetics Multi-Mission Launchers for Sidewinders and possibly the DEW, the unproven lasers.
ReplyDeleteBreaking Defense
"Included in that procurement is an eye-popping $374 million budget increase over its FY22 budget request of $60 million for counter-Small Unmanned Aerial System (c-UAS), bringing its total to $434 million. The Army has become increasingly concerned about drones in recent months, with Army Chief of Staff James McConville frequently referring to drones as the new improvised explosive device (IED). On Tuesday, he specifically pointed to the success that the Ukrainian-operated, Turkish-made TB2 Bayraktar drones were having against Russia despite their formidable air defenses.
Tom Spoehr, director of the Heritage Foundation’s Center of National Defense, said the amount of money the Army allocated to c-UAS is “extraordinary.”
“That’s much more than just like a program plus up. That’s an extraordinary amount of money. I think that’s a recognition of the role of the drone … in modern warfare,” Spoehr said, also citing the TB2’s success in Ukraine and the Nagorno-Karabakh. “This problem has got everyone’s attention.”
https://breakingdefense.com/2022/03/congress-puts-349m-for-ivas-on-hold-but-army-sees-major-boost-to-counter-drones/
Nice tie-in to the US military budget and programs. Good analysis. Thanks!
DeleteCount me very sceptical on them getting an air-to-air "autonomously maneuvering" jet drone flying next year.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you say that? I'm guessing it's because you've come to accept that our long, drawn out developmental programs are the norm. You've unconsciously bought into that paradigm that it takes many years to develop even a new pencil sharpener! But, just because we have a badly broken program development system doesn't mean someone else can't do it much, much faster.
DeleteOf course, that also doesn't mean they can.
We'll see.
My point is not to disagree with you (I don't, actually) but to point out the paradigm we labor under. We need to break that paradigm that everything requires decades to develop. We need to go back to the days of the F-14 which went from concept to deployment in just a few years. If we could develop a brand new F-14 in just a few years, why couldn't Turkey develop a UAV in a year?
Again, not disagreeing, just highlighting the paradigm we have - one that unjustifiably limits our thinking and expectations.
Absolutely... Looking back at the F-14 shows what could be if there was any urgency left in procurement. The rapid build of the Spruances and Kidds is another. Of course if you leave the peacetime model, WWII examples abound and are nothing short of amazing!!
DeleteI wonder just how survivable drones could be in a medium- or high-threat environment. We don't know what the attrition is like, and I suppose it's possible the Russians are completely incompetent, but somehow the Ukrainians keep hitting the Russians with their TB2 drones. There's even a fair amount of footage of them hitting AA vehicles with them, something I would have expected to be nigh-impossible a priori.
ReplyDeleteI wonder whether the very long endurance even at quite low altitudes and some type of RWR system allows an operator to loiter them when no threat radars are in-range, but use terrain-masking to keep these things below the radar horizon when the RWR is going off and only pop them up either briefly to peek or attack.
We also don't have a great idea of the RCS of these systems. "Small-enough" size combined with largely composite construction and intelligent shaping of those components that will strongly reflect radar might reduce detection ranges even with the threat radar in a look-up situation; the very slow speed of the UAVs may put them in the radar notch of an air-to-air platform in a look-down scenario (where the doppler filter is active in the region where Vclosure is within say +/- 50 kts of Vground). And this is without ruining the economics by spraying everything with an expensive and hard-to-maintain RAM coating.
Its possible that the Russians are rapidly working on software patches so that their radars can pick up drones if they are currently 'ignored'.
DeleteMight some of the kills we see also be own goals on old or already damaged or broken equipment for PR / morale purposes?
Minor detail. RE: Using USS Whidbey Island as a prototype UAV carrier.
ReplyDeleteNote that Whidbey Island isn't actually a flat-top ship. It does, of course, have a helicopter deck in the back which is larger than the one on our destroyers or cruisers. But a horizontal takeoff, like the one postulated on the Turkish ship, wouldn't work on Whidbey Island.
Of course, if you are postulating a drone like the ScanEagle with its very small pneumatic catapult, that would work of course.
Note that we also have two Tarawa class flat tops in reserve, still in Maintenance category B. Maybe one of them would be better?
Note also, if you are thinking of a small drone like the ScanEagle, another option would probably be one of the LCS's that we are early retiring.
DeleteFinally, a use for the LCS !!
"Of course, if you are postulating a drone like the ScanEagle with its very small pneumatic catapult, that would work of course."
DeleteUnlike the Turkish concept, my concept involves small UAVs - Scan Eagle or perhaps just a bit larger. So, yes, Whidbey Island would work fine as a prototype. An LCS would also work although the mechanical and maintenance issues might make it more of a headache than it's worth.
If Turkey can successfully pull this concept off. I would not be surprise if every other country follows suits and orders more LHA's and LHD's as UAV Drone Carriers. It would be worth watching to see how they will pull this concept off.
ReplyDeleteThe ship is almost irrelevant; it's the UAVs that are the key. Can they get the performance they want from them? As you say, worth watching!
DeleteI'd say that the performance of the drones so far, ie current and past but recent conflicts, will pretty much ensure that all sorts of drone based concepts are being seriously looked at.
DeleteIt's like Big companies vs Small companies.
ReplyDeleteBig ones become slow, ponderous, have a certain focus. The Small ones have to be more innovative, nimble, open minded, look for niches that are ignored by the big guys. Turkey is the small guy who has been forced to scramble, and seems to be doing it, at least in terms of innovative thought and ambition.
One thing not said is whether or not these cheaper drones can be made in large numbers. If so, then it doesn't matter how many top of the line Patriot or S400 systems you have.
Australia is another small country doing some nice drone work, with the Loyal Wingman project. They have the proof of concept up and running, and now can design different sizes and configurations. Imagine one triple the current size, can carry, say 8 missiles, with the range of a P8 Poseiden. You have an excellent escort, and autonomous long range strike aircraft.
And if it can be launched from a Canberra class, then that just adds to the flexibility. (I personally think it'll be possible to launch from a Canberra with little ship modification except for fuel/ordnance carriage, but the drone will have to land at another location on land, so no landing gear needs to be installed. Obviously this means extra and different planning is needed to use such a drone)
Yes, all armchair fantasy thinking, but the possibility is there.
Andrew
Minor correction, "It’s about the same size as the well known MQ-1 Predator or Global Hawk."
ReplyDeleteTB3 is similar sized to an MQ-1, yes, but it's a LOT smaller than a Global Hawk. (TB3 wingspan: 14m. MQ-1 wingspan: 14.8m. Global Hawk wingspan: 39.9m)
It'll be interesting to see if this makes it to flight trials and how it does. TB3 is still a rather light, large-wing aircraft. Might have trouble safely landing on an LHD.
General Atomics recently announced a Predator variant called Mojave that could become US carrier/LHA-based MALE drone. It's designed for STOL. A modest catapult and arrestor setup on an LHA and folding wings might be enough to operate it. Might not even need the catapult.
https://www.ga-asi.com/remotely-piloted-aircraft/mojave
I had a post about something similar here, before Mojave came out.
http://interestedamateur.blogspot.com/2021/02/stobar-male-uav.html
Unclear how much higher RCS Mojave is to a TB3. Might be a significant limit in higher threat environments. I proposed a more expensive, stealthy "STOCAV" for this role here.
http://interestedamateur.blogspot.com/2020/01/tri-service-stovl-ucav.html
This would obviously require a lot more development. If it didn't break the bank, it'd be an interesting complement to existing systems for CAS/interdiction/armed overwatch/killer scout/ASuW missions.
"LOT smaller than a Global Hawk."
DeleteI'll eliminate the reference.
I find the similarities between the history of manned flight from ships, and the evolving history of the current generation of UAV's from ships, to be interesting.
ReplyDeleteFrom single propeller to jet propulsion. From flying platforms to small catapults. From launching a single scout to launching massed numbers from a ship specialized for the role.
As others have stated, there have been UAV's flying from ships for decades, but the state of technology seems to advanced enough now for everyone to use and develop it.
We have the benefit of history to study, and it seems clear massed UAV's from a specialiszd ship is where things are going to go. China is already at least at the prototype stage here.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/43099/china-now-has-a-mothership-to-train-its-naval-forces-against-aerial-drone-swarms
There is a long history of countries not pursuing technological advances that might weaken their existing advantage, whether by bureaucratic inertia or deliberate choice. Thus the US Navy not leading the way in developing UAV ships might have some merit under different circumstances. However, for that strategy to work, the US needs to have the ability to play catch-up in a hurry when required.
Given the decline of US shipbuilding and the inability of the US Navy and US shipbuilders to commission any effective warship designs since 1988 despite multiple attempts, lagging behind does not seem to be a practical option for the US.
Well hopefully we'll be able to get some good information on the combat performance of the Turkish drones, since they are the main types being use by the Ukrainians, including the TB2. Especially informative will be how well Russian air defense performs against them.
ReplyDelete