Turkish Unmanned Vehicle Programs
- Thread starter SpArK
- Start date
Constantinople
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2016
- Messages
- 681
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
No man in US police use armed drone and armed robot ....don't think they will use it in any demonstration
Saithan
MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2010
- Messages
- 3,771
- Reaction score
- 1
1+1 Tactical UAV (6+6 UAV) system for Turkish Gendarme Forces.
Orders Update !
*Turkish National Police
6 ANKA-B
6 Bayraktar TB2
*Turkish Land Forces
12 + 6 Bayraktar TB2
6 Vestel Karayel
*Gendarme Forces
6 + 6 Bayraktar TB2 (?)
*Turkish Air Forces
10 ANKA-S
*National Security Organization
3 ANKA-S
I believer Bayraktar and Vestel will deliver the products and ANKA will be delayed. just my gut feeling
BordoEnes
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2011
- Messages
- 3,752
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Yeah me think alike. Whenever i hear a date for the Anka delivery i automatically assume that it will change to a much further date a month later. The development of Anka is understandably delayed but that doesnt make it less frustrating. On the other hand Vestel Karayel and Bayraktar TB-2 set realistic dates and they followed through on it. I just hope that we get a couple dosen more TB-2's and soon to come armed Vestel Karayel.
Random111
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2014
- Messages
- 625
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
But one most also look at what type of products/class the Karayel and TB2 represent and how they're being used, them being armed or being capable of selecting targets is an EXTRA for me. The more the merrier.
Everyone is focused on armed uav thinking it will end terror (it won't), I would be much much happier if we had various low-medium class uav's being used to help us improve situational awareness.
For comparison, look at how Russia used various layers of uav's during Ukraine war and how it utilized those with mass artillery to locate and hit Ukrainian troops. While ofc our situation is different it shows how it can be used. Especially because we often utilize artillery as area denial asset due to screwed up geography.
Now returning back to TR, look at how TB2 was used during recent operations. it was used to track down and hit groups of 3-8 man, basically it's being used to hit targets of convenience during 'routine' mission to provide intel/security.
If we have larger fleet of various sizes + more sorties this will mean more oversight = more potential targets of convenience = life becomes harder for them on ground. Once again this doesn't solve terror, hell instead of doing 4-5 attacks they might mass and do one big one under right circumstances (bad weather etc).
To clear out certain hotspots we use a lot of airstrikes combined with attack heli and uav with sf/sof/commando's on the ground doing the hand-to-hand clearance. Afterwards we set up a few sandbags under the guise of 'us bolge' and use that to try and hold the area.
Now imagine having an UAV up in the sky to do routine surveillance jobs in those area's where those new cops become easy targets after a while.
Everyone is focused on armed uav thinking it will end terror (it won't), I would be much much happier if we had various low-medium class uav's being used to help us improve situational awareness.
For comparison, look at how Russia used various layers of uav's during Ukraine war and how it utilized those with mass artillery to locate and hit Ukrainian troops. While ofc our situation is different it shows how it can be used. Especially because we often utilize artillery as area denial asset due to screwed up geography.
Now returning back to TR, look at how TB2 was used during recent operations. it was used to track down and hit groups of 3-8 man, basically it's being used to hit targets of convenience during 'routine' mission to provide intel/security.
If we have larger fleet of various sizes + more sorties this will mean more oversight = more potential targets of convenience = life becomes harder for them on ground. Once again this doesn't solve terror, hell instead of doing 4-5 attacks they might mass and do one big one under right circumstances (bad weather etc).
To clear out certain hotspots we use a lot of airstrikes combined with attack heli and uav with sf/sof/commando's on the ground doing the hand-to-hand clearance. Afterwards we set up a few sandbags under the guise of 'us bolge' and use that to try and hold the area.
Now imagine having an UAV up in the sky to do routine surveillance jobs in those area's where those new cops become easy targets after a while.
Random111
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2014
- Messages
- 625
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
SF guys are looking for switchblade type + they bought puma rq20. Hopefully with time it can trickle down from sf to sof to commando's.
Bubblegum Crisis
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2012
- Messages
- 2,612
- Reaction score
- 5
- Country
- Location
@Yenikuyu
@1nsaneTR
The UAVs (Hunter-killer long-endurance, high-altitude surveillance) are an ephemeral solution to your problems. But they are by no means the solution, never.
Quote :
Obama’s drone war is a shameful part of his legacy
By James Downie
May 5, 2016
Father Daniel Berrigan died Saturday at 94. The longtime peace activist gained national attention in 1968 when he and eight others, including his brother Philip (also a priest), burned draft records taken from a Selective Service office in Maryland. Decades later, he remains a powerful example of a man who never wavered in his beliefs, standing up time and again for the poor and oppressed. In his last years, Berrigan no longer had the energy to protest as frequently. But if he had been a few generations younger, can there be any doubt that he would have been at forefront of those protesting the expansion of the drone war under President Obama?
There have long been policy, constitutional and moral questions about the drone program — all made more difficult to answer by the Obama administration’s refusal to even acknowledge the program until 2013. As Obama’s presidency comes to an end, we have stunning new details about how the program works — first released in October on the Intercept website, now updated and collected in the book “The Assassination Complex” by Jeremy Scahill and Intercept staffers. “The Assassination Complex” is in large part built around the revelations of an anonymous whistleblower who leaked documents about U.S. use of drones in Somalia, Libya and Afghanistan from 2011 to 2013. What he or she reveals further confirms the practical, legal and moral failings of Obama’s expanded drone war.
For starters, although drones may be quite good at killing people (even if not always the intended targets), it’s not clear that they are an effective tool in the war on terrorism. Obama’s embrace of drones has led to a preference for killing rather than capturing terrorists. The documents include a study from the Defense Department’s Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) Task Force, which concluded that “kill operations significantly reduce the intelligence available from detainees and captured material.” And as retired Gen. Michael Flynn, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said last year, “When you drop a bomb from a drone . . . you are going to cause more damage than you are going to cause good,” including more radicalized terrorists.
Then there are the legal and constitutional questions. The leaked documents show the disturbing ease with which an innocent civilian — American or not — can be added to the U.S. government’s main terrorist database, such as on the basis of a single “uncorroborated” Facebook or Twitter post. In a 2014 court filing, the government admitted that 469,000 people had been nominated in 2013 for inclusion in an additional government database of “known or suspected terrorists.” Only 4,900 were rejected. Presumption of innocence this is not. And although Osama bin Laden’s name was in a terrorist database long before he was killed, so too was the name Abdulrahman al-Awlaki — innocent, 16 years old, an American citizen and killed by a U.S. drone strike.
Furthermore, it’s clear from the documents that the White House has overstated the prudence with which it undertakes strikes. In May 2013, Obama said that strikes would be conducted only against those who were a “continuing and imminent threat to the American people” and only if there were “near certainty” that there would be no civilian casualties. But the documents show that when the president approves a strike on an individual, the Pentagon and CIA (both of which conduct strikes) have a 60-day window to act. You don’t need a dictionary to know that 60 days is not “imminent.” And the ISR study says that the standard for drone strikes is not “no civilian casualties,” only that it must be a “low” collateral damage estimate.
Nearly eight years later, Obama’s decision to expand the drone war has led to the deaths of hundreds of civilians, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, a disturbing expansion of presidential power and harm to the country’s ability to fight terrorism.
What makes Obama’s policy even more disappointing is that whoever succeeds him will likely widen the program further. Obama at least gives the impression of taking the constitutional and moral consequences of the drone program seriously, even if this has been only a small restraint on the program. But Hillary Clinton has stoutly defended the drone program inside the White House as secretary of state, afterward in her memoir and on the campaign trail. Given her hawkishness compared with Obama, it seems likely that the program would only grow under her. And Donald Trump? Well, he has already promised to commit war crimes.
I have little doubt that Obama chose to rapidly expand the drone war under the sincere belief that it was legal, moral and good policy. But that belief was mistaken; the drone war is an indelible legacy — and shame — of his presidency.
The Washington Post
...
@1nsaneTR
The UAVs (Hunter-killer long-endurance, high-altitude surveillance) are an ephemeral solution to your problems. But they are by no means the solution, never.
Quote :
Obama’s drone war is a shameful part of his legacy
By James Downie
May 5, 2016
Father Daniel Berrigan died Saturday at 94. The longtime peace activist gained national attention in 1968 when he and eight others, including his brother Philip (also a priest), burned draft records taken from a Selective Service office in Maryland. Decades later, he remains a powerful example of a man who never wavered in his beliefs, standing up time and again for the poor and oppressed. In his last years, Berrigan no longer had the energy to protest as frequently. But if he had been a few generations younger, can there be any doubt that he would have been at forefront of those protesting the expansion of the drone war under President Obama?
There have long been policy, constitutional and moral questions about the drone program — all made more difficult to answer by the Obama administration’s refusal to even acknowledge the program until 2013. As Obama’s presidency comes to an end, we have stunning new details about how the program works — first released in October on the Intercept website, now updated and collected in the book “The Assassination Complex” by Jeremy Scahill and Intercept staffers. “The Assassination Complex” is in large part built around the revelations of an anonymous whistleblower who leaked documents about U.S. use of drones in Somalia, Libya and Afghanistan from 2011 to 2013. What he or she reveals further confirms the practical, legal and moral failings of Obama’s expanded drone war.
For starters, although drones may be quite good at killing people (even if not always the intended targets), it’s not clear that they are an effective tool in the war on terrorism. Obama’s embrace of drones has led to a preference for killing rather than capturing terrorists. The documents include a study from the Defense Department’s Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) Task Force, which concluded that “kill operations significantly reduce the intelligence available from detainees and captured material.” And as retired Gen. Michael Flynn, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said last year, “When you drop a bomb from a drone . . . you are going to cause more damage than you are going to cause good,” including more radicalized terrorists.
Then there are the legal and constitutional questions. The leaked documents show the disturbing ease with which an innocent civilian — American or not — can be added to the U.S. government’s main terrorist database, such as on the basis of a single “uncorroborated” Facebook or Twitter post. In a 2014 court filing, the government admitted that 469,000 people had been nominated in 2013 for inclusion in an additional government database of “known or suspected terrorists.” Only 4,900 were rejected. Presumption of innocence this is not. And although Osama bin Laden’s name was in a terrorist database long before he was killed, so too was the name Abdulrahman al-Awlaki — innocent, 16 years old, an American citizen and killed by a U.S. drone strike.
Furthermore, it’s clear from the documents that the White House has overstated the prudence with which it undertakes strikes. In May 2013, Obama said that strikes would be conducted only against those who were a “continuing and imminent threat to the American people” and only if there were “near certainty” that there would be no civilian casualties. But the documents show that when the president approves a strike on an individual, the Pentagon and CIA (both of which conduct strikes) have a 60-day window to act. You don’t need a dictionary to know that 60 days is not “imminent.” And the ISR study says that the standard for drone strikes is not “no civilian casualties,” only that it must be a “low” collateral damage estimate.
Nearly eight years later, Obama’s decision to expand the drone war has led to the deaths of hundreds of civilians, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, a disturbing expansion of presidential power and harm to the country’s ability to fight terrorism.
What makes Obama’s policy even more disappointing is that whoever succeeds him will likely widen the program further. Obama at least gives the impression of taking the constitutional and moral consequences of the drone program seriously, even if this has been only a small restraint on the program. But Hillary Clinton has stoutly defended the drone program inside the White House as secretary of state, afterward in her memoir and on the campaign trail. Given her hawkishness compared with Obama, it seems likely that the program would only grow under her. And Donald Trump? Well, he has already promised to commit war crimes.
I have little doubt that Obama chose to rapidly expand the drone war under the sincere belief that it was legal, moral and good policy. But that belief was mistaken; the drone war is an indelible legacy — and shame — of his presidency.
The Washington Post
...
1nsaneTR
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- May 19, 2016
- Messages
- 242
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
What is the source of that Puma order? Do you really think we will buy something from USA nowadays unless we have to? I guess it is purely speculation...
With SATCOM equipped UAVs, there is a curse called "latency". You see somebody, identify it, press the button and prey for not any civilian comes next to your target. Without SATCOM a UAV is much safer than a fighter jet because of less collateral damage with smaller munitions.
With SATCOM equipped UAVs, there is a curse called "latency". You see somebody, identify it, press the button and prey for not any civilian comes next to your target. Without SATCOM a UAV is much safer than a fighter jet because of less collateral damage with smaller munitions.
UkroTurk
BANNED
- Joined
- May 7, 2015
- Messages
- 3,610
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
Eye in the Sky
I've downloaded.It has been checked.
http://www.torrentdownloads.me/torrent/1661966406/Eye+in+the+Sky+2015+BRRip+XViD-ETRG
Last edited:
Random111
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2014
- Messages
- 625
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
http://www.haberturk.com/gundem/haber/1298833-firat-kalkanina-puma-gozu/2
I take it with grain of salt ofc.
Eh i have a question. Are there any plans to build something smilar to globalhawk ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_RQ-4_Global_Hawk
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_RQ-4_Global_Hawk
Bubblegum Crisis
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2012
- Messages
- 2,612
- Reaction score
- 5
- Country
- Location
Begin studies (Jul, 2016)...
https://defence.pk/threads/anka-male-uav-program.56273/page-86#post-8494632
Similar threads
