Talk:TAI Aksungur

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 22:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

TAI Aksungur

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the unmanned aerial vehicle TAI Aksungur is able to carry up to 750 kg (1,650 lb) payload, and can be operated beyond-visual-range by SATCOM? Source: "... the air vehicle with a maximum take-off weight (MTOW) "in excess" of 3,000 kg and a payload capacity of 750 kg." [1], "SATCOM ile Görüş Hattı Ötesi Operasyon esnekliği (opsiyonel" (in Turkish) [2]

• Reviewed: Herbert Maryon

Created by CeeGee (talk). Self-nominated at 10:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC).

• Not sure if I'll be able to give this a full review, but for now I'll leave a comment about the hook. I don't think it right now appeals to a broad audience since it seems to rely too much on technical words such as SATCOM. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:20, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• @Narutolovehinata5: Thanks. The reason why I used the term "SATCOM" was to draw reader's attention. Anyway, does your mind change if I replace "SATCOM" with "communications satellite" in the hook? CeeGee 05:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. To a reader who is not interested in aviation or military stuff, the hook has a big "so what?" factor. The typical reader probably won't appreciate how or why a UAV can carry that amount of load, it requires knowledge about UAVs and their context as a whole. A new direction is probably needed here. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• Hmm! You must have known what the broad reader is thinking. Maybe someone can suggest a hook in the direction of your thinking. Besides, must I call you repearedly to get an answer from you? CeeGee 03:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I read the DYK discussions I've participated in on an almost hourly basis, so I generally don't need to be pinged unless it's important. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

• You may not categorize DYK noms into important or not important. If you start a review you better progress in due time please. The noninator, in this case me, cannot know that you have alread read the response to your input. CeeGee 18:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

In any case, a new hook is still probably needed here. The original hook remains too technical. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Did a little work on the article and tried to come up with some ALTs. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• ALT1 ... that an Aksungur (English: gyrfalcon) male can carry aloft 750 kilograms? Source: TAI showcased its “Aksungur” drone (“gyrfalcon” in English) [...] The Aksungur has a maximum payload of 750 kilograms. Defense News Aksungur medium-altitude long-endurance unmanned aerial vehicle (MALE UAV) Jane's
• ALT2 ... that Turkish Aerospace Industries expects to weaponize its newest and largest aerial drone for international sale in 2020? Sources: Weapons will also be integrated onto Aksungur in the last quarter of 2019. Aviation International News The twin-engined Aksungur [...] is significantly larger than the company's existing Anka offering. Flight Global
• ALT3 ... that the TAI Aksungur unmanned aerial vehicle nearly quadruples the payload capacity of its design predecessor? Source: Not in article but if it's interesting enough this states the ANKA had a payload of 200 kg, a little over 1/4 of Aksungur's 750 kg.
  • Pinging @Narutolovehinata5: Will you be able to make a full review? – Reidgreg (talk) 02:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Due to being busy in real life, I'm not sure if I'll have enough time to give this another check. All I can say right now is that ALTs 1 to 3 aren't really great either, they seem too niche to be interesting to a broad audience. Still, a second set of eyes here might be of help. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
      • It seems very difficult at theis stage to meet your expactations. Maybe you can formulate your own hook. Besides, I think busy people should stay away from reviewing DYK noms. CeeGee 12:40, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
        • CeeGee, Narutolovehinata5 specifically said they weren't reviewing. Drmies (talk) 01:52, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
      • No problem, people get busy. That's the reality of a sprawling volunteer organization. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:10, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Requesting new reviewer. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:10, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• Reidgreg, how's it going. I like your hooks: I like ALT1 best (really, I think it's pretty damn brilliant: sorry Narutolovehinata5). That hook is verified. The article is obviously long enough and was new enough at the time of nomination. I looked at the sources and checked facts; I found no obvious plagiarism, although some of the more technical phrasing is close to the original--I think this is unavoidable. But I do have one problem: the tactical surveillance and reconnaissance, never mind the attack fighter bit, I can't find that in the sources. Now this may be obvious (this is what drones do), and yet it really needs a source. One of the sources mentioned something about munitions, but that doesn't necessarily make it an attack aircraft; another source had a buoy, but similarly, it's a bit hasty to get "maritime patrol missions" out of that. The militaryfactory website maybe comes closest, but that a maritime model is proposed isn't exactly the same. So--that's really what I need to see before I can tick this off. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:52, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Drmies: Thank you very much for your detailed review. Below ı am giving the partial source text in Turkish and its Google translation for you hoping this will address your concerns. On the other hand, I added the related reference to the end of the article's first paragraph under "Overview". Sorry that I missed this in the beginning. The "maritime patrol" information is already sourced in the article.

"Yüksek Faydalı Yük Kapasiteli İHA Kesintisiz Çok Rollü İstihbarat, Gözetleme, Keşif ve Taarruz Görevleri için ANKA-AKSUNGUR İHA Sistemi; gündüz/gece İstihbarat, Gözetleme, Keşif ve Taarruz Görevleri’ni EO/IR, SAR ve SIGINT faydalı yükleri ve çeşitli havadan yere silahlarla icra eden Orta İrtifa Uzun Havada Kalışlı bir İnsansız Hava Aracı Sistemidir." [3]

"ANKA-AKSUNGUR UAV System for Uninterrupted Multi-Roll Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance and Attack Tasks with High Useful Load Capacity UAV; day / night is a Medium Altitude Long-Air Unmanned Aerial Vehicle System that performs Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance and Attack Missions with EO / IR, SAR and SIGINT utility loads and various air to ground weapons."

"DENİZ KARAKOL FAYDALI YÜKLERİ" [4]

"MARITME PATROL PAYLOADS"

CeeGee 08:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Drmies: It's going pretty good, thanks for the review! I can confirm what CeeGee has quoted above, at least through Google translate. I will note that it is a primary source (the manufacturer). I think that's the biggest issue with the article is that it's a relatively new subject and some information is from primary sources or secondary sources which are basically reporting what the manufacturer claimed in press releases or at trade shows. I tried to copy edit for tone to make these things clear. (Like, at the beginning of the lead, I had in development by Turkish Aerospace Industries (TAI) for the requirements of the Turkish Armed Forces because, at the time, they hadn't actually received a contract from the Turkish Armed Forces; they were anticipating the domestic military needs and trying to build a product which would meet those needs.)

Another source ("FlightglobalDebut") notes its potential as a "maritime surveillance platform". And military factory notes "maritime patrol" and "signals intelligence" proposals. I agree that "attack aircraft" may be going a bit far, as I personally see this UAV being used as a platform for smart weapons rather than close air support. But this is all a bit speculative. I'll take a look around for any new sources since the last time I worked on this, and try to write something for the lead mentioning the high payload and the potential for... yadda yadda yadda. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:39, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Reidgreg: What about this? "Turkish Aerospace tweeted on 21 March that it had carried out the first test flight of the twin-engined Anka-Aksungur reconnaissance, surveillance, and attack unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), formerly known as Anka 2, the day before." at ASYMMETRIC DIALOGUE Defense Industry News CeeGee 09:03, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @CeeGee: I'm not sure that Blogspot.com is a reliable source (it's listed at WP:KO/RS#UR and there's some mention elsewhere). But while it may not be a reliable secondary source, it might be sufficient for verifying what the primary source said. I don't think I would bother to add it as a citation since it might be challenged and removed. – Reidgreg (talk) 11:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Would it be alright to strike ALT3? I feel it's the least-interesting hook and I'm finding it a little awkward to work that into the article with an inline citation. – Reidgreg (talk) 11:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

• Reidgreg, CeeGee, I'll take this on good faith. Thanks, and I hope y'all get a lot of article views. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Characteristics

@CeeGee: I did a little copy edit, but had trouble with this sentence: The wings with slight dihedral and terminating in vertical stabilizers are joined by a tailplane. At first it's talking about the wings but then it seems to be talking about the tail of the aircraft. The source (Jane's) uses the same construction so it isn't any clearer. (It seems as if Jane's accidentally deleted something which joined two unrelated sentences together.)

I can see from the picture in Jane's (which is very nice) that the wings end in little vertical pieces. I don't know what the proper name for them is, but I understand they reduce wingtip vortices and result in more efficient flight (which you'd want for a drone). The tailplane, to my understanding, is the horizontal piece between the two tail booms. I want to be sure I understand the meaning before I rephrase it, and maybe get away from the close paraphrasing. Let me know. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Reidgreg: Thank you verty much indeed for your copy editing efforts. Yes, due to my limited knowlodge of aircraft design, I must have taken over ununderstandable features from the source. Sorry about the confusion I've caused. With "tailplane", the prizpntal stabilizer is meant. I appreciate your further fixing. CeeGee 08:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @CeeGee: I expanded the article a bit and did a little more copy editing. One point I find a bit misleading is the external payload for the hard points. Aksungur is capable of carrying three rockets or missiles of 150, 300 and 500 kg (per wing) I know that's in the manufacturer's technical specs. But it sounds as if the aircraft can carry 1900 kg of munitions when elsewhere it says it can carry a total of 750 kg. I expect that for the munitions, that's the load the hard points can safely handle, and not the true in-flight capacity. Either that, or the manufacturer is anticipating what the aircraft can handle after they sort out the new engine with (projected) 50% greater horsepower. What do you think? – Reidgreg (talk) 19:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with your assessment. It escaped my attention. Thank you for your critique and copy editing. Great. CeeGee 10:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)