TR TF-X KAAN Fighter Jet

Yasar_TR

Experienced member
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
3,254
Reactions
142 16,328
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Turkey
How does that work. Does the domestic engine have same dimension as F110 ?
If you check the dimensions of the f119, F135 and F136 engines they are not too far away from each other in terms of their diameters. (Around 117cm - 120cm) . F110 diameter also fits in to this category.
It is the length of these engines that vary.
F136 : 560cm
F135 : 559cm
F119 : 520cm
F110 : 462cm
So they will have to do some re-adjustments or compensate accordingly. The F110-GE-132 (AKA F110-GE-129-EFE) engine can be modified further to develop 35000lbf thrust. But to have high effective supercruise we need an engine with a dry thrust of 24-26000lbf. F110 range dry thrust value is around 17000lbf.
 
Last edited:

Zafer

Experienced member
Messages
4,683
Reactions
7 7,389
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Dude, slow down. Making MMU should be a priority for now. All those you wrote had economic problems.

1. We will have MMU for that.
Surprise surprise
2. Why should the airforce have separate aircraft with single engines? What is specific for that, so do we need one?
F16 replacement and exports.
3. Again, why? What makes you think that we need a big bomber? Even The USA doesn't use its bomber fleet apart from using them in some operations that are made just to be made.
The USA can use their carriers and long range missiles for power projection while we can't.
4. Should we design an aircraft + a new derivate engine for the tanker? How many TuAF will buy? 10? Does it worth spending this money? Especially when we can simply turn any Boeing or Airbus plane belonging to bankrupt companies which are currently sitting in Istanbul Airport.
Why not, when you have the engines and avionics and everything else to make it. You can only convert certain civilian models which probably with support/permission from the maker country.
5-6. This was tried and failed. Named Concorde. It failed because of economic reasons, just as A380 failed. Let's say we made these; who will buy God damn supersonic passenger plane? Especially economics of Aviation is worse than when Concorde was up.
There are newer ones in development.
7. Same with 4. Why not simply go to Antonov and start a joint project of producing An-124 or even An-225 with better avionics and engines? Shouldn't it be cheaper and easier?
Why beg others while you can build from the ground up being the chooser.
8. Seriously? How many cruise missiles did you see before using engines designed for fighter jets? Any missile with F110? These engines cost almost twice the most expensive cruise missiles.
You can put several warheads in one tip and make it long range, like an ICBM. Let others copy our work, why not.
9. This would make sense.
It made sense for other makers so no brainer.
We must remember that we are Turkey with a 15-20B $ defense budget. Not the USA with almost 1T. Just because we have an engine does not mean we can start building an entire army around that engine.

REPEAT: Why not, when you have the engines, avionics and everything else to make them and time too.
Türkiye is one of the very few countries that is to have every ingredient that goes into making them.
 
Last edited:

Hasanrize

Committed member
Messages
191
Reactions
5 546
Nation of residence
Finland
Nation of origin
Turkey
F16 replacement and exports.
MMU itself is an F16 replacement and export. TuAF historically does not like single-engine fighters. That was the reason all retired generals kept writing about their desire for a twin-engine configuration.
The USA can use their carriers and long range missiles for power projection while we can't.
Power projection to where and why? The USA can do it because they have a military budget almost equal to our GDP. The power project is something that even China, with its massive economy and population, can not do.
There are newer ones in development.
There are proposals. Reasons for Concorde to failure are still there. It was banned from almost everywhere because of the sonic boom, which is something we can not dodge. Supersonic flights, by their nature, face much harder drag and therefore needs extra fuel. Civil aviation calculates almost every liter of fuel for survival now, and we are saying let's go supersonic passenger aircraft.
Why beg others while you can build from the ground up being the chooser.
It was the Antonov who begged for help to rebuild An-225. Also, we should not call asking for partnership as begging.
You can put several warheads in one tip and make it long range, like an ICBM. Let others copy our work, why not.
Then, you have to put fuel and avionics. And surprise, you get something with the size of an aircraft with the price of an aircraft. So what is the point here?
REPEAT: Why not, when you have the engines, avionics and everything else to make them and time too.
Türkiye is one of the very few countries that is to have every ingredient that goes into making them.
Just like Airbus had every ingredient to make A-380. Almost went bankrupt, saved by the EU.
 

Zafer

Experienced member
Messages
4,683
Reactions
7 7,389
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
MMU itself is an F16 replacement and export. TuAF historically does not like single-engine fighters. That was the reason all retired generals kept writing about their desire for a twin-engine configuration.
F16 has pretty much been all we had all along. I would say people have grown to love them. See how many forum members have the F16 in their nick names.
Power projection to where and why? The USA can do it because they have a military budget almost equal to our GDP. The power project is something that even China, with its massive economy and population, can not do.
Thinking of today alone is short sighted, think about 15 years into the future. The US has $65k GDP and their costs are on that basis. We can do stuff at a fraction of the cost, so does China.
There are proposals. Reasons for Concorde to failure are still there. It was banned from almost everywhere because of the sonic boom, which is something we can not dodge. Supersonic flights, by their nature, face much harder drag and therefore needs extra fuel. Civil aviation calculates almost every liter of fuel for survival now, and we are saying let's go supersonic passenger aircraft.
When cars go electric it will be only some of the ships and planes that will use petrol, 15 years down the road.
It was the Antonov who begged for help to rebuild An-225. Also, we should not call asking for partnership as begging.
When you are not choosing exactly the design you are needing you are taking charity where you can not chose how much. Let's just says it in reverse "if you are not choosing you are begging" (beggars are not choosers).
Then, you have to put fuel and avionics. And surprise, you get something with the size of an aircraft with the price of an aircraft. So what is the point here?
Not necessarily: planes need to land and that's why they have to be able to slow down and land slowly while a missile does not need to land so there is no need for landing gear and large wings for slow flight. Lots of planes weight can be taken out and replaced by fuel or warheads. Even if you have planes they can be hunted down easier than a missile.
Just like Airbus had every ingredient to make A-380. Almost went bankrupt, saved by the EU.
The USA imposed inflight phone and computer use ban to flights from the Emirates which put the nail on the A380's coffin. It was too risky and facing competition from the USA. A smaller plane like 80 Passenger or whatever the MMU engines can support will be easier to make. The USA wants to fly troops with reusable SpaceX rockets and what do you want to do for a similar use, buy American rockets?

Planes fly subsonic like at mach 0.94 over land and at supersonic mach 1.7 over seas.
 

Radonsider

Contributor
Messages
1,467
Reactions
14 2,802
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Bosnia & Herzegovina
He's on the board as a non exec at Türkiye Petrol Rafinerileri A.Ş (Tupras)

A quick question on BAE's involvement in the TFX. I believe this is coming to an end, when will this happen, and how will that affect the continuing development of the plane?
I don't think that BAE systems involvement will stop, Temel Kotil himself wants more collaboration
 

MADDOG

Contributor
Türkiye Correspondent
Professional
Messages
1,220
Reactions
31 8,007
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Cyprus
I've just come up with a theory concerning the TF-X. What if that stealthy bulge we see is a part of the 360 degree DAS system that surrounds the aircraft and not the IRST :D

Screen Shot 2022-07-31 at 18.46.58.png


FYMpln0VUAE5RwY.jpeg


The two sensors do look quite similar. Though I don't understand why TAI didn't blend it in more. It could still very well be the IRST, just to clear things up.

Or both the IRST and the frontal DAS will be stationed right next to each other. This is already the case with the F-35 but the two sensors have their own separate slots, if you get what I mean. Maybe TAI intends to place both sensors on the same area circled above.

FYMplnsVQAEUsqQ.jpeg


Also, I don't know if this is some sort of an EOTS or an apparatus that supports the mock-up. If it's the latter I will be slightly dissatisfied, but either way it comes with an interesting shape. If that is indeed a targeting system down there, I think it's safe to say we haven't seen anything like it.
 

Lool

Experienced member
DefenceHub Diplomat
Messages
2,921
Reactions
14 5,032
Nation of residence
Albania
Nation of origin
Albania
Last edited:

Tornadoss

Contributor
Messages
1,377
Reactions
4 2,627
Nation of residence
Czechia
Nation of origin
Turkey

Cabatli_TR

Experienced member
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
5,360
Reactions
81 45,455
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
RKA test institute for TFX
  • It will be the world's 5th largest radar cross section measurement facility
  • It will start operating in the second quarter of 2024

26_620993_RadarKesitAlaniTestTesisi.jpg
 

MADDOG

Contributor
Türkiye Correspondent
Professional
Messages
1,220
Reactions
31 8,007
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Cyprus
RKA test institute for TFX
  • It will be the world's 5th largest radar cross section measurement facility
  • It will start operating in the second quarter of 2024

View attachment 46736
The dates are holding up, which is good. So I assume, one prototype will be doing taxi tests when another static prototype will be going through lightning, RCS testing etc.
 

Ryder

Experienced member
Messages
10,858
Reactions
6 18,708
Nation of residence
Australia
Nation of origin
Turkey
F35 is such a flawed plane. But the plane is the future but still has its problems and flaws that will take decades to fix.

In Australia been numerous cases of grounding F35 jets just to fix problems.

Its been pretty fustrating. Australia also had debacle with the eurocopter tiger.
 

Philip the Arab

Contributor
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
1,344
Reactions
4 2,247
Nation of residence
United States of America
Nation of origin
Jordan
I don't want to get banned but you know my response.
I’m not sure why you see the need for there to be Turkish only engineers.

Come to America and see how many foreigners from 3rd world countries are working in top aerospace and defense companies.

Hell, I could probably work at Lockheed/Raytheon with a degree.
 

Yasar_TR

Experienced member
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
3,254
Reactions
142 16,328
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Turkey
Please direct your comments towards what is written. Not towards who has written it. Ad Hominem and use of inappropriate language is against forum rules.
 

Follow us on social media

Top Bottom