TR Air-Force TF-X KAAN Fighter Jet

[TheInsider]

Yeah, 18 March is the perfect date for showing off it is right before the local elections and the anniversary of Çanakkale/Dardanelles Victory.

 

[GoatsMilk]

I wouldnt overestimate the worth of words of an ambassador, it's part of his job.

realistically if you achieve what you set out to, half the world will probably want it.

 

[Baryshx]

Ukraine Plans to Buy Turkish KAAN fighters

Ukraine's Ambassador to Ankara, Vasiliy Bodnar, stated on CNN Türk that Ukraine plans to procure Turkish fifth-generation fighter jets, the KAAN, in the future

mil.in.ua

Anything in what he says? Is Ukrainian industry involved in developing an engine for KAAN?

On a different tack, first run of the TF6000 has been awaited for some time. Will it simply be announced when it has happened, rather than a date of national historical importance being chosen and announced in advance?

What is delaying Kaan's first flight

- required tests
- engineering problems
- problems revealed in taxi tests
- politics
- other

???

Provocative rhetoric and news before Putin's visit. For some reason, these news reports always come out when Turkiye and Russia are in talks and bilateral relations are being discussed. There is nothing to take seriously. Besides, there is 10 years for Kaan, so it is not the time.

By then, Putin and Erdogan will probably be gone. The strategic thinking and interests of the countries will change.

 

[DBdev]

KAAN has a trust to weight ratio of 1.07 =2x131,000/(14.150+3500)x9.81 with a very limited 3.5 ton payload.
Ratio is similar to F-18 and also Mig29K which uses STOBAR even without needing full length of the ship. Technically possible but where we will use aircraft carriers, I wonder. Carrier is like a billion dollar a year money pit in the sea. This money would be much more well spent acquiring nuclear weapons, hypersonic cruise missiles that give real security without costing billions each year to maintain...

Thrust to Weight Ratios of all Fighter Planes

TWR or T/W ratio = (Max Thrust of Engine / (Empty Weight + (3.505 Tonnes of Fuel & Weapons, or only Internal Fuel))) 1.30 - Su-35BM 1.29 - F-15K 1.26 - Su-27S 1.25 - Eurofighter 1.24 - Mig-35 1.23 - Su-27SK & J-11A 1.19 - Rafale C 1.19 - Mig-29M/M2 1.19 - F-15C 1.18 - F-22 (T/W = 1.37 with...

world-defense.com

 

[uçuyorum]

KAAN has a trust to weight ratio of 1.07 =2x131,000/(14.150+3500)x9.81 with a very limited 3.5 ton payload.
Ratio is similar to F-18 and also Mig29K which uses STOBAR even without needing full length of the ship. Technically possible but where we will use aircraft carriers, I wonder. Carrier is like a billion dollar a year money pit in the sea. This money would be much more well spent acquiring nuclear weapons, hypersonic cruise missiles that give real security without costing billions each year to maintain...

Thrust to Weight Ratios of all Fighter Planes

TWR or T/W ratio = (Max Thrust of Engine / (Empty Weight + (3.505 Tonnes of Fuel & Weapons, or only Internal Fuel))) 1.30 - Su-35BM 1.29 - F-15K 1.26 - Su-27S 1.25 - Eurofighter 1.24 - Mig-35 1.23 - Su-27SK & J-11A 1.19 - Rafale C 1.19 - Mig-29M/M2 1.19 - F-15C 1.18 - F-22 (T/W = 1.37 with...

world-defense.com

Thrust to weight ratio is one thing but you also need to consider wing area and stall speed, as well as the overall drag coefficient. 5th gen fighters are thick boys.

 

[Zafer]

KAAN has a trust to weight ratio of 1.07 =2x131,000/(14.150+3500)x9.81 with a very limited 3.5 ton payload.
Ratio is similar to F-18 and also Mig29K which uses STOBAR even without needing full length of the ship. Technically possible but where we will use aircraft carriers, I wonder. Carrier is like a billion dollar a year money pit in the sea. This money would be much more well spent acquiring nuclear weapons, hypersonic cruise missiles that give real security without costing billions each year to maintain...

Thrust to Weight Ratios of all Fighter Planes

TWR or T/W ratio = (Max Thrust of Engine / (Empty Weight + (3.505 Tonnes of Fuel & Weapons, or only Internal Fuel))) 1.30 - Su-35BM 1.29 - F-15K 1.26 - Su-27S 1.25 - Eurofighter 1.24 - Mig-35 1.23 - Su-27SK & J-11A 1.19 - Rafale C 1.19 - Mig-29M/M2 1.19 - F-15C 1.18 - F-22 (T/W = 1.37 with...

world-defense.com

We can make them cheaper. US makes equipment to be costly so that other nations can not catch up. But we made UAVs cheaper we can make ACs cheaper too. Our field of interest spans from the west of Africa to the east of Indian Ocean and we can use conventional propulsion to cover this span.

 

[KhanOfEurasia]

Thrust to weight ratio is one thing but you also need to consider wing area and stall speed, as well as the overall drag coefficient. 5th gen fighters are thick boys.

I think not on the Carrier Kaan in Air Force Configuration will be deployed, rather a one engined multirole Variant of Kaan.

 

[boredaf]

I think not on the Carrier Kaan in Air Force Configuration will be deployed, rather a one engined multirole Variant of Kaan.

The more I think about it, the more I like the smaller, one engine version of TF-X. We can keep Kaan as our F-22 and offer 1 engine version for export. It's not like countries that would prefer our 5th gen plane over the others has any actual chance to get any of the others in the first place. This way, we could avoid getting paranoid about who might betray us and sell data about the plane to other countries, like Israel did with F-16 and China.

 

[Spitfire9]

We can make them cheaper. US makes equipment to be costly so that other nations can not catch up. But we made UAVs cheaper we can make ACs cheaper too. Our field of interest spans from the west of Africa to the east of Indian Ocean and we can use conventional propulsion to cover this span.

Why not just buy the right to use the British Queen Elizabeth II carrier design and build it in Turkiye? France considered doing that to replace its Charles de Gaulle carrier. Perhaps it is too large for Turkiye, though @ 65,000 tonnes. Cost of building the second carrier of that design was about 4 billion USD (including cost overrun of 500 million USD due to errors made during construction). Perhaps Turkiye could build one for less than 3 billion USD?

KAAN would need to be navalised which would not be costless but I think that BAE Systems has the knowledge required to do that. A flight deck of 284 metres would offer improved load-carrying STOBAR operation compared to a smaller vessel.

But why would Turkiye want a carrier? National prestige?

 

[Afif]

The more I think about it, the more I like the smaller, one engine version of TF-X. We can keep Kaan as our F-22 and offer 1 engine version for export. It's not like countries that would prefer our 5th gen plane over the others has any actual chance to get any of the others in the first place. This way, we could avoid getting paranoid about who might betray us and sell data about the plane to other countries, like Israel did with F-16 and China.

Single engine TFX would carry the same risk as 2 engine KAAN. I.g. F35 isn't any less sophisticated than F-22. Unless Turkey want to develop a very much downgraded version. Then it won't be proper 5th gen anymore.

And some countries do have alternative. Pakistan is planning to induct J-35. China pitching it to the gulf countries. So, Turkish system has to be qualitatively competitive. I would even say, make it so good that it would be a cost effective alternative of Tempset for countries that has dual options.

 

[DBdev]

I think not on the Carrier Kaan in Air Force Configuration will be deployed, rather a one engined multirole Variant of Kaan.

Single engine carrier based aircraft is not the best idea for expensive fighters, especially for those that carry human life. Redundancy against engine problems and thrust requirements for short take off, makes single engine less desirable. F35B engines age faster because of extreme strain put on that one engine. Size advantage of single engine on a carrier could make them pick that configuration though. Mig-29K is a big bird like KAAN but they had to make the wings foldable to squeezer more planes.

We should have been working on arrester hook tests on land, ski-jumps and most importantly WHERE ARE THRE RESTRAINING BLOCKS on TCG Anadolu?
India is a better example for us to follow. Why did we not add restraining blocks and arresting cables to TCG-ANADOLU? This makes me suspicious of TAF's vision and intelligence. It is as if they just copied Spanish LHD like fools without any thought, forgetting they have F35s, Harriers and we DON'T! I highly doubt even our drones can launch with full payloads from TCG-Anadolu. But if they add these 2 simple things even KAAN can use TCG-Anadolu. 2 aircraft carriers not just 1.

TCG-Anadolu HAS TO have KAAN air superiority fighters on board to stay safe far away from our shores. Kizilelma, Tb3 are nice to have but they won't cut it.

 

[fushkee]

I guess Hurjet will be used on this carrier not Kaan. There was an explanation about that.

 

[TheInsider]

KAAN has a trust to weight ratio of 1.07 =2x131,000/(14.150+3500)x9.81 with a very limited 3.5 ton payload.
Ratio is similar to F-18 and also Mig29K which uses STOBAR even without needing full length of the ship. Technically possible but where we will use aircraft carriers, I wonder. Carrier is like a billion dollar a year money pit in the sea. This money would be much more well spent acquiring nuclear weapons, hypersonic cruise missiles that give real security without costing billions each year to maintain...

Thrust to Weight Ratios of all Fighter Planes

TWR or T/W ratio = (Max Thrust of Engine / (Empty Weight + (3.505 Tonnes of Fuel & Weapons, or only Internal Fuel))) 1.30 - Su-35BM 1.29 - F-15K 1.26 - Su-27S 1.25 - Eurofighter 1.24 - Mig-35 1.23 - Su-27SK & J-11A 1.19 - Rafale C 1.19 - Mig-29M/M2 1.19 - F-15C 1.18 - F-22 (T/W = 1.37 with...

world-defense.com

TWR is calculated with thrust/weight
Kaan will have 2x35000 lbf engines.
The typical payload of Kaan in stealth config is 10000kg=22000 lbs (internal fuel+weapons)
The empty weight of Kaan is expected to be around 16000kg= 36000lbs
Takeoff weight is 36000+22000=58000 lbs
Thus TWR is calculated
70/58=1.2 with TF35000 engines.
58/58=1 with F110 engines

 

[Spitfire9]

Single engine TFX would carry the same risk as 2 engine KAAN. I.g. F35 isn't any less sophisticated than F-22. Unless Turkey want to develop a very much downgraded version. Then it won't be proper 5th gen anymore.

And some countries do have alternative. Pakistan is planning to induct J-35. China pitching it to the gulf countries. So, Turkish system has to be qualitatively competitive. I would even say, make it so good that it would be a cost effective alternative of Tempset for countries that has dual options.

I see a market possibility for a non-Russian/non-Chinese cheaper 5G fighter but Sukhoi does not seem to have attracted much interest while marketing its low cost 5G Su-75 to potential customers. Is it because countries don't want to buy from Russia any more (due to Ukraine) or is it because I have got it wrong and there is little interest in 5G aircraft much below F-35 in performance?

 

[Zafer]

Why not just buy the right to use the British Queen Elizabeth II carrier design and build it in Turkiye? France considered doing that to replace its Charles de Gaulle carrier. Perhaps it is too large for Turkiye, though @ 65,000 tonnes. Cost of building the second carrier of that design was about 4 billion USD (including cost overrun of 500 million USD due to errors made during construction). Perhaps Turkiye could build one for less than 3 billion USD?

KAAN would need to be navalised which would not be costless but I think that BAE Systems has the knowledge required to do that. A flight deck of 284 metres would offer improved load-carrying STOBAR operation compared to a smaller vessel.

But why would Turkiye want a carrier? National prestige?

British Carriers are under-performing ships that no one will want. That is evident from the fact that they intend to modify them heavily particularly making them UAV friendly.

We need a ship that is 285 meter long weighing 60k tons and that can operate smaller planes like the UCAVs we are making now and the smallest of the crewed planes we intend to make in the near to mid term. I would say a Hürjet weight class is about the maximum we need on this ship. So Kaan class is out of question. On this ship we need a lighter duty EMALS like system that we can make in-house in time when the ship body is already built. We have our hands in rail-gun development so it shouldn't be too hard to make them. Also a matching electromagnetic arresting system is a must. The propulsion of the ship should be conventional electric but an upgrade path to nuclear electric should be drawn too. As the planes are smaller 3 or 4 catapults can be considered. And also multiple arresting systems should be considered.

We need an affordable carrier that has a precision punch. We don't need behemoths like the US and China are making. We need several of them to secure our interest in the Mediterranean and Indian Ocean, particularly when we also expand our footprint by using overseas locations for our spaceport needs and other interests where we need to aid our partner states. An AC is also a driver for technology development for future needs similar to space launch activities.

 

[DBdev]

I guess Hurjet will be used on this carrier not Kaan. There was an explanation about that.

Hürjet or any other 4th gen doesn't make much sense on a future carrier since multiple nations now own 5th gen fighters, even today.

SPACE on a carrier is at a PREMIUM.
You are spending billions for a carrier. So, you must also provide BEST possible airborne protection you can muster to such a vulnerable, juicy target, hard to replace and expensive asset.

Hurjet, Kizilelma or anything less than F35 can not protect a carrier against any standoff cruise missile barrage attacks coming from modern 5th gen fighters like a dozen KAANs can.

Both our LHD and this new larger carrier need KAAN desperately. Kizilelma, TB3, Anka 3, helicopters could be useful in small numbers to lower operational costs in a very low threat level area but they are mostly just wasting space which should be used for additional KAANs to truly dominate a large multi domain area around the carrier just to be safe.

We can use our LHD with KAAN simply by making some small modifications on TCG-Anadolu like adding arrester cables and simple restraining blocks as well as strengthening undercarriage of KAAN and adding a hook. Hopefully they are planning to do exactly that once KAAN is ready. Until then TCG-Anadolu is just a PR project to save face after we get ourselves kicked out of F35 project. Which I actually support because we cannot trust American software at all

 

[Spitfire9]

We need an affordable carrier that has a precision punch. We don't need behemoths like the US and China are making. We need several of them to secure our interest in the Mediterranean and Indian Ocean particularly when we also expand our footprint by using overseas locations for our spaceport needs and other interests where we need to aid our partner states. An AC is also a driver for technology development for future needs similar to space launch activities.

Turkiye needs several carriers, partly to secure its interest in the Indian Ocean?

 

[Zafer]

Turkiye needs several carriers, partly to secure its interest in the Indian Ocean?

No, from Gibraltar to Indonesia. As long as they are affordable we can have several, particularly because they are fossil fueled and have limited range. They are more like mobile bases.

 

[DBdev]

TWR is calculated with thrust/weight
Kaan will have 2x35000 lbf engines.
The typical payload of Kaan in stealth config is 10000kg=22000 lbs (internal fuel+weapons)
The empty weight of Kaan is expected to be around 16000kg= 36000lbs
Takeoff weight is 36000+22000=58000 lbs
Thus TWR is calculated
70/58=1.2 with TF35000 engines.
58/58=1 with F110 engines

Wiki - TWR Calculation​

The thrust-to-weight ratio is calculated by dividing the thrust (in SI units – in newtons) by the weight (in newtons) of the engine or vehicle. The weight (N) is calculated by multiplying the mass in kilograms (kg) by the acceleration due to gravity (m/s^2). Note that the thrust can also be measured in pound-force (lbf), provided the weight is measured in pounds (lb). Division using these two values still gives the numerically correct (dimensionless) thrust-to-weight ratio. For valid comparison of the initial thrust-to-weight ratio of two or more engines or vehicles, thrust must be measured under controlled conditions.

This is how I calculate for F110-129D engines KAAN have. We do not even know if TF35000 will give that thrust.
131 kilo newtons for each F110-129D engine. And gravity variable for acceleration at 9.8. Empty weight is (?)14.150 kilograms + 3500kg fuel + weapons payload not the full load to compare it to all the other fighters in the link I earlier posted which all were also carrying 3.5 tonnes to compare apples to apples since TWR changes with weight. So at least payload should stay the same to have some meaningful objective performance numbers. It adds up to:
1.07 =2x131,000/(14.150+3500)x9.8

Again the link to compare: https://world-defense.com/threads/thrust-to-weight-ratios-of-all-fighter-planes.1316/

 

[Spitfire9]

No, from Gibraltar to Indonesia. As long as they are affordable we can have several, particularly because they are fossil fueled and have limited range. They are more like mobile bases.

Why? My country could have more carriers but why would it want them? OK, one more would be useful so that there was always one not being refitted or being serviced/repaired. But I can't see the need for the UK to have loads of carriers. I can't see the need for Turkiye to have loads of carriers either.