TR Air-Force TF-X KAAN Fighter Jet

[Saithan]

I shared this in PDF a while ago, and in this video we get a good explanation of the Harrier and why UK didn't make a new one. Plus it's explained in the video that LM got Ukraine to design a VTOL engine for them and bought it with the IP rights. (As I remember it).

 

[Zafer]

I shared this in PDF a while ago, and in this video we get a good explanation of the Harrier and why UK didn't make a new one. Plus it's explained in the video that LM got Ukraine to design a VTOL engine for them and bought it with the IP rights. (As I remember it).

Give me $10mn and 3 years and get
A similar VTOL to the Harrier with
Stealth features,
%70 of its speed and
%20 percent of its payload capability
Without avionics and weapons (I give it empty)
at 25% of the prize
to be based 100% on existing Turkish technology
an LHD monster

 

[what]

Give me $10mn and 3 years and get
A similar VTOL to the Harrier with
Stealth features,
%70 of its speed and
%20 percent of its payload capability
Without avionics and weapons (I give it empty)
at 25% of the prize
to be based 100% on existing Turkish technology
an LHD monster

Look I really dont want to be mean or disrespectful and I like your spirit but come on.

 

[Zafer]

Look I really dont want to be mean or disrespectful and I like your spirit but come on.

I've got the propulsion system nailed already. I will use 1-2 helicopter engines to power 3 fans. Think like the lift fan of the F35B but smaller and no hot exhaust. Speeds up to mach 0.6 I have already sketched the propulsion. The rest is ordinary aeroplane. In an ideal world I would be riding one of them to roam the skies.

 

[Nilgiri]

I shared this in PDF a while ago, and in this video we get a good explanation of the Harrier and why UK didn't make a new one. Plus it's explained in the video that LM got Ukraine to design a VTOL engine for them and bought it with the IP rights. (As I remember it).

I bring up some of the issues regarding harrier here (and why its a dead end now):

Personal concepts - Sea

Av-8 harriers are blamed for being subsonic. What if you put second engine vertically:) british electric lightning ( mach2 speed) has vertical two engine. You just add lift nozzles to the bottom engine and get a supersonic vtol fighter. Hehe, but did you account for the CofG of the lightning...

defencehub.live

Thrust to weight numbers are confusing. Author states that this number is the lower the better. This indicates the aerodynamic performance of the plane will be good despite the t/w is smaller.

Could you explain?

BTW is MMU and TF-X the same thing?

I will use 1-2 helicopter engines to power 3 fans. Think like the lift fan of the F35B but smaller and no hot exhaust.

Are the 1 - 2 turboshafts all that there is going to be for engines/power on board (and you swivel/vector fans as needed) or there is separate main jet engine too?

 

[Zafer]

I bring up some of the issues regarding harrier here (and why its a dead end now):

Personal concepts - Sea

Av-8 harriers are blamed for being subsonic. What if you put second engine vertically:) british electric lightning ( mach2 speed) has vertical two engine. You just add lift nozzles to the bottom engine and get a supersonic vtol fighter. Hehe, but did you account for the CofG of the lightning...

defencehub.live

Could you explain?

BTW is MMU and TF-X the same thing?



Are the 1 - 2 turboshafts all that there is going to be for engines/power on board (and you swivel/vector fans as needed) or there is separate main jet engine too?

Harrier was abandoned because it couldn't be made stealth.

The numbers given for TW are not at the level you would expect like near unity. F16C is the lowest and best, but how is smaller better? Normally higher is better for performance but if the plane is performing well despite low TW it gives credit to the aerodynamics of the plane being great.

MMU = TF-X

You don't want too many engines.

 

[Nilgiri]

Harrier was abandoned because it couldn't be made stealth.

Not really. It hit brick wall lot earlier than that (as I explain in my post there)....but it served a role within that constraint anyway. You will not see a project like it again...not with F-35 much better concept.

The numbers given for TW are not at the level you would expect like near unity. F16C is the lowest and best, but how is smaller better? Normally higher is better for performance but if the plane is performing well despite low TW it gives credit to the aerodynamics of the plane being great.

Well T/W, the larger it is the better it is for aerodynamic performance for each and every wing loading (the range of maneuver intensity you can do etc.)....as it determines the basic acceleration (and thus force) potential of the aircraft (and structure Vn + pilot and other things constrain it from reverse direction).

It matters a lot in fighter aircraft, especially in air-air domain. Compromising on it needs a very good reason to do so.

MMU = TF-X

Thanks.

You don't want too many engines.

Yes I agree, but what is your main propulsion package for your concept?

 

[Zafer]

Not really. It hit brick wall lot earlier than that (as I explain in my post there)....but it served a role within that constraint anyway. You will not see a project like it again...not with F-35 much better concept.



Well T/W, the larger it is the better it is for aerodynamic performance for each and every wing loading (the range of maneuver intensity you can do etc.)....as it determines the basic acceleration (and thus force) potential of the aircraft (and structure Vn + pilot and other things constrain it from reverse direction).

It matters a lot in fighter aircraft, especially in air-air domain. Compromising on it needs a very good reason to do so.




Thanks.



Yes I agree, but what is your main propulsion package for your concept?

I need to make do with a (pair) turboshaft and some fans.

 

[Saithan]

I agree with regard to the Harrier not being viable and it's too slow etc., but I just wanted to point to the part in the video where the design of F35 and patented design "fan behind the fuselage" was the perfect solution for the desired stability along with super sonic speed (timestamp 12:00)

YAK-141 1,7 M speed (LM F35B ToT) So in reality F35 engine is (based on) Soviet tech, I do not think anyone need to rediscover the wheel, they/we can just make prototypes to test out the solutions and work on improving it from there.

 

[Zafer]

I agree with regard to the Harrier not being viable and it's too slow etc., but I just wanted to point to the part in the video where the design of F35 and patented design "fan behind the fuselage" was the perfect solution for the desired stability along with super sonic speed (timestamp 12:00)

YAK-141 1,7 M speed (LM F35B ToT) So in reality F35 engine is (based on) Soviet tech, I do not think anyone need to rediscover the wheel, they/we can just make prototypes to test out the solutions and work on improving it from there.

Not really, F35B lacks simplicity, needs a special engine that only RR makes and it damages the board of the platform it lands on. It has a lot of redundant structures that is only used for landing/take off. You can not make a civilian version with a reasonable price. Nobody even tries to copy it.

 

[Saithan]

Pretty awesome video on stealth tech.

 

[Anmdt]

it damages the board of the platform it lands on

Jet resistant deck, ever heard about it?

The Wasp's New Heat-Resistant Deck Coating

Remember a few weeks ago when we ran the picture above showing an F-35B Joint Strike Fighter hovering over what appears to be a new deck coating aboard the USS Wasp?

www.military.com

Hi-Tech Deck Coating for HMS Queen Elizabeth Aircraft Carrier

The Royal Navy's newest and largest ship will get a new hi-tech non-skid, thermal gas wash resistant deck coating developed exclusively by British scientists!

www.ddcoatings.co.uk

This is what makes TCG Anadolu more expensive, and it was primary requirement of LHD project to have a heat (moreoever -jet flow-) resistant coating on deck, which we refer as "jet resistant deck" because it is specifically applied for landing jets and not needed for helicopters.

 

[Zafer]

Jet resistant deck, ever heard about it?

The Wasp's New Heat-Resistant Deck Coating

Remember a few weeks ago when we ran the picture above showing an F-35B Joint Strike Fighter hovering over what appears to be a new deck coating aboard the USS Wasp?

www.military.com

Hi-Tech Deck Coating for HMS Queen Elizabeth Aircraft Carrier

The Royal Navy's newest and largest ship will get a new hi-tech non-skid, thermal gas wash resistant deck coating developed exclusively by British scientists!

www.ddcoatings.co.uk

This is what makes TCG Anadolu more expensive, and it was primary requirement of LHD project to have a heat (moreoever -jet flow-) resistant coating on deck, which we refer as "jet resistant deck" because it is specifically applied for landing jets and not needed for helicopters.

Yeah, because it damages the deck otherwise. Another downside to jet exhaust, added cost and maintenance.

 

[Anmdt]

Yeah, because it damages the deck otherwise. Another downside to jet exhaust, added cost and maintenance.

Thus, F-35B doesn't damage the deck, because it operates from the ships with jet resistant deck.
And it doesn't increase maintenance cost, and cost of coating is little compared to other equipment installed to be compatible with F-35B
The ship already goes in repair and maintenance regularly, that up-keeping deck is a little job among all maintenance.

 

[Zafer]

Thus, F-35B doesn't damage the deck, because it operates from the ships with jet resistant deck.
And it doesn't increase maintenance cost, and cost of coating is little compared to other equipment installed to be compatible with F-35B
The ship already goes in repair and maintenance regularly, that up-keeping deck is a little job among all maintenance.

Can you land that plane on unprepared grounds, of course not, sucks.

 

[Anmdt]

Can you land that plane on unprepared grounds, of course not, sucks.

Where else an F-35b land in middle of the sea?
Moreover this coating is not that expensive and can be applied on helo decks of frigates or destroyers in future. Don't be surprised to see trimaran ships launching VTOL jets.

 

[Zafer]

Where else an F-35b land in middle of the sea?
Moreover this coating is not that expensive and can be applied on helo decks of frigates or destroyers in future. Don't be surprised to see trimaran ships launching VTOL jets.

You need to find prepared places to land for that plane.

Maybe not very comparable but my design being cold air can land anywhere with a rigid surface and possibly on water if fitted with a boat bottom.

 

[Anmdt]

You need to find prepared places to land for that plane.

Actually on land it can use numerous landing spots, as long as build on soil or concrete only may require slight repair afterwards on the coating.
If an F35B needed to land on a land, means it was an emergency, then it definitely worth for the damage inflicted on both on aircraft and wherever it lands, as long as it is safe.

 

[Raptor]

Since I don't know much about this program,I wanna ask that what's the status of TFX and how its going?

 

[Combat-Master]

Since I don't know much about this program,I wanna ask that what's the status of TFX and how its going?

According to the schedule, TFX is currently in preliminary design stage