Pilatino
Well-known member
- Messages
- 365
- Reactions
- Nation of residence
-
- Nation of origin
-
Kaan will be a testing bed for many 6th-gen capabilities, but KAAN won't be a 6th-gen system ever.
These are cross-sections of the B-2 Spirit and the F-35A from the front and side
There is a reason why real 6th-gen aircraft are without a tail. 6th-gen aircraft require better 360-degree stealth in a wider frequency range (not just the frequency range of the fire control radars) compared to 5th-gen, and this can only be achieved by removing the tail unless someone comes up with a technology that achieves required level of stealth with tails (there is none as of today). With tails, it is especially bad from the sides. Canards also add RCS, but not as much as tails. RCS of canards can also be controlled in real time with software. Eurofighter has that ability. That is why the US F-47 got rid of tails to increase stealth, but trade-off is canards to have that extra agility/maneuverability required from a fighter. China did this with wingtip control surfaces
Advances in aviation enabled tailless designs to have agility/maneuverability that comes close to fighters with tails, even at supersonic speeds. That was not the case in the past. B-2 is basically a subsonic bomber with a limited flight envelope. Tempest won't be a real 6th gen unless it gets rid of its tail.
6th gen also requires next-generation adaptive cycle/variable cycle engines. Those bring increased fuel efficiency and thrust. The American engine basically starts as a turbofan and operates as a turbojet at higher speeds and altitudes. China goes further; the engine that China is developing starts as a turbofan, functions like a turbojet at higher speeds, and operates like a ramjet at even higher speeds and altitudes, which covers 0 to Mach 3+ range. American ACE can probably be applied to existing 5th gen with air inlet modification/redesign (one of the reasons why they are hesitating to install it on F-35) but i doubt the Chinese version can be used on any existing aircraft. Enginewise other projects have nothing that comes close to those 2. Not even a drawing, let alone a prototype.
Any capability other than these 2 can also be deployed on 5th gen aircraft. You can install stronger radars, better EO sensors, high-bandwidth datalinks, and advanced MUM-T functions. You can increase power production, especially if you have a big twin-engine 5th-gen fighter like KAAN. It will be more difficult with F-35, but possible. Fighters like KAAN and Tempest can't be 6th generation in the future. We can call them 6th gen, but unless they match the capabilities of the American and Chinese fighters, this will remain a marketing gimmick.
I actually agree with many of the technical points you raised, especially regarding tailless architectures and broadband 360° stealth. Aerodynamically and signature-wise, tailless designs do offer advantages, and adaptive-cycle engines will be a major milestone. No disagreement there.
But here’s the issue:
The strict criteria you’re listing don’t match what the actual 6th-generation programs are doing.
Not in the US, not in Europe, not in China.
1. Tailless design is NOT a global requirement and the proof is overwhelming.
GCAP (UK–Japan–Italy) → Has vertical tails. Still marketed as 6th gen.
FCAS (France–Germany–Spain) → Also has tails. Still officially 6th gen.
If “real 6th gen must be tailless,”
then every single one of these programs is disqualified.
Clearly, the world’s leading aerospace countries don’t see tail fins as the absolute barrier you describe; not for stealth, not for classification.
2. 360° broadband stealth is NOT exclusively tied to tailless platforms.
A tail raises the design challenge, but it does not prevent next-gen stealth, otherwise GCAP & FCAS wouldn't exist in their current forms.
3. Adaptive/variable-cycle engines also do not define a generation barrier.
ACE (Adaptive Cycle Engines) GE XA100, Pratt XA101can be retrofitted into existing 5th gens with inlet redesigns.
Even the USAF says this openly.
If a technology is retrofittable to a 5th gen,
it cannot logically be the defining element of a new generation.
China’s tri-mode turbine/ramjet hybrid is ambitious,
but again nothing prevents future airframes (including KAAN) from adopting parallel technologies when mature.
4. Nearly all other “6th-gen features” are also retrofittable.
high-power AESA
IRST evolution
AI copilot
MUM-T & loyal wingman control
high-bandwidth datalinks
electronic attack suites
onboard power growth
sensor fusion upgrades
All of these can go on a 5th gen platform especially a large twin-engine design like KAAN.
So saying “KAAN can never be 6th gen” is not a technical conclusion but it’s speculation based on incomplete data.
5. The real inconsistency: limiting KAAN with rules no one else follows.
You said:
> “We can call them 6th gen but…”
Well, they are doing exactly that calling tailed jets “6th gen.”
France, UK, Germany, Italy, Japan… none of them agonize over tails, inlet philosophy, or ACE maturity when branding.
So the logical next step is simple:
Let us call KAAN ‘next gen’ as well just like everyone else labels their own jets.
Why should Türkiye be the only country limiting itself with criteria that even the originators of the programs ignore?
If the French, British, Germans, Italians, Japanese, Chinese, and Americans don’t burden themselves with this level of self-imposed restriction…
why on earth should we?
