TR Air-Force TF-X KAAN Fighter Jet

[2033]

First flight of Kaan was 2023, but it will not wait 15 years to become operational

Even if not 15, we can wait 10 years. In the meantime, I think 2033 is quite a reasonable timeframe

 

[Huelague]

The YF22 made its first flight in 1990, was put in to service in 2003 and reached full operational readiness in 2007.
The (X)F35 made its first flight in 2000, was put in to service in 2015 and reached (full) operational readiness in 2019-2020.
The Eurofighter made its first flight in 1994, was put in to service in 2006 and reached operational readiness around the 2010 but still lagged air to ground capability.

During War times like in WW2 for example.

 

[hugh]

3 prototypes side by side

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2025106927772950585

 

[fushkee]

Now the structural changes are so clear when we look at two prototypes

 

[zio]

P1 and P2 is not same,one of them smaller than the other one.Smaller one should have reduced wheight,better performance.

 

[Pokemonte13]

Are those empty spaces beneath the jet the weapon bays or something else?

 

[IC3M@N FX]

 

[Fuzuli NL]

I used the above shown images from @IC3M@N FX

 

[Pokemonte13]

From what it looks like Kaan has a total of four weapons bays

 

[Radko]

View attachment 79391

I used the above shown images from @IC3M@N FX

Scaled inappropriately

 

[NEKO]

Where will the gun be located.
Left/right?

 

[Sanchez]

Where will the gun be located.
Left/right?

It was never explicitly mentioned; but it'll be left as is tradition. 5 year old slide:

--

View attachment 79385
Are those empty spaces beneath the jet the weapon bays or something else?

Interestingly we see 2 side by side central bays here; which is interesting. Makes me think if they rejected the tandem or if it will have two huge ones; or 3 bays(2 front, one back) not counting the side ones.

 

[Umigami]

So the weapon bays is closer to F22 than Su57 now?

 

[NEKO]

It was never explicitly mentioned; but it'll be left as is tradition. 5 year old slide:

View attachment 79398

--

Interestingly we see 2 side by side central bays here; which is interesting. Makes me think if they rejected the tandem or if it will have two huge ones; or 3 bays(2 front, one back) not counting the side ones.

And what method will be used for aerial refueling.

 

[Pokemonte13]

And what method will be used for aerial refueling.

Most likely boom method like every other plane in service.

 

[Oublious]

View attachment 79391

I used the above shown images from @IC3M@N FX

No kebab and baklava for Kaan anymore...

 

[Sanchez]

And what method will be used for aerial refueling.

Boom of course. Kaan is huge, need that faster rate of transfer.

 

[Nilgiri]

@Nilgiri

what is the minimum requirement an engine needs to satisfy before it's integrated with a platform? is hitting certain thrust targets enough to give the go?

Well, meeting thrust (dry and wet) alone is insufficient.

Even with raw "max" thrust met, there are operating conditions of interest (ramping A to B, sustaining at B etc.... at various ambient pressures from different altitudes/velocities etc) that have their own requirements...the ability to do this over and over etc....and the feedback design loop on the engine in end.

The engine has to have sufficient reliability from all of this impact (mean time between overhaul is just one measure, one can dry run the engine some X number of times, open it up and get an idea of working part damage accumulation etc). There may be a target here say between 1000 - 3000 flight hours. Below which the operating costs get pricey basically given the downtimes over life cycle.

Then of course things like total weight, volume etc have to be within original requirements too. These limit scope of workaround solutions that may arise etc given engines are integral in fuselage rather than mounted on wing etc.

It is very different to say commercial engines that have more forgiving + predictable operating parameters....that dont have to go supersonic in first place...after maximum efficiency through much larger bypass ratio fan etc, external mount design and so on.... and have the much longer MTBO times and economies of scale to harness as result but a new set of design pressures too (getting a corolla optimal vs a ferrari etc)

 

[hugh]

Well, meeting thrust (dry and wet) alone is insufficient.

Even with raw "max" thrust met, there are operating conditions of interest (ramping A to B, sustaining at B etc.... at various ambient pressures from different altitudes/velocities etc) that have their own requirements...the ability to do this over and over etc....and the feedback design loop on the engine in end.

The engine has to have sufficient reliability from all of this impact (mean time between overhaul is just one measure, one can dry run the engine some X number of times, open it up and get an idea of working part damage accumulation etc). There may be a target here say between 1000 - 3000 flight hours. Below which the operating costs get pricey basically given the downtimes over life cycle.

Then of course things like total weight, volume etc have to be within original requirements too. These limit scope of workaround solutions that may arise etc given engines are integral in fuselage rather than mounted on wing etc.

It is very different to say commercial engines that have more forgiving + predictable operating parameters....that dont have to go supersonic in first place...after maximum efficiency through much larger bypass ratio fan etc, external mount design and so on.... and have the much longer MTBO times and economies of scale to harness as result but a new set of design pressures too (getting a corolla optimal vs a ferrari etc)

Much appreciated

can you also give us a perspective on military turbofan testing campaign? by that I mean, assume the company has designed and built the first prototype and we fired the engine the first time. Between the first firing and delivery into service, what percentage of engineering hours are spent on which phase of the testing? Is reaching the rated thrust take the bulk of the work? I asked some LLMs how much time do turbofan manufacturers take to reach the engine's thrust target and the answers were all over the place. Obviously, I ask these questions in context of TF6000 and TF35k and I know the technological readiness of TEI and the GE, RR etc. vastly different but i just wanna gain some perspective on the problem and not get lost in the never-ending speculations.

 

[Nilgiri]

Much appreciated

can you also give us a perspective on military turbofan testing campaign? by that I mean, assume the company has designed and built the first prototype and we fired the engine the first time. Between the first firing and delivery into service, what percentage of engineering hours are spent on which phase of the testing? Is reaching the rated thrust take the bulk of the work? I asked some LLMs how much time do turbofan manufacturers take to reach the engine's thrust target and the answers were all over the place. Obviously, I ask these questions in context of TF6000 and TF35k and I know the technological readiness of TEI and the GE, RR etc. vastly different but i just wanna gain some perspective on the problem and not get lost in the never-ending speculations.

It is pretty hard to put numbers to this. The commercial domain is more transparent one given the economies of scale (MRO workshops etc and raw number of flight hours daily compared to all airforces put together in a year etc).

Think about China for example in its ferrari vs corolla ecosystem here (military vs commercial)....given the progress in WS military turbofans since this century start (from the 80s,90s the base a mix of soviet and western).

Commercial will be more transparent to track and measure: COMAC with LEAP vs domestic equivalent over next 20 years etc... it boils down to total capital (old, current, new...machinery, innovation, experience) leverage and inertias between China and Western one.

Military one is far more non-transparent. There could be lot of "good enough" and produce twice engines (have a spare etc) in raw way to handle MTBO issues (costs are not an issue) But there is a hit in the intermediate overhauls (needed...or reliability impact from it being foregone) along the way too. This is what any airforce + relative def. establishment wouldn't advertise when it makes compromise to get the base indigenous "start" squared away however it deems to.

Other allied airforces (to PRC) also keep close to chest etc...and then its up to whomever regd how much we by and large accept everything face value past that. No airforce is going to large scale operate both and release both data streams transparently in some way etc.

i.e similar reason Russian (Soviet) military turbofans only had so much impact on commercial international domain. Capital conversion from one to the other was limited in end....from that we can adjudge the military one was not/is qualitatively the same as western peer either.

What I can tell you though is engine reliability + efficiency (it is hard to separate these neatly) in the commercial domain is like a 80% design time + cost thing. Maybe higher than that. GE going for detailed design in lubricating oil lines compared to Pratt (which felt more promise in geared turbofan to deploy capital there) for the 1% improvements that add up in savings etc. These things dont really enter the military domain. This is from the basic "thrust" design long being settled in 20th century....i.e we have iterative means only now to get closer to carnot peak.

If a miltary (Soviet, Russian, Chinese) wants to simply get 1000 "good enough" out there for warplanes and take some hit on that, you can maybe reduce to 50 - 50.

I doubt these days its going to go much lower than that, there is simply much more other capital locked into each military jet (radars, missiles, sensors, integration) these days to be chokepointed by the powerplant reliability. i.e the Mig-21 model is not there anymore anywhere.

So in end it depends on Turkish airforce top decision makers (when it comes to engineering) and how TEI works with capital they got at hand.