TR Air-Force TF-X KAAN Fighter Jet

[Pokemonte13]

Any idea how fast jets are matured from prototype to serial production?

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.

 

[Ahlatshah]

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.

All of the above are true. But today's technology simply much more advanced. Digital twins, ai, computing power etc. all sort of things have made it much shorter.

Besides, we have a sense of urgency because of the F35 situation, other's did not. First flight of Kaan was 2023, but it will not wait 15 years to become operational

 

[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)