TR Air Forces|News & Discussion

[what]

You still alive bro?

I'm a father now so barely

 

[Nilgiri]

I'm a father now so barely

Congrats! Best of luck on everything.

 

[TR_123456]

I'm a father now so barely

Congratulations bro!!!

 

[Yasar_TR]

I'm a father now so barely

Congratulations!
Great news! Wish you all the best.

 

[Fuzuli NL]

I'm a father now so barely

Congrats, brother!
Allah anali babali büyütsün!

 

[Sanchez]

Looks like the old 133 "Claw" was brought back to life as well. They used to fly F-5s and it was disbanded in 2013. The "132" detail on the first patch makes me think they will possibly be another tactics and training squadron like the 132?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2083913371443708315

Funfact, with 133 being returned back to life, we now have a full house at Konya 131 through 138. Only 132 and 133 are fighter squadrons, but fun still.

First Claw seen with a F-16D B40M. This aircraft used to fly under 132 Daggers, so we can indeed say 133 was born out of 132. I also now see the dagger the bird is holding on the first patch; must be a reference as well.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2095065813908615501

 

[Bogeyman]

RAT: The turbine powering the pod—and saving the aircraft

Civil aviation certification is extremely rigorous regarding flight safety.

This is no different for an aircraft's electrical generation and distribution systems.

The FAA and EASA classify engine generators as active sources, the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) as an active backup, and the Ram Air Turbine (RAT) as a passive backup.

The APU is a small gas turbine that operates independently of the aircraft's main engines.

The RAT, on the other hand, is a completely independent small wind turbine powered by the airflow generated by the aircraft's forward motion.

APUs and RATs are typically found on large aircraft.

For instance, the ATR72-600 has neither an APU nor a RAT.

Batteries are present on every aircraft.

Why is a RAT system needed?
So, why is a RAT necessary?

No single power source offers sufficient redundancy on its own.

Battery power is not limitless.

The APU can also fail or become unavailable.

A recent example occurred on March 4, 2026, when the RAT deployed on an American Airlines Airbus A321 following the loss of both generators.

Conversely, in military applications, this same technology may be utilized for purposes entirely different from—and for reasons far more demanding than—those in the civil sector.

When developing an AEW&C (Airborne Early Warning & Control) aircraft from a Boeing 737, a P-72 Maritime Patrol Aircraft from an ATR72-600, or an Airborne SOJ (Stand-Off Jammer) from a Bombardier Global 6000, the aircraft's existing electrical architecture may prove insufficient to meet the demands of high-power mission systems.

The first step taken is to upgrade the active power source—essentially installing a larger generator.

What if that isn't enough?

As seen with our Airborne SOJ aircraft, the emergency APU system is transformed into a continuous power source. Alternatively, one might even consider a dedicated generator for the mission system.

But the most interesting aspect is the use of a RAT.

RAT = Independence!

The AN/ALQ-99 is a US tactical electronic warfare system developed in the late 1960s for the EA-6B Prowler.

Later, advanced versions were used on the EA-18G Growler.

And all of them featured RAT generators.

Israel’s ELTA Scorpius-EJ also utilizes a RAT.

In short, they all generate their own electricity.

The US maintains this approach with the AN/ALQ-249 Next Generation Jammer (NGJ) program.

So, why?

Aircraft have fixed capacities.

Modifying them comes at a cost.

And it creates platform dependency.

For instance, the RAT provided 27 kW for the ALQ-99; for the NGJ, that figure is 140 kW!

However, the RAT is no miracle solution.

It doesn't provide free electricity; it increases drag and fuel consumption.

RAT performance fluctuates with changes in speed, altitude, and air density.

Icing is another issue.

It is a mechanical system, meaning it requires maintenance!

But the advantage is clear: Independence.

In 2025, a project titled "Development of a RAT-Based In-Pod Electric Power Supply" was conducted with the support of Gazi University and TUSAŞ.

The target was 50 kW.

The outcome?

Making pods as independent as possible from the aircraft could pave the way for more modular systems with reduced platform dependency.

Ultimately, how you generate power is just as important as the amount of power the pod delivers!

I believe our work will prove beneficial.

RAT: Uçağı kurtaran türbinden podu besleyen türbin - Tolga Özbek

Sivil havacılık sertifikasyonu, uçuş emniyeti açısından son derece katıdır.

tolgaozbek.com

 

[Zafer]

RAT: The turbine powering the pod—and saving the aircraft

Civil aviation certification is extremely rigorous regarding flight safety.

This is no different for an aircraft's electrical generation and distribution systems.

The FAA and EASA classify engine generators as active sources, the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) as an active backup, and the Ram Air Turbine (RAT) as a passive backup.

The APU is a small gas turbine that operates independently of the aircraft's main engines.

The RAT, on the other hand, is a completely independent small wind turbine powered by the airflow generated by the aircraft's forward motion.

APUs and RATs are typically found on large aircraft.

For instance, the ATR72-600 has neither an APU nor a RAT.

Batteries are present on every aircraft.

Why is a RAT system needed?
So, why is a RAT necessary?

No single power source offers sufficient redundancy on its own.

Battery power is not limitless.

The APU can also fail or become unavailable.

A recent example occurred on March 4, 2026, when the RAT deployed on an American Airlines Airbus A321 following the loss of both generators.

Conversely, in military applications, this same technology may be utilized for purposes entirely different from—and for reasons far more demanding than—those in the civil sector.

When developing an AEW&C (Airborne Early Warning & Control) aircraft from a Boeing 737, a P-72 Maritime Patrol Aircraft from an ATR72-600, or an Airborne SOJ (Stand-Off Jammer) from a Bombardier Global 6000, the aircraft's existing electrical architecture may prove insufficient to meet the demands of high-power mission systems.

The first step taken is to upgrade the active power source—essentially installing a larger generator.

What if that isn't enough?

As seen with our Airborne SOJ aircraft, the emergency APU system is transformed into a continuous power source. Alternatively, one might even consider a dedicated generator for the mission system.

But the most interesting aspect is the use of a RAT.

RAT = Independence!

The AN/ALQ-99 is a US tactical electronic warfare system developed in the late 1960s for the EA-6B Prowler.

Later, advanced versions were used on the EA-18G Growler.

And all of them featured RAT generators.

Israel’s ELTA Scorpius-EJ also utilizes a RAT.

In short, they all generate their own electricity.

The US maintains this approach with the AN/ALQ-249 Next Generation Jammer (NGJ) program.

So, why?

Aircraft have fixed capacities.

Modifying them comes at a cost.

And it creates platform dependency.

For instance, the RAT provided 27 kW for the ALQ-99; for the NGJ, that figure is 140 kW!

However, the RAT is no miracle solution.

It doesn't provide free electricity; it increases drag and fuel consumption.

RAT performance fluctuates with changes in speed, altitude, and air density.

Icing is another issue.

It is a mechanical system, meaning it requires maintenance!

But the advantage is clear: Independence.

In 2025, a project titled "Development of a RAT-Based In-Pod Electric Power Supply" was conducted with the support of Gazi University and TUSAŞ.

The target was 50 kW.

The outcome?

Making pods as independent as possible from the aircraft could pave the way for more modular systems with reduced platform dependency.

Ultimately, how you generate power is just as important as the amount of power the pod delivers!

I believe our work will prove beneficial.

RAT: Uçağı kurtaran türbinden podu besleyen türbin - Tolga Özbek

Sivil havacılık sertifikasyonu, uçuş emniyeti açısından son derece katıdır.

tolgaozbek.com

So the RAT jump ship first but never jump airplane.

I wonder for what end use TUSAŞ started that development job as the RAT system is for passenger planes and maybe for cargo planes too none of which TUSAŞ make and spares would be bought from foreign makers. They maybe wanting to replace the lesser power ones with more powerful ones to run additional systems in an emergency perhaps.

 

[Bogeyman]

So the RAT jump ship first but never jump airplane.

I wonder for what end use TUSAŞ started that development job as the RAT system is for passenger planes and maybe for cargo planes too none of which TUSAŞ make and spares would be bought from foreign makers. They maybe wanting to replace the lesser power ones with more powerful ones to run additional systems in an emergency perhaps.

RAT exists to meet the additional power requirements of early warning aircraft and electronic warfare aircraft.

 

[Sanchez]

First Claw seen with a F-16D B40M. This aircraft used to fly under 132 Daggers, so we can indeed say 133 was born out of 132. I also now see the dagger the bird is holding on the first patch; must be a reference as well.

View attachment 82829

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2095065813908615501

Block 30M, 40M and 50Ms now flying for 133 Claws. Beauty of CCIP, they are all same aircraft avionically.

 

[Fatman17]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2102344395093594599

MKE Bunker bursting bomb

 

[Yasar_TR]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2102344395093594599

MKE Bunker bursting bomb

Let us not get ahead of ourselves.
I have written about the bomb in question here before, which is dubbed as “hayalet”, in my previous post in below page Post number #10354

TF-X KAAN Fighter Jet

The joke went right over your head here I was expecting a serious and informed reply and not a joke Anyways i have models iwb of turkish jets with the global info But i was curious as in Wikipedia, the numbers are way to high , like it does not make sens that a 6.5 tonn anka 3 has 1.2-1.6...

defencehub.live

Hayalet and gbu57 are very different bombs. GBU 57 is a monster bomb compared to Hayalet. What we have with hayalet is a poor man’s GBU-57.

 

[Fatman17]

Let us not get ahead of ourselves.
I have written about the bomb in question here before, which is dubbed as “hayalet”, in my previous post in below page Post number #10354

TF-X KAAN Fighter Jet

The joke went right over your head here I was expecting a serious and informed reply and not a joke Anyways i have models iwb of turkish jets with the global info But i was curious as in Wikipedia, the numbers are way to high , like it does not make sens that a 6.5 tonn anka 3 has 1.2-1.6...

defencehub.live

Hayalet and gbu57 are very different bombs. GBU 57 is a monster bomb compared to Hayalet. What we have with hayalet is a poor man’s GBU-57.

As long as it works and is effective.

 

[Fuzuli NL]

Let us not get ahead of ourselves.
I have written about the bomb in question here before, which is dubbed as “hayalet”, in my previous post in below page Post number #10354

TF-X KAAN Fighter Jet

The joke went right over your head here I was expecting a serious and informed reply and not a joke Anyways i have models iwb of turkish jets with the global info But i was curious as in Wikipedia, the numbers are way to high , like it does not make sens that a 6.5 tonn anka 3 has 1.2-1.6...

defencehub.live

Hayalet and gbu57 are very different bombs. GBU 57 is a monster bomb compared to Hayalet. What we have with hayalet is a poor man’s GBU-57.

I think the point here is that the GBU-57 has a tenfold weight compared to ours.
The point here is that two of them could match a 13-14 tonne GBU-57 in penetrating enemy bunkers.

 

[boredaf]

The point here is that two of them could match a 13-14 tonne GBU-57 in penetrating enemy bunkers.

Unless our bomb somehow defies the laws of physics, that is simply impossible.

Let us not get ahead of ourselves.
I have written about the bomb in question here before, which is dubbed as “hayalet”, in my previous post in below page Post number #10354

TF-X KAAN Fighter Jet

The joke went right over your head here I was expecting a serious and informed reply and not a joke Anyways i have models iwb of turkish jets with the global info But i was curious as in Wikipedia, the numbers are way to high , like it does not make sens that a 6.5 tonn anka 3 has 1.2-1.6...

defencehub.live

Hayalet and gbu57 are very different bombs. GBU 57 is a monster bomb compared to Hayalet. What we have with hayalet is a poor man’s GBU-57.

After the shit they pulled in this years IDEF, I don't believe anything MSB Arge says mate.

 

[Yasar_TR]

I think the point here is that the GBU-57 has a tenfold weight compared to ours.
The point here is that two of them could match a 13-14 tonne GBU-57 in penetrating enemy bunkers.

When a bunker buster bomb explodes underground in a “confined” space, the explosive force has 3 basic physical parameters.
1. Kinetic and thermal energy release
2. Confined space pressure release
3. Shockwave pressure release.

GBU-57 has 2400kg of explosive
Hayalet has 250kg of explosive

So for the first two parameters, GBU-57 has linearly 10 times more effect as it’s weight is nearly 10 times more.
But for the shockwave pressure release GBU-57 only has the effect of cube root of 10 as per the related physics law ; which is 2.15 times more effect than a Hayalet.

Bunker buster bombs’ explosive weights are only around 20% of their total weight. Where as for surface exploding bombs it is close to 50%.

Bunker busters’ main weight is for it’s thicker skin and outer shell rigidness to allow it to drill itself in to ground.

Although the initial shockwave of the GBU-57 bomb is only twice as intense, it’s real power inside a bunker comes from the confined gas expansion, which delivers 10 times more destructive pressure and energy, guaranteeing total structural failure, whilst hayalet weapon might only cause localised damage.

@boredaf bro, after that IDEF, I am sceptical about the MSB Arge as well. But we have all seen the test firing videos of the Hayalet under horizontal ground testing and vertical drop testing from a fighter jet.

Dropped from 30000 feet it has reached over 1.2 Mach speed when arrived at ground level. (It can reach 1.4 Mach speed if released from 40000feet). It only has a diameter of 40 to 45 cm. Yet GBU-57 has a diameter of 80cm and a terminal speed of 1.15 Mach . So it is normal for Hayalet to go deeper. But it is nowhere as destructive as a GBU-57.