TR Air Forces|News & Discussion

[Ryder]

He tried to save the plane and avoid hitting civilians. What a hero.

 

[Ripley]

”The Last Mohican“ retires after 55 years of service

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2037115925590110640

“1971-2026, 55 years, 285 thousand hours of flight, hundreds of missions from the Cyprus Peace Operation to humanitarian aid...

The last Mohikan retired. I said goodbye to the number 29 today that had greeted me when I joined the Air Force. I think this was the most beautiful #TBT. #C160 #transall”

Usually they come and go but for some it takes a long time to.. just go.
Farewell old lady 🫡

 

[Fuzuli NL]

Latest Status on the 12 C-130s to Be Shipped from England to Turkey!

Structural modernization continues at Marshall facilities for the 12 C-130J aircraft to be delivered to the Turkish Air Force.

Currently, the central wing box replacement is being carried out on multiple aircraft simultaneously.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2039666696613511559

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





The wingbox of a fixed-wing aircraft is the primary load-carrying structure of the wing, which forms the structural centre of the wings and is also the attachment point for other wing components such as leading edge flaps, swing wings, trailing edge flaps and wing-tip devices. The wingbox continues beyond the visible wing roots and interfaces with the fuselage in the centre wingbox, which forms the structural core of an aircraft.
The wingbox is so called since, on many designs, the combination of the forward and rear wing spars and the upper and lower wing skins together form a natural "box" shape running through the wing.[citation needed] While internal wing structure commonly provides much of the strength via a combination of spars, ribs and stringers, the external skin typically carries a proportion of the loads too. On many aircraft, the inner volume of the wingbox has also been used to store fuel, which is commonly referred to as being a wet wing design.[citation needed]
In recent years, there has been an increasing use of composite materials within the wingbox; this trend has largely been pursued to achieve lower weights over designs only using conventional materials.[1][2] Specifically, carbon fibre has become a popular material due to its very high strength-to-weight ratio.[3] During January 2017, European aerospace conglomerate Airbus Group announced that they had created the world's first single-piece composite center wingbox, stating that it represented a 20 per cent reduction in the cost of manufacturing by being easier to assemble.[4]

Evaluating and testing​

Due to its crucial structural role, the wingbox is subjected to considerable analysis and scrutiny in order to be certain of its capabilities, as well to achieve optimum performance. As such, various techniques to calculate and verify the stresses involved have been devised by aerospace engineers and employed by aircraft manufacturers.[citation needed] The use of increasingly capable calculations and tests has been directly credited with enabling the production of lighter and more efficient wings.[1] Towards the latter part of the twentieth century, the use of computer aided design (CAD) technology became commonplace in aerospace programmes; as such, software packages such as CATIA play a major role in the design and manufacturing process.[citation needed]
Furthermore, physical verification of the structural performance of the wingbox is normally demanded in the certification process of civil airliners by the certification authorities. Accordingly, it is commonplace for aircraft manufacturers to produce non-flying test units which are subjected to ground-based testing, exerting loads of up to 1.5 times the maximum aerodynamic forces expected to be encountered at any point throughout its operating life.[5] Destructive testing of wing elements has been around since the earliest days of aviation, although the specific techniques employed have become increasingly sophisticated, particularly since the invention of the strain gauge in 1938, which has been in widespread use within the aerospace industry since the Second World War.[6]
Non-destructive testing is also performed not only during the initial certification process but often throughout an individual aircraft's life to safeguard against fatigue failure and inspect potential damage inflicted.[7] Common techniques include visual inspection, ultrasonic testing, radiographic testing, electromagnetic testing, acoustic emissions, and shearography.[8][9] Sometimes, via such techniques, the need to replace an individual aircraft's wingbox is identified; although this is a quite intensive and costly procedure, leading to operators often choosing to end an aircraft's operating life instead, such replacements are occasionally performed.[10][11] During Summer 2019, the United States Air Force was compelled to ground over 100 of its Lockheed Martin C-130 Hercules transport aircraft for inspection and remedial work upon discovering excessive wingbox cracking.[12] Aircraft intended for lengthy service lives have often received replacement wingboxes as a part of life extension programmes.[13]

Wingbox - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Umigami]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2041809891581415649

Is this true that Turkiye wants SAMP-T?
Why not more Siper / Hisar ?

 

[TR_123456]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2041809891581415649

Is this true that Turkiye wants SAMP-T?
Why not more Siper / Hisar ?

Probably a stopgap soluton till the Siper 2 is ready/operational.
You know our situation in the ME.

 

[Pokemonte13]

By the time we would get our first delivery of samp t siper 2 would be in service. My guess if this is true they want the anti ballistic capability they have(technology transfer) also we could help with production speed.(Give and take)

 

[IC3M@N FX]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2041809891581415649

Is this true that Turkiye wants SAMP-T?
Why not more Siper / Hisar ?

France would use its veto

 

[Zafer]

Siper-3 is anti-ballistic capable and has 3-4 years to go into production while Siper-2 is air breathing target capable and is close to going into mass production. the 3-4 year gap to anti-ballistic capability is what makes SAMP-T and option to go after.

 

[Pokemonte13]

Siper-3 is anti-ballistic capable and has 3-4 years to go into production while Siper-2 is air breathing target capable and is close to going into mass production. the 3-4 year gap to anti-ballistic capability is what makes SAMP-T and option to go after.

Depends on delivery Speed and technology transfer

 

[Zafer]

Depends on delivery Speed and technology transfer

Probably both homegrown and Europe cooperation can give results in roughly the same timeframe but it will be a surebet to go for both. Product development is not guarantied to result in usable finished products in time when you need them.

 

[Corvus]

France would use its veto

I'm not sure. Things have changed.

 

[Yasar_TR]

Samp-t new gen uses pif paf to hit ballistic missiles.
This is a technology we need to master yet.
For exo atmospheric precision targeting it is important.
If we can manufacture it under license, we would learn a great deal about the technology.

 

[IC3M@N FX]

Yes, we need that really, but what good is it to us if we don’t have access? Look at it from their perspective: we’re their rivals (France) in the oil and gas sector and in the Mediterranean and Middle East networks; they want access via Greece and the Israel/UAE, and we’re standing in their way. Why on earth would they want to strengthen their rivals…

I keep hearing that things are going to change – excuse my language, and I really don’t want to offend anyone – but not a shit changed. This isn’t some strategy paper drafted by an intern Schoolboy; it’s a decades-long plan that we’re standing in their way.

There is a possibility, but the question is whether you really want to go down that route... You could source the HQ16FE or HQ19 from Pakistan as a grey market product (China) – it also features High G Fin or PIF/PAF, which are referred to there as DACS (Divert and Attitude Control System) or as a ‘blended control system’ as part of a technology transfer.

Feature	SAMP/T NG (Aster 30 B1 NT)	HQ-16FE (China / Export)	HQ-19 (China)
Max. Range	~150 km	~160 km	1,000 – 3,000 km
Max. Altitude	~25 km (Endo-atmospheric)	~27 km (Endo-atmospheric)	> 200 km (Exo-atmospheric)
Primary Targets	Jets, Cruise Missiles, SRBMs	Jets, Drones, Cruise Missiles, SRBMs	SRBMs, MRBMs, Hypersonic, Satellites
Radar Range	~400 km (Ground Fire AESA)	~250 km (L-Band AESA)	~4,000 km (Type 610A P-Band)
Agility Tech	PIF-PAF (Lateral Thrust)	Active Radar / High-G Fin	DACS (Kinetic Kill / PIF)

 

[boredaf]

Yes, we need that really, but what good is it to us if we don’t have access? Look at it from their perspective: we’re their rivals (France) in the oil and gas sector and in the Mediterranean and Middle East networks; they want access via Greece and the Israel/UAE, and we’re standing in their way. Why on earth would they want to strengthen their rivals…

I keep hearing that things are going to change – excuse my language, and I really don’t want to offend anyone – but not a shit changed. This isn’t some strategy paper drafted by an intern Schoolboy; it’s a decades-long plan that we’re standing in their way.

Is there any proof that France has a veto right on who Italy can export the system to with their own radar?

 

[IC3M@N FX]

Is there any proof that France has a veto right on who Italy can export the system to with their own radar?

As far as I know, SAMP/T and SAMP/T NG are an Italian-French project, but the effectors – that is, the missiles – were developed and manufactured by MBDA; the UK, France and Italy are involved, and perhaps Germany and Spain too, but only indirectly.

I don’t think the Italians will go to the trouble of replacing the subsystems just for us and then validating, certifying and testing them all over again... by then, we’ll already have Siper Block 4 in production.

 

[boredaf]

As far as I know, SAMP/T and SAMP/T NG are an Italian-French project, but the effectors – that is, the missiles – were developed and manufactured by MBDA; the UK, France and Italy are involved, and perhaps Germany and Spain too, but only indirectly.

I don’t think the Italians will go to the trouble of replacing the subsystems just for us and then validating, certifying and testing them all over again... by then, we’ll already have Siper Block 4 in production.

So, you don't know and just being negative for the sake of it based on your own speculations. Samp/T already has a version with Italian radars, and Italy also have their own Aster production line. If this materializes in any way, it'll be with the help of Italy, just like how Eurofighter purchase came to be with the help of UK.

 

[I_Love_F16]

You could source the HQ16FE or HQ19 from Pakistan

I keep hearing that Chinese air defence systems are performing extremely poorly. Not sure if that’s true.

 

[IC3M@N FX]

So, you don't know and just being negative for the sake of it based on your own speculations. Samp/T already has a version with Italian radars, and Italy also have their own Aster production line. If this materializes in any way, it'll be with the help of Italy, just like how Eurofighter purchase came to be with the help of UK.

SAMP/T - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But what you mean is a localised version, in which Italy contributes more added value to its own industry.
If they sell this version to third parties – that is, the Italian version – they still have to ask France whether that’s okay.
France then receives its payment via the IP licence, and thus less than it would otherwise receive for IP and subsystems in the SAMP-T System.

In the end it is a Franco-Italian project that has nothing to do with speculation – that is a fact.
France has a right of veto – that is also a fact.
The system was developed entirely in collaboration with Italy.

Imagine you were developing TAI KAAN and brought Spain on board as a co-developer and integrator for Airbus’s European subsystems for the European market. That is by no means to say that TAI KAAN can be completely removed from the Turkish system and that you, as Spain – since you do hold licensing rights – can sell it freely to anyone, whilst Turkey holds intellectual property rights, i.e. IP, over the aircraft; without Turkey’s permission, there can be no sale and no technology transfer to third parties.
With SAMP-T, the situation is even more serious, as France, together with Italy, would be a direct developer and therefore definitely holds intellectual property rights.

So when I say that, to the best of my knowledge, things are such and such, it is more a matter of this reflecting my current understanding, rather than me having no idea and simply speculating.

 

[IC3M@N FX]

I keep hearing that Chinese air defence systems are performing extremely poorly. Not sure if that’s true.

Yes, they failed in Iran – at least the HQ9s – but this failure has less to do with the system itself and more to do with the networked integration within the system, that is, the integration of systems within a complete IADS through sensor fusion and all radar systems. Iran has not the the requirements and the technology needed to manage this.

Take the war in Ukraine: several S-300/S-400s were destroyed there, not because they are poor, but because they were operating as individual, isolated systems – and, of course, thanks to very good intelligence from the Americans.

The US is not angry alone because we have purchased S-400s, but also because we are able to integrate them seamlessly into an IADS – specifically via the HAKIM system, which functions as management software within the IADS. This gives the S-400 access to all radar systems in Turkey, even those of the ALP and EIRIS series, and conversely, the S-400’s radar can, based on priority, authorise a Hisar O+ to engage a target, which is controlled via HAKIM.

ASELSAN Removes Russian S-400 Triumf from Hakim 100 Flyer | TURDEF

ASELSAN corrected a flyer about the Hakim 100 air defence and control system, which shows the Russian S-400 Triumf Air Defence system by removing from content.

turdef.com

There are good reasons why it was included at first and then removed.

HAKIM acts as the ‘brain’ that translates different languages Protocols (Russian protocols for the S-400 and NATO standards for the rest of the infrastructure) into a unified tactical picture.

 

[Pokemonte13]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2046687097873170814

One of our ch-47 crashed during a training session.