TR TF-X Fighter & Trainer Aircraft Projects

Khagan1923

Contributor
Messages
689
Reactions
1 2,937
Nation of residence
Germany
Nation of origin
Turkey
so it would have a separate IRST unit?

Separate. One of the biggest criticism I heard of the EOTS/DAS on the F-35 is the IRST aspect(can't confirm if this is true or not). I think maybe because of that TAI and TurAF decided to go with a separate unit on the nose. I do not see another reason to go with an separate unit if the method used on the F-35 was satisfactory to the TurAF.
 

Afif

Contributor
Messages
1,002
Reactions
1 1,140
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
Separate. One of the biggest criticism I heard of the EOTS/DAS on the F-35 is the IRST aspect(can't confirm if this is true or not). I think maybe because of that TAI and TurAF decided to go with a separate unit on the nose. I do not see another reason to go with an separate unit if the method used on the F-35 was satisfactory to the TurAF.
F35 is EOTS is the most advanced of its kind.
There is nothing unsatisfactory about it.

However, Blending IRST and FLIR in one package is not very easy as I understand it.
 
Last edited:

Osman

Committed member
Messages
166
Reactions
1 301
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Although 132 version has an advantage in thrust, it comes with penalties. It is more expensive and uses more fuel which can reach double digit number percentage levels. F110-GE132 is configured for a single engine use. We needed engines that were configured for twin engine use. Hence the “E” version of the 129 engine. If the 132 version were such a big improvement, the new F15EX would be using them as well. Yet they still use “129E” version.
Is it possible for us to convert the engines of our f 16s for twin engine use and use them in MMUs, cannibalise f 16s for MMUs, yes a bad idea but for the worst scenario in which we can not find/produce an engine because of harsh embargo..
 

Umigami

Experienced member
Moderator
Indonesia Moderator
Messages
3,799
Reactions
1 3,065
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
OK MMU is really big aircraft, but the boom-like section between the two engine block cavities is a very unusual approach too, for western systems. It reminding that:
View attachment 50740
fiqyalvxwaabqp1-jpeg.50733
You would end up with that design if you have 2 engine that are far apart and need to put something in the middle.
 

Anmdt

Experienced member
Naval Specialist
Professional
Messages
4,218
Solutions
2
Reactions
24 17,437
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
So , would you say there could be some truth in what @merzifonlu was trying to point out before many here dismissed his view and blamed him with flat-earthing.
Clearly Tusas and BAE engineers have moved away a bit from classic western design approach when it comes to the rear part of the plane. Also the plane looks wider than most western counterparts and more akin to what the Soviets used. Although it has a lot of similarities with an F22, it is nice to see that our design engineers have moved away from 100% Western approach and developed a new design altogether.
It is no sin if we were aspired by the Soviet design a little; After all it was thanks to a Soviet Scientist called Pyotr Ufimtsev that the western scientists cracked the stealth technology as we know it today, after seven long years of deciphering his mathematical calculations on electromagnetic radio wave equations.

It was me who said that, and claiming TF-X based on Ex-Soviet design that left out in Ukraine following dissolution and reengineered by BAE and Ukranian engineers for TR is indifferent from flat earther theories.

Different styles might be adapted as @Nilgiri also pointed out, there are motives and design philisophies that can be debatable and open for discussion with trade-offs and gains but claiming 'TF-X is 'Ex-soviet design that is reengineered and redesigned by BAE and Ukranian engineers' is not something such.

See Tempest for example it also features separated engine with a large rear radar house in some of the alternative CGIs.
 

Yasar

Experienced member
Professional
Lead Moderator
Messages
2,580
Reactions
26 11,243
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Turkey
Is it possible for us to convert the engines of our f 16s for twin engine use and use them in MMUs, cannibalise f 16s for MMUs, yes a bad idea but for the worst scenario in which we can not find/produce an engine because of harsh embargo..
Theoretically could be possible. The FADEC of twin engined use, will be different to single engined use. There could be slight differences in the airflow of the two types of the engines in certain cases. This should best be answered by TEI.
Recent F16 planes generally use F110-GE129C and D engines if I remember correctly. TuAF in 2007 had ordered 42 F110-GE129B engines at a cost of 180 million dollars to upgrade the old engines on our f16s. These were delivered by 2011.
Newer engines have different airflow characteristics. TFX is going to use F110-GE129E. This engine is the same one that flies f15EX. The 129E model incorporates improvements from GE’s Service Life Extension Programme (SLEP).
 

Hasanrize

Active member
Messages
149
Reactions
362
Nation of residence
Finland
Nation of origin
Turkey
I have been watching this thread for a while now. I have just registered so I can say how happy I am to see the TF-X come to reality! It is a beauty! Congrats to the Turkish people on this achievement.

I have a question about the timeline: Has the CDR for the TF-X completed?
Nope, It will be completed in 2024. We prepare cargo during a delivery. This was the way all Turkish defense products are made, engineers design their stuff open for changes in the future.

1669295961198.png
 

Rodeo

Contributor
Moderator
DefenceHub Diplomat
Messages
603
Reactions
5 1,802
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
This building will be used.
Isn't this building directly connected to the design bureau? I think it's a very convenient place for rapid prototyping. I would use it for different prototypes in the future as well. The engineers could implement the design changes very fast. Is the building big enough for accommodating both prototypes and serial production lines? What if we had a workload of building 50 TFXs per year?
 
Last edited:

Zafer

Experienced member
Messages
3,282
Reactions
1 5,432
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Isn't this building directly connected to the design bureau? I think it's a very convenient place for rapid prototyping. I would've used it for different prototypes in the future as well. The engineers could implement the design changes very fast. Is the building big enough for accommodating both prototypes and serial production lines? What if we had a workload of building 50 TFXs per year?
We do not know how much time each plane needs to spend in this station. If they spend a shorter time then more planes can be output from the line. If they spend more time then a smaller number of planes can be output. Additional capacity can always be created by expanding this space or creating another hanger like this at another area in the campus. Capacity is not a problem. We want 24 planes per year normally but we can make more. Mr Kotil said similar words.
 

Rodeo

Contributor
Moderator
DefenceHub Diplomat
Messages
603
Reactions
5 1,802
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
We do not know how much time each plane needs to spend in this station. If they spend a shorter time then more planes can be output from the line. If they spend more time then a smaller number of planes can be output. Additional capacity can always be created by expanding this space or creating another hanger like this at another area in the campus. Capacity is not a problem. We want 24 planes per year normally but we can make more. Mr Kotil said similar words.
Sure. But having the space is not the only issue. The testing and the logistics of the finished aircraft is also a concern. Imo, companies should have different facilities for prototyping and serial production. They should be purpose-built places for the maximum efficiency for cost, time and quality aspects of the product.

The company might have different, challenging projects in the future and i think that place is too good to be sacrificed for the serial production of a single product.
 
Last edited:

I_Love_F16

Contributor
Messages
462
Reactions
1 833
Nation of residence
France
Nation of origin
France
In the early days when Turks had the intention to build such things didnt we invite Pakistan to become a partner in it? Now Turks are proving themselves I hope we can bring many allied nations into these things, increase the number of units purchased and lower the cost per unit.

Surprisingly, many people on Twitter from various countries are saying that Pakistan is part of the project. @MADDOG can you confirm it ? Is there a true and clear statement from someone working at TAI ?
 

Ecderha

Experienced member
Messages
3,267
Reactions
1 6,114
Nation of residence
Bulgaria
Nation of origin
Turkey
There actually the more powerful GE-132, I wonder why you don't opt for that one especially that TAI engineers has expressed the need for more thrust
Hi there!
Just to give you info.
There are official Sanction Act voted by usa congress and signed by Trump ex-president. It is called Sanctions Act (CAATSA). usa is applied hostile act against Turkiye. It include many type of embargoes, including different sectors. Also included official government people of Turkiye etc.

It is still active and almost all "expressed need from Turkiye" were rejected, delayed in definitely in time(mean Turkiye did not received answer or any product).

So that is why.
 

Pilatino

Committed member
Messages
269
Reactions
1 530
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Is TFX going to have dsi? Should we have it? And also if the answer is yes for the 2nd question then can we apply it in another bloc for the plane?
 

Zafer

Experienced member
Messages
3,282
Reactions
1 5,432
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Sure. But having the space is not the only issue. The testing and the logistics of the finished aircraft is also a concern. Imo, companies should have different facilities for prototyping and serial production. They should be purpose-built places for the optimum efficiency for cost, time and quality aspects of the product.

The company might have different, challenging projects in the future and i think that place is too good to be sacrificed for the serial production of a single product.
TFX deserves such a dedicated house for itself.

I am sure other projects get the attention they deserve too. Only someone from TAI can say definite words.
 
Top Bottom