TR TF-X KAAN Fighter Jet

urban mine

Committed member
Messages
164
Reactions
11 458
Nation of residence
South Korea
Nation of origin
South Korea
Awesome!!! High quality images make my heart skip a beat. Looking forward to the flight test later this year. Good things are going to happen.
TFX-turkey.png
 

Yasar_TR

Experienced member
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
3,103
Reactions
126 15,236
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Turkey
Congratulations to all staff that were involved in achieving this feat of engineering in such a short time and making us all proud and happy bunnies.

We are all looking forward to seeing this bird in the air. That is the next big and most defining hurdle we have in hand now.

To appreciate what TAI has achieved we really need a commensurate engine that befits this plane and what it is meant to accomplish.
There comes the work being done by TEI. Our indigenous engine will be the crown of the whole project. Because with f110 engines the plane will never achieve it's full potential.
 

No Name

Well-known member
Messages
353
Reactions
5 351
Nation of residence
Australia
Nation of origin
Afghanistan
Everything needs to be in harmony aerodynamically. Moving the vertical stabs is a big challenge and probably isn't worth the time and effort. I also believe there is a reason why TAI put them there to begin with.
I noticed that people on other sites have started talking about the vertical stabiliser's position and its likelihood to compromise stealth; maybe 37058444 may have been onto something after all; no other stealth jet has the vertical stabiliser directly over the engine. Saab, who helped to design the TF-X, has released new concept art of a stealth fighter with the vertical stabiliser on the side instead of on the engine.
 

boredaf

Contributor
Messages
1,092
Solutions
1
Reactions
11 3,026
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Turkey
people on other sites
Why is it so hard to put some trust in the people who designed this plane, checked it in various simulations and tests god knows how many times over some random people on the Internet?

Maybe it doesn't compromise stealth at all, or, maybe it does and they have a reason to believe whatever benefit they saw from placing stabilizers there outweighs the negatives. Maybe armchair aeronautical engineers have no idea what made engineers in TAI choose this design?
 

No Name

Well-known member
Messages
353
Reactions
5 351
Nation of residence
Australia
Nation of origin
Afghanistan
Why is it so hard to put some trust in the people who designed this plane, checked it in various simulations and tests god knows how many times over some random people on the Internet?

Maybe it doesn't compromise stealth at all, or, maybe it does and they have a reason to believe whatever benefit they saw from placing stabilizers there outweighs the negatives. Maybe armchair aeronautical engineers have no idea what made engineers in TAI choose this design?

As I have stated, the jet was designed with Saab, and it is just as likely that they decided to stick to Saab's design instead of improving on it due to a lack of confidence in their ability.

As for the armchair aeronautical engineers, they give a reason for their beliefs, but no one has offered a counter to their arguments other than to have blind faith in TAI. The TAI supporter's position is made worse by the TF-X being the only stealth jet with the stabilizers placed in that particular location.
 

Agha Sher

Experienced member
DefenceHub Diplomat
Messages
2,715
Reactions
10 9,219
Nation of residence
Denmark
Nation of origin
Afghanistan
As I have stated, the jet was designed with Saab, and it is just as likely that they decided to stick to Saab's design instead of improving on it due to a lack of confidence in their ability.

As for the armchair aeronautical engineers, they give a reason for their beliefs, but no one has offered a counter to their arguments other than to have blind faith in TAI. The TAI supporter's position is made worse by the TF-X being the only stealth jet with the stabilizers placed in that particular location.

Are you claiming that TAI just took SAABs design and made no improvements on it?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

boredaf

Contributor
Messages
1,092
Solutions
1
Reactions
11 3,026
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Turkey
other than to have blind faith in TAI
You're talking about people having blind faith in a company that have been working in this field for decades with (which isn't even blind faith as it has a solid basis on experts on their field being experts) while not only taking the words of random people on the Internet as proof that they made a mistake, but also saying absolutely insane stuff like Saab designed the plane and TAI just used it without changing anything without even a shred of proof.

The gal to talk about blind faith about others after this comment is just... Fucking wow.
 

Afif

Experienced member
Moderator
Bangladesh Correspondent
DefenceHub Diplomat
Bangladesh Moderator
Messages
4,409
Reactions
69 8,192
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
As I have stated, the jet was designed with Saab, and it is just as likely that they decided to stick to Saab's design instead of improving on it due to a lack of confidence in their ability.

As for the armchair aeronautical engineers, they give a reason for their beliefs, but no one has offered a counter to their arguments other than to have blind faith in TAI.
The partnership with SAAB was canceled before anything meaningful became realized.

And also AFAIK SAAB offer only a single engine design based on gripen.

1679122936843.png

See the design in the middle with canards? Later Turkey has chosen the design based on F-22.

1679123492977.png

TFX and F-22 from rear angle.
1679123587373.png


Only thing ametures has been saying so far, 'no other stealth aircraft has similar vertical stabilizer placement so it must be bad.'

Which basically translate into 'A new design is problematic if it doesn't resemble the old ones'

That's not an argument. And I am not putting blind faith in TAI. But if you claim something, you need to provide at least a technical argument for it.
 
Last edited:

Nilgiri

Experienced member
Moderator
Aviation Specialist
Messages
9,502
Reactions
111 19,267
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India
There is no connection between where the vertical stabilisers are and "compromise of stealth"

RCS reduction doesn't care about the surface being at X or translated to say X+5.

It cares about the surface being as planar as possible and then as parallel as possible to other surfaces on the same body to reduce (as far as possible) total radio wave return at any incidence.

The locations of X vs X+5 (regarding an aerodynamic surface of Y area with say location Z1 of its center of lift and Z2 for its center of gravity relative to the whole body) have far more to do with aerodynamic stability + performance optimisation relative to other design needs/drivers

The latter needing spaces and volumes for everything else the aircraft does/has other than flight objectives.

All depends on your aircraft performance objectives and tradeoffs.

You can literally make an F-14 more stealthy for example (while retaining its vertical stabiliser where it is, right on the engine). If you started out with stealth in mind, you would do even better on it.

I have drawn sketches myself for stealth empennages in the past, some included stabilisers on the engines....some didn't (it all depended on spacing and lengths involved of lift, stability and control surfaces of the aircraft as a whole).

If the doubting brainiacs on other sites assert different, maybe invite them here to discuss.
 

DBdev

Committed member
Messages
298
Reactions
8 524
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
There is no connection between where the vertical stabilisers are and "compromise of stealth"

RCS reduction doesn't care about the surface being at X or translated to say X+5.

It cares about the surface being as planar as possible and then as parallel as possible to other surfaces on the same body to reduce (as far as possible) total radio wave return at any incidence.

The locations of X vs X+5 (regarding an aerodynamic surface of Y area with say location Z1 of its center of lift and Z2 for its center of gravity relative to the whole body) have far more to do with aerodynamic stability + performance optimisation relative to other design needs/drivers

The latter needing spaces and volumes for everything else the aircraft does/has other than flight objectives.

All depends on your aircraft performance objectives and tradeoffs.

You can literally make an F-14 more stealthy for example (while retaining its vertical stabiliser where it is, right on the engine). If you started out with stealth in mind, you would do even better on it.

I have drawn sketches myself for stealth empennages in the past, some included stabilisers on the engines....some didn't (it all depended on spacing and lengths involved of lift, stability and control surfaces of the aircraft as a whole).

If the doubting brainiacs on other sites assert different, maybe invite them here to discuss.
Sheesh. So many talkers not enough listeners.

Stealth is not just about radar stealth mate. The more you HIDE your exhaust and nozzles (hottest parts incase people cant figure that out too) better your INFRARED spectrum stealth. It is embarrasing as a Turk to have to spell it out this to so many people on a Turkish forum like this. Not a single person could figure out what I was talking about?

I clearly said heat signature yet they are still talking about radar stealth. And yes knowledgable westerners from other sites are NOW also saying same things including head of the plane being too large thus nonaerodynamic and slower than F22 despite having almost the same thrust. That is not a small MISTAKE either. Can anyone guess for which reasons?
 

Afif

Experienced member
Moderator
Bangladesh Correspondent
DefenceHub Diplomat
Bangladesh Moderator
Messages
4,409
Reactions
69 8,192
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
Sheesh. So many talkers not enough listeners.

Stealth is not just about radar stealth mate. The more you HIDE your exhaust and nozzles (hottest parts incase people cant figure that too) better your INFRARED spectrum stealth. It is embarrasing as a Turk to have to spell it out this to so many people on a Turkish forum like this. Not a single person could figure out what I was talking about?

I clearly said heat signature yet they are still talking about radar stealth. And yes knowledgable westerners from other sites are NOW also saying same things including head of the plane being too large thus nonaerodynamic and slower than F22 despite having almost the same thrust. That is not a small MISTAKE either. Can anyone guess for which reasons?
Most of us figured out what you were saying. You clearly said about the exposure of nozzles in your first post.

But the thing is, it didn’t gone through CDR yet.

And more importantly, a new generation engine with substantially reduced IIR signature is need for TFX to become a complete 5th gen platform.


i was responding to @Can't think of a Name. If I am not mistaken he is talking about RCS here.
 

zio

Well-known member
Messages
332
Reactions
4 469
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
It seems to me TUSAS prefer low RCS value from back of the fighter than the IR signature from front.If you get adaptive engine with low IR signature it would be more beneficial to do so.
 
Top Bottom