TR Air-Force TF-X KAAN Fighter Jet

[No Name]

Chinese is very angry and claim MMU is very ugly.


````
Pulling out TF-X like this also gave us some more intuitive impressions of its possible technical and tactical performance. It is estimated that more than one person has two impressions after seeing this fighter: one is that the appearance of TF-X is indeed a bit "not very good-looking"; the other is that the appearance of TF-X is actually "a bit mixed" .

Not so good-looking TF-X
Saying that TF-X looks a bit ugly, let’s talk about our intuitive impression. The shape and lines of TF-X can be described as both stiff and thin:


We all know that typical fifth-generation fighter jets, such as F-22A and J-20, have a smooth aerodynamic shape, few sharp transitions on the aerodynamic surface, fusion of wing and body, and natural envelope of the engine compartment, such as the tip of the vertical tail. Sometimes there is also sharpening. This is not only an optimization for the supersonic performance of the fighter, but also a necessary requirement for the low detectable performance of the fighter.


In contrast, TF-X is obviously much worse. Let me put it bluntly. At first glance, this aircraft is not designed so naturally from the fuselage to the wings, from the wings to the vertical tail, and from the vertical tail...

For example, from the air inlet to the wing, the F-22A and the J-20 have a natural transition, basically implementing the principle of parallel aerodynamic surfaces. And this TF-X has an extra fold line inexplicably, it looks like the centerline of the fuselage and the wings are not on the same level at all, which looks extremely ugly.


Another example is the vertical tail of TF-X. Since there is no cutting edge treatment and no full-motion vertical tail design, the vertical tail of TF-X looks thinner, just like adding two large pieces of iron on the top of the fuselage. the same. At the same time, the transition between the vertical tail and the fuselage is also extremely rigid, lacking the necessary chamfer transition, and the shape-conserving design is not well done. Compared with the F-22A and J-20 as a whole, how do you say it? Looking left and right, it doesn’t look so pleasing to the eye. Generally speaking, it doesn’t feel very good.

It's a bloody warplane, not a beauty queen contestant; who in their right mind cares if it doesn't look good? Seriously, they act as if Turkey asked them to make love to it.

 

[Radko]

Q: Is there any advantage/disadvantage of the slightly elevated pilot seating position of the MMU T-23 compared to the F-35 or F-22, in visual engagement and especially in dogfights?

We can't really comment on that without pilot input.

 

[F-6 enthusiast]

On another forum I saw one claiming that this aircrafts is the third generation, he lives in a 3rd class siesta country in Europe's and one of the most fcked up place, when a friend pressed him a bit he said 'this said by others (he probably means other trolls which I mentioned) I am their liar. Tragicomedy. It will take some more time for them to get used to it.

Comments from TFX posts will generate more salt than in a Siberian salt mine.
the usual suspects. This will not hinder progress.

There is a reason why engines and Vstabs are like that...

Everything in Life and in Engineering is a compromise. The niche role that fighters play in a battlefield requires it to have excellent performance. Stealth is just another requirement. This obsession to ''max out on stealth'' should not come at the cost of performance/payload/range/maneuvering.

 

[Mis_TR_Like]

I did a terrible attempt at applying an indium oxide coating on the canopy of the TFX. The IRST doesn't stick out as much this way. Note that even on the F22 the golden/orange color of the canopy can only be seen from some angles, certainly not this angle with so much light coming from behind.

 

[dBSPL]

The hard part starts now. Bringing this aircraft to operational capability should be our country's top priority.

Producing an up-to-date fighter jet is probably one of the few most difficult areas of modern industry. You bring together hundreds of different engineering disciplines and thousands of subsystems with your own doctrinal approach, conceptual design and systems engineering. A country that can achieve this is at the level of advanced civilizations and there is practically no industrial goal that it cannot achieve. For the power that can produce MMU, many other sophisticated systems that seemed impossible are now reachable. We are crossing a very critical barrier, not only technically but also psychologically.

One hundred years ago, the great leader Atatürk showed this direction to his nation: 'The future is in the skies'. The MMU is the epitome of Atatürk's ideals embodied in a machine. The day the MMU flies, our ancestors will greet us from the skies.

 

[zio]

True but difference is who identifies whom first? The plane with even SLIGHTLY better IR stealth will "see first, shoot first" when other parameters are equal. Imagine TF-X going against F-22 for some reason...

It is not just about detection it is also deadly critical in evading AA missiles.

TUSAS this tusas that. TUSAS is not LM mate they are going to make mistakes as novices in stealth game for sure. Tusas also made the 2 previous models (mockup, animation) but when it came to production, realities did not match dreams. These things I have listed are COMPRIMISES not improvements. I agree, comprimise because of large BURFIS radar played a role but still cockpit didn't have to be THAT high.

Agility, speed, fuel economy, max altitude, range, stealth.... almost EVERYTHING will be negatively affected from a larger, higher cockpit. If they did this to improve field of vision, it was unnecessary since high tech helmet is supposed to give pilot transparent cockpit view anyway and cost is too high. F22 is the gold standard on the PLANET. The more you go in a different direction as a novice producer, the more you will make things worse. Just my opinion

IIR imaging can be done for only on clear air,You can see almost 100 km but you cannot fire an radar guided missile with it and IR guided missiles are short range

 

[CAN_TR]

True but difference is who identifies whom first? The plane with even SLIGHTLY better IR stealth will "see first, shoot first" when other parameters are equal. Imagine TF-X going against F-22 for some reason...

It is not just about detection it is also deadly critical in evading AA missiles.

TUSAS this tusas that. TUSAS is not LM mate they are going to make mistakes as novices in stealth game for sure. Tusas also made the 2 previous models (mockup, animation) but when it came to production, realities did not match dreams. These things I have listed are COMPRIMISES not improvements. I agree, comprimise because of large BURFIS radar played a role but still cockpit didn't have to be THAT high.

Agility, speed, fuel economy, max altitude, range, stealth.... almost EVERYTHING will be negatively affected from a larger, higher cockpit. If they did this to improve field of vision, it was unnecessary since high tech helmet is supposed to give pilot transparent cockpit view anyway and cost is too high. F22 is the gold standard on the PLANET. The more you go in a different direction as a novice producer, the more you will make things worse. Just my opinion.

F-22 is in service for around two decades and it just recently made it's first kill, a Chinese weather balloon. Since then the US was involved in many conflicts but the F-22 never played a major role so how high are the chances that MMU meets the F-22 in a conflict? (btw. we are NATO members)

Maybe you should contact the Air Force and TUSAS and lecture them about the mistakes in the MMU project.

PS: For me the discussion is over, have a nice day

 

[MADDOG]

There are reasons why TAI placed the vertical stabs on top of the engines

TAI took the decision to retain this design on the first prototypes (could change later/ or not).

We should wait and see what they do with it instead of speculating.

 

[Afif]

As a mater of fact F 35 is a marvelous piece of technology no doubt about it but still it is more like jack of all trades, unsatisfactory or barely sufficient payload capacity at best for both for Air to Air and Air to ground missions for now. However, MMU will excel in almost all mission types.

How air to air payload capacity is not satisfactory? When it can carry 6 AIM-120 now.

 

[Philip the Arab]

F-22 vs TF-X is a stupid argument considering the resources the USAF has it wouldn’t be a contest of jet vs jet either way.

 

[UcanTost]

F-22 vs TF-X is a stupid argument considering the resources the USAF has it wouldn’t be a contest of jet vs jet either way.

F22 has more powerfull engines. The rest mmu and f35 has more up to date stuff.

 

[Era_shield]

It's important when comparing aircraft that the perspective, distance to subject and focal length isn't creating distortions. The photos of the TFX are unusual because the cameraman is sitting on the floor yet is quite close to the plane. This is an unusual situation and I wasn't able to find any equivalent photos of the F-22. This comparison is the closest I could find:

My impressions are:

- Canopy shape is almost exactly the same except in the TFX the sides meld into the body lower in the cheek. This can give the impression that it sticks out more but it actually sticks out the same or slightly less.
- TFX pilot has better side visibility.
- Similar forward visibility, however in other pictures it can be seen that F22 has better rear visibility.
- TFX pilot's head has less top clearance with the canopy, restricting pilot height compared with F22 (or the TFX pilot in this photo was quite tall).
- TFX radar will be enormous.
- TFX sits higher on the ground.

 

[YeşilVatan]

F-22 vs TF-X is a stupid argument considering the resources the USAF has it wouldn’t be a contest of jet vs jet either way.

Completely agreed. To fight with the US, you have to destroy a military infrastructure equal to about twenty Ukraines and eleven super carriers. That's before you get to the mainland. US can't be matched in the couple of decades we'll see. However, it can fall to internal factors.

The thing we'll gain by having this plane is:

• A high level of deterrence which no US vassal in our proximity can attain. They can't send greeks against us and watch from afar as a regional competitor speds its energy with a miniscule affair that escalates into a full conflict.
• A high level of independence regarding arms embargos.
• The ability to export military power to our allies to a huge extent.
• The ability to respond to a leveled escalation. Example: North Korea can't do shvt against small infractions because their playbook is only two levels deep: chill or nuclear holocaust. You need steps between that in order to 'erode' the political will of the US.
• The technical capability, facilities and personnel to make this happen, which can be used in other projects as things wind down.
• The pleasure of saying fuck you to the world's superpower and not be a joke while doing it (cough iran cough).

These are worth the sacrifices we are making, and then some.

 

[Pilatino]

What are the things under the wings? And why vertical stabilizers are not moving as a whole but only a part of it?

 

[Baryshx]

Chinese is very angry and claim MMU is very ugly.

这效率！土耳其国产五代机4个月完成总装即将首飞！网友：这也太丑了

根据土耳其媒体报道，当地时间16日，土耳其航空航天工业公司（TUSAŞ）研发的第五代战斗机TF-X，在总装厂所在的本场进行了首次内部亮相。从视频中拍摄的画面来看，TF-X已经基本完成了制造工作，正停在滑行道上加油…

zhuanlan.zhihu.com

````
Pulling out TF-X like this also gave us some more intuitive impressions of its possible technical and tactical performance. It is estimated that more than one person has two impressions after seeing this fighter: one is that the appearance of TF-X is indeed a bit "not very good-looking"; the other is that the appearance of TF-X is actually "a bit mixed" .

Not so good-looking TF-X
Saying that TF-X looks a bit ugly, let’s talk about our intuitive impression. The shape and lines of TF-X can be described as both stiff and thin:


We all know that typical fifth-generation fighter jets, such as F-22A and J-20, have a smooth aerodynamic shape, few sharp transitions on the aerodynamic surface, fusion of wing and body, and natural envelope of the engine compartment, such as the tip of the vertical tail. Sometimes there is also sharpening. This is not only an optimization for the supersonic performance of the fighter, but also a necessary requirement for the low detectable performance of the fighter.


In contrast, TF-X is obviously much worse. Let me put it bluntly. At first glance, this aircraft is not designed so naturally from the fuselage to the wings, from the wings to the vertical tail, and from the vertical tail...

For example, from the air inlet to the wing, the F-22A and the J-20 have a natural transition, basically implementing the principle of parallel aerodynamic surfaces. And this TF-X has an extra fold line inexplicably, it looks like the centerline of the fuselage and the wings are not on the same level at all, which looks extremely ugly.


Another example is the vertical tail of TF-X. Since there is no cutting edge treatment and no full-motion vertical tail design, the vertical tail of TF-X looks thinner, just like adding two large pieces of iron on the top of the fuselage. the same. At the same time, the transition between the vertical tail and the fuselage is also extremely rigid, lacking the necessary chamfer transition, and the shape-conserving design is not well done. Compared with the F-22A and J-20 as a whole, how do you say it? Looking left and right, it doesn’t look so pleasing to the eye. Generally speaking, it doesn’t feel very good.

There is also a good lesson for Tusaş/TAI

"For example, on our J-20 fighter jets, almost all skin joints are processed in a zigzag shape, all countersunk rivets or even integrated coatings, etc."

 

[what]

There is a dedicated thread to foreign media and other reactions. Please let's stay on track people.

 

[Cabatli_TR]

It's important when comparing aircraft that the perspective, distance to subject and focal length isn't creating distortions. The photos of the TFX are unusual because the cameraman is sitting on the floor yet is quite close to the plane. This is an unusual situation and I wasn't able to find any equivalent photos of the F-22. This comparison is the closest I could find:

View attachment 55063

View attachment 55064

My impressions are:

- Canopy shape is almost exactly the same except in the TFX the sides meld into the body lower in the cheek. This can give the impression that it sticks out more but it actually sticks out the same or slightly less.
- TFX pilot has better side visibility.
- Similar forward visibility, however in other pictures it can be seen that F22 has better rear visibility.
- TFX pilot's head has less top clearance with the canopy, restricting pilot height compared with F22 (or the TFX pilot in this photo was quite tall).
- TFX radar will be enormous.
- TFX sits higher on the ground.

In addition;

The F22's vertical stabilizers integrated into the sides of the engine appear to be longer than TFX's on-engine vertical stabilizers (in terms of fuselage/stab. length ratio). I think that TAI engineers probably achieved the same powerful stabilizer effects with a smaller m2 area as well by using them on the engine in the wind tunnel trials. The triangular vertical stabilizers of the F22, which expand towards attachment point will show a larger surface area to the enemy from side angles than TfX so I think TFX's on-engine stabilizers will provide a much smaller RCS area in this context.

 

[Baryshx]

One hundred years ago, the great leader Atatürk showed this direction to his nation: 'The future is in the skies'. The MMU is the epitome of Atatürk's ideals embodied in a machine. The day the MMU flies, our ancestors will greet us from the skies.

"To dominate the world you have to dominate the skies, but to dominate the skies you first have to dominate the metal."

 

[Bürküt]

There is a dedicated thread to foreign media and other reactions. Please let's stay on track people.

I remember It has been closed

 

[Manomed The Second]

It needs to have a 20mm canon I remember during anatolian eagle TurAF was asking for a cannon during specification.