TR TF-X KAAN Fighter Jet

Test7

Experienced member
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
4,787
Reactions
18 19,933
Nation of residence
United States of America
Nation of origin
Turkey
Thanks @MADDOG

1679250687372.jpg
 

buraktunahan

Active member
Messages
48
Reactions
9 366
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
As far as I know, ASELSAN "AVCI" Pilot Helmet for TF-X is still under development. (The Aselsan logo can be seen on the helmet. The photo was taken on the TAI T-129 ATAK helicopter.)

AVCI-(1).jpg
 

Radonsider

Contributor
Messages
1,366
Reactions
13 2,564
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Bosnia & Herzegovina
Ku/Ka bands would be more suitable for backwards facing radar. Since you can track smaller targets with highaccuracy in higher frequencies, a Ku/Ka band radar would allow MMU to track incoming missiles and inform the pilot with their precise location.
There is the FSS/DAS system for that already. X band would be better for ECM/EW
 

Siper>MMU

Contributor
Messages
544
Reactions
2 1,194
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
There is the FSS/DAS system for that already. X band would be better for ECM/EW
IR detection is highly effected by weather. Also since they are passive systems they can't provide range information. With a AESA Ku/Ka band radar you can effectively detect these missiles in all weathers and provide precise range and bearing information to the pilot. Eurofighter Typhoon has a similar system in Ku band but its not an AESA. System can detect the missiles precise location and show it on MFDs.
Since AESA radars are flexible on frequency, I don't think it will have any issues on jamming. New generation A2A missiles are going to have Ku/Ka band seekers.
 

Nilgiri

Experienced member
Moderator
Aviation Specialist
Messages
9,375
Reactions
107 19,054
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India
Nilgiri did end the discussion essentially, and I pointed out that he was the only one that gave an actual counter-argument. the last couple of posts on the topic have been about the people's refusal to have any type of discussion instead people choice to blindly name call which doesn't help anyone.

Thank you for the kind comments along with @Saithan and others.

Folks can tag me if they would like comments regarding any other specific issues that crop up....since many follow lot of other places chit chat etc and they keep better track of such things.

I'll try my best when I feel I can offer something on it.
 
E

Era_shield

Guest
What if it was stereoscopic? What if it had 2 optical sensors of the same kind to calculate depth information?
The sensors would need to have quite bit of separation, which is difficult because airframes bend and twist in flight, which would affect the sensors direction of view and the distance calculation. Probably could be made to work (correction with inertial sensors etc) but it would be a lot of added work and expense. Probably we will see this in future generations of fighters.
 

buraktunahan

Active member
Messages
48
Reactions
9 366
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
I don't know if you noticed, TFX has no HUD display. I guess the HUD screen will be reflected on the pilot helmet developed by Aselsan, as in the F-35. :)

In this respect, the TF-X is a different aircraft from the J-20 and SU-57.

 

Merzifonlu

Contributor
Think Tank Analyst
DefenceHub Diplomat
Messages
691
Reactions
24 2,053
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Beutifull airframe.
DSI's are problematic beyond Mach 1.6. This baby's gonna do Mach 2.
+1

DSI has no moving parts and they provide most efficient pressure recovery at a particular Mach numbers, usually between Mach 1,2. The efficiency decreases with both positive and negative deviation from the sweet spot.
 

No Name

Well-known member
Messages
320
Reactions
5 318
Nation of residence
Australia
Nation of origin
Afghanistan
DSI's are problematic beyond Mach 1.6. This baby's gonna do Mach 2.

but the Chinese J-20 does over Mach 2 and it has them.

Beutifull airframe.

+1

DSI has no moving parts and they provide most efficient pressure recovery at a particular Mach numbers, usually between Mach 1,2. The efficiency decreases with both positive and negative deviation from the sweet spot.

did the Chinese find a solution to that problem or do they just not care?
 
Last edited:

Merzifonlu

Contributor
Think Tank Analyst
DefenceHub Diplomat
Messages
691
Reactions
24 2,053
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
but the Chinese J-21 does over Mach 2 and it has them.



did the Chinese find a solution to that problem or do they just not care?
This means that the Chinese aircraft, like the F35, will perform most of its mission by flying around 1,2 mach. J-21 will rarely go up to mach 1,8. There is no problem there. Or there is no such thing as not caring.
 

Follow us on social media

Top Bottom