TR TF-X KAAN Fighter Jet

boredaf

Contributor
Messages
965
Solutions
1
Reactions
11 2,721
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Turkey
I think not on the Carrier Kaan in Air Force Configuration will be deployed, rather a one engined multirole Variant of Kaan.
The more I think about it, the more I like the smaller, one engine version of TF-X. We can keep Kaan as our F-22 and offer 1 engine version for export. It's not like countries that would prefer our 5th gen plane over the others has any actual chance to get any of the others in the first place. This way, we could avoid getting paranoid about who might betray us and sell data about the plane to other countries, like Israel did with F-16 and China.
 

Spitfire9

Committed member
Messages
279
Reactions
6 358
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
United Kingdom
We can make them cheaper. US makes equipment to be costly so that other nations can not catch up. But we made UAVs cheaper we can make ACs cheaper too. Our field of interest spans from the west of Africa to the east of Indian Ocean and we can use conventional propulsion to cover this span.
Why not just buy the right to use the British Queen Elizabeth II carrier design and build it in Turkiye? France considered doing that to replace its Charles de Gaulle carrier. Perhaps it is too large for Turkiye, though @ 65,000 tonnes. Cost of building the second carrier of that design was about 4 billion USD (including cost overrun of 500 million USD due to errors made during construction). Perhaps Turkiye could build one for less than 3 billion USD?

KAAN would need to be navalised which would not be costless but I think that BAE Systems has the knowledge required to do that. A flight deck of 284 metres would offer improved load-carrying STOBAR operation compared to a smaller vessel.

But why would Turkiye want a carrier? National prestige?
 

Afif

Experienced member
Moderator
Bangladesh Correspondent
DefenceHub Diplomat
Bangladesh Moderator
Messages
3,986
Reactions
64 7,252
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
The more I think about it, the more I like the smaller, one engine version of TF-X. We can keep Kaan as our F-22 and offer 1 engine version for export. It's not like countries that would prefer our 5th gen plane over the others has any actual chance to get any of the others in the first place. This way, we could avoid getting paranoid about who might betray us and sell data about the plane to other countries, like Israel did with F-16 and China.

Single engine TFX would carry the same risk as 2 engine KAAN. I.g. F35 isn't any less sophisticated than F-22. Unless Turkey want to develop a very much downgraded version. Then it won't be proper 5th gen anymore.

And some countries do have alternative. Pakistan is planning to induct J-35. China pitching it to the gulf countries. So, Turkish system has to be qualitatively competitive. I would even say, make it so good that it would be a cost effective alternative of Tempset for countries that has dual options.
 

DBdev

Committed member
Messages
236
Reactions
8 435
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
I think not on the Carrier Kaan in Air Force Configuration will be deployed, rather a one engined multirole Variant of Kaan.
Single engine carrier based aircraft is not the best idea for expensive fighters, especially for those that carry human life. Redundancy against engine problems and thrust requirements for short take off, makes single engine less desirable. F35B engines age faster because of extreme strain put on that one engine. Size advantage of single engine on a carrier could make them pick that configuration though. Mig-29K is a big bird like KAAN but they had to make the wings foldable to squeezer more planes.

We should have been working on arrester hook tests on land, ski-jumps and most importantly WHERE ARE THRE RESTRAINING BLOCKS on TCG Anadolu?
India is a better example for us to follow. Why did we not add restraining blocks and arresting cables to TCG-ANADOLU? This makes me suspicious of TAF's vision and intelligence. It is as if they just copied Spanish LHD like fools without any thought, forgetting they have F35s, Harriers and we DON'T! I highly doubt even our drones can launch with full payloads from TCG-Anadolu. But if they add these 2 simple things even KAAN can use TCG-Anadolu. 2 aircraft carriers not just 1.

TCG-Anadolu HAS TO have KAAN air superiority fighters on board to stay safe far away from our shores. Kizilelma, Tb3 are nice to have but they won't cut it.

 

fushkee

Active member
Messages
144
Reactions
4 201
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
I guess Hurjet will be used on this carrier not Kaan. There was an explanation about that.
 

TheInsider

Experienced member
Professional
Messages
3,802
Solutions
1
Reactions
27 13,670
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
KAAN has a trust to weight ratio of 1.07 =2x131,000/(14.150+3500)x9.81 with a very limited 3.5 ton payload.
Ratio is similar to F-18 and also Mig29K which uses STOBAR even without needing full length of the ship. Technically possible but where we will use aircraft carriers, I wonder. Carrier is like a billion dollar a year money pit in the sea. This money would be much more well spent acquiring nuclear weapons, hypersonic cruise missiles that give real security without costing billions each year to maintain...


TWR is calculated with thrust/weight
Kaan will have 2x35000 lbf engines.
The typical payload of Kaan in stealth config is 10000kg=22000 lbs (internal fuel+weapons)
The empty weight of Kaan is expected to be around 16000kg= 36000lbs
Takeoff weight is 36000+22000=58000 lbs
Thus TWR is calculated
70/58=1.2 with TF35000 engines.
58/58=1 with F110 engines
 

Spitfire9

Committed member
Messages
279
Reactions
6 358
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
United Kingdom
Single engine TFX would carry the same risk as 2 engine KAAN. I.g. F35 isn't any less sophisticated than F-22. Unless Turkey want to develop a very much downgraded version. Then it won't be proper 5th gen anymore.

And some countries do have alternative. Pakistan is planning to induct J-35. China pitching it to the gulf countries. So, Turkish system has to be qualitatively competitive. I would even say, make it so good that it would be a cost effective alternative of Tempset for countries that has dual options.
I see a market possibility for a non-Russian/non-Chinese cheaper 5G fighter but Sukhoi does not seem to have attracted much interest while marketing its low cost 5G Su-75 to potential customers. Is it because countries don't want to buy from Russia any more (due to Ukraine) or is it because I have got it wrong and there is little interest in 5G aircraft much below F-35 in performance?
 

Zafer

Experienced member
Messages
4,448
Reactions
6 7,115
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Why not just buy the right to use the British Queen Elizabeth II carrier design and build it in Turkiye? France considered doing that to replace its Charles de Gaulle carrier. Perhaps it is too large for Turkiye, though @ 65,000 tonnes. Cost of building the second carrier of that design was about 4 billion USD (including cost overrun of 500 million USD due to errors made during construction). Perhaps Turkiye could build one for less than 3 billion USD?

KAAN would need to be navalised which would not be costless but I think that BAE Systems has the knowledge required to do that. A flight deck of 284 metres would offer improved load-carrying STOBAR operation compared to a smaller vessel.

But why would Turkiye want a carrier? National prestige?
British Carriers are under-performing ships that no one will want. That is evident from the fact that they intend to modify them heavily particularly making them UAV friendly.

We need a ship that is 285 meter long weighing 60k tons and that can operate smaller planes like the UCAVs we are making now and the smallest of the crewed planes we intend to make in the near to mid term. I would say a Hürjet weight class is about the maximum we need on this ship. So Kaan class is out of question. On this ship we need a lighter duty EMALS like system that we can make in-house in time when the ship body is already built. We have our hands in rail-gun development so it shouldn't be too hard to make them. Also a matching electromagnetic arresting system is a must. The propulsion of the ship should be conventional electric but an upgrade path to nuclear electric should be drawn too. As the planes are smaller 3 or 4 catapults can be considered. And also multiple arresting systems should be considered.

We need an affordable carrier that has a precision punch. We don't need behemoths like the US and China are making. We need several of them to secure our interest in the Mediterranean and Indian Ocean, particularly when we also expand our footprint by using overseas locations for our spaceport needs and other interests where we need to aid our partner states. An AC is also a driver for technology development for future needs similar to space launch activities.
 
Last edited:

DBdev

Committed member
Messages
236
Reactions
8 435
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
I guess Hurjet will be used on this carrier not Kaan. There was an explanation about that.
Hürjet or any other 4th gen doesn't make much sense on a future carrier since multiple nations now own 5th gen fighters, even today.

SPACE on a carrier is at a PREMIUM.
You are spending billions for a carrier. So, you must also provide BEST possible airborne protection you can muster to such a vulnerable, juicy target, hard to replace and expensive asset.

Hurjet, Kizilelma or anything less than F35 can not protect a carrier against any standoff cruise missile barrage attacks coming from modern 5th gen fighters like a dozen KAANs can.

Both our LHD and this new larger carrier need KAAN desperately. Kizilelma, TB3, Anka 3, helicopters could be useful in small numbers to lower operational costs in a very low threat level area but they are mostly just wasting space which should be used for additional KAANs to truly dominate a large multi domain area around the carrier just to be safe.

We can use our LHD with KAAN simply by making some small modifications on TCG-Anadolu like adding arrester cables and simple restraining blocks as well as strengthening undercarriage of KAAN and adding a hook. Hopefully they are planning to do exactly that once KAAN is ready. Until then TCG-Anadolu is just a PR project to save face after we get ourselves kicked out of F35 project. Which I actually support because we cannot trust American software at all
 

Spitfire9

Committed member
Messages
279
Reactions
6 358
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
United Kingdom
We need an affordable carrier that has a precision punch. We don't need behemoths like the US and China are making. We need several of them to secure our interest in the Mediterranean and Indian Ocean particularly when we also expand our footprint by using overseas locations for our spaceport needs and other interests where we need to aid our partner states. An AC is also a driver for technology development for future needs similar to space launch activities.
Turkiye needs several carriers, partly to secure its interest in the Indian Ocean?
 

Zafer

Experienced member
Messages
4,448
Reactions
6 7,115
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Turkiye needs several carriers, partly to secure its interest in the Indian Ocean?
No, from Gibraltar to Indonesia. As long as they are affordable we can have several, particularly because they are fossil fueled and have limited range. They are more like mobile bases.
 
Last edited:

DBdev

Committed member
Messages
236
Reactions
8 435
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
TWR is calculated with thrust/weight
Kaan will have 2x35000 lbf engines.
The typical payload of Kaan in stealth config is 10000kg=22000 lbs (internal fuel+weapons)
The empty weight of Kaan is expected to be around 16000kg= 36000lbs
Takeoff weight is 36000+22000=58000 lbs
Thus TWR is calculated
70/58=1.2 with TF35000 engines.
58/58=1 with F110 engines

Wiki - TWR Calculation​

The thrust-to-weight ratio is calculated by dividing the thrust (in SI units – in newtons) by the weight (in newtons) of the engine or vehicle. The weight (N) is calculated by multiplying the mass in kilograms (kg) by the acceleration due to gravity (m/s^2). Note that the thrust can also be measured in pound-force (lbf), provided the weight is measured in pounds (lb). Division using these two values still gives the numerically correct (dimensionless) thrust-to-weight ratio. For valid comparison of the initial thrust-to-weight ratio of two or more engines or vehicles, thrust must be measured under controlled conditions.

This is how I calculate for F110-129D engines KAAN have. We do not even know if TF35000 will give that thrust.
131 kilo newtons for each F110-129D engine. And gravity variable for acceleration at 9.8. Empty weight is (?)14.150 kilograms + 3500kg fuel + weapons payload not the full load to compare it to all the other fighters in the link I earlier posted which all were also carrying 3.5 tonnes to compare apples to apples since TWR changes with weight. So at least payload should stay the same to have some meaningful objective performance numbers. It adds up to:
1.07 =2x131,000/(14.150+3500)x9.8

Again the link to compare: https://world-defense.com/threads/thrust-to-weight-ratios-of-all-fighter-planes.1316/
 
Last edited:

Spitfire9

Committed member
Messages
279
Reactions
6 358
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
United Kingdom
No, from Gibraltar to Indonesia. As long as they are affordable we can have several, particularly because they are fossil fueled and have limited range. They are more like mobile bases.
Why? My country could have more carriers but why would it want them? OK, one more would be useful so that there was always one not being refitted or being serviced/repaired. But I can't see the need for the UK to have loads of carriers. I can't see the need for Turkiye to have loads of carriers either.
 

Zafer

Experienced member
Messages
4,448
Reactions
6 7,115
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Why? My country could have more carriers but why would it want them? OK, one more would be useful so that there was always one not being refitted or being serviced/repaired. But I can't see the need for the UK to have loads of carriers. I can't see the need for Turkiye to have loads of carriers either.
Countries' vision of the future maybe different from how it looks, nobody could guess that there would be talk of a world war 3 just a few years ago.
 

BaburKhan

Committed member
Messages
257
Reactions
4 566
Nation of residence
Germany
Nation of origin
Germany
No, from Gibraltar to Indonesia. As long as they are affordable we can have several, particularly because they are fossil fueled and have limited range. They are more like mobile bases.

One Carrier and a Bomber Fleet is more Dettering to Protect the Interests from Gibraltar to Indonesia
 

I_Love_F16

Contributor
France Correspondent
Messages
723
Reactions
10 1,515
Nation of residence
France
Nation of origin
France
We can use our LHD with KAAN simply by making some small modifications on TCG-Anadolu like adding arrester cables and simple restraining blocks as well as strengthening undercarriage of KAAN and adding a hook

You need heavy modification to accommodate a simple 4th gen fighter aircraft on a ship like the Anadolu, let alone a 5th gen fighter. You think it’s just as simple as putting an arresting cable and that’s it ?
 

DBdev

Committed member
Messages
236
Reactions
8 435
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
You need heavy modification to accommodate a simple 4th gen fighter aircraft on a ship like the Anadolu, let alone a 5th gen fighter. You think it’s just as simple as putting an arresting cable and that’s it ?
You are thinking of costly CATOBAR that Americans and French use. STOBAR is simpler China, India and Russia uses it. Just like I said but requires high TWR like Mig-29K. KAAN can pull it off too. Not with a 10.000 kg payload but perhaps half of that. Watch the Mig-29K very short no catapult takeoff I posted earlier.
 

I_Love_F16

Contributor
France Correspondent
Messages
723
Reactions
10 1,515
Nation of residence
France
Nation of origin
France
You are thinking of costly CATOBAR that Americans and French use. STOBAR is simpler China, India and Russia uses it. Just like I said but requires high TWR like Mig-29K. KAAN can pull it off too. Not with a 10.000 kg payload but perhaps half of that. Watch the Mig-29K very short no catapult takeoff I posted earlier.

If we want to use our jets from their fullest potential from our future AC, then it’s CATOBAR that we need. STOBAR won’t cut it. It will maybe be sufficient for Kizilelma and Anka 3 but definitely not for Hurjet or Kaan. Like @boredaf said in another post, we should do it the proper way, or pass and use those ressources on something else.
 

TheInsider

Experienced member
Professional
Messages
3,802
Solutions
1
Reactions
27 13,670
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey

Wiki - TWR Calculation​

The thrust-to-weight ratio is calculated by dividing the thrust (in SI units – in newtons) by the weight (in newtons) of the engine or vehicle. The weight (N) is calculated by multiplying the mass in kilograms (kg) by the acceleration due to gravity (m/s^2). Note that the thrust can also be measured in pound-force (lbf), provided the weight is measured in pounds (lb). Division using these two values still gives the numerically correct (dimensionless) thrust-to-weight ratio. For valid comparison of the initial thrust-to-weight ratio of two or more engines or vehicles, thrust must be measured under controlled conditions.

This is how I calculate for F110-129D engines KAAN have. We do not even know if TF35000 will give that thrust.
131 kilo newtons for each F110-129D engine. And gravity variable for acceleration at 9.8. Empty weight is (?)14.150 kilograms + 3500kg fuel + weapons payload not the full load to compare it to all the other fighters in the link I earlier posted which all were also carrying 3.5 tonnes to compare apples to apples since TWR changes with weight. So at least payload should stay the same to have some meaningful objective performance numbers. It adds up to:
1.07 =2x131,000/(14.150+3500)x9.8

Again the link to compare: https://world-defense.com/threads/thrust-to-weight-ratios-of-all-fighter-planes.1316/
Wrong. I don't know where you found an empty weight of 14.150kg. I would like to see if you quoted it from somewhere but it looks very ambitious and too good to be true. Most experts expect the empty weight to be around 16000kg and the typical load of fuel+weapons in stealth configuration is 10000kg as given by Temel Kotil so 26000kg in total take-off weight. I don't know why Kaan or any other modern fighter will just take off with a payload of 3500kg. When the weapon load is subtracted the amount of fuel will be just enough for something like half an hour.

And the worst part is, your calculation on your wrong take on, is also wrong.
(14,150+3500)*9.8
17,650*9.8=172,970

2x131,000=262,000
262,000/172,970= 1.51(I don't know how you managed to come up with 1.07)

With an empty weight of 16,000kg and 3500kg of payload my version of KAAN will have a T/W ratio of 1.37
The T/W ratio will be 1.02 with a 10000kg load.
There is a good reason why we want 35000lbf(156kN/156000N) engines. As it will bring the T/W ratio to over 1.2.

SI or the imperial system doesn't change the result.

You can calculate it from here.
 
Last edited:

Saithan

Experienced member
Denmark Correspondent
Messages
8,121
Reactions
21 18,695
Nation of residence
Denmark
Nation of origin
Turkey
Harrier originally 2.gen but modified versions in 80’s were 4.gen or so. The design was still old but, but still very much capable of VTOL.
 

Follow us on social media

Top Bottom