TR TF-X KAAN Fighter Jet

blackjack

Contributor
Moderator
Russia Correspondent
Russia Moderator
Messages
1,449
Reactions
8 840
Nation of residence
United States of America
Nation of origin
Russia
Dear Jack, let it be known to you that generally accepted things do not require proof.
Russian aircraft engines have a short service life compared to their Western counterparts.
The so-called second stage engine (item 3, AL 51F1) is not mass-produced. The engine refinement process continues and will last until 2027-2028.
The new SU 57 is equipped with the same unfinished engines. They install one new engine and another old on :)
By the way, AL51F1 is not a new product at all, but a modification of AL41F1.
Since no one still wants to make any kind of engine comparisons for proofs, I will start
1715359611106.png

Specific weight
Izd. 30 = 100
F119-PW-100 = 116
M88-3 = 115
EJ200 = 131
Izd. 117 = 119

Specific Thrust
Izd. 30 = 100
F119-PW-100 = 100
M88-3 = 98
EJ200 = 94
Izd. 117 = 94

SFC (specific fuel consumption)
Izd. 30 = 100
F119-PW-100 = 125
M88-3 = 110
EJ200 = 112
Izd. 117 = 110

The 1st stage engine of the Su-57(izd 117) has a lower thrust than the F-22 but it consumes lesser fuel than the F-22. The 2nd stage has the same thrust as the F-22 but its fuel consumption is much less than the F-22 and 1st stage engine. Russia and the U.S. are the only countries bragging about 3 stream variable cycle engines but they have yet to put them on aircrafts and fly them. Your date on the 2nd stage engines is wrong to, they are getting them in 2024 for the next batch and onwards.

But the US has an excuse on why they didn't further continue any new engines for the F-22 and just go with NGAD. The Service life of the AL-41F1 is 4000 hours which seems the same as the F-22
1715362329849.png


I know they are throwing around 8000 hours of life expectancy for the F-35.
1715362504650.png

But I cant find anything on the service life of the Su-57 send stage engine which is assumed to be better in-service life than the 1st stage.
Anyone got disagreements with these statements here? I saw the thrust capabilities of the proposed TEI 10000 https://www.tei.com.tr/uploads/docs/1692366676_tei-tf10000en.pdf?1693078623
Am I reading this right?
1715362977282.png

the dry and wet performance looks like is 1/2 of either Su-57 or F-22 engines? is this like the maximum or minimum thrust estimates they gave?
1715363419425.png

You are talking about the KAAN being a full-fledged 5th generation production aircraft because of its engines before the Russians make the Su-57 a full fledge 5th gen because of its engines. So did TEI gave like low estimates on what I see here to make the aircraft fly, or they are keeping the maximum a secret before I draw any comparisons on the 1st stage Su-57 towards it? If worse comes to worse on its confirmed performance than maybe some options of buying russian engines is always a great idea in case things go south with the US since Russia has a 2nd UEC building being built.
 

Zafer

Experienced member
Messages
4,683
Reactions
7 7,389
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
I haven't seen any defense news account reporting this. It's most likely false news.
A similar statement was made a couple of months ago but was overlooked by Defencehub. Also SSB chief Haluk Görgün stated that they intend to start serial production of Kaan with the domestic engine.

This statement maybe new as the third sentence was not part of the previous statement.
 
Last edited:

neosinan

Committed member
Messages
236
Reactions
7 1,077
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey

Temel Kotil
  • Kaan being delivered in 2028 will be 100% domestic including engine and ejection seat!

Sounds they are now even more confident about TF35K
Temel kotil originally made this statement one year ago in this TV broadcast, And It was right before elections. So We need to take this with a lot grain of salt.

here around 41:00 minute
 

Zafer

Experienced member
Messages
4,683
Reactions
7 7,389
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Since no one still wants to make any kind of engine comparisons for proofs, I will start
View attachment 67906
Specific weight
Izd. 30 = 100
F119-PW-100 = 116
M88-3 = 115
EJ200 = 131
Izd. 117 = 119

Specific Thrust
Izd. 30 = 100
F119-PW-100 = 100
M88-3 = 98
EJ200 = 94
Izd. 117 = 94

SFC (specific fuel consumption)
Izd. 30 = 100
F119-PW-100 = 125
M88-3 = 110
EJ200 = 112
Izd. 117 = 110

The 1st stage engine of the Su-57(izd 117) has a lower thrust than the F-22 but it consumes lesser fuel than the F-22. The 2nd stage has the same thrust as the F-22 but its fuel consumption is much less than the F-22 and 1st stage engine. Russia and the U.S. are the only countries bragging about 3 stream variable cycle engines but they have yet to put them on aircrafts and fly them. Your date on the 2nd stage engines is wrong to, they are getting them in 2024 for the next batch and onwards.

But the US has an excuse on why they didn't further continue any new engines for the F-22 and just go with NGAD. The Service life of the AL-41F1 is 4000 hours which seems the same as the F-22
View attachment 67910

I know they are throwing around 8000 hours of life expectancy for the F-35.
View attachment 67911
But I cant find anything on the service life of the Su-57 send stage engine which is assumed to be better in-service life than the 1st stage.
Anyone got disagreements with these statements here? I saw the thrust capabilities of the proposed TEI 10000 https://www.tei.com.tr/uploads/docs/1692366676_tei-tf10000en.pdf?1693078623
Am I reading this right?
View attachment 67912
the dry and wet performance looks like is 1/2 of either Su-57 or F-22 engines? is this like the maximum or minimum thrust estimates they gave?
View attachment 67913
You are talking about the KAAN being a full-fledged 5th generation production aircraft because of its engines before the Russians make the Su-57 a full fledge 5th gen because of its engines. So did TEI gave like low estimates on what I see here to make the aircraft fly, or they are keeping the maximum a secret before I draw any comparisons on the 1st stage Su-57 towards it? If worse comes to worse on its confirmed performance than maybe some options of buying russian engines is always a great idea in case things go south with the US since Russia has a 2nd UEC building being built.
TF10000 is not the Kaan engine TF35000 is.
 

boredaf

Contributor
Messages
1,430
Solutions
1
Reactions
17 4,006
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Turkey
Any chance of the ejection seat being in production in 2028? How far has its development advanced? The engine in 2028... if today a prototype were built and ready to fire up, I would be inclined to give Mr Kotil's statement some credence.
We haven't seen any sing of an ejection seat other than it being mentioned a few times in passing. And a prototype already existing has just a little bit more chance than me jumping off a bridge and start flying. Not only because TF6000 just had its first ignition, but also there is no way in hell they would keep quiet about it.
 

Turkic

Member
Messages
12
Reactions
44
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey

Temel Kotil
  • Kaan being delivered in 2028 will be 100% domestic including engine and ejection seat!

Sounds they are now even more confident about TF35K
Haha, someone (First letter is "me") told about a factory as I remember

In the other hand, we all know Temel Kotil is being too hasty sometimes. Actually I don't see a problem using F110's in the first batch considering TEI is a spare part manufacturer and is authorized for maintenance. Also we can change those engines when their lifespan ends. But of course seeing a domestic engine in 2028 would be nice.
 
Last edited:

Nilgiri

Experienced member
Moderator
Aviation Specialist
Messages
9,792
Reactions
120 19,864
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India
During Soviet and subsequent Russian era, the jet engine technology development regarding turbine section, has been concentrated on directionally solidified turbine blade production. They have in house perfected the directionally solidified crystals to their own needs by attaining equiaxed crystals (these are crystals that have mostly axes of equal lengths.) .
By perfecting air cooling channel geometry and ceramic coatings they have managed to keep the boundary grain defects to a minimum and achieved acceptable high performance from these blades.
Directionally solidified blades are in essence layers of crystals. But due to their layered construction, under extreme heat and centrifugal forces the layers move unevenly away from each other, giving boundary grain imperfections and causing the Crystal lattices to deteriorate. Hence shorter lifecycles on engines especially if they are pushed hard too often.
Russians, according to western sources, have dabbled in Single Crystal blade manufacturing in some of their AL31 series engines. But did not get too far. AL41/AL51 series engines, according to unofficial sources may contain single crystals. But the fact remains that the Russian engines predominantly are produced with directionally solidified turbine blades.
It is also a known fact that the Russian jet engines’ combustion chambers are designed as shorter than western ones. Although this may give certain advantages, it also increases the chance of throwing out unspent fuel hence a smoke when pushed hard. (This however is less prominent in later engines). When you have a school of thought and design set on a specific way to produce your engine, it is not always feasible and workable to add new tech that works in the West. Hence may be their struggle with single crystals?
@Nilgiri may shed more light on this issue.

The significant difference in the "pyramid sizes" so to speak stem from the quality control (QC) related to the larger feedback loop of mass production/application available in the ecosystem (and then proximate ecosystems)

There exist roughly summarized two versions for countries engaged in the endeavour, from what I have seen from experience:

Loop 1:
(capital machinery and HR pool <----> QC <---> RnD)

IP is achieved concurrently in each (bidirectional flow) and is not HR compartmentalised.
QA (qual. assurance) is often just QC+ and not dedicated separately.
Specifics depends on the military and govt agency of the country, its organisational skills, funding and first dibs on HR stock from institutes of the country and so on.
Tighter units run, relevant starting investments and operating expenditures needed.
So ultimately more relevant for the military projects (low relative production scale) where commercial scale is not yet so big and developed yet (where production scales are high).


Loop 2:
(IP "1.0" --->capital machinery/logistics/HR--->production run QC---->service results/opex/reliability/QA----> QC studies---->RnD--->IP 2.0)

Larger production scale oriented (i.e commercial), military production scale "nests" within and/or is parallelized/orbited/induced (as its own loop 1) to it given the larger body gravity so to speak.

QA is discretized away from QC with its own HR. QC "studies" becomes a field in of itself. There are variants to loop 2 regarding this (and branch offs to consultancy/cooperation with others etc), it all depends on the company.

Bidirectionality is limited, there is cohesive standardised directional loop and processes involved regarding this.


Single crystal (SX) vis a vis directional solidification is just one notable visible representative apex of it (i.e how loop 2 can produce it commensurately to having just loop 1 in play).... there are others (think peaks in a mountain range).

In any case the more like loop 2 (comprehensive with commercial scale etc past the military scale) one has, folks that know something about statistics/stochastics will quickly grasp the importance of this scale and ability to have the much larger feedback operation (for win win of both).

Its essentially an applied real life monte carlo simulation done at large scale and higher "real life" variability with "hard" real results to measure as well (say 10 thousand unit inputs that are simulated)....compared to a more limited one (say just 10 or 100)....or a fully virtual simulation.

A military driven/niche command economy process and or a starting friction/onshoring ecosystem thus starts with loop 1 (its the seed and sapling etc).

"Loop 0" can be thought of as just RnD/DNA by itself (with no application/production "fuel/energy" provisioned/realised or unknown to the outside observer). i.e some jigsaw piece in the puzzle. It isnt really a loop, it has to be integrated with something to be realised as an early loop 1.

Example of loop 0 in russia w.r.t SX:

Loop 2 is the larger plant and tree in more full fledged way, reliable proven shade and sprouting fruit and new seed in cycles.

USSR achieved something like a 1.5 here (loop 1 achieved, loop 2 partially achieved by economy of scale) for its relative time at its relative apex.

Russia had retreated mostly to loop 1 (relatively speaking now) given funding and economic realities/constraints (both within itself and competitiveness of rest of world)

It shows: https://www.airguide.info/s7-group-...-in-russia-advocates-for-reverse-engineering/

Speaking at the Russian Industrialist Forum, Elin highlighted that the PD-14 engines have only 3,600 flight hours between overhauls, significantly shorter than the 40,000 hours typical of Western engines like the CFM International CFM56.


So these establish the reliability economics of the older "directional solidification" vis a vis SX (even in just loop 1)...as to the final acceptable returns/costs in your macro-ecosystem.

Very similar to why any powerplant in any kind of vehicle (military or mass produced civillian) may not necessarily use everything you have technically unlocked IP wise....there are trade-offs production and "blood flow" expenses to all limbs involved in that...impose on this if you do not have the raw commercial scale backing it for example.

i.e Essentially what you describe with the Russian AL series not having the commercial equivalents in play (both raw production capacity wise and time/MRO feedback wise) that say the US has with GE and PW.

China is now starting to push from loop 1 to loop 2....but where it is exactly in the 1.5 zone between the two can only be seen with more time and hindsight later....especially as there is competition from other/allied economic sectors and china's own larger economic problems/dillemas playing their role too that remain to be seen regarding impacts here.

This is part of why the Chinese "actual military budget" estimates are often gauged as lot higher but at same time not really production side stuff "yet" likely due to frontloaded "starting" RnD soaking up lot of resources and impacting immediate return on investment (ROI).

i.e its not same 1:1 structure for the spending of say US and western ones regd their capex/opex as they have fleshed out their IP database/experience tree far more still and this reflects in the higher (matured) transfer rate to direct production in the official budgeting.

i.e what is the starting friction and intial rolling friction when RnD stuff is frontloaded intensely....compared to mid and late stream rolling friction which is lot lower (and premium RnD can both be funded and allocated to work on higher tier incremental advantages).

Hence why difference in ROI seen in immediate way between spaceX and NASA similarly I mentioned earlier in the US space thread:

We will have to see, NASA has a huge RnD budget and massive capital (both physical and human) that is frontloaded on it (so it brings the costs up).

But this pays dividends strategically for the US to create spaceX et al commercial ecosystem downroad as well to begin with.

Govt agency vs private company , what are the contexts, feedback loops and so on or next chunk of years is still ongoing thing.


Concerning jet engine corporate (publicly owned + listed) like say my knowledge of what Ive seen in PW/UTC (now raytheon, who's market cap is ~ 140 billion USD) and w.r.t departments that are RnD oriented compared to those that are production/application/sales oriented,
these ROI differences can again be seen within same company. i.e I have seen say the HR expense tabulations (compared to profitability) for segments of the company organisation. Some are sources and some are sinks (of revenue, net revenue, profitability and so on) but both are important in end for the final sum of things as shown in the earlier loops.

The final ROI and value addition etc end up being an agglomeration....just like if you took the "space sector" as a larger combined US entity somehow.

Anyway these are the economy of scales and time/experience integrals involved to establish and entrench in loop 2.

In Turkiye's case it would be related to high degree to how TEI is able to grow/operationalise in next 10 years or so.

There is an emerging "loop 3" that I might get to in a later reply, but it would need good establishment of loop 2 first.
 

uçuyorum

Contributor
Messages
952
Reactions
13 1,562
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Last I checked we have orders of 200 F404 and we will need something like 100 F110. So what I'm thinkin is GE is inclined to accept a deal for T110 and T404 for such a large order. Yerli motor?
 

Iskander

Contributor
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
493
Reactions
10 1,383
Nation of residence
Azerbaijan
Nation of origin
Azerbaijan
Man this is depressing, I provided information of what kind of specs the 1st and 2nd stage engines offered, and it was like all of that was completely ignored.
You need to give examples of what western engines are better than the performance specs of the Russian engines I gave all the way back to March 31st. The answer is I don't see any aircraft in service that has better performance specs than the 2nd stage.
UEC is opening up another building for production, Turkey does have an option if Russia offers that option.
https://tass.com/defense/1785563 engines received for the Su-35 offer supersonic speeds without boosters and still maintaining longer ranges that current western aircraft.
In my opinion, it is too early to compare KAAN with the SU57 (or with the American Penguin, as the Russians disparagingly call the F35). Especially their engines. The SU57, even if only one at a time, and for the purposes of current testing, still HAS an engine.
I don't know what stage the work on the TF35000 is at and whether it exists "in the metal". Therefore, it is incorrect to compare them. Well, maybe, hypothetically.
Speaking about the fact that we would like to have a 5th generation fighter before the Russians, I, of course, dreamed a little :)
But I repeat: the Russian engine is not ready yet.
Moreover, the Russians can completely stop the SU 57 project, as happened with the Armata, Boomerang, Kurganets and others.
By the way, work on the PAK DA project has also been stopped and is unlikely to be continued.

1715409675018.png
 

fushkee

Committed member
Messages
174
Reactions
4 258
Nation of residence
Qatar
Nation of origin
Turkey
There will be no different/separate factory for the engine production as I remember. It will be produced in TEI factory.
 

blackjack

Contributor
Moderator
Russia Correspondent
Russia Moderator
Messages
1,449
Reactions
8 840
Nation of residence
United States of America
Nation of origin
Russia
But I repeat: the Russian engine is not ready yet.
Moreover, the Russians can completely stop the SU 57 project, as happened with the Armata, Boomerang, Kurganets and others.
By the way, work on the PAK DA project has also been stopped and is unlikely to be continued.
let's not further derail this thread since the subject I was going for were the engines for the KAAN. reply to me on a more appropriate thread if you want a response to other military projects.
 

uçuyorum

Contributor
Messages
952
Reactions
13 1,562
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey

boredaf

Contributor
Messages
1,430
Solutions
1
Reactions
17 4,006
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Turkey
National Interest is a US right wing rag that I wouldn't use to mob up vomit from the floor. Within a few paragraphs they are already lying, you have to go back almost 100 years to find plane we bought from Soviets, let alone buying "fighter jets" from them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Follow us on social media

Top Bottom