TR TF-X KAAN Fighter Jet

BaburKhan

Well-known member
Messages
360
Reactions
5 818
Website
www.instagram.com
Nation of residence
Germany
Nation of origin
Germany
Found this in an MMU sim video.
KAAN's radar scaler is at 40nm that puts BURFIS radar maximum at 300km. I was expecting 400-600km considering the size and power of BURFIS :(
Am I interpreting this right?

View attachment 68073

I don't think they give out the Specifications of Burfis now, maybe we have to wait some Years. It's also possible they will not reveal al Specifications of Burfis to the Public.
 

No Name

Well-known member
Messages
342
Reactions
5 332
Nation of residence
Australia
Nation of origin
Afghanistan
Found this in an MMU sim video.
KAAN's radar scaler is at 40nm that puts BURFIS radar maximum at 300km. I was expecting 400-600km considering the size and power of BURFIS :(
Am I interpreting this right?

View attachment 68073
How do you know the simulator is set up for BURFIS, not Murad?

wasn't MURAD first then BURFIS?
 

Fuzuli NL

Experienced member
Germany Correspondent
Messages
2,950
Reactions
22 8,463
Nation of residence
Germany
Nation of origin
Turkey
tai-kaan-fighter-jet.png
 

DBdev

Committed member
Messages
294
Reactions
8 517
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
How do you know the simulator is set up for BURFIS, not Murad?

wasn't MURAD first then BURFIS?
No one thinks that giant nose of KAAN is for tiny Murad radar, right? Also developer in video says it is the official 1to1 simulator for MMU not Özgür project or Hürjet. So I still have no idea why it merely shows 300km max range like F-16 block30s. Well at least it is 360 degrees not just a forward looking radar screen like this F-16 (Murad?) one.


RightMFD_Radar.png
 

uçuyorum

Contributor
Messages
779
Reactions
9 1,276
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
No one thinks that giant nose of KAAN is for tiny Murad radar, right? Also developer in video says it is the official 1to1 simulator for MMU not Özgür project or Hürjet. So I still have no idea why it merely shows 300km max range like F-16 block30s. Well at least it is 360 degrees not just a forward looking radar screen like this F-16 (Murad?) one.


RightMFD_Radar.png
Ok so EIRS have about 5 times the modules of Burfis and 10 times that of Murad. It's S vs X band but you get the idea. Even Cenk's is about 2 times more modules than Burfis, plus both of those have significantly more cooling and power generation( CENK -S peak power is roughly 2 times total electricity generation of KAAN. If CENK-S is effective 200 to 400Km, how do you figure Burfis needs more than 300km screen? Not to mention as a digital screen it probably has the option to extend and change range etc.
 

DBdev

Committed member
Messages
294
Reactions
8 517
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Ok so EIRS have about 5 times the modules of Burfis and 10 times that of Murad. It's S vs X band but you get the idea. Even Cenk's is about 2 times more modules than Burfis, plus both of those have significantly more cooling and power generation( CENK -S peak power is roughly 2 times total electricity generation of KAAN. If CENK-S is effective 200 to 400Km, how do you figure Burfis needs more than 300km screen? Not to mention as a digital screen it probably has the option to extend and change range etc.
Beam forming with AESA is not just about brute module count or peak power. If you are using more 4x 5x peak power like 100+kw peak power as stated here for BURFIS but never reaching beyond 300 km then you suck at your job.

You need to compare it to what our frenemies all around us (will) have, F-35s. AN/APG-85 maximum range is classified, but it is rumored to be longer than AWACS. And that is a smaller radar than BURFIS with less than half the power BURFIS can utilize. French can use wave cancelling (similar to active noise cancelling) to make their Rafales somewhat invisible in certain angles, situations with a tiny radar. Compare BURFIS to those not to other Aselsan firsts.
 

uçuyorum

Contributor
Messages
779
Reactions
9 1,276
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Beam forming with AESA is not just about brute module count or peak power. If you are using more 4x 5x peak power like 100+kw peak power as stated here for BURFIS but never reaching beyond 300 km then you suck at your job.

You need to compare it to what our frenemies all around us (will) have, F-35s. AN/APG-85 maximum range is classified, but it is rumored to be longer than AWACS. And that is a smaller radar than BURFIS with less than half the power BURFIS can utilize. French can use wave cancelling (similar to active noise cancelling) to make their Rafales somewhat invisible in certain angles, situations with a tiny radar. Compare BURFIS to those not to other Aselsan firsts.
Do you scan while beamforming narrow area that I don't know of? I mean you can use Burfis as illumination radar with all modules but what will first spot the target it will illuminate at that range then? And are eirs and cenk s not capable of same?
 

DBdev

Committed member
Messages
294
Reactions
8 517
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Do you scan while beamforming narrow area that I don't know of? I mean you can use Burfis as illumination radar with all modules but what will first spot the target it will illuminate at that range then? And are eirs and cenk s not capable of same?
I am not sure if I got what you are saying, but waves can cancel each other out as in Rafale but also can strengthen each other or change direction, steer each other. That is all beam forming. It is a science in its own right. Aselsan isn't good at that. Also, it could be the not so good transmitters, I am not sure. My old Nvidia GPU used 1+KW, but it still cant run most games of today using all that power because it uses older chip technology that just wasted electricity to do less. So that could be why BURFIS and aselsan in general is stuck at these low ranges compared to state of the art western tech.
 

Afif

Experienced member
Moderator
Bangladesh Correspondent
DefenceHub Diplomat
Bangladesh Moderator
Messages
4,307
Reactions
68 8,003
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
Digital radar screen on a simulator doesn't mean much. It has no purpose other than primary demonstration of system's functionality. Not to publicly reveal the range and exact performance parameters of the actual system. Those are classified.

Officially, we don't have any statement on the range performance of MURAD let alone BUFRIS. However, recently Temel Kotil stated, Hurjet will have indeginous radar with 200km range. Which will be a scale downed version of MURAD. likely 800-850 T/R modules. (MURAD and BUFRIS will use the same T/R modules.) We can do some speculation from here.

Here are few general rules of thumb.

*If you increase the peak power of T/R modules from 30w to 60w, it will only increases the range by 19%. (To increase the range by 100% you need to increase the peak power up to 16 times.)

((1000/1000)^3*(60/30))^(1/4)

=1.19

However, considering everything is same, if you increase the numbers of T/R modules two times, you will get increase in range by 68%. That's why additional T/R modules matters.

(2000/1000)^3*(30/30))^(1/4)

=1.68

Now, even with a conservative estimate, Let's say, Hurjet's radar 200km range is meant to be against 5m2 RCS target. BUFRIS having 2000+ T/R modules means increase in range would be roughly 90%.

(2000/850)^3*(30/30))^(1/4)

=1.89

That means, 380km detection range for BUFRIS's frontal aperture against 5m2 RCS target. Meaning, 250km+ detection range against 1m2 target.

Burfis should have 250km+ range for the same target. (I.e. 1m² target)

O btw, active cancelation or even DRFM in practice doesn't work against Modern AESA radars that can change its frequency up to 1000 times or more per second. Not to mention detection of LPI AESA emissions is a difficult job to begin with.
 

Spitfire9

Well-known member
Messages
362
Reactions
8 468
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
United Kingdom
Just one example
Just for the record, from the source:

Popular Mechanics mentions that the Kaan is expected to meet performance benchmarks for modern fighter jets, with a top speed between Mach 1.8 to 2.2

That is not quite the same as saying that KAAN will have a top speed of Mach 2.2.
 

DBdev

Committed member
Messages
294
Reactions
8 517
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Just for the record, from the source:



That is not quite the same as saying that KAAN will have a top speed of Mach 2.2.
It is not some big mystery.

Türkiye had the option to stay in F-35 program and under the thumb of west but moved on with s400 instead in order to make her own, F-22 clone with that money they promised to USA.

Even the engine thrust targets are similar.
A stealthy TF-35000 (actually 38000lbf) to clone F-119 (35000lbf)
Similar size and stealth geometry. So similar drag.

In theory, it SHOULD be around Mach 1.8 super cruise and Mach 2.2+ with afterburners. Even without any simulation software.

That is still a very conservative target F-15 with weaker engines can hit Mach 2.4. Why the disbelief that a stronger engine can hit Mach 2.2+ considering there is no thrust loss due to stealthy nozzles. Also most of the time all these fighters fly subsonic anyway. Even if they have super cruise ability. It is better to have greater range, payload than greater speed most of the time.
 
Last edited:

Spitfire9

Well-known member
Messages
362
Reactions
8 468
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
United Kingdom
BBdev
Thanks for that. It gives a reasoned explanation to support KAAN having a top speed in the region of mach 2.2.
 

Follow us on social media

Top Bottom