TR Air-Force TF-X KAAN Fighter Jet

hugh

Contributor
Messages
497
Reactions
14 1,296
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
this is not a scientific paper. these losers are out on twitter doing KAAN propaganda all day. how do they know the RCS of KAAN or F35 or KIZILELMA? what do they know about the applied RAM materials and their efficacy? it's just bunch of assumption made in favor of KAAN.

besides, even in their pseudo-scientific paper, F35 has lower RCS than KAAN.
 

godel44

Committed member
Messages
165
Reactions
8 504
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
this is not a scientific paper. these losers are out on twitter doing KAAN propaganda all day. how do they know the RCS of KAAN or F35 or KIZILELMA? what do they know about the applied RAM materials and their efficacy? it's just bunch of assumption made in favor of KAAN.

besides, even in their pseudo-scientific paper, F35 has lower RCS than KAAN.
They actually address all those questions in the paper with quite some detail. And when they make assumptions, they make them explicitly against Kaan to be conservative.

You can still disagree with them of course but it's not fair to disagree without reading the paper.
 

Oublious

Experienced member
The Netherlands Correspondent
Messages
2,565
Reactions
12 5,493
Nation of residence
Nethelands
Nation of origin
Turkey
this is not a scientific paper. these losers are out on twitter doing KAAN propaganda all day. how do they know the RCS of KAAN or F35 or KIZILELMA? what do they know about the applied RAM materials and their efficacy? it's just bunch of assumption made in favor of KAAN.

besides, even in their pseudo-scientific paper, F35 has lower RCS than KAAN.


Do you have scientific paper of F35?

lol
 

UcanTost

Active member
Messages
94
Reactions
1 127
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
And what makes you think that?
TAI KAAN has approximately at least the first prototype would have 27 tons as take-off weight, if fully fueled and loaded with ammunition, at least in theory.
Both GE F-110-129 Engines each have a dry and wet thrust of 76KN/131KN.

TAI KAAN

To calculate the thrust-to-weight ratio for the TAI Kaan with two engines and a maximum takeoff weight of 27 tons, here are the details:

Given Data:

1. Thrust per engine: General Electric F110-GE-129

With afterburner: 131 kN per engine

For two engines:

View attachment 72716

Result:

The thrust-to-weight ratio of the TAI Kaan is approximately 0.98 at maximum takeoff weight with full afterburner thrust. If the aircraft operates at a lower weight (e.g., reduced fuel or fewer weapons), the ratio can exceed 1.0, improving acceleration and maneuverability.

F-22

To calculate the thrust-to-weight ratio of the F-22 Raptor when fully fueled and armed, we need the following data:

Given Data for the F-22 Raptor:

1. Engines: Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100

Thrust per engine (with afterburner): 156 kN

Total thrust for two engines:

View attachment 72717


Result:

The F-22 Raptor has a thrust-to-weight ratio of approximately 0.84 when fully fueled and armed (at its maximum takeoff weight). This value increases significantly when the fuel load decreases or the aircraft carries fewer weapons, often exceeding 1.1 in combat configurations with partial fuel and weapon loadouts.

TAI KAAN probably uses more composite, titanium materials than the F-22, The Second KAAN Prototype will probably be somewhat smaller and more delicate, probably 6-8% Lighter then the first Prototype.
We would then be talking about a thrust ratio of 1.10/1.20 and that is more then the State of the Art.

KAAN is actually an air superiority fighter with multi-role options. But it is not a bomb truck like the F-35 which is superior against other GEN 4+ aircraft but I doubt it has a chance against a J-20 Chengdu SU-57 at least in dogfight provided the radars of both aircraft have the F-35 under control.
F22 has a ttw exceeding 1 at all times. The fact that you brought up su57 is a complete joke. j20 has been produced since 2009 with almost similar ttw as f22. MMU with own engines will probably be somewhere around 2040 and thats IF its succesful. My comment wasn't just about the weird ratios of size/weight and engines but also about nepotism reaching tusas/tai aswell. Everyone seems to get annoyed at me for saying something they dont wanna hear. It needs to be said and adjust YOUR expections accordingly. The fact that Mahmut Aksit is trying to downplay the expections says enough. MMU with f110 will be the final package. Buraya yazdim.
 

hugh

Contributor
Messages
497
Reactions
14 1,296
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
They actually address all those questions in the paper with quite some detail. And when they make assumptions, they make them explicitly against Kaan to be conservative.

You can still disagree with them of course but it's not fair to disagree without reading the paper.
there is no detail on the paper. it is assumption over assumption over assumption.

A mechanical engineer is writing a paper on RCS? with no background whatsoever. written in poor English with large fonts to pamper KAAN. The calculations @Afif makes about radars are much more in-depth than this paper.

PS: I read the paper
 

uçuyorum

Contributor
Messages
1,132
Reactions
15 1,801
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
there is no detail on the paper. it is assumption over assumption over assumption.

A mechanical engineer is writing a paper on RCS? with no background whatsoever. written in poor English with large fonts to pamper KAAN. The calculations @Afif makes about radars are much more in-depth than this paper.

PS: I read the paper
Beyazıt karataş is retired air force general and F16 pilot so he must know a thing or two
 

hugh

Contributor
Messages
497
Reactions
14 1,296
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Beyazıt karataş is retired air force general and F16 pilot so he must know a thing or two
how can being a pilot give you the credentials to write scientific-papers of comprehensive analysis on radars(electro-magnetic theory) and stealth tech?

below is the whole reference section of the paper, btw. If you call that science, then I don't know what to say.

refence.png


PS: the second one on the image is his other pseudo paper with no reference whatsoever.
 
Last edited:

blackjack

Experienced member
Moderator
Russia Correspondent
Russia Moderator
Messages
1,620
Reactions
10 946
Nation of residence
United States of America
Nation of origin
Russia
175kms for a 1m2 target for Kaan radar is BS, the old su-57 and f-22 radars with wide beams and lesser power see 1m2 targets at 200kms. That entire research paper should be thrown in the trash because the Kaan should see a further range.
Did you know that Kaan is 10 times less visible on radar (rcs) than F-35.
Not with the current round nozzles it has and I am assuming the domestic engine made for Kaan will at least be a serrated engine. Kaan is physically bigger maybe it can have a lower RCS than the F-35 if they go for a flat nozzle design like these.
288455-1c96df7b9b455d324703fa8a3d99723e.png
 

godel44

Committed member
Messages
165
Reactions
8 504
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
how can being a pilot give you the credentials to write scientific-papers of comprehensive analysis on radars(electro-magnetic theory) and stealth tech?

this is the whole reference section of the paper, btw. If you call that science, then I don't know what to say.

View attachment 72720
You still haven't said anything substantial about the paper. They have laid out their steps and worked through them transparently. To be clear, I am not married to their results. I would be willing to hear counter-arguments and adjust my opinion but a valid argument would be like "They made this mistake in this step" or "They missed this detail which causes a material change in the result." Instead you produced a lot of ad hominem, calling them "losers on twitter" and "pseudo-scientific." When they show their assumptions, and output of their Matlab code and you only engage in name-calling, you are not as convincing as you might think.
 

hugh

Contributor
Messages
497
Reactions
14 1,296
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
You still haven't said anything substantial about the paper. They have laid out their steps and worked through them transparently. To be clear, I am not married to their results. I would be willing to hear counter-arguments and adjust my opinion but a valid argument would be like "They made this mistake in this step" or "They missed this detail which causes a material change in the result." Instead you produced a lot of ad hominem, calling them "losers on twitter" and "pseudo-scientific." When they show their assumptions, and output of their Matlab code and you only engage in name-calling, you are not as convincing as you might think.
Do I really need to dissect that rag and spoon-feed you with it?

This is from page 8:

"Based on our calculation and respecting to the counter measure on TF-23 Block0, we can assume frontal aspect RCS as -20dbsqm (0.01m2). TF-23 Block1, with advanced magnetic coating and RAM panel layer, it could reach RCS value for X Band 10GHz as -25dbsqm (0.003m2)."

Do you see any math on that paper to support this? Did they provide any insight on what their variables were and what assumptions they have made? Are you just taking their word for it?

From page 9:

"Assuming all other parameters are the same apart from emitting power rate (40kW/25.5kW), it corresponds to range 12% higher for TF-23 KAAN radar. So with a certain margin, safely it can be assumed 175km for RCS 1m2 targets"

They assume F35 has 160km detection range against 1 sqm target. How do they know this? They also somehow calculate BÜRFİS's range as 175km against 1sqm target. Again, they say we calculated but there is no calculation shown on the paper? Like why is it not 150km or 300km?

Then there are these tables:

rcs.png


Do you see any evidence or proof of where they got the RCS figures of these aircrafts. Like how can you know the radar signatures of KIZILELMA or KAAN when they're going through iterative changes from prototype to prototype(with not RAM material)? And as if the charade wasn't enough, they've added in a KIZILELMA Block2 and its RCS when there's not even a picture of the drone?

Maybe you should ask yourself why are you so easily convinced? Why do you think that this "paper" is more credible than the daily chatter we do about KAAN on this forum? Or are we doing science here?
 
Last edited:

godel44

Committed member
Messages
165
Reactions
8 504
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Do I really need to dissect that rag and spoon-feed you with it?

This is from page 8:

"Based on our calculation and respecting to the counter measure on TF-23 Block0, we can assume frontal aspect RCS as -20dbsqm (0.01m2). TF-23 Block1, with advanced magnetic coating and RAM panel layer, it could reach RCS value for X Band 10GHz as -25dbsqm (0.003m2)."

Do you see any math on that paper to support this? Did they provide any insight on what their variables were and what assumptions they have made? Are you just taking their word for it?

From page 9:

"Assuming all other parameters are the same apart from emitting power rate (40kW/25.5kW), it corresponds to range 12% higher for TF-23 KAAN radar. So with a certain margin, safely it can be assumed 175km for RCS 1m2 targets"

They assume F35 has 160km detection range against 1 sqm target. How do they know this? They also somehow calculate BÜRFİS's range as 175km against 1sqm target. Again, they say we calculated but there is no calculation shown on the paper? Like why is it not 150km or 300km?

Then there are these tables:

View attachment 72723

Do you see any evidence or proof of where they got the RCS figures of these aircrafts. Like how can you know the radar signatures of KIZILELMA or KAAN when they're going through iterative changes from prototype to prototype(with not RAM material)? And as if the charade wasn't enough, they've added in a KIZILELMA Block2 and its RCS when there's not even a picture of the drone?

Maybe you should ask yourself why are you so easily convinced? Why do you think that this "paper" is more credible than the daily chatter we do about KAAN on this forum? Or are we doing science here?
I am not easily convinced and I am convinced by neither the paper nor your drivel. I am just making a point that proper criticism is not name-calling.

They start most of their RCS calculations by modeling the geometry of the aircraft in Matlab and they at least confirm the directional correctness of their approach by comparing their results for known aircraft to existing literature. In a field shrouded in secrecy with design process of some aircraft still ongoing, this is a best-effort kind of approach. Of course, some parameters will change but they are at least trying to point in the right direction by making best use of the available data. If you approach it as a prima facie calculation and not the final one, maybe you will do it more justice.
 

hugh

Contributor
Messages
497
Reactions
14 1,296
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
I am not easily convinced and I am convinced by neither the paper nor your drivel. I am just making a point that proper criticism is not name-calling.

They start most of their RCS calculations by modeling the geometry of the aircraft in Matlab and they at least confirm the directional correctness of their approach by comparing their results for known aircraft to existing literature. In a field shrouded in secrecy with design process of some aircraft still ongoing, this is a best-effort kind of approach. Of course, some parameters will change but they are at least trying to point in the right direction by making best use of the available data. If you approach it as a prima facie calculation and not the final one, maybe you will do it more justice.
I won't continue this convo as it's going nowhere productive and I think I've made my point. Let's just agree to disagree and move on.
 

godel44

Committed member
Messages
165
Reactions
8 504
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Mods, I'm fucking begging you, ban the use of this clown as a source on this forum. Nothing he claims I've seen has any bearing on reality. He is literally talking out of his ass all the time, leading to nothing constructive or even remotely objective. Sharing his bullshit here is no different than sharing random twitter accounts or what some dayı says in a kahvehane.

And all the members who believe this clown, I recommend taking some logic and critical thinking courses so that you can judge what you see for yourselves before believing everything someone on a screen yells. You don't have to be a scientist or an engineer to see this guy is a charlatan, having common sense is enough.

Please stop quoting him here, it is seriously embarrassing and infuriating.
Yeah, that guy is nuts.
 

Fuzuli NL

Experienced member
Germany Correspondent
Messages
3,339
Reactions
41 9,315
Nation of residence
Germany
Nation of origin
Turkey
Mods, I'm fucking begging you, ban the use of this clown as a source on this forum. Nothing he claims I've seen has any bearing on reality. He is literally talking out of his ass all the time, leading to nothing constructive or even remotely objective. Sharing his bullshit here is no different than sharing random twitter accounts or what some dayı says in a kahvehane.

And all the members who believe this clown, I recommend taking some logic and critical thinking courses so that you can judge what you see for yourselves before believing everything someone on a screen yells. You don't have to be a scientist or an engineer to see this guy is a charlatan, having common sense is enough.

Please stop quoting him here, it is seriously embarrassing and infuriating.
Yeah, he's like the uncle when he gets too excited and starts adding stuff from his own to make the small nugget of info he's got into a mountain of inflated hyperbole just to please the audience and brown-nose others.
 

Turkic

Committed member
Messages
266
Reactions
5 525
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
TF-X-MMU-Radar-Kesit-Alani.jpg
MMU-TF-X-ProgramTakvimi.jpg


RCS values of 0.01 to 0.003 for Kaan is depending on those charts from TurAF presentation from 2021. I wonder how no one of you remembered this presentation when you heard "0.01" and "0.003". I slided trough the chat thinking I'll see one of you told about this. I didn't. I don't think we'll have a higher RCS value than 0.01 considering TurAF will get what they want at least. I can't talk about how much lower it will be. They used the highest estimated RCS value for Kaan Block 0 and lowest estimated for Block 1 in the article. Not an article to take serious imo even tho they made some good summaries of the info revealed for Kaan till today.
 

Yasar_TR

Experienced member
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
3,728
Reactions
213 19,080
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Turkey

Gökhan Uçar stating Kaan will be flying with domestic engine in 6-7 years. So cut the bs @UcanTost . No delay in plans.
This is an unfortunate and unnecessary statement by Mr Ucar. It is not a pissing contest. We have our own handicaps in developing our national fighter jet and S Koreans have theirs. If we had the access they have to US parts, we too would have utilised them for our jet.

S Korean plane KF21, has always been a gen 4++ jet from get go. It is to complement their f35 jets that they already have in their inventory, which we have none of. It does not have internal weapon bays for a start. But that doesn’t mean that it will not have it in later iterations. As our saying goes: Ours is still a bird on a branch. Theirs is already a bird in a cage. They are setting up for serial production within a year. Heck! We are not even sure we will have engines for the Block 10 KAANs.
 

Turkic

Committed member
Messages
266
Reactions
5 525
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
This is an unfortunate and unnecessary statement by Mr Ucar. It is not a pissing contest. We have our own handicaps in developing our national fighter jet and S Koreans have theirs. If we had the access they have to US parts, we too would have utilised them for our jet.

S Korean plane KF21, has always been a gen 4++ jet from get go. It is to complement their f35 jets that they already have in their inventory, which we have none of. It does not have internal weapon bays for a start. But that doesn’t mean that it will not have it in later iterations. As our saying goes: Ours is still a bird on a branch. Theirs is already a bird in a cage. They are setting up for serial production within a year. Heck! We are not even sure we will have engines for the Block 10 KAANs.

I posted the video as a claim for the statements about domestic engine. No comment on KF-21.
 

2033

Committed member
Messages
165
Reactions
3 328
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey

Gökhan Uçar stating Kaan will be flying with domestic engine in 6-7 years. So cut the bs @UcanTost . No delay in plans.
"just a shell" is very wrong. We bought the Altay tank and the howitzers from South Korea, we bought many other things from South Korea. They are as good as they can be towards us. It is a pity that there is such an unqualified person at this level in the defense industry presidency.
 

IC3M@N FX

Contributor
Messages
493
Reactions
3 23 962
Nation of residence
Germany
Nation of origin
Turkey
Please keep in mind that we are developing a fighter aircraft that works, even if this aircraft just reaches the performance of a actual Rafale or Eurofighter Tranche 3/4 as a platform, even then it will be enough for Turkey.
Because in the end it is just a step for further steps that will follow to develop better systems.

I can only repeat it and this should also be in people's minds, we are not a country that has decades of experience in these areas like the USA, France, Great Britain or China/Russia.
We started from scratch, India is still busy with their 3D renderings and blueprints.
This just shows how difficult it is to have an entire ecosystem that meets the requirements and is capable of producing a complex modern fighter aircraft. India is struggling because no one wants to help them without asking for something in return. There is a basic rule that no one helps a future Competitor or Potential Rival.

So you should recognize and respect what our boys are achieving here. That's definitely not a matter of course
 

Follow us on social media

Top Bottom