TR TF-X KAAN Fighter Jet

[hugh]

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.

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

 

[blackjack]

Maybe this is more serious

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/376682089_TF-23_KAAN_TURKISH_5th_Gen_Fighter_Jet

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.

 

[godel44]

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]

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:

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?

 

[godel44]

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]

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.

 

[boredaf]

Eray Güclüer.

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.

 

[godel44]

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.