TR Turkish Air Forces|News & Discussion

Yasar_TR

Experienced member
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
3,027
Reactions
111 14,702
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Turkey
EF and Rafale come from the same family of the program.

Its gonna be interesting seeing Greece with their Rafales and the Turks with their Eurofighter Typhoons.
From a technical point of view and as an addition to @Cabatli_TR ’s post, it should be noted that although Rafale and Typhoon may give the impression that they are from the same kin, they are quite different.
Yes they are both twin engined delta wing aircraft with canards. But for a start, Typhoon’s RCS is much smaller. It has more powerful engines. The ECRS-Mk2 hybrid Aesa radar is much more powerful than the one on Rafale.
Rafale was produced as a multi purpose aircraft; Air to air, air to ground and carrier based operations. Therefore it is normal to expect certain compromises in its performance as per the F35. In spite of all this, to give it’s due, it turned out to be a very capable fighter.
Typhoon however, was produced as an air superiority/interceptor fighter jet. It was in later iterations that Typhoon gained the air to ground attack capability. It can operate at more than 10000ft higher altitudes than Rafale and is the only western plane, apart from F22, that can supercruise at or above 1.5 Mach.
Also as per @Cabatli_TR ’s comments, the Typhoon in it’s latest form joining Turkish airforce will be part of the larger defence posture we will have as opposed to being a solitary fighter. It will have capability to fire our own missiles and bombs, making it even more effective.
 

boredaf

Contributor
Messages
968
Solutions
1
Reactions
11 2,732
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Turkey
Also as per @Cabatli_TR ’s comments, the Typhoon in it’s latest form joining Turkish airforce will be part of the larger defence posture we will have as opposed to being a solitary fighter.
I think this is the most important point any procurement made by us, or Greece. Don't look at the items one by one, look at them as a whole, along with existing platform. And then, factor in how mature the concept/doctrine of the country is, and how proficient they are at it. For example, we developed a drone doctrine that shocked everyone at Syria, Libya and Azerbaijan even as our drones were looked down on.

If we manage to use our resources, as in our planes, drones, air defence systems, right and develop our air warfare concepts effectively, then we can negate any advantage they might have with F-35s or Rafales.
 

dBSPL

Experienced member
Think Tank Analyst
DefenceHub Ambassador
Messages
2,054
Reactions
77 10,622
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
The Hürjet project has reached a very advanced stage. With a planned delivery date of 2025, the testing and verification phases of the aircraft avionics should already be at the completion stage. So, almost all of avionics incl FCS, communication systems and related equipment, human-machine interfaces and computing systems, navigation systems and antennas etc., flight control, cockpit and commutator systems, display systems and surfaces and all related components are currently in the testing process. Mechanically: landing gears, various types of actuators for supersonic speeds and tens of hundreds of other subsystems that mostly common to the supersonic AJT and fighter jets.

I don't know if we can assume that one of the outcomes of the parallel running of the KAAN and Hurjet projects is a flexible design logic for the many subsystems developed, but basically we are currently preparing hundreds of subsystems for two different aircraft, and the design team of each system generally consists of the same engineering teams.

So I think we have two parallel lines one is Hurjet and other is KAAN. The question is, between these two parallel lines, would drawing the third one be as long and costly as the other two lines, or would it be very practical and cost-effective to create a fork?

Creating a combat jet that uses the Hurjet infrastructure, but with more than twice the combat weight, may be more beneficial than waiting at the door for the EF-T4 and F-16-B70, which are at risk of dragging on until the 2030s. Going even further, in order to avoid wasting time on a new platform design, it may not be as long a road as one might think to license a base design of any non-NATO fighter jet from a country other than those that are hesitant to give us aircraft, and equip it entirely with indigenous electronic and mechanical systems. I mean, of course, it is a long way, but it seems that for procurement within NATO will not be as shortcut as it was thought to be.
 

Afif

Experienced member
Moderator
Bangladesh Correspondent
DefenceHub Diplomat
Bangladesh Moderator
Messages
4,009
Reactions
64 7,322
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
1701605164275.jpeg


Swiss Air Force's evaluation of all three Euro-canard.
 

Spitfire9

Committed member
Messages
286
Reactions
6 371
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
United Kingdom
View attachment 63526

Swiss Air Force's evaluation of all three Euro-canard.
I guess that dates back 10 years or more so those aircraft will have progressed in capability. American content is to be avoided, I assume. The only 2 non-Russian/Chinese types without US engines are Rafale and Typhoon. As we know, Eurofighter is unavailable at the moment. Rafale production slots are booked up for years, even if France were prepared to supply.
 

boredaf

Contributor
Messages
968
Solutions
1
Reactions
11 2,732
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Turkey
The question is, between these two parallel lines, would drawing the third one be as long and costly as the other two lines, or would it be very practical and cost-effective to create a fork?
Imo, we would stretch ourselves too thin by trying to add a completely new design/production line between Hürjet and TF-x. We only have so many qualified people that can work on these things and we are probably already pushing them to their limits.

And not to mention, who is going to let us license build a jet? None of the countries that refuse to sell us the planes themselves would do it. Russia's designs are way different than what we've been used to building and on top of that, Russia is a pariah state now and making any new deals with them is not just shooting ourselves in the foot but basically shoving a shotgun up our asses and giving the trigger to US to pull. Not to mention it is Russia and I'd rather not betray Ukraine by doing business with them, because fuck Russia.

That only leaves China and frankly they have the closest thing to F-16 in J-10, but again, why would they let us license build it when they could sell it themselves and if we did buy it from them we are back to shotgun in the ass.

Our best bet right now is the continue trying to get Eurofighters and/or F-16s and powering through with Hürjet and Kaan.
 

Quasar

Contributor
The Post Deleter
Messages
565
Reactions
34 2,555
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
- your RCS is much smaller
-your radar is much more powerful
-you operate at more than 10000ft higher altitudes than your adversary

most probable outcome is your adversary is now bussy defending your BVR missiles
 

Zafer

Experienced member
Messages
4,457
Reactions
6 7,125
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
The Hürjet project has reached a very advanced stage. With a planned delivery date of 2025, the testing and verification phases of the aircraft avionics should already be at the completion stage. So, almost all of avionics incl FCS, communication systems and related equipment, human-machine interfaces and computing systems, navigation systems and antennas etc., flight control, cockpit and commutator systems, display systems and surfaces and all related components are currently in the testing process. Mechanically: landing gears, various types of actuators for supersonic speeds and tens of hundreds of other subsystems that mostly common to the supersonic AJT and fighter jets.

I don't know if we can assume that one of the outcomes of the parallel running of the KAAN and Hurjet projects is a flexible design logic for the many subsystems developed, but basically we are currently preparing hundreds of subsystems for two different aircraft, and the design team of each system generally consists of the same engineering teams.

So I think we have two parallel lines one is Hurjet and other is KAAN. The question is, between these two parallel lines, would drawing the third one be as long and costly as the other two lines, or would it be very practical and cost-effective to create a fork?

Creating a combat jet that uses the Hurjet infrastructure, but with more than twice the combat weight, may be more beneficial than waiting at the door for the EF-T4 and F-16-B70, which are at risk of dragging on until the 2030s. Going even further, in order to avoid wasting time on a new platform design, it may not be as long a road as one might think to license a base design of any non-NATO fighter jet from a country other than those that are hesitant to give us aircraft, and equip it entirely with indigenous electronic and mechanical systems. I mean, of course, it is a long way, but it seems that for procurement within NATO will not be as shortcut as it was thought to be.

Use a pair of TF10000 to make a small fighter that can also double as a UCAV with 90% commonality and 100% Turkish made.
 
Last edited:

Afif

Experienced member
Moderator
Bangladesh Correspondent
DefenceHub Diplomat
Bangladesh Moderator
Messages
4,009
Reactions
64 7,322
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
This doesn't reflect where the Eurofighter is right now though, so it is quite disingenuous and borderline disinformation to use this as a comparison.

Well, I didn't know it was from 2008 until @Quasar pointed out.

I thought it was from recent competition when ultimately Switzerland chose F-35.
 

boredaf

Contributor
Messages
968
Solutions
1
Reactions
11 2,732
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Turkey
Use a pair of TF10000 to make a small fighter that can also double as a UCAV with 90% commonality and 100% Turkish made.
I thought about this as well, two TF-10000 would put us around the thrust of original Gripen with F404 engines (well, Volvo equivalent of that), but would be lower than Gripen E with F414. I think this could've been the better way to go instead of Hürjet from the start, but I don't think we have the capability to sustain 3 jet fighter projects at the same time.

As I said before, we are going to have to power through with Hürjet and hope that light attack configuration won't be too far behind after 2025, and wait for Kaan.
 

Afif

Experienced member
Moderator
Bangladesh Correspondent
DefenceHub Diplomat
Bangladesh Moderator
Messages
4,009
Reactions
64 7,322
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
But for a start, Typhoon’s RCS is much smaller.


I read both aircraft having small RCS than the other one. I doubt Typhoon RCS is much smaller than Rafale or vice-versa. They have probbaly similar RCS. Unless there is specific verified data that I don't know about.
 

Quasar

Contributor
The Post Deleter
Messages
565
Reactions
34 2,555
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
I read both aircraft having small RCS than the other one. I doubt Typhoon RCS is much smaller than Rafale or vice-versa. They have probbaly similar RCS.

Just as an ordinary man it reminds me FA 18 hornet and Super hornet.... Rafale having smaller RCS doesnt make much sense
 

Zafer

Experienced member
Messages
4,457
Reactions
6 7,125
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
I thought about this as well, two TF-10000 would put us around the thrust of original Gripen with F404 engines (well, Volvo equivalent of that), but would be lower than Gripen E with F414. I think this could've been the better way to go instead of Hürjet from the start, but I don't think we have the capability to sustain 3 jet fighter projects at the same time.

As I said before, we are going to have to power through with Hürjet and hope that light attack configuration won't be too far behind after 2025, and wait for Kaan.

We do not have a domestic engine for Hürjet, but we do have one for a twin engine Hürjet+. Talking about money, who would think we could afford making so many projects at the same time like we are making now but yet we are. Once the training version of Hürjet is copmleted which is not far away a twin engine Hürjet can be started to also match the timeline of the engine itself. This version may even be more suitable for carrier based operations.
 

Sanchez

Experienced member
Moderator
Think Tank Analyst
DefenceHub Diplomat
Messages
1,648
Reactions
56 7,472
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Last edited:

dBSPL

Experienced member
Think Tank Analyst
DefenceHub Ambassador
Messages
2,054
Reactions
77 10,622
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Actually, what I'm talking about is not starting a completely new jet project. Developing the Hürjet program through two airframes. One is AJT focused and the other is a fighter jet with F-16 B70 level operational capability and higher lift capacity. If it is designed with the same engine /as single and dual engine variants/, perhaps 90/95% common logistics, and again almost entirely common avionics infrastructure, maybe something similar to the AESA suit that will be included in KAAN, can be integrated, thanks to higher power. If we had a 30,000 lb engine ready for KAAN, maybe things would be easier.

I think the problem may be financing the development of this aircraft, but I am not yet convinced that this will create an unbearable additional labor burden. Because TAI officials themselves have created many speculations on the possibility of Hurjet fork many times before, one of which is Hürjet Naval. And I'm sure they have a serious analysis catalog and various test designs on this subject.

Of course, I am aware that I am oversimplifying the issue for making it debatable. What I am basically talking about is, integrate the avionics mechanical systems you developed for MMU and Hurjet into a third mainframe in a different package. Not only in terms of development, but the real headache is, let's say you developed such a prototype, even production planning for it is a cost and serious headache in itself, lets aside test process.

How long will it take to develop this aircraft? 10-12 years? Then there is no such option. We can turn our entire concentration to F-16 modernization. 3-4 years? Then there may be an option that can catch the ready purchase schedule.

How much does the development cost? +10 billion dollars? It is very expensive, when you add this cost to the unit production cost you almost reach the MMU cost. A few billion dollars? It can definitely be said that the unit cost of the aircraft to be produced, including development, will still be below the purchased jet cost.

You can also offer this platform to foreign markets without asking anyone. One of the popular topics on Twitter is Argentina and the Latino market. Small African countries in the Sahel are moving towards confederation and so more solid army structures. Arms embargoes on some of the countries we support are being lifted or relaxed. In defense, the number of countries that we have strategic partners with increasingly stronger financing tools, such as Malaysia, or at least for which we are critical solution partners, is increasing.

It is forbidden to buy Russian planes, there is great pressure, buyers are canceling their contracts. However, the same group of countries are under the strict control of the USA and the states in its orbit regarding arms sales. Consider that Egypt still not have mid-range air-to-air missiles. To achieve this, Algeria relied heavily on Russian logistics and so on...

Anyway, I don't want to make it too long. The difficulties of this issue are great, I have no objection. But it promises a high risk-return ratio on return side. And it seems as if conditions will force us to do this at some point even if forget all these export possibilities. If we're heading there, I'm not a fan of wasting time.
 

Aqerdf

Active member
Messages
84
Reactions
5 210
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
What if future TF-10k engine would become online not 10k, but instead 10k and 15k or just 15k pound output?

With this, we could create our own Rafale, similar to Kaan's IOC date but with FOC capability (being 4.5 gen / easier collabs with foreign suppliers like Hürjet)

A bit far fetched idea (creating TF-15000), i know.. :/
 
Last edited:

Samba

Active member
Messages
53
Reactions
2 107
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
I think our road map should follow having 2 fighter jets (one being KAAN and the other one is HürJet+) 1 training (Hürjet itself) and 4 tf engines (tf6000, tf10000, tf16000 or alike and tf35000).

Tf6000 and tf10000 would be of great use for Kızılelma, Anka3 and similar models. Tf16000 or alike would be sufficient for HürJet training model, 2xtf10000 or 2xtf16000 or alike would be perfect for HürJet+ light fighter. Tf35000 is for KAAN obviously.

For now we are working on HürJet and KAAN as well as tf6000, tf10000 and tf35000. Once these projects are mature enough, progression will be faster and easier to fill remaining gaps. This is why next 5 years is crucial and not so many F35s will be delivered to change the balance in a day.

We have time but we need to know what to do and continue working hard determinantly.
 

Follow us on social media

Latest posts

Top Bottom