TAI TF-X / Milli Muharip Uçak MMU Kaan

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sometimes I look at TFX, KF21, J-20, Japan x2, India AMCA and wonder had the yf-23 won the ATF competition, how different these aircraft would have approached stealth design.

I'm not talking about configuration. J-20 for example is a delta canard design. I'm speaking of approach toward aircraft shaping that the yf-22 clearly has set precedent - large semi faceted surfaces making up a central box shaped body that house engines, weapon bays and inlets vs that of the yf-23 which is basically a continous horizontal lifting surface that wraps over engines, bays, inlets, creating spaced out smooth bumps with no sharp edges.

I'm sure though had yf-23 won, alot of these aircraft that chose a conventional 4 tail layouts would have been called into question about its stealth attributes by internet experts who only see things in simplified absolutes.
 
^
well, outside of the US, most countries designs tend to be more derivative (follow the leader). So would not be surprised they would look more like the YF-23. Keep in mind Japan had 2 YF-23 style designs on the drawing board. In contrast, Su-57 might have looked more like the F-22 instead.

anyways nice new pics.
you can finally see the bottom bays
its location indicates that they are side by side bays.
not two tandem bays as claimed earlier
Screen Shot 2023-04-10 at 12.53.58.png
 
helmutkohl said:
^
well, outside of the US, most countries designs tend to be more derivative (follow the leader). So would not be surprised they would look more like the YF-23. Keep in mind Japan had 2 YF-23 style designs on the drawing board. In contrast, Su-57 might have looked more like the F-22 instead.

anyways nice new pics.
you can finally see the bottom bays
its location indicates that they are side by side bays.
not two tandem bays as claimed earlier
View attachment 697590
Click to expand...
The IWB configuration has indeed changed.
 
helmutkohl said:
you can finally see the bottom bays
its location indicates that they are side by side bays.
not two tandem bays as claimed earlier
Click to expand...
Isn't it a 2 part door for the main landing gear? It folds forwards and rotates. The MLG door shown open in the pictures isn't large enough to accommodate this? Then again the door you highlight looks too long for this; maybe it doubles with equipment bay access
 
Nah, MLG seems to be packaged akin to this early Su-57 concept:
 

Attachments

  • pakfa_2004-2005.jpg
    pakfa_2004-2005.jpg
    60.1 KB · Views: 140
the bottom bay seems to extend a bit forward compared to the side bays
about where that hexagon panel ends.
it would mean its too far forward to be the bay for the rear landing gears
it also seems its too far to the sides to be used for the front landing gear

not sure how far back this bottom bay extends though, since the guy is blocking the way in the other picture

TAI MMU - TFX 01 - weapon bays.jpg
 
"Prototype products within the scope of "Development of Long Wavelength Infrared Trace Reduction Paint" and "Development of Radar Absorbing Paste (Sealant)" carried out with TAI, which will contribute to the projects we will develop regarding invisibility (trace reduction) technology, which is very critical for the 5th generation aircraft. We completed the production and passed the performance tests."
Click to expand...
"We have successfully completed the development, verification and acceptance activities of the RASEM software, which will be used in the electromagnetic design processes to give the National Combat Aircraft (MMU) invisibility under radar, and delivered the software to TAI. At the same time, we completed the set designs within the scope of the HAVSET-Phase 1 project to ensure the low visibility of the air duct of the MMU on radar and delivered to TAI; Thus, we have moved on to Phase 2 of the HAVSET project."
Click to expand...
https://arproged.okan.edu.tr/tr/fee...-ve-teknolojik-bagimsizligina-adanmis-bir-yil
 
Pretty standard tbh and not that relevant to end performance
 
Nah it's pretty decent considering ASELSAN hasn't quite developed another platform such as this. Regarding end performance... well we don't know. I'm obviously referring to the specs that are given, and so far so good. It being "pretty standard" ticks all the boxes for me, which in turn makes it good.
 
I can buy a HD IR camera online for 50k...

Detector resolution is only one small part of end performance. There are many other important characteristics, that are mostly not listed on pr brochures.
 
red admiral said:
I can buy a HD IR camera online for 50k...

Detector resolution is only one small part of end performance. There are many other important characteristics, that are mostly not listed on pr brochures.
Click to expand...
Detector resolution plays an important role but it doesn't matter. Just because it's a small part of the equation doesn't change the fact that is indeed a part of the equation. You see, the term "end performance" is rather vague. Considering there won't be colossal mishaps with the rest of the platform (ASELSAN has proven its worth as a company to begin with), the end product will most likely be on par with her close competitors albeit being a little heavier.

But I was simply referring to her specs on the brochure, and those specs are genuinely good. They aren't suboptimal are they? End performance doesn't matter since I'm not referring to it. Needless discussion imho.
 
red admiral said:
I can buy a HD IR camera online for 50k...

Detector resolution is only one small part of end performance. There are many other important characteristics, that are mostly not listed on pr brochures.
Click to expand...
Yeah but it's lifecycle, pixel pitch (probably), noise, algorithms, stabilisation, zoom, post processing etc will be much worse.
 
red admiral said:
I am sorry for questioning the Turkish super fighter
Click to expand...
You should be apologizing for opening a whole discussion over a single word But I don't mind it. Of course you may question the aircraft, it has been done before. I've heard a lot of ridiculous statements over these 10 years. As I said I don't mind it, as it is your right to do so. However I do not grasp this "Turkish super fighter" thing. No one is acting ultra-nationalistic here. We were having a perfectly valid discussion on electro-optical sensors.
 
Comparing a multi million dollar fighter-borne electro optical sensor that is made for 5th gen aircraft with a cheap commercially available camera is the most illogical thing I've seen today.

Nobody was being nationalistic or anything, they were simply pointing out this fact and saying that comparing the two doesn't make any sense.

Maybe you misunderstood the phrasing, but it is still not cool to start a dispute with a provocative language.
 
Thanks very much guys for continuing to post the content from Turkiye; it is really interesting

I'm just getting at that there is basically no analysis or critical thinking that accompanies this. e.g. what metrics / characterisitics do we actually need to care about? how do these compare to other aircraft? is this different? better? worse? and why?
 
Canardzz said:
snne said:
View attachment 697759
Click to expand...

View attachment 697762

It has good specs.
Click to expand...

This should be the FPA that will be used in Toygun, 1280x1024 @ 10μM Pixel Pitch
1663664040247-png.47885


1663663984405-png.47883


ROIC
1663663520400-png.47878
 
red admiral said:
Thanks very much guys for continuing to post the content from Turkiye; it is really interesting

I'm just getting at that there is basically no analysis or critical thinking that accompanies this. e.g. what metrics / characterisitics do we actually need to care about? how do these compare to other aircraft? is this different? better? worse? and why?
Click to expand...
Here's an informative thread about detector developments:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1647615318133448704
View: https://twitter.com/kadirdogantr/status/1647615318133448704?t=qoxFp10_dQ8oc0N3mhG4xQ&s=19
 
I still wonder of sense of these dimensions discussion when they are published at TAI site for ages with wingspan of 14 m and length of 21 m.
www.tusas.com

404 - TUSAS

404
www.tusas.com www.tusas.com
 
flateric said:
I still wonder of sense of these dimensions discussion when they are published at TAI site for ages with wingspan of 14 m and length of 21 m.
www.tusas.com

404 - TUSAS

404
www.tusas.com www.tusas.com
Click to expand...
One could argue if all pictures (and the 3d model) posted on this site are different to the rolled out prototype why would one assume the dimensions are accurate?
 

Attachments

  • mmu-d3,556.jpg
    mmu-d3,556.jpg
    203.3 KB · Views: 45
  • mmu-d2,555.jpg
    mmu-d2,555.jpg
    188.8 KB · Views: 40
  • mmu-d1,554.jpg
    mmu-d1,554.jpg
    147.2 KB · Views: 41
Last edited:
How would the long, protruded LEX of the MMU would affect the aircraft's maneuverability or observability?

Iirc other similar low-observable fighters don't have it
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom