TAI TF-X / Milli Muharip Uçak MMU Kaan

siegecrossbow said:
I could’ve sworn that the vertical slabs got moved to tail booms on P2… Either it’s my personal Mandela Effect or I got it confused with a model showcased at a defense fair…
Click to expand...
No, that was never in question. It was only noobs on Twitter with large followings insisting on that change, projecting their own wishcasting as if it were fact.

1000082833.png

What the officials actually mentioned was a small change to the intakes and dimensions. As you can see, the intakes' splitter-plates have holes to discharge the boundary layer flow now; and the aircraft looks noticeably sleeker and more refined.

1000082831.png 1000082832.png

Those fools took it at face value without any critical thinking and ran with it due of their lack of experience and knowledge, as well their populism.
 
Last edited:
snne said:
No, that was never in question. It was only noobs on Twitter with large followings insisting on that change, projecting their own wishcasting as if it were fact.

View attachment 802306

What the officials actually mentioned was a small change to the intakes and dimensions. As you can see, the intakes' splitter-plates have holes to discharge the boundary layer flow now; and the aircraft looks noticeably sleeker and more refined.

View attachment 802307View attachment 802308

Those fools took it at face value without any critical thinking and ran with it due of their lack of experience and knowledge, as well their populism.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't throw shade at anyone when you, yourself, was adamant that there would be no changes to the intake of the KAAN. Even when the GM was saying that there would be changes :p you still disagreed with GM. lol

siegecrossbow said:
I could’ve sworn that the vertical slabs got moved to tail booms on P2… Either it’s my personal Mandela Effect or I got it confused with a model showcased at a defense fair…
Click to expand...
Probably the mock-up, which regardless of being an old mock-up and not being true to form - is still displayed outside TFX office

1771274854535.png
 
Last edited:
Combat-Master said:
I wouldn't throw shade at anyone when you, yourself, was adamant that there would be no changes to the intake of the KAAN. Even when the GM was saying that there would be changes :p you still disagreed with GM. lol
Click to expand...
People were claiming it would receive DSIs, for goodness’ sake.

Did the intake shape change? Did the ducts change? No. They simply added a discharge system to replace the old, non-stealth spill duct; which is honestly more or less what I expected all along based on how other advanced aircraft with caret intakes are configured.

I wouldn’t have been surprised by minor tweaks to the intake edges or corners either, but my position was always that any major intake design change would require a dramatic duct redesign, which would have practically meant conducting the CDR from the beginning all over again...
 
siegecrossbow said:
I could’ve sworn that the vertical slabs got moved to tail booms on P2… Either it’s my personal Mandela Effect or I got it confused with a model showcased at a defense fair…
Click to expand...
I think the position on the nacelles is necessary to ensure that they wouldn't be directly hit by the vortices of the LERX.
 
VTOLicious said:
I think the position on the nacelles is necessary to ensure that they wouldn't be directly hit by the vortices of the LERX.
Click to expand...
I was thinking/hoping that the adjustment of the intake had also the reason to direct the vortices a bit further away of the vertical stabilizers.
Therefore generating more wiggle room to fix them beside the nacelles - reducing maybe some overall height and shield some of the heat-signature.
 
Damn, each passing day I'm becoming more and more Kaan-sexual... o_O (Who would've thought?)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deino said:
Via @DogutCem

View attachment 802977View attachment 802978
Click to expand...
Holy crap, you can clearly see the door-less Belly IWBs of the Static Test Airframe...

HBqxnYtW0AA7eUJ.png

(EDIT: And here's the P1: )

Screenshot 2026-02-21 104503.png

They're too transparent, they could've at least sensored it for a while...
 
Last edited:
Lacy said:
will KAAN have 4 IWBs? two side bays and two tandem bays on the centerline? or will it be three?
Click to expand...
There is definitely a side-by-side config on P1.
On another topic, we really don't appreciate the amount of composites used in KAAN enough.
 

Attachments

  • 1771675537665.png
    1771675537665.png
    618.5 KB · Views: 147
  • 1771675567410.png
    1771675567410.png
    649.9 KB · Views: 127
  • 1771675604067.png
    1771675604067.png
    869.3 KB · Views: 142
helmutkohl said:
looks like its two side by side bays on the bottom. There were people here that were adamant its two tandem bays like on the Su-57.
Click to expand...
Tbf, that was the general consensus three years ago, based on the information we had at the time.

This slide was presented 5 years ago by the Air Force during Anatolian Eagle '21:

Clearly, lots of changes were happening even by then and the slide was already outdated during its display. (Which we kind of speculated at the time!)
 

Attachments

  • 1000083241.jpg
    1000083241.jpg
    385.6 KB · Views: 299
Last edited by a moderator:
snne said:
Tbf, that was the general consensus three years ago, based on the information we had at the time.

This slide was presented during Anatolian Eagle '21:
Click to expand...
Not unlikely P0 is exactly that configuration. Which is why after election there was little point even testing it.
 
Ainen said:
Not unlikely P0 is exactly that configuration. Which is why after election there was little point even testing it.
Click to expand...
Exactly. P0/GTU-0 (Designated as: Development Test Unit-0) was precisely that – an engineering unit built to physically validate whether theoretical calculations and designs could be translated into functional hardware.

As you noted, the design shown on the slide corresponds exactly to the P0 configuration.
 
Nart said:
we really don't appreciate the amount of composites used in KAAN enough.
Click to expand...
It’s mostly skin, though. Beneath it, there’s a significant amount of titanium (i.e., the bulkheads) and aluminum alloys.

In the case of the F-22, this is how it is:
Edit: Here's the F-35:
 

Attachments

  • 1000083243.jpg
    1000083243.jpg
    131.8 KB · Views: 267
  • 1000083244.jpg
    1000083244.jpg
    38.5 KB · Views: 271
Last edited by a moderator:
Trident said:
Apparently no actual optics inside the EOTS enclosure (yet).
Click to expand...
Yep, there’s still some time for that, but all sensors are scheduled to be integrated this year (and are on track to do so). Even if they weren’t, all of their downrated variants are already being tested on Kızılelma.

============

Is it just me, or have the wing roots gotten thicker?
 

Attachments

  • 1000083253.png
    1000083253.png
    2 MB · Views: 308
Last edited by a moderator:
^ I was thinking the same exact thing just a minute ago. But wasn't sure if its thicker or looks thicker since the intake structure is slightly different now.

In any case, as aviation fans, the progress of Turkish aerospace has been exciting, perhaps as much as China, in terms of how many new updates we keep reading about.

Overall, among NATO countries outside of the US, all these new things popping up from Poland and Turkey (naval, armor, aviation) have been very interesting.
 
donnage99 said:
update to edge alignments. Also some new hump aft (orange circle)
Click to expand...
Nice summary of the visual changes, although it is not fully complete yet. Such an extensive redesign/evolvement from pre-CDR to post-CDR would have truly been a nightmare fuel for any Western engineer...

I have attached some of the changes we have noticed below. In addition to those, the main landing gears are now side mounted, and the canopy bar is internal this time. The EOTS has been moved forward, the plate to which the radar is attached has been shifted slightly further forward, and the double chin has been eliminated. Length-wise, the intakes/ducts no longer extend to the canopy, and a boundary layer flow discharge system has been added to replace the old non-stealth spill duct. There are numerous antenna housings for EW, most notably at the front and rear tips of the wings and of the vertical stabilizers (as well as numerous conformal datalink antennas on the front and aft central fuselages). The tail boom has also been redesigned. The wings are now wider, and the ailerons and flaps are the same size. While the P0 had no IWBs, the P1 features not only side bays but also side-by-side belly bays.

The aft hump is also present on the P0, but on the P1 it extends further to the wing root and is slightly larger:

snne said:
We might be are onto something...

P1
View attachment 803049		P0/GTU-0
View attachment 803050
Click to expand...
IMG-TAI-TFX (1).jpg

Good catch on the edge alignment, that critical detail somehow slipped past all of us.
 

Attachments

  • 1000083636.png
    1000083636.png
    618.8 KB · Views: 69
  • 1000083635.png
    1000083635.png
    510.8 KB · Views: 66
  • 1000083634.png
    1000083634.png
    353 KB · Views: 65
  • 1000083633.png
    1000083633.png
    347.4 KB · Views: 64
  • 1000083632.png
    1000083632.png
    308.5 KB · Views: 63
  • 1000083638.png
    1000083638.png
    576.2 KB · Views: 54
  • 1000083631.png
    1000083631.png
    167.6 KB · Views: 76
Last edited:
snne said:
Exactly. P0/GTU-0 (Designated as: Development Test Unit-0) was precisely that – an engineering unit built to physically validate whether theoretical calculations and designs could be translated into functional hardware.

As you noted, the design shown on the slide corresponds exactly to the P0 configuration.
Click to expand...
It is somewhat surprising that the P0, which was originally intended as merely a ground prototype provided so much valuable information after just two test flights, especially for stability and control.

But I think the real -and hidden- "hero" here is the digital twin. The MMU program employs extensive use of digital twin, PLM, CAE etc at virtually every aspect of the design and development phases. During our conversation, the chief test pilot told that he was happily surprised to see that much overlap with the simulated data of the digital twin and those gathered from test flights at certain aspects.
 
orko_8 said:
It is somewhat surprising that the P0, which was originally intended as merely a ground prototype provided so much valuable information after just two test flights, especially for stability and control.

But I think the real -and hidden- "hero" here is the digital twin. The MMU program employs extensive use of digital twin, PLM, CAE etc at virtually every aspect of the design and development phases. During our conversation, the chief test pilot told that he was happily surprised to see that much overlap with the simulated data of the digital twin and those gathered from test flights at certain aspects.
Click to expand...
Holy shit orko_8 himself is still among us!

1000083663.gif


A new episode with @hepdurgunsu covering the new prototype reveal would be much appreciated!
 
Last edited:
snne said:
Nice summary of the visual changes, although it is not fully complete yet. Such an extensive redesign/evolvement from pre-CDR to post-CDR would have truly been a nightmare fuel for any Western engineer...
Click to expand...
Did you mean there will be further changes still in subsequent unit?
 
donnage99 said:
Did you mean there will be further changes still in subsequent unit?
Click to expand...
Nope, just that there are so many design changes from P0/GTU-0 that there's much more than just edge alignments or an aft hump to discuss...

snne said:
In addition to those, the main landing gears are now side mounted, and the canopy bar is internal this time. The EOTS has been moved forward, the plate to which the radar is attached has been shifted slightly further forward, and the double chin has been eliminated. Length-wise, the intakes/ducts no longer extend to the canopy, and a boundary layer flow discharge system has been added to replace the old non-stealth spill duct. There are numerous antenna housings for EW, most notably at the front and rear tips of the wings and of the vertical stabilizers (as well as numerous conformal datalink antennas on the front and aft central fuselages). The tail boom has also been redesigned. The wings are now wider, and the ailerons and flaps are the same size. While the P0 had no IWBs, the P1 features not only side bays but also side-by-side belly bays.

The aft hump is also present on the P0, but on the P1 it extends further to the wing root and is slightly larger:
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
1000022595.jpg

Does this seam line mean that the radome is made of several pieces? If so, does it matter in terms of performance or observability? I saw an article from chinese forum arguing that the seam deteriorates the effect of sawtooth outline of the radome
 
AnonSB said:
View attachment 804443

Does this seam line mean that the radome is made of several pieces? If so, does it matter in terms of performance or observability? I saw an article from chinese forum arguing that the seam deteriorates the effect of sawtooth outline of the radome
Click to expand...
1000084717.jpg

The radome will be replaced when it’s time to test the FCR.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom