Is aesthetics important? (Kaan fighter)

[yeetmahboi]

F-32, F-18 , F-85 seem to be either slow or sluggish

F-32 could outmanoeuvre F-35 IIRC. Continuing the extreme highw T/W of the Harrier lineage.

 

[Ronny]

F-32 could outmanoeuvre F-35 IIRC. Continuing the extreme highw T/W of the Harrier lineage.

I find that hard to believe, F-32 is even thicker and draggier than F-35, at least in term of cross sectional area. It would be far worse in a sustain turn

 

[Arjen]

I find that hard to believe, F-32 is even thicker and draggier than F-35, at least in term of cross sectional area. It would be far worse in a sustain turn

Eyeballing an aircraft to determine its aerodynamic characteristics is bad form.

 

[Big_Zukini]

A post on aesthetics by Nir Kahn, his bio reads:

Nir Kahn is the Director of Design for Plasan and has been responsible for vehicle design in the company for over 15 years, including the design of the Navistar MaxxPro MRAP, Oshkosh M-ATV, and the Plasan SandCat.

Plasan is a small Israeli company that entered the defense business as a developer of ceramic based armor, and later evolved to make armored vehicles. Their designs do include vehicles that look more "friendly" and "reassuring", something a police or peacekeepers' vehicle should be, and some more aggressive, as frontline vehicles should be.
He explains why it's important to blend aesthetics with function, and that their customers do specify aesthetic requirements.
I know it's armored vehicles and not aircraft, and some of the circumstances described don't apply here, but generally I think the idea still applies.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/aesthetics-armoured-vehicles-nir-kahn/

 

[Foo Fighter]

It is impossible to actually get a non partisan idea of the flight qualities of the xf-32 or compare it with the xf-35.

All I have seen are folk gushing about aesthetics and a little about the stovl failures of the xf-32 v the xf-35.

If anyone knows where to find a simple independant but factual review, I am all ears.

 

[Shaman Harris]

It is fine. Like a less normie version of F-22

 

[edwest4]

Aesthetics matter. Designs have to be approved by the military. Anything that is visually pleasing will be noticed regardless of an understanding or lack thereof of aesthetics.

That said, the most important factors in establishing a requirement is a guarantee of speed, range and bomb load, or similar for reconnaissance and transport aircraft. Attack aircraft have to have good survivability against opponent aircraft. Better speed, maneuverability and so on.

But since human beings are in charge of choosing between similar, competing designs, the one with better aesthetics will have that working in its favor.

 

[VTOLicious]

According to the "admin", the Kaan Forum was not the right place for it. Perhaps this one is okay.

I mean, everyone has a different emphasis when it comes to aircraft and why they are fascinating. I have definitely a fable for aircraft-astetics and think it is important as well.
So which changes would you like to see on the Kaan fighter? (Besides having a more original design)

Me, besides painting the Kaan fighter all in dark grey (F-35 color) and getting rid of the awful logo on it, I would love to see these changes to make it more eye pleasing

Kaan is actually the perfect example of how an aesthetically pleasing preliminary design (initial CGI, mock-up) transformed into a final design, apparently based on engineering principles and customer requirements (aerodynamics, RCS, etc.)...

 

[shin_getter]

You people are thinking this wrong, the CORRECT result is to design an aircraft that is so ugly that it is impossible to stare at it without mental damage: thus Low Observable requirement gets fulfilled.

If attack on the observer is too difficult, merely being completely forgettable is also a good idea.

Unless the aircraft is intended to be a decoy and troll people instead~

 

[Combat-Master]

The only reason the Kaan looks goofy is due to the intakes being so far forward like the YF-22 had, push them back and I think it would look better.

Here I made a simple edit, slightly behind the cockpit line now.

There's talk of the intake design being changed, whether it's pulled back though, we'll see

Confirmation -

TAI General Manager Mehmet Demiroğlu:

"There are currently minor revisions to the external appearance, of course. The aircraft is being lightened. Because analyses, tests, and what we’ve learned lead us to iterations. These may not be very noticeable from the outside. The air intakes might be different. The aircraft’s dimensions will remain the same, but its weight will be different."

https://twitter.com/x/status/1917857035527278867

View: https://x.com/SavunmaTR/status/1917857035527278867

 

[Scott Kenny]

I mean, YF-22 to F-22 had different intakes...

 

[had]

Now that we've most probably entered the age of the tailless fighters (without vertical stab. TBP),
what is your aesthetic feeling on the subject?

If you are triggered by AI-enhancements please use the following picture instead



It took me some time to get used to this minimalism, but I was almost certain that it was simply
due to the unfamiliarity of the new. Now I like it, especially the very low cockpit in the front
(next stop, omitting it entirely)

 

[publiusr]

It is impossible to actually get a non partisan idea of the flight qualities of the xf-32 or compare it with the xf-35.

All I have seen are folk gushing about aesthetics and a little about the stovl failures.

X-32 had that little pop that scared folks --but it may be a better carrier-plane. In terms of looks, I called it a modern Saberjet.

 

[EmoBirb]

Aesthetics in military equipment are in so far relevant as they are influencing our perception of that specific thing and how we interact with it. This then in turn lends itself to PR and sales, if a tank looks like it's welded together from thick steel plates and has sharp angles it's certainly perceived as aggressive, rugged, brutish. More or less how you want a tank to be perceived.

Now aircraft on the other hand are much more form over function, not saying tanks or land vehicles in general aren't but you have more room for styling I'd say, aerodynamics and more recently stealth dictate heavily how an aircraft will roughly look. Details may vary, but more so due to different requirements imposed by the customer.

 

[EmoBirb]

X-32 had that little pop that scared folks --but it may be a better carrier-plane. In terms of looks, I called it a modern Saberjet.

I personally find the proper F-32 design rather pretty tbh, it's simple and simplicity is beauty (to me). Luckily for me the Su-75 refines this kind of layout and looks extremely sleek.

 

[SUPER=BUG]

It depends on how you define beauty. If the surface craftsmanship of an aircraft is very high, it will appear very smooth, which makes it beautiful. If a fighter jet has such strong maneuverability that it doesn't need a vertical tail, then after removing the tail, it will present a sense of elegant simplicity. For the aircraft design team, the beauty they see is a harmony formed by a series of numbers. So, rather than saying the designers deliberately created a beautiful fighter jet, it is more accurate to say that because we love these aircraft, we discover the beauty within them. It's like a lover; you'll always find a part of beauty in them, just as an old saying from my hometown goes, '情人眼里出西施.' The meaning of this sentence is that among people who fall in love, for the men among them, their lovers always seem as charming as the beauties in legends.I think this sentence would also make sense on a fighter jet.

 

[Foo Fighter]

As an A6/A7 successor, it might be fine. Looks, are a sideshow. How does it fair doing the job is more important. What sort of radar would that carry versus the F-35? Would it have the same ability in A2A?

My old car was considered 'fugly' by friends, the feel through the steering wheel and responses of the vehicle on the road better than other by some margin. If you are inside, what do you care about the looks of the outside? I would far rather the vehicle did the job first, looks way behind.

 

[Lepespi]

Now that we've most probably entered the age of the tailless fighters (without vertical stab. TBP),
what is your aesthetic feeling on the subject?
View attachment 787787
If you are triggered by AI-enhancements please use the following picture instead
View attachment 787788


It took me some time to get used to this minimalism, but I was almost certain that it was simply
due to the unfamiliarity of the new. Now I like it, especially the very low cockpit in the front
(next stop, omitting it entirely)

I also didn't like neither of the chinese designs at first, the J-36 looks like you asked a kid to draw the coolest aircraft they could imagine (+ it looks sluggish) and the J-50 was too simple, but after learning about the AWT and the lambda wings implications I started to hype, imagine this super sleek monster cutting through air at over mach 2 supercruise

 

[martinbayer]

Science, engineering, and technology drives aircraft design, which in turn drives in service nicknames - see for example the moniker "BUFF" for "Big Ugly Fat Fellow" for the B-52 Stratofortress, and "SLUF" for "Sort Little Ugly Fellow" for the A-7 Corsair II - draw your own conclusions...

 

[had]

The only reason the Kaan looks goofy is due to the intakes being so far forward like the YF-22 had, push them back and I think it would look better.

Here I made a simple edit, slightly behind the cockpit line now.

how right you were

 

[amadolabonte]

According to the "admin", the Kaan Forum was not the right place for it. Perhaps this one is okay.

I mean, everyone has a different emphasis when it comes to aircraft and why they are fascinating, kind of like how the standard pickleball court size sets a defined structure for the game. I have definitely a fable for aircraft-astetics and think it is important as well.
So which changes would you like to see on the Kaan fighter? (Besides having a more original design)

Me, besides painting the Kaan fighter all in dark grey (F-35 color) and getting rid of the awful logo on it, I would love to see these changes to make it more eye pleasing

I’d keep the overall shape but refine the details. A darker, uniform low-visibility grey would definitely make it look more modern and cohesive. I’d also remove or significantly reduce the large exterior logos to keep it cleaner. Slightly sharpening the intake edges and smoothing the underside lines could give it a more aggressive stance. A thinner canopy frame and more blended panel lines would also enhance that stealthy fifth-gen look. Subtle changes, but they’d make a noticeable difference visually.