TF-X / KAAN / Hürjet Turkish Fighter & Trainer Aircrafts News & Discussions

[BonPlan]

You did say something disgusting by bringing family when replying to my post without any provocation. While my post did not contain anything personal or insulting. (Should sincerely apologise)

I'm very sorry. It was not an insult, more a humoristic comment.

 

[BonPlan]

You did say something disgusting by bringing family when replying to my post without any provocation. While my post did not contain anything personal or insulting. (Should sincerely apologise)

But back to topic, Eurofighter is indeed superior to Rafale.

When it comes to kinematics, Eurofighter flies faster and higher. Which matters in BVR combat. You did not provide any evidence to your claim that it cannot sustain high altitude.

Rafale has higher turn rate at low speed. But that's only relevant to WVR combat. Which is something only Russians care about.

Sure, Rafale has slightly higher payload at 9.5 tonnes. But it isn't 7.5 tonnes for Eurofighter. Typhoon is actually structurally cleared to carry 9 tonnes. But the fact is neither jets carry those numbers into real life operational Scenarios. Because there are no combination of weapons and fuel tanks that reaches that limit while not exceeding payloan specific capacity.


There is no credible evidence or OSINT analysis that says Rafale actually has lower RCS than Eurofighter. Both were aircrafts had conflicting reports about its RCS. Both reported to be ranging in-between 1-0.5m².

As for AESA radar development, Eurofighter isn't 10 years late as you claim. Consortium successfully completed AESA development under caeser program in 2000s. Which first flew in 2007 and euroradar consortium was ready to provide partner nations in 2010 with AESA front-end. (For comparison, Rafale recieved its AESA in 2012)

However, Captor M was already a capable FCR, and partner nations didn't feel the the urgency to justify the cost for AESA upgrade at that time.

What is important to note is, RBE2 AESA version uses same back-end as the pesa version. A processor unit that is quite old by today's standard. RBE2-XG might change that with new LRUs. But it isn't here yet.

Caeser program also did the same thing, it used back-end hardware of captor M and install and AESA.

However ECRS mk0 is a new radar designed from 2014-2020. It utilises the experience gained from Ceaser program. But it brings new front-end (next gen TRM compared to the one used on Caeser prototype) and new back-end LRUs. (Much more capable processor unit than original Captor M)

As to your claim it does not have air to ground fanction, well it does.

View attachment 202039

As for radar aperture, antenna size matter very much. The more T/RM you have the tighter beam you can generate. And the tighter your beam is, the further it can see and the better ECCM it has. It is a simple function of radar equation.

RBE2 has 838 T/RM. While ERCS MK0 has at least 1500 T/RM. It's gonna have close to 50% more in range performance at minimum. (Assuming they both bring similar technology. MK0 is actually newer)


Here is a simplified formula given by the AESA radar calculator developer.

"Rfac = ((Nx/Nref)^3*(Px/Pref))^(1/4)

Where the Px is your target/scaled radar's TRM power, Nx is your target/scaled radar's TRM number while variable with "ref" in it is the reference value or baseline value. Rfac here is range factor which you can multiply with your radar's reference range"

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

And we are not even discussing the advantages of swashplate in BVR combat. It allows you to move away earlier while maintaining lock. A worthwhile advantage.

This is way Turkish Eurofighter is gonna have an edge in BVR against greek Rafale.

​

No no and no.

What about the EF2000 RCS ? it is well known higher than Rafale one (see the huge and nearly in box shape of air intakes).
832 T/R modules of RBE2 : it was the prototyp, made with US modules (with a very average result...). The serially produce RBE2 AESA has slightly more than 1000 modules. The sole pic of the RBE2 AESA antenna is the one of this prototyp.
Do you really think the RBE2 AESA produced in 2026 use the same GPU than the 1999 one ? seriously. As the EMTI calculation unit, the calculation cards are changed nearly every 2 years.
Speed and ceilling : with Meteor Missile the gain is marginal, but indeed EF has the edge.
Load : 9,5 tons for Rafale, 7,5 for the bigger EF2000. EF2000 is unstable with heavy load (because studied as a pure air superiority fighter). Rafale has 5 heavy points capable each of 2 tons of load. Imagine a pylon for 2 x 900kg bombs, and the 9,5 tons can easily be usefull.
Range : Rafale can carry air to air missiles and massive air to ground weapons WITH 3 x 2000 external tanks. Eurofighter can't compete.
Price : EF cost more, and the cost/flight hour at least the double (a french source, Jean Bernard Pinatel 2 stars air general, say x3 !).

 

[Oublious]

This video has already shown enough information.

Aluminum alloy frame, hand assembly process, composite material production, surface polishing and painting......

This still presents a significant gap compared to the manufacturing of a true modern fifth-generation fighter jet. However, for staunch nationalists, rational explanations and analyses are meaningless.

LoL

ther is no more latest technology incorporated when it comes to Kaan, the skin is from compoiste and the frame is from titanium. Ther is no other latest technology then this, nor the Americans or the Chinese have different. What are you trying to prove?