Skywatcher
Captain
Given the TFX's likely mission requirements (apparently BVRAAMs and large internal carry PGMs, judging by the Su-57 style main weapons bay), manuverability probably isn't very high on its design goals.
Turkey Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
LMAO reminds me of the J-20 amateur evaluations when it just came out. "It's an interceptor/striker not a fighter!"
It'll still be a decent dogfighter, just not as good as the Su-57 is and that doesn't matter because we are in the age of BVR combat.
We saw the effects of those fancy, super maneuverable Sukhois in the Ukrainian War, they did nothing. Nada. Zilch. No contribution to shooting down the UAF whatsoever.
Those aircraft are still decent platforms, but all those design comprimises that are taken in order to make the fighters more maneuverable could've been given for more useful requirements; but instead the ones that are taken made the fighters semi-out of date already.
I mean, I have no doubt that its sensors such as the radar are highy advanced but just look at the Su-57. It's claimed to be a 5th or at least a 4.5th gen aircraft but the conops that shaped the development of aforementioned aircraft is so outdated that in a near future warfare environment (where there are dozens of manned and unmanned sensor platforms and missile trucks constantly coming out), it won't survive as much or as good as other 5th gens that are currently either in service or in development.
It will be like saying that those behind the Su-57 requirements does not know what they are doing. they have alot more experience in sustainable complex conflict.
An interview with a UCAV pilot working at Baykar
A part of me was still believing that it was a real prototype but the flaps, elevators and other airframe features looked fake.
Honestly i can't blame myself for thinking that because the carbon composite materials that Baykar uses on all its platforms look...different.
I mean the fuselage is almost a single piece composite so that's actually not that shocking.
@Deino
So it wasn't just a realistic looking mock-up, instead, it was just an uncomplete prototype covered up with tarps.
A part of me was still believing that it was a real prototype but the flaps, elevators and other airframe features looked fake.
Honestly i can't blame myself for thinking that because the carbon composite materials that Baykar uses on all its platforms look...different.
I mean the fuselage is almost a single piece composite so that's actually not that shocking.
@Deino
I'm not saying that they don't know a jack shit, I'm saying that they are stuck in 1980s and are behind of other AFs in terms conops planning and application; otherwise every other airforce including your own PLAAF would keep doing what the RuAF does. I mean RuAF failing in Ukraine isn't a shocking development, really. They had it coming for a long time.
the point i am making. you dont have any yardstick to measure against it and using vogue terms of stuck in 1980s.
future of airwarfare is not only what you see in Ukraine (low altitude flying of choppers/aircraft) but how it is executed behind the scenes thousands kms away.
It could explain why there are only rivets around the maintenance panels.