Talk:TAI TF Kaan

Rename article to TAI Kaan

• All reference to the TF-X developmental name has been removed from its page on the Turkish Aerospace Industries official website.
• https://www.tusas.com/en/products/new-projects/original-development/tf 12.188.140.146 (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  https://www.tusas.com/medya-merkezi/haberler/milli-muharip-ucak-kaan-ilk-ucusunu-gerceklestirdi#:~:text=TUSA%C5%9E%20taraf%C4%B1ndan%20yurt%20i%C3%A7i%20imk%C3%A2n,ve%20230%20knot%20h%C4%B1za%20ula%C5%9Ft%C4%B1. 46.106.4.229 (talk) 06:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• Wholeheartedly agree. After the rollout ceremony on May 1st, all TF or TF-X branding has been removed and every single Turkish Aerospace official since then has refered to the plane as "KAAN" along with state officials. Usemymame (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
• TAI TF Kaan TAI TF Kaan 91.67.252.139 (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Link mistakes

I have made some mistakes in the references part, cant revert it. Please take a look and revert my changes. 95.2.9.96 (talk) 09:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Remove BAE Systems from lede

"It is being developed by Turkish Aerospace Industries and the sub-contractor BAE systems"

The contract TAI signed with BAE is worth $125 million while developing a 5th gen fighter costs tens of billions of dollars. Besides, it ignores all the other subcontractors of TAI like TUSAS, TRMOTOR, Aselsan, Roketsan and most likely bunch of other companies, some of these being bigger partners than BAE.

Plus, some users use this to try to make the page sound like it's a joint venture between TAI and BAE, which it isn't. (You can see the edit warring in the edit history.)

If there is no objection I will either remove BAE systems from the lede, or add the major sub-contractors. 88.230.179.144 (talk) 17:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

It appears to me that the IP above has a legitimate point. I suggest that people discuss it, rather than attempting to exclude the IP. [1][2] AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

You can't remove BAE Systems, as BAE Systems is not just another subcontractor like TUSAS, TRMOTOR, Aselsan, Roketsan but a crucial partner. The BAE Systems press-release [3] notes that - "In the presence of The Prime Ministers of Turkey and the United Kingdom, BAE Systems and Turkish Aerospace Industries (TAI) today signed a Heads of Agreement to collaborate on the first development phase of an indigenous fifth-generation fighter jet for the Turkish Air Force – TF-X. BAE Systems Chief Executive Ian King, speaking on the occasion, also confirms that [4] - "The announcement signals an exciting next step in relations between both Turkey and the UK with the cooperation between BAE Systems and TAI paving the way for a deeper defence partnership. The agreement confirms ongoing collaborative work on the design and development of the aircraft.” Turkish state run news agency Anadolu Agency also confirms that it's a collaboration [5]. Other leading sources like the FlightGlobal (link-[6]) and Aviation International News (link - [7]) also confirms that BAE Systems is a partner. So I think it is more appropriate to change the content in lead to "...all-weather air superiority fighter in developed by Turkish Aerospace Industries (TAI) in partnership with BAE systems" as noted by FlightGlobal and Aviation International News (links provided above) or to this, as my previous edit [8] - "developed between TAI and BAE Systems" - which is explicitly stated in this source (The Daily Telegraph) [9]. Regards FoxtAl (talk) 01:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Clearly, a BAE Systems press release, and an interview with their CEO, is going to emphasise their own role in the project. And I don't think the IP was denying that BAE was heavily involved. The question the IP seems to be asking though is whether it is appropriate to single BAE out, when there are multiple other subcontractors also involved. And I'd be wary of using sources from 2015 or 2017 for statements about a project still under development almost a decade later. Which seems to leave us with the Telegraph as the only source that describes the current situation. Perhaps we should see what the IP has to say though, and look for more sources. From a very quick Google, the few I've looked at that are recent seem not to be placing any obvious emphasis on BAE's role, though I've by no means done an exhaustive search. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

"whether it is appropriate to single BAE out, when there are multiple other subcontractors also involved." - See, BAE is not just another subcontractor. As I've stated, rather BAE is a partner in its development as noted by FlightGlobal [10] and Aviation International News [11]. What they stated in 2015 and 2017 is what Telegraph is reaffirming |here. Also I don't agree with this argument that - "And I'd be wary of using sources from 2015 or 2017 for statements about a project still under development almost a decade later" - that simply doesn't make any sense! If all editors consider so, half of the each Wikipedia articles would go. See, constructing history, we need these sources, they can't be avoided them because they are published nearly a decade ago!. Also, these are published by highly reputed, reliable military related sources with no known partiality! FoxtAl (talk) 05:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Many vague statements. Define "crucial" with just a contract of $125 million. Where is it involved in exactly?

TUSAS/TRMOTOR is building the engine, it doesn't get more crucial than this:

https://www.trhaber.com/savunma/kaan-ucak-motorunun-maliyeti-belli-oldu-tei-genel-muduru-acikladi-h450640.html

"Design studies for the domestic engine that will power the National Combat Aircraft KAAN are continuing. When the work carried out in cooperation with TEI (TUSAS) and TRMotor is completed, Turkey will have a jet engine with 5th generation features."

Head of the company states that the cost of the project for the engine will be at least 3 to 5 billion dollars. Significantly more than a $125 million contract.

Aselsan is building the radars and more:

https://www.defensehere.com/tr/milli-muharip-ucak-kaanda-kullanilan-aselsan-sistemleri

Encrypted Communication, Recognition-Introduction, Data Link, Three Dimensional Internal Communication, Ground and Satellite Based Approach, Navigation, Spare Flight Indicator, TULGAR Helmet Mounted Display Unit, Infrared Search and Track, Integrated Electro-Optical Targeting, Infrared Missile Warning and Imaging, Laser Warning, Directed Infrared Countermeasure, Guidance Kits, Flight Control System Sensors, Integrated Electronic Warfare, AESA Nose Radar, Countermeasures.

Either of these companies are much more involved in the project and much bigger partners than BAE. 78.174.64.40 (talk) 09:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, in the link you posted, it says:

"If confirmed as partner, BAE will join the Turkish team for four years, and following this development phase, Ankara plans to roll out its TFX aircraft in 2023. The type is expected to enter service with the nation’s air force in 2030."

The above news is from 2015.

It seems that the contract may very well have run its course. And that would put BAE in minor subcontractors in the initial development phase. 78.174.64.40 (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

FoxtAl, I suggested we look for more sources. I didn't ask you to post the same ones again. As for those sources, The 2015 FlightGlobal piece states that "If confirmed as partner, BAE will join the Turkish team for four years". "If", "four years". It isn't even a source for the partnership being confirmed, never mind one for it being ongoing in 2024. The 2017 Aviation International News article at least confirms that a deal was made. A 2023 FlightGlobal article on the Kaan however makes no mention of BAE. Instead it states that "Notably, the twin-engined aircraft was developed and produced almost entirely at home, with the Turkish government claiming the aircraft is roughly 80% domestically sourced" (archive link [12]). This is why I'm asking for additional more recent sources. BAE was clearly involved in the early design process, but to what extent are they a more significant partner now than other subcontractors? The Telegraph piece (archive link [13]) is more than a little ambiguous on this point, since it states that "The Kaan was developed between Turkish Aerospace Industries (TAI) and Britain’s BAE Systems, as part of a $125 million (£100 million) deal signed in 2017". Given that (according to our article at least), the Turkish government had assigned $1.18 bn back in 2015 for development of the project and related technology, a $125 million contract doesn't strike me as being so obviously dominant as to justify the emphasis proposed for the lede. Not without further recent sources making the same emphasis, and/or indicating that BAE have any ongoing role in development and/or production. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, whatever the role BAE Systems played in this, it could be a serious/crucial job. Thats why almost all sources mention them and not TRMOTOR, Aselsan, Roketsan, etc. Here, I found a few sources, all states, the same thing "Turkish aerospace firm TAI signed a deal with Britain’s BAE Systems worth $125 million in 2017 to develop the next-generation fighter jet." -[14] (EurAsian times), [15] (Reuters), [16] (Turkish minute) - all are from Feb, 2024. So, BAE Systems is not just a subcontractor like TRMOTOR, Aselsan, Roketsan etc. Combine this with the Telegraph news from 2024 I posted earlier. It's pretty much apparent BAE Systems is a development partner as stated explicitly in the said source. FoxtAl (talk) 13:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

And did you find those sources by looking for coverage of the Kaan generally, or just for those that mentioned BAE? There seem to be quite a few recent sources giving relatively in-depth coverage of the Kaan that make no mention of BAE. [17][18][19][20] AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: your choice of sources says your editor's bias. You cited two blog like sources and Turkish official mouthpieces over reputed sources I provided here, including Reuters. Did you find those sources by looking for 'in-depth' coverage of the Kaan that made no mention of BAE? :D FoxtAl (talk) 17:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

When it comes to "editor's bias", we can see that you're an Indian, recently made changes about India's failed and crashing jets, and here you are simply trying to rub dirt on KAAN by trying to get the article to essentially state that it's a joint venture of TAI and BAE. Which it isn't.

You would change the entire article to "BAE KAAN" over a measly $125 million contract that may have already expired years before KAAN even first flew. Most of those pages you posted only ever mention BAE because they also got it from Wiki. It's essentially circular.

You must think either TAI is naive enough to "develop a fighter together" over $125 million, or BAE is naive enough to input anything substantial or "crucial" for a 5th gen fighter for such a small contract.

Unless you provide anything more than we already know, which is a $125 million contract without any further tangible information, your argument has no legs to stand on.

Like I said, TUSAS (TEI in English) is developing the engine and that alone is worth in billions & it's an infinitely more crucial partner than BAE. 88.230.169.37 (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

FoxtAl, a word of advice. If you are going to accuse someone who's been editing Wikipedia since 2010, with approaching 13,000 article-space edits to a wide range of topics, of having 'bias', you'd better be prepared to back it up with more than vague accusations. And failing that, I suggest you respond to the point that has been made repeatedly, both by me, and by the IP. BAE were awarded a contract worth $125 million in 2017, nobody is disputing that. Have there been any further contracts since? Because unless there have been, it seems highly questionable whether they alone merit singling out in the lede. Not for a project estimated (per our article) to generate $2.4 billion in annual revenues.

If we can't reach agreement between us over this, it may be worth seeking input from other contributors, and I very much doubt they are going to be overly impressed with your arguments so far. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Why do all sources mention only BAE Systems and TRMOTOR, Aselsan, Roketsan, etc? Sources for reference -[21] (EurAsian times), [22] (Reuters), [23] (Turkish minute) - all are from Feb, 2024. Is there any logical inference? FoxtAl (talk) 12:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

'All' sources don't mention BAE, as I have already shown. And please stop posting the same three links. We have already seen them. One thing you are right about though, is that they are all from Feb 2024. And, if you look at them, clearly derived from the same source, since they closely paraphrase each other. I note that yet again, you have failed to explain why you think that a $125 million contract is so significant in a project worth $2.4 billion in annual revenues. I assume that your failure to do so is because you have no answer. In which case I suggest you stop wasting our time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: I think you may need to know a few things here (which you apparently seem to be missing)

• This |edit I made based on this |source (The Daily Telegraph) it explicitly state that "The Kaan was developed between Turkish Aerospace Industries (TAI) and Britain’s BAE Systems, as part of a $125 million (£100 million) deal signed in 2017." (9th paragraph). That's exactly what I was adding, wasn't I??
• Then; you and the IP user raised a question "why you think that a $125 million contract is so significant in a project worth $2.4 billion in annual revenues?" Which I find as a reasonable doubt. You went further and said, "I assume that your failure to do so is because you have no answer." - Answer to both of that is - I don't know. That is none of my concern! It is singled out in almost every sources including reputed Reuters, so there could be some reason, that's what I can logically say.! After all I was just adding want was written in the news article, wasn't I?

FoxtAl (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

No, it isn't 'singled out in almost every source'. That is outright fiction. It is mentioned in the same four sources you keep posting all dating from within a few days of each other, and all clearly and unambiguously paraphrasing a common source. If you want to start an RfC, or some other form of dispute resolution, I'm not going to object, but otherwise, I consider this topic closed. I have no interest whatsoever in having to respond time and time again to exactly the same arguments, citing the same sources, from someone who clearly doesn't understand how to write a balanced article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Opinion I think that the contract with BAE Systems, which was signed at the beginning of the TFX program, had a significant impact on exploratory development, and now this debate seems to be a debate about whether we should just view BAE Systems as a subcontractor or as a partner. In this article, certain IP users attempt to edit to reduce the role of BAE Systems, and someone attempts to exaggerate the role of BAE Systems.

I've seen this kind of editor war often in military articles in Turkey and Iran, and as in the past cases of K9 Thunder and T-155 Fırtına, IP users believed to be Turkish have constantly tried to edit with logic such as "All systems were independently developed in Turkey and foreign companies participated as small subcontractors"

Similar to this, editor wars are now continuously occurring in Turkish Land Forces by Turkish users, and extended protection of articles may be necessary, as in Arjun (tank)'s case. Gasiseda (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could actually address the substantive point here, which is that as far as sources so far have indicated, back in 2017, BAE signed a $125 million contract to help develop the Kaan. We have nothing indicating any further contracts, or any other expansion of its scope. The project has since then developed to the extent that TAI are expecting $2.4 billion in annual revenue, and there are multiple other partners involved. If you can explain why BAE, which clearly played a significant role in the early days, but which now seems to be playing a relatively small part in the project (if any?), should be portrayed as currently participating in some sort of joint venture, please do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Just $125m contract indeed points toward a small involvement.

There is not a single page about KAAN in BAE systems website. You would think if they were partnering or were significantly involved in the project, they'd at least have a page about it on their official website.

Lockheed Martin is involved in KF-X project. Would you like me to mention Lockheed in the first paragraph?

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2024/02/02/south-korea-to-start-mass-production-of-kf-21-fighter-jets/

"The fighter has been under development since 2015, but the program didn’t gain much ground until 2020, when assembly for the first prototypes took place. The government hired Korea Aerospace Industries to produce the jet, and the company sought technological support from American firm Lockheed Martin. The two businesses previously worked together on the FA-50 light attack aircraft."

https://www.eurasiantimes.com/4th-country-with-5th-gen-fighters-south-koreas/

"The government tasked Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) with producing the jet, and technological support was sought from American firm Lockheed Martin, building upon their prior collaboration on the FA-50 light attack aircraft."

There is not even a mention of Lockheed Martin in the first section of the article. 78.174.119.85 (talk) 16:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Upon further checking, I found that even the engine of "South Korean" KF-21 is General Electric F414 built under license by Hanwha Aerospace, while Turkey is building the engine itself. Radars and subsystems by Aselsan, munitions by Roketsan.

"Korean" KF-21 fighter is developed in partnership as below, and NONE of these companies which are clearly involved and critical to the jet are mentioned in the first section. Can you imagine what would KAAN page look like if there was this much foreign involvement?

Hanwha Aerospace signed an agreement with General Electric to manufacture General Electric F414 engines for KF-X aircraft. According to the contract, Hanwha is to manufacture key parts, locally assemble the engines, and oversee the installation of the engine on the aircraft. The company will support flight testing and build an extensive support system for the aircraft's operations.

AESA radar was co-developed with Hanwha Systems under the leadership of the ADD. Elta Systems helped to test the prototype hardware of the AESA radar developed by Hanwha Systems. Saab provided technical advice to LIG Nex1, which develops Multi Function Radar (MFR) software for AESA radars.

IRST is based on the processor unit (PU) designed by Hanwha Systems and a Leonardo sensor head unit (SHU) called the SkyWard-K with modified back-end and a Korean software that replaces the original program.

Integrated electronic warfare equipment including RF jammer was developed by LIG Nex1.

US aerospace contractor Texstars was selected by KAI to develop canopy and windshield transparencies for KF-X. Under the contract, Texstars will work alongside KAI to provide the KF-X fighter with birdstrike resistant transparencies with high-quality optics.

Triumph Group was selected by KAI to provide airframe mounted accessory drives (AMADs) for the KF-X. Triumph will develop and manufacture the AMADs, which transfer engine power to other systems.

Aeronautical Systems [es] (Spanish: Compañía Española de Sistemas Aeronáuticos, CESA), a subsidiary of Héroux-Devtek, was contracted to develop the emergency braking system.

United Technologies announced in February 2018 that it was providing the environmental control system, including cabin pressurization and liquid cooling systems, as well as the air turbine starter and flow control valve.

Martin-Baker was contracted to provide the Mk18 ejection seat escape mechanism.

Cobham received contracts to provide missile ejection launchers, communications antennae, external fuel tanks, and oxygen systems.

Meggitt was contracted to provide a wheel braking system, standby flight displays, and internal sensors including a fire detection system.

MBDA was contracted to integrate the Meteor beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile (BVRAAM) onto the aircraft.

Elbit Systems was contracted by Hanwha Systems to provide terrain-following/terrain avoidance (TF/TA) systems for the aircraft.

Curtiss-Wright was contracted by KAI to Provide complete flight test instrumentation (FTI) system, it is data acquisition system (DAS) for use in flight-test campaigns.

By the way I want to clarify in this section of the talk page, all the "IP replies" belong to myself. My IP changes and there is nothing I can do and there's nothing "mysterious" about it. I just don't want to commit to this site by being a registered user because of "editors" like above who are basically smear campaigning other articles instead of actually providing info. 88.230.169.71 (talk) 09:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Grammar Improvement

In the "Development" section, "Engine" subsection, a few paragraphs need editing for clarity. Trying to minimize the edits, I'd suggest updating the wording to:

On 5 March 2022, İsmail Demir, undersecretary for Defence Industries, said the government would now negotiate a possible engine deal with Rolls-Royce. “We had some issues [with Rolls-Royce] before. These have been resolved. I think we are ready to work together.”

While visiting the U.K. the following month, Demir said, "It is imperative for us that the engine be produced in Turkey… that Turkey should possess intellectual property rights." His statement implied that the same dispute over intellectual properties of the engine which previously stalled the negotiation between Rolls-Royce and Turkey in 2019 remained unresolved.

Louisvaught (talk) 23:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

References