TBH, This “whether Turkey produces F-110 or not” discussion is a moot thing..

Does Turkey produce whole F-110 engine? No, it doesn’t. Trying to twist it with “theories” or what might happen does not change the fact not all parts of an F-110 engine is produced in Turkey, but some are still imported as kits.

This in itself is completely different question than “CAN Turkey produce an entire F-110 domestically if it wanted?”

Answer is yes, quite probably… The sole purpose and founding mission of TEI is to power Turkish F-16s domestically if WW3 erupted. Because it was felt logistics of continuously transferring new/refurbished engines from US and sending damaged/used up engines back to US would be impossible and TuAF would be grounded.

TEI was founded and started component manufacturing of F-110s two years earlier than the first F-16 was even delivered (let alone got operational). By the time first F-16 was operational with TuAF, TEI was capable of overhauling the F-110 engines COMPLETELY independent from outside support. Overhauling do include major components like turbines and compressors, and that was late 1980s…

Today I know even FADEC is produced domestically for F-110 (by Savronik), and I don’t imagine any component that would be beyond production capability of Eskişehir Aviation Cluster in general.

Still, Turkey doesn’t produce an F-110 from scratch. That is not because its beyond Turkey’s abilities but because there is neither the need nor the demand from military. TuAF F-16s are aging and airframe fatigue (both due to real combat missions with heavy payloads at the east and almost daily mock dogfights with Greeks at the west) and remaining airframe life time is much more of a concern than producing fully domestic parts for the F-110 engines which are laying around in abundance. Excluding combat damage, and considering TEI can overhaul F-110s since the beginning, F-110 engines Turkey has will likely to outlive the F-16s they are powering.

Its like questioning whether Turkey can produce a new aircooled diesel engine for its M-60A3s.. Yes it can, it certainly has the ability, but it will never do that. It will use whatever tanks with whatever engines and move on to Altay.. Same goes for aircraft industry, and there is nothing wrong with that..

@PeeD;

Turkey can easily deploy 3000 troops to Qatar in 6 days, even 30000 along with APCs and IFVs if it wants, lets do the math to elaborate:

1-Each of Turkey’s 43 CN-235s can carry 57 troops. that entire fleet can move 2451 troops per trip.
2-Each of Turkey’s 16 C-130s can carry 2xM113s (or 1xACV-15 APC or IFV) APCs along with some 26 troops. That is 32 APCs (or 16 IFVs) and 416 troops per trip.
3-Each of Turkey’s 15 C-160s can carry 2xCobra MRAPs along with 30 troops. That is 30 MRAPs and 450 troops per trip.
4 Each of Turkey’s 4 A-400Ms can carry 2xACV-15 IFVs and 38 troops, that is 8 IFVs and 152 troops per trip.

Flight distance is 1730 kms that means ~3 hours flight time (one way) for C-130 and C-160, ~4 hours for CN-235 and 2,5 hours for A-400M. Assuming an additional 1 hour for refuelling (30 minutes at each destination), such trip to Qatar and back to Turkey can be completed in 7, 9, 9 and 6 hours for CN-235, C-130, C-160 and A-400M respectively..

Given alotted 6 days (or 144 hours), Math gives us 21 (rounded up from 20,57 as 0,57 means aircraft would have reached their destination and dropped cargo), 16, 16 and 24 trips for CN-235, C-130 and A-400M respectively..

By using its whole airlift fleet, Turkey can transfer 68975 troops, 512 M-113 APCs, 480 Cobra MRAPs and 192 ACV-15 IFVs to Qatar.

In fact 3000 troop number is a joke; look at the numbers above, Turkish air force can transfer all those troops in a single go. I don’t know why even anyone would even question this.

The problem is not in the sole “troop count” but the amount of heavy equipment. Largest “heavy lift” aircraft Turkey operates is A-400M. That rules out Tanks or self-propelled artilleries of any kind.. While Turkish Navy could transfer some 100 tanks in a single go, such trip would take weeks given Egypt wouldn’t be allowing the use of Suez Canal… Without easy transfer of tanks, and heavy artillery or at least a properly protected airbase to operate from, number of troops won’t matter; Turkey will be in the same position againist Saudi Arabia as Russia was againist Turkey.. Stronger army on paper, but vastly insufficent force projection capability to wage war if thing go south..

Note that in the pictures that Turkish multiple ACV-15s are offloaded, aircraft was an C-17 which Turkey doesn’t operate but Qatar does.

Such deployment and Erdogan’s politics regarding Qatar is risky to say the least. Just like when I’ve said Russia cannot hope to win againist Turkish army in a local war within the border of Syria, Turkey cannot take on Saudi army within the borders of Qatar. However similarities end at that point;

1-Russia and Turkey are still democratic; for the people it doesn’t matter who would win in a war, people will question why it even come to a war. As such, politicians on both sides did (and will) swallow many humiliating events they hated (and will hate). Saudis are ruled by an Emir, he doesn’t have a responsibility for his people.. As such, similar events (Aircraft downings, accidental air strikes) could trigger an escalation real quick, real bad.

2-Even though force projection comparison is clear (at least to my eyes), Russia has nukes and Turkey is a member of NATO. Both sides surely know (and constantly reminded by other parties) their actions have much more severe consequences. Same doesn’t apply for Turkey and Saudis will not hesitate (as much) firing on Turkish soldiers if they feel the need..

Also openly siding with a country accused (falsely or not) of terrorism at times when Turkey’s politics are also questioned is a bad idea in itself..

Look I don’t understand what your problem is, or why the rabid defense of the M60, but there are more detailed armored forums that have this discussion, and they are not under any illusion as to how worthless the M60s armor is vs any half modern ATGM is.

I don’t understand your problem either. I’ve stated fact, you call this “rabid defense”. I would ask you the same question; why your baseless “rabid” accusations? I don’t love M-60T or M-60 of any kind, I am not comfortable AT ALL with the fact Leo2A4s didn’t offer anything above a mere M-60T in terms of both armor and crew survivability. But facts are facts, neither you or I get to twist them.

Or that the dozens of videos of them being burned recently show quite a few frontal arc penetrations.

Then show me?

if you are going to seriously claim M60 has survived every single one of those hits because Turkish sources said so/discount every hit as unfortunate circumstance or not a frontal hit….

I check pro-ISIS accounts and websites on daily basis, more than once a day if I have free time. I personally watch every single ISIS video from its own original source… With such confidence, I dare you to find me a video of an M-60T hit from front arc (that is by definition +/-15degrees of hull and turret), and burst into flames. You can’t, because I know such a video don’t exist. You probably don’t even know the current ISIS website and go the easy but degraded way of calling me biased and Turkish sources falsified.

Turret basket being vulnerable is a design compromise, tanks with different turret geometry don’t show as much of the turret when engaging any target not DIRECTLY ahead, like the M60 does. Relevance? Not much, they were advancing, attacked from front, and destroyed. At that point it is a matter of luck as to what it hits inside the tank.

I think you are confused. Turret basket is the area that crewmen actually sits in. The area rotates with the turret, but is located insde the hull. It is not a design compromise, ANY turret basket on ANY tank on this world is protected by hull side armor, which few cm thick on ANY tank on this world. There is no “design compromise” on that, any RPG -let alone stronger ATGMs- will easily rip its guts out.

Getting back to that video, you can argue 100% that tank commander of that M-60T was in error that he assumed cliff covered is whole hull and only turret was exposed, but he was wrong. I don’t recall calling this a lucky shot either; luck obviously has something to do with it, but this applies to every shot. Its not a lack of training or incompetence in general, he made a mistake and crew died. This is a fact of war.

On technical comparison however, missile hit hull side armor, penatrated 10mm of sideskirt and 74mm of hull armor, and detonated the exposed hull ammo, killing everyone on the turret. Don’t blow a gasket when I say M-60’s hull sides are thicker than M1, Leo2 T-72/90 or T-80… Because that is a design choice, everyone knows now side armor is useless for anything larger than an autocannon fire and extra weight could be spent elsewhere.

I don’t agree with Jang’s characterization of the Leo2 either, but given that this is an aviation forum, I am willing to leave it at that.

Normally I would agree. But then, of the 5700+ posts, I don’t recall this thread to be strictly limited to aviation in 10 posts in a row. So feel free to bend the rules if you have anything to back up your claim; than M-60Ts repeatedly penatrated from front armor.

Rest is pointless. Without Russian permission Turkish army could not enter into Syria even for 1 inch so what is the point of discussing Turkish army’s capabilities/actions.

So did Russians “gave permission” solely because of their love to Turkish side and their FSA allies? That FSA/TSK gaining territory somewhat benefited Russia or Assad in a ways I can’t see? Or they gave permission because they had no choice? Unlike JSR’s garbage this kind of thoughtless nationalistic posts amuse me..

Well the videos speak for themselves, there are many.

Here is one for example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MKiJlQ7kb4

Another:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZTUr3DX0Ag

There are plentiful videos- and no the turret being slightly turned does not count as a side shot, as any tank is expected to fight within a frontal arc of maneuvering.
These are just the most clear because of internal fire instantly occuring, but there are others.

Indeed, videos did speak for themselves; 1st tank was hit from its right side hull, from the turret basket. First tank in 2nd video was hit approximately 60-70 degrees from its front arc… It WOULD be considered a side impact, frontal arc is +/-15 degrees for any tank design that I know of.. Second tank in the video was not penatrated, no one injured.

But really, what is surprising about this to you?

What is suprising is I thought you had objectivity.. I can post like 10+ pictures/videos of M-60Ts getting hit by Kornet/Metis or TOWs and yet not penatrated.

but the photo showed the ATGM hit the turret where the HEAT stream would not even go into the turret compartment (but just bore through metal and exit out the tank, due to the shape of the M60s turret). Barring ridiculous luck, any solid hit by a half-modern ATGM on an old tank like that will result in the combat compartment being penetrated, and then it is a matter of what-is-in-the-way of the HEAT stream + what lights up.

Just pitiful and laughable explaination, considering 2nd tank in the 2nd video you’ve posted shows you are wrong. Seriously, this garbage was first put forward by a Greek blogger, then picked by some Russians, I really think no one in their sane minds would have believe this…

I don’t really get where the M60 claims are coming from, as there are dozens examples of them being KOed essentially every time they have been targeted

Can you prove one while talking big about dozens? Remember my claim is for frontal impacts on M-60T (from all kinds of ATGM including TOW/Kornet etc), and 3 M-60A3s that was hit&survived Milans from frontal turret impacts; 1 in Syria and 2 inside Turkey.

Are you deliberately trying to not understand? Greece defused a situation. Didn’t actively pursuit to buy Russian equipment. When Greece’s former prime minister signed a deal for BMP 3’s, well let’s say there are rumours he was going to be assassinated! Needless to say that deal never went through!

Honestly, I don’t understand what you are trying to prove. They, surely, had their reasons which a) I don’t care less about b) are irrelevant to the point I am making. In the end, -one way or another- they operate the S-300, ~20 TOR-M1s, and a 16 OSA-AKMs all bought from Russia. Also, 3 of the Zubr hovercrafts Hellenic Navy operated were bought from Russia.

I don’t know why you are trying to sugarcoat these. As for the “reasons”, Turkey has its own reasons too. No one in NATO sells it the equipment Turkey wants under the conditions they want simple as that.

Turkey also operates 18 Mi-17s and ~214 BTR-80s mostly bought from Russia. Some 320+ BTR-60s bought from GDF are also modernised and maintained with Russian assistance and still active. I still don’t understand why S-400 is such a big problem now.

Kind of funny… When Greece bought S-300 systems no one considered Greek administation as “mad” or is something to be “removed by force”, or claimed Greeks betraying NATO, sleeping with Russians or any other nonsense currently thrown at Turkey. It was actually quite welcomed as NATO pilots would have the opportunity to train againist S-300.

Now the Turkey wants to buy S-400, and withness the comments here.. Thanks for supporting my comments about no one in NATO considers Turkey as a true ally but a mere cannon fodder to balance the superior Russian/Soviet land forces… A true “ally” would have been greatful, both for strengthening the NATO’s air defenses as a whole, and providing the opportunity to be trained againist best Russian ADGM system.

you have a better explanation for the sudden twist in relations towards Russia.. let us hear it..

Mutual benefits. Neither Russia nor Turkey can achieve what they want in Syria without compomise. Same could be said for US-Turkey relationship as well.

And US and NATO in general doesn’t even try to find a common ground with Turkey. US and NATO -from Turkish perspective- openly betrayes Turkey in favour of one single pro-Kurd armed group, it opens up an opportunities for Russia-Turkish relations, and mutual benefits goes well beyond Syria…

If it all works well, Russia gets a powerful ally who controls the Russian transition to mediterranean and NATO transition to black sea, and can provide a quick ticket to whole middleeast if WW3 erupts someday.. Such alliance also rips NATO of some hundreds of combat aircraft, more than ten thousand armored vehicles, reducing the NATO’s conventional threat to Russia significantly.

Turkey may -on paper- appear to get a less powerful (than NATO) ally, but even the most recent history (read: last 3-4 years) shows Russia is an ally that is actually honorable and dependable… Russia won’t just stop selling tank engines or machine guns or helicopter transmission parts (like Austria, US and Italy does right now), because of some internal affairs of Turkey that is no one’s business. (Whereas Russia didn’t stop shipping BTR and Mi-17 spare parts despite political tension in Syria until Turkey actually shot down a Russian plane. Russia still proceeds with all levels of military cooperation despite being on politically opposite sides in Syria). Russia won’t hide behind some excuses like NATO if an ally is in dire need of assistance (as proven by Russia’s hard efforts to keep Assad in power)… If such alliance could be forged, I don’t think Russia would betray Turkey in totally irrelevant political matters like Aegean islands, Cyprus, Armenian Genocide among others like great majority of NATO countries do…

If all these good relations break up at a certain point, Russia will still make some good money. If my memory serves me right, even China will get 6 S-400 systems, Turkey hopes to get 12, twice the number.. ~6 billion $ is a good money for Russia, funding the procurement of some 40+ PAK-FAs by itself… Also, its not like S-400 will automatically get useless the second NATO get its hands upon.. all the details regarding S-300 was known to NATO, just like all the details of F-15 was exactly known to Soviets in 1980s… Espionage works even better today, same surely holds true for S-400 and F-22; there is probably nothing west doesn’t already know about S-400’s specifications. Also, Russia will be knowing the exact capabilities of Turkish ADGM network, and the fact S-400 will not be fully integrated to NATO systems still weakens the NATO in a way… Turkey, in return, will still get an ADGM system it can’t produce by its own and doesn’t given by anyone else… That is quite beneficial for both sides.