TR HÜRJET-Advanced Jet Trainer/ Light attack aircraft

Ripley

Contributor
USA Correspondent
Messages
647
Reactions
15 1,846
Nation of residence
United States of America
Nation of origin
Turkey
Hopefully, soon we will be able to hear about its second 32nd successful flight.🙃

Lol was just gonna write about that one. How many batches of “32 flights” it’d take for a successful testing program? 😂

That article is written by "Burak Ege Bekdil" He is known as pathological liar. He has no insider access or any access to even rumors. You should read about Turkish defence industry from anybody but him. Articles with no names attached have better reputation than him :)
Thank you.
That should settle that.
 

Sanchez

Experienced member
Moderator
Think Tank Analyst
DefenceHub Diplomat
Messages
2,340
Reactions
79 10,713
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Not sure if this photo was posted here before. Hürjet from the cockpit of Hürkuş. No HUD yet, must be a few months old.
IMG_4980.jpeg
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DBdev

Committed member
Messages
298
Reactions
8 522
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
With 4 WVR missiles and 8 SDBs Hürjet too could be a potent light fighter. Tech and munitions are already available.
I see Hurjet as a trainer for KAAN nothing more. Considering it is not stealthy at all just like F-16. We have stealthy ANKA III and KAAN in a 6th gen configuration for contested airspace in Aegean. And Akinci for cheap yet formidable surveillance and ground attack roles with SDBs in Syria and Iraq which are currently not contested airspaces. I fail to see how Hurjet, F-16, Akinci or even Kizilelma could possibly survive against Greek F-35s.
 

YeşilVatan

Contributor
Messages
668
Reactions
16 1,690
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
I see Hurjet as a trainer for KAAN nothing more. Considering it is not stealthy at all just like F-16. We have stealthy ANKA III and KAAN in a 6th gen configuration for contested airspace in Aegean. And Akinci for cheap yet formidable surveillance and ground attack roles with SDBs in Syria and Iraq which are currently not contested airspaces. I fail to see how Hurjet, F-16, Akinci or even Kizilelma could possibly survive against Greek F-35s.
If we had a couple of hurjet fleets we could have saved hundreds of thousands of precious F-16 flight hours, and spend that time towards roles that can't be fulfilled by a light fighter. Sure, it's small and can't carry as much but hürjets can take over %80 of the peacetime duties of the F-16s especially if it has AESA on board.

Same goes for KAAN. Why use a 5th gen for routine mundane missions unless it's to gain experience or something.
 

Strong AI

Contributor
Messages
1,038
Reactions
35 4,210
Nation of residence
Germany
Nation of origin
Turkey
Jet Training and Light Attack Aircraft developed by our company; It is designed to play critical roles using its superior performance features with its single-engine, tandem cockpit and modern avionics suite. Hürjet; Its armed variant is an important element of power in battlefields with its wide mission range and superior payload capacity.

 

DBdev

Committed member
Messages
298
Reactions
8 522
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Guys, sorry for not being "patriotic" enough but WTH is going on with Hürjet tests? Not to mention ANKA3...
When will we find out top altitude and speed of Hürjet? Why is it still flying subsonic like it's being piloted by an elderly?

It should be able to fly at Mach 2.1 using F404 engine. If it can't it is because engineers in TUSAS shat the bed big time and made Hürjet with too much DRAG!!!

Consider how aerodynamic F20 is and compare that with Hürjet.
Northrop-F-5G-Tigershark-prototype-N4416T-F-20A-82-0062-with-T-38A-Talon-chase-Edwards-AFB.jpg
Considering S shaped intakes and massive frontal profile and not to mention HEAVY body this would mean KAAN also will suffer from same bad design practices. Even Mach 1.8 despite 2 F110s seem unlikely to me. I hope I will be proven wrong.

"
The F-20A was powered by a single General Electric YF404-GE-100 engine. The F404 is a two-spool, axial-flow, low bypass turbofan with afterburner. It has a 3-stage fan section, 7-stage compressor and 2-stage (1 high- and 1 low-pressure stage) turbine. The the F404-GE-100 is rated at 17,000 pounds of thrust (75.62 kilonewtons) with afterburner. The engine has a maximum diameter of 2 feet, 10.8 inches (0.884 meters), is 13 feet, 2.8 inches (4.034 meters) long, and weighs 2,230 pounds (1,012 kilograms).

From a cold start, the prototype fighter could climb to 34,000 feet (10,363 meters) in 2½ minutes. It could accelerate from 0.3 mach to 0.9 Mach in 27 seconds. The F-20A had a maximum speed of Mach 2.1 at 36,000 feet (10,973 meters)—1,387 miles per hour (2,232 kilometers per hour). Its service ceiling was 55,000 feet (16,764 meters). The maximum range with external tanks was 1,715 miles (2,760 kilometers)."
 

Sanchez

Experienced member
Moderator
Think Tank Analyst
DefenceHub Diplomat
Messages
2,340
Reactions
79 10,713
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Hürjet is a LIFT trainer and a future light fighter, it was never designed to go Mach 2. It not being able to go Mach 2 is not a design error.
 

boredaf

Contributor
Messages
1,408
Solutions
1
Reactions
16 3,909
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Turkey
Guys, sorry for not being "patriotic" enough but WTH is going on with Hürjet tests? Not to mention ANKA3...
When will we find out top altitude and speed of Hürjet? Why is it still flying subsonic like it's being piloted by an elderly?

It should be able to fly at Mach 2.1 using F404 engine. If it can't it is because engineers in TUSAS shat the bed big time and made Hürjet with too much DRAG!!!

Consider how aerodynamic F20 is and compare that with Hürjet.
View attachment 63596 Considering S shaped intakes and massive frontal profile and not to mention HEAVY body this would mean KAAN also will suffer from same bad design practices. Even Mach 1.8 despite 2 F110s seem unlikely to me. I hope I will be proven wrong.

"
The F-20A was powered by a single General Electric YF404-GE-100 engine. The F404 is a two-spool, axial-flow, low bypass turbofan with afterburner. It has a 3-stage fan section, 7-stage compressor and 2-stage (1 high- and 1 low-pressure stage) turbine. The the F404-GE-100 is rated at 17,000 pounds of thrust (75.62 kilonewtons) with afterburner. The engine has a maximum diameter of 2 feet, 10.8 inches (0.884 meters), is 13 feet, 2.8 inches (4.034 meters) long, and weighs 2,230 pounds (1,012 kilograms).

From a cold start, the prototype fighter could climb to 34,000 feet (10,363 meters) in 2½ minutes. It could accelerate from 0.3 mach to 0.9 Mach in 27 seconds. The F-20A had a maximum speed of Mach 2.1 at 36,000 feet (10,973 meters)—1,387 miles per hour (2,232 kilometers per hour). Its service ceiling was 55,000 feet (16,764 meters). The maximum range with external tanks was 1,715 miles (2,760 kilometers)."
You are literally comparing apples to oranges by comparing Hürjet to F20A, if you are going to compare it to anything, use one of the numerous trainer jets that use almost exactly the same design. In fact, those are the only planes you should compare it to, anything else is just shitting on Hürjet and Tusaş for the hell of it. And Kaan hasn't even flown yet, ffs, are you always this premature?

So many internet engineers checking wikipedia and talking shit, it is honestly incredible.
 

DBdev

Committed member
Messages
298
Reactions
8 522
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Hürjet is a LIFT trainer and a future light fighter, it was never designed to go Mach 2. It not being able to go Mach 2 is not a design error.
What is the advantage of making it slow and draggy when it can be nimble and fast? Explain it please.
 

DBdev

Committed member
Messages
298
Reactions
8 522
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
It would fail at being a trainer aircraft, for one.
What makes a jet trainer a trainer is mainly it's engine and two seat configuration not it's top speed. F404 can tolerate stall, bird strikes etc. by design. "Trainer" is not an excuse for bad design. It can be both aerodynamic, fast and a great trainer as long as it uses F404.
 

Sanchez

Experienced member
Moderator
Think Tank Analyst
DefenceHub Diplomat
Messages
2,340
Reactions
79 10,713
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
What makes a jet trainer a trainer is mainly it's engine not it's top speed. F404 can tolerate stall, bird strikes etc. by design. "Trainer" is not an excuse for bad design. It can be both aerodynamic, fast and a great trainer as long as it uses F404.
Untrue. What makes a trainer a good trainer is its ability to not kill its student pilots. An airframe being forgiving for the student and flying average is not bad design, on the contrary it is exactly what you want from a trainer aircraft. This is also exactly why Hürkuş is not in service as a trainer aircraft in TurAF but is in service as a COIN aircraft in Africa at the moment.

You can look up any contemporary aircraft. World doesn't have Mach 2 trainers, because you can't do both, and you don't need it.
 

Follow us on social media

Top Bottom