TR F-16 Özgür | Hürkuş - Fighter Trainer Aircraft Projects

[Knowledgeseeker]

Regarding ANKA-3 you might seem right but Hürkuş -C is for totally missions different from ANKA-3. Anka-3 kinda unmanned F117.

Waiting for the ANKA-4/5

 

[Nutuk]

First: Not Sacrificing crew of Hürkuş while using Hürkuş C capabilities.
KE is expensive more advanced. Kinda comparing manned F-16 with manned Hürkuş -C

Regarding ANKA-3 you might seem right but Hürkuş -C is for totally missions different from ANKA-3. Anka-3 kinda unmanned F117.

Where could you use Hürkuş-C? Why would you need manned Hürkuş-C while you are having TB2, KE, ANKA-3?
So Manned Hürkuş -C is useless?
Edit:
How much do 2 ejection seats, oxygen supply , smart helmets for two pilot , cockpit glass cost? You could replace the money for remote control.

Ok, you have some arguments although I still not believe that Hurkus is the good platform to modify into a drone.

I think we already have advanced so much in drone tech that we past the point of need to modify a turboprop plane into a drone. Our companies maasallah design the finest dedicated drones (heck we are in the top 3 in this tech), far beyond what we can reach with a modified turboprop plane that is not dedicated to this task.

That Hurkus-C has become "obsolete" in terms of risking a pilot I can agree with. Technological developments go at a rate that some ideas become obsolete before being produced, remember we had 10 years ago the idea to build gunships (modifying CN-235 for this purpose). Just 10 years later such ideas have become hopelessly obsolete with the fast drone developments.

 

[UkroTurk]

we had 10 years ago the idea to build gunships (modifying CN-235 for this purpose). Just 10 years later such ideas have become hopelessly obsolete with the fast drone

Ok. Let's make CN-235 unmanned Cargo Plane we want making something unmanned here

Let's wait ANKA4/5

 

[IC3M@N FX]

First: Not Sacrificing crew of Hürkuş while using Hürkuş C capabilities.
KE is expensive more advanced. Kinda comparing manned F-16 with manned Hürkuş -C

Regarding ANKA-3 you might seem right but Hürkuş -C is for totally missions different from ANKA-3. Anka-3 kinda unmanned F117.

Where could you use Hürkuş-C? Why would you need manned Hürkuş-C while you are having TB2, KE, ANKA-3?
So Manned Hürkuş -C is useless?
Edit:
How much do 2 ejection seats, oxygen supply , smart helmets for two pilot , cockpit glass cost? You could replace the money for remote control.

I see it the same way, the Hürküs definitely makes sense as a trainer, but as a combat aircraft with human pilots it makes no sense at all and would be too dangerous.
If anything, it makes sense as a combat drone.
As well as the Hürküs (as a drone) and Kizilelma are or would generally not be classic MALE/HALE drones in the true sense, but combat aircraft that function conceptually like a drone because they are unmanned, but nothing more.
These are combat aircraft for targeted combat operations either for targeted defense or attack, within its mission duration of a normal fighter jet 2-4 hours as it is also known there.
But the term HALE/MALE is nothing other than High or Medium Altitude Long Endurance.
Neither the Kizilelma nor Anka 3 have this, neither have a long endurance (at least 24 - 40 hours) as both are sent out specifically, if at all, to ensure rapid intervention, simply due to their speed, maneuverability and their capacity for weapons/ammunition at the expense of their flight time.
Classic HALE/MALE drones are unmanned reconnaissance aircraft that fly more or less over a longer period of time (24 - 40 hours) over a region for reconnaissance, surveillance, espionage, electronic warfare, and can destroy specific targets with their bomb load, but at the expense of speed & maneuverability, so they would be suboptimal for a quick intervention if they are not in the sky in advance in the area of operation.
Here the Hürküs drone would do a balancing act between Kizilelma, Anka 3 and the HALE/MALE drones as it is still faster and more maneuverable than the latter, you could reach the area of operation relatively quickly at 600 - 700 km/h, its second significant advantage would be that it could take off from temporary bases/airfields, very close to the border with Syria, Iraq & Co, thus also cheaper in fuel consumption and maintenance compared to fighter jets such as KAAN, Hürjet and F-16/F-4 in the fight against terrorism.

However, the concept of Hürküs as a drone only works against terrorism and pirates, as they do not have modern air defense systems, but modern Stinger-like air defense systems.
20-30 Hürküs drones in combination with Akinici/Aksungur and TB2/3 would put enormous pressure on the PKK & YPG, they would not even get air to breathe if attacks are flown from morning to night.
You don't even have to use the ultra-modern stuff against terrorism, but the tried and tested and efficient but very cheap to maintain.
All the cheap intelligent bombs such as HGK bombs, MAM C/L/T+ Cirit missiles are also ideal against the PKK & YPG.

 

[UkroTurk]

quickly at 600 - 700 km/h, i

Hürkuş max speed is 550km/h

 

[dBSPL]

However, the concept of Hürküs as a drone only works against terrorism and pirates, as they do not have modern air defense systems, but modern Stinger-like air defense systems.

Unmanned Hurkuş could be a great UCAV-interceptor solution. It can also carry armor-piercing ammunition, making it a tank and chopper killer under wings of fighters. While the armed UAVs serving in the world air forces have a philosophy focused on endurance, low cruising speed and air time, Hürkuş has a climbing speed that is incomparable with these platforms and will return from low altitude to medium altitude and back to low altitude within minutes. Likewise, it has a ROT rate that cannot be compared to these armed UAVs. In return, its stay in the air is limited and its range is limited, but as a turboprop aircraft, it can easily take off even from unprepared runways. Since it does not have a sophisticated power system, ground maintenance can be carried with a pickup truck, and its flight hourly cost could be much lower than unmanned jet UCAVs and slightly above conventional armed UAVs. So ultimatly, it may be an interim solution. Is it necessary? It is not, but it can be tried when we have such a platform.

Moreover, while we cannot offer the Kızılelma to every allied country from Africa-to Asia that has invested heavily in UAVs currently, and it is debatable whether we should even offer the ANKA's next gens, Hürkuş could be a solution for the foreign market as well. Countries investing armed Hürkuş-C can also invest in different variants of this platform. Just think, it may be the only turbopop platform in the world with manned-unmanned teaming capability. Jokes aside, I think the issue here is the operational concepts, and technological level of interfaces rather than the 'only' propulsion system. I believe that just because something is slower does not necessarily mean that it is disadvantageous.

 

[YeşilVatan]

Unmanned Hurkuş could be a great UCAV-interceptor solution. It can also carry armor-piercing ammunition, making it a tank and chopper killer under wings of fighters. While the armed UAVs serving in the world air forces have a philosophy focused on endurance, low cruising speed and air time, Hürkuş has a climbing speed that is incomparable with these platforms and will return from low altitude to medium altitude and back to low altitude within minutes. Likewise, it has a ROT rate that cannot be compared to these armed UAVs. In return, its stay in the air is limited and its range is limited, but as a turboprop aircraft, it can easily take off even from unprepared runways. Since it does not have a sophisticated power system, ground maintenance can be carried with a pickup truck, and its flight hourly cost could be much lower than unmanned jet UCAVs and slightly above conventional armed UAVs. So ultimatly, it may be an interim solution. Is it necessary? It is not, but it can be tried when we have such a platform.

Moreover, while we cannot offer the Kızılelma to every allied country from Africa-to Asia that has invested heavily in UAVs currently, and it is debatable whether we should even offer the ANKA's next gens, Hürkuş could be a solution for the foreign market as well. Countries investing armed Hürkuş-C can also invest in different variants of this platform. Just think, it may be the only turbopop platform in the world with manned-unmanned teaming capability. Jokes aside, I think the issue here is the operational concepts, and technological level of interfaces rather than the 'only' propulsion system. I believe that just because something is slower does not necessarily mean that it is disadvantageous.

I was thinking about wing-loong hunting unmanned spitfires back in the summer of 22'. Chinese or any other nation will at some point figure out the tb-2 magic formula and out-produce us. Then people will look for countermeasures.

Ground based defence against drones like tb-2 is way more expensive than it should be. The only expensive thing about that aircraft would be its AI and maybe sensors. I imagine sensors to be on the cheaper side though, because all it would need would be an old tech radar. And think about the things that can be achieved through network centric warfare etc. And weaponry-wise, all it would need is a machine gun and maybe, just maybe a couple of sungurs.

Just imagine if the armenians had what I describe back in 2018.

 

[Afif]

I was thinking about wing-loong hunting unmanned spitfires back in the summer of 22'. Chinese or any other nation will at some point figure out the tb-2 magic formula and out-produce us. Then people will look for countermeasures.

Ground based defence against drones like tb-2 is way more expensive than it should be.

Nope, all modern MRSAM systems are quite economical against target like TB-2.
1 million dollars interceptor against 5 millions dollars UAV. (Estimated cost of 1 TB-2 without accociated systems)

 

[YeşilVatan]

Nope, all modern MRSAM systems are quite economical against target like TB-2.
1 million dollars interceptor against 5 millions dollars UAV. (Estimated cost of 1 TB-2 without accociated systems)

I think the math becomes much more acceptable when you take reusability into account. And realistically, how many of those would you need? Maybe 4-5 aircraft to down tens of tb-2 class MALE UCAVs. It forces the enemy to come up with countermeasures, and it's cheap.

 

[boredaf]

I think the math becomes much more acceptable when you take reusability into account. And realistically, how many of those would you need? Maybe 4-5 aircraft to down tens of tb-2 class MALE UCAVs. It forces the enemy to come up with countermeasures, and it's cheap.

The "countermeasure" for that is already available to us in the form of Sungur, it is light enough, with its launcher and everything, to be used from any drone we have.

Imo, if any branch of military buys Hürkuş in light attack configuration, it won't be the airforce, it'll be the army. It can be more or less used in almost every situation an attack helicopter can be used, with munition options that'll give it even more firepower that can be launched from a greater distance.

 

[Afif]

It can be more or less used in almost every situation an attack helicopter can be used, with munition options that'll give it even more firepower that can be launched from a greater distance.

I have to disagree with that. Fixed wing platforms cannot 'more or less' fullfil the role of dedicated attack recconaissance helicopters. Fixed wing CAS aircraft and attack Recconaissance helicopters has a different mission set and TTP (tactics, techniques and procedures)

 

[IC3M@N FX]

Hürkuş max speed is 550km/h

There's nothing that can't be improved, and there's certainly room for 600 -700 km/h with the turboprobs.

 

[UkroTurk]

There's nothing that can't be improved, and there's certainly room for 600 -700 km/h with the turboprobs.

I think ANKA-3 is not agile so Acceleration, rate of climb are important for light attack aircraft,i agree.. but:
Does unmanned or manned Hürkuş-C need such a rapid speed for their duties? (while manned Hürkuş cruise speed 350kmh, also unmanned ANKA-3 cruise speed will be around 350-400kmh. ). Range/ Flight altitude/mission Parameters should be combined. Please Remember TB2, Aksungur have 150kmh cruise speed.

600-700kmh cruise speed is optimum even for Hürjet ( subject to altitude).
Low-low missions

Could Su-25 or A-10 engage on MBT , artillery, infantries at 600 kmh ?

Unmanned Hürkuş-C would be great alternative for Su-25 or A-10.

 

[boredaf]

I have to disagree with that. Fixed wing platforms cannot 'more or less' fullfil the role of dedicated attack recconaissance helicopters. Fixed wing CAS aircraft and attack Recconaissance helicopters has a different mission set and TTP (tactics, techniques and procedures)

Tell that to US SOCOM, they are planning to buy fixed wing turbo prop planes to use as CAS and recon aircraft. I'm not saying they would replace the helicopters, or have exactly the same missions, but they can still be used by the army the way they use helicopters.

 

[boredaf]

Could Su-25 or A-10 engage on MBT , artillery, infantries at 600 kmh ?

Unmanned Hürkuş-C would be great alternative for Su-25 or A-10.

It would be shot down by the first manpad it comes across, just as 30+ Su-25s that have been shot down by Ukrainians.

 

[UkroTurk]

It would be shot down by the first manpad it comes across, just as 30+ Su-25s that have been shot down by Ukrainians.

So Aircrafts are absolute!!!

 

[Osman]

Everything is obselete when you think the casualties. Amateur people think in that way. But armies all over the world are still requesting tanks, aifvs, mlrs, howitzers, aircrafts, choppers, ships etc. War means big casualties for even winners. Everyone must learn to live with this fact.

 

[boredaf]

So Aircrafts are absolute!!!

You're reaching so far even Dhalsim would be jealous. But thinking a turboprop plane can just shoot at infantry or artillery like that is naïve. When even the jets that engage from farther away are getting shot down a plane that is slower and has to get closer to use its cannons has very little survival chance against a regular army that uses manpads. It is waste of resources for the weird fetish of planes shooting cannons when close air support is done with missiles in long range, as long as you're against anyone that is better equipped than a terrorist with an AK.

 

[boredaf]

Everything is obselete when you think the casualties. Amateur people think in that way. But armies all over the world are still requesting tanks, aifvs, mlrs, howitzers, aircrafts, choppers, ships etc. War means big casualties for even winners. Everyone must learn to live with this fact.

We are talking about real life, not a computer game. Every loss is not only a loss of qualified pilots, which costs a lot of money and time to train, but also a waste of resources. War means casualties yes but it also means you also do everything in your power to limit those casualties. Not only do we not have the luxury of throwing lives and equipment away like Russia is doing in Ukraine, but also I fucking hope people in charge are smarter than that.

 

[UkroTurk]

So what are you suggesting?