TR HÜRJET-Advanced Jet Trainer/ Light attack aircraft

[moz68k]

Yeah what's the discrepancy between payload of T-50 and Hürjet?

But does that intention come from TAI or our military? Does the Navy actually want to use a naval Hürjet as a dedicated naval jet and not just for training its pilots? Does Air Force actually want to use Hürjet as a light (almost very light, Korean T-50 can carry twice as much payload) attack craft?

And you know what else we haven't heard anything about? An engine for Hürjet. We may have an engine agreement in place for it as a trainer, but there is no guarantee that we'll be allowed to use those engines for naval or light attack versions. And we don't have a project for an engine in the class that Hürjet needs. TF10K is obviously too weak for it and TF35K would be too much I'm guessing, so it sits at an awkward middle spot between our two projects.

They seem identical in most aspects (engine, dimensions), Hürjet even has slightly more wing area. Is TAI being conservative on purpose?

My concern is that once TAI shows off an armed version or announces plans for one that the US will cut of the supply of engines.

Perhaps precisely because of this?

 

[uçuyorum]

An important point about Hürjet vs Gripen comparison is that, in Hürjet config, horizontal stabilators push down, the main wings push up and then center of mass in front of wings pushes down to balance the plane. In delta canard configuration of Gripen, canard pushes up, center of mass between canard and wing pushes down and delta wing at the back pushes up. So in delta canard you have more lift for same drag, because horizontal stabilator tail acts against lift in principle, it actually reduces your performance.

 

[Saithan]

My concern is that once TAI shows off an armed version or announces plans for one that the US will cut of the supply of engines.

It’s better to find out what to expect now with Hürjet than when we want to mass produce KAAN.

 

[Yasar_TR]

All this talk about getting a certain number of Hürjet in Light Attack format and some operating from an Aircraft Carrier is somewhat long winded wishful thinking to my ears. It sounds nice but will it ever materialise?

Hurjet project primarily is a trainer aircraft project. If we want to turn some of them in to light attack fighter planes, unless we specified at day 1 that was our intention to the engine supplier, we may find it difficult to obtain engines. Same is valid for the carrier based version.

A carrier based plane will have to be sea worthy. Ie navalised. It’s construction has to be more robust and airframe has to be strong enough to withstand rough landings and arrester wire’s strains and withstand stresses applied to the plane during short take off too. It has to have special landing gears. It’s engine and wing design will have to be reworked to give the necessary lift for STOL operations.

If we have the technology to make a stealth plane. Why should we be wasting our time with small 4th generation plane like Hurjet?
An Anka 4 and a KE operating from a slightly longer TCG Anadolu without that rear lift and in STOL configuration (ski lift take off and arrester wire landing) would be cheaper and more effective than reconfigured Hurjets operating from a full fledged AC. For the price of one AC we can have 3-4 of these ships.

 

[boredaf]

All this talk about getting a certain number of Hürjet in Light Attack format and some operating from an Aircraft Carrier is somewhat long winded wishful thinking to my ears. It sounds nice but will it ever materialise?

Hurjet project primarily is a trainer aircraft project. If we want to turn some of them in to light attack fighter planes, unless we specified at day 1 that was our intention to the engine supplier, we may find it difficult to obtain engines. Same is valid for the carrier based version.

A carrier based plane will have to be sea worthy. Ie navalised. It’s construction has to be more robust and airframe has to be strong enough to withstand rough landings and arrester wire’s strains and withstand stresses applied to the plane during short take off too. It has to have special landing gears. It’s engine and wing design will have to be reworked to give the necessary lift for STOL operations.

If we have the technology to make a stealth plane. Why should we be wasting our time with small 4th generation plane like Hurjet?
An Anka 4 and a KE operating from a slightly longer TCG Anadolu without that rear lift and in STOL configuration (ski lift take off and arrester wire landing) would be cheaper and more effective than reconfigured Hurjets operating from a full fledged AC. For the price of one AC we can have 3-4 of these ships.

Amen.

 

[Quasar]

But does that intention come from TAI or our military? Does the Navy actually want to use a naval Hürjet as a dedicated naval jet and not just for training its pilots? Does Air Force actually want to use Hürjet as a light (almost very light, Korean T-50 can carry twice as much payload) attack craft?

And you know what else we haven't heard anything about? An engine for Hürjet. We may have an engine agreement in place for it as a trainer, but there is no guarantee that we'll be allowed to use those engines for naval or light attack versions. And we don't have a project for an engine in the class that Hürjet needs. TF10K is obviously too weak for it and TF35K would be too much I'm guessing, so it sits at an awkward middle spot between our two projects.

highly speculative I know but it is hard for me to be convinced that our ambitious navy will be satisfied with any variant of Hürjet for the Future

 

[Saithan]

All this talk about getting a certain number of Hürjet in Light Attack format and some operating from an Aircraft Carrier is somewhat long winded wishful thinking to my ears. It sounds nice but will it ever materialise?

Hurjet project primarily is a trainer aircraft project. If we want to turn some of them in to light attack fighter planes, unless we specified at day 1 that was our intention to the engine supplier, we may find it difficult to obtain engines. Same is valid for the carrier based version.

A carrier based plane will have to be sea worthy. Ie navalised. It’s construction has to be more robust and airframe has to be strong enough to withstand rough landings and arrester wire’s strains and withstand stresses applied to the plane during short take off too. It has to have special landing gears. It’s engine and wing design will have to be reworked to give the necessary lift for STOL operations.

If we have the technology to make a stealth plane. Why should we be wasting our time with small 4th generation plane like Hurjet?
An Anka 4 and a KE operating from a slightly longer TCG Anadolu without that rear lift and in STOL configuration (ski lift take off and arrester wire landing) would be cheaper and more effective than reconfigured Hurjets operating from a full fledged AC. For the price of one AC we can have 3-4 of these ships.

People are just adding all their fantasies and trying to rationalize the time spent on Hürjet.

Trainer jet and light armed version is more realistic expectation than what people hve been saying.

let’s not forget that it’s our first jet that flew and still a platform I think we can use to learn from.

 

[Samba]

The biggest gain of Hürjet to Turkish Aviation, Turkish Airforce, TEI, TAI, etc is the experience and know how. Thanks to Hürjet project, KAAN development has been smoother and faster.

 

[uçuyorum]

The biggest gain of Hürjet to Turkish Aviation, Turkish Airforce, TEI, TAI, etc is the experience and know how. Thanks to Hürjet project, KAAN development has been smoother and faster.

I would say it wouldn't even be possible without those steps

 

[Strong AI]

{#Avionics}
The integration of ASELSAN's Radio Navigation Equipment ARVEN into HÜRJET has been completed.
ASELSAN ARVEN also successfully took part in HÜRJET, which Turkish Air Forces Commander General Ziya Cemal Kadıoğlu flew.
With a modular infrastructure that can be easily integrated into helicopters, aircraft and UAVs, ARVEN is composed of:
VHF Omni-Directional Range,
Instrument Landing System,
Glideslope,
Marker Beacon,
Automatic Direction Finder,
Distance Measuring Equipment
Tactical Air Navigation Radio Transceivers.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1794755940828270613

 

[Strong AI]

We proudly float arm in arm in the sky!

#HÜRJET 66th sortie
#ANKA III 8th sortie
50 minutes flight time, 7,000 feet altitude, 165 knots speed

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1798418494192808089

 

[Rodeo]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1798727457538990387

It will perform 4 flights

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1798736889505104207

 

[dBSPL]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1802753482962719020

Many thanks to Kaan Azman for the visualization of the 'homemade' light fighter jet. I still believe that if a suitable engine solution can be created, a possible naval/LCA variant of this platform could potentially attract a very significant number of air forces, including the Turkish air force.

 

[boredaf]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1802753482962719020

Many thanks to Kaan Azman for the visualization of the 'homemade' light fighter jet. I still believe that if a suitable engine solution can be created, a possible naval/LCA variant of this platform could potentially attract a very significant number of air forces, including the Turkish air force.

You're far too optimistic mate. I'm sure we're going to buy enough Hürjet to subsidise the investment TAI made in it, but apart from that, I can't see "a very significant number of air forces" tripping over themselves to get it.

Light attack variant of Hürjet will have to compete against other more mature planes while also carrying far less payload. We would not only be competing against Western companies but also Russians and Chinese in trying to sell it as they all have a plane or two that fits the same bill. And all of those competitors can give loans to any potential buyers, just like Koreans have been doing with T-50, or rather FA-50. And even if we could finance the deals, who are those countries that are looking to buy light attack jets and are going to pick us over other options AND can actually pay for them? No more than a handful, and maybe some more that we maybe shouldn't even consider selling.

And please, let's not even talk about a carrier version, I honestly think it is insulting to our navy. It would be a waste of time, money and other resources to navalise Hürjet, with a payload less than 3000 kg I doubt its hardpoints could even carry Atmaca, which weighs something like 650 kgs. Not to mention the inherit lack of stealth, I mean come on, you can't be seriously wanting us to use Hürjet on an actual aircraft carrier in 2040s? It's embarrassing. We'd be much better of using KE and Anka-3/4 and making more "drone motherships" instead of wasting resources on an aircraft carrier.

 

[Kaan Azman]

I'm sure we have people who know the height of HÜRJET's landing gear because I wonder if it is enough for a central hardpoint for fuel tanks or cruise missiles.

 

[Yasar_TR]

There were two designs once that we were contemplating about:

It is a shame that the second one with single engine version was chosen.
Otherwise we wouldn’t be too far away from having indigenous engines for our trainer/light attack aircraft now. Two TF10000 engines would have been ideal for this plane. OK! It would have been more expensive to build and maintain, albeit marginally. But also we wouldn’t be in an engineless position now. At least in a few years from now we should be able to provide TF10000 engines.

Besides it would have been ideal for our carrier based operations too. (Apart from vertical take off and landing planes like F35Bs, Harriers and F35Cs, all carrier operated fighters are twin engined. Even the Indians are going for the twin engined Tejas for their carriers.)

Having chosen the single engined Hurjet for trainers doesn’t stop us going for a twin engined and modified version, with better stealth characteristics, so that it portrays a lower RCS as well.
For light attack and carrier based operations it could be a no brainer to build a twin engined Hurjet-2 which would give us a basis of commonality of production of parts and a cheap twin engined higher thrust, longer operational radius plane with better payload capabilities. (it is most likely that a good deal more thrust is going to be attained from the TF10K engine.)

In time it could prove to be the more economical replacement of our f16s with a stealthy twin engined new Hurjet version 2. After all there isn’t such a big difference between those two in terms of size!

Food for thought.

 

[Kartal1]

There were two designs once that we were contemplating about:

View attachment 69370
View attachment 69372
It is a shame that the second one with single engine version was chosen.
Otherwise we wouldn’t be too far away from having indigenous engines for our trainer/light attack aircraft now. Two TF10000 engines would have been ideal for this plane. OK! It would have been more expensive to build and maintain, albeit marginally. But also we wouldn’t be in an engineless position now. At least in a few years from now we should be able to provide TF10000 engines.

Besides it would have been ideal for our carrier based operations too. (Apart from vertical take off and landing planes like F35Bs, Harriers and F35Cs, all carrier operated fighters are twin engined. Even the Indians are going for the twin engined Tejas for their carriers.)

Having chosen the single engined Hurjet for trainers doesn’t stop us going for a twin engined and modified version, with better stealth characteristics, so that it portrays a lower RCS as well.
For light attack and carrier based operations it could be a no brainer to build a twin engined Hurjet-2 which would give us a basis of commonality of production of parts and a cheap twin engined higher thrust, longer operational radius plane with better payload capabilities. (it is most likely that a good deal more thrust is going to be attained from the TF10K engine.)

In time it could prove to be the more economical replacement of our f16s with a stealthy twin engined new Hurjet version 2. After all there isn’t such a big difference between those two in terms of size!

View attachment 69373

Food for thought.

While I am not expert I also suggested we might built something that would be capable enough and cheaper than KAAN. KAAN will be a capable fighter, but for sure more expensive to maintain and operate.

I think it might make sense if we built something that would be considered Gen 4.5 with some stealth characteristics. We know that low observability and sensor package carry a significant importance in today's air warfare. We will be talking about a decent capability in BVR engagements in A2A role and also a good capability in A2G, especially if we can introduce a loyal wingman in combination with a supersonic drones that would act as additional, mobile munition racks that would be commanded by the Hurjet II. As you suggested it may evolve into a carrier based fighter and a potent future stealth solution for a replacement for the F-16s. I mean why not? We are going to acquire an aircraft carrier so we will have to figure out what are we going to put on it. I am a bit concerned by the fact that we don't have an alternative to an eventual F-35B or F35C option.

I remember that in the opening of the Operation Olive Branch 72 F-16s operated in the same time in the air. Yes, the exact number had a symbolic importance at that time, but still that's a lot of fighters in the same time. Imagine a Hurjet II commanding a 2-3 or maybe more loyal wingmen, configured according to the specific need of the operation. They may be tasked with ISR, EW, A2G, A2A payloads and countless combinations of these. The need for so many manned jets in the air will be gone and we would also optimize the whole communication process by eliminating ground stations role and will free a capacity in terms of drone operators by giving the command to the Hurjet II's second pilot that will be acting as a mission support platforms commander.

We can built a good number of them for the lighter tasks in terms of capability requirements, that would supplement perfectly the already big drone fleet we built and we are continuing to improve upon, build KAAN in smaller numbers for when higher capability is needed in accordance to our economy strength.

The Hurjet II would also have an export potential as I am not aware of something that would fit in the specs as "stealth, low cost, 4.5 Gen" fighter. it may be the perfect option for economically weaker countries that may want to posses a capability not very far from the 5th and 6th Generation platforms in the future at a fraction of the cost. If I am wrong, correct me please, but I think the fact that it would be a stealth fighter by itself is a huge leap in terms of capabilities compared to all the current 4-4.5 Geneneration operational fighters. Just combine it with the future proof avionics and the capable sensor package and munitions that we are capable of producing and you got the perfect solution, at least for me, based on my non-expert look at the situation.

 

[Quasar]

While I am not expert I also suggested we might built something that would be capable enough and cheaper than KAAN. KAAN will be a capable fighter, but for sure more expensive to maintain and operate.

I think it might make sense if we built something that would be considered Gen 4.5 with some stealth characteristics. We know that low observability and sensor package carry a significant importance in today's air warfare. We will be talking about a decent capability in BVR engagements in A2A role and also a good capability in A2G, especially if we can introduce a loyal wingman in combination with a supersonic drones that would act as additional, mobile munition racks that would be commanded by the Hurjet II. As you suggested it may evolve into a carrier based fighter and a potent future stealth solution for a replacement for the F-16s. I mean why not? We are going to acquire an aircraft carrier so we will have to figure out what are we going to put on it. I am a bit concerned by the fact that we don't have an alternative to an eventual F-35B or F35C option.

I remember that in the opening of the Operation Olive Branch 72 F-16s operated in the same time in the air. Yes, the exact number had a symbolic importance at that time, but still that's a lot of fighters in the same time. Imagine a Hurjet II commanding a 2-3 or maybe more loyal wingmen, configured according to the specific need of the operation. They may be tasked with ISR, EW, A2G, A2A payloads and countless combinations of these. The need for so many manned jets in the air will be gone and we would also optimize the whole communication process by eliminating ground stations role and will free a capacity in terms of drone operators by giving the command to the Hurjet II's second pilot that will be acting as a mission support platforms commander.

We can built a good number of them for the lighter tasks in terms of capability requirements, that would supplement perfectly the already big drone fleet we built and we are continuing to improve upon, build KAAN in smaller numbers for when higher capability is needed in accordance to our economy strength.

The Hurjet II would also have an export potential as I am not aware of something that would fit in the specs as "stealth, low cost, 4.5 Gen" fighter. it may be the perfect option for economically weaker countries that may want to posses a capability not very far from the 5th and 6th Generation platforms in the future at a fraction of the cost. If I am wrong, correct me please, but I think the fact that it would be a stealth fighter by itself is a huge leap in terms of capabilities compared to all the current 4-4.5 Geneneration operational fighters. Just combine it with the future proof avionics and the capable sensor package and munitions that we are capable of producing and you got the perfect solution, at least for me, based on my non-expert look at the situation.

''if we built something that would be considered Gen 4.5 with some stealth characteristics.'' As a matter of fact this is the definition of the current form of KAAN as it is now... I strongly belive that we should focus on KAAN for the export markets as well... we should not ignore the development cost of new plane and a new engine... we should be providing a better option than Russian, French, Swedish and Chinese alternatives both economicly and technically ... and in addition to that buying a military aircraft is not only an economic and technicall decision but political decision as well KAAN in a 4,5 gen form is rewarding enough to take such a political risk for customers as well...otherwise realisticly speaking there is not much space in this specific market segment

 

[Heartbang]

Since KAAN is a 5th gen design from the get-go and 5th gens are designed with modularity in mind, it would make the most sense to market the KAAN as not a 6th and 5th gen fighter, but in some cases a 4.5 gen fighter as well.

If the KAAN is as modular as other well-publicized 5th gens claim to be, it would make sense to develop different hardware packages to cater different generational aspects for different buyers' demands.
Individual airframes can be sold as 4.5th, 5th, 5.5th or 6th gen fighters to those who interested, who sometimes might be the same buyer.
This would maximize the export profits whilst delivering us from the burden of developing a brand new, "cheaper" aircraft.

This would also usher in opportunities of upgrade package deals to be sold to those who'd like to deploy rapid strengthening of their air forces who face sudden, irreconcilable threats to their security situation.

If this idea of mine is implemented, I'd like to see the top of the line(6th gen) variant of the KAAN be named as "KAAN SLX" as a tongue-in-cheek reference to our domestic automotive culture.

 

[Kartal1]

''if we built something that would be considered Gen 4.5 with some stealth characteristics.'' As a matter of fact this is the definition of the current form of KAAN as it is now... I strongly belive that we should focus on KAAN for the export markets as well... we should not ignore the development cost of new plane and a new engine... we should be providing a better option than Russian, French, Swedish and Chinese alternatives both economicly and technically ... and in addition to that buying a military aircraft is not only an economic and technicall decision but political decision as well KAAN in a 4,5 gen form is rewarding enough to take such a political risk for customers as well...otherwise realisticly speaking there is not much space in this specific market segment

Yes, KAAN is 4.5 Gen right now, but is designed as a 5th Generation and it is destined to be such. As far as I remember they even started an exploration into a 6th Gen capability boost.

What am I thinking for this double engine Hurjet II is something that wouldn't be too far away from an F-16's load capacity, carrier deployable and cheaper than KAAN 5th or 4.5 Gen versions.

I think something like this, 15-20 years from now may have some success in the emerging markets in Africa for example that can't afford a KAAN and/or don't want to go Chinese or Russian with it.