TR HÜRJET-Advanced Jet Trainer/ Light attack aircraft

[dBSPL]

For comparison, the basic characteristics of the aircrafts known in the world in the light attack role and in service, or soon to enter the active inventory (India's MK2). It can be listed in much more detail with a little time, this is just a few datas from the wiki and referenced from verifiable sources. Still, it will give an idea.


FA-50 Block 10 (S.Korea/USA) Specifications
Wingspan: 9.45 m (31 ft 0 in)
Empty weight: 6,454 kg (14,229 lb)
Payload: Total of 7 with 4 underwing 2 wingtip and one under fuselage; holding up to 5,400 kg (12,000 lb) of payload
Ferry range: 2,592 km (1,611 mi, 1,400 nmi) External fuel 3x 150 US gal (120 imp gal; 570 L)
Service ceiling: 16,764 m (55,000 ft)
Rate of climb: 198 m/s (39,000 ft/min)
Thrust/weight: 0.96
Powerplant: 1 × General Electric F404-GE-102 afterburning turbofan engine (built under license by Samsung Techwin[14]), 53.07 kN (11,930 lbf) thrust dry, 78.7 kN (17,700 lbf) with afterburner

JF-17 Block 3 (Pakistan/China) Specifications
Wingspan: 9.44 m (31 ft 0 in)
Empty weight: 7,965 kg (17,560 lb)
Payload: 4,000 kg (8,800 lb) – 4,325 kg (9,535 lb) external stores (2 × wingtip, 4 × under-wing, 1 × under-fuselage, 1 × chin)
Ferry range: 3,482 km (2,163 mi, 1,880 nmi) with drop tanks
Service ceiling: 16,916 m (55,500 ft)
Rate of climb: 300 m/s (59,000 ft/min)
Thrust/weight: 1.07 with RD-93
Powerplant: 1 × Klimov RD-93 DEEC, 49.4 kN (11,100 lbf) thrust [286] dry, 84.4 kN (19,000 lbf) with afterburner

HAL TEJAS MK2 (India) Specifications (Projected)
Wingspan: 8.50 m
Empty weight: 7,850 kg (17,306 lb) (expected)
Payload: 6,500 kg (14,300 lb) external stores
Ferry range: 3,500 km (2,200 mi, 1,900 nmi) with 3 external fuel tanks
Service ceiling: 17,300 m (56,758 ft)
Powerplant: 1 × General Electric F414-INS6 afterburning turbofan with FADEC, 57.8 kN (13,000 lbf) thrust dry, 97.9 kN (22,000 lbf) with afterburner (Indigenous 110kn engine to be used in future)

JAS 39E/F Gripen Specifications
Wingspan: 8.6 m (28 ft 3 in) JAS39 C/D - 8.4 m (27 ft 7 in)
Empty weight: 8,000 kg (17,637 lb) JAS39 C/D - Empty weight: 6,800 kg (14,991 lb)
Payload: 7,200 kg (15,900 lb) JAS39 C/D - Payload: 5,300 kg (11,700 lb)
Ferry range: 4,000 km (2,500 mi, 2,200 nmi) JAS39 C/D - 3,200 km (2,000 mi, 1,700 nmi)
Service ceiling: 16,000 m (52,000 ft) JAS39 C/D - Service ceiling: 15,240 m (50,000 ft)
Rate of climb: 50,000ft/min
Thrust/weight: 1.04 JAS39 C/D - Thrust/weight: 0.97
Powerplant: General Electric F414-GE-39E (RM16), 61.83kN (13,900 lbf) thrust dry, 98 kN (22,000 lbf) with afterburner
JAS39 C/D - Volvo RM12, 54 kN (12,000 lbf) thrust dry, 80.5 kN (18,100 lbf) with afterburner

HURJET Trainer ***[Light Combat Aircraft version to be developed later]
Wingspan: 9.5m (31 ft)
Payload Capacity: 2721 kg (6000 lbs)
Range (without drop tanks): 2222 km (1200 nm)
Service Ceiling: 13,716 m (45,000 ft)
Climb Rate: 39.000 fpm
Powerplant: 1 × F404-GE-102, 78 kN (17,600 lbf) thrust with afterburner

 

[UkroTurk]

So.. I-22 Sikatan was not a dumb idea at all.

I didn't know about Sikatan, i thought you were swearing to me Sikatan appears to be a real

Minijet fighter Sikatan is exactly what we need

 

[boredaf]

Minijet fighter Sikatan is exactly what we need

Why? We already have a "Sikatan" at home:

 

[dBSPL]

For comparison, the basic characteristics of the aircrafts known in the world in the light attack role and in service, or soon to enter the active inventory (India's MK2). It can be listed in much more detail with a little time, this is just a few datas from the wiki and referenced from verifiable sources. Still, it will give an idea.


FA-50 Block 10 (S.Korea/USA) Specifications
Wingspan: 9.45 m (31 ft 0 in)
Empty weight: 6,454 kg (14,229 lb)
Payload: Total of 7 with 4 underwing 2 wingtip and one under fuselage; holding up to 5,400 kg (12,000 lb) of payload
Ferry range: 2,592 km (1,611 mi, 1,400 nmi) External fuel 3x 150 US gal (120 imp gal; 570 L)
Service ceiling: 16,764 m (55,000 ft)
Rate of climb: 198 m/s (39,000 ft/min)
Thrust/weight: 0.96
Powerplant: 1 × General Electric F404-GE-102 afterburning turbofan engine (built under license by Samsung Techwin[14]), 53.07 kN (11,930 lbf) thrust dry, 78.7 kN (17,700 lbf) with afterburner

JF-17 Block 3 (Pakistan/China) Specifications
Wingspan: 9.44 m (31 ft 0 in)
Empty weight: 7,965 kg (17,560 lb)
Payload: 4,000 kg (8,800 lb) – 4,325 kg (9,535 lb) external stores (2 × wingtip, 4 × under-wing, 1 × under-fuselage, 1 × chin)
Ferry range: 3,482 km (2,163 mi, 1,880 nmi) with drop tanks
Service ceiling: 16,916 m (55,500 ft)
Rate of climb: 300 m/s (59,000 ft/min)
Thrust/weight: 1.07 with RD-93
Powerplant: 1 × Klimov RD-93 DEEC, 49.4 kN (11,100 lbf) thrust [286] dry, 84.4 kN (19,000 lbf) with afterburner

HAL TEJAS MK2 (India) Specifications (Projected)
Wingspan: 8.50 m
Empty weight: 7,850 kg (17,306 lb) (expected)
Payload: 6,500 kg (14,300 lb) external stores
Ferry range: 3,500 km (2,200 mi, 1,900 nmi) with 3 external fuel tanks
Service ceiling: 17,300 m (56,758 ft)
Powerplant: 1 × General Electric F414-INS6 afterburning turbofan with FADEC, 57.8 kN (13,000 lbf) thrust dry, 97.9 kN (22,000 lbf) with afterburner (Indigenous 110kn engine to be used in future)

JAS 39E/F Gripen Specifications
Wingspan: 8.6 m (28 ft 3 in) JAS39 C/D - 8.4 m (27 ft 7 in)
Empty weight: 8,000 kg (17,637 lb) JAS39 C/D - Empty weight: 6,800 kg (14,991 lb)
Payload: 7,200 kg (15,900 lb) JAS39 C/D - Payload: 5,300 kg (11,700 lb)
Ferry range: 4,000 km (2,500 mi, 2,200 nmi) JAS39 C/D - 3,200 km (2,000 mi, 1,700 nmi)
Service ceiling: 16,000 m (52,000 ft) JAS39 C/D - Service ceiling: 15,240 m (50,000 ft)
Rate of climb: 50,000ft/min
Thrust/weight: 1.04 JAS39 C/D - Thrust/weight: 0.97
Powerplant: General Electric F414-GE-39E (RM16), 61.83kN (13,900 lbf) thrust dry, 98 kN (22,000 lbf) with afterburner
JAS39 C/D - Volvo RM12, 54 kN (12,000 lbf) thrust dry, 80.5 kN (18,100 lbf) with afterburner

HURJET Trainer ***[Light Combat Aircraft version to be developed later]
Wingspan: 9.5m (31 ft)
Payload Capacity: 2721 kg (6000 lbs)
Range (without drop tanks): 2222 km (1200 nm)
Service Ceiling: 13,716 m (45,000 ft)
Climb Rate: 39.000 fpm
Powerplant: 1 × F404-GE-102, 78 kN (17,600 lbf) thrust with afterburner

Yesterday, the Hürjet was once again announced from the highest authority that a combat version will be developed and that this development will be a naval variant suitable for an aircraft carrier. In the light of this announcement, if we look again at the planes that were crudely compared above: The T/FA-50 system, which carries the same engine as the Hürjet and has a design philosophy very close to the Hürjet, lags behind the GE-F414 and Klimov RD-93's aircrafts in terms of climb capability and power-to-weight ratio due to engine limitations. As far as I know, Gripen E/F is the only one of these aircraft that can technically be operated as a STOBAR on the aircraft carrier, although it has not been proven yet. If I am not mistaken, the new Tejas will also have this capability in the future.

I assume that the landing gear of the Hürjet will probably be revised and the weight increase will be offset by structural lightening. It is not possible to know whether a single-seat variant of the aircraft is being considered by shrinking the canopy without changing the main fuselage, but in any case, the focus should be on increasing the total power output rather than lightening the aircraft.

 

[Sanchez]

Yesterday, the Hürjet was once again announced from the highest authority that a combat version will be developed and that this development will be a naval variant suitable for an aircraft carrier. In the light of this announcement, if we look again at the planes that were crudely compared above: The T/FA-50 system, which carries the same engine as the Hürjet and has a design philosophy very close to the Hürjet, lags behind the GE-F414 and Klimov RD-93's aircrafts in terms of climb capability and power-to-weight ratio due to engine limitations. As far as I know, Gripen E/F is the only one of these aircraft that can technically be operated as a STOBAR on the aircraft carrier, although it has not been proven yet. If I am not mistaken, the new Tejas will also have this capability in the future.

I assume that the landing gear of the Hürjet will probably be revised and the weight increase will be offset by structural lightening. It is not possible to know whether a single-seat variant of the aircraft is being considered by shrinking the canopy without changing the main fuselage, but in any case, the focus should be on increasing the total power output rather than lightening the aircraft.

If the navy is interested in using the Hürjet as part of an OKU/MUM-T, keeping the second seat could be preferable.

 

[Strong AI]

If the navy is interested in using the Hürjet as part of an OKU/MUM-T, keeping the second seat could be preferable.

IMHO that is the only reason that Hürjet will be navalized, and to train naval pilots of course.
Or else what can a Hürjet with its current performance can give the navy, what a KE or ANKA 3 cannot give?
And if you want to change its engine, you already have to redesign some parts. So why don't put a single KAAN engine in it?

 

[dBSPL]

IMHO that is the only reason that Hürjet will be navalized, and to train naval pilots of course.
Or else what can a Hürjet with its current performance can give the navy, what a KE or ANKA 3 cannot give?
And if you want to change its engine, you already have to redesign some parts. So why don't put a single KAAN engine in it?

I also dwelled on this possibility for a long time, but when we scan back through the statements, from the presidency to the project engineers, the emphasis is constantly on light combatant platform. This means that will be conceptualized within the OKU/MUM-T at least, which we can think of as a node for drone jet wings, as Sanchez üstad said.

 

[Yasar_TR]

Yesterday, the Hürjet was once again announced from the highest authority that a combat version will be developed and that this development will be a naval variant suitable for an aircraft carrier. In the light of this announcement, if we look again at the planes that were crudely compared above: The T/FA-50 system, which carries the same engine as the Hürjet and has a design philosophy very close to the Hürjet, lags behind the GE-F414 and Klimov RD-93's aircrafts in terms of climb capability and power-to-weight ratio due to engine limitations. As far as I know, Gripen E/F is the only one of these aircraft that can technically be operated as a STOBAR on the aircraft carrier, although it has not been proven yet. If I am not mistaken, the new Tejas will also have this capability in the future.

I assume that the landing gear of the Hürjet will probably be revised and the weight increase will be offset by structural lightening. It is not possible to know whether a single-seat variant of the aircraft is being considered by shrinking the canopy without changing the main fuselage, but in any case, the focus should be on increasing the total power output rather than lightening the aircraft.

Tusas has been working on the design of a navalised Hurjet for quite sometime.
If we are to navalise and structurally improve the Hurjet to withstand the harsh environment in which it will be used, then it makes economical sense to use these planes as light attack aircrafts too. Otherwise, spending a lot of money to navalise and redesign for the sake of a couple of dozen planes is not feasible.
But as a light attack and a low observable aircraft, the only one that fits the bill in your above list is Gripen E/F as you yourself has also pointed out. Due to it’s delta wing form, Gripen has inherent low observability. The E/F version uses a very powerful F414 engine and has an Akaer designed airframe who were instrumental in Hürjet’s airframe design too.
If we are to go in to the expense of redesigning and navalisng this jet, we might as well make it so that it has a LO form too by introducing a delta wing.

If you check Hal Tejas, it too has a delta wing. And it can stop with arresting wires within 87 metres and take off from INS Vikramaditya with the help of ski lift. To improve take off weight they are now using f414 and are working on a new design Tejas with twin F414s.

 

[boredaf]

If the plan is to use Hürjet on it we should scrap the whole aircraft carrier altogether because that is nothing but half assing what would be one of our biggest strategic assets. Hürjet has neither the sortie capabilities, nor the stealth of where other countries are going. In light attack configuration it only makes sense to use as a cheap alternative to F-16s and that's it.

Utter foolishness to trust a jet that would barely count as a fighter or bomber to carry the (figurative) weight of being a naval bomber. It can barely carry two Atmacas or Soms, or MK-84s (with guidance/glide kits) what good it is going to in terms of number of sorties?

Hürjet should have no purpose other than a trainer for navy's pilots, anything else is just embarrassing.

 

[Sanchez]

IMHO that is the only reason that Hürjet will be navalized, and to train naval pilots of course.

Training part is interesting, as the possible Hürjet-N will probably be the most powerful naval aircraft they will use anyway. Which brings a operational question. To train naval attack pilots, you also need a Hürjet-N trainer that is different than the LCA squadron. That's at least 20-25 aircraft there.

 

[dBSPL]

Training part is interesting, as the possible Hürjet-N will probably be the most powerful naval aircraft they will use anyway. Which brings a operational question. To train naval attack pilots, you also need a Hürjet-N trainer that is different than the LCA squadron. That's at least 20-25 aircraft there.

I think, first question is, what size of air force and sortie density is being targeted? Perhaps the naval forces may demand more than the number you speculate for training and combatants in total. Although our members who have clearly written about the risks and difficulties of the project are making very good points, if the goal is to create a significant naval air force starting, the preference for a maximum common platform that will benefit from a common logistics pool in the initial formation of this new air force may provide convenience in terms of operation, logistics, documentation and training activities.

Moreover, if this fighter jet is a successful development, I think this aircraft, with both versions as a STOBAR-attack jet and trainer, can attract the interest of small and medium-sized and with with low level of infrastructure facilities in the foreign market. Because one thing I am very sure of is that when this project comes to fruition, we will see really ambitious things on this aircraft in terms of avionics and weapon range. Especially on the machine-human teaming side.