TR HÜRJET-Advanced Jet Trainer/ Light attack aircraft

[Oublious]

Sarsilmaz will make a gun for the Hurjet.

 

[Kaan Azman]

Airbus Leaves the Door Open for HÜRJET/SAETA II LCA Variant | TURDEF

Airbus HÜRJET/SAETA II Programme Manager Raúl Rosino stated that HÜRJET/SAETA II advanced trainer for Spain might evolve towards a light combat aircraft role.

www.turdef.com

It is confirmed that Spain is at least interested in HÜRJET LCA

 

[dBSPL]

Airbus Leaves the Door Open for HÜRJET/SAETA II LCA Variant | TURDEF

Airbus HÜRJET/SAETA II Programme Manager Raúl Rosino stated that HÜRJET/SAETA II advanced trainer for Spain might evolve towards a light combat aircraft role.

www.turdef.com

It is confirmed that Spain is at least interested in HÜRJET LCA

The Spanish aviation ecosystem and the Turkish aviation ecosystem could generate significant synergy through Hürjet. Fingers crossed.

 

[Huelague]

Spanish company ITP Aero had developed a TVC version of the EJ200 that was meant to be used in Hal Tejas, there was some synergy of thought of using this engine in a future carrier based Hurjet.

Have you a source?

 

[Yasar_TR]

Have you a source?

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADP011110.pdf

ITP draws up thrust-vector plan for EJ 200 - FlightGlobal

Guy Norris/LOS ANGELES Eurojet partner ITP of Spain is planning to run vectored-thrust nozzle tests on an EJ200 engine developed for the Eurofighter EF2000 in early 1998. A first flight test could take place as early as 2000. ITP is already responsible for the nozzle on the basic EJ2000. A...

www.flightglobal.com

Eurojet EJ200 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Eurojet EJ200 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

File:Eurojet EJ200 1.jpg - Wikimedia Commons

commons.wikimedia.org

 

[Spitfire9]

EJ200 weighs about the same as F404 but produces about 15% more thrust than the F404 used in Hurjet. Of course it is not Turkish so no automatic sovereignty over the engine but if political risk is high with a US engine it should be lower with a European engine. EJ200 cost is much higher than F404.

Turkiye does things quickly. How long might it take to design, build, test and certify an EJ200- powered Hurjet? Could Spain be interested in an EJ200 version or would delivery be delayed too much?

 

[Kaan Azman]

About carrier based Hürjet, I am starting to have doubts regarding how much of a Hürjet will that be, just aside from obivious design changes

A LCA might be a complementary aircraft for a larger naval aviation fleet but ours is not that large. We have one bet and I don't think Hürjet with LCA-level capabilities is a big enough card. The carrier-based Hürjet will likely end up being way larger (And this is not only wing area) as it is supposed to be the main combat aircraft for MUGEM.

So, even one EJ200 might not cut it for what is in works.

I will try to get an answer on that matter when I go to SAHA EXPO next week.

 

[Burberryswine11]

About carrier based Hürjet, I am starting to have doubts regarding how much of a Hürjet will that be, just aside from obivious design changes

A LCA might be a complementary aircraft for a larger naval aviation fleet but ours is not that large. We have one bet and I don't think Hürjet with LCA-level capabilities is a big enough card. The carrier-based Hürjet will likely end up being way larger (And this is not only wing area) as it is supposed to be the main combat aircraft for MUGEM.

So, even one EJ200 might not cut it for what is in works.

I will try to get an answer on that matter when I go to SAHA EXPO next week.

I am pretty sure KAAN will be navalized too, but for the first phases yeah Hurjet will be the main aircraft to be used with MUGEM (in a recent video released by TRT Haber they did announce KAAN will be used on MUGEM and the new pictures that were released of MUGEM shows the KAAN on it) other than that I think the naval version will probably be designated as Hurjet B and I also think when they said we almost have a ready ramp and are almost ready for ramp take off tests I think they meant they will start those tests with Hurjet soon? maybe this is all a speculation tho

 

[Spitfire9]

I am pretty sure KAAN will be navalized too, but for the first phases yeah Hurjet will be the main aircraft to be used with MUGEM (in a recent video released by TRT Haber they did announce KAAN will be used on MUGEM and the new pictures that were released of MUGEM shows the KAAN on it) other than that I think the naval version will probably be designated as Hurjet B and I also think when they said we almost have a ready ramp and are almost ready for ramp take off tests I think they meant they will start those tests with Hurjet soon? maybe this is all a speculation tho

Are small fighters practical on carriers without catapults? India abandoned the idea of using their navalised version of Tejas because the load it could carry was too limited for the aircraft to be useful.

 

[Pokemonte13]

Are small fighters practical on carriers without catapults? India abandoned the idea of using their navalised version of Tejas because the load it could carry was too limited for the aircraft to be useful.

Not really same issue with Kizilelma and Anka. Without a catapult their effectiveness is greatly reduced but I heard from a analyst that the navy might implement a catapult but it’s still not clear if it will happen. I’m guessing having a weak airwing is better than having no airwing.

 

[Saithan]

Considering how UAV, drones and loitering ammo has left a solid mark on the battlefields, I imagine that all LCA are going to be variants that can combat these threats.

Typhoon tests rocket system that could cut cost of downing a drone from $1m to just $20k

The warplane has been equipped with 70mm rockets that use a laser-guidance kit rather than pricey AMRAAM or ASRAAM missiles

www.forcesnews.com

meaning having A2A missiles, but also have pods with mini missiles for combatting drones and such.

Typhoon tests rocket system that could cut cost of downing a drone from $1m to just $20k​

Mike Morton 13th April 2026 at 12:06pm

The Typhoon used in the APKWS trial was fitted with two underwing rocket pods (Picture: BAE Systems)

Typhoons and F-35s have successfully shot down a number of one-way attack drones launched by Iran and its allies over the past few weeks, but this has come at a huge financial cost.
However, BAE Systems has successfully completed the test-firing of a low-cost precision weapon launched from a Typhoon, demonstrating a far more affordable solution to counter UAVs like the Shahed-136.
RAF Typhoon FGR4s are currently armed with a variety of missiles that were largely designed for air-to-air combat against enemy warplanes, and while they may be highly effective, they are also highly expensive.

• Skyhammer ready to destroy Shaheds as MOD sends air defence system to Middle East
• No question over British bases in Cyprus as Armed Forces Minister visits RAF Akrotiri
• Find out how UK is defending assets in the Middle East amid conflict with Iran

Hydra meets laser​

The AIM-120 AMRAAM (Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile), for example, costs around $1m, while AIM-9X Sidewinders are roughly $450,000.
Typhoons also carry short-range missiles such as the IRIS-T (infrared imaging system tail/thrust vector-controlled) and the ASRAAM (Advanced Short Range Air-to-Air Missile), and these are also costly.
When a 617 Squadron F-35B shot down a drone with one such missile, Air Vice Marshal (Ret'd) Sean Bell, a former fighter pilot, likened it to someone using a "sledgehammer to crack a nut".
To offer a more cost-effective solution, BAE Systems and the RAF have been experimenting with the Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS) laser-guidance kit, a system which is already in use on a number of US aircraft such as the F-16 Fighting Falcon.
This kit adds an additional section to unguided 70mm rockets like the Hydra, transforming them into precision-guided munitions.
The system, which first went into production back in 2008, creates a weapon with better accuracy that can be deployed against air or ground targets.
As well as fixed-wing aircraft, the system can be fitted to helicopters like the AH-64 Apache, uncrewed aerial vehicles, static and mounted ground platforms, and maritime vessels.

The 70mm rocket pods fitted to the Typhoon in conjunction with the APKWS guidance kit offer an effective alternative to air-to-air missiles (Picture: BAE Systems)

How it works​

The APKWS kit includes advanced distributed aperture semi-active laser seeker optics located on all four guidance wings on the rocket.
These are protected by wing-slot seals prior to firing, avoiding the adjacent fire damage that can interfere with a nose-mounted seeker.
Once the rocket is fired, the APKWS kit's wings deploy and the optics lock on to designated targets, guiding the rocket to the target.

A US soldier loads a 70mm APKWS training round into a pod fitted to an AH-64 Apache – the system has been in use with the US military for more than a decade (Picture: US Department of War)

System proven​

The trial involving the Typhoon saw the aircraft fitted out with the kit at the flight test development centre in Warton in Lancashire.
The Typhoon was then able to launch a successful strike on a ground-based target at a military testing range at an undisclosed location.
BAE Systems official Richard Hamilton explained: "As the UK's sovereign provider of combat air capability, we play a crucial role in supporting the UK Armed Forces, working closely with the Ministry of Defence to develop technologies that strengthen our national defence capabilities.
"This trial with the APKWS laser-guidance kit on Typhoon demonstrates a game-changing capability and a cost-effective solution that would enhance Typhoon's already impressive range of weapons capabilities."

__________________________________________
So I think that Hürjet is going to find it's market. Only question is how slow our government is going to be in producing Hürjet for own Airforce and make a LCA version of it. Which would require a new license.

 

[dBSPL]

Are small fighters practical on carriers without catapults? India abandoned the idea of using their navalised version of Tejas because the load it could carry was too limited for the aircraft to be useful.

Indian navy had found a long time ago that operating a single engine light fighter from an Aircraft carrier with limited payload and Range is a terrible idea with the whole NLCA program itself. Navy now wants 56 rafale m and only wants tejas naval as a trainer aircraft.

Both of these are worth addressing together because they're related but they conflate two separate questions: Why Tejas Naval struggled structurally, and what role light platforms should play in a carrier air wing. On the aerodynamic side first. India's issue with Tejas Naval wasn't primarily payload: it was approach speed, and payload limitation was a downstream consequence of that. The aircraft's delta wing without leading-edge slats produces a CLmax in the 1.4–1.6 range. Running the carrier approach speed formula: Vapp = 1.3 x √[ (2W) / (ρ . S . CLmax) ]

At a realistic recovery weight of ~8,500 kg, wing area ~38 m², CLmax ~1.5, Tejas Naval's approach speed comes out around 150–155 knots. INS Vikrant's certified recovery limit sits at approximately 140-145 knots. That's the core problem, not the hardpoints. Because the aircraft had to recover light to stay within that envelope, usable payload at recovery became severely constrained. IMHO It's an aerodynamic problem wearing a payload mask.

A conventional swept wing with full high-lift devices typically achieves CLmax values in the 2.0–2.2 range in approach configuration, a reasonable design target for a navalised platform of this class. For a navalized Hürjet at ~7,000 kg recovery weight, ~25 m² wing area, CLmax ~2.0: Vapp ≈ 118–122 knots, quite likely inside any STOBAR carrier's recovery envelope, with meaningful payload still on the rails.

Now, the broader point about payload and range from a ski-jump deck. This is a real constraint and worth being honest about, but it's also frequently overstated. A 12degree ramp doesn't just redirect the aircraft upward, it decouples the climb and acceleration phases. At ramp exit the aircraft already has a vertical velocity component, so the engine's full thrust goes toward accelerating to flying speed rather than fighting gravity simultaneously. The practical result is that a STOBAR platform can achieve a safe departure at a meaningfully lower TWR than a flat-deck rolling takeoff would require, operationally the 0.72–0.78 band is well-established across existing STOBAR types, which opens up more of the payload envelope than the raw weight numbers suggest at first glance.

On the fuel side specifically, this is where engine selection actually matters beyond raw thrust. The EJ200's specific fuel consumption sits at approximately 0.74–0.76 lb/lbf/hr in cruise compared to the F404's ~0.84 lb/lbf/hr. On a platform in Hürjet's weight class with roughly 2,400–2,600 kg internal fuel capacity, that SFC difference translates to a meaningful combat radius improvement, roughly 15% better fuel economy at cruise, which on a 500 nm profile is not a trivial number. Add a single 1,100L centerline drop tank and you're looking at a combat radius in the 500–600 nm range in a hi-lo-hi profile operationally relevant for most Mediterranean threat scenarios.

And here's the part that the Indian Navy story actually illustrates rather than contradicts: the Indian Navy's solution was not to abandon light naval aviation, it was to separate roles. 26 Rafale M for the heavy combat lift, Tejas Naval as the trainer and currency platform. That's a rational division of labor, and it's almost exactly the architecture being discussed for MUGEM. A navalized Hürjet doesn't need to be the Rafale M. It needs to fill the gap, train the pilots, and handle the missions within its envelope, while KAAN Naval matures into the primary combat platform.

About carrier based Hürjet, I am starting to have doubts regarding how much of a Hürjet will that be, just aside from obivious design changes

A LCA might be a complementary aircraft for a larger naval aviation fleet but ours is not that large. We have one bet and I don't think Hürjet with LCA-level capabilities is a big enough card. The carrier-based Hürjet will likely end up being way larger (And this is not only wing area) as it is supposed to be the main combat aircraft for MUGEM.

So, even one EJ200 might not cut it for what is in works.

I will try to get an answer on that matter when I go to SAHA EXPO next week.

This is probably the most technically substantive concern for all of us, and it deserves an honest answer. First, the TWR picture across realistic mission profiles. Using EJ200 afterburner thrust at 90 kN and a navalised Hürjet empty weight estimate of ~6,700 kg (baseline ~6,200 kg plus a conservative 500 kg STOBAR penalty):

Configuration	Fuel	Payload	Gross Weight	TWR
CAP / Light load	60% internal (~1,440 kg)	2x Gökdoğan + 4x Bozdoğan (~360 kg)	~8,500 kg	~1.08
CAP / Extended	80% internal + 1x drop tank (~2,700 kg)	same as CAP (~360 kg)	~9,750 kg	~0.94
ASuW / Strike	100% internal (2,400 kg)	2x Atmaca + 2x drop tanks + EO pod (~3,350 kg)	~12,450 kg	~0.74

Also, need to add, one more variable worth factoring in: the navalisation weight penalty isn't fixed. Hürjet is already a composite-heavy platform, and if the structural reinforcement package, is engineered from the outset in thermoplastic composites rather than conventional aluminium alloys, the same structural targets can be met at roughly 20–25% lower weight for those components. PEEK and PPS-based thermoplastics also offer superior moisture and corrosion resistance compared to thermoset composites, which is a relevant double advantage in a naval operating environment. The non-optimizable portion of the penalty, -arresting hook assembly, corrosion protection systems, folding mechanism actuators- remains largely fixed. But on a realistic best-case basis, this pushes the total navalisation penalty toward the 350–400 kg range rather than the 500+ kg conservative estimate, which keeps the CAP configuration TWR comfortably above 1.10 even at standard fuel loads.

The 0.74 TWR in the heaviest configuration is within STOBAR departure parameters, MiG-29K routinely operates in this band from INS Vikramaditya. The ski-jump geometry handles the rest as discussed above.

Now, the single-engine question more broadly. The concern is legitimate for a primary strike platform operating at the heavy end of that table consistently. A twin-engine configuration would obviously improve both the payload-range envelope and the single-engine-failure survivability picture over water, both real considerations for a carrier-based aircraft. Nobody's going to pretend otherwise.

But here's the framing that matters: the question isn't whether a twin-engine naval platform would be preferable in an ideal world. Of course it would. The question is what's achievable within a realistic development window. India's (which is usually our main reference source on this subject) own TEDBF 'Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter' is essentially the acknowledgment that Tejas Naval hit its single-engine ceiling and a clean-sheet twin is needed for the primary strike role. That program is currently projecting a first flight around 2030s and carrier qualification well into the late 2030s. Turkiye doesn't have a parallel twin-engine LCA program at any stage of development currently.

So the realistic choice isn't single-engine Hürjet Naval versus some twin-engine alternative that already exists. It's single-engine Hürjet Naval in the 2030s versus nothing fixed-wing until KAAN Naval qualifies, which on an optimistic timeline is mid-to-late 2030s at the absolute earliest, and KAAN Naval itself hasn't been formally launched as a program yet. A single-engine platform that's actually there is operationally more valuable than a twin-engine platform that isn't.

The "how much of a Hürjet will it be" question is also interesting because it cuts both ways. Yes, a navalised variant with a larger wing, reinforced structure, folding wingtips and a new engine is meaningfully different from the baseline aircraft. But that's also exactly how the MiG-29K relates to the MiG-29, how the F/A-18C relates to the YF-17, how the Rafale M relates to the Rafale C. Naval derivatives are always substantially evolved platforms. IMHO That evolution doesn't make them a different aircraft, it makes them a mature one.