The Hürjet project has reached a very advanced stage. With a planned delivery date of 2025, the testing and verification phases of the aircraft avionics should already be at the completion stage. So, almost all of avionics incl FCS, communication systems and related equipment, human-machine interfaces and computing systems, navigation systems and antennas etc., flight control, cockpit and commutator systems, display systems and surfaces and all related components are currently in the testing process. Mechanically: landing gears, various types of actuators for supersonic speeds and tens of hundreds of other subsystems that mostly common to the supersonic AJT and fighter jets.
I don't know if we can assume that one of the outcomes of the parallel running of the KAAN and Hurjet projects is a flexible design logic for the many subsystems developed, but basically we are currently preparing hundreds of subsystems for two different aircraft, and the design team of each system generally consists of the same engineering teams.
So I think we have two parallel lines one is Hurjet and other is KAAN. The question is, between these two parallel lines, would drawing the third one be as long and costly as the other two lines, or would it be very practical and cost-effective to create a fork?
Creating a combat jet that uses the Hurjet infrastructure, but with more than twice the combat weight, may be more beneficial than waiting at the door for the EF-T4 and F-16-B70, which are at risk of dragging on until the 2030s. Going even further, in order to avoid wasting time on a new platform design, it may not be as long a road as one might think to license a base design of any non-NATO fighter jet from a country other than those that are hesitant to give us aircraft, and equip it entirely with indigenous electronic and mechanical systems. I mean, of course, it is a long way, but it seems that for procurement within NATO will not be as shortcut as it was thought to be.