TR Aircraft Carrier & Amphibious Ship Programs

[IC3M@N FX]

With a single F404-class engine, the Hürjet has virtually no chance in an air-to-air duel against the Rafale M, the F/A-18 Super Hornet, the F-35 B/C, or modern Russian/Chinese naval fighter jets. These opponents have significantly greater thrust reserves and superior thrust-to-weight ratios, which translate into better acceleration, higher climb rates, greater energy savings, and overall superior kinematics. In modern BVR and energy combat, it is not only maximum speed that matters, but also who can generate and consume energy faster in order to evade, reposition, and withstand fast missiles.

In addition to the propulsion disadvantage, these opponents typically have more fuel and weapons (internal or on heavier airframes).
Yes, the Hürjet has good radar systems, avionics, and sensors, as well as good ECM/EW suites, but it is not as powerful as other combat aircraft whose engines/APUs generate more energy for more range for example Radar and other Board Systems??? But even with flawless and clean system architecture and tactics, the Hürjet's propulsion class cannot compensate for these disadvantages. Without a significantly more powerful engine, the Hürjet is structurally disadvantaged in air combat – in short, effectively inferior.

 

[Sanchez]

With a single F404-class engine, the Hürjet has virtually no chance in an air-to-air duel against the Rafale M, the F/A-18 Super Hornet, the F-35 B/C, or modern Russian/Chinese naval fighter jets. These opponents have significantly greater thrust reserves and superior thrust-to-weight ratios, which translate into better acceleration, higher climb rates, greater energy savings, and overall superior kinematics. In modern BVR and energy combat, it is not only maximum speed that matters, but also who can generate and consume energy faster in order to evade, reposition, and withstand fast missiles.

In addition to the propulsion disadvantage, these opponents typically have more fuel and weapons (internal or on heavier airframes).
Yes, the Hürjet has good radar systems, avionics, and sensors, as well as good ECM/EW suites, but it is not as powerful as other combat aircraft whose engines/APUs generate more energy for more range for example Radar and other Board Systems??? But even with flawless and clean system architecture and tactics, the Hürjet's propulsion class cannot compensate for these disadvantages. Without a significantly more powerful engine, the Hürjet is structurally disadvantaged in air combat – in short, effectively inferior.

True in all counts.

This is all because Hürjet is a trainer aircraft by its nature. It will have some combat capability, but never will be a thoroughbred, it wasn't designed to be.

Re carriers, I think it will nonetheless be a good enough part of naval OKU/MUM-T.

 

[boredaf]

Re carriers, I think it will nonetheless be a good enough part of naval OKU/MUM-T.

With a proper 5th gen carrier fighter? Sure, even then, I don't believe it would justify its cost.

We are talking about a project that is easily going to cost us several billions of dollars by itself, without adding the cost of the additional ships we are going to have to build to adequately protect the carrier AND not leave ourselves short in our own waters, cost of all the extra fighters we are going to have to develop and produce and the general lifetime costs of running a carrier.

Benefits we are going to get from it? Well, we'll be able to say we have a carrier. And use it in Somalia I guess? Let people walk on it during festivals like Anadolu? It is such a fucking unnecessary and vain "investment" for a country without access to open ocean that it would've been hilarious if it wasn't my own country doing it.

 

[boredaf]

I'm really curious about this: if a fighter jet has a long-range AESA radar, a low RCS value on the radar, and carries a long-range air-to-air missile, what difference does it make whether it's a Hürjet or an F-18?

If our goal is to achieve air dominance, why can't the Hürjet do this?

Hürjet doesn't have low rcs value, it carriers less than half of what F-18 could carry and it will not be using the same radar as Kaan but its underpowered version as far as I can remember, which would mean it would be at a disadvantage against real 5th gen fighters. It is a trainer first and foremost, not a fighter jet. Putting it on a carrier as other than trainer jet is a bloody disgrace especially since this carrier might have to go against not just 5th or maybe even 6th gen fighter jets, but also increasingly advanced anti-air systems as well.

 

[IC3M@N FX]

True in all counts.

This is all because Hürjet is a trainer aircraft by its nature. It will have some combat capability, but never will be a thoroughbred, it wasn't designed to be.

Re carriers, I think it will nonetheless be a good enough part of naval OKU/MUM-T.

But that's exactly the point: it's possible to produce a Gen 4.5+ aircraft relatively quickly as a trainer and light combat aircraft.
So I don't understand the concept behind it. Turkey doesn't need a trainer as an absolute immediate priority; it could have been produced in the mid- or late 2030s and nothing would have changed.
Instead, a fighter aircraft similar to the Hürjet with two F-404 engines or an F-110 engine could have been developed in parallel with the TAI KAAN as a workhorse (replacement for the F-16) in the fleet.
The Eurofighter and F-16 Block 70 orders (God knows when these will arrive, if they arrive at all) would have been obsolete; we wouldn't have needed them, and the transfer to a naval platform would also have been much easier and more competitive.
Now they are sitting on their asses because they have no answer to the Rafale/Eurofighter & F-35, SU 35S (rivals around Turkey) until TAI KAAN is completed and reaches IOC.
They have put themselves in a weaker position completely unnecessarily, and their rivals know this and are delaying delivery so that Turkey is unable to act within a certain time frame, see Israel's rapid advance and movements in the Middle East and the alliance of the US/Israel, Greece, Cyprus and India.

 

[Ripley]

But that's exactly the point: it's possible to produce a Gen 4.5+ aircraft relatively quickly as a trainer and light combat aircraft.
So I don't understand the concept behind it. Turkey doesn't need a trainer as an absolute immediate priority; it could have been produced in the mid- or late 2030s and nothing would have changed.
Instead, a fighter aircraft similar to the Hürjet with two F-404 engines or an F-110 engine could have been developed in parallel with the TAI KAAN as a workhorse (replacement for the F-16) in the fleet.
The Eurofighter and F-16 Block 70 orders (God knows when these will arrive, if they arrive at all) would have been obsolete; we wouldn't have needed them, and the transfer to a naval platform would also have been much easier and more competitive.
Now they are sitting on their asses because they have no answer to the Rafale/Eurofighter & F-35, SU 35S (rivals around Turkey) until TAI KAAN is completed and reaches IOC.
They have put themselves in a weaker position completely unnecessarily, and their rivals know this and are delaying delivery so that Turkey is unable to act within a certain time frame, see Israel's rapid advance and movements in the Middle East and the alliance of the US/Israel, Greece, Cyprus and India.

Hürjet started in 2017. Back then it was envisioned as a super trainer for future F35 fleet. It was urgently needed. Hence, as Boredaf pointed out, it was a purebred trainer, even before a ski jump TCG Anadolu requested.
MUGEM came only recently, well after the jet Hürjet was completed.
Where and how TUSAŞ should have switched to a twin engine in that timetable? A naval jet never needed because F35 C was considered for TCG Anadolu.

Edit: F35 B. Stand corrected.

 

[Strong AI]

F35 C was considered for TCG Anadolu.

B