Transparency is a real problem here actually. Yes, we are a problematic nation when it comes to destroying projects for trivial reasons. Accidents are the nature of this field, unfortunately. Personally, I can expect and tolerate these, simply no pain no gain. But we deserve to know the ongoing shit.
What are the demands of TAF?
Which of those not met?
What was the damn reason(s) that plane went down?
Are they fixed, or are they chronic?
Are those problems the reason the plane got back to the drawing board? Or is it just because TAF is keep changing requirements all the time?
The airplane itself has certification from EASA, so surely it is not crap. But what I read, it is more like a combat plane than training. This means that it can be used by a pilot who has experience but can not be training aircraft, because the training plane should be more error-tolerant. Also, the pilot himself said that if it was a pilot in training instead of him, it would be 100% pilot loss.
I think it was a mistake to design a very versatile plane as the first-ever design. Also, I don't understand the reasoning for the light-ground attack plane. Yes, it is cheaper than the F-16 for bombing some PKK members but there is a massive drone army for that purpose.
Now, more importantly, we have Hürjet getting ready. It will be completed this year and will make its first flight on 18 March, and this worries me a little bit. The time between roll-out and the first flight will be so short. I am hoping they won't do serious mistakes for that, just to make it on a special day. The first flight of Hürjet and ATAK-2, the roll-out, and the first engine start of MMU. All in the damn same day.
Looking at Hürkuş and Hürjet project and than MMU. It is like MMU is being made by completely another company (giving reasonable timelines, like 2-3 years of ground testing, making them block by block, etc). Maybe the difference is because of BAE Systems.
