TR F-16 Özgür | Hürkuş - Fighter Trainer Aircraft Projects

[IC3M@N FX]

Temel Kotil mentioned about new wing design as well. Probably in order to made the aircraft more beginner friendly.

What about the Engine?
We should be able to produce turboprop engines without any problems by now.
As far as I know, the one from Hürkus is from Pratt & Whitney, so it would make sense to switch to domestic engines here too in order to reduce the production price and increase the profit margin.
We would even have a positive side effect.
Because to further improve our own turboprop engines in terms of fuel consumption, noise and performance.
Even the future HALE/MALE drones and transport aircraft (especially those needed for troop movements) could benefit from the findings.

 

[Sanchez]

What about the Engine?
We should be able to produce turboprop engines without any problems by now.
As far as I know, the one from Hürkus is from Pratt & Whitney, so it would make sense to switch to domestic engines here too in order to reduce the production price and increase the profit margin.
We would even have a positive side effect.
Because to further improve our own turboprop engines in terms of fuel consumption, noise and performance.
Even the future HALE/MALE drones and transport aircraft (especially those needed for troop movements) could benefit from the findings.

TS1400 may be converted to turboprop in the future and used but PT6 is basically an industry standard with over 50000 built with a great safety record. We do need a turboprop at that range, mainly for drones, but it is a tough sell for trainer customers. Could be interesting for the combat variant.

 

[IC3M@N FX]

TS1400 may be converted to turboprop in the future and used but PT6 is basically an industry standard with over 50000 built with a great safety record. We do need a turboprop at that range, mainly for drones, but it is a tough sell for trainer customers. Could be interesting for the combat variant.

But we won't be able to sell military versions of Hürküs or Hürjets to other countries if the engines are from Pratt & Whitney, General Electric or Eurojet.
You could possibly get around this by unofficially setting up a defence company in a foreign country somewhere in Africa, e.g. South Africa, which specializes in converting training machines from various aircraft.
To turn a training aircraft into a combat aircraft in principle upgrade kits.
But they would have to have a slightly different version of the soft/hardware than the official Turkish ones.
Hensoldt and Honeywell, for example, do this with their products to circumvent European embargoes.
You also have to be able to think outside the box instead of taking the direct route to the customer.
Turkey can save itself a lot of trouble - sometimes you have to be as clever as a fox and exploit loopholes.

 

[Sanchez]

But we won't be able to sell military versions of Hürküs or Hürjets to other countries if the engines are from Pratt & Whitney, General Electric or Eurojet.
You could possibly get around this by unofficially setting up a defence company in a foreign country somewhere in Africa, e.g. South Africa, which specializes in converting training machines from various aircraft.
To turn a training aircraft into a combat aircraft in principle upgrade kits.
But they would have to have a slightly different version of the soft/hardware than the official Turkish ones.
Hensoldt and Honeywell, for example, do this with their products to circumvent European embargoes.
You also have to be able to think outside the box instead of taking the direct route to the customer.
Turkey can save itself a lot of trouble - sometimes you have to be as clever as a fox and exploit loopholes.

We did sell/transfer Hürkuş to two very unfriendly to west countries, Chad and Niger. PT6 is not a strategic asset and Hürkuş is unimportant enough to fly under the radar. Converting TS1400 to just replace PT6 for Hürkuş doesn't make any fiscal sense. Couple it with drones and future twin engine ventures, then it would.

 

[Yasar_TR]

Dear Members,
This is now F16 Ozgur , Hurkus fighter trainer aircrafts projects thread.
Please discuss all matters related to this heading Only.

KAAN Fighter Jet

HÜRJET-Advanced Jet Trainer/ Light attack aircraft

 

[Merzifonlu]

We do need a turboprop at that range, mainly for drones, but it is a tough sell for trainer customers.

True. However we use drones so intensively and we will soon reach PT6's flight times. For this reason, IMO we can achieve the engine reliability required for trainer customers in a short time and cost effectively.

 

[Sanchez]

True. However we use drones so intensively and we will soon reach PT6's flight times. For this reason, IMO we can achieve the engine reliability required for trainer customers in a short time and cost effectively.

Engine is possible, doubt we can match PT6's 500 million flight hours tho 64.000 engines since 1963.
"With more than 64,000 PT6 engines produced since its introduction in 1963, it powers over 155 different aviation applications. The PT6 is unmatched in engine performance, reliability and dispatch availability, having reached 500 million flying hours."

Pratt & Whitney Canada celebrates 1 billion flying hours and 60 years of PT6 innovation

Since inception, nearly 100 years ago, Pratt & Whitney Canada has produced more than 110,000 engines with over 66,000 currently in service, powering 16,000 customers.

verticalmag.com

 

[IC3M@N FX]

Serious question: what's wrong with modifying Hürküs as a drone version? Remove the entire cockpit and install drone hardware + SATCOM.
This could save weight and even install an additional fuel tank inside, which would certainly make 6-8 hours of flight time possible for combat missions.
As it stands, the Hürküs costs between 10-15 million dollars and is therefore relatively cheap.
It would even be a serious alternative to the Akinci/Aksungur drone as the Hürküs is definitely more agile and aggressive and faster in combat, the aircraft officially flies 500 -600 km/h probably even 650-700 km/h is possible.
The Hürküs as a pure combat drone could close a gap between Kizilelma and the other drones.
It would also be a real alternative to the ATAK 1/2 combat helicopter for ground support as a drone.
I generally wouldn't put a human in a turboprob fighter, the anti-aircraft missiles and the latest Stinger-like systems are just so dead optimized that they would take apart the aircraft including the pilot - that would be pure suicide.

 

[Nutuk]

Serious question: what's wrong with modifying Hürküs as a drone version? Remove the entire cockpit and install drone hardware + SATCOM.
This could save weight and even install an additional fuel tank inside, which would certainly make 6-8 hours of flight time possible for combat missions.
As it stands, the Hürküs costs between 10-15 million dollars and is therefore relatively cheap.
It would even be a serious alternative to the Akinci/Aksungur drone as the Hürküs is definitely more agile and aggressive and faster in combat, the aircraft officially flies 500 -600 km/h probably even 650-700 km/h is possible.
The Hürküs as a pure combat drone could close a gap between Kizilelma and the other drones.
It would also be a real alternative to the ATAK 1/2 combat helicopter for ground support as a drone.
I generally wouldn't put a human in a turboprob fighter, the anti-aircraft missiles and the latest Stinger-like systems are just so dead optimized that they would take apart the aircraft including the pilot - that would be pure suicide.

Let's brainstorm
Nothing wrong, but what is the advantage to do so? First of all Hurkus is not stealth, so what is the advantage to turn it into a drone while we have Kizilelma and ANKA-3? I do not think the price is $15mln but suppose it is, what about the extra costs to turn it into a drone? And above all, what advantage would it have above Akinci / Aksungur? On the contrary it would never achieve the same endurance.

 

[Samba]

Engine is possible, doubt we can match PT6's 500 million flight hours tho 64.000 engines since 1963.
"With more than 64,000 PT6 engines produced since its introduction in 1963, it powers over 155 different aviation applications. The PT6 is unmatched in engine performance, reliability and dispatch availability, having reached 500 million flying hours."

Pratt & Whitney Canada celebrates 1 billion flying hours and 60 years of PT6 innovation

Since inception, nearly 100 years ago, Pratt & Whitney Canada has produced more than 110,000 engines with over 66,000 currently in service, powering 16,000 customers.

verticalmag.com

What about two PT6 engines on Hürkuş? Would that increase speed and agility

 

[Saithan]

Engine is possible, doubt we can match PT6's 500 million flight hours tho 64.000 engines since 1963.
"With more than 64,000 PT6 engines produced since its introduction in 1963, it powers over 155 different aviation applications. The PT6 is unmatched in engine performance, reliability and dispatch availability, having reached 500 million flying hours."

Pratt & Whitney Canada celebrates 1 billion flying hours and 60 years of PT6 innovation

Since inception, nearly 100 years ago, Pratt & Whitney Canada has produced more than 110,000 engines with over 66,000 currently in service, powering 16,000 customers.

verticalmag.com

sorry, but do we need to match those flight hours ?

wouldn't we be doing damn well if we had 100k flight hours flawless and perfect on fewer units ?

 

[Sanchez]

What about two PT6 engines on Hürkuş? Would that increase speed and agility

That's no longer a Hürkuş, complete overkill. Smallest twin PT6 aircraft I know of is the Piper P-31T, a 6 to 8 person high speed long range small business aircraft. And it runs with smaller variant at a bit higher than 600shp each. A 1600shp PT6 like on the Hürkuş is more than enough to power to make it a very fast and nimble aircraft. With a twin large PT6 like on the Hürkuş, you can power a Basler Dakota conversion These are very powerful engines.

sorry, but do we need to match those flight hours ?

wouldn't we be doing damn well if we had 100k flight hours flawless and perfect on fewer units ?

We absolutely don't and reaching 100K would be an awesome achievement for local engine production. It could also effect the exports positively. But PT6 is simply a powerhouse, and unless our own TS1400 conversion come up with big advancements like lower operating costs, lower upfront cost and greater efficiency, unless a customer has no choice, they would want a PT6, just like we chose PT6 for Hürkuş. Because it is basically the industry standard for small-medium sized turboprop aircraft.

 

[UkroTurk]

First of all Hurkus is not stealth, so what is the advantage to turn it into a drone while we have Kizilelma and ANKA-3

First: Not Sacrificing crew of Hürkuş while using Hürkuş C capabilities.
KE is expensive more advanced. Kinda comparing manned F-16 with manned Hürkuş -C

Regarding ANKA-3 you might seem right but Hürkuş -C is for totally missions different from ANKA-3. Anka-3 kinda unmanned F117.

Where could you use Hürkuş-C? Why would you need manned Hürkuş-C while you are having TB2, KE, ANKA-3?
So Manned Hürkuş -C is useless?
Edit:
How much do 2 ejection seats, oxygen supply , smart helmets for two pilot , cockpit glass cost? You could replace the money for remote control.

 

[Knowledgeseeker]

Regarding ANKA-3 you might seem right but Hürkuş -C is for totally missions different from ANKA-3. Anka-3 kinda unmanned F117.

Waiting for the ANKA-4/5

 

[Nutuk]

First: Not Sacrificing crew of Hürkuş while using Hürkuş C capabilities.
KE is expensive more advanced. Kinda comparing manned F-16 with manned Hürkuş -C

Regarding ANKA-3 you might seem right but Hürkuş -C is for totally missions different from ANKA-3. Anka-3 kinda unmanned F117.

Where could you use Hürkuş-C? Why would you need manned Hürkuş-C while you are having TB2, KE, ANKA-3?
So Manned Hürkuş -C is useless?
Edit:
How much do 2 ejection seats, oxygen supply , smart helmets for two pilot , cockpit glass cost? You could replace the money for remote control.

Ok, you have some arguments although I still not believe that Hurkus is the good platform to modify into a drone.

I think we already have advanced so much in drone tech that we past the point of need to modify a turboprop plane into a drone. Our companies maasallah design the finest dedicated drones (heck we are in the top 3 in this tech), far beyond what we can reach with a modified turboprop plane that is not dedicated to this task.

That Hurkus-C has become "obsolete" in terms of risking a pilot I can agree with. Technological developments go at a rate that some ideas become obsolete before being produced, remember we had 10 years ago the idea to build gunships (modifying CN-235 for this purpose). Just 10 years later such ideas have become hopelessly obsolete with the fast drone developments.

 

[UkroTurk]

we had 10 years ago the idea to build gunships (modifying CN-235 for this purpose). Just 10 years later such ideas have become hopelessly obsolete with the fast drone

Ok. Let's make CN-235 unmanned Cargo Plane we want making something unmanned here

Let's wait ANKA4/5

 

[IC3M@N FX]

First: Not Sacrificing crew of Hürkuş while using Hürkuş C capabilities.
KE is expensive more advanced. Kinda comparing manned F-16 with manned Hürkuş -C

Regarding ANKA-3 you might seem right but Hürkuş -C is for totally missions different from ANKA-3. Anka-3 kinda unmanned F117.

Where could you use Hürkuş-C? Why would you need manned Hürkuş-C while you are having TB2, KE, ANKA-3?
So Manned Hürkuş -C is useless?
Edit:
How much do 2 ejection seats, oxygen supply , smart helmets for two pilot , cockpit glass cost? You could replace the money for remote control.

I see it the same way, the Hürküs definitely makes sense as a trainer, but as a combat aircraft with human pilots it makes no sense at all and would be too dangerous.
If anything, it makes sense as a combat drone.
As well as the Hürküs (as a drone) and Kizilelma are or would generally not be classic MALE/HALE drones in the true sense, but combat aircraft that function conceptually like a drone because they are unmanned, but nothing more.
These are combat aircraft for targeted combat operations either for targeted defense or attack, within its mission duration of a normal fighter jet 2-4 hours as it is also known there.
But the term HALE/MALE is nothing other than High or Medium Altitude Long Endurance.
Neither the Kizilelma nor Anka 3 have this, neither have a long endurance (at least 24 - 40 hours) as both are sent out specifically, if at all, to ensure rapid intervention, simply due to their speed, maneuverability and their capacity for weapons/ammunition at the expense of their flight time.
Classic HALE/MALE drones are unmanned reconnaissance aircraft that fly more or less over a longer period of time (24 - 40 hours) over a region for reconnaissance, surveillance, espionage, electronic warfare, and can destroy specific targets with their bomb load, but at the expense of speed & maneuverability, so they would be suboptimal for a quick intervention if they are not in the sky in advance in the area of operation.
Here the Hürküs drone would do a balancing act between Kizilelma, Anka 3 and the HALE/MALE drones as it is still faster and more maneuverable than the latter, you could reach the area of operation relatively quickly at 600 - 700 km/h, its second significant advantage would be that it could take off from temporary bases/airfields, very close to the border with Syria, Iraq & Co, thus also cheaper in fuel consumption and maintenance compared to fighter jets such as KAAN, Hürjet and F-16/F-4 in the fight against terrorism.

However, the concept of Hürküs as a drone only works against terrorism and pirates, as they do not have modern air defense systems, but modern Stinger-like air defense systems.
20-30 Hürküs drones in combination with Akinici/Aksungur and TB2/3 would put enormous pressure on the PKK & YPG, they would not even get air to breathe if attacks are flown from morning to night.
You don't even have to use the ultra-modern stuff against terrorism, but the tried and tested and efficient but very cheap to maintain.
All the cheap intelligent bombs such as HGK bombs, MAM C/L/T+ Cirit missiles are also ideal against the PKK & YPG.

 

[UkroTurk]

quickly at 600 - 700 km/h, i

Hürkuş max speed is 550km/h

 

[dBSPL]

However, the concept of Hürküs as a drone only works against terrorism and pirates, as they do not have modern air defense systems, but modern Stinger-like air defense systems.

Unmanned Hurkuş could be a great UCAV-interceptor solution. It can also carry armor-piercing ammunition, making it a tank and chopper killer under wings of fighters. While the armed UAVs serving in the world air forces have a philosophy focused on endurance, low cruising speed and air time, Hürkuş has a climbing speed that is incomparable with these platforms and will return from low altitude to medium altitude and back to low altitude within minutes. Likewise, it has a ROT rate that cannot be compared to these armed UAVs. In return, its stay in the air is limited and its range is limited, but as a turboprop aircraft, it can easily take off even from unprepared runways. Since it does not have a sophisticated power system, ground maintenance can be carried with a pickup truck, and its flight hourly cost could be much lower than unmanned jet UCAVs and slightly above conventional armed UAVs. So ultimatly, it may be an interim solution. Is it necessary? It is not, but it can be tried when we have such a platform.

Moreover, while we cannot offer the Kızılelma to every allied country from Africa-to Asia that has invested heavily in UAVs currently, and it is debatable whether we should even offer the ANKA's next gens, Hürkuş could be a solution for the foreign market as well. Countries investing armed Hürkuş-C can also invest in different variants of this platform. Just think, it may be the only turbopop platform in the world with manned-unmanned teaming capability. Jokes aside, I think the issue here is the operational concepts, and technological level of interfaces rather than the 'only' propulsion system. I believe that just because something is slower does not necessarily mean that it is disadvantageous.

 

[YeşilVatan]

Unmanned Hurkuş could be a great UCAV-interceptor solution. It can also carry armor-piercing ammunition, making it a tank and chopper killer under wings of fighters. While the armed UAVs serving in the world air forces have a philosophy focused on endurance, low cruising speed and air time, Hürkuş has a climbing speed that is incomparable with these platforms and will return from low altitude to medium altitude and back to low altitude within minutes. Likewise, it has a ROT rate that cannot be compared to these armed UAVs. In return, its stay in the air is limited and its range is limited, but as a turboprop aircraft, it can easily take off even from unprepared runways. Since it does not have a sophisticated power system, ground maintenance can be carried with a pickup truck, and its flight hourly cost could be much lower than unmanned jet UCAVs and slightly above conventional armed UAVs. So ultimatly, it may be an interim solution. Is it necessary? It is not, but it can be tried when we have such a platform.

Moreover, while we cannot offer the Kızılelma to every allied country from Africa-to Asia that has invested heavily in UAVs currently, and it is debatable whether we should even offer the ANKA's next gens, Hürkuş could be a solution for the foreign market as well. Countries investing armed Hürkuş-C can also invest in different variants of this platform. Just think, it may be the only turbopop platform in the world with manned-unmanned teaming capability. Jokes aside, I think the issue here is the operational concepts, and technological level of interfaces rather than the 'only' propulsion system. I believe that just because something is slower does not necessarily mean that it is disadvantageous.

I was thinking about wing-loong hunting unmanned spitfires back in the summer of 22'. Chinese or any other nation will at some point figure out the tb-2 magic formula and out-produce us. Then people will look for countermeasures.

Ground based defence against drones like tb-2 is way more expensive than it should be. The only expensive thing about that aircraft would be its AI and maybe sensors. I imagine sensors to be on the cheaper side though, because all it would need would be an old tech radar. And think about the things that can be achieved through network centric warfare etc. And weaponry-wise, all it would need is a machine gun and maybe, just maybe a couple of sungurs.

Just imagine if the armenians had what I describe back in 2018.