TR HÜRJET-Advanced Jet Trainer/ Light attack aircraft

[Fuzuli NL]

 

[Oublious]

“We don’t get what we need from Hawk today,” says the Chief of the Air Staff - AGN

Britain’s Chief of the Air Staff has criticised the service’s Hawk T.Mk 2 advanced jet trainer, and said that: “I would like to replace Hawk T2 as soon as we can.”

aerospaceglobalnews.com

Others suggest that the UK may have looked at Türkiye’s Hürjet – perhaps being bought in associaton with a Turkish buy of the Eurofighter Typhoon. Defence Secretary John Healey was recently photographed being shown the Hürjet’s cockpit.

 

[dBSPL]

“We don’t get what we need from Hawk today,” says the Chief of the Air Staff - AGN

Britain’s Chief of the Air Staff has criticised the service’s Hawk T.Mk 2 advanced jet trainer, and said that: “I would like to replace Hawk T2 as soon as we can.”

aerospaceglobalnews.com

Others suggest that the UK may have looked at Türkiye’s Hürjet – perhaps being bought in associaton with a Turkish buy of the Eurofighter Typhoon. Defence Secretary John Healey was recently photographed being shown the Hürjet’s cockpit.

It's a perspective we often encounter in UK defense circles. It is not clear how much this will resonate with their MoD, but we cannot say that there is no interest. For the Royal Air Force, if British avionics are integrated, the Hürjet could be an excellent solution in terms of both industry participation and total cost. This is because the business model TAI is offering with the Hürjet promises maximum flexibility in line with the requirements and logistics infrastructure of their air force as we will show with Spanish air force. On the other hand, if a light fighter variant can be developed with a more powerful engine produced at RR facilities, this could be an ideal platform for re-building the air forces of regional allies in areas of common interest, from Libya to Syria even extent to beyond.

 

[KhanOfEurasia]

It's a perspective we often encounter in UK defense circles. It is not clear how much this will resonate with their MoD, but we cannot say that there is no interest. For the Royal Air Force, if British avionics are integrated, the Hürjet could be an excellent solution in terms of both industry participation and total cost. This is because the business model TAI is offering with the Hürjet promises maximum flexibility in line with the requirements and logistics infrastructure of their air force as we will show with Spanish air force. On the other hand, if a light fighter variant can be developed with a more powerful engine produced at RR facilities, this could be an ideal platform for re-building the air forces of regional allies in areas of common interest, from Libya to Syria even extent to beyond.

This mean we need an indigenous Engine for Hürjet in lonh term. In other Way I doubt the US would allow to supply Hürjet to Syrien and libyan Allies. It is very important to strengthen their Air Force's and Air Defence, in other Way Turkey could be overwhelmed to protect it's Allies.

 

[Saithan]

Truth be told we always needed an indigenous engine for our own jet, but Hürjet being the first platform we've made it's sufficient to have it fly using foreign engine. The knowledge we gain from having a platform fly like any other trainer jet in itself is invaluable, meaning extremely important. Once you've managed to deliver a platform that can perform extremely well, you can pretty much develop a trainer jet that will fly with any engine.

Developing your own engine is also difficult, but is another path that is being treaded. So, yes, when we have our own engine we will have more freedom to export to anyone we want.

The sanctions and hidden embargoes will always be present so we need to do these things individually. The Unmanned platforms are bandaids and can support us for a while, but even if we're pioneers in this without technological capability, economy, and supply chain we're still vulnerable to embargoes.

Hence it's important to prioritize domestic suppliers, but also ensure that domestic suppliers keep developing and don't laze on their asses. We Turks are world champion on that.

 

[Saithan]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1880626644341416027

Nice update to specs especially increase to payload for Hürjet.

The website has not been updated, so we have to wait for confirmation...

 

[Turkic]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1880626644341416027

Nice update to specs especially increase to payload for Hürjet.

The website has not been updated, so we have to wait for confirmation...

New Hürjet specs were shared and discussed before.

Hürjet specs were changed much more improved than before,especially rate of climb,sustained turn rate,and carry load

Also specs were updated when it was shared in the forum. Not in the website directly but at the pdf in the website.

Here it is:

 

[dBSPL]

Many criticized the possible LCA/LIFT variants based on the specs set for the acrotim and training, but it was already clear that the payload limit would increase significantly. It seems that a payload increase of around 25% has been achieved by sacrificing a flight range of around 10%. I am very optimistic that this can be further improved in the future with avionics and structural improvements. If only we could expand the engine options, because I think this is the most important issue limiting the potential of the Hürjet.

By way of comparison, a typical STOL payload for the AV-8B Harrier II is 2 external tanks, 4 JDAMS, 2 Sidewinders and LANTIRN Pod, with the now quite old AN/APG-65 radar. For the Hürjet Naval STOL jet, it can achievable that take off with a configuration consisting of 2 external tanks, 2 air-to-air missiles, 4 MK-83 type LGK, HGK, KGK or TEBER, Aselpod targeting pod, and Murad as AESA radar/EW suite. Although the Hürjet N has some disadvantages compared to the Harrier system, it provides a clear advantage especially in survivable and emergency situations such as maximum speed and climb/turn rate, etc, if it nevertheless be equivalent in terms of typical task load. Also there will probably be a generation difference between the two aircraft in terms of avionics.

edit: And this: The following concept will create an important asymmetric element in naval warfare, of which more primitive examples are already being used by Ukraine with great success. As an air control aircraft, the Hürjet can also provide command and control of a range of USVs and UAVs, creating its own unique operations doctrine.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1881084228357718519

 

[TheInsider]

I think the light fighter version of Hurjet should have an F-414 engine or we should ask RR to develop a single-engine version of EJ-200. It can achieve 1.6 Mach max speed with F414/EJ-200 and slight design optimizations.

 

[KhanOfEurasia]

I think the light fighter version of Hurjet should have an F-414 engine or we should ask RR to develop a single-engine version of EJ-200. It can achieve 1.6 Mach max speed with F414/EJ-200 and slight design optimizations.

Can not develop TRMotor a similar Engine like F414/EJ-200 ? It's better, also for possible Exports.

 

[boredaf]

Can not develop TRMotor a similar Engine like F414/EJ-200 ? It's better, also for possible Exports.

One impossible engine project not enough for you? It'd be an engineering feat of highest order if we get TF35K ready by 2030, there is no need to complicate things even more for Hürjet, no matter how much some want to believe in its importance or export potential.

 

[dBSPL]

Can not develop TRMotor a similar Engine like F414/EJ-200 ? It's better, also for possible Exports.

If we succeed in collaborating with Hürjet to the British along with the Spanish, we can also secure possible engine solutions for advanced variants. Developing a mid-class engine can be a huge gain for our aviation industry, but as @boredaf explained, the 35K engine is more important than anything else right now.

By the way, off-topic, but here are the eurojet's industrial participation for the EJ200: Hot section is British, compressors and ECU are German. Maybe RR, Kale and ITP can do something but there seems to be no need for such an engine in Europe while there is ej200...

 

[Yasar_TR]

If we succeed in collaborating with Hürjet to the British along with the Spanish, we can also secure possible engine solutions for advanced variants. Developing a mid-class engine can be a huge gain for our aviation industry, but as @boredaf explained, the 35K engine is more important than anything else right now.

By the way, off-topic, but here are the eurojet's industrial participation for the EJ200: Hot section is British, compressors and ECU are German. Maybe RR, Kale and ITP can do something but there seems to be no need for such an engine in Europe while there is ej200...
View attachment 73222

Since Germany lifted their opposition to the supply of Typhoon jets, the EJ200 engines can be produced in house by Kale/RR for 40 planes(80+ engines) and 90 Hurjets (100 engines).
On top of these if we export Hurjets and go for another squadron of Typhoons there could be an optional quantity of some 70-80 engines. That is a total of 260+ engines.
A reasonable price point can be achieved for the single use of EJ200 when you add approximately 50 more navalised engines needed for the Hurjet Naval too.

 

[Sanchez]

Hürjet 20-30% larger with 2 F-404 engines

I see where you are coming in regards to a "Hürjet-N", but I don't think we should forget that Hürjet should first and foremost be a capable trainer aircraft, that is by its nature is somewhat cheap to acquire and cheap to operate.

 

[IC3M@N FX]

I see where you are coming in regards to a "Hürjet-N", but I don't think we should forget that Hürjet should first and foremost be a capable trainer aircraft, that is by its nature is somewhat cheap to acquire and cheap to operate.

The Hürjet, in its current trainer configuration, is not suitable for a naval version. Investing in such an adaptation would be a waste of resources, as the aircraft would be outmatched in every aspect. In a potential conflict, it would stand no chance against competitors. Deploying an aircraft carrier to critical positions only to discover that the adversary has significantly superior aircraft—two or three Levels ahead of the Hürjet—would defeat the entire purpose of such deployments. Under those circumstances, building aircraft carriers or maintaining overseas bases in locations like Libya or Somalia would be meaningless.

The goal is not to actively engage in war but to establish a credible deterrence, especially against future rivals like France, Greece, Russia, Iran, and India. Credible deterrence requires capable systems. If a naval fleet equipped with carriers is deployed but forced to retreat from potential danger zones due to an inability to secure air superiority or adequately defend those areas, the deterrent effect is nullified. A semi-competitive aircraft is not a "nice to have" but an absolute necessity.

The ideal solution would be a low-cost, naval stealth aircraft. The Hürjet M should be 20–30% larger, with significant design revisions incorporating stealth features, drawing on elements from the TAI KAAN. With two F-404 engines, it would have sufficient thrust to carry more payload while remaining agile and fast. A small internal weapons bay capable of carrying 2–3 air-to-air missiles (AAMs) would allow it to serve alongside Kızılelma as a stealthy interceptor. In essence, this revised Hürjet would resemble an enhanced F/A-18 Hornet, but with better stealth characteristics and modern systems.

The addition of a second pilot would enable the management of drone operations. This pilot could oversee targeting and direct drones in offensive, defensive, or support roles via predefined tactical commands, assuming the drones are sufficiently autonomous to handle such tasks.

A pleasant side effect is that you would have a very affordable naval platform that Spain, Italy, and even the UK might consider purchasing as a complement to the F-35B/C.

 

[boredaf]

The ideal solution would be a low-cost, naval stealth aircraft. The Hürjet M should be 20–30% larger, with significant design revisions incorporating stealth features, drawing on elements from the TAI KAAN. With two F-404 engines, it would have sufficient thrust to carry more payload while remaining agile and fast. A small internal weapons bay capable of carrying 2–3 air-to-air missiles (AAMs) would allow it to serve alongside Kızılelma as a stealthy interceptor. In essence, this revised Hürjet would resemble an enhanced F/A-18 Hornet, but with better stealth characteristics and modern systems.

The aircraft you're describing has absolutely nothing to do with Hürjet, you're talking about a completely new aircraft. At that point, we'd be far better off with starting with Kaan's design instead of Hürjet and making a smaller, single engine Kaan for the navy.

And as it is, with minimal changes, Hürjet is a shitty choice for an aircraft carrier that we expect to have in 10-15 years. It is already behind the times, by the time it is on the carrier, it'll be completely obsolete and nothing but an embarrassment and potential missile fodder.

It's a bloody trainer, its inherent weakness come from the fact that it is a trainer. As long as you're basing something on it, that version (whether it is light attack or naval) will share those weaknesses.

 

[Huelague]

is already behind the times, by the time it is on the carrier, it'll be completely obsolete and nothing but an embarrassment and potential missile fodder.

Obsolete and behind the times, like 60-70% of all our weapon systems, including F-16. And we try more to buy.
Dont be so unkind, huh.

 

[boredaf]

Obsolete and behind the times, like 60-70% of all our weapon systems, including F-16. And we try more to buy.
Dont be so unkind, huh.

First, I said it'll be obsolete by the time we will have the carrier, not right now. US keeps building 100+ F-35s a year, radar and missile tech keeps improving, more and more countries testing stealth fighter drones like KE and on top of all that, 6th gen is either already being designed or prototyped. So, yes, I'd argue by the time a naval Hürjet might be seen on our carrier, it'll be obsolete.

Second, comparing Hürjet with F-16 Block 70 is ridiculous. Hürjet, as a fighter jet, is virtually half the jet F-16 is. And we are not planning to put those on a carrier in 2040s.

And last, I'm not being "unkind", I'm being realistic about what Hürjet is, a fantastic trainer, a good light attack jet for countries that doesn't need to drop really heavy munitions and a terrible naval jet for 2040s.

 

[uçuyorum]

So we should make TF/A - 18 A/B? Naval hürjet should just be a stepping stone for something better that will come later.

 

[dBSPL]

Since Germany lifted their opposition to the supply of Typhoon jets, the EJ200 engines can be produced in house by Kale/RR for 40 planes(80+ engines) and 90 Hurjets (100 engines).
On top of these if we export Hurjets and go for another squadron of Typhoons there could be an optional quantity of some 70-80 engines. That is a total of 260+ engines.
A reasonable price point can be achieved for the single use of EJ200 when you add approximately 50 more navalised engines needed for the Hurjet Naval too.

The maximum armament capacity of the Gripen C/D with the F404 engine variant RM-12 is 11700lb/5300kg.

Although the maximum ammunition capacity of Gripen E/F with the F414 variant (RM-16) is not specifically stated which pylon can carry how much, it is reported that the total payload capacity has been increased to 7200kg.

The Gripen Maritime, another variant marketed internationally by Sweden, is apparently ready for production in case of demand, and the engine configuration offered with this model is the GE 414G reconfigured as fully marinized. Both engines have a maximum sea level speed of 1.2/1.4 mach.

The reason why I keep giving this Gripen example: The F404 engine configuration of this aircraft is a concrete example of the fact that the Hürjet will continue to make progress in total lift capacity, and the other issue is that it is a good example to see what the gap would be if an engine option with the same diameter standard but with a maximum wet thrust of up to 100kN is gained, like Gripen E/F.

A supersonic navalized combat jet capable of STOBAR operation, capable of lifting 5-6 tons of ammunition meet most of the operational requirements needed in the first place to form our naval fighter aviation. (I think unmanned combatants with dual TF-6000 configurations will catch up in the same period)

The Mig-29K, widely used in the Eastern bloc, has a maximum payload of under 10,000lb/4500kg. The Mig29K has a sea level top speed of 1.2 mach and a combat radius of 460 nmi, but it is worth taking this data with a pinch of salt. Until just two years ago, Eurasianist friends were praising the Mig-29K and Atlanticist friends were praising the Gripen E on social media. It is sad to see the same friends not giving the necessary support to the Hürjet N.

If the Eurojet can somehow be redirected to a navalized EJ-2xx, which, -as I have argued before we can finance under the condition of under license production-, this will not only provide a great deal of flexibility to the Hürjet program, but will also make it one of the most attractive options for small and medium-sized air forces.