TR HÜRJET-Advanced Jet Trainer/ Light attack aircraft

IC3M@N FX

Committed member
Messages
154
Reactions
4 276
Nation of residence
Germany
Nation of origin
Turkey
Within the scope of the Hürjet program, the platform is aimed to have highly competent qualifications. Thus, in addition to AJT and LIFT as NVG compatible, it will have state of the art HMI, High AoA, HUD and Helmet mounted Display, fully digital FCS, wet and dry Aerial refuelling, AESA radar targeting pod, A-to-A, A-to-G strike ammunition compatibility, and many more... In terms of propulsion, volume and targeted roles, probably the closest example is the KAI T-50/TA-50 (Golden Eagle) and FA-50 (Fighting Eagle) programs of our Korean friends. KAI was also studying on a variant of this platform with almost the same payload capacity as the F-16 (I think twin-engine), but I don't know what the current status is.

The fact that it is a two-seater jet and will be able to offer an avionic infrastructure similar to the KAAN main combat jets suggests that the Hürjet will not be limited to training pilots as a lead-in jet. Its carrying capacity will be significantly increased in phases such as Block 2 or 3 of the LCA variant. And in fact, a highly capable platform is emerging, regardless of its carrying capacity. If you take into account the fact that it can be produced with our domestic industrial capabilities without being dependent on foreign countries, it is very likely that we will try many things on this platform.
That remains to be seen... in itself, the further development of a GEN 4+ fighter aircraft is a dead end in the long term.
Apart from an air superiority fighter of the 5th generation, we actually need a low-cost workhorse like the F-16 that is both maintenance-friendly and cost-effective in its missions, because TAI KAAN will not fulfill this as an air superiority fighter.
At the moment, the F-16 + drones fulfill this spectrum, but in the long term we need a domestic replacement that fulfills this task with the drones and is cheap at the same time.
Either Turkey builds a cheaper fighter based on TAI KAAN as a single jet delta canard version (I have already mentioned it 1000 times) or you should consider an aircraft like J-17, with Turkish avionics & software that fulfill this task together with the remaining F-16 + drones.
Because we will neither get the F-35 or the Eurofighter/Rafaele, nor will we buy more F-16s except now the 40 pieces including 79 Block 70 upgrade packs which is not 100% sure yet, the Americans can still block by something flimsy.
Apart from that after 8-10 years most of the F-16s will simply be dead, just because of airframe fatigue e.g. the Block 30/40 Özgür versions, and TAI KAAN is simply too expensive to build 400-500 aircraft to fill this gap.
Apparently, Hürjet cannot fulfill this task, and when the later blocks are ready, e.g. in 9-10 years, to replace an F-16, it will already be hopelessly technologically outdated as a combat aircraft.
From 2035-2040, for example, a GEN 5 will be the absolute standard in the industrialized countries and GEN 6 will be at the start as an elite aircraft in series production.
 
Last edited:

uçuyorum

Contributor
Messages
779
Reactions
9 1,276
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
In my Opinion not, Hürjet is a Force Multiplier. Hürjet can carry up to 1.5 Tons, F-16 around 7 Tons.
Buzzword. Hürjet is the opposite of force multiplier. It is too expensive for the impact it would deliver. As a trainer and acrobatics jet it will probably be really good. But even with some nice avionics it will probably not deliver enough impact to compete with drones that are cheaper and stealthier.
 

boredaf

Contributor
Messages
1,079
Solutions
1
Reactions
11 2,990
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Turkey
In my Opinion not, Hürjet is a Force Multiplier. Hürjet can carry up to 1.5 Tons, F-16 around 7 Tons.
2.7 tons, Hürkuş has a limit of 1.5 tons.

Buzzword. Hürjet is the opposite of force multiplier. It is too expensive for the impact it would deliver. As a trainer and acrobatics jet it will probably be really good. But even with some nice avionics it will probably not deliver enough impact to compete with drones that are cheaper and stealthier.
I agree with this. Even though it can carry more than what was stated above, it is still far too lightweight to be used effectively for anything but for counter-terrorist operations. Not to mention, due to its geometry, I doubt it'll be even as stealthy as some other 4th gen fighters, like Rafale or Eurofighter or Gripen. And, its light attack configuration is trying to break into an arena that already has strong competitors so there is no guarantee that it's going to sell enough to justify its cost.
 

Turkic

Member
Messages
12
Reactions
44
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
I don't think we will see another light manned fighter jet project. Instead, when we need to replace F-16's like 2040, an unmanned fighter based on KE or Anka-4 will fill that gap (considering rise of AI). But in a shorter term, for other countries who lacks at budget, single engine Kaan can never be enough cheap for those countries. A Super Hürjet (like Hornet to Super Hornet; a new airframe for lower observability, single seater design and maybe an additional engine) or KE-C would be much better. They would have similar performance to the JF-17 and would be enough cheap. If not for an aircraft carrier, I don't think there will be need for a single engine Kaan.
 

dBSPL

Experienced member
Think Tank Analyst
DefenceHub Ambassador
Messages
2,108
Reactions
86 10,939
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
If the short take off capability is developed with the Hürjet Naval, I have the idea that the LCA variant of this aircraft will also find a place in the Turkish Air Force combatant fleet structure. It is a platform that we developed ourselves and we can make all kinds of customizations. Although its short range and low MTOW are seen as an disadvantage, it will also have many specific advantages.
 

Yasar_TR

Experienced member
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
3,073
Reactions
122 15,023
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Turkey
One important aerodynamic reality that needs to be remembered is:
Larger wings move more air, so a bird or plane with a large wing area relative to its mass (low wing loading) will have more lift at any given speed. Therefore, a plane with lower wing loading will be able to take off and land at a lower speed (or be able to take off with a greater load)

If we check Gripen C or D which uses the same power plant as Hurjet, albeit 500lbf more thrust version in AB mode, it manages nearly double usable payload capacity and much higher MTOW with 2Mach top speed. It has a delta wing configuration, which as well as making the plane stealthier, increases it’s lift performance and MTOW and hence usable payload capacity. That is why Gripen can land on and take off from relatively shorter highways when it is required from it.

Hurjet is a trainer jet aircraft and was essentially designed to be for that purpose. Unless drastic design alterations are made to the airframe we shouldn’t expect a Gripen like performance from this bird.

We don’t know how much designers of the airframe of Hurjet have calculated in to it’s STOL performance. But what we can see is a low wing area plane that has been compromised for high manoeuvrability and relatively forgiving flight characteristics that will allow trainee pilots to hone their flight skills.
This will allow it to be used for acrobatics too.
But with a good Aesa radar and stand-off smart missiles, it can be a very potent addition to the airforce as a BVR fighter, especially when you consider it’s very low cost per flight hour.

A Hurjet that will be carrier operable will have to have more lift. To achieve this, a higher wing area and also a higher thrust engine may be needed.
As it is, it may take off from a ski lift. But it‘s payload and operational radius may be negatively affected.
However a Hurjet modified to be Carrier Operable (If we are going to have a Carrier), will add so much to the power projection of the fleet that it is a no brainier in spite of the cost it will incur. It will increase the defence of the fleet and the ships that are sailing with it by many folds. Also providing assault capability from air to land and other surface targets which is invaluable. But it has to be remembered that a carrier operable Hurjet will be very different .
 
Last edited:

boredaf

Contributor
Messages
1,079
Solutions
1
Reactions
11 2,990
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Turkey
Unless drastic design alterations are made to the airframe we shouldn’t expect a Gripen like performance from this bird.
We would be better off making drastic alterations based on Kaan's design, as in a smaller 1 TF35K engine version, and use it as a naval jet instead of trying to turn Hürjet into something it wasn't design to be in the first place. We are 15-20 years away from a proper aircraft carrier, by making a naval Kaan at least we would have a jet on them that has a chance to actually survive in the long term and would have much more efficient sortie rates.

Even light attack Hürjet would have to go through substantial changes to be effective, there is no reason to shove it down the throat of our navy as well.
 

Saithan

Experienced member
Denmark Correspondent
Messages
8,293
Reactions
24 19,055
Nation of residence
Denmark
Nation of origin
Turkey
Beautiful jet. I hope we’ll get it in a combat configuration soon and TuAF orders plenty of them.

Some people here seems to be used to feed their bellies with what ifs and other BS.
 

Khagan1923

Contributor
Messages
910
Reactions
12 3,922
Nation of residence
Germany
Nation of origin
Turkey
We would be better off making drastic alterations based on Kaan's design, as in a smaller 1 TF35K engine version, and use it as a naval jet instead of trying to turn Hürjet into something it wasn't design to be in the first place. We are 15-20 years away from a proper aircraft carrier, by making a naval Kaan at least we would have a jet on them that has a chance to actually survive in the long term and would have much more efficient sortie rates.

Even light attack Hürjet would have to go through substantial changes to be effective, there is no reason to shove it down the throat of our navy as well.

I agree with your take. Unless the Navy intends to field a AC large enough to accommodate Kaan the best bet is to give TAI a project for a 1 Engined Kaan derivative. Someone will of course say when is TAI going to do that, after Kaan of course when else? AC project is in its infancy, until we see it actual turn into a real project we will have to wait for the 2030s.

What are we developing a AC for, to use LAC Hürjets on it?`As much as I think an armed Hürjet will do a good job, putting a naval version on it on your most likely 2-3 Billion dollar AC is a joke.

The only other real option is here that miraculously we find our way back into the F-35 program somehow and the Navy opts for the F-35C.

A single engined naval fighter, developed from ground up to be just that, with one TF35K powering it as well as sharing sensors and fuselage parts with Kaan is IMHO doable. The timeline fits, and I trust TAI to pull it off.

It would also be exportable IMO easier than KAAN, due to its smaller size and "multirole" aspects. Maybe even lower prize.
 

Quasar

Contributor
The Post Deleter
Messages
588
Reactions
34 2,595
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
frankly speaking logic dictates that befor KAAN reachs to a certain maturity... expecting a new design based on KAAN or TF35000 is not realistic YET.

-All we know that there is a strong intention for HÜRJET CAS variant and a NAVAL variant of HÜRJET

-and it was stated that there is no intention for a twin engine variant of HÜRJET

-still early to speak but What I have perceived from all statement so far is there will no major structural design chages for HÜRJET CAS variant and NAVAL variant of HÜRJET which is a bit concerning especially when we think of the posible requirments and mission requirments of a carrier based aircraft

-There has never been even a single statement on single engine KAAN
 

Khagan1923

Contributor
Messages
910
Reactions
12 3,922
Nation of residence
Germany
Nation of origin
Turkey
Beautiful jet. I hope we’ll get it in a combat configuration soon and TuAF orders plenty of them.

Some people here seems to be used to feed their bellies with what ifs and other BS.
My concern is that once TAI shows off an armed version or announces plans for one that the US will cut of the supply of engines.
 

boredaf

Contributor
Messages
1,079
Solutions
1
Reactions
11 2,990
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Turkey
frankly speaking logic dictates that befor KAAN reachs to a certain maturity... expecting a new design based on KAAN or TF35000 is not realistic YET.

-All we know that there is a strong intention for HÜRJET CAS variant and a NAVAL variant of HÜRJET

-and it was stated that there is no intention for a twin engine variant of HÜRJET

-still early to speak but What I have perceived from all statement so far is there will no major structural design chages for HÜRJET CAS variant and NAVAL variant of HÜRJET which is a bit concerning especially when we think of the posible requirments and mission requirments of a carrier based aircraft

-There has never been even a single statement on single engine KAAN
But does that intention come from TAI or our military? Does the Navy actually want to use a naval Hürjet as a dedicated naval jet and not just for training its pilots? Does Air Force actually want to use Hürjet as a light (almost very light, Korean T-50 can carry twice as much payload) attack craft?

And you know what else we haven't heard anything about? An engine for Hürjet. We may have an engine agreement in place for it as a trainer, but there is no guarantee that we'll be allowed to use those engines for naval or light attack versions. And we don't have a project for an engine in the class that Hürjet needs. TF10K is obviously too weak for it and TF35K would be too much I'm guessing, so it sits at an awkward middle spot between our two projects.
 

moz68k

Active member
Messages
125
Reactions
18 619
Nation of residence
Switzerland
Nation of origin
Turkey
Yeah what's the discrepancy between payload of T-50 and Hürjet?
But does that intention come from TAI or our military? Does the Navy actually want to use a naval Hürjet as a dedicated naval jet and not just for training its pilots? Does Air Force actually want to use Hürjet as a light (almost very light, Korean T-50 can carry twice as much payload) attack craft?

And you know what else we haven't heard anything about? An engine for Hürjet. We may have an engine agreement in place for it as a trainer, but there is no guarantee that we'll be allowed to use those engines for naval or light attack versions. And we don't have a project for an engine in the class that Hürjet needs. TF10K is obviously too weak for it and TF35K would be too much I'm guessing, so it sits at an awkward middle spot between our two projects.

They seem identical in most aspects (engine, dimensions), Hürjet even has slightly more wing area. Is TAI being conservative on purpose?

My concern is that once TAI shows off an armed version or announces plans for one that the US will cut of the supply of engines.

Perhaps precisely because of this?
 

uçuyorum

Contributor
Messages
779
Reactions
9 1,276
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
An important point about Hürjet vs Gripen comparison is that, in Hürjet config, horizontal stabilators push down, the main wings push up and then center of mass in front of wings pushes down to balance the plane. In delta canard configuration of Gripen, canard pushes up, center of mass between canard and wing pushes down and delta wing at the back pushes up. So in delta canard you have more lift for same drag, because horizontal stabilator tail acts against lift in principle, it actually reduces your performance.
 

Follow us on social media

Top Bottom