TR HÜRJET-Advanced Jet Trainer/ Light attack aircraft

[Sanchez]

I have a feeling that TurAF has no great interest in a CAS Hürjet and that configuration is more aimed for export.
Instead imho TurAF has more interest in Air/Air Hürjet to control UCAVs, and the Air/Air configuration will be purely for self defence measures.

TurAF should first increase the ordered number of aircrafts to replace the T-38 before anything else, current order is to replace the NF-5s of Turkish Stars after all. Navy Design Office's carrier design clearly have Hürjets on it, so we know that the navy is interested in a combat variant even if air force isn't. We expect Spain to buy the thing, when our own air force hasn't fully subscribed to the project yet.
-

I read somewhere that the first prototype flew with F110-129 Engine instead of F404 Engine.
Can anyone confirm or deny this?

We saw the thing from all possible angles and in flight, it has an F404.

 

[Yasar_TR]

Among the main characteristics, the one that stands out is the payload lifting capacity of around 6500lb. This reference is based on statements made 5-6 years ago. With current data, we understand that this characteristic has been formed with the current engine configuration. Therefore, the first and foremost consideration should be engines that can produce higher power in the same diameter and dry weight class without changing main airframe design of the aircraft.

I am not an aeronautical engineer, but one thing is that the relationship between power increase and lift capacity increase is not linear. For example, a 25% increase in power can provide a lifting capacity that is more than that. The other issue is that the jet can increase its lift capacity with avionics improvements and structural advances.

Without going in to aerodynamics 101 too much, let us just look at the forces that play a part in flight.
There are 4 basic forces that act upon a plane. Weight, Thrust, Drag and Lift.
They are all interdependent on each other during the flight. Thrust and speed induced drag, is the force that gives you lift. But it all depends how well designed your airframe and wings are. Too much weight or not enough thrust can degrade performance.
Thrust is forward force.
Drag is rearward force.
Weight is downward force.
Lift is upward force.
Exemplary avionics that control flight characteristics and structural improvements will help increase the performance of any plane as you have rightfully mentioned.
Thrust on its own is not enough to give you good lift. Your plane’s airframe and your wings will have to be designed correctly to accommodate the high thrust your engine provides and translate it in to induced drag to create effective and efficient lift.
With a small increment of thrust it is possible to induce an ample amount of drag to give efficient lift when you hava a large area of wing to play with. So yes! Thrust to lift is not linear. But depends on all the 4 forces in play and the design of your wings and plane.

We don’t know how our Hurjet was designed. What we know is that it is going to be good for training 5th generation plane pilots and is agile enough to perform acrobatics as well.

We seem to be doing this frequently:
We produce an amphibious assault ship and try to turn it in to an aircraft carrier.
We start designing an air superiority fighter with a modest size. Then increase size to include in it’s end use, ground assault and multi role.
Now produce a trainer aircraft with a possible light attack capability. Then change it to include naval carrier operations too.

Anything is possible as long as there is a will and money to do it! But we mustn’t forget the limitations we have and the current situation we are in.

 

[dBSPL]

For comparison, the basic characteristics of the aircrafts known in the world in the light attack role and in service, or soon to enter the active inventory (India's MK2). It can be listed in much more detail with a little time, this is just a few datas from the wiki and referenced from verifiable sources. Still, it will give an idea.


FA-50 Block 10 (S.Korea/USA) Specifications
Wingspan: 9.45 m (31 ft 0 in)
Empty weight: 6,454 kg (14,229 lb)
Payload: Total of 7 with 4 underwing 2 wingtip and one under fuselage; holding up to 5,400 kg (12,000 lb) of payload
Ferry range: 2,592 km (1,611 mi, 1,400 nmi) External fuel 3x 150 US gal (120 imp gal; 570 L)
Service ceiling: 16,764 m (55,000 ft)
Rate of climb: 198 m/s (39,000 ft/min)
Thrust/weight: 0.96
Powerplant: 1 × General Electric F404-GE-102 afterburning turbofan engine (built under license by Samsung Techwin[14]), 53.07 kN (11,930 lbf) thrust dry, 78.7 kN (17,700 lbf) with afterburner

JF-17 Block 3 (Pakistan/China) Specifications
Wingspan: 9.44 m (31 ft 0 in)
Empty weight: 7,965 kg (17,560 lb)
Payload: 4,000 kg (8,800 lb) – 4,325 kg (9,535 lb) external stores (2 × wingtip, 4 × under-wing, 1 × under-fuselage, 1 × chin)
Ferry range: 3,482 km (2,163 mi, 1,880 nmi) with drop tanks
Service ceiling: 16,916 m (55,500 ft)
Rate of climb: 300 m/s (59,000 ft/min)
Thrust/weight: 1.07 with RD-93
Powerplant: 1 × Klimov RD-93 DEEC, 49.4 kN (11,100 lbf) thrust [286] dry, 84.4 kN (19,000 lbf) with afterburner

HAL TEJAS MK2 (India) Specifications (Projected)
Wingspan: 8.50 m
Empty weight: 7,850 kg (17,306 lb) (expected)
Payload: 6,500 kg (14,300 lb) external stores
Ferry range: 3,500 km (2,200 mi, 1,900 nmi) with 3 external fuel tanks
Service ceiling: 17,300 m (56,758 ft)
Powerplant: 1 × General Electric F414-INS6 afterburning turbofan with FADEC, 57.8 kN (13,000 lbf) thrust dry, 97.9 kN (22,000 lbf) with afterburner (Indigenous 110kn engine to be used in future)

JAS 39E/F Gripen Specifications
Wingspan: 8.6 m (28 ft 3 in) JAS39 C/D - 8.4 m (27 ft 7 in)
Empty weight: 8,000 kg (17,637 lb) JAS39 C/D - Empty weight: 6,800 kg (14,991 lb)
Payload: 7,200 kg (15,900 lb) JAS39 C/D - Payload: 5,300 kg (11,700 lb)
Ferry range: 4,000 km (2,500 mi, 2,200 nmi) JAS39 C/D - 3,200 km (2,000 mi, 1,700 nmi)
Service ceiling: 16,000 m (52,000 ft) JAS39 C/D - Service ceiling: 15,240 m (50,000 ft)
Rate of climb: 50,000ft/min
Thrust/weight: 1.04 JAS39 C/D - Thrust/weight: 0.97
Powerplant: General Electric F414-GE-39E (RM16), 61.83kN (13,900 lbf) thrust dry, 98 kN (22,000 lbf) with afterburner
JAS39 C/D - Volvo RM12, 54 kN (12,000 lbf) thrust dry, 80.5 kN (18,100 lbf) with afterburner

HURJET Trainer ***[Light Combat Aircraft version to be developed later]
Wingspan: 9.5m (31 ft)
Payload Capacity: 2721 kg (6000 lbs)
Range (without drop tanks): 2222 km (1200 nm)
Service Ceiling: 13,716 m (45,000 ft)
Climb Rate: 39.000 fpm
Powerplant: 1 × F404-GE-102, 78 kN (17,600 lbf) thrust with afterburner

 

[UkroTurk]

So.. I-22 Sikatan was not a dumb idea at all.

I didn't know about Sikatan, i thought you were swearing to me Sikatan appears to be a real

Minijet fighter Sikatan is exactly what we need

 

[boredaf]

Minijet fighter Sikatan is exactly what we need

Why? We already have a "Sikatan" at home:

 

[dBSPL]

For comparison, the basic characteristics of the aircrafts known in the world in the light attack role and in service, or soon to enter the active inventory (India's MK2). It can be listed in much more detail with a little time, this is just a few datas from the wiki and referenced from verifiable sources. Still, it will give an idea.


FA-50 Block 10 (S.Korea/USA) Specifications
Wingspan: 9.45 m (31 ft 0 in)
Empty weight: 6,454 kg (14,229 lb)
Payload: Total of 7 with 4 underwing 2 wingtip and one under fuselage; holding up to 5,400 kg (12,000 lb) of payload
Ferry range: 2,592 km (1,611 mi, 1,400 nmi) External fuel 3x 150 US gal (120 imp gal; 570 L)
Service ceiling: 16,764 m (55,000 ft)
Rate of climb: 198 m/s (39,000 ft/min)
Thrust/weight: 0.96
Powerplant: 1 × General Electric F404-GE-102 afterburning turbofan engine (built under license by Samsung Techwin[14]), 53.07 kN (11,930 lbf) thrust dry, 78.7 kN (17,700 lbf) with afterburner

JF-17 Block 3 (Pakistan/China) Specifications
Wingspan: 9.44 m (31 ft 0 in)
Empty weight: 7,965 kg (17,560 lb)
Payload: 4,000 kg (8,800 lb) – 4,325 kg (9,535 lb) external stores (2 × wingtip, 4 × under-wing, 1 × under-fuselage, 1 × chin)
Ferry range: 3,482 km (2,163 mi, 1,880 nmi) with drop tanks
Service ceiling: 16,916 m (55,500 ft)
Rate of climb: 300 m/s (59,000 ft/min)
Thrust/weight: 1.07 with RD-93
Powerplant: 1 × Klimov RD-93 DEEC, 49.4 kN (11,100 lbf) thrust [286] dry, 84.4 kN (19,000 lbf) with afterburner

HAL TEJAS MK2 (India) Specifications (Projected)
Wingspan: 8.50 m
Empty weight: 7,850 kg (17,306 lb) (expected)
Payload: 6,500 kg (14,300 lb) external stores
Ferry range: 3,500 km (2,200 mi, 1,900 nmi) with 3 external fuel tanks
Service ceiling: 17,300 m (56,758 ft)
Powerplant: 1 × General Electric F414-INS6 afterburning turbofan with FADEC, 57.8 kN (13,000 lbf) thrust dry, 97.9 kN (22,000 lbf) with afterburner (Indigenous 110kn engine to be used in future)

JAS 39E/F Gripen Specifications
Wingspan: 8.6 m (28 ft 3 in) JAS39 C/D - 8.4 m (27 ft 7 in)
Empty weight: 8,000 kg (17,637 lb) JAS39 C/D - Empty weight: 6,800 kg (14,991 lb)
Payload: 7,200 kg (15,900 lb) JAS39 C/D - Payload: 5,300 kg (11,700 lb)
Ferry range: 4,000 km (2,500 mi, 2,200 nmi) JAS39 C/D - 3,200 km (2,000 mi, 1,700 nmi)
Service ceiling: 16,000 m (52,000 ft) JAS39 C/D - Service ceiling: 15,240 m (50,000 ft)
Rate of climb: 50,000ft/min
Thrust/weight: 1.04 JAS39 C/D - Thrust/weight: 0.97
Powerplant: General Electric F414-GE-39E (RM16), 61.83kN (13,900 lbf) thrust dry, 98 kN (22,000 lbf) with afterburner
JAS39 C/D - Volvo RM12, 54 kN (12,000 lbf) thrust dry, 80.5 kN (18,100 lbf) with afterburner

HURJET Trainer ***[Light Combat Aircraft version to be developed later]
Wingspan: 9.5m (31 ft)
Payload Capacity: 2721 kg (6000 lbs)
Range (without drop tanks): 2222 km (1200 nm)
Service Ceiling: 13,716 m (45,000 ft)
Climb Rate: 39.000 fpm
Powerplant: 1 × F404-GE-102, 78 kN (17,600 lbf) thrust with afterburner

Yesterday, the Hürjet was once again announced from the highest authority that a combat version will be developed and that this development will be a naval variant suitable for an aircraft carrier. In the light of this announcement, if we look again at the planes that were crudely compared above: The T/FA-50 system, which carries the same engine as the Hürjet and has a design philosophy very close to the Hürjet, lags behind the GE-F414 and Klimov RD-93's aircrafts in terms of climb capability and power-to-weight ratio due to engine limitations. As far as I know, Gripen E/F is the only one of these aircraft that can technically be operated as a STOBAR on the aircraft carrier, although it has not been proven yet. If I am not mistaken, the new Tejas will also have this capability in the future.

I assume that the landing gear of the Hürjet will probably be revised and the weight increase will be offset by structural lightening. It is not possible to know whether a single-seat variant of the aircraft is being considered by shrinking the canopy without changing the main fuselage, but in any case, the focus should be on increasing the total power output rather than lightening the aircraft.

 

[Sanchez]

Yesterday, the Hürjet was once again announced from the highest authority that a combat version will be developed and that this development will be a naval variant suitable for an aircraft carrier. In the light of this announcement, if we look again at the planes that were crudely compared above: The T/FA-50 system, which carries the same engine as the Hürjet and has a design philosophy very close to the Hürjet, lags behind the GE-F414 and Klimov RD-93's aircrafts in terms of climb capability and power-to-weight ratio due to engine limitations. As far as I know, Gripen E/F is the only one of these aircraft that can technically be operated as a STOBAR on the aircraft carrier, although it has not been proven yet. If I am not mistaken, the new Tejas will also have this capability in the future.

I assume that the landing gear of the Hürjet will probably be revised and the weight increase will be offset by structural lightening. It is not possible to know whether a single-seat variant of the aircraft is being considered by shrinking the canopy without changing the main fuselage, but in any case, the focus should be on increasing the total power output rather than lightening the aircraft.

If the navy is interested in using the Hürjet as part of an OKU/MUM-T, keeping the second seat could be preferable.

 

[Strong AI]

If the navy is interested in using the Hürjet as part of an OKU/MUM-T, keeping the second seat could be preferable.

IMHO that is the only reason that Hürjet will be navalized, and to train naval pilots of course.
Or else what can a Hürjet with its current performance can give the navy, what a KE or ANKA 3 cannot give?
And if you want to change its engine, you already have to redesign some parts. So why don't put a single KAAN engine in it?

 

[dBSPL]

IMHO that is the only reason that Hürjet will be navalized, and to train naval pilots of course.
Or else what can a Hürjet with its current performance can give the navy, what a KE or ANKA 3 cannot give?
And if you want to change its engine, you already have to redesign some parts. So why don't put a single KAAN engine in it?

I also dwelled on this possibility for a long time, but when we scan back through the statements, from the presidency to the project engineers, the emphasis is constantly on light combatant platform. This means that will be conceptualized within the OKU/MUM-T at least, which we can think of as a node for drone jet wings, as Sanchez üstad said.

 

[Yasar_TR]

Yesterday, the Hürjet was once again announced from the highest authority that a combat version will be developed and that this development will be a naval variant suitable for an aircraft carrier. In the light of this announcement, if we look again at the planes that were crudely compared above: The T/FA-50 system, which carries the same engine as the Hürjet and has a design philosophy very close to the Hürjet, lags behind the GE-F414 and Klimov RD-93's aircrafts in terms of climb capability and power-to-weight ratio due to engine limitations. As far as I know, Gripen E/F is the only one of these aircraft that can technically be operated as a STOBAR on the aircraft carrier, although it has not been proven yet. If I am not mistaken, the new Tejas will also have this capability in the future.

I assume that the landing gear of the Hürjet will probably be revised and the weight increase will be offset by structural lightening. It is not possible to know whether a single-seat variant of the aircraft is being considered by shrinking the canopy without changing the main fuselage, but in any case, the focus should be on increasing the total power output rather than lightening the aircraft.

Tusas has been working on the design of a navalised Hurjet for quite sometime.
If we are to navalise and structurally improve the Hurjet to withstand the harsh environment in which it will be used, then it makes economical sense to use these planes as light attack aircrafts too. Otherwise, spending a lot of money to navalise and redesign for the sake of a couple of dozen planes is not feasible.
But as a light attack and a low observable aircraft, the only one that fits the bill in your above list is Gripen E/F as you yourself has also pointed out. Due to it’s delta wing form, Gripen has inherent low observability. The E/F version uses a very powerful F414 engine and has an Akaer designed airframe who were instrumental in Hürjet’s airframe design too.
If we are to go in to the expense of redesigning and navalisng this jet, we might as well make it so that it has a LO form too by introducing a delta wing.

If you check Hal Tejas, it too has a delta wing. And it can stop with arresting wires within 87 metres and take off from INS Vikramaditya with the help of ski lift. To improve take off weight they are now using f414 and are working on a new design Tejas with twin F414s.

 

[boredaf]

If the plan is to use Hürjet on it we should scrap the whole aircraft carrier altogether because that is nothing but half assing what would be one of our biggest strategic assets. Hürjet has neither the sortie capabilities, nor the stealth of where other countries are going. In light attack configuration it only makes sense to use as a cheap alternative to F-16s and that's it.

Utter foolishness to trust a jet that would barely count as a fighter or bomber to carry the (figurative) weight of being a naval bomber. It can barely carry two Atmacas or Soms, or MK-84s (with guidance/glide kits) what good it is going to in terms of number of sorties?

Hürjet should have no purpose other than a trainer for navy's pilots, anything else is just embarrassing.

 

[Sanchez]

IMHO that is the only reason that Hürjet will be navalized, and to train naval pilots of course.

Training part is interesting, as the possible Hürjet-N will probably be the most powerful naval aircraft they will use anyway. Which brings a operational question. To train naval attack pilots, you also need a Hürjet-N trainer that is different than the LCA squadron. That's at least 20-25 aircraft there.

 

[dBSPL]

Training part is interesting, as the possible Hürjet-N will probably be the most powerful naval aircraft they will use anyway. Which brings a operational question. To train naval attack pilots, you also need a Hürjet-N trainer that is different than the LCA squadron. That's at least 20-25 aircraft there.

I think, first question is, what size of air force and sortie density is being targeted? Perhaps the naval forces may demand more than the number you speculate for training and combatants in total. Although our members who have clearly written about the risks and difficulties of the project are making very good points, if the goal is to create a significant naval air force starting, the preference for a maximum common platform that will benefit from a common logistics pool in the initial formation of this new air force may provide convenience in terms of operation, logistics, documentation and training activities.

Moreover, if this fighter jet is a successful development, I think this aircraft, with both versions as a STOBAR-attack jet and trainer, can attract the interest of small and medium-sized and with with low level of infrastructure facilities in the foreign market. Because one thing I am very sure of is that when this project comes to fruition, we will see really ambitious things on this aircraft in terms of avionics and weapon range. Especially on the machine-human teaming side.

 

[Rajendra Chola]

For comparison, the basic characteristics of the aircrafts known in the world in the light attack role and in service, or soon to enter the active inventory (India's MK2). It can be listed in much more detail with a little time, this is just a few datas from the wiki and referenced from verifiable sources. Still, it will give an idea.


FA-50 Block 10 (S.Korea/USA) Specifications
Wingspan: 9.45 m (31 ft 0 in)
Empty weight: 6,454 kg (14,229 lb)
Payload: Total of 7 with 4 underwing 2 wingtip and one under fuselage; holding up to 5,400 kg (12,000 lb) of payload
Ferry range: 2,592 km (1,611 mi, 1,400 nmi) External fuel 3x 150 US gal (120 imp gal; 570 L)
Service ceiling: 16,764 m (55,000 ft)
Rate of climb: 198 m/s (39,000 ft/min)
Thrust/weight: 0.96
Powerplant: 1 × General Electric F404-GE-102 afterburning turbofan engine (built under license by Samsung Techwin[14]), 53.07 kN (11,930 lbf) thrust dry, 78.7 kN (17,700 lbf) with afterburner

JF-17 Block 3 (Pakistan/China) Specifications
Wingspan: 9.44 m (31 ft 0 in)
Empty weight: 7,965 kg (17,560 lb)
Payload: 4,000 kg (8,800 lb) – 4,325 kg (9,535 lb) external stores (2 × wingtip, 4 × under-wing, 1 × under-fuselage, 1 × chin)
Ferry range: 3,482 km (2,163 mi, 1,880 nmi) with drop tanks
Service ceiling: 16,916 m (55,500 ft)
Rate of climb: 300 m/s (59,000 ft/min)
Thrust/weight: 1.07 with RD-93
Powerplant: 1 × Klimov RD-93 DEEC, 49.4 kN (11,100 lbf) thrust [286] dry, 84.4 kN (19,000 lbf) with afterburner

HAL TEJAS MK2 (India) Specifications (Projected)
Wingspan: 8.50 m
Empty weight: 7,850 kg (17,306 lb) (expected)
Payload: 6,500 kg (14,300 lb) external stores
Ferry range: 3,500 km (2,200 mi, 1,900 nmi) with 3 external fuel tanks
Service ceiling: 17,300 m (56,758 ft)
Powerplant: 1 × General Electric F414-INS6 afterburning turbofan with FADEC, 57.8 kN (13,000 lbf) thrust dry, 97.9 kN (22,000 lbf) with afterburner (Indigenous 110kn engine to be used in future)

JAS 39E/F Gripen Specifications
Wingspan: 8.6 m (28 ft 3 in) JAS39 C/D - 8.4 m (27 ft 7 in)
Empty weight: 8,000 kg (17,637 lb) JAS39 C/D - Empty weight: 6,800 kg (14,991 lb)
Payload: 7,200 kg (15,900 lb) JAS39 C/D - Payload: 5,300 kg (11,700 lb)
Ferry range: 4,000 km (2,500 mi, 2,200 nmi) JAS39 C/D - 3,200 km (2,000 mi, 1,700 nmi)
Service ceiling: 16,000 m (52,000 ft) JAS39 C/D - Service ceiling: 15,240 m (50,000 ft)
Rate of climb: 50,000ft/min
Thrust/weight: 1.04 JAS39 C/D - Thrust/weight: 0.97
Powerplant: General Electric F414-GE-39E (RM16), 61.83kN (13,900 lbf) thrust dry, 98 kN (22,000 lbf) with afterburner
JAS39 C/D - Volvo RM12, 54 kN (12,000 lbf) thrust dry, 80.5 kN (18,100 lbf) with afterburner

HURJET Trainer ***[Light Combat Aircraft version to be developed later]
Wingspan: 9.5m (31 ft)
Payload Capacity: 2721 kg (6000 lbs)
Range (without drop tanks): 2222 km (1200 nm)
Service Ceiling: 13,716 m (45,000 ft)
Climb Rate: 39.000 fpm
Powerplant: 1 × F404-GE-102, 78 kN (17,600 lbf) thrust with afterburner

The right comparison should be Tejas Mk1A and not Mk2. Mk2 is a paper plane while 40 Mk1 is inducted & 180mk1A is on order.

Wingspan : 8.2m
Empty weight : 6560kg
Payload: 4500kg
Max speed: 1.8M
Ferry Range: 3000km
Ceiling: 15240m.
The empty weight is expected to decrease in Mk1A with matching increase in Payload due to removal of 400kg of ballast in the aircraft.

 

[dBSPL]

The right comparison should be Tejas Mk1A and not Mk2. Mk2 is a paper plane while 40 Mk1 is inducted & 180mk1A is on order.

Wingspan : 8.2m
Empty weight : 6560kg
Payload: 4500kg
Max speed: 1.8M
Ferry Range: 3000km
Ceiling: 15240m.
The empty weight is expected to decrease in Mk1A with matching increase in Payload due to removal of 400kg of ballast in the aircraft.

Of course, we are not as familiar with Indian aviation programs as you are, I had only concluded from open sources that the development phase of the mk2 was quite advanced, thank you for the additional information. As you can appreciate, the Hürjet is not ready either, my ideas are more about understanding what kind of systems will be in its class when the Hürjet is ready.

 

[Rajendra Chola]

Of course, we are not as familiar with Indian aviation programs as you are, I had only concluded from open sources that the development phase of the mk2 was quite advanced, thank you for the additional information. As you can appreciate, the Hürjet is not ready either, my ideas are more about understanding what kind of systems will be in its class when the Hürjet is ready.

Tejas Mk2 is expected to see roll out end of next year. It’s under fabrication now.

Every program proceeds at its own pace. Payload increases are done over a period of time after sufficient testing & certifications. I remember during testing the Tejas had only 3500kg payload & limited G ceiling. After repeated testing, improvements in FCS, it is now 4500kg and G ceiling +9/-3.5.
It has also carried 5000kg payload, but will be released for operation after certification.

Hurjet will proceed on its own pace depending upon its requirements from TuAF. As one can see from the specs, it has designed purely as a trainer, to convert it into a full fledged light fighter, it would require significant modification. If that is what the TuAF wants, then it will go through the modification is my guess.

 

[Trakya_forever]

Do we need a light fighter? This is the question. I think we dont. There is no need to make Hurjet Combat version. But we can integrate our some air to surface missiles to use as a carrier platform when needed especially for saturation assaults. Som A-B variants, Tolun and KGK 82-83, TRG 230 maybe 300 etc.

 

[Saithan]

Guys it's not about whether we need a light combat aircraft or not. It's about being able to build the goddamn thing! and many of them.

Yes we need Hürjet trainer version and when we have built 90-110 of them, the next question will / should be solved already....

Can we turn it into Light combat jet, the answer should be yes, and with little work as possible, TAF should have a minimum requirement for light armed jet, and that's what we should deliver to them (2-4-6 A2A missiles and mission comp to control KE etc), not change the fucking thing nonstop, halfway, through, every, fucking, comma!

 

[UkroTurk]

Manned unmanned aircraft

Aaron Maurer on Instagram: "First Flight! Congratulations Scaled Composites and Northrop Grumman on the first flight of the Model 437 Vanguard! Check out their socials for all the details on this brand new aircraft. Exciting to see aerospace techn

1,289 likes, 10 comments - maurer8photography on August 29, 2024: "First Flight! Congratulations Scaled Composites and Northrop Grumman on the first flight of the Model 437 Vanguard! Check out their socials for all the details on this brand new aircraft. Exciting to see aerospace technology...

www.instagram.com

 

[somegoodusername]

Manned unmanned aircraft
View attachment 70341

Aaron Maurer on Instagram: "First Flight! Congratulations Scaled Composites and Northrop Grumman on the first flight of the Model 437 Vanguard! Check out their socials for all the details on this brand new aircraft. Exciting to see aerospace techn

1,289 likes, 10 comments - maurer8photography on August 29, 2024: "First Flight! Congratulations Scaled Composites and Northrop Grumman on the first flight of the Model 437 Vanguard! Check out their socials for all the details on this brand new aircraft. Exciting to see aerospace technology...

www.instagram.com

Adding a pilot seat for purpose of conducting tests for the unmanned aircraft is not something new.