TR HÜRJET-Advanced Jet Trainer/ Light attack aircraft

[Anmdt]

Had we developed a naval trainer version too, even US may have shown an interest.
But for Hurjet proper as it is we have been comparatively slow in developing it. Albeit not being an urgent case like Kaan and being totally financed by Tusas resources, it was a slow growing project. But to date we still have only 2 working prototypes of this jet. Yet in two years we are due to start deliveries to Spain and our airforce. All the responsibility of necessary tests are on the shoulders of these two planes.
I know that Tusas is really pushing forward with the Kaan project. Hence much of its resources have been allocated to Kaan, and Hurjet may suffer because of it. Let us hope, that does not have an impact on the timeline of Hurjet production.

Many may see that a naval Hurjet is the poor man’s carrier fighter jet. But future air warfare is evolving in to one where UCAVs will become the dominant implements of an air fighter force. Manned aircrafts will be the back seater drivers. Since our carrier will have KE and Anka-3 stealth drones as it’s main attack force too, it is only feasible to assume that we will use these UCAVs with manned Naval Hurjets. So we won’t need a big naval jet fighter like that is the norm now. But a capable two seater Naval Hurjet.
The quicker we develop a Naval Hurjet the more chance we will have for it to be sought after by many Naval forces including ours.

A naval Hurjet will be so well built that it could be used to take off from and land on to secluded highways.

As far as i could see from earlier declarations, the Naval Hürjet won't be the Hürjet at all. It is either a loophole to use the same engines without restriction for the development phase, or TAI is not willing to share the details on the design, yet. All i can deduce is the Naval Hürjet will be a dedicated airplane similar to F-18, but equipped with 5th gen equipment from KAAN.

 

[Strong AI]

As far as i could see from earlier declarations, the Naval Hürjet won't be the Hürjet at all. It is either a loophole to use the same engines without restriction for the development phase, or TAI is not willing to share the details on the design, yet. All i can deduce is the Naval Hürjet will be a dedicated airplane similar to F-18, but equipped with 5th gen equipment from KAAN.

Then why not just make a smaller version of KAAN with a single TF35k engine?

 

[IC3M@N FX]

Its a trainer.

Bro,,what is it with you and Ukrainian/Russian engines?

Why? An TF-10000 can replace the AI322F on a one-to-one basis – do we currently have an F-404-class engine? No … will we have an F-404/414-class engine within the next 8–10 years? No … the focus for the time being is on the TF-6000/10,000 and the TF-35,000.
The Hürjet, as a trainer and light combat aircraft, is dependent on US goodwill both domestically and for export; whilst the US is by no means as restrictive or biased as it was regarding the export of the F-110 engine, if the political situation continues to escalate due to the Mecca Alliance (Israel/Greece, the Mediterranean and the Levant) and there are even more differences with the US, Israel and, to some extent, Europe, attempts will be made to further isolate, block and sanction Turkey, thereby further restricting access to bridging technology. Of course, this is shooting themselves in the foot when it comes to supplying European defence against Russia, but since when have the US and Europe ever thought rationally? They are being steered by lobby groups at the expense of their own foreign policy.

 

[IC3M@N FX]

Had we developed a naval trainer version too, even US may have shown an interest.
But for Hurjet proper as it is we have been comparatively slow in developing it. Albeit not being an urgent case like Kaan and being totally financed by Tusas resources, it was a slow growing project. But to date we still have only 2 working prototypes of this jet. Yet in two years we are due to start deliveries to Spain and our airforce. All the responsibility of necessary tests are on the shoulders of these two planes.
I know that Tusas is really pushing forward with the Kaan project. Hence much of its resources have been allocated to Kaan, and Hurjet may suffer because of it. Let us hope, that does not have an impact on the timeline of Hurjet production.

Many may see that a naval Hurjet is the poor man’s carrier fighter jet. But future air warfare is evolving in to one where UCAVs will become the dominant implements of an air fighter force. Manned aircrafts will be the back seater drivers. Since our carrier will have KE and Anka-3 stealth drones as it’s main attack force too, it is only feasible to assume that we will use these UCAVs with manned Naval Hurjets. So we won’t need a big naval jet fighter like that is the norm now. But a capable two seater Naval Hurjet.
The quicker we develop a Naval Hurjet the more chance we will have for it to be sought after by many Naval forces including ours.

A naval Hurjet will be so well built that it could be used to take off from and land on to secluded highways.

That may all be true, but the aircraft simply needs more Power/Thrust – 17,700 lbf is just not enough. For LCA & Naval platform, the range and the kinematics, you need at least 20,000 lbf, or better still 22,000 lbf.
How do you intend to control the Airspace in open Sea, apart from Ship Air Defense capabilities? Yes, you’ve got the Anka 3 and the Kizilelma – but at the moment, the latter flies more like a brick in the air, as if it had a thrust-to-weight ratio of 0.40–0.50+ we don't see even a high speed manovers so far. Even in BVR Air Combat, where kinematics and speed play a secondary role, you’ll be torn to pieces by the Rafale M, the F-18 Super Hornet and Russian Naval Aircraft. I don’t even need to mention the F-35 and the F-15 Super Eagle II.

Whilst the Hürjet is certainly suitable as a naval platform, the aircraft simply needs more thrust, range and speed – Mach 1.6 is simply the minimum required to be able to carry a slightly heavier payload.

 

[Zafer]

The TF35000 engine has supercruise capability as well as afterburner capability. If you take away the afterburner capability you will probably have a lighter engine with around 22000 lbf dry thrust. This engine can probably power an F18 weight class plane that can top 1.6 mach sustained speed without breaking sweat. If this turns out to be possible the paradigm changes overnight. I will leave alone the claims of the 35k lbf thrust being the dry thrust.

 

[IC3M@N FX]

The TF35000 engine has supercruise capability as well as afterburner capability. If you take away the afterburner capability you will probably have a lighter engine with around 22000 lbf dry thrust. This engine can probably power an F18 weight class plane that can top 1.6 mach sustained speed without breaking sweat. If this turn out to be possible the paradigm changes overnight. I will leave alone the claims of the 35k lbf thrust being the dry thrust.

Diameter, weight and length – the F-110/TF-35000 is simply in a league of its own, even without afterburner. You can’t just swap out engines like that; you’d have to completely redesign the airframe. The result would inevitably be a new aircraft.
The standard F-404 engine, as a single-jet unit, is actually completely unsuitable for anything beyond a trainer aircraft; most light fighter aircraft are fitted with a more powerful variant of the F-404 producing 19,000–20,000 lbf, or directly with an F-414 engine.

 

[Zafer]

Diameter, weight and length – the F-110/TF-35000 is simply in a league of its own, even without afterburner. You can’t just swap out engines like that; you’d have to completely redesign the airframe. The result would inevitably be a new aircraft.
The standard F-404 engine, as a single-jet unit, is actually completely unsuitable for anything beyond a trainer aircraft; most light fighter aircraft are fitted with a more powerful variant of the F-404 producing 19,000–20,000 lbf, or directly with an F-414 engine.

You can redesign the aircraft, TAI have designed many airframes and they can surely design another one for the AC easier than ever.

 

[IC3M@N FX]

You can redesign the aircraft, TAI designed many airframes and they can surely design another one for the AC easier than ever.

That costs money and we have not the capacity – we’re not the US, Russia or China, which can manufacture and maintain 4–5 different types of manned aircraft on a long-term basis. For us, 2–3 aircraft is really as far as we can go.

TAI KAAN
TAI Hürjet
TAI Hürküs

That actually puts us in a very good position, above average; Most countries cannot even afford to develop and manufacture an aircraft model themselves – and these are industrialised countries, some of which are richer than we are.

I just wish the Hürjet had a slightly more powerful engine.

 

[Spitfire9]

If Hürjet had made the same tests with Unmanned vehicles like Leonardo, we'd stand much better at succeeding in getting the British to buy it. Not to mention if we had a EJ200 version as well.

Something tells me that Leonardo might have known about the UK trainer jet prior and took steps to up the M-346 attractiveness and potential.

I read a few posts in the last year or two on a British forum around the aircraft to replace Hawk for the RAF. It seems that there is an interest in all 3 GCAP partners using the same trainer, the M-346 being the suggested option.

 

[Zafer]

That costs money and we have not the capacity – we’re not the US, Russia or China, which can manufacture and maintain 4–5 different types of manned aircraft on a long-term basis. For us, 2–3 aircraft is really as far as we can go.

TAI KAAN
TAI Hürjet
TAI Hürküs

That actually puts us in a very good position, above average; Most countries cannot even afford to develop and manufacture an aircraft model themselves – and these are industrialised countries, some of which are richer than we are.

I just wish the Hürjet had a slightly more powerful engine.

Don't put a cap on what we can afford, we only have 25% debt to GDP ratio while other nations have 125%. Once you already have an engine you can build your first prototype plane around it in just 18 months, after all the experience you have building planes. Mind you, we have the broader vision where we can onboard other nations in our projects.

 

[NEKO]

As far as i could see from earlier declarations, the Naval Hürjet won't be the Hürjet at all.

Then why not just make a smaller version of KAAN with a single TF35k engine?

How about twin engine hurjet.
Using F404/414/Turkish engine.

Btw is there requirements for hurjt naval: stealth characteristic, iwb, max dimension and weight, single/double engine etc.

 

[Saithan]

How about twin engine hurjet.
Using F404/414/Turkish engine.

Btw is there requirements for hurjt naval: stealth characteristic, iwb, max dimension and weight, single/double engine etc.

That is probably wishful thinking. Hürjet is a trainer jet and can at most be LCA, anything beyond that i.e. what you write would require a new design.

 

[Yasar_TR]

How about twin engine hurjet.
Using F404/414/Turkish engine.

Btw is there requirements for hurjt naval: stealth characteristic, iwb, max dimension and weight, single/double engine etc.

Bro, These are all questions we would all like to know the answers to as well.

1. Turkiye has started building an Aircraft carrier. So it needs a manned jet fighter. A naval Hurjet, we are hearing from officials, is the solution they have come up with.

2. A naval Hurjet will need more power, better lift characteristics (may be a delta wing which would improve it’s RCS) and totally new/updated airframe.

3. Ideally, any modern and new fighter jet operating from a Carrier should have good stealth, with it IWBs. To turn Hurjet’s in to such a plane is going to be too much. But it can be made Low Observable and control KE and Anka3 UCAVs.

4. As mentioned by @Saithan Hurjet was designed as a trainer. To turn it in to a carrier based jet fighter will need extensive work. But it can be done.

5. Engine wise we don’t currently have an indigenous engine for it. Foreign engines come with strings attached. The only engine available is the TF10000 in twin format. By the time the plane is ready that engine can easily be developing 8000lbf dry and 12000lbf wet thrust giving a total of 16000lbf dry and 24000lbf wet thrust. So as well as powering KE and Anka3, it can be used to power Hurjet naval and light combat jets too.

But these are however all educated conjectures at the moment.

 

[UkroTurk]

Then why not just make a smaller version of KAAN with a single TF35k engine?

You mean manned Kızılelma?

Kızılelma dimensions ideal for light stealth fighter. Compare Gripen with Kızılelma. Empty weight must be as same as gripen

 

[BalkanTurk90]

You mean manned Kızılelma?
View attachment 82249

View attachment 82247
View attachment 82248


Kızılelma dimensions ideal for light stealth fighter. Compare Gripen with Kızılelma. Empty weight must be as same as gripen

hürjet engine is not 3800 lbf bro ! where u find that !

 

[Şok Tedavisi]

Bro, These are all questions we would all like to know the answers to as well.

1. Turkiye has started building an Aircraft carrier. So it needs a manned jet fighter. A naval Hurjet, we are hearing from officials, is the solution they have come up with.

2. A naval Hurjet will need more power, better lift characteristics (may be a delta wing which would improve it’s RCS) and totally new/updated airframe.

3. Ideally, any modern and new fighter jet operating from a Carrier should have good stealth, with it IWBs. To turn Hurjet’s in to such a plane is going to be too much. But it can be made Low Observable and control KE and Anka3 UCAVs.

4. As mentioned by @Saithan Hurjet was designed as a trainer. To turn it in to a carrier based jet fighter will need extensive work. But it can be done.

5. Engine wise we don’t currently have an indigenous engine for it. Foreign engines come with strings attached. The only engine available is the TF10000 in twin format. By the time the plane is ready that engine can easily be developing 8000lbf dry and 12000lbf wet thrust giving a total of 16000lbf dry and 24000lbf wet thrust. So as well as powering KE and Anka3, it can be used to power Hurjet naval and light combat jets too.

But these are however all educated conjectures at the moment.

So a new design has to be worked on naval Hürjet?

 

[Fuzuli NL]

Bro, These are all questions we would all like to know the answers to as well.

1. Turkiye has started building an Aircraft carrier. So it needs a manned jet fighter. A naval Hurjet, we are hearing from officials, is the solution they have come up with.

2. A naval Hurjet will need more power, better lift characteristics (may be a delta wing which would improve it’s RCS) and totally new/updated airframe.

3. Ideally, any modern and new fighter jet operating from a Carrier should have good stealth, with it IWBs. To turn Hurjet’s in to such a plane is going to be too much. But it can be made Low Observable and control KE and Anka3 UCAVs.

4. As mentioned by @Saithan Hurjet was designed as a trainer. To turn it in to a carrier based jet fighter will need extensive work. But it can be done.

5. Engine wise we don’t currently have an indigenous engine for it. Foreign engines come with strings attached. The only engine available is the TF10000 in twin format. By the time the plane is ready that engine can easily be developing 8000lbf dry and 12000lbf wet thrust giving a total of 16000lbf dry and 24000lbf wet thrust. So as well as powering KE and Anka3, it can be used to power Hurjet naval and light combat jets too.

But these are however all educated conjectures at the moment.

I think it would be "easier" to design a naval light jet from scratch than tweaking the Hurjet.
It can be based on it, meaning it could use some of its components but it has to start with rhe mindset of it being a naval attack/multirole jet.

 

[dBSPL]

I think it would be "easier" to design a naval light jet from scratch than tweaking the Hurjet.
It can be based on it, meaning it could use some of its components but it has to start with rhe mindset of it being a naval attack/multirole jet.

I agree. However, I believe this can be done without excluding the hundreds of thousands of hours of engineering invested in the Hürjet. While we don't have a definite timeline for the TF-10000 turbofan engine, a twin-engine Hürjet derive and a dual-role fighter (a ground-based light fighter with both naval and STOL capabilities, conforming to the dispersed basing doctrine) could both fill blind spots in combatant (both manned and Mum-T) aviation and become a very significant export product. I wrote an article trying to comprehensively address the issue, including its pros and cons, risks, and potential gains. In fact, with contributions from Yaşar Üstad, this is probably the most comprehensive content ever written on this subject within Turkish defense industry circles. https://defencehub.live/threads/twin-engine-hÜrjet-could-a-tf6000-derived-naval-variant-fill-mugems-fighter-gap.22495/post-392143

 

[Bogeyman]

Bro, These are all questions we would all like to know the answers to as well.

1. Turkiye has started building an Aircraft carrier. So it needs a manned jet fighter. A naval Hurjet, we are hearing from officials, is the solution they have come up with.

2. A naval Hurjet will need more power, better lift characteristics (may be a delta wing which would improve it’s RCS) and totally new/updated airframe.

3. Ideally, any modern and new fighter jet operating from a Carrier should have good stealth, with it IWBs. To turn Hurjet’s in to such a plane is going to be too much. But it can be made Low Observable and control KE and Anka3 UCAVs.

4. As mentioned by @Saithan Hurjet was designed as a trainer. To turn it in to a carrier based jet fighter will need extensive work. But it can be done.

5. Engine wise we don’t currently have an indigenous engine for it. Foreign engines come with strings attached. The only engine available is the TF10000 in twin format. By the time the plane is ready that engine can easily be developing 8000lbf dry and 12000lbf wet thrust giving a total of 16000lbf dry and 24000lbf wet thrust. So as well as powering KE and Anka3, it can be used to power Hurjet naval and light combat jets too.

But these are however all educated conjectures at the moment.

There are two obstacles ahead for a naval-class jet aircraft:
1- Catapult
2- National engine

In the case of the engine you mentioned, there is a clear deficiency.
A navalized, corrosion-resistant, and sea salt-resistant design.
This requires a metallurgical-level redesign of the engine.
You cannot reduce the power of a TF-10000 or TF-35000 with a few modifications and navalize it.
All these design differences prolong the design process.

Without a catapult, you cannot use a navalized Hürjet at maximum power with a STOBAR aircraft carrier. Because the aircraft cannot take off with maximum load to accelerate during takeoff.

Naval-grade turbofan engines operating on aircraft carriers (especially CATOBAR and STOBAR systems) undergo specialized engineering modifications to survive three brutal factors: extreme salt-water corrosion, massive structural shock during landings, and aerodynamic instability during catapult launches. [1]
Unlike land-based airframe engines, these powerplants prioritize structural survival and rapid thermal-aerodynamic recovery over pure weight reduction.

---

1. Metallurgical & Anti-Corrosion Modifications
The marine environment triggers rapid hot corrosion (sulfidation) and galvanic corrosion due to high salt concentrations and humidity.

• Advanced Superalloys: Multi-crystal and single-crystal nickel-based superalloys (like René N5 or CMSX-4) are heavily utilized in the high-pressure turbine stages to resist the chemical attack of sodium chloride mixed with sulfur in fuel.
• Thermal Barrier & Chemical Coatings platinum-Aluminide or Yttria-Stabilized Zirconia (YSZ). These coatings form an impermeable ceramic barrier against vaporized sea salt.
• Sacrificial Anodes & Seals: Internal galvanic isolation zones and specialized synthetic rubber/carbon seals are added around bearing compartments to prevent saltwater intrusion when the aircraft is parked on a humid, windy flight deck.

2. Structural Reinforcement for Extreme G-Shock
A carrier landing (arrested recovery) is essentially a controlled crash. The aircraft decelerates from ~240 km/h to zero in about two seconds, subjecting the engine to severe axial and vertical shock profiles up to 4.5G to 5G. [1]

• Ruggedized Engine Mounts: The structural lugs and thrust mounts connecting the engine casing to the aircraft fuselage are heavily reinforced with thickened titanium or high-strength steel forgings to prevent the engine from tearing forward during deceleration.
• Shaft & Bearing Deflection Resistance: Standard jet engines experience "case deflection" under high G-loads, causing the spinning rotor blades to rub against the outer casing. Naval engines use shortened, thicker main shafts, heavy-duty duplex ball/roller bearings, and stiffer engine casings to prevent catastrophic blade-to-case rubs.
• Abradable Liners: The internal casing walls utilize thicker, soft abradable coatings. If G-forces cause a minor rotor deflection, the blade tips safely carve a groove into the coating without fracturing. [1]

3. Aerodynamic Stability Modifications for Catapult Launches
During a CATOBAR launch, the aircraft accelerates from zero to flying speed in under 3 seconds. The massive g-force combined with turbulent crosswinds whipping across the carrier deck drastically distorts the airflow entering the engine intake.

• Expanded Stall/Surge Margins: To prevent the engine from suffocating and stalling (compressor stall) at the exact moment of launch, the compressor blades feature modified aerodynamic geometries. This design sacrifices a small percentage of peak efficiency to secure a wider operational buffer.
• Naval FADEC Logic: The Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) software contains dedicated carrier-launch algorithms. When the system detects a catapult sequence, it alters variable stator vane (VSV) angles and adjusts fuel schedules instantly to prevent pressure spikes from choking the engine.

---

 

[Şok Tedavisi]

There are two obstacles ahead for a naval-class jet aircraft:
1- Catapult
2- National engine

In the case of the engine you mentioned, there is a clear deficiency.
A navalized, corrosion-resistant, and sea salt-resistant design.
This requires a metallurgical-level redesign of the engine.
You cannot reduce the power of a TF-10000 or TF-35000 with a few modifications and navalize it.
All these design differences prolong the design process.

Without a catapult, you cannot use a navalized Hürjet at maximum power with a STOBAR aircraft carrier. Because the aircraft cannot take off with maximum load to accelerate during takeoff.

Naval-grade turbofan engines operating on aircraft carriers (especially CATOBAR and STOBAR systems) undergo specialized engineering modifications to survive three brutal factors: extreme salt-water corrosion, massive structural shock during landings, and aerodynamic instability during catapult launches. [1]
Unlike land-based airframe engines, these powerplants prioritize structural survival and rapid thermal-aerodynamic recovery over pure weight reduction.

---

1. Metallurgical & Anti-Corrosion Modifications
The marine environment triggers rapid hot corrosion (sulfidation) and galvanic corrosion due to high salt concentrations and humidity.

• Advanced Superalloys: Multi-crystal and single-crystal nickel-based superalloys (like René N5 or CMSX-4) are heavily utilized in the high-pressure turbine stages to resist the chemical attack of sodium chloride mixed with sulfur in fuel.
• Thermal Barrier & Chemical Coatings platinum-Aluminide or Yttria-Stabilized Zirconia (YSZ). These coatings form an impermeable ceramic barrier against vaporized sea salt.
• Sacrificial Anodes & Seals: Internal galvanic isolation zones and specialized synthetic rubber/carbon seals are added around bearing compartments to prevent saltwater intrusion when the aircraft is parked on a humid, windy flight deck.

2. Structural Reinforcement for Extreme G-Shock
A carrier landing (arrested recovery) is essentially a controlled crash. The aircraft decelerates from ~240 km/h to zero in about two seconds, subjecting the engine to severe axial and vertical shock profiles up to 4.5G to 5G. [1]

• Ruggedized Engine Mounts: The structural lugs and thrust mounts connecting the engine casing to the aircraft fuselage are heavily reinforced with thickened titanium or high-strength steel forgings to prevent the engine from tearing forward during deceleration.
• Shaft & Bearing Deflection Resistance: Standard jet engines experience "case deflection" under high G-loads, causing the spinning rotor blades to rub against the outer casing. Naval engines use shortened, thicker main shafts, heavy-duty duplex ball/roller bearings, and stiffer engine casings to prevent catastrophic blade-to-case rubs.
• Abradable Liners: The internal casing walls utilize thicker, soft abradable coatings. If G-forces cause a minor rotor deflection, the blade tips safely carve a groove into the coating without fracturing. [1]

3. Aerodynamic Stability Modifications for Catapult Launches
During a CATOBAR launch, the aircraft accelerates from zero to flying speed in under 3 seconds. The massive g-force combined with turbulent crosswinds whipping across the carrier deck drastically distorts the airflow entering the engine intake.

• Expanded Stall/Surge Margins: To prevent the engine from suffocating and stalling (compressor stall) at the exact moment of launch, the compressor blades feature modified aerodynamic geometries. This design sacrifices a small percentage of peak efficiency to secure a wider operational buffer.
• Naval FADEC Logic: The Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) software contains dedicated carrier-launch algorithms. When the system detects a catapult sequence, it alters variable stator vane (VSV) angles and adjusts fuel schedules instantly to prevent pressure spikes from choking the engine.

View attachment 82254

---

These are the details that people were forgeting about the key term here just like boogeyman said is "Navalized.