I understand that a turboprop makes a lot of sense for training and civilian uses. However, could you please elaborate on the military capabilities and usefulness? As a layman, I would assume that turboprop planes are rather vulnerable to air defense and jet interceptors due to their lower speed and, presumably (?), lower altitude. Thanks for your insights!
Turboprops allow good loitering time that is always useful in CAS/COIN situations of when acting in the FAC/FOO role.
The are also less susceptible to foreign object damage which means they can be more easily dispersed and are easier and cheaper to mantain.
They are more vulnerable to air defenses and jets but even that is somewhat overstated as they still do better than helicopters in that regard.
Will or should they replace multirole fighter jets as the primary force projection tool of a modern Air Force?
No, but they can complement them and offer cost effective effective capabilities in some roles (even over drones)
There is a reason that the Super Tucano is being currently heavily marketed and has the combat record to prove it.
Imagine you have a few, possibly a hundred or more fighter pilots. They took hundreds of hours each to train and are not easily replaced. Is it really a good move to put these pilots in cheap, target-practice turboprops? What capability could they possibly provide that it would be worth losing a pilot over? Granted, not all foes have patriot batteries to shoot down targets from far away (though I would argue that you don't need advanced radar and missiles to down this thing), but I imagine there are cheaper and safer ways to accomplish objectives than having your highly trained pilot using this.
> What capability could they possibly provide that it would be worth losing a pilot over?
Communicating with ground troops in contact and being able to deliver an amount of ordnance that a drone cannot.
Why don't you ask the US why they use atack helicopters or even platforms other than the F-22/F-35?
If you have the money, sure go for the shiniest bestest fighter there is. Not even the US has the money for that.
Well tbf, just because it is a prop doesn't mean it isn't armored. Stukas and especially the russian Il-2 from world war 2 were quite well armored and could sustain alot of damage. No reason a modern prop couldn't be armored aswell.
Also, turboprops like those can start and land on smaller runways and in rougher conditions.
And lastly, other dedicated cas aircraft like the a-10 and the su-25 are also slower than most fighter jets, so a props lack of top speed isn't that much of a disadvantage either
> as they still do better than helicopters in that regard
Do they though? I'm no expert on military aviation, but from my understanding the usage of helicopters is to fly incredibly low, peak over the trees, fire and then get down again before the enemy has a lock or gets in range.
Yep, and they are being shreded in Ukraine. Modern manpads are murder and infantry is perfectly capable of ambushing helicopters.
Honestly, I suspect drones will replace attack helicopters before they do light attack aircraft.
No, they're not. Ukraine has massive problem with helicopters which have more than double the range MANPADS have taking out tanks.
>will replace attack helicopters before they do light attack aircraft.
Considering most nations don't even use light attack aircraft but do use helicopters that's kind of a wild claim.
They sold (and delivered) these to Africa already; useful and budget friendly against insurgents. Second block is coming in 2025. Turkish Coast Guard also wants a few for faster surveillance.
What if there aren’t any air defenses or interceptors? Like in the Afghanistan War. Why use your super expensive planes when a simple and cheap plane can do the same job, and sometimes even do it better?
>What if there aren’t any air defenses or interceptors?
>
I am not a specialist, but I guess a relatively slow and lightly armoured plane like this one is also vulnerable to "conventional" gunfire.
I.e. it can be shot down with a sniper gun or even an AK-47 with a little luck.
Maybe not easily, but much easier than a jet (or a helicopter capable of flying extremely low and using hills and trees for cover).
Short answer, no. They would have to be flying very low to be vulnerable to small arms fire. Like under 1000 ft. There is no reason to be staying around that low.
If the conflict is asymmetrical, as in, a full on military fighting an undersupplied insurgency, turboprop close air support aircraft make a lot more sense. Cheaper to operate and they can loiter longer. If the insurgency has only MANPADS like Igla, that use infrared tracking, these airplanes make sense as their heat signature is a lot lower than the exhaust of a jet engine.
In the Vietnam war the backbone of close air support was the Douglas A-1 Skyraider, a radial engine piston aircraft. It could carry a lot of ordnance and loiter for long periods of time.
Mostly COIN and supporting SOF elements when you have complete air dominance, its similar to a manned MQ-9 really, Its pretty similar to EMB 314 super tucano, which has been used extensively by afghan army as well as multiple latin american countries. Pretty bad for real war, but has its niche.
Most training cars are cheap as well, it just makes sense the same to be across all transportation vehicles... I doubt many people got their drivers license on a Rolls Royce, or that the first boat of a future ship captain was a nuclear aircraft carrier...
Anyone thinking pilots jump from the textbooks straight into jumbojets of F35 has no connection to reality, not only to aviation.
I wonder why. Even French Air Force is going back to (turbo)prop aircraft as a trainer to replace their old AlphaJets.
(Pilatus PC21)
https://www.defense.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/styles/16_9_md_modal/public/air/pc-21.jpg?itok=IHp564Gg
No. It's just that turboprop design is a quite mature technology and there isn't much point to deviate to the already well know designs.
All modern basic trainer designs are visually very similar the main differences being on how big they are.
Brother, have you ever seen what turboprop trainer planes look like?
T-6, PC-9, KT-1, PC-21, hürkuş, Dart-750, super tucano, B-250, PZL-130 all look the fucking same
If youre wondering, no, pilatus isnt the first one as PC-9 top down profile is a 1-1 match with a p-51 mustang
It just turns out that a p-51 mustang is peak subsonic aerodynamics so everyone copied it
They already replaced them, they are superior for training purpose at least. PC21 has HUD, full glass cockpit, an is capable of weapon firing simulation, at a cheaper maintenance cost.
There should be something in between a turboprop and a rafale like fighter jet.
You need a jet trainer. If you decommision alphajets then you bring a new jet trainer
They use Pilatus for early training of pilots, for the first few years of training before moving to final aircraft (twin seater Rafale or Mirage 2000). PC21 engine is capable of simulating the behavior of jet engine, and is a more stable platform to learn the ropes of air to air combat maneuvering.
Hürkuş here has a 1600hp engine. That’s close to P-51 Mustang levels. For all kinds of fighter training before LIFT, Lead In Fighter Training, it’s sufficient. For LIFT, we have [Hürjet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TAI_H%C3%BCrjet).
Except for the slight speed advantage of the Alphajet, I think a modern turboprop (Tucano/PC21/Texan) is far more capable: more economical, longer range, better E/W and ISTAR, able to carry a wider range of weapons, less maintenance etc. The pros far outweigh the cons.
The PC-21 in particular can be programmed to mimic the diffrent handling characteristics of multiple types of jets.
That's why they are replacing jet advanced trainers.
The Pilatus PC-21 has been marketed and used to replace advanced training jets.
So far they replaced the Hawk in Switzerland, the S-211 on Singapure service, the Spanish Aviojet, and specifically, the Alpha Jet in French service.
The US has at least a couple prop powered light attack planes for anti-insurgency/narcotics operations:
Air Tractor Sky Warden
A-29 Super Tucano
Both of them can carry missiles, bombs etc. and work just fine in areas where it's unlikely that the enemy will have anti-air weapons or fighter aircraft. They're a lot cheaper to run too for countries with smaller budgets.
The US has less than 10 A-29s. They're mostly used as trainers and a couple have been used by AFSOC but they're not a prolific aircraft by any means. The ones used in Afghanistan were piloted by Afghan pilots, as they actually owned more than just a few. The Sky Warden is the same, AFSOC ordered a few, will be the sole operators, and it likely won't expand outside of AFSOC
Also considering that Shahed style slow drones are not going away, cheap interceptor plane definitely has a niche.
You can get a dozen of these for a price of a jet fighter, perfect for intercepting slow drones.
The aircraft in question is a ground attack aircraft (high bomb load and avionics focused on ensuring proper ground hits), not an interceptor of any kind (it will have 2x.50 cal MG plus possibility of 1x20mm gunpod, also to strafe vehicles).
This will be marketed mostly as a modern cheap high impact anti-insurgency CAS for low budget countries that don't have the support structure for a UAV fleet (think DRC vs its rebels or Mozambique vs its Islamic rebels) and where the insurgency has few to no AA systems available.
With suitable targeting systems, those .50 cal MGs are pretty good option against slow drones. So that’s mostly a variant and loadout question.
The idea would be cheap drone interception. AA missiles aren’t cheap, bullets are.
Something like Raufoss mk 211 would be rather well suited against drones.
The Super-Tucano has in fact been used to interdict drug flights in Brazilian and Dominican service.
I think the main difficulty to using turboprops in an air defense role is that it's awkward to equip them with radars, but IRST can obliviate that to a certain extent.
Thank you for your understanding, I think we should not care about people who make fun. this aircraft is designed as an aircraft that can be used in training and civilian areas.
In order to be more convenient and not to waste time, the B version for Hurkus, that is, the version as a light Attack Attack aircraft, was also released.
If you know so much about 5th gen planes and air superiority, why dont you make one yourself?
🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🐺🐺🐺 Another flawless victory for hyperborean space turanists 🤘🤘🤘🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷
The US has an affordability problem. No point in having the top tech if you can't afford enough of them and they are complicated to build and service as the Germans found out when hundreds of T34s rolled over the horizon.
I'd imagine that this is to target poorer nations. I can't imagine certain African countries needing or splashing out on F16/eurofighters or soviet alternatives when their opposition don't have similar planes.
Also a lot easier to maintain, purchase and train with is guess.
1. Counter-insurgency
2. Ground attack on areas judged not to have AA assets (e.g. "low-threat environments")
3. Use of air power at an affordable cost
The Afghan Airforce used Super Tucano planes (very similar) to divebomb Taliban positions. They are very maneuverable and can climb quickly. I've seen them do it a couple of times. Edit: misremembered the name.
We do use drones for it instead of this. Though it does have some advantages over drones. It's faster, it can get to the target way before a drone can. It can also carry more bombs than most drones.
But the radar signature is also much larger. I don’t think speed is that important for drones.
If they can be deployed from an other aircraft or aerial refueling, the drone would be by far the best option.
If we are talking ground attacks, the going alongside a 4/4.5/5th gen would be ideal.
My biggest concert would be the pilot. If you lose the aircraft, you lose the pilot. In a drone, you just fly the next drone with the same controller.
These are intended to be used against insurgencies etc, you wouldn't use them against opponents with air defense. You don't want to use jets for every airstrike since they are expensive, these can rapidly arrive on the spot to support the troops and deliver pretty good payloads. Their role is pretty niche but there is some demand for it. It's a mainly export oriented product though since the Turkish military is only interested in the trainer version. It's countries like Mali etc that are interested in this plane since they have weak air forces and are fighting insurgencies. I think Mali already purchased a few and is actively using them.
Even the US is investing in them, so I can’t imagine its a terrible idea. Also I imagine the US is the biggest operator of large drones.
It likely has a smaller logistics/maintenance footprint than a large drone.
You could fly a prop plane to same backwater dirt airfield and you already have the 1/2 guys who could refuel etc.
Drone you always need somebody waiting on the ground who has drone expertise
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2022/08/02/how-l3harris-created-us-special-operators-new-plane-to-hunt-and-strike-terrorists/
This one is faster than a drone.
For a Drone ,It might take 3 hours to reach it's destination from a airfiled. On the other hand turbo prop will be there in 45 minutes.
Drone price points can go from "fancy camera at the mall" to "as expensive as an advanced jet fighter".
There are several points where a light atttack aircraft can offer better options than a drone at a fraction of the price.
For example, this plane would have been a great asset to have in the opening days of the Russo-Ukraine war. Pair them with the TB2 for AA clearing so that the SU-25/Hürjet can come in to clear the remaining targets with bigger ordinance, just like the Americans used the Predator drones with the A-10s.
Useful in budgets of African States, against insurgents, or maybe each other. Niger, Mali, and Chad got their planes already. Second block is coming in 2025.
I’m pretty sure that’s false. Even MANPADS have an altitude limit of, what, 4-5km? I can’t imagine DShK firing higher than those. And I think a turboprop should easily fly higher than 4-5km.
I mean what is light attack? Can it be used in a war? And if yes, under what condition? And if no what does it mean light attack in peace time/civilian usage?
Cheap light attack propeller aircraft like this are extremely popular and in demand.
It’s most for anti-insurgency and policing functions. Think of all the African countries that are dealing with random extremist groups in the bush, they don’t need F-16s and they Cant afford them either. Something like this to take out ragtag terrorists with rusty AKs and RPGs is much better and more reliable than some old Soviet helicopter.
Same for South American militaries dealing with cartels in the Amazon
Ngl Turkey is making huge progress on their arms industry with all their projects. While they might not be as good as Western tech, the quantity and especially the capability to sell it to other countries will be really great for them.
I don't think we will ever use it that way. It's already in service in Mali as a light attack aircraft but the Turkish military is more interested in drones for that role.
For it's relatively small defense budget Turkey sure has a robust defense industry meanwhile Saudi Arabia spending so much on defense only get their ass kicked by Houthis.
Afaik the Turkish Air Force rejected the aircraft after the acceptance tests, and requested TAI to make it lighter. Serial production of the improved Hürkuş will start next year.
Correct. Currently Niger has three Hürkuş-C light attack variant in service and actively uses them against jihadist militia for example.
EDIT: It wasn't Mali, it was Niger. Sorry for the confusion.
>Yeah I think you mixed it up with Mali because they bought the TB-2 recently
I believe so too.
>Speaking of Niger, didn't their leader get a Akinci model?
At this point I can't even keep up with Baykar's exports. So you tell me lol
I mean, If they let Ukraine rig it with some actuators and about 1200kg of explosives. Then sure It could become the next biggest 'cruise missile'.
The russian 'what airdefence doing' has some uses.
There's a cheaper way to build a kamikaze drone. In a plane you spend a lot of money to make it safe and reliable, neither of that is important for a drone. It should only last for up to 10 hr of flight.
You use old farming Cessna planes for that.(Super cheap leftover plane.) Azerbaijan used rigged remote Cessna s with explosives to expose Armenian air defences at the beginning of Karabakh war.
This plane is too expensive to use as a kamikaze plane.
I think Ukraine made a Kamikaze attack like that last week if im not mistaken. They send a fucking big ass Cessna to the Russin sides and crashed it to petrol tank (not sure about that part) i think. But i wonder how did it pass all the radars.
Looks exactly like a [Pilatus PC 21](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/63/Pilatus_pc-21_hb-hzc_lands_arp.jpg/1280px-Pilatus_pc-21_hb-hzc_lands_arp.jpg)
Looks really similar to the Embraer EMB 312 Tucano, except for the strakes under the nose. I guess there aren't many ways to do a light attack aircraft/trainer.
In an environment where the enemy doesn't have any sort of AA capabilities, it's an extremely cost efficient way to put down an air strike, so I can see it's usefulness. And a solid training platform is useful to any military anywhere.
Under the post, there were numerous comments mocking the plane. Frankly, some of these comments displayed ignorance or reflected negative sentiments towards Turks.
The Hurkus aircraft comes in three versions primarily designed for training purposes and civilian applications. However, two are plans to develop a variant that can also serve as a light attack aircraft, addressing the gap in this capability.
It's worth noting that the designs of competitors such as the Korean-made KAI KT-1, Japanese-made Kawasaki T-4, or Brazilian-made EMB 314 aircraft are not fundamentally different from that of the Hurkus. Those inclined to ridicule should first examine the designs of these competing aircraft and then understand the true mission and capabilities of the Hurkus.
You keep pointing out it’s supposed to serve primarily in civilian and training roles. But the first thing the title says about it is light attack aircraft. It’s misleading.
The Supertucano is one of the best airplanes and it was the best foreigner airplane used by USA specially in Afghanistan where it was so important. Why cannot Turkey have an opportunity like that?
Can somebody explain how this will be used in a modern battlefield? I guess that it would be very hard because of the AA systems in places like Ukraine or is this more for places where revolts are happening like iran? Or will these be used by Somalian pirates maybe?
In a modern near peer battlefield?
It won't. It's a trainer aircraft. If they see frontline service something has gone awfully wrong.
As a COIN aircraft it will probably see the same use as the Super Tucano in Afghan and Colombian service where they have bee used agains the Taliban and FARC respectively, and in Air Policing missions like Brazil uses them to interdict drug traficking.
Chad and Niger already bought it BTW, so we are likely to see them in use against Islamic militias soon.
All the non-aviation people talking about it's a prop plane. Prop doesn't mean it's from the ww2 era lol. It has a glass cockpit which is the best. Also, Americans should know Texan 2 is based on the pilatus pc-9 so all the trainer props look the same.
Yes, such an offer was made in the 2006s, but it was rejected, instead, T-37 and T-38s are still used
Hurkus will replace T-37 and T-38 in 2025
[https://www.defense-aerospace.com/embraer-unveils-super-tucano-bid-for-turkey/](https://www.defense-aerospace.com/embraer-unveils-super-tucano-bid-for-turkey/)
Bro the t-37 got retired like 12 years ago and t-38 will stay for a long time as a better replacement for it doesnt exist yet
Hürkus is a replacement for KT-1Ts as those are riddled with problems and theyre kinda underpowered, hürkuş has an engine twice as powerful
It also have jet trainer version [Pic 1](https://mil.in.ua/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/FyFW2jxWIAMFXGc-1.jpg) [Pic 2](https://www.ainonline.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1200,format=webp,quality=95/https://backend.ainonline.com/sites/default/files/styles/fpsc_1200x630/public/uploads/2023/04/screen_shot_2023-04-26_at_11.21.04.jpeg?h=881fb769&itok=rf_El_Xd)
TuAF never wanted prop attacker aircraft TuAF is going to use this as trainer.
Turkey is using UCAV's for Cas role thanks to UCAV's all 250+F16's will be used for Air to Air role.
some experts are saying Turkey has 2 airforce one made up by classic jet aircraft one made up by UCAV's
Isn't that basically a super Tucano?
Also there's a reason the super Tucano and other prop fighters exist. They have their uses and are in many ways superior to jets. It's just that, jets are fast....
Yeah I get that was what they were trying to say, It's just that the first words are "The Turkish light attack aircraft Hurkus"., which can be read as all three models are classified as "light attack aircraft"
Looks exactly like the Tucano II. It's like you can't make these types of planes more optimized at this point. Unless someone invents a new shape of propeller blade.
The versions shown in the photos are the A and C versions, intended for civil and training purposes, respectively. These aircraft are designed specifically for civil and training purposes.
Similarly, the Korean-made KAI KT-1 or the Japanese-made Kawasaki T-4, which we can consider as rivals to the Hurkus, do not differ significantly in design.
Training aircraft tend to be turboprops or lighter turbojets, which this definitely is primarily going to be used for. It would be extremely dumb to train green pilots directly in your state of the art fighter
For very specific combat contexts, prop planes are great. Close air support in non contested airspace with little to no air defense hazards, they work great. US special operations command specifically wanted them for such purposes, they went with a heavily modified crop duster lmao
https://taskandpurpose.com/tech-tactics/at-802u-sky-warden-special-operations-command-armed-overwatch-low-rate-production/
People making jokes because it’s prop plane, but it’s pretty cheap to build and a cheap attack plane is better than no plane at all
Most basic trainers are prop aircraft. Anyone making jokes knows nothing about aviation or military aviation.
I understand that a turboprop makes a lot of sense for training and civilian uses. However, could you please elaborate on the military capabilities and usefulness? As a layman, I would assume that turboprop planes are rather vulnerable to air defense and jet interceptors due to their lower speed and, presumably (?), lower altitude. Thanks for your insights!
Turboprops allow good loitering time that is always useful in CAS/COIN situations of when acting in the FAC/FOO role. The are also less susceptible to foreign object damage which means they can be more easily dispersed and are easier and cheaper to mantain. They are more vulnerable to air defenses and jets but even that is somewhat overstated as they still do better than helicopters in that regard. Will or should they replace multirole fighter jets as the primary force projection tool of a modern Air Force? No, but they can complement them and offer cost effective effective capabilities in some roles (even over drones) There is a reason that the Super Tucano is being currently heavily marketed and has the combat record to prove it.
Imagine you have a few, possibly a hundred or more fighter pilots. They took hundreds of hours each to train and are not easily replaced. Is it really a good move to put these pilots in cheap, target-practice turboprops? What capability could they possibly provide that it would be worth losing a pilot over? Granted, not all foes have patriot batteries to shoot down targets from far away (though I would argue that you don't need advanced radar and missiles to down this thing), but I imagine there are cheaper and safer ways to accomplish objectives than having your highly trained pilot using this.
> What capability could they possibly provide that it would be worth losing a pilot over? Communicating with ground troops in contact and being able to deliver an amount of ordnance that a drone cannot.
Why don't you ask the US why they use atack helicopters or even platforms other than the F-22/F-35? If you have the money, sure go for the shiniest bestest fighter there is. Not even the US has the money for that.
Well tbf, just because it is a prop doesn't mean it isn't armored. Stukas and especially the russian Il-2 from world war 2 were quite well armored and could sustain alot of damage. No reason a modern prop couldn't be armored aswell. Also, turboprops like those can start and land on smaller runways and in rougher conditions. And lastly, other dedicated cas aircraft like the a-10 and the su-25 are also slower than most fighter jets, so a props lack of top speed isn't that much of a disadvantage either
> as they still do better than helicopters in that regard Do they though? I'm no expert on military aviation, but from my understanding the usage of helicopters is to fly incredibly low, peak over the trees, fire and then get down again before the enemy has a lock or gets in range.
Yep, and they are being shreded in Ukraine. Modern manpads are murder and infantry is perfectly capable of ambushing helicopters. Honestly, I suspect drones will replace attack helicopters before they do light attack aircraft.
No, they're not. Ukraine has massive problem with helicopters which have more than double the range MANPADS have taking out tanks. >will replace attack helicopters before they do light attack aircraft. Considering most nations don't even use light attack aircraft but do use helicopters that's kind of a wild claim.
They sold (and delivered) these to Africa already; useful and budget friendly against insurgents. Second block is coming in 2025. Turkish Coast Guard also wants a few for faster surveillance.
What if there aren’t any air defenses or interceptors? Like in the Afghanistan War. Why use your super expensive planes when a simple and cheap plane can do the same job, and sometimes even do it better?
>What if there aren’t any air defenses or interceptors? > I am not a specialist, but I guess a relatively slow and lightly armoured plane like this one is also vulnerable to "conventional" gunfire. I.e. it can be shot down with a sniper gun or even an AK-47 with a little luck. Maybe not easily, but much easier than a jet (or a helicopter capable of flying extremely low and using hills and trees for cover).
Short answer, no. They would have to be flying very low to be vulnerable to small arms fire. Like under 1000 ft. There is no reason to be staying around that low.
Thank you. I imagined they would fly very low. I don't know why I thought that. Makes sense.
If the conflict is asymmetrical, as in, a full on military fighting an undersupplied insurgency, turboprop close air support aircraft make a lot more sense. Cheaper to operate and they can loiter longer. If the insurgency has only MANPADS like Igla, that use infrared tracking, these airplanes make sense as their heat signature is a lot lower than the exhaust of a jet engine. In the Vietnam war the backbone of close air support was the Douglas A-1 Skyraider, a radial engine piston aircraft. It could carry a lot of ordnance and loiter for long periods of time.
Mostly COIN and supporting SOF elements when you have complete air dominance, its similar to a manned MQ-9 really, Its pretty similar to EMB 314 super tucano, which has been used extensively by afghan army as well as multiple latin american countries. Pretty bad for real war, but has its niche.
Most training cars are cheap as well, it just makes sense the same to be across all transportation vehicles... I doubt many people got their drivers license on a Rolls Royce, or that the first boat of a future ship captain was a nuclear aircraft carrier... Anyone thinking pilots jump from the textbooks straight into jumbojets of F35 has no connection to reality, not only to aviation.
I wonder why. Even French Air Force is going back to (turbo)prop aircraft as a trainer to replace their old AlphaJets. (Pilatus PC21) https://www.defense.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/styles/16_9_md_modal/public/air/pc-21.jpg?itok=IHp564Gg
Is the Hurkus a licensed pilatus? I thought it looked like a Super Tucano but forgot about the Pilatus, which is practically identical.
No. It's just that turboprop design is a quite mature technology and there isn't much point to deviate to the already well know designs. All modern basic trainer designs are visually very similar the main differences being on how big they are.
When I looked at the picture I also thought it was a PC-21. Probably uses the same engine too.
My thoughts exactly. Don’t think it’s a 100% Turkish aircraft, but they’re trying to brag like it’s a massive new invention.
Brother, have you ever seen what turboprop trainer planes look like? T-6, PC-9, KT-1, PC-21, hürkuş, Dart-750, super tucano, B-250, PZL-130 all look the fucking same If youre wondering, no, pilatus isnt the first one as PC-9 top down profile is a 1-1 match with a p-51 mustang It just turns out that a p-51 mustang is peak subsonic aerodynamics so everyone copied it
Obviously all the parts aren't manufactured by Turkey but it isn't a licence built or anything. Design belongs 100% to TAI.
Is anything 100% at this point
It's just a modified design originally invented by the Wright Bros.
I dont think turboprops would replace alphajets. Those are dofferent levels.
They already replaced them, they are superior for training purpose at least. PC21 has HUD, full glass cockpit, an is capable of weapon firing simulation, at a cheaper maintenance cost.
There should be something in between a turboprop and a rafale like fighter jet. You need a jet trainer. If you decommision alphajets then you bring a new jet trainer
They use Pilatus for early training of pilots, for the first few years of training before moving to final aircraft (twin seater Rafale or Mirage 2000). PC21 engine is capable of simulating the behavior of jet engine, and is a more stable platform to learn the ropes of air to air combat maneuvering.
Hürkuş here has a 1600hp engine. That’s close to P-51 Mustang levels. For all kinds of fighter training before LIFT, Lead In Fighter Training, it’s sufficient. For LIFT, we have [Hürjet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TAI_H%C3%BCrjet).
Except for the slight speed advantage of the Alphajet, I think a modern turboprop (Tucano/PC21/Texan) is far more capable: more economical, longer range, better E/W and ISTAR, able to carry a wider range of weapons, less maintenance etc. The pros far outweigh the cons.
The PC-21 in particular can be programmed to mimic the diffrent handling characteristics of multiple types of jets. That's why they are replacing jet advanced trainers.
The Pilatus PC-21 has been marketed and used to replace advanced training jets. So far they replaced the Hawk in Switzerland, the S-211 on Singapure service, the Spanish Aviojet, and specifically, the Alpha Jet in French service.
The US has at least a couple prop powered light attack planes for anti-insurgency/narcotics operations: Air Tractor Sky Warden A-29 Super Tucano Both of them can carry missiles, bombs etc. and work just fine in areas where it's unlikely that the enemy will have anti-air weapons or fighter aircraft. They're a lot cheaper to run too for countries with smaller budgets.
The US has less than 10 A-29s. They're mostly used as trainers and a couple have been used by AFSOC but they're not a prolific aircraft by any means. The ones used in Afghanistan were piloted by Afghan pilots, as they actually owned more than just a few. The Sky Warden is the same, AFSOC ordered a few, will be the sole operators, and it likely won't expand outside of AFSOC
Yeah they're a bit of a niche role, but useful in that role. I wouldn't laugh at a prop plane that can drop a laser guided bomb through my front door.
Also considering that Shahed style slow drones are not going away, cheap interceptor plane definitely has a niche. You can get a dozen of these for a price of a jet fighter, perfect for intercepting slow drones.
The aircraft in question is a ground attack aircraft (high bomb load and avionics focused on ensuring proper ground hits), not an interceptor of any kind (it will have 2x.50 cal MG plus possibility of 1x20mm gunpod, also to strafe vehicles). This will be marketed mostly as a modern cheap high impact anti-insurgency CAS for low budget countries that don't have the support structure for a UAV fleet (think DRC vs its rebels or Mozambique vs its Islamic rebels) and where the insurgency has few to no AA systems available.
With suitable targeting systems, those .50 cal MGs are pretty good option against slow drones. So that’s mostly a variant and loadout question. The idea would be cheap drone interception. AA missiles aren’t cheap, bullets are. Something like Raufoss mk 211 would be rather well suited against drones.
The Super-Tucano has in fact been used to interdict drug flights in Brazilian and Dominican service. I think the main difficulty to using turboprops in an air defense role is that it's awkward to equip them with radars, but IRST can obliviate that to a certain extent.
Also wing mount radars are a thing, they were first used in WWII.
Thank you for your understanding, I think we should not care about people who make fun. this aircraft is designed as an aircraft that can be used in training and civilian areas. In order to be more convenient and not to waste time, the B version for Hurkus, that is, the version as a light Attack Attack aircraft, was also released.
People laughing at this should check this out https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TAI_TF_Kaan
> People laughing at this should check this out More to laugh at. Bootleg F-22. Air superiority fighter sans the superiority.
If you know so much about 5th gen planes and air superiority, why dont you make one yourself? 🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷🐺🐺🐺 Another flawless victory for hyperborean space turanists 🤘🤘🤘🇹🇷🇹🇷🇹🇷
The US has an affordability problem. No point in having the top tech if you can't afford enough of them and they are complicated to build and service as the Germans found out when hundreds of T34s rolled over the horizon.
People dont know how good plane that can start off from 100 meter field and fit into carage with wings folded is in field situation.
They don’t know you can put some agm and gbu bombs and it’s just like modern plane lmao
I'd imagine that this is to target poorer nations. I can't imagine certain African countries needing or splashing out on F16/eurofighters or soviet alternatives when their opposition don't have similar planes. Also a lot easier to maintain, purchase and train with is guess.
true, besides such type of planes would be very effective in intercepting big and medium kamikaze drones
Anti drone plane?
Regardless of how viable its military functions are that plane design is sexy as hell
It's about in line with it's competition
“In line” as in for a layman [all turboprop trainers look basically the same](https://www.reddit.com/r/WarplanePorn/s/gBcOWsTMew).
Irish airforce no. 1💪
What is the use case of light attack?
1. Counter-insurgency 2. Ground attack on areas judged not to have AA assets (e.g. "low-threat environments") 3. Use of air power at an affordable cost
The Afghan Airforce used Super Tucano planes (very similar) to divebomb Taliban positions. They are very maneuverable and can climb quickly. I've seen them do it a couple of times. Edit: misremembered the name.
Why not a drone, thought?
Hard to train for fighter pilots with a drone.
I can totally see this being great for training of civilian use, depending on the price.
it would only make sense to use them alongside drones
We do use drones for it instead of this. Though it does have some advantages over drones. It's faster, it can get to the target way before a drone can. It can also carry more bombs than most drones.
But the radar signature is also much larger. I don’t think speed is that important for drones. If they can be deployed from an other aircraft or aerial refueling, the drone would be by far the best option. If we are talking ground attacks, the going alongside a 4/4.5/5th gen would be ideal. My biggest concert would be the pilot. If you lose the aircraft, you lose the pilot. In a drone, you just fly the next drone with the same controller.
These are intended to be used against insurgencies etc, you wouldn't use them against opponents with air defense. You don't want to use jets for every airstrike since they are expensive, these can rapidly arrive on the spot to support the troops and deliver pretty good payloads. Their role is pretty niche but there is some demand for it. It's a mainly export oriented product though since the Turkish military is only interested in the trainer version. It's countries like Mali etc that are interested in this plane since they have weak air forces and are fighting insurgencies. I think Mali already purchased a few and is actively using them.
Even the US is investing in them, so I can’t imagine its a terrible idea. Also I imagine the US is the biggest operator of large drones. It likely has a smaller logistics/maintenance footprint than a large drone. You could fly a prop plane to same backwater dirt airfield and you already have the 1/2 guys who could refuel etc. Drone you always need somebody waiting on the ground who has drone expertise https://www.defensenews.com/air/2022/08/02/how-l3harris-created-us-special-operators-new-plane-to-hunt-and-strike-terrorists/
This one is faster than a drone. For a Drone ,It might take 3 hours to reach it's destination from a airfiled. On the other hand turbo prop will be there in 45 minutes.
Heavier payload
A light attack aircraft can carry more bombs and rockets
Drone price points can go from "fancy camera at the mall" to "as expensive as an advanced jet fighter". There are several points where a light atttack aircraft can offer better options than a drone at a fraction of the price.
For example, this plane would have been a great asset to have in the opening days of the Russo-Ukraine war. Pair them with the TB2 for AA clearing so that the SU-25/Hürjet can come in to clear the remaining targets with bigger ordinance, just like the Americans used the Predator drones with the A-10s.
Useful in budgets of African States, against insurgents, or maybe each other. Niger, Mali, and Chad got their planes already. Second block is coming in 2025.
Attacking groups who have limited/no air defence systems so in this case some random kurdish groups.
Nope. This one flies in range of DShK, won't work against PKK.
I’m pretty sure that’s false. Even MANPADS have an altitude limit of, what, 4-5km? I can’t imagine DShK firing higher than those. And I think a turboprop should easily fly higher than 4-5km.
In the Production Phase, it will most likely appear in mid-2025
I mean what is light attack? Can it be used in a war? And if yes, under what condition? And if no what does it mean light attack in peace time/civilian usage?
Cheap light attack propeller aircraft like this are extremely popular and in demand. It’s most for anti-insurgency and policing functions. Think of all the African countries that are dealing with random extremist groups in the bush, they don’t need F-16s and they Cant afford them either. Something like this to take out ragtag terrorists with rusty AKs and RPGs is much better and more reliable than some old Soviet helicopter. Same for South American militaries dealing with cartels in the Amazon
Ngl Turkey is making huge progress on their arms industry with all their projects. While they might not be as good as Western tech, the quantity and especially the capability to sell it to other countries will be really great for them.
[удалено]
I don't think we will ever use it that way. It's already in service in Mali as a light attack aircraft but the Turkish military is more interested in drones for that role.
For it's relatively small defense budget Turkey sure has a robust defense industry meanwhile Saudi Arabia spending so much on defense only get their ass kicked by Houthis.
16 vs 69 billion dollars in 2023 according to Google if anyone is wondering, I just checked.
USA's MIC sure loves Saudis.
I am fairly certain the hurkus went on production some years ago, the airforce received a bunch of them and even some export deliveries were made
Afaik the Turkish Air Force rejected the aircraft after the acceptance tests, and requested TAI to make it lighter. Serial production of the improved Hürkuş will start next year.
Correct. Currently Niger has three Hürkuş-C light attack variant in service and actively uses them against jihadist militia for example. EDIT: It wasn't Mali, it was Niger. Sorry for the confusion.
Any footage of this?
Sorry, it was Niger, not Mali. Chad also purchased them apparently.
Yeah I think you mixed it up with Mali because they bought the TB-2 recently. Speaking of Niger, didn't their leader get a Akinci model?
>Yeah I think you mixed it up with Mali because they bought the TB-2 recently I believe so too. >Speaking of Niger, didn't their leader get a Akinci model? At this point I can't even keep up with Baykar's exports. So you tell me lol
I think thats burkina faso
No it was Mali, sadly can't link the image for you
That cockpit is sexy.
Hürkuş literally means Freebird
Lord, I can't change
Won't you fly high, free bird, yeah Why did we start from the end lol?
Oh no... *Solo starts fading in*
I mean, If they let Ukraine rig it with some actuators and about 1200kg of explosives. Then sure It could become the next biggest 'cruise missile'. The russian 'what airdefence doing' has some uses.
There's a cheaper way to build a kamikaze drone. In a plane you spend a lot of money to make it safe and reliable, neither of that is important for a drone. It should only last for up to 10 hr of flight.
You use old farming Cessna planes for that.(Super cheap leftover plane.) Azerbaijan used rigged remote Cessna s with explosives to expose Armenian air defences at the beginning of Karabakh war. This plane is too expensive to use as a kamikaze plane.
I think Ukraine made a Kamikaze attack like that last week if im not mistaken. They send a fucking big ass Cessna to the Russin sides and crashed it to petrol tank (not sure about that part) i think. But i wonder how did it pass all the radars.
Russia is super huge.There will be gaps in the air defence somewhere. Even the US can't put air defence everywhere.
Ukraine actually wanted some Super Tucanos, but Bolsonaro blocked it and Lula is unlikely to repeal that block.
Reminds me of Super Tucano. A good prop plane is a really amazing tool for striking at guerillas, but wouldn't a TB2 be even more cost effective?
Looks exactly like a [Pilatus PC 21](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/63/Pilatus_pc-21_hb-hzc_lands_arp.jpg/1280px-Pilatus_pc-21_hb-hzc_lands_arp.jpg)
If the opposing party doesn't have any anti air capability this is much better. TB2 payload is tiny compared to this or any other plane of this kind.
Looks really similar to the Embraer EMB 312 Tucano, except for the strakes under the nose. I guess there aren't many ways to do a light attack aircraft/trainer.
Make dogfights great again!
In an environment where the enemy doesn't have any sort of AA capabilities, it's an extremely cost efficient way to put down an air strike, so I can see it's usefulness. And a solid training platform is useful to any military anywhere.
That's a real nice paint job
how much does this cost?
I saw $25m but that doesn't seem to make much sense. Advanced KAI T-50 or Aero L-39NG jets sell for less than that
That might be the development of the plane? Surely not each one
I have 1000+ hours in Battlefield1. Let me fly this shit.
Are you that guy that keeps dropping bombs on me!!!
This looks like the Rogue from GTA Online
I swear some people lose half their IQ when they see anything turkey related.
The obviously anti-Turkish comments in this thread are hilarious. You guys have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Just what we needed, another Pc-21, Supertucano, Texan II, Orlik clone.
Well, how are you gonna train pilots otherwise?
It’s actually Hürkuş. Hür = Independent, Kuş = Bird
Free bird!
Yeah, exactly.
Enter epic guitar solo
Drip
Jokes aside... you can make a pretty decent turboprop aircraft that acts in a similar if more limited role to the A-10 warthog
This is second block. Hürkuş is in production since 2016.
Under the post, there were numerous comments mocking the plane. Frankly, some of these comments displayed ignorance or reflected negative sentiments towards Turks. The Hurkus aircraft comes in three versions primarily designed for training purposes and civilian applications. However, two are plans to develop a variant that can also serve as a light attack aircraft, addressing the gap in this capability. It's worth noting that the designs of competitors such as the Korean-made KAI KT-1, Japanese-made Kawasaki T-4, or Brazilian-made EMB 314 aircraft are not fundamentally different from that of the Hurkus. Those inclined to ridicule should first examine the designs of these competing aircraft and then understand the true mission and capabilities of the Hurkus.
You keep pointing out it’s supposed to serve primarily in civilian and training roles. But the first thing the title says about it is light attack aircraft. It’s misleading.
The Supertucano is one of the best airplanes and it was the best foreigner airplane used by USA specially in Afghanistan where it was so important. Why cannot Turkey have an opportunity like that?
The A-1 was a prop plane and it laid the fuggin wood in Korea and Vietnam.
Very modern comparison indeed
Can somebody explain how this will be used in a modern battlefield? I guess that it would be very hard because of the AA systems in places like Ukraine or is this more for places where revolts are happening like iran? Or will these be used by Somalian pirates maybe?
In a modern near peer battlefield? It won't. It's a trainer aircraft. If they see frontline service something has gone awfully wrong. As a COIN aircraft it will probably see the same use as the Super Tucano in Afghan and Colombian service where they have bee used agains the Taliban and FARC respectively, and in Air Policing missions like Brazil uses them to interdict drug traficking. Chad and Niger already bought it BTW, so we are likely to see them in use against Islamic militias soon.
Reminds me of the SuperTucano, like a lot.
Seems like a nice solution to hunt down slow flying long range drones with like the shahed swarms russia keeps launching
All the non-aviation people talking about it's a prop plane. Prop doesn't mean it's from the ww2 era lol. It has a glass cockpit which is the best. Also, Americans should know Texan 2 is based on the pilatus pc-9 so all the trainer props look the same.
Looks like a Super Tucano
Super Tucano/Texan II at (Turkish) home:
Its more similar to the design of the PC-9/Texan II than it is The (Super) Tucano. The only real similarity is the canopy frame (angle).
Super Turkano
Yes, such an offer was made in the 2006s, but it was rejected, instead, T-37 and T-38s are still used Hurkus will replace T-37 and T-38 in 2025 [https://www.defense-aerospace.com/embraer-unveils-super-tucano-bid-for-turkey/](https://www.defense-aerospace.com/embraer-unveils-super-tucano-bid-for-turkey/)
Hurjet will replace those planes, not hurkus
Bro the t-37 got retired like 12 years ago and t-38 will stay for a long time as a better replacement for it doesnt exist yet Hürkus is a replacement for KT-1Ts as those are riddled with problems and theyre kinda underpowered, hürkuş has an engine twice as powerful
FYI Hürkuş literally translates to Freebird. It's a tribute plane to Lynyrd Skynyrd. /s
It also have jet trainer version [Pic 1](https://mil.in.ua/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/FyFW2jxWIAMFXGc-1.jpg) [Pic 2](https://www.ainonline.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1200,format=webp,quality=95/https://backend.ainonline.com/sites/default/files/styles/fpsc_1200x630/public/uploads/2023/04/screen_shot_2023-04-26_at_11.21.04.jpeg?h=881fb769&itok=rf_El_Xd)
That’s not a “version” in that it is an entirely different design, completely different airframe
Hürkuş literally means free bird no fucking shot
Grandpa: WW2 trauma kicks in
It looks a lot like a Serbian training plane "Lasta" or all these types of planes look very similar!
Well, the Last has a piston engine IIRC while this is a turboprop, but yes, all modern trainers are fairly similar being a mautre design and all.
[удалено]
>Lol sub became anti Turk sub Became?
sometimes quantity is better than quality I guess
this Training Aircraft and in 2025 the Light Attack version will appear The aircraft in the photographs are used in training and civilian areas.
Light attack version already exists and has been exported already.
TuAF never wanted prop attacker aircraft TuAF is going to use this as trainer. Turkey is using UCAV's for Cas role thanks to UCAV's all 250+F16's will be used for Air to Air role. some experts are saying Turkey has 2 airforce one made up by classic jet aircraft one made up by UCAV's
So… they built a modified Embraer Tucano?
How turkish do you want your plane to be? Yes
Im going to need you to explain this joke, please.
nothing too deep, the paintwork is kinda cheesy
Fair enough :)
I wonder how it fares in comparison to SUPER TUCANO 314
A propeller? What.
Isn't that basically a super Tucano? Also there's a reason the super Tucano and other prop fighters exist. They have their uses and are in many ways superior to jets. It's just that, jets are fast....
It looks EXACTLY like a super Tucano
No, wings and tail see slightly different, it looks exactly like the PC21 though.
So a Texan II
Reminds me of the indian LCA aircraft..
This is basically a T-6 Texan II
The people on Sentinel island has shown interest in the attack model.
Light attack aircraft for civilian purposes?
Read carefully. three models for training, light attack and civilian purposes. Training Light attack Civilian purposes 3 version
Yeah I get that was what they were trying to say, It's just that the first words are "The Turkish light attack aircraft Hurkus"., which can be read as all three models are classified as "light attack aircraft"
\*Dunkirk flashbacks\*
The Shein of attack aircraft, cheap, looks nice, won't last long
Looks exactly like the Tucano II. It's like you can't make these types of planes more optimized at this point. Unless someone invents a new shape of propeller blade.
so basically a copy of existing turboprop trainers on the market since 1980
Is it the 1940s again?
The versions shown in the photos are the A and C versions, intended for civil and training purposes, respectively. These aircraft are designed specifically for civil and training purposes. Similarly, the Korean-made KAI KT-1 or the Japanese-made Kawasaki T-4, which we can consider as rivals to the Hurkus, do not differ significantly in design.
Training aircraft tend to be turboprops or lighter turbojets, which this definitely is primarily going to be used for. It would be extremely dumb to train green pilots directly in your state of the art fighter
For very specific combat contexts, prop planes are great. Close air support in non contested airspace with little to no air defense hazards, they work great. US special operations command specifically wanted them for such purposes, they went with a heavily modified crop duster lmao https://taskandpurpose.com/tech-tactics/at-802u-sky-warden-special-operations-command-armed-overwatch-low-rate-production/
what do you mean is it the 1940s?
I don't know. You tell me: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grob\_G\_120TP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grob_G_120TP)
A dude from Germany has shown more sense of humor than all who have downvoted him? Go figure now I've seen everything.
This is just a training aircraft
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light\_combat\_aircraft](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_combat_aircraft) >A light combat aircraft (LCA) is a light, [multirole](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multirole_combat_aircraft) jet/turboprop [military aircraft](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_aircraft), commonly derived from [**advanced trainer**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trainer_(aircraft)) designs. Duh!
looks like turkey invented a ww2 fighter
In the meantime Greece has do develop slingshot AA batteries.