Throughout the Cold War there were people deciding they’d had enough of their side of the Iron Curtain and trying to go and look at the other side. Inevitably on occasion this saw aircraft being borrowed to make the trip. Sometimes this was actively encouraged: for instance when the USA offered financial incentives to anyone who’d bring them a MiG-15, going as far as leaflet dropping to advertise the deal. Or indeed any flight between China and Taiwan where both sides were handing over gold in exchange for aircraft, like a We Buy Any Car set-up but for warplanes.

This list was compiled based on a variety of factors, including number of times a type was used for a defection, practicality, style, chutzpah, and if the author burst out laughing when reading about it. Before the Tomcat fans complain about this article it only gets a runners up spot because the F-14 which was used to defect from Iran to Iraq got shot down, as the pilot went a day earlier than planned.

Bing Chandler & Hush-Kit’s book ‘Flying Traitors: A History of Aerial Defection’ will be published in 2022

10. Ilyushin Il-28

First flying in 1949 the Il-28 Beagle was a twin-engined bomber, powered by the ubiquitous Klimov VK-1 an unlicensed Rolls-Royce Nene knock off. With a crew of three the Beagle had the advantage for the would-be defector that each member sat in their own pressurised compartment, making the cooperation of the bombardier and rear gunner a nice to have rather than a pre-requisite. Sucks if you’re not the pilot though.

On the 11th of November 1965 Lee Xianban took advantage of this design feature during a routine sortie from Hangzhou on the coast of the East China Sea. Turning south towards Taiwan his navigator Li Caiwang and gunner Lian Baosheng tried to stop him, presumably with harsh language, but to no avail. [1] Flying at low level over the sea the aircraft avoided radar detection and made its landfall on the north of the island near the ROCAF base at Taoyuan. At this point Lee’s luck ran out and due to the weather and a lack of familiarity with the area the nose gear collapsed during the landing.

At this point accounts differ as to what actually happened. The official report claims Lian died in the crash and along with the other crew members was declared an Anti-Communist Martyr by the KMT government of Taiwan. Meanwhile Li decided to join Lee in defecting, and both were given substantial cash rewards and served in the ROCAF for many years. In non-flying roles, because there was a lot of paranoia going around and the KMT weren’t totally convinced the people they’d given ~$4 million to weren’t about to take a load of secrets back across the straits to China.
The award of Anti-Communist Martyr status was enough for the PRC authorities to persecute Lian’s family and send them to labour camps, because nothing says benign dictatorship like punishing people for crimes they weren’t involved with. However, both Lee and Li subsequently claimed Lian had committed suicide rather than defect to Taiwan, the PRC only becoming aware of this when Li emigrated to the USA in the late ‘70s and gave a press conference.

To add to the confusion, Li claimed he had also been forced to defect by Lee which led to the PRC revoking his treason charge and the Taiwanese deciding he was maybe less of a martyr than they’d thought. In 1983 Li finally returned to China re-declaring his loyalty to the CCP, although apparently keeping the money.
Lee meanwhile emigrated to Canada in 1990 and in December of the following year he and his wife visited his sick mother in China. Having been assured there was a 20-year statute of limitations for his crime by the Chinese embassy it must have been something of a disappointment when he was arrested on his way to the airport for his return flight. The embassy apparently having ‘forgotten’ about the clause allowing any crime punishable by death or life imprisonment to be prosecuted beyond the statute of limitations with the permission of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate. Lee was released on parole in 2002 due to poor health and tragically died of stomach cancer six months later in Shanghai.

A second Il-28 defected in August 1985 flown by Xiao Tianrun. In this case the navigator was killed in the emergency landing in South Korea, as well as a civilian on the ground. Xiao himself is reported as having suffered spinal injuries during the crash while the gunner refused to defect and was returned to China.

As an aircraft to defect in the Il-28 has the advantage you don’t need the whole crew to be in on the plot with you. On the downside it seems to have created a lot of collateral damage.

[1] Some sources translate the pilot’s name as Li Xianban, to avoid confusing him with the navigator Li Caiwang the alternative spelling of Lee has been used. Given the size of China’s population that’s probably only a few million people insulted…

9. An Air Force

At the time 1991 seemed like a hectic year: the Soviet Union was dissolved, Freddie Mercury died, and Operation Desert Storm liberated Kuwait. Obviously looking back from 2020 that looks like a quiet weekend’s news cycle but it’s important to remember people back then didn’t know any better. Famously despite warning the liberating armies to prepare for the Mother of all Battles Saddam Hussein’s forces provided relatively little opposition, indeed it’s likely more US personnel became pregnant than were killed during the operation.

It didn’t help Saddam that after only a week of being bombed a large part of the Iraqi Air Force decided it would be better to be somewhere else. Much to everyone’s surprise the somewhere else wasn’t Jordan, a country with generally cordial relations with Iraq, but Iran, the country Iraq had been at war with for most of the ‘80s. Consequently, when the first aircraft started fleeing there on the 25th of January coalition fighters were patrolling in the wrong place.

Presumably wanting to avoid any problems Iran immediately declared its neutrality which regrettably required it to impound the aircraft and their pilots. Think ‘Battle of the River Plate’ but with fewer ships. Over the following few weeks this led to them collecting a veritable smorgasbord of Cold War classics including Su-20, 22s, and 24s, MiG-23s, 25s, and 29s, Mirage F.1s, along with some Il-76 transports, airliners, and a couple of Adnan 1 AEW aircraft. In all some 115 aircraft are believed to have escaped to Iran, approximately the same as the number of serviceable aircraft left in the country after the hostilities were over.

Shockingly, when conflict had ceased Iran decided it would be keeping the aircraft until it had received reparations for damages suffered during the 8 years of the Iran-Iraq War, a Dr Evil-esque $1 trillion. [2] Presumably cash strapped after not winning its second war in under a decade Iraq refused to pay up. Rather than letting the aircraft rot the Iranians made use of them forming new squadrons and, to rub salt into the wound, using them to bomb Iraq. In fact, it was only in 2014 during the fight against ISIS that they started to return some of the aircraft to their original owner, probably with a note apologising for the dents and saying how they really must get together sometime soon.

This wasn’t the only time a large chunk of an air force has defected either, in fact it wasn’t even the only time it happened in 1991. In May of that year seven Hips, six Hinds, three Floggers, two Cubs, and an L-39 of the Ethiopian Air Force fled to Dijibouti after the fall of the short-lived communist government.

If you’re going to defect, strength in numbers is an obvious bonus, they can’t shoot all of you down, and they’ll probably be too confused figuring out who’s on which side to do anything before it’s too late.
[2] ~$2 trillion in 2020 dollars, or 2 copies of The Hush Kit Book of Warplanes in the post-COVID barter economy.

8 . Antonov An-2

Planning on defecting? You’re probably thinking of taking the fastest aircraft you can get your hands on to minimise the chance of being intercepted before stepping onto foreign soil. Shunning anything so obvious PLAAF pilots Shao Hsi-yen and Kao Yu-tsung instead opted for an An-2 biplane for their September 1961 escape from the People’s Republic of China.
First flying in 1947 the An-2 was designed as a utility and agricultural aircraft and conducts revenue earning flights to this day. Even in 1961 though its performance was sedate rather than sparkling. With a top speed of 139 knots its more usual cruise speed is only 100 while the rate of climb is around 700’/minute taking half an hour to get to its service ceiling of 14,000’. On the plus side the take-off run can be as short as 560’ thanks to a stall speed of only 35 knots with a similarly short landing distance. Something that’s likely to come in handy if you’re not totally sure where you’re going to land.

Launching from what is now part of Jiaozhou City in Shandong Province, on the west coast of the Yellow Sea, the Colt faced a 360 nautical mile journey to the island of Jeju off the southern tip of South Korea. Succeeding in this Shao and Kao were in Taipei by early October where they were rewarded with 25kg of gold each, both Chinas rewarding defectors from the other with generous payments until the 80s. The 25kg was worth around $30,000 in 1961, equivalent to a quarter of a million in 2020 dollars. More than enough to buy several An-2s. As with most defectors from the PLAAF they then served with the Republic of China Air Force for several years.
An An-2 was also used in a 1985 defection when a Nicaraguan Army pilot sought asylum in Honduras after completing a mission to deliver supplies to Sandinista troops fighting US backed Contra rebels. Because the Cold War was more complicated in Central America. Meanwhile Cubans taking advantage of the spacious cabin have made numerous defections to the USA, packing 13 passengers into the Antonov that lumbered into Homestead Airport on 15 August 1968 having managed to completely evade any radar surveillance.

Here’s a new thing! An exclusive Hush-Kit newsletter delivered straight to your inbox. Hot aviation gossip, opinion, warplane technology updates, madcap history and other insights from the world of aviation by @Hush_Kit Sign up here

It may not be the most glamorous aircraft to defect in but the An-2 has the twin advantages of flying slow enough it’s hard to get lost and being able to land on a football pitch. To be honest it’s surprising there aren’t more accounts of them being used.

7. Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15, 17, 19/J-5, J-6
Due to the general flow of defection traffic being from Communist countries to literally anywhere else, MiGs and their derivatives feature highly. The MiG-15 and its developments the MiG-17 and twin engined MiG-19 were responsible for a lot of this traffic.

One of the first defections of the Cold War took place in March of 1953 when Franciszek Jarecki a pilot in the Polish Air Force took off from Słupsk on the Baltic coast in a MiG-15 and flew the 80 or so miles to the Danish island of Bornholm. The aircraft was inspected by specialists from the USA and Jarecki would later be awarded $50,000 as a prize for being the first person to present a MiG-15 to the Americans although the aircraft itself was returned to the Polish authorities.

Only a few months later Lt Zdzisław Jaźwiński repeated the feat with an aircraft from the same regiment, this time making his landing in a field on Bornholm island breaking the MiG but leaving him free. Jaźwiński had been in Warsaw during the uprising when the Soviet army stayed behind the Vistula allowing the Germans to crush the Polish resistance, making it easier for them to subsequently install their own puppet regime.

This had instilled in him a deep dislike and mistrust of the Russians. What would happen next could only have confirmed these feelings. The regiment effectively ceased to exist, the other pilots were arrested and put on trial for betraying the homeland two being sentenced to 12 years in prison, while many of those who weren’t tried never flew again. Jaźwiński’s parents meanwhile were sentenced to two years in a labour camp. Ultimately, he would never see them again, not re-visiting Poland until 1997.

It doesn’t say a lot for the Communist authorities measures that in September of 1956 a Lim-2 (Polish built MiG-15) defected to the West from Poland, via Bornholm island. In this case Lieutenant Zygmunt Gościniak after years of planning took advantage of an air combat training sortie in northern Poland against his Russian commander. Rather than making the expected attacking run he dropped to low level and fled north over the Baltic. Arriving at Bornholm he was about to land when he discovered the runway was undergoing maintenance and instead made a wheels up landing in a nearby field. The aircraft remaining remarkably intact. Gościniak ultimately settled in England and is believed to have married in 1957.
Although Bornholm saw no further MiG-15s a further Polish example made it to Sweden, having missed the island, meanwhile in the Far East they were used to defect from North Korea to the South and from China across the straits to Taiwan.

The MiG-17 was an aerodynamic improvement on the MiG-15 and featured in defections from the USSR (while the pilot was stationed in East Germany), Mozambique, Somalia, and Cuba. In the latter case in 1969 pilot Lt Eduardo Jimenez managed to enter US air space undetected and land at Homestead Air Force Base. Which must have come as a bit of surprise to President Nixon whose Air Force One was waiting there to take him back to Washington. As is traditional with Communist regimes a purge was made of the Cuban Air Force leadership and those considered to be Jimenez’s friends. Who were presumably delighted when he decided to defect back to Cuba by hijacking Delta flight 1061 in June 1979. He inexplicably remains on the CIA’s most wanted list.

Sadly, we are again way behind our funding targets. This site is entirely funded by donations from people like you. We have no pay wall, adverts (any adverts you see on this page are not from us) or subscription and want to keep it that way– please donate here to keep this site going. You can really help. 

Thank you.

While the twin engined MiG-19 has been used in less defection attempts than its single engined predecessors, the J-6 Chinese copy has been used on numerous occasions. Twice direct to Taiwan, two times via South Korea, once unfortunately crashing in Vietnam, and once unusually to the USSR in 1990, the pilot being returned to the Chinese authorities who started beating him almost as soon as he was in their hands. The situation got so bad that the People’s Liberation Army Air Force started putting anti-defection systems in their J-6s from late 1987. If the aircraft strayed from its permitted routes a cockpit warning would go off followed by the fuel supply being cut if no attempt was made at returning. [3] This may explain the defection attempt to Russia as the airfield chosen could have been close enough to China that the system wasn’t triggered. This was the case in the 1989 defection to Taiwan that landed on Kinmen island less than ten miles off the coast of the mainland.
The early MiGs have provided a relatively reliable method of defecting for several decades, simple to operate and robust enough to land pretty much anywhere their only downsides are short-range and the vengeful fanaticism of the regime you have to borrow it from.
[3] https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Jiang_Wenhao

6. Northrop F-5
People have occasionally decided to defect to a communist dictatorship, rather than away from one. Presumably due to its export success as a low-cost fighter for US allies the Northrop F-5 has featured a lot in these rare events.

At least two Taiwanese pilots have defected to mainland China using Tiger IIs, in one case after letting a student leave the aircraft mid-flight, and in the other after the pilot did. So, room for improvement. On 8th August 1981 Maj Huang Zhicheng was scheduled to conduct an instrument flying check on Lt Hsu Chiu-Ling. Once the student had put his cockpit blinds up, used to prevent them cheating by looking at the outside world, Zhicheng dropped to 400’ and crossed the straits to the People’s Republic. In an unexpected display of competence Chiu-Ling noted from his instruments that they were in fact over the mainland and protested to his instructor that he didn’t want to land in China. Apparently, a Daily Mail reader Maj Huang complained to reporters that ‘People now all talk about human rights’ and that he’d had to fly back to Taiwan, despite being short of fuel. Lt Hsu parachuted down near the coast, presumably after ejecting although reports are unclear. Zhicheng then flew back to the mainland landing at Fuzhou. Chinese authorities showered the defector with praise, $360,000 and a position as deputy commandant of China’s Aviation Academy. Which is a consideration if you’ve been passed over for promotion.

By the end of the decade Lt Col Lin Xianshun decided to follow Maj Huang’s example and used his F-5E to defect to the mainland apparently after studying its history and geography and ‘developing a longing’ for it. Consequently, on 11 Feb 1989 Xianshun landed near Fengshun in Guangdong Province. His aircraft landing nearby after it had run short of fuel and he’d decided it was better to step out rather than attempting a forced landing. Considering Fengshun is less than 220 nautical miles from Taiwan’s West Coast this does raise questions about the good Lt Col’s flight planning skills. For those wondering if the Taiwanese government hold grudges, they said he’d receive the death penalty if he ever showed his face there again. Which is a bit East Enders.
Still if you think that’s holding a grudge Nguyen Thanh Trung of the South Vietnamese Air Force shows them up as amateurs. On 5th April 1975 Trung defected in his F-5E after executing a plan to avenge his father’s execution that was twelve years in the making. Nguyen senior had been shot for being a Viet Cong guerrilla by South Vietnamese forces, rather than extract immediate revenge the Viet Cong leadership encouraged him to join the Air Force and by 1969 he was in Texas for advanced flying training. Returning to Vietnam Trung would spend a further three years flying combat missions and working on his plan. On the fateful day he feigned electrical difficulties delaying his take-off long enough that the rest of his formation assumed he’d aborted. Instead he flew over Saigon and made two bombing runs on the Presidential Palace setting it on fire before making his way to a small strip in the North. Trung and his F-5 would see further action on behalf of the NVA, leading a flight of five aircraft that bombed Saigon airport during the American evacuation three weeks later that presaged the end of the war on April 30th.

Small and relatively simple to operate the F-5 is the ideal aircraft if you feel like moving to the kind of authoritarian regime that has an aesthetic featuring lots of red stars. Or leaving Iran which they’ve been used for on at least two occasions.

5. Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-23

Like mini-skirts, swing-wing designs were briefly popular in the Sixties before everyone moved on to fly-by-wire and stone-washed denim. Despite, or maybe because of, the added weight of hinges and hydraulics it’s hard to find a variable geometry aircraft that you wouldn’t want to be seen in. Which you can’t say about miniskirts.

In March of 1991 Major Orestes Lorenzo was so taken by the ‘Flogger’ that on his first flight in one he defected from Cuba to the USA. An experienced MiG-21 pilot who had fought in Angola, Orestes dropped to low level and crossed the Straits of Florida at high speed before arriving over Boca Chica Key. Here he slowed the aircraft, dropping the gear and flaps, and then unable to communicate with the tower at NAS Key West made three passes down the runway waggling the wings. At this point the most powerful military in the world did what exactly you’d expect if an unexpected aircraft from a hostile nation arrived over one of its bases. Absolutely nothing. Taking this as a good sign Orestes landed and then taxied clear of the runway where he waited. And waited. Just as he was starting to wonder if he was in the right place a ‘follow me’ van belatedly arrived to escort him to dispersal. Here he was finally able to communicate his desire to defect to a senior officer, via a translator.

So far so standard defection with Orestes moving to Virginia and enjoying life free from the shackles of communism while the head of the Cuban intelligence services went to Florida to get their aircraft back. His wife and children however were still in Cuba, unlike in some communist regimes though they were offered a house, car, and telephone, all considered luxuries in the glorious people’s republic. The only drawback being they’d have to denounce Orestes as a traitor, something his wife refused to do. This was clearly an untenable long-term solution. Taking matters into his own hands once more Major Lorenzo gained his PPL, acquired a Cessna 310 through a supporter and on the afternoon of 19 Dec 1992 flew back to Cuba at low level, landed on a road near El Mamey beach, collected his family and returned to the USA. Which really makes you question if either side were actually keeping a look out for airborne intruders.

We sell fantastic high quality aviation-themed gifts here

Aside from Orestes the MiG-23 has also been used in defections around the Middle East including one successful attempt from Syria to Israel, which had at least managed to track the aircraft on radar. Supersonic at sea level with decent range, and apparently invisible to the United States air defences, the Flogger is ideal for anyone planning on making a covert getaway.

4. Mil Mi-24

Proportionately there haven’t been that many defections using helicopters. But if you’re going to use one it should probably be the meanest, fastest one you can get your hands on. In mid-80s Afghanistan that meant the Mi-24 Hind. To be honest that probably still holds now.

In June of 1985 two Hinds defected from Afghanistan to Pakistan landing at Miran Shah on the border. The aircraft had flown low over the mountains to avoid being detected by radar, which to be fair to the pro-Soviet forces in Kabul is harder than tracking aircraft over the sea. Looking at you Florida. The defection had been organised by the Yunus Khalis guerrilla group, led by Mohammad Yunus Khalis and part of the wider Mujahideen.

The helicopters’ seven crew and passengers were granted asylum before joining the fight against the Soviets. Part of a spate of wider defections that had already led the Soviet and Afghan authorities to limit the amount of fuel that aircraft could take on missions it led to helicopter deliveries being suspended for two years by the Russians. Honestly, it’s a mystery how they failed to win a war against an insurgent force with those tactics.

Central America also saw a ‘Hind’ used in a defection attempt, this time from Nicaragua to Honduras. In something of a rarity, the Honduran Air Force detected the intruding aircraft and F-5s escorted it to Toncontin airport. Take that pretty much every other air force in this list.

Fast, for a helicopter, well-armed, and able to host eight in the spacious airy cabin the Mi-24 family are the ideal answer for anyone looking to skip the country with friends.

3. Douglas DC-3

Tales abound of pilots who having escaped their country mere steps ahead of the invading German Army made a perilous trek across Europe to join the remaining redoubt of resistance and fight in the RAF. It was presumably a bit disappointing five years later to return to your homeland and find anyone who’d had any exposure to the West was viewed with suspicion by the totally legitimate government that was in no way a puppet of the increasingly paranoid Soviet Union. In Czechoslovakia this came to a head in February 1948 when the Communist party realising it was never likely to command an absolute majority in free and fair elections staged a coup to seize power. Almost immediately defection attempts started with at least 11 taking place by air in 1948 alone, on occasion by the simple expedient of refusing to fly the return leg of an international flight. [4]

To avoid having aircraft abandoned across Europe with no one to operate the return leg, Československé Státní Aerolinie (Czechoslovak State Airlines (ČSA)), subsequently restricted former RAF pilots to operating within the Communist Bloc and removed their passports. Because obviously defecting without the correct documentation would be unthinkable. At the same time their family members were barred from travelling on the flights they crewed, on the rash assumption these weren’t the people they were trying to get away from in the first place. In what would prove to be a counter-productive move ČSA were also training up new politically trustworthy crews to replace the old guard, at which point they could be cast aside and interrogated by the state intelligence services.

These pressures drove a rather novel solution that would be familiar to anyone watching Hitchcock’s Strangers on a Train when it was released the following year. With enough aircrew to hijack three aircraft, and the help of a friendly booking clerk, our protagonists booked their families onto the aircraft operated by the other crews. The flights would leave from Brno at 0635, Ostrava at 0630, and at 0700 from Bratislava, all scheduled to arrive at Prague but secretly aiming for Erding in the American Sector of West Germany. The destination being chosen as one of the pilots, Oldřich Doležal, had previously visited when his Aero C-103 had been hijacked in 1948 by another group of ex-RAF defectors.

The first aircraft departed Brno with four of the six crew in on the plan, the Captain and Flight Engineer not being involved. Once established in the cruise the Air Hostess entered the cockpit and distracted the Captain while her fellow conspirators dealt with the Flight Engineer. The Co-Pilot then informed the Captain of their intention to fly to the West, much to his consternation as he was himself planning a defection with his family, which would be jeopardised if the authorities believed he was in any way involved with this attempt. In case stealing an aircraft full of passengers wasn’t exciting enough an extra frisson was added by the presence of one Leopold Thurner ČSA’s president who was known to routinely carry a gun. As you do. As an airline president Leopold does not appear to have been much of a navigator, failing to notice that his flight was taking much longer than it was supposed to and wasn’t really heading in the right direction. In the cockpit, where there was slightly more awareness of where they actually were, tension was high as the aircraft made its way over the Russian Zone of Germany. Once clear of danger and over the American Zone the Co-Pilot, Vit Angetter, contacted Erding air base requesting asylum. Landing at 0818 Angetter informed them that a further two aircraft were on their way, meanwhile Thurner suddenly aware that one of his aircraft had failed to arrive at its destination on time drew his gun and tried to break in to the now locked cockpit. Which is a more hands on approach to customer service than you get with Ryanair. Fortunately, at the same time a number of American MPs were boarding the rear of the DC-3 and disarmed him before anyone did anything they’d regret.

The second aircraft, departing from Ostrava only five minutes late, had a similarly mixed crew. This time it was the Co-Pilot who asked for it to be made clear he wasn’t in on the attempt due to his family, suggesting someone hit him on the head to make it more convincing. Rather than a gun crazed airline president this DC-3 was carrying a delegation of Communist Party officials, who also appear to have possessed no concept of the passage of time. Flying at around 10,000’ just above the clouds the airliner crossed the Russian Zone, like its predecessor maintaining radio silence, before descending into the American Zone and contacting Erding with the password ‘Way to Freedom’ that had been passed to the US Forces by the first aircraft. This time there was no armed assault on the cockpit, and everyone disembarked peacefully.

The final aircraft had possibly the most eventful journey with problems emerging before the attempt even started. Aware that they were leaving their homeland, potentially for ever, the defecting passengers ignored the instructions to bring minimal luggage. Consequently, the Pilot, Doležal, had to offload as much fuel as possible without drawing the authority’s attention. Even so the DC-3 would be around 300kg overweight on take-off.

Further complications arose when security noticed one of the defectors had the same last name as the figure skating champion Alena Vrzáňová who had fled to the West in 1950. Although to be fair that was because it was her mother and she hadn’t thought to use an alias.

Half an hour late the aircraft managed to commence its taxi to the runway, only to be called back to the terminal by air traffic control. Using a method popular in B movies the radio operator claimed there was interference on the radio and then turned it off. Doležal immediately opened the throttles to take-off and avoid any further attempts at preventing their departure. Wisely, they failed to make a scheduled stop at Brno, radioing to say they had undercarriage problems before proceeding to make the now traditional radio silent flight over the Russian Zone. Despite plenty of cause for suspicion on the part of the Communist and Soviet authorities no attempt seems to have been made to stop the final DC-3 and it landed at Erding at 0930. There was only the final hurdle of waiting for the American MPs to detain the armed member of the Secret Police who tried to storm the cockpit after the penny finally dropped as to why his flight to Prague had taken quite so long.

In all 27 of the 85 passengers and crew defected to the west, one additional defector taking advantage of his unplanned diversion along with the 26 who’d been involved from the start. Of those who returned to the Eastern Bloc at least two subsequently attempted to defect with one, the Pilot of the first aircraft, being successful in April 1951, while the other was unfortunately caught and sentenced to thirteen years in prison. Learning from their mistakes the Secret Police would in future place agents in the cockpit, while the remaining ex-RAF pilots were soon removed from active duty.

Although possibly the most complex, and impressive, defection attempt using the DC-3 the Czechoslovak three-way, unsurprisingly, wasn’t the only time they were used to escape an unfriendly regime. Other attempts include a 1950 flight from Prague that ended in Neubieberg near Munich rather than Bratislava with 20 of the 26 onboard deciding not to make the return journey, 6 making the decision after arriving in the West. The military C-47 variant has also been used, in one case making the unusual move of defecting to the Soviet Union in 1970 when the pilot wanted to escape the right-wing military junta then running Greece.

A rugged design classic the DC-3 is the aircraft to defect in if you’re thinking of taking your, or someone else’s family. Just make sure they don’t exceed their baggage allowance.
[4] https://fcafa.com/2011/02/13/they-flew-to-freedom-1948/

2. Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25

The MiG-25 was designed as a response to the increasingly rapid strategic bombers being developed by the USAF. The Mach 2 capable B-58 Hustler was due to be followed into service by the B-70 Valkyrie, which could basically carry the same as a B-52 as far, but at three times the speed of sound and with two less engines. Intercepting such aircraft was going to require something special as, as evidenced by the SR-71, Surface to Air Missiles were unlikely to cut it. The MiG-25 was it, and for longer than they would have liked its capabilities were a worrying mystery to the West. Or really anyone who wasn’t the Soviet Union. The best guesses of Western intelligence were that the huge engines and wing area gave it both speed and agility, driving the requirements of what would become the F-15. But without getting their hands on one there was no real way of knowing quite how much of a threat the Foxbat was. Until 6 September 1976 that is.

This was the day Viktor Belenko took off from Chuguyevka Air Base on a training mission and landed in Japan. Which probably got him marked down in the debrief. Increasingly disillusioned with conditions in the military and soon to be divorced from his wife defection had been some time in the planning. Launching unarmed but with copies of the technical manuals and full fuel tanks Belenko briefly took part in the planned mission before breaking formation and heading east. Flying the second fastest aircraft in the world he naturally egressed Soviet airspace sub-sonically at low level. Once close to Japan he climbed to high level hoping to be detected by radar and intercepted by JASDF Phantoms who could guide him to Chitose Air Base. Predictably despite being designed specifically to counter this sort of threat the JASDF didn’t intercept the Foxbat which left Belenko in a bit of a sticky situation as his 20-tonne fighter was running low on fuel. He was also navigating from memory, borrowing a map of Japan being the kind of red flag the squadron’s Political Officer probably would have picked up on.

Luckily, he found Hakodate airport, unfortunately its runway was only a mile long, which is marginal for a MiG-25. More so if you narrowly avoid a 727 on finals. His arrival in the free world was therefore marred by running off the runway and ending up parked amidst the ILS antenna. To regain points for style Belenko fired shots into the air to dissuade curious Japanese taking photos from a nearby road. Which is a more proactive approach to spotters than you get at Heathrow.

As recounted in a previous episode of Hush Kit the MiG-25 was thoroughly inspected by American technicians before being returned to the Soviet Union in boxes. Who then refused to pay the return postage as it definitely wasn’t in that condition when they’d dispatched it. The damage had anyway been done, the Foxbat’s secrets were laid clear, the huge wing was needed to get the mass of the mostly stainless-steel aircraft off the ground, turning being something of a secondary consideration. Belenko meanwhile moved to the USA, his citizenship being personally approved by President Carter. There he became a consultant to the USAF, and the aerospace industry, and went fishing with Chuck Yeager.

Fast and mysterious the Foxbat is the aircraft for the defector hoping to make an impression.

1. Boeing 747

As seen, most defections involve small and/or fast aircraft able to blunder past air defences (remarkably effectively considering how much the world’s militaries spend on radars and jet interceptors). Wang Xijue however is a man whose vision is to be admired, eschewing the road more travelled he claims the record for largest aircraft used in a defection by borrowing a Boeing 747-200F. A record that’s unlikely to be beaten unless a Korean Air pilot decides to move north with an A380.

On 3 May 1986 while returning to Taiwan from Bangkok via a stopover in Hong Kong, Wang took advantage of a trip to the toilet by the Flight Engineer to handcuff the Co-Pilot Tung Kung-shin after a short struggle. This involved a chain and an axe so was probably more one-sided than it sounds. On his return the engineer Chiu Ming-chih had little choice but to also comply with Wang. The Pilot then diverted the aircraft to Guangzhou, North West of Hong Kong, much to the consternation of Kai Tak ATC. A few days later Wang flew the 747 to Beijing, there apparently not being an easier way to get to the capital.

So far so broadly normal for a defection. The next few weeks would be slightly different, however. In 1986 the two Chinas had had no formal contact in the 37 years since the end of the civil war. But a 747 is a bit larger than your average defector’s aircraft and China Air Lines (CAL) were reticent to lose it. This led to negotiations between CAL and the Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC) both effectively parts of their respective country’s governments. Meeting in Hong Kong between 17th and 20th May, the two sides agreed release of the aircraft and the two non-defecting crew. On the 22nd the aircraft, flown by a five-man crew from the CAAC, arrived in Hong Kong, having collected the two CAL crew from Guangzhou en-route. Reportedly the original cargo was also onboard although as it consisted of fruit and tyres it’s questionable how well at least half of it had kept for three weeks in the sub-tropics.

As the first contact between officials of the two Chinas the aftermath of Wang Xijue’s defection has been marked as the point when relations between the two states started to if not normalise at least be more pragmatic. The following year Taiwanese families could cross the straits to visit relatives on the mainland and the Republic officially ended martial law. The following year postal exchange via Hong Kong was formalised. Wang then has a legitimate claim to altering international relations with his defection.

But what of Wang himself? Well it’s possible this wasn’t his first trip into mainland China’s airspace there being some evidence he’d flown U-2s as part of the ROCAF’s Black Cat squadron which conducted surveillance missions between 1961 and 1974. [5] It was probably the first time he’d landed though. His exact motives for defecting remain a little unclear however, during press conferences at the time he complained of the rampant corruption and traffic jams in Taiwan. Which suggests a misunderstanding of the levels of corruption in Communist single-party states, and why mid-80s China didn’t have any traffic to jam. Nor did he receive any money, which is a shame as a it would be nice to know the comparative value of a 747 vs an Il-28.

His employer meanwhile simultaneously claimed that he had a happy home life with no financial worries and that he was constantly arguing with his “nagging” wife about money. [6] Which doesn’t say a lot for CAL’s Human Resources department. The answer may lie in the somewhat extravagant use of a Jumbo Jet to go to Beijing where Wang’s father lived and who he’d not seen since the end of the civil war in 1949. Which puts not seeing your old man for six months because of lock-down into perspective.

[5] https://lujuba.cc/en/435604.html
[6] https://www.csmonitor.com/1986/0506/owang.html and https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1986/05/24/crewmen-say-defector-seized-747/e8cff3db-1f4c-4618-8895-22a1730cfc20/

Bing Chandler is a former Lynx Observer and current Wildcat Air Safety Officer. If you want a Sea Vixen t-shirt he can fix you up.

The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes. Preorder your copy today here. 

From the cocaine, blood and flying scarves of World War One dogfighting to the dark arts of modern air combat, here is an enthralling ode to these brutally exciting killing machines.

The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes is a beautifully designed, highly visual, collection of the best articles from the fascinating world of military aviation –hand-picked from the highly acclaimed Hush-kit online magazine (and mixed with a heavy punch of new exclusive material). It is packed with a feast of material, ranging from interviews with fighter pilots (including the English Electric Lightning, stealthy F-35B and Mach 3 MiG-25 ‘Foxbat’), to wicked satire, expert historical analysis, top 10s and all manner of things aeronautical, from the site described as:

“the thinking-man’s Top Gear… but for planes”.

The solid well-researched information about aeroplanes is brilliantly combined with an irreverent attitude and real insight into the dangerous romantic world of combat aircraft.

FEATURING

• Interviews with pilots of the F-14 Tomcat, Mirage, Typhoon, MiG-25, MiG-27, English Electric Lighting, Harrier, F-15, B-52 and many more.
• Engaging Top (and bottom) 10s including: Greatest fighter aircraft of World War II, Worst British aircraft, Worst Soviet aircraft and many more insanely specific ones.
• Expert analysis of weapons, tactics and technology.
• A look into art and culture’s love affair with the aeroplane.
• Bizarre moments in aviation history.
• Fascinating insights into exceptionally obscure warplanes.

The book will be a stunning object: an essential addition to the library of anyone with even a passing interest in the high-flying world of warplanes, and featuring first-rate photography and a wealth of new world-class illustrations.

This book can only happen with your support. Preorder your copy today here. 

This book can only happen with your support. Preorder your copy today here. 

Hughes JB-3/M-X750 Tiamat (1945)

August 6 1945 is an infamous day in history, as it was the date that a USAAF B-29 dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima. The very same day marked another significant moment in the history of weapon technology, the first launch of a radar-guided air-to-air missile, the Hughes JB-3 Tiamat. This clumsy weapon, which weighed a whopping 625 pounds (today’s AMRAAM weighs half this and has a warhead of half the weight) was essentially a winged 100-Ib bomb with a FM radar homing guidance system. It had a top speed of 600 miles per hour, a ceiling of 50,000 feet and a range of five to nine miles. It was too much too soon and was cancelled after ten test launches. It was overly ambitious, and would have required technology that was beyond the state of the art in 1945.

We sell fantastic high quality aviation-themed gifts here

 Hawker Siddeley Dynamics SRAAM Mongoose/Taildog (1968)

Britain was working on an extremely advanced heat-seeking air-to-air missile from the late 1960s. The missile was conceptually similar to the later generation of missiles that entered service around the turn of the century, in its extreme manoeuvrability, ability to hit acquire and hit targets at extreme angles from the firing aircraft’s flightpath. It differed in two respects: its range and being tube launched. The very short range was a product of the requirement for a “dogfight missile” that filled the gap between the short-range Red Top and the gun. The extreme manoeuvrability was aided by thrust vectoring, a feature that would not be seen on an operational missile until the Soviet R-73 entered service in 1984 (it would not be seen on Western AAM until the MICA entered service in 1996). A missile is subject to a minimum range, before which it cannot manoeuvre effectively.  Thrust vectoring enables a missile to start turning before it has accelerated to sufficient speeds for its small aerodynamic surfaces to be useful and allows for dramatic course changes as it pursues a manoeuvring target. Today the IRIS-T, AAM-5B, AIM-9X and MICA use TVC control.

The missile was to engage targets at distances between 250 metres and two kilometres, leading to HSD describing it as “a gun that can fire around corners.” The missile was cancelled in a 1974 defence review but work was to continue for technology demonstration.

Following ground test launches, it was test fired from a Hawker Hunter F6 in 1977 and demonstrated that its uncanny agility was not matched by uncanny loyalty as it rather alarmingly turned directly into the launch aircraft’s flightpath. Work from the project would inform the ASRAAM, a weapon that did not enter service until 1998.

The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes. Preorder your copy today here. 

From the cocaine, blood and flying scarves of World War One dogfighting to the dark arts of modern air combat, here is an enthralling ode to these brutally exciting killing machines.

The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes is a beautifully designed, highly visual, collection of the best articles from the fascinating world of military aviation –hand-picked from the highly acclaimed Hush-kit online magazine (and mixed with a heavy punch of new exclusive material). It is packed with a feast of material, ranging from interviews with fighter pilots (including the English Electric Lightning, stealthy F-35B and Mach 3 MiG-25 ‘Foxbat’), to wicked satire, expert historical analysis, top 10s and all manner of things aeronautical, from the site described as:

“the thinking-man’s Top Gear… but for planes”.

The solid well-researched information about aeroplanes is brilliantly combined with an irreverent attitude and real insight into the dangerous romantic world of combat aircraft.

FEATURING

• Interviews with pilots of the F-14 Tomcat, Mirage, Typhoon, MiG-25, MiG-27, English Electric Lighting, Harrier, F-15, B-52 and many more.
• Engaging Top (and bottom) 10s including: Greatest fighter aircraft of World War II, Worst British aircraft, Worst Soviet aircraft and many more insanely specific ones.
• Expert analysis of weapons, tactics and technology.
• A look into art and culture’s love affair with the aeroplane.
• Bizarre moments in aviation history.
• Fascinating insights into exceptionally obscure warplanes.

The book will be a stunning object: an essential addition to the library of anyone with even a passing interest in the high-flying world of warplanes, and featuring first-rate photography and a wealth of new world-class illustrations.

This book can only happen with your support. Preorder your copy today here. 

This book can only happen with your support. Preorder your copy today here. 

Is your favourite warplane neglected in books and magazines? Want to know more about a particular subject? The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes may be the most democratic of aviation books; you have the chance to choose a subject for one of our fascinating articles.

_{THERE’S LIMITED PLACES AND WE WILL BE SHORTLY FREEZING THE EDITORIAL PLAN , SO GET A MOVE ON!}

Go here and select Subject of your choice.

Subject of Your Choice. You choose a (military aircraft) subject you would like covered in the book, your name will appear next to it. Plus all three Top Trump packs, two signed books and the ebook. £250 + shipping

This piece has been prompted by reports that the USAF has already flown a demonstrator of the first stage of its Next Generation Air Dominance Fighter.

The US programme is a bold and innovative attempt to break the mould of increasingly long and complex development cycles for advanced military aircraft. This would include the approach of using virtual prototyping, modelling and assessment to evaluate systems before building physical hardware. This approach offers the potential to identify and correct issues before committing to physical prototyping, as well as the prospect of a more rapid iteration to an implementable design.

The intent is to develop and field new versions, and adaptations, of a family of systems, taking advantage of virtual prototyping, so that anticipated rapid advances in software-driven capability can be more rapidly accessed. It is also clearly anticipated that the NGAD capability will not simply reside in one super-platform, but will be delivered by a system of co-operating platforms and systems.

Two years ago, in a piece for Hush-Kit on Air Power in 2030, I suggested the following for the future direction of US Air superiority, then referred to as F-X:

US – future systems

As we have seen from the earlier discussion, there is an emerging capability gap around USAF air superiority systems, given the lack of a programme for a capability upgrade to the F-22. A replacement programme, F-X, is in existence, but little hard information is available. There is also a lack of clarity about future US Navy plans to replace the F/A-18 E/F/G under the F/A-XX programme.

USAF 6th Generation Fighter F-X

Role: Air Superiority (Penetrating Air Combat)
Configuration: Unknown
2018 Status: In development (?)
2030 Status: Entry to service

The limited information available suggests that the USAF is seeking a system-of-systems approach, where a range of sensor, communications, electronic, cyber, platform(s) and weapons would deliver its future capability. There is an indication that the platform element of this would have significantly greater range and payload than the current F-22, while retaining the ability to be both stealthy and supersonic.

One enabler for this is seen as the use of variable cycle propulsion systems, offering modes at higher bypass ratio for the cruise, and lower bypass ration for take-off, acceleration and dash. Adjunct systems are likely, and might include long-range ground-based air defence systems; stand-off, and possibly space-based, sensor systems; and, speculatively, some autonomous systems which might deliver targeting, communications relay or EW capabilities.

Given US conviction of its superiority in LO technologies, this aspect is likely to be emphasised. Consequently, I would not anticipate a J-20 style solution as the US believe canards too much of a compromise in this area. There has been substantial research in unconventional control devices for LO systems, and there is a US desire to avoid vertical tail surfaces if possible.

Based on all this – a large highly swept delta, with minimal tail surfaces, and active use of innovative control systems appears likely. To be effective, such a platform would need to carry highly effective and long-range AAMs, and would be supported by networked detection, tracking and targeting systems, as well as stand-off electronic warfare and cyber capabilities.

Prototyping, technology development and risk reduction activities are likely to be taking place, possibly as Black programmes.

I’d stand by all this, which seems to reflect closely what is known of the NGAD programme so far.

The mechanism for rapid development and evolution of the system, and presumably its other components too, is credible. It certainly resembles the aspirations of others in this field (BAE Systems were trialling an approach called GHOST, based on virtual prototyping, 20 years ago).

Because such a high proportion of the proposed capability will be software-enabled, it is likely that any NGAD platform, sensor or system will be dependent, not only on the robust development and validation of its initial code, but progressive development will require multiple further software developments and enhancements, not just on individual platforms and sensors, but also on other elements of the integrated system-of-systems.

This will place great emphasis on getting the initial architecture right, and ensuring that the entire system-of-systems is robust as additional capability is added. In my view software development, integration and validation has been the most under-rated risk in the JSF programme, and hence has been the area to which many delays can be traced. Perhaps this is the key technical challenge in the programme, and it is certainly critical if the pace of development is to be rapid.

Organisationally, however, real progress in shortening design cycles is also dependent on shortening the parallel Military, Defense Department, and Congressional decision-making cycles, which may actually pace such programmes. This is, perhaps, a second area where a real break-through is required.

Other elements to stress would be the intent to build a cyber-warfare (and cyber-resistant) networked capability, and the extensive use of off-board sensor, EW, communications and possibly weapons platforms. Extensive use is likely of data and information fusion, to allow targeting of, and by, third parties, and also (as outlined in another Hush_Kit article by myself and Dr Ron Smith link) to allow cooperative detection and targeting of stealthy combatants.

The Loyal Wingman, in development by Boeing in Australia, is but one of a number of emergent UAV projects which might provide adjuncts to the manned NGAD capability. While significant attention has been given to the potential use of LO UAVs as strike platforms, their use as air combat weapons carriers, and additional sensor platforms, is certainly not out of the question.

Here’s a new thing! An exclusive Hush-Kit newsletter delivered straight to your inbox. Hot aviation gossip, opinion, warplane technology updates, madcap history and other insights from the world of aviation by @Hush_Kit Sign up here

This area has been examined in the past – while no one bought into a fairly widely-touted Lockheed Martin proposal for an unmanned F-16 some decades ago, research efforts in the UK, and doubtless the US and others, have examined unmanned co-operating air-to-air combat UAVs in the past. With the technology capabilities for third-party targeting, data-linking, and co-operative use of sensors already fielded in the F-35 and other current platforms, it seems more than ever a plausible option. Indeed, the BAE Systems LANCA (Lightweight Affordable Novel Combat Aircraft) project, which is itself part of the Tempest programme, explicitly foreshadows the use of adjunct systems in air combat.

Support Hush-Kit with our high quality aviation themed merchandise here

Implementing armed air-combat UAV wingmen would require permissive rules of engagement, but with an explicit aspiration of Global Air Dominance, one can easily imagine the US going down this path.

It is likely that advantage will be taken of the inherently large usable internal volume of delta configurations to carry, not only fuel for long range, but also probably multiple weapons bays, enabling both an anti-air and a strike capability. It would not be surprising if the weapons bays were quite large, allowing the flexibility to accommodate future hypersonic weapons. Similarly, it may be expected that early iterations of the design would have additional internal bays set aside for future sensors, growth avionics and computing capability, to provide a sound basis for future evolution of the capability.

A second input to this discussion of the NGAD system comes from the slide below.

I find myself in pretty broad agreement with the suggestions in the slide, except the indication that the platform might be hypersonic. Hypersonic systems with warfighting capability still appear to be difficult in a number of areas including propulsion, sensors, weapons carriage and release, not to mention materials and structures.

From a cost and time point of view, the whole direction of the programme appears to be reliant on multiple incremental steps rather than large leaps of faith such as might be required to take on manned hypersonic air combat. Finally, any hope of Infra-Red stealth would disappear with the aerodynamic heating experienced in atmospheric hypersonic flight. This is not to say that a hypersonic boost-glide vehicle might not be part of the mix for a future USAF. I just can’t see such a system coming out of this type of programme.

^{This site needs a small donation from you to continue. If you’ve enjoyed an article please donate here.  It only takes a moment and we notice your love. Recommended donation £15.}

Pre-order your copy of the Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes here.

Similarly, I am sure that the NGAD system will have some laser capability, as laser dazzle systems are already widely available (although packaging for a stealthy fighter might still be a development area). I am less convinced that the technology for airborne weapons capability is available, but the incremental approach adopted is presumably intended to allow for future developments like this, should they become available.

Finally, I believe the US would seek to avoid the use of the canard surfaces shown, and would prefer other means of controlling the aircraft. The requirements for control are likely to be quite different from those of current air superiority fighters. Given the intent to operate as a system of systems, one might envisage a fully developed NGAD platform operating as the command and control node, using cooperating unmanned sensor, EW and weapons platforms to deliver both a permissive environment and, as far as possible, weapons effects. The principle role of the crewed NGAD platform would be to provide human-in-the-loop decision-making, enabling the whole system to respond to the mission situation and threat response.

The NGAD platform itself would be optimised for stealth rather than manouevrability, and, I suggest, would only seek to engage in BVR air combat, and perhaps strike using stand-off weapons. Consequently, control requirements are unlikely to include aggressive manoeuvring, dog-fighting, and high-g manoeuvres. Instead, the emphasis is likely to be on providing effortless and largely automated control, using stealthy effectors, and freeing up crew attention to manage the tactical system-of-systems.

These effectors might include thrust vectoring, vortex flaps, and a number of emerging technologies, possibly including air jets as in the BAE Systems MAGMA project, circulation control, or shape-changing structures.

Differential flap or airbrake deflections are another feasible approach, but would probably be avoided in the interest of maintaining low signature.

For completeness, I attach my thoughts on the US Navy F/A-XX program, also from 2018:

F/A-XX

Role: Multi-role (Air Defence, Strike, EW)
Configuration: Unknown
2018 Status: In development (?)
2030 Status: Entry to service

The F/A-XX program reflects a US Navy need to replace the F/A-18 E, F, and G in the mid-2020s as these platforms reach their service lives. Compared to the USAF requirement for a 6th gen fighter, the future F/A-XX is likely to constrained by carrier deck size and possible weight constraints, and also by the necessity to operate within the deployed environment of the carrier battle group.

The available material discussing the project expresses similar aspirations to F-X in terms of the system being networked and integrated with other components in order to achieve the required capability effects. That said, there are suggestions that the US Navy may seek a somewhat more agile system that that proposed for the USAF.

There are some interesting programmatic issues, not least the question as to why the Navy doesn’t simply acquire more F-35C to replace the Super Hornets. My guess is that the Navy will seek to have a program which draws on the technologies being developed for F-X, but will seek to acquire a Navy-specific solution rather than a common system.

On configuration, I think a Navy F/A-XX would be smaller and more agile than the Air Force F-X. It will also need compromises to be made to achieve the deck landing and take-off requirements, and these may result in a somewhat less stealthy solution than the F-X.

Prototyping, technology development and risk reduction activities are likely to be taking place, possibly as Black programs.

An interesting aspect of Blue-Water Navy operations is the likely need for an autonomous, and preferably stealthy, refuelling system to enable CAP patrols of worthwhile duration and stand-off, to assist in providing Air Defence for the Task Group. This requirement may be a driver for the early development of such a capability, with active programs being conducted by the US Navy, USAF, Airbus, and in China.

Jim Smith

Jim Smith had significant technical roles in the development of the UK’s leading military aviation programmes from ASRAAM and Nimrod, to the JSF and Eurofighter Typhoon. He was also Britain’s technical liaison to the British Embassy in Washington, covering several projects including the Advanced Tactical Fighter contest. His latest book is available here.

Pre-order your copy of the Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes here.

Sadly, we are again way behind our funding targets. This site is entirely funded by donations from people like you. We have no pay wall, adverts (any adverts you see on this page are not from us) or subscription and want to keep it that way– please donate here to keep this site going. You can really help. 

Thank you.

Here’s a new thing! An exclusive Hush-Kit newsletter delivered straight to your inbox. Hot aviation gossip, opinion, warplane technology updates, madcap history and other insights from the world of aviation by @Hush_Kit Sign up here:

The US V-22 Osprey is a class of aircraft unto itself as it is the only manned tilt-rotor in service. Former Head of Future Projects at Westland Helicopters Ron Smith argues there’s a reason for that: it offers little and costs a king’s ransom.

The V-22 Osprey is a tilt rotor design that is used by the US Marine Corps and Air Force and 39 CMV-22 aircraft are being procured by the US Navy. The Japanese Self Defense Forces are acquiring five aircraft, Indonesia has ordered the type and Israel is very interested.

The V-22 has two large engines (6,150 hp), one mounted on each wing-tip, driving a 38 ft diameter three bladed propeller. The angle of the engine nacelles can be varied from in line with the wing up to ninety degrees to the wing to enable the aircraft to take-off and land vertically. In fact, the nacelles can tilt beyond the vertical by some 7.5 degrees to allow rearward flight or hovering in a tail wind.

So we have an aircraft that can operate like a conventional twin-engine turboprop aircraft in cruising flight and can hover like a helicopter and take-off and land vertically. That sounds like a great idea, doesn’t it?

Hover analysis

There are a couple of design issues, however. When hovering, the rotor diameters are smaller than one would expect for a helicopter in the same weight class. The V-22 has a maximum vertical take-off weight of 47,500 lb and can carry 24 seated troops.

The rotor diameter is restricted by the need for its tips to be clear of the fuselage when flying as a conventional aircraft in forward flight. This results in a higher disc loading (weight over rotor area) of around 21 lb/sq ft than would be expected for a helicopter in this weight class. This equates to reduced hover efficiency and a greater downwash (wake) velocity beneath the rotor.

The efficiency of the rotors in the hover is also suffers from the fact that the blade twist has to be a compromise between that required for an efficient hover and that required for efficient cruise flight. A second penalty arises because the wing blocks part of the airflow down from the rotor, creating a downward force that opposes the rotor lift.

My comparison helicopter is the relatively old Sikorsky CH-53D. This aircraft weighs 33,500 lb, has a rotor diameter of 72 ft 2.8 in and can carry 38 – 55 troops. The disc loading of the CH53D is around 9 lb/sq ft, under half that of the V-22. Now, the power required to hover depends on disc loading so that the V-22 will inevitably require significantly more power to hover at a given weight.

The installed power of the V-22 is (maximum) 2 X 6,150 hp or 12,300 hp total, the total maximum continuous power is 11,780 hp. By comparison, the installed power of the CH-53 is 2 x 3,925 hp, a total of 7,850 hp. The upshot is that the V-22 is 40% heavier than a CH-53, has 57% more installed power but carries around half the number of troops.

Forward Flight

I can hear voices shouting “but you’re missing the whole point!” The whole point being that the V-22 can fly like a fixed wing aircraft and land vertically when it arrives. The V-22 can cruise in airplane mode at 250 kt, which is 100 kt faster than the CH-53D’s 150 kt. The range of the V-22 is quoted as 879 nautical miles compared with a figure of 540 nautical miles for the CH-53D. Tactical mission profiles will be quite different, but there will still be a significant range advantage.

One big tactical benefit that accrues for expeditionary operations is that the assault can be mounted from further off-shore, allowing the fleet assets to be less vulnerable to any anti-ship missiles that the enemy may have. The speed and range of the V-22 allow the same tempo to be achieved from a greater stand-off range.

How does the V-22 compare with a medium STOL turboprop transport? My choice is the Alenia C-27J Spartan. The Spartan take-off weight is 67,200 lb, with 2 X 4,640 hp engines (9,280 hp total). It can carry 60 troops and cruise at 315 kt over a range of 950 nm. So, despite its higher weight, the Spartan is 65 kt faster than an Osprey on 75% of the power, while carrying 2.5 X the number of troops over a greater range. Roughly speaking, you could buy three C-27Js for the price of two V-22s.

Pre-order your copy of the Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes here.

But, But, But

Yes – the V-22 CAN take-off vertically and it CAN fly 100 kt faster than a transport helicopter and it CAN land vertically on arrival. However, as we have seen, it makes a pretty inefficient helicopter and a pretty modest transport aircraft.

So, when do you need its capabilities? There are two clear military missions that come to mind: Combat Search and Rescue (and the closely related casualty evacuation) is the first role, where high transit speeds, long range and vertical take-off and landing are likely to be of critical importance.

The other role is insertion and extraction of Special Forces. Having no tail rotor and no Chinook blade slap the V-22 can achieve higher transit speeds with lower audible signatures than conventional helicopters in this role.

In Marine assault operations, it is doing the same job as a helicopter (albeit with a somewhat less payload for its size), but its real benefit seems to be to reduce the vulnerability of the assault fleet.

It would also be useful for Coastguard and Maritime rescue operations, but the organisations that provide these services are often not funded to a level that would support the use of such a complex platform.

In my opinion, you could use the aircraft for ASW operations, provided you used air-dropped sonobuoys (passive or active), rather than requiring active dipping sonar. This suggests deep water operations, rather than shallow water and littoral operations (Atlantic and Pacific, rather than Mediterranean or North Sea operations).

Its relatively inefficient hover performance and the associated high downwash velocities suggest that the Osprey would not be the preferred choice for underslung load operations and ship to ship operations.

The US Navy are buying the CMV-22B for this role, however, with the justification that the aircraft can deliver cargo direct to smaller vessels, whereas the current C-2 Greyhound can only operate to and from aircraft carriers. The C-2 therefore requires helicopters to perform onward distribution to smaller vessels across the fleet.

We sell fantastic high quality aviation-themed gifts here

Other Considerations – Cost and Safety

One might say that the high development cost over a long period of time is a ‘sunk cost’ and is therefore not really relevant. Nevertheless, from a first flight date of 19 March 1989 it took until 13 June 2007 (18 years) before MV-22 Initial Operational Capability was achieved. The programme development cost is quoted as having been around $27 billion, with a fly-away cost (FY2015) of $72 million.

This fly-away cost is significantly higher than for a large helicopter. The larger Sikorsky CH-53E (greater than 70.000 lb take-off weight) has a quoted average unit cost of around $25 million. A civil AW101 is reputed to cost $28 million, a military example, rather more. Comparisons of published cost figures are notoriously difficult, but it is clear that the V-22 is likely to be significantly costly compared with a helicopter procurement.

The V-22 is a complex mechanism, with a high degree of automation and redundancy. As any reliability engineer knows, redundancy is a double-edged sword. The probability of a critical system continuing functioning after one or two system failures is greatly increased by having duplex, triplex or quadruplex redundancy, On the other hand, the probability of having a failure for a given inherent reliability is doubled, or tripled, or increased four-fold as a result. This means that a highly redundant system will have an increased failure rate.

^{This site needs a small donation from you to continue. If you’ve enjoyed an article please donate here.  It only takes a moment and we notice your love. Recommended donation £15.}

This can be mitigated by the use of intelligent health and usage monitoring systems that can provide early warning of incipient failures and can assist trouble shooting by flagging up the nature and location of the problem. So automation, redundancy and monitoring reduce crew workload, and increase safety, but add more black boxes to maintain and repair.

On the safety side, helicopters have a number of critical items, particularly in the dynamic system, where failure under static or fatigue loads is likely to be catastrophic. Examples would include loss of control to main or tail rotor; rotor head or rotor blade failure; and main gearbox failure.

In the V-22 (or other tilt rotor configurations) these issues, which drive inspection regimes and introduce life limited components are still valid concerns. A transmission cross shaft is provided to enable the good engine to power both rotors following a single engine failure. After such a failure, the aircraft would transition to airplane mode and ultimately make a rolling landing with the nacelles partially raised to keep the blade tips clear of the ground.

There were aircraft losses in development and a total of 12 V-22 aircraft have been destroyed in hull-loss accidents. In mature service, the aircraft seems to be performing as advertised, and safely, albeit with a significant maintenance overhead relating to the systems’ complexity.

Summary

The V-22 is in service and working well. In its own way, it is iconic. It’s a new configuration, it turns heads, it folds up on board ship. It passes my test that, every time I see one, I photograph it. Think of the Harrier, or Concorde, F-117, or B-2 – it’s just not every day that an entirely new configuration makes it to full operational service.

The V-22 is costly to procure and operate and its ‘stand out’ roles appear to be limited to CSAR, CASEVAC and support to Special Forces. Its speed and range in the Marine assault role primarily reduces the vulnerability of the assault fleet.

Where vertical take-off and landing is not essential, conventional medium STOL transports appear to offer a more efficient solution. Where high speed is not required, conventional helicopters may be more efficient at substantially lower costs.

Getting the aircraft from first flight to IOC required a substantial and sustained investment effort over some eighteen years. Now that it is established in operation there is some pressure for it to take on other roles.

It is hard for this author to believe that the V-22 will ever be efficient in ASW, COD or slung load operations. Its fuselage volume and cross-section also mitigate against the transport of larger troop units or heavy cargo.

^{This site needs a small donation from you to continue. If you’ve enjoyed an article please donate here.  It only takes a moment and we notice your love. Recommended donation £15.}

The money has been invested – use it for what it’s good for. It might be a comparatively niche solution, but it seems justified (at least for the United States armed forces) in its current roles (except, perhaps, COD).

It may be a triumph of money over common sense, but it is an undoubted triumph, nevertheless. (A bit like Concorde, really).

Pre-order your copy of the Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes here.

The Sukhoi Su-34 does not have an exact Western equivalent. With a strategic un-refuelled range and agility that could challenge an F-16 it is a formidable and unusual warplane. Nicknamed the ‘Duck’ (or ‘Ootka’ in Russian) for its flattened nose the Su-34 boasts a mini-kitchen, sleeping space for the crew and a toilet (well at least in the language of a cynical estate agent it does!). It can carry 12 and half tons of weapons and 130 of the type fly with the Russian Air Force. It’s an extremely handsome machine and one that you deserve to look at while you sip your morning coffee.

In May 1941 into the Aircraft Warning Service, the civilian arm of the Army’s Ground Observer Corps was formed. Highly trained in aircraft recognition their vital skill quickly spilled into a hobby that spread across America. We celebrate the birth of the American aviation spotting obsession with this authentic reproduction of the badge worn with pride by this learnt to recognise every warplane in a glance. This is the badge of the insider, and one that marks the true military aviation enthusiast.

Dedicated to those Americans who looked skyward in defence of their nation.

A high quality tea towel decorated with the original ‘blood chit’ design handed to British aircrews flying missions over Soviet controlled regions in World War II.

Disclaimer: We cannot guarantee the safety of aircrew who use these if downed over modern Russia.

WISH TO UPGRADE TO RECEIVE THESE SUPERB REWARDS? Here’s how

1. Log in to your Unbound account
   2. Go to your supported projects page
   3. Find the book that you want to upgrade and click manage project

In 2015, Research Fellow at the RUSI Think-tank Justin Bronk, compared Europe’s two middle-weight fighter aircraft, the Typhoon and Rafale,  The relatively subtle differences between these two superbly capable aircraft have inspired a great deal of heated debate, often poisoned by pride and nationalism. His article provoked a huge response from readers around the world. We went back to Justin Bronk and asked him to revisit this analysis to include half a decade’s worth of development and weapons integration which has now placed these two aircraft at the top of their game.

 Justin Bronk is a Research Fellow of Military Sciences at the Royal United Services Institute and Editor of RUSI Defence Systems.

What is the biggest difference in the philosophy of the designs?

“With common DNA in terms of initial development and requirements setting work before France spilt away from what became the Eurofighter consortium to develop the Rafale, it is unsurprising that both aircraft have relatively similar design philosophies compared to their competitors globally. The biggest source of differences comes from the French requirement that the basic airframe design be suitable for CATOBAR carrier operations, which carries particular requirements in terms of relatively high-alpha, low speed handling especially with external stores still attached. The Rafale was also designed from the outset as a nuclear delivery system, which was not a major consideration for the Eurofighter nations.

In terms of the design philosophy effects on the final aircraft, the Rafale has a greater emphasis on load carrying and exceptional handling even at very low speeds whilst the Typhoon as a design is more focused on maximum performance at altitude, and agility at transonic and supersonic speeds. This is all relative, however, as both aircraft perform very similarly in most scenarios compared to other types.

Radar

At time of writing the following comparisons would be for the latest F3R Standard Rafale with the RBE2 AESA radar vs a Typhoon FGR.4 in UK service with the CAPTOR-M. I will add an estimate in brackets for the Kuwaiti/Qatari standard Typhoon with the ‘Radar 0’ version of the CAPTOR-E AESA which is flying and enters service this year in Kuwait. For reference the German/Spanish ‘Radar 1’ standard will add further capabilities and the UK’s ECRS2 version will be a different beast entirely with advanced ground mapping, GMTI and EW capabilities in addition to traditional AESA functions. However, those will not be in service for several years so are not included here.

Air-to-air engagements at long ranges
The RBE2 (has the advantage) against targets with a low radar cross section due to the greater performance of AESA types against these threats. CAPTOR-M (has the advantage) against larger targets such as bombers or MiG-31 ‘Foxhound’s due to a much larger aperture and generally higher altitude perch during air-to-air engagements. (Radar 0 will out-range both against airborne targets)

Air-to-air engagements at short ranges and why?
RBE2 due to much faster AESA scan, acquisition and classification of target capabilities, greater resistance to dropping contacts during manoeuvres, as well as excellent information display for pilots in F3R cockpit. (RBE2 likely to still beat Radar 0 upon IOC due to more mature system and HMI).

Air-to-ground
RBE2 as a multifunction AESA radar gives far more air-to-ground functionality than CAPTOR-M. (Radar 0 is optimised for air-to-air and is unlikely to challenge RBE2 in this arena).

Maritime attack
RBE2 again due to advantages of AESA array plus a more mature maritime attack mode with Exocet integrated. Typhoon has anti-ship munition options but no current operators use them.

Which aircraft has a superior infra-red search and track system and why? Typhoon with the PIRATE system is significantly ahead of the legacy Rafale IRST. The latter was deleted from the latest F3R standard aircraft pending an updated capability in the F4 standard jets, leaving a laser rangefinder/EO ball only. PIRATE is a genuinely exceptional IRST, although for years shortages of spare parts limited its use by various frontline squadrons.

Cockpit layout/man-machine interface
Both aircraft have similar cockpit layouts in most respects, with three large main multifunction colour displays capable of significant customisation to suit individual pilot preferences in the latest versions. Both are significantly cleaner in terms of switches and clutter than previous generations of aircraft and slightly cleaner than current generation F-15s and F-16s in USAF service. A pilot from either of those two fighters would find little out of place or unfamiliar in terms of cockpit layout, although the internal menus and system logic may be different from what they are used to. By dint of being complex multi role single seat (in most cases) fighters, the HOTAS controls are fairly intimidating to someone used to a US teen series (or my DCS A-10C/F-16 HOTAS), but once mastered are extremely comprehensive. Having ‘flown’ full fidelity Typhoon simulators in Italy and the UK, including the latest Project Centurion multi-role standard now used by the RAF, I was impressed by the intuitive ‘feel’ of the human-machine interface (HMI) across various multi role tasks. Unfortunately I haven’t had the opportunity to do the same with the French Air Force (hint hint mes amis!). According to all the Rafale pilots I have spoken to, the Rafale’s F3R standard HMI is superb from an operator’s point of view in multirole scenarios, especially in terms of displaying threat information.

The central display protruding out towards the pilot in the Rafale would be a matter of personal taste over the more traditional Typhoon display layout, with an easier view of the main radar/situational awareness display coming at the cost of slightly reduced cockpit working area in a cockpit already slightly more snug than Typhoon’s. The Typhoon has an advantage in terms of a mature helmet mounted display (HMD) system in the form of the Striker helmet, and an extremely advanced follow on (the Striker II) is well into testing with integral night vision, multi role visual/voice target designation capabilities and other advancements. Meanwhile the new Qatari standard Rafales are being delivered with the type’s first HMD, but the French Air Force still lacks this capability, and the system is still to be matured.

Top 10 multi-role fighters 2020 here

Maintenance/sortie rates/operating costs/cost

Both fighters are fairly expensive to operate compared to solutions such as Gripen or F-16 on a one-for-one basis, being large, complex, twin engined beasts. The exact cost per flight hour (a hugely contentious topic anyway) will depend greatly on which operator and which version you are looking at. For example, Spanish Typhoons cost a great deal more to fly than British ones since the RAF flies its fleet a lot more and has more streamlined maintenance support arrangements. However, even within the RAF, the older Tranche 1s are much more costly to fly and difficult to maintain than the new Tranche 3s. Rafale operating costs and availability likewise varies across standards and operators. In extremely broad brush terms, French Rafales sit somewhere in the middle in terms of operating costs compared to Typhoon, being slightly more expensive than the UK’s Tranche 2 and 3 Typhoons under the TyTan support arrangements but cheaper than Spain or Germany’s Typhoons. For export operators, things are much more dependent on fleet size and support contract structures than the differences between each aircraft type.

This site needs a small donation from you to continue. If you’ve enjoyed an article please donate here. It only takes a moment. Recommended donation £15.

Both types are highly tolerant of bad weather conditions although Rafale-M has an edge in terms of landing conditions tolerances due to the carrier-suitability adaptions.

In terms of unit cost, Rafale is marketed as cheaper than the latest standards of Typhoon, although the Indian experience would suggest that in practice export customer requirements on industrial offsets and liability can dramatically alter costs compared to the up-front offer, so I’d be wary of comparing public cost claims from either manufacturer. The actual cost will depend on the govt-govt relationship and how many of the bells and whistles each customer wants to pay for. However, as a rule Rafale is probably slightly cheaper in real terms to acquire than Typhoon.

Our interviews with Typhoon pilot here , here and here.

The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes will feature the finest cuts from Hush-Kit along with exclusive new articles, explosive photography and gorgeous bespoke illustrations. Pre-order The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes here. Save the Hush-Kit blog. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here. Your donations keep this going. Thank you. Our shop is here and our Twitter account here @Hush_Kit. Sign up for our newsletter here:

Low-observability

Both Rafale and Typhoon have low observable features but quite frankly neither is a low observable type. Completely slicked off with no external stores or targeting pods, a Rafale would likely have a lower frontal RCS compared to a Typhoon, but in practice neither would be combat effective in this configuration. With external pylons, tanks, weapons and pods, both have a sufficient RCS to be detected at long ranges by modern sensors such as the Irbis-E on the Su-35 and Chinese AESAs on J-10C, J-16 or J-20, as well as ground based air defence radars.

Aerodynamics and performance

It is said that the Rafale would have an advantage in a dogfight below 10K feet and a Typhoon above, would you agree with this?
In within-visual range combat, both Typhoon and Rafale would likely destroy each other in the merge in a 1v1 or 2v2. However, if talking about a ‘guns’ fight, then Rafale has better agility, instantaneous turn and sustained turn capabilities below around 15,000ft. Between 15,000 and around 30,000ft the relative merits will depend on speed range, as if the Typhoon might start with an advantage in a supersonic merge but Rafale would improve relatively as speeds drop during a long engagement. In practice it would depend on pilot experience and skill to fly their aircraft at best corner speed and manage their energy and position to best effect. At higher altitudes, Typhoon’s greater specific excess power and decoupled canards give it a slight advantage, which increases as altitude increases above 45,000ft.

What is Typhoon’s configuration designed to excel at, and the same for Rafale? Typhoon is designed to excel in acceleration, climb rate and supersonic performance and agility at high altitudes for maximum beyond visual range capability. Rafale is designed to excel at subsonic speeds and at lower altitudes. It is still a brutal performer compared to most other fighters, but cannot match Typhoon’s climb rate and brute thrust especially at higher altitudes. With heavy loads, however, Rafale performs significantly better than Typhoon across the almost the entire performance envelope, having been designed from the outset to incorporate heavy multirole loads. Typhoon’s flight control software starts to progressively restrict the jet with heavier (or particularly asymmetric) loads. The Aerodynamic Modification Kit (AMK) developed by Eurofighter would address these limitations and greatly improve the instantaneous turn rate and agility at all speeds with heavy loads, but so far no operator has bought it – suggesting they are broadly satisfied with the aircraft as is.

High alpha performance

Neither aircraft sparkles in the high-alpha regime compared to the Hornet family or anything with thrust vectoring, but the Rafale’s aerodynamically coupled canards give it slightly better high-alpha authority at slow speeds than Typhoon.

Abilities at different altitudes

The lower the altitude, the greater Rafale’s margin of advantage; the higher one goes, the better Typhoon performs relatively. Typhoon is happiest at 50,000ft and above.

Sustained/Instantaneous turn rates

Depends on altitude and speed. As above, the higher the speed and altitude of an engagement, the better Typhoon performs relative to Rafale and vice versa. In terms of instantaneous turn rate, Rafale has a slight advantage in air combat configuration and that increases with heavier multirole or strike loads.

Energy management/ ability to regenerate energy

Both fighters will pull 9G all day long in air combat configuration at most altitudes. At low altitudes Rafale’s energy retention is slightly better at best corner speed, whilst at higher altitudes Typhoon has better energy retention. In terms of energy regeneration, Typhoon has the edge by dint of a higher specific excess power.

Range and endurance

Both types have a similar ferry range with a ‘heavy’ three tank fit. However, Typhoon also uses a lot more fuel in afterburner so for mission profiles that involve a lot of AB use, Rafale will likely have the edge. In practice, both types depend to a large degree on tanker support for most operational missions.

Support Hush-Kit with our high quality aviation themed merchandise here

Weapons

AMRAAM versus MICA

The AIM-120C7 and AIM-120D variants of AMRAAM used by RAF Typhoons significantly outrange MICA, although they do no boast an IR variant for passive BVR engagement capabilities. The flip side is that both AMRAAM variants have advanced off-board guidance capabilities to allow passive engagements in cooperation with another aircraft in active mode. US development efforts have emphasised these cooperative engagement capabilities (CEC) far more than French ones over the past two decades, and Typhoon benefits from that weapon heritage.

ASRAAM/IRIS-T versus MICA

MICA has slightly superior range to ASRAAM and significantly superior range to IRIS-T. All are highly agile and lethal missiles in a WVR engagement, with IRIS-T boasting the greatest knife fight agility, ASRAAM the best performance off the rail, and MICA the best reach. The lack of a helmet mounted sight for Rafale until the Qatari standard has meant that in practice Typhoon users may be able to get more out of IRIS-T or ASRAAM in a dynamic WVR engagement.

BK27 versus GIAT cannon

Both are devastating revolver cannons with selectable rates of fire. The GIAT has the advantage in maximum possible firing rate (of 2500rpm vs 1700rpm) although in practice both would likely fire at comparable rates for both air-to-air or air-to-ground use to make best use of very limited ammunition (125 rounds for Rafale, 150 for Typhoon). As revolver cannons, both reach their maximum fire rate almost immediately. The BK27 has slightly better muzzle velocity and ballistic properties whilst the GIAT has slightly better destructive effect due to its larger shell. In practice, there is little to choose between them, I pity the enemy shot at by either.

Air-to-ground munitions

Typhoon (Tranche 2 and 3)’s main strike armament of Paveway IV, Brimstone and Storm Shadow give it world-leading high-precision, low-collateral damage tools for most ground targets. It can also carry other munitions including the US Paveway II and III series of laser-guided bombs, and has been cleared for the AGM-88 HARM and British ALARM anti-radiation missiles although these are not in operational service. The ongoing flight trials of the SPEAR 3 multirole light standoff munition (which includes an EW variant for stand-in jamming) on UK Typhoons give the type access to another highly potent option, although at present the UK is only paying to actually use SPEAR 3 on F-35B. France’s AASM ‘Hammer’ series of glide and boosted bomb guidance kits gives Rafale a comparable capability to Paveway IV with a greater amount of warhead and range flexibility. The drawback is extremely high munitions cost. At the lower end, the Rafale can also carry and deliver the US made Paveway II and III series and like Typhoon is cleared to carry but does not currently use a range of other US munitions.

Recce equipment

Typhoon has to make do with a less than fully optimised TAC-R pod as the RAPTOR pod fitted to Tornado GR.4 was not integrated when the latter was retired – in part because of centreline store size limitations on Typhoon due to the front landing gear leg placement. Rafale uses the Damocles targeting pod for light recce duties whilst RAF Typhoons use the Lightning III which also has limited FOV recon capabilities. However, Rafale can also use the RECO-NG wide area/standoff TAC-R pod to provide a modern, fully digital equivalent to RAPTOR. This is a significant advantage over Typhoon in the TAC-R role. Typhoon export users employ the Damocles pod (Saudi Arabia) and the Sniper pod (Kuwait). The Damocles pod has an advantage over Sniper and Lightning III in that it features an integral datalink capability to transfer reconnaissance and target data directly to other stations such as those found on French Air Force tankers. In practice, however, Typhoon users with Sniper or Lightning III can off-board data using the jet’s own datalinks.

(Also Damocles is replaced by TALIOS as part of F3R.)

Brimstone versus Hammer

Brimstone is more accurate with a much smaller ultra-low collateral warhead. AASM is dependent on either IR or laser-guidance to hit moving targets, rendering it more sensitive to adverse conditions than Brimstone’s millimetric wave radar seeker/laser dual mode guidance option. Brimstone’s smaller size also allows more weapons to be carried per aircraft, with three per hardpoint on adaptors. However, Brimstone is not designed to produce area effects or destroy structures, so for such targets the AASM family provides far more capability, especially with the larger ‘bomb’ body variants. For such targets, Typhoon users would employ Paveway II/III/IV series weapons.

Top WVR fighter aircraft 2019 here

Cruise missile capability

Rafale’s SCALP and Typhoon’s Storm Shadow are essentially the same (extremely capable but very expensive) missile from MBDA. Germany has cleared its Taurus KEPD 350 cruise missile but since German politicians do not believe that Air Forces should be used to kill people, its capabilities remain untested in combat. The French Rafales can also carry the ASMP-A nuclear standoff missile which is a unique capability.

Defence suppression/anti shipping

Both Typhoon and Rafale lack a commonly carried anti-radiation missile, although modern AAM such as AMRAAM and Meteor can be assumed to have a certain degree of ARM capability in extremis. Rafale has a superior ECM (electronic attack) capability in the shape of the SPECTRA suite allowing it more options to degrade the performance of hostile SAM radars if it needs to penetrate defended airspace. Typhoon users will have to wait for the UK-developed ECRS2 radar and DAS upgrade for a competitive or even (potentially) superior option. Both Typhoon and Rafale can launch capable standoff cruise missiles in the shape of the Storm Shadow/SCALP and Taurus KEPD 350. However, to have a decent probability of kill against modern long range air defence radars, these missiles require accurate real time target location data. This is because modern SAM systems such as the S-400 and HQ-9 are highly mobile and have such long range that a subsonic cruise missile launched from a safe distance would take tens of minutes to arrive. As such, both Typhoon and Rafale could make a very valuable contribution to a SEAD/DEAD operation in support of more stealthy penetrating ISTAR/strike assets such as F-35 or advanced UAVs, but if hypothetically forced to fight alone neither is particularly well suited at present – Rafale having a slight edge due to the SPECTRA suite.

Meteor

I’m not 100% sure if Rafale can now use the full two-way datalink functionality on Meteor. I think that is now enabled. Typhoon’s habit of fighting at very high speeds and altitude for BVR engagements will result in a longer effective range on Meteor shots, but in practice there are almost no scenarios short of a full scale war with Russia where the rules of engagement would allow shots at such a range where that difference would tell. Both can use third party target data to launch Meteor without active radar scanning by the launch aircraft, and both can hand off guidance in flight to other friendly assets. The UK’s Typhoons in particular are more closely integrated with the USAF air dominance community than (any) other fighter arm so have more practice in getting the most out of cooperative engagements with F-22s in realistic training scenarios.

How frequently is Meteor actually carried in 2020?
Tranche 2 and 3 Typhoons regularly carry Meteor on live operational sorties with European users, although the Tranche 1s do not use the missile which is why the RAF purchased the latest AIM-120D for its remaining Tranche 1s. For Rafale, Meteor is regularly carried by the F3R standard aircraft on live operational sorties by both the Armee de l’Air and Aeronavale.

How many Meteors are carried on a single-aircraft in everyday service?
RAF Typhoons and French Air Force Rafales typically carry two Meteors when flying with the missile.

SAVE THIS SITE!

If you wish to see more articles like this in the future please donate here. We are extremely grateful to all those who choose to donate. Hushkit.net depends on donations to carry on. The more you donate, the more you will get.

How many Meteor could be carried in a wartime emergency?

The wartime load-out for Typhoon would by four Meteor in semi-recessed fuselage mounts plus four ASRAAM/IRIS-T although in practice a mix of Meteor and AMRAAM might be chosen for additional tactical flexibility and stockpile management. As far as I’m aware the Rafale has so far only been cleared for Meteor carriage on the two side-fuselage hardpoints although I could be wrong on that. If it was a priority to up the Meteor carriage on Rafale to four, I expect that could be done at the cost of MICA numbers on the centre underwing station.

Sensor fusion

Both Rafale F3R and P3E standard (Centurion upgraded) Typhoons present pilots with an intuitive combined situational awareness display which integrates data from multiple sensors. In that sense, both feature sensor fusion and represent a significant upgrade compared to legacy aircraft and previous Rafale and Typhoon standards. However, neither truly does the F-35’s signature trick of feeding the raw sensor inputs into a complex analytical process which cross references data from and cross cues not only each sensor on the jet but also those across a formation of F-35s, before presenting a processed single SA picture to the pilot. There’s a reason (beyond the undoubted inefficiencies and concurrency) why the US have had to put nearly half a trillion dollars into the F-35 programme to date, mostly aimed at getting the nightmarishly ambitious and complex software architecture to work. They’re trying to do something much more ambitious; although in many scenarios the output is functionally similar.

Defensive aids
SPECTRA has a better reputation primarily because of Libya in 2011 (a result of French political ambition and risk tolerance, alongside technical capability). However, it is a highly capable defensive aids suite, with greater strength on the ECM area of the ESM/ECM/ECCM EW triad compared to Typhoon’s DAS which is notable in the quality of its ESM (passive detection, ID and tracking of threats). The Indian standard Rafales come with a Towed Radar Decoy (TRD) but the French aircraft currently lack this feature. Typhoon comes with one or two TRDs mounted in a wingtip pod as standard, with specific version dependent on operator choices. The UK’s new Britecloud active radar ‘chaff’ countermeasures are another area where Typhoon is potentially somewhat in the lead on DAS features.

The leaked Swiss evaluation rated Rafale superior in almost every category- would this still be the case?
The Swiss competition was horrendously mismanaged by the Eurofighter consortium with a buggy Tranche 1 jet sent to compete with the best that Saab and Dassault could bring to the table. However, in terms of radar, the Rafale would still come out ahead due to its mature RBE2. In terms of load carrying capacity, ECM, subsonic agility, low and medium altitude WVR performance and cost Rafale F3R would also likely still come out ahead of a Tranche 2 or 3 P3E standard Typhoon. However, an RAF standard Tranche 3 Typhoon would likely come out ahead on BVR performance, interceptor missions (due to extreme rate of climb and performance), ESM, terminal countermeasures and low-collateral strike capabilities. Frankly, Switzerland should be flying Gripen C/D or possibly E/F given their national budget, neutrality and mission requirements and I’d wager anyone who looks at it from an operational requirements point of view would come to a similar conclusion. Shame about the whole referendum thing for the Swiss Air Force.

How has Typhoon improved since your 2015 assessment?
The multirole capabilities of the jet have matured drastically since 2015, especially as a result of the RAF’s Project Centurion programme which integrated Brimstone, full Paveway IV functionality and Storm Shadow, in addition to full Striker HMD exploitation and a number of other multirole enabling capabilities. The integration of full Meteor capability and upgrades to the UK’s ESM capabilities within the DAS are also a big boost. The fact that Kuwaiti Typhoons are already flying with the export AESA is a welcome but long overdue improvement but Typhoon really continues to lag in terms of exploitation of its huge potential (given the massive nose aperture and power available) in the AESA department.

Top 10 BVR fighters of 2019

The German/Spanish Radar 1 order will, however, mean that there are a large number of AESA equipped Typhoons in service by the mid-2020s with all the Quadriga and Tornado replacement Typhoons to feature the capability. The UK’s much more ambitious (and now funded) ECRS2 promises a massive leap in AESA capability with areas of advantage even over the latest US AESAs, but is so far only likely to be integrated onto the 40 Tranche 3s, with the fate of the 67 Tranche 2s less certain in that regard.

Rafale improved since your 2015 assessment?

The integration of the Meteor missile for the F3R standard Rafales has plugged a major weakness of the type in my 2015 assessments – the lack of a serious BVR stick. The RBE2 radar has continued to mature and is now a standout feature of the jet, whilst the French government has committed to a major upgrade of the jet’s internal systems and sensors in the upcoming F4 standard programme. This means that the Rafale will continue to improve, especially in the EW and sensor fusion department throughout the 2020s.

Interview with a Rafale pilot here

What is the best Typhoon variant today and why?

The RAF’s Tranche 3 jets. With the Centurion upgrades, Meteor integration and an extremely experienced user community both in terms of strike/multirole missions and air superiority, the RAF’s Tranche 3 Typhoons would edge out the Kuwaiti and Qatari aircraft in terms of operational capability, even though the latter feature the export version of the CAPTOR-E radar series.

What is the best Rafale variant today and why?
That’s tricky to say. The Indian standard does feature some impressive additions including additional podded electronic warfare capabilities and TRD, whilst the Qatari standard features the new HMD. Both include the RBE2 although it is likely to be an export standard that is slightly de-tuned compared to French aircraft. The French Air Force’s latest F3R aircraft with the RBE2 and Meteor are, on balance, likely to be the most capable Rafales around for much the same reasons as the RAF’s Tranche 3 Typhoons are. Highly experienced crews, full DAS and radar capabilities without export restrictions (and a nuclear missile capability).

Which is doing better on the export market and why?

Rafale has had some impressive success on the export market since 2015, with the combination of RBE2 radar, combat record in Libya and aggressive French state support for marketing efforts contributing to success in Egypt, Qatar and Greece (as well as India). Typhoon has had successes in Qatar and Kuwait, and a signature of intent from Saudi Arabia for another 48 aircraft soon. However, the biggest win in recent years is for Typhoon from Germany for both the Quadriga-standard replacement order for the Tranche 1s and also 90 aircraft to replace Germany’s Tornado fleet in the conventional strike role. This doesn’t really count as an export success though. Finland will be an interesting result to watch, but I’m not sure either aircraft could be considered a favourite.

TOPGUN instructor (and former F-14/F/A-18 crew) assesses Tomcat versus Meteor-armed Typhoon fight & list top 5 BVR fighters 2020 here

What should I have asked you?

Which aircraft would fare better against the Flanker family and other aircraft likely to be flown by near-peer competitors such as the Chinese J-10 family? After all, Typhoon and Rafale were not built to fight each other, and will not do so. Their job is to deter and if necessary provide overmatch against the latest hostile fighter types. In this role, the Typhoon is probably the standout with its superior BVR capabilities in a large scale, open ROE engagement, but up close in a flashpoint around a QRA interception Rafale might have the edge. In a complex battlespace with dense ground based as well as aerial threats, both Typhoon and Rafale are formidable assets but would rely on support from dedicated penetrating and stand-off assets to minimise risk and truly perform at their best.

Typhoon versus Su-35 here.

“If you have any interest in aviation, you’ll be surprised, entertained and fascinated by Hush-Kit – the world’s best aviation blog”. Rowland White, author of the best-selling ‘Vulcan 607’

I’ve selected the richest juiciest cuts of Hush-Kit, added a huge slab of new unpublished material, and with Unbound, I want to create a beautiful coffee-table book. Pre-order your copy now right here  

TO AVOID DISAPPOINTMENT PRE-ORDER YOUR COPY NOW

From the cocaine, blood and flying scarves of World War One dogfighting to the dark arts of modern air combat, here is an enthralling ode to these brutally exciting killing machines.

The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes is a beautifully designed, highly visual, collection of the best articles from the fascinating world of military aviation –hand-picked from the highly acclaimed Hush-kit online magazine (and mixed with a heavy punch of new exclusive material). It is packed with a feast of material, ranging from interviews with fighter pilots (including the English Electric Lightning, stealthy F-35B and Mach 3 MiG-25 ‘Foxbat’), to wicked satire, expert historical analysis, top 10s and all manner of things aeronautical, from the site described as:

“the thinking-man’s Top Gear… but for planes”.

The solid well-researched information about aeroplanes is brilliantly combined with an irreverent attitude and real insight into the dangerous romantic world of combat aircraft.

FEATURING

• Interviews with pilots of the F-14 Tomcat, Mirage, Typhoon, MiG-25, MiG-27, English Electric Lighting, Harrier, F-15, B-52 and many more.
• Engaging Top (and bottom) 10s including: Greatest fighter aircraft of World War II, Worst British aircraft, Worst Soviet aircraft and many more insanely specific ones.
• Expert analysis of weapons, tactics and technology.
• A look into art and culture’s love affair with the aeroplane.
• Bizarre moments in aviation history.
• Fascinating insights into exceptionally obscure warplanes.

The book will be a stunning object: an essential addition to the library of anyone with even a passing interest in the high-flying world of warplanes, and featuring first-rate photography and a wealth of new world-class illustrations.

Rewards levels include these packs of specially produced trump cards.

Pre-order your copy now right here  

When I heard a new sixth generation fighter technology demonstrator flew I didn’t feel excitement. A broken, and possibly dying, empire invests in another half century or more of warfare. Whoopee! Let’s crack open the champagne and drink to an eternal 20th century!

War and high technology for the sake of it should not belong to the future, the world has more serious matters to attend to. The United States Air Force is amazing as air forces go. If they twiddled their fingers and kept the existing hardware for another twenty years they’d still have the numbers and quality to do almost anything. The Russian Su-57 is a hopeless prestige exercise, the J-20 irrelevant – and anyway the US hasn’t faced a serious peer air force since the Luftwaffe almost 80 years ago (and no: Korea, Vietnam and Iraq do not count). Could ignoring the arms technology race leave America vulnerable to another ‘Pearl Harbor’? Possibly, but probably not. There are more likely dangers and there are even (almost) inevitable ones.

In fact the US military is so brilliant that a pressing concern for more pessimistic planners in the rest of the world might be exactly how the US could be stopped in the event of a calamity. They may wonder how such a potentially hazardous overmatch was allowed to happen. How we’ve got to a situation where the US is the only nation that has truly modern attack aircraft in mass production. How the US has a defence budget 14 times higher than India despite having a population only a third the size. If the sole point of the USAF was to defend US lives in the modern world, it clearly hasn’t been money well spent; the mourned dead were not put in their graves by ‘Blackjacks’ and ‘Backfires’. But defending US civilians isn’t the sole role of USAF. Many key objectives are rather more bizarre. Core missions for the service include ‘Global Strike … Any target, any time’ and ‘the Freedom to Attack’. When considering whether that is a desirable idea, the philosopher Immanuel Kant may have asked: ‘Would that be a good thing for every nation to have?’ , before dodging punches from B-1B pilots who don’t wish to fly Dreamliners.

The US of the future will be optionally manned.

The future is always unpredictable but it’s hard not to think that aerial firefighting aircraft will be the most valuable kind of fighter aircraft in 2040. It is an extreme optimist who prepares for a high-tech war in 2100.