Two years ago MiG-27 pilot Anshuman Mainkar gave us a thrilling interview about flying this Soviet hot-rod. With the news that the type has now retired from IAF service we asked Mainkur to reflect on this significant event. 

 

The MiG-27 has now retired from the IAF, how does that feel for you?
“Not only has the MiG-27 retired, but also the #Flogger saga in the IAF has drawn to a close. Inducted during the early 1980s, during a modernisation cycle that also included other platforms, these variants served with many units, delivering sterling service to the nation.

State of the art for their times in terms of BVR capability (even when the relative nascency of the MF is considered compared to the later MLD, et al variants) and nav/attack suite for the BN/ML (including the unique laser range-finder/designator), the aircraft in spite of legacy (under refinement since the early 60s, and giving way to next-gen platforms of the age – Su-27/MiG-29, et al) were taken through the paces well by pioneers who studied the package well and designed SOPs that became the gold standard for operations specifically suited to the IAF.

With this in context, I feel extremely privileged to have flown a remarkable platform, and having learnt from a great set of mentors and tutors who taught me the nuances of flying but also of life. And while it is with a tinge of sadness that I enjoyed the festivities of the winding down ceremony, I am happy that the culture, bonding and associations with the machines and the men and women who cared and nurtured it in the IAF will remain with me for eternity.

Speaking of the MiG 27 in particular, it was the last of the variants to be inducted and de-inducted, and it played.”

What was the aircraft’s greatest moments in IAF service?

“They were ample moments – technology/weapon integration, firing competitions, operations, etc. A few that people will relate to would definitely include its involvement in Kargil, when it (along with the BN), were tasked heavily, performing admirably given the nature of terrain and targets.

It must be mentioned that the pioneers had envisaged much in advance the requirement of a Kargil-like deployment/employment, and therefore the fleet was well-equipped and trained for the hostilities that were thrust upon them. That they were ready, raring and prepared was a product of the fleet stalwart vision and initiative.”
Now the aircraft has retired can you share anything you could not have shared before?

“A popular pilot quip was a wish to begin the syllabus on the fighter first – (even without dual trips, a testimony to the comfort and aesthetic of the jet), and then convert on to the trainer (which in many terms was a different aircraft).”

How many active ’27 pilots were there at the point of retirement – what will they do now?

“A squadron worth, plus a few more – not current, but in various staff/piloting appointments across the Air Force. There isn’t a fleet for them to come back to, but they sure are a valuable asset for the Air Force. I’m sure they’ll get their due, and the Air Force will find them worthy appointments/responsibilities to pursue.”

 How did it compare to the Jaguar?

“As far as mud-sweepers go, the Jaguar took its role too seriously. It hesitated to take off, and as a popular saying goes, it only took off because of the Earth’s curvature. But that was on a lighter note, the Flogger fleet and Jaguar boys sure loved a good roast!

During it’s heyday, the MiG-27 avionics suite – autopilot/nav/attack/recovery systems were truly fantastic, better than the initial Jaguars. The Jaguar has matured well in Indian service, though. Being the only dedicated striker in IAF service, it has done well for itself, and its bag of tricks will stand it in good stead for some time to come.”

What will happen to the airframes? What would you like to happen?

“Gate guardians, mostly, adorning prominent locations across many cities, including its own bases. Ideal candidate too, takes up less space with max sweep :)”

Hush-Kit needs friends to carry on. Become a friend with a small monthly donation to keep us going. 

 

 

We met up with leading Indian defence reporter Shiv Aroor to find out more about the mysterious ORCA artworks revealed by a Tejas test pilot. 

What is the point?
“Well to start off, these aren’t official renders by the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) that administers Tejas, but, as I understand it, from some folks at HAL which builds the Tejas. Now to the point. The ADA tells me it was ‘forced’ to propose a twin-engine Tejas design specifically because the Indian Navy has put a hard stop to ambiguity over whether it will operate the existing N-LCA. The sense I got directly from the top is that the team isn’t particularly pleased with the idea of ditching the N-LCA for the twin-engine configuration. So the point, if there is one, is to meet the Indian Navy’s requirement under existing commitments to supply a carrier-compatible fighter. That this will involve an air force variant is obvious. But it’s important to acknowledge that there would be no twin-engine Tejas design of any kind if there was no Indian Navy stipulation to the effect. So this springs from the Indian Navy, not the Air Force.”

Is it a good idea?
“Like a lot of things, this looks like robust on paper. I’ve seen reports that there’s a six-year development path to first flight and highly optimistic pathways to getting this project off the ground. If those timelines are even remotely realistic, it could be a good idea. ”

Will it happen?
“While I fully support indigenous aerospace design, I very much doubt this will be a reality for a variety of reasons. For one thing, I don’t think Indian Navy requirements have ever compelled major aircraft design decisions in the country — and they’re not about to start. Even the N-LCA was an afterthought. The Indian Air Force might be more inclined towards a lower-risk LCA Mk.II/MWF that was revealed in concept form a year ago. The IAF has only just begun warming to the Tejas Mk.1 and looks forward to the Mk.1A. I doubt it’ll be looking to see another development path towards a fourth-gen fighter. My sense is it would rather see design hours and resources dedicated to the stealthy AMCA. And I agree with that inclination. Finally, budgetary resources are already stretched thin between committed purchases and existing projects like the AMCA. Adding a new one will merely slow things down.”

Over 99.9% of our readers ignore our funding appeals. This site depends on your support. If you’ve enjoyed an article donate here. Recommended donation amount £12. Keep this site going.

The Tejas effort to create an indigenous fighter for India took a dramatic turn with last week’s reveal of a plan for a twin-engined variant with twice the thrust and almost doubled weight. The new aircraft is a close-coupled canard delta in the same class as the Rafale. Jim Smith gives his analysis. 

Update here. 

“At the turn of the year, Harsh Vardhan Thakur, a test pilot with Hindustan Aerospace, released an image of a twin-engine version of Tejas, identified as ORCA – an acronym for Omni-Role Combat aircraft. Subsequently, comments on the ORCA rendering were made by defenceupdate.in, and by ndtv.com. Having provided a couple of quick comments to @Hush_Kit on the ORCA image, I have been asked to provide an item for the blog.

Firstly, it is apparent that, as is normal with Tejas, the story is not as simple as at appears at first sight. In addition to ORCA, a concept for a twin-engine deck-based fighter (TEDBF) also exists, and if such a project were to proceed, ORCA would essentially be an air force variant, with lower weight, as, among other changes, the deck-landing capable undercarriage could be replaced with lighter landing gear. Neither of these variants relate to the existing air force or navy procurement plans, or directly to the development of the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), a future Indian-developed stealthy fighter, although some technology developments for ORCA and TEDBF might provide risk reduction for AMCA.

Configuration Design

 The ORCA rendering shows a close-coupled canard using the Tejas wing planform with twin-engines. Dimensions, weights, engine-specifics are unstated, but the render shows a significant external weapons payload, and what appear to be conformal fuel tanks located on the upper shoulder of the fuselage, as in late-model F-16s.

Initial commentary by defenceupdate.in appears to assume the use of two GE F404 engines, rather than the more powerful F414 engines, and draws attention to the significant design changes that would be required to develop this configuration from the existing Tejas.

Subsequent commentary by ndtv.com provides significantly more detail, focussed primarily on the TEDBF variant. This indicates that TEDBF would be a significantly larger aircraft than Tejas, would feature wing fold and would use two GE F414 engines. These engines are stated (Janes All the Worlds Aircraft) to have a maximum take-off thrust of 22,000 lb (97.9 kN), compared to 18,000 lb (80 kN) for the GE F404 variant fitted to Tejas. The GE F414 is the engine for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, while the GE F404 is the powerplant of the F/A-18 ‘Classic’ Hornet.

The most startling aspect of the TEDBF discussion is the stated weight of the aircraft, which is quoted as 23 tonnes, compared to 13.5 tonnes for Tejas Mk1. As an indication, 23 tonnes is close to the max overload weight of the Typhoon, and similar to quoted maximum take-off weights for Rafale. So TEDBF is in no way the cheap and cheerful solution that might originally have been considered as an outcome of Tejas.

In addition, the TEDBF is expected to carry a significantly greater weapons payload than Tejas, stated to be 9 tonnes, and to have an integrated sensor and avionics suite including AESA radar, IRST, datalinks and sensor fusion.

 

Configuration comments

 On the whole, the illustrations available of TEDBF and ORCA appear credible as twin-engine evolutions of Tejas. However, there are some interesting differences between the designs, and some questionable features. Firstly, the ORCA rendering does not seem to allow sufficient fuselage width to accommodate two engines, noting that there will need to be a strong firewall between the two engines. For TEDBF, it would appear logical to use such a structure as the anchor point for the arrestor hook, but no hook is apparent in the illustrations.

The fuselage of TEDBF appears slightly longer than shown in the ORCA illustration, resulting in a slightly further forward position of the canard relative to the wing. Of course, this might result from the concept drawings representing as-yet unrefined designs, or perhaps related designs at different stages of concept definition. In my view, both ORCA and TEDBF would benefit from a fuselage plug to lengthen the aircraft and position the canards slightly further forward, so that they do not overlap the wing leading edge. I would expect this to improve the canard-wing aerodynamics and lift-dependent drag, as well as increasing fuselage fineness ratio, which should improve wave drag slightly, and provide additional volume for fuel or avionics.

 

Of course, the big unanswered question is whether the aircraft has GE F404 or F414 engines. I would assume the latter, given the quoted weights, and if so, the larger fan diameter, and airflow requirements for the engine are likely to require larger intake ducts than in the original Tejas.

Tejas: thoughts on an unusual wing here

 

 

Development Issues

 The ndtv.com commentary on the TEDBF quotes project sources as indicating a cheap and rapid development path exists, building on Tejas experience, and further suggests a development timescale of 6 years from go-ahead.

Let’s consider what would need to be done. Firstly, the propulsion system change will require substantial redesign of the fuselage, together with revision of the structure to accommodate the additional weight and size of the airframe. While some aspects (such as the wing) appear to re-use Tejas components, I suggest this is a superficial resemblance, since the use of a canard, rather than Leading-Edge Vortex Controllers (LEVCONs), will change the aircraft aerodynamics, stability and control and control laws. The significantly higher weight will result in increased loads and require redesign of the structure. Additionally, the landing gear will need to accommodate higher weights, and, presumably will be rearranged for the TEDBF so that the arrestor hook can take advantage of the engine-bay firewall as an attachment point.

To deliver the required operational flexibility and capability, a substantial weapons, sensors and avionics integration programme will be required. Much of this might piggyback on existing or planned integration work for Tejas and other platforms, but type-specific weapons integration, carriage and release programmes will also be required.

 

Should all this development work succeed, the operational TEDBF will emerge as an aircraft with the same size, weight, configuration and, perhaps, capability as the Rafale aircraft currently just being delivered to India. They would supplement the capability of that aircraft, and would have the imprimatur of being Indian designed and built. Could the ORCA variant then replace the SU-30 MKI? Perhaps, but this seems to be the intent for the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) programme.

 

Where would ORCA sit compared to the AMCA? If that aircraft is to be stealthy, a further increment of technical difficulty is added in configuration design, manufacturing and propulsion and sensor integration. If the ultimate aim is for India to be able to design its own 5^th or even 6^th generation stealthy fighter, then the necessary confidence in aerodynamics, control system design, propulsion and system integration gained in a ORCA/TEDBF programme would de-risk at least some platform and system elements. But ORCA/TEDBF could at best be a reduced signature aircraft – more significant configuration changes would be needed to achieve a low signature outcome.

Notwithstanding some risk reduction for AMCA from ORCA/TEDBF, the challenges of materials, build standard, internal weapon and, integrated sensors, stealth system maintenance and operations planning of a 5^th or 6^th generation system would still remain as the step up to AMCA.”

Update here. 

We spoke to Tejas test pilot Harsh Vardhan Thakur who noted – ” These are (one of) many concept drawings. There are many more. Canards will not overlap with the main planes.” So perhaps caution should be exercised in reading too much into the artwork.

Over 99.9% of our readers ignore our funding appeals. This site depends on your support. If you’ve enjoyed an article donate here. Recommended donation amount £12. Keep this site going.

 

“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. Here’s the book link to pre-order your copy. 

 

I can do it with your help.

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.

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. Here’s the book link .  

 

I can do it with your help.

 

 

 

 

When I discovered someone had pinched a Hush-Kit article and fed the text to a robot voice on YouTube I was initially annoyed. Then I looked at the viewing figures. If this chancer was doing so well with one of those infuriating robot voices maybe there was an appetite for ones with real voice-overs. Making the films was a steep learning curve. Finding an appropriate voiceover artist, learning how to record and edit the audio, learning how to source and edit appropriate footage — and then making the thing – all took a great deal of time. It was all a bit of a ball-ache, and took me away from what I enjoyed: researching and writing.  But I was gratified to find people were watching. Wading through the abusive comments you receive as a YouTuber, deleting the mad racist crap and replying to the hundreds of questions also takes a great deal of time. We then had some issues with YouTube, but touch wood these are now resolved and we hope to make more films. We will restart production when we get to 30K viewers. You can help by subscribing here.

 

The Blackburn Shark torpedo bomber has a reputation for being, to put it gently, no Fairey Swordfish. Blackburn must have thought their luck had turned when they were finally allocated a half-decent name, following the less-than-scintillating Blackburn Ripon and Baffin and the frankly imagination-bypassing Blackburn Blackburn (so portly they named it twice). Their new aircraft beat the rival Swordfish into service with the Fleet Air Arm by a year – and yet within another year had been replaced by it, which must represent some kind of record. Its legacy is to be virtually unknown, save for muttered stories of piston-shedding Armstrong Siddeley Tiger engines and an annoying whistle in flight.

The truth is that the Shark was nowhere near as bad as all that. Indeed, it was regarded by some as better than the Swordfish. A close study of the aircraft’s development reveals that it was no lemon. Docile handling – it was virtually impossible to stall, good responses, prodigious load-carrying ability, and performance that was no worse, and even slightly better than the illustrious Fairey. It was quite a bit more modern too, with an immensely strong watertight monocoque fuselage, hydraulic wing locking, Warren-truss wing bracing that virtually eliminated wires, and, in the Mk.III version, an enclosed cockpit. The basic aircraft was good.

But as so often with Blackburn, after having got their design right, just about everything else went wrong. The Shark was a little heavier than the Swordfish and despite Blackburn’s protestations was allocated the Armstrong-Siddeley Tiger engine instead of the Bristol Pegasus, as in the mid-30s the Tiger was promising more power. As we now know, the Pegasus became one of the classic air-cooled engines of WW2, with endless reliability and power reaching 1,010hp in later versions. The Tiger, on the other hand, never got over its propensity to shake bits off itself, and certain features of its design limited development so power never exceeded 920hp. Moreover, the oil-cooler selected for production aircraft had a series of unfortunate characteristics that only became apparent when the Shark entered service – a whistling shriek at certain speeds that was severely uncomfortable to the crew and a tendency for pipes to shear under the vibration of the Tiger engine so the whole thing seized. In fact, the vibration of the Tiger turned out to be just at the right frequency to subject the engine mount to crippling metal fatigue.

The Shark did indeed make it into service before the Swordfish – at that time, the luck seemed to be against Fairey, as the first prototype of its TSR I had entered an irrecoverable spin and crashed, necessitating a significant redesign into the TSR II. However, the extra time allowed Fairey to get the aircraft right. The Shark, meanwhile, suffered problems with its engines which led to it sitting out fleet exercises, then the failure of engine mountings led to the entire Mk.I production being scrapped. The problems with the oil cooler led to the entire oil system being redesigned and replaced on all Mk.II and Mk.III aircraft at great expense. Ironically, just as the Shark’s problems were largely resolved, the Admiralty signalled that it had had enough. In 1937, just two years after entering front line service, the Fleet Air Arm retired all its Sharks from operational squadrons and relegated the type to second-line duties – training and target-towing.

Two other air-arms operated the Shark – Portugal bought a few but retired them almost as quickly as the Fleet Air Arm after a structural failure, and Canada. The RCAF got the ‘definitive’ Shark, with the Pegasus engine that Blackburn had wanted all along, and its aircraft served in reliable, if unspectacular, service well into WWII as coastal patrol aircraft.

While the Swordfish’s combat achievements would take pages to list, the Shark met the enemy in combat just twice. A target-tug from an anti-aircraft co-operation unit in Singapore had bomb-carriers hastily attached to attack troop columns during the desperate attempt to stem the Japanese advance in December 1941, and a Canadian aircraft bombed a U-boat it surprised on the surface – both cases with uncertain results.
The Shark remains in the shadow of its illustrious rival, but if the Swordfish had not existed, the Blackburn type would have more than adequately filled its shoes. Its performance and handling were as good or better, and its problems were eminently solvable – it was just that with an alternative readily available, the Fleet Air Arm did not need to go to the effort of solving them. As was so often the case with Blackburn, the company was so close to producing an outstanding aircraft, but contrived to snatch failure from the jaws of success.

— Matthew Willis

Matthew Willis’ book on the Shark, featuring 100 historic photographs, detailed scale plans, and colour artwork by Chris Sandham-Bailey, is now available from MMP Books 

Over 99.8% of our readers ignore our funding appeals. This site depends on your support. If you’ve enjoyed an article donate here. Recommended donation amount £12. Keep this site going.

 

At the core of the IAF’s dedicated ground attack force is the Jaguar, a tough Cold War fighter-bomber. Group Captain Harsh Vardhan Thakur gives us the lowdown on the ‘last Jags in town’. 

What were your first impressions of the Jaguar? “I was posted to Tuskers at Ambala, where I got my first experience of Jags. As things turned out, I also got married around the same time. So, in many ways, it was a double whammy of destiny. Shall we just say, I got the hang of the Jag eventually, while the other element of my life continues to baffle me ਐ਑਒ਓ.

‘Where the hell is the autopilot…?’ This was the first question I asked at the Jag squadron. I grew up hearing glorious tales of the Jag. To my horror, the start-up checklist was the most glamorous item at my welcome. My mentor (read tormentor) who had the same name as me took me for the pre-conversion phase. He embodied all virtues of what should have been on the aircraft, i.e. lethal, fearsome and unforgiving. I learnt the ropes slowly and eventually became the very reflection of my aircraft, as some would say.”

Which three words best describe it? “In four: not nimble, not agile”

What is the best thing about it? “Navigation. One navigates with the entire mission-play running alongside on the multi-functional display. You see the virtual positions of all participants just the same as you saw them during mission rehearsal. It instils a greater desire for accuracy in pilots and indeed, if you look through the virtual position, you invariably find the element member at exactly the same spot in the sky. The head-up display’s (HUD) highway in the sky is rather novel. It guides you through the route with sub-metric accuracy – something that you only otherwise see in NASA papers. I don’t know of any other fighter anywhere on the globe, which sports a Highway-In-The-Sky (HITS) on the HUD. IAF has inducted a number of twin seat Jags and the Rear cockpit HUD is another unique virtue, which is rare.”

“Four of us accelerated to 560 knots at low levels and then zoomed up to 30,000 feet as we struck the runway, without one missile tracking us.”

.. and the worst thing? “No radar, no BVRs (beyond visual range missiles). I’ve heard many say that engine thrust is less, or perhaps the weight/drag is too much. That can be handled tactically, by simply flying in lighter configurations. But no radar means no eyes and no missiles plummets your respect in an air battle. DARIN-III has thankfully addressed those shortcomings and is a game-changer for Jag ops.”

How you rate the Jaguar in the following categories?

A. Instantaneous turn

B. Sustained turn

C. High alpha

D. Acceleration

E. Climb rate

 

If you see the evolution of Jags, it was intended to be an advanced jet trainer aircraft. But then an over-design of some aspects led it to becoming a worthy replacement for the Vulcan bomber, at a time when strategic bombers were making way for tactical fighters. Owing to its lineage, Jags retain the DNA of a fighter-bomber, with rather less emphasis on manoeuvrability.  The long and short of it – every fighter in the subcontinent, barring the Mir-III/V can leave the Jag behind in rate of turn, acceleration and climb rate. However, the Jag excels in handling, visibility and availability, which feed quite effectively into its daily tactic of saturation strikes. Jags fly in hoards at tree-top altitudes. Imagine a formation of very-very high-speed choppers. These birds are impossible to spot from the sky and difficult to track from the ground.”

As Group Captain Vinod noted- “I have flown against Jaguars. Once, into the sun, I lost an entire formation who were 200 metres in front of me they just melted in thin air.”

“Its legacy electronic warfare (EW) suite has always been ahead of its time. Indeed, it’s the choice of opponent in all EW-range training capsules. I’ve led many a mission when the planners requested Jags to step up, to make a worthy battle of the whole mission. We’ve had our share of fun, repeatedly slipping through defences and taking out surface targets with maximum impunity. There was a training mission led by me, when I refused the request for our formation to step up (gain altitude) just so ground radars could spot us and track us. So, all the sensors dipped their acquisition units to the surface when we were ingressing. Silly as it may sound, four of us accelerated to 560 knots at low levels and then zoomed up to 30,000 feet as we struck the runway, without one missile tracking us. The auto-bombing on Jag precludes the requirement of pilots to spot their DMPI. Pilots simply press the trigger and smoke a cigar, while the system does all the hard work of honing the sights on to the target and getting the bombs to ride to them accurately. Anyway, the two Jags at low levels penetrated the fringes of the missile envelope several times, then turned away. The CO at the missile unit went, ‘Gotcha!’. The debrief was a laugh riot. The poor CO is my course mate and curses me till date for his failed demo (to students) of the Jag formation take-down. ‘Pick on someone your own size’ I say.”

Interview with IAF Su-30 pilot here

Interview with IAF MiG-25 pilot here

Interview with IAF MiG-29 pilot here

Interview with IAF MiG-27 pilot here

Interview with IAF Mirage 2000 pilot here

Interview with PAF JF-17 pilot here

Interview with Marut pilot here

When did Indian procure the Jaguar and where were you trained? “The first set of Royal Air Force Jags ferried into Fighting Fourteens (Bulls) at Western Air Command in 1979. 40 NavWASS (Navigation & Weapon Aiming Sub-System) Jaguar International-built at BAe facility in Warton UK, were inducted into the IAF in 1981. RAF Jags ferried back to UK during this period. Subsequently, 80 DARIN (Digital Attack Ranging Inertial Navigation) Jags were built in HAL factory at Bangalore. Testimony that Make-in-India model of manufacturing has been around for decades. The indigenous Jags included upgraded engines, newer avionics, EW suite, recon pods, as well as 10 maritime variant Jags with their A-S radar and ASM. Indigenous Jags have been the mainstay of IAF’s strike fleet for a long time. By the way, there’s a back story behind the acronym DARIN, apparently suggested by SAGEM of France, who were involved in its development in support to the Indian Inertial Organisation (IIO). It was initially suggested to be called INDRA (Inertial Nav Digital Ranging & Attack). However, the name being very similar sounding to the stalwart PM of India, was shelved owing to some unspoken circumstances. Eventually, HAL also manufactured 37 more DARIN-II Jags which continued fresh induction into IAF till as late as 2010. For their time, DARIN-2s were highly modernised Jags with INGPS, LDP, LGB, autopilot, new displays, HOTAS, etc. The first set of NavWASS Jags were also upgraded to DARIN-II standard during this period. DARIN Jags have been upgraded to DARIN-III standard and are now being inducted into service. DARIN-III is a confluence of all the work done on Jags thus far in India. It variously includes AESA radar, new generation AAMs, ASMs, sensor fused armament, extended range LGBs… the list goes on. Its glass cockpit is modern, efficient and retains virtues of the traditional as well as contemporary.”

“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  

 

I can only do it with your support.

 

 

 

Over 99.5% of our readers ignore our funding appeals. This site depends on your support. If you’ve enjoyed an article donate here. Recommended donation amount £12. Keep this site going.

 

Only two BV 155 B prototype high-altitude fighters were completed by Hamburg-based Blohm & Voss Flugzeugbau during the Second World War and today the last one sits largely forgotten in long-term storage at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum’s Paul E Garber Facility in Maryland. It is a fitting home for an aircraft developed because the Germans feared the introduction of American bombers against which they could offer no defence.

Given the level of secrecy that exists in American military contracting today it is hard to believe that during the summer of 1941 the ‘secret’ work of companies such as Boeing and Consolidated in designing high-altitude aircraft was openly discussed in popular American magazines such as Aviation and Model Airplane News.

German intelligence officers sent home reports about future US bombers with pressure cabins and operational ceilings above that of the Bf 109 and when America entered the war in December 1941 the German Air Ministry became deeply worried about attack from unassailable altitudes. The discovery of Spitfires with pressure cabins in 1942 and the increasing appearance of high-flying Mosquito reconnaissance aircraft suggested that the British were pursuing similar avenues of development.

In response, Messerschmitt was commissioned first in May 1942 to create a high-altitude version of the Bf 109 and then again a year later to create an ‘extreme’ high-altitude fighter capable of operating at 16km (52,493ft). Unfortunately, the firm was sorely lacking in manpower to fulfil its many burdensome responsibilities, including development of the Me 262 jet fighter, Me 163 interceptor, Me 209 fighter, Me 264 bomber and Me 328 light bomber, plus ongoing support for the Bf 109, Bf 110, Me 323 transport and Me 410 heavy fighter.

Blohm & Voss, meanwhile, had made its name building ships and submarines but had diversified into aviation when the Nazis started handing out lucrative aircraft manufacturing contracts during the 1930s. As might be expected, it specialised in seaplanes.

In order to help Messerschmitt, Generalfeldmarschall Erhard Milch, head of the German Air Ministry, simply cancelled all of Blohm & Voss’s seaplanes and handed the resulting free capacity over to Messerschmitt on condition that it was committed to a single project rather than dispersed across all of them. Messerschmitt gave Blohm & Voss the extreme high-altitude fighter.

Everything went well until the two companies fell out – ostensibly because Messerschmitt scheduled a meeting then changed the venue at the last minute without informing Blohm & Voss. The outrage which followed may in reality have been Blohm & Voss manoeuvring to take sole charge of the project, a gambit which quickly succeeded.

After largely throwing out most of Messerschmitt’s original design for the Me 155 B (there never was an ‘A’), the company came up with its own design using the Bf 109 rear fuselage and some wing components but was otherwise entirely new. The BV 155 B had a DB 603 engine in its nose linked to a Hirth TKL 15 supercharger and two intercoolers behind the pilot’s pressure cabin by tubes running down the exterior of the fuselage. High-altitude performance demanded an enormous 20.33m wingspan (compared to, say, the Ta 152 H’s not insubstantial 14.44m) and huge wing-mounted radiators.

Halfway through building the first of five BV 155 B prototypes, Blohm & Voss switched to a single chin-mounted radiator for the production model BV 155 C – 30 of which were ordered. The BV 155 B V1 was completed and test-flown a handful of times before Luftwaffe pilot Kurt Reuth wrecked it during a crash landing at Klein Kummerfeld airfield on April 23, 1945. The BV 155 B V2 was finished but never fully assembled and was captured by Allied forces at Blohm & Voss’s Finkenwärder facility in Hamburg.

The BV 155 had been an insurance policy against a disaster which never befell the Third Reich. Those high-altitude bombers failed to appear and the Allies ensured that they didn’t need to. But the BV 155 might – had the war continued – have been able to give those pesky Spitfires and Mosquitos a run for their money

— Dan Sharp, Author of  SECRET PROJECTS OF THE LUFTWAFFE: BLOHM & VOSS BV 155

Over 99.7% of our readers ignore our funding appeals. This site depends on your support. If you’ve enjoyed an article donate here. Recommended donation amount £12. Keep this site going.

From the dawn of the aeroplane until the 1960s, Britain produced world-class fighter aircraft. As well as the designs that actually felt the air beneath their wings, there is a tantalising treasury of designs that never made it. Here are ten of them. 

10. British Aerospace P.125 ‘Have Not Glass’ (1985)

The long history of British expertise in stealth technology has not been discussed a great deal. Britain pioneered radar absorbent material for aircraft, worked on reduced radar observability for nuclear warheads in the early 1960s and was able to create a world class stealth testbed in the Replica model. Prior to Replica, in the 1980s, Britain was working on an aircraft concept so advanced it was classified until 2006.
The BAe P.125 study was for a stealthy supersonic attack aircraft to replace the Tornado. It was to be available in both a short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) and a conventional variant. The conventional variant would feature a central vectored nozzle, the STOVL version would have three vectoring nozzles. In some ways the P.125 was more ambitious than the F-35, the aircraft was to have no pilot transparencies, with the reclined pilot immersed in synthetic displays of the outside word.
It is likely that this formidable interdictor would have been even less visible to radar than the F-35 (though the absence of planform alignment is noteworthy). Despite its 1980s vintage many of its low observable features are reminiscent of today’s latest fighters – others such as its unorthodox wing design, are unique. The project was quietly dropped when Britain joined the JSF programme in the 1990s.

It is likely that the absence of a cockpit transparency on the P.125 was to protect the pilot from laser dazzle weapons (a weapon inaccurately feared to be in widespread use by the Soviet Union). Even now a synthetic cockpit is considered a daunting technological prospect, why BAe didn’t opt for an unmanned configuration remains something of a mystery.

 9. British Aerospace P.1214  ‘Bond’s X-wing’ (1980)

The Pegasus engine with its steerable thrust blesses the Harrier with the ability to take-off and land vertically — and even fly backwards. Unfortunately you can’t put conventional afterburners on a Pegasus engine; there are several reasons for this – the hot and cold air is separated, the inlets do not slow the airflow sufficiently for serious supersonic flight, and the jet-pipes would be too short- and it would also set fire to everything (it was tried from the 1960s and proved problematic). This is a shame as a Harrier is desperate for thrust on take-off and could do with the ability to perform a decent high-speed dash. Though conventional afterburners are out of the question, you could however use plenum chamber burning (PCB). This technology was developed for the Mach 2 Hawker Siddeley P.1154 (think the lovechild of a Harrier and a F-4, with the wingspan of a Messerschmitt Bf 109) – which never entered service. PCB chucks additional fuel into a turbofan’s cold bypass air only and ignites it (a conventional afterburner puts the burning fuel into the combined cold and hot gas flows). This is great, but how do you incorporate this into swivelling nozzles without destroying the rear fuselage with heat and vibration? BAe thought it found the answer – get ride of the rear fuselage altogether, and mount the tail onto two booms. Worried that this already eccentric idea might seem too conventional, BAe decided to add an ‘X-wing’ configuration with swept forward wings (which were in vogue in the early 1980s). This did produce the coolest fighter concept of the 1980s, even in the -3 variant shown which had conventional tails.

The P.1214 would have been extremely agile (and short-ranged), probably comparable to the Yak-41. The P.1214 lost its swept forward wings when further studies revealed them to be of no great value. It now became the P.1216, which was intended to satisfy the USMC and RN’s desire for a supersonic jump-jet (a need eventually met by the F-35B). A full-sized wooden P.1216 was built to distract Thatcher from stealing children’s milk, predictably (as it was British) the whole project was scrapped. This was arguably a good thing as British military hardware testing and development was at its lowest ebb in the 1980s (see the Nimrod AEW.3, SA80 battle rifle, Foxhunter radar, Harrier GR5 compared to the US AV-8B, etc for details).

8. Saunders-Roe SR.A/1 ‘The Squirt Queen’ (1947)

The aircraft was first proposed in mid-1943, the combination of jet engine speed and the flexible basing options of a flying-boat being regarded as advantageous in the Pacific theatre. Development lagged, and the aircraft did not fly until 16 July 1947. Three aircraft were built, two of which crashed. The simultaneous development of the Princess contributed to the slow development of the SR.A/1, and this was compounded by the decision of Metropolitan-Vickers to cease turbojet engine production.

SR.A/1: Although exhibiting quite sprightly performance, by the time it had flown, the Pacific war was over, and no requirement for the aircraft existed. In addition, the Fleet Air Arm was operating numerous aircraft carriers, and the development of capable jet-powered carrier-based aircraft allowed power projection without the need for airfield construction. Additionally, of course, the large number of airfields constructed during the war also provided many basing opportunities for conventional land-based aircraft.

— Jim & Ron Smith, full article here

7.  Saunders Roe SR.53 (1957)

The Saunders Roe SR53 was proposed to meet a requirement for a point-defence interceptor capable of climbing to 60,000 ft in two minutes and 30 seconds. The driver for the requirement was concern about the threat posed by Soviet bombers armed with nuclear weapons.
The SR53 was a compact, delta-winged mixed power aircraft with 1,640 lbst Rolls-Royce Viper jet engine and 8,000 lbst de Havilland Spectre rocket. The armament was intended to be the Blue Jay infra-red air-to-air missile. The operational concept was to climb to altitude using the rocket motor, accelerate up to a maximum speed of Mach 2.2, complete a ground-guided interception, and then return to base using the jet engine.
The contract to develop the aircraft was signed on 8 May 1953. Although Saunders-Roe’s initial schedule called for a first flight in July 1954, development of the aircraft and its rocket motor took longer than expected, and first flight did not occur until 16 May 1957, with the second prototype following in December of the same year. The aircraft was reported as pleasant and easy to fly. The second aircraft was lost in a fatal aborted-take-off accident in June 1958, and the program was eventually cancelled in July 1960, after 56 test flights. The highest speed reached in the flight test program was Mach 1.33.

During the seven year development and flight programme, a great deal of change had occurred in aerospace capabilities: jet engine development had produced high power, reliable engines; radar had improved its ability to detect targets at long range; the Soviets had moved towards the development of stand-off weapons; and surface-based guided missiles had improved in capability. These technical advances had the effect of invalidating the operational concept for the aircraft. In future, it would be possible, and necessary, to defeat threats at a greater distance, before the release of nuclear stand-off weapons, and there was no way a short-range point-defence interceptor such as the SR53 could achieve this. Furthermore, the first flight of the aircraft occurred just two months after the Duncan Sandys 1957 Defence White Paper, which suggested new manned aircraft were no longer required for air defence, and that surface-based air-to-air missiles would in future fill this role. The first flight of the SR 53, just after this policy announcement, could not have been more badly timed, but the operational concept had already been superseded.

Top 10 cancelled French aircraft here

The programme left no direct legacy. Air defence has evolved through point defence interception, to barrier combat air patrols, and to beyond-visual-range engagements using air-to-air missiles, supported by distributed and networked sensors. Low signature capabilities and geo-political instabilities are pushing air defence in the direction of cooperating manned and unmanned aircraft, armed with long-range weapons, and supported by distributed and networked sensors.

— Jim & Ron Smith, full article here

6. Thin Wing Javelin ‘Terrific Tripe Triangle’ (1953)

The much maligned Javelin got everything right apart from the aerodynamics — and it could easily be argued that if a major war had started in the early 1960s it might have given a better account of itself than the venerated Lightning. The Javelin had space for a large radar, a good range, powerful engines and twice the air-to-air weapon load of its English Electric successor. It also had twice the crew – an important consideration considering the difficulties in flying, navigating and operating the weapons systems of 1950s aircraft. The main flaw of the Javelin was a massively thick wing, something Gloster was quick – but not quick enough – to identify. Before the Javelin even entered service, in 1953, they had begun research on a thin wing design capable of Mach 2.

In 1955 this design was seriously considered, partly as a contingency in case the Lightning didn’t deliver on its promise. The Air Ministry were initially skeptical of Gloster’s performance claims but when they eventually studied it in depth they were very impressed. Though the design would sacrifice some of the Javelin’s excellent range, in other areas it could produce an aircraft competitive with the latest US designs. The aircraft’s panned dimensions grew longer and more powerful engines were considered, and soon it shared little with the original Javelin. The concept was starting to show great promise, however when the UK’s Ministry of Supply were shown classified papers detailing the fantastic capabilities of the nascent CF-105 Arrow being developed in Canada, this warmed over design started to seem pedestrian.  The supersonic Javelin seemed an expensive distraction that could only produce a mediocre design with limited development potential, and it was cancelled in 1956. A shame really, as if it had worked out it could have resulted in a versatile aircraft with better agility than the US F-4 Phantom II, itself a radical revamp of a disappointing design.

5 Fairey Delta 3 ‘The Delta Belter’ (1956)

This Fairey Delta 2 experimental aircraft was the first aeroplane to exceed 1,000mph, and took the World Air Speed Record to 1,132 mph. It was a beautifully simple design with the delta wing’s inherent advantages of low supersonic drag and great structural strength. A year earlier the Air Ministry had issued requirement Specification F155T for a supersonic interceptor able to intercept Mach 1.3 bombers at 60,000ft. After initially proposing a modestly updated weaponised FD2, Fairey came forward with the mighty Fairey 3 — a vast super high-performance interceptor with state-of-the-art technology -—and won the contest.

Top 10 cancelled spyplanes here 

Mixed propulsion (jet and rocket) was necessary to meet the extremely demanding requirement which called for the fighter to reach 60,000 feet at a range of 70 nautical miles from base in six minutes at a speed of at least Mach 2. The maximum climb rate would been phenomenal, leaving even the Lightning for dust — and even rivalling today’s fastest climber, the Typhoon. The thrust levels were astonishing – according to some sources it was to have two Rolls-Royce RB-122 engines— each of which which had a dry thrust of 19,500lbf, and 27,800lbf with reheat – greater than the present day ‘Flanker’*. And that’s not taking into account the additional rocket engines! Not bad for an aircraft that had normal operating weight of just over 50,000Ibs. Top speed was estimated at between Mach 2.3 and 2.5.

To soak up the heat generated by high speed supersonic flight much of the fuselage was to be built from steel (a material used on the Bristol 188 and MiG-25 for the same reason). It was to be armed with two of the giant Red Dean missile, which despite being thirty years before AMRAAM and even ten before the AIM-54, was planned as an active radar-guided missile.

Top 10 cancelled Soviet fighter here

Heavy ultra high performance heavy interceptors did not prove popular in the West. The XF-108 Rapier, CF-105 Arrow, YF-12 and Mirage 4000 were all cancelled; they were too expensive and air forces instead opted for more modest interceptors backed up by surface-to-air missiles. The Fairey 3 may have suffered the same fate had it survived Duncan Sandys ill-conceived crusade against manned aircraft of 1957, which it did not.

*These thrust figures admittedly stretch credulity, so please let us know in the comments section if you have better info from a good citable source.

4. Hawker P1103/P1121 ‘Super Hunter’

Supermarine was not the only aircraft manufacturer that tried to adapt a transonic design into a supersonic fighter. Hawker tried the same with their own, already highly successful fighter, the Hunter. This was also offered in response to Operational Requirement F.155. 

The limitations of the Hunter were already apparent, in particular the lack of air-to-air missile capability, decent radar and the ability to reach supersonic speeds. The new fighter interceptor would include a completely redesigned fuselage and wing (changing more profoundly than Trigger’s Broom), a seat for the radar operator, a far more powerful engine and missile armament. To make room for the new radar, a chin intake was adopted. 

10 exotic cancelled fighter planes from countries you didn’t expect here

As with the Vickers 559, the original design included booster rockets for added climb speed, though in practice operational versions would have likely omitted them. 

Over 99.7% of our readers ignore our funding appeals. This site depends on your support. If you’ve enjoyed an article donate here. Recommended donation amount £12. Keep this site going.

The P1103 was quickly knocked out the contest. One reason for this being the Ministry’s contention that Hawker had not embraced, nor even fully understood, the idea of the aircraft as a ‘weapon system’. But Hawker had faith in the design, and continued it as the self financed P1121. Power was to come from a single de Havilland Gyron jet engine*, and it was to be armed with Red Top missiles, rockets and Aden 30-mm cannon.  Maximum speed was estimated at an astonishing Mach 1.35 at sea level — and a rather more believable Mach 2.35 at higher altitudes. The Air Staff still didn’t want it and reluctantly reconsidered the design before again turning their noses up at. The 1957 Defence White Paper put further nails in its coffin, though Hawker persisted with the idea for another year before giving up.

Ten incredible cancelled military aircraft here

The design would likely have inherited some of the fine handling characteristics Hawker had instilled in earlier aircraft such as the Hunter and Fury. The somewhat generous wing area and decent thrust-to-weight ratio (for the time) meant the ‘Super Hunter’ should have enjoyed good turn rates for its generation. A well balanced sensible design with impressive performance, the P.1121 could have enjoyed good export sales and offered the RAF a more versatile and combat effective fighter than the Lightning, and one that could have performed with excellence in both the air superiority and ground attack role. 

*Jim Smith has noted, in conversation with Hush-Kit, Hawker’s predilection for single-engined fighters.

3. Martin-Baker MB.3/MB.5 ‘Martin Baker Tie Fighter’

Less than a thousand days separated the service entry of the French Rafale M and the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. These two extremely potent fighter-bombers are that rare breed, a fast jet able to operate in the punishing environment of the aircraft carrier. One represents the centrepiece of US naval air power build by the biggest aeronautical company in the world, the other a proudly independent France’s first true carrier fighter — let’s find out how they stack up. 

We asked Justin Bronk, Royal United Services Institute (RUSI)’s Research Fellow for Airpower and Technology, to compare the latest operational variants of the Rafale M and Super Hornet.

Rafale M versus Super Hornet

For this article, I will be comparing the latest variants of each type – so an F/A-18E Super Hornet Block II and an F3R-standard Rafale M.

Sensors

Both the Block II Super Hornet and the F3R-standard Rafale M are equipped with Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radars as their primary sensor. The Super Hornet Block II is equipped with the APG-79 while the F3R-standard Rafale M is equipped with the RBE2-AA. As AESA radars, they are both able to perform simultaneous scan and track functions of air, maritime and ground targets simultaneously. They are also able to track a large number of targets at once and at least theoretically perform more simultaneous engagements than pilot workload or missile carriage would allow in practice.

Interestingly, both the Rafale and the Super Hornet are limited by similarly small nose apertures. This restricts the number of transmit and receive (T/R) modules that can be mounted in a fixed radar array, as well as making options to increase scan width such as rotating mountings more complex compared to AESA-equipped fighters with larger noses such as the F-15 and F-22. However, both beat many competing types to the milestone of fielding an operational AESA radar.

Detailed performance figures for AESA radars are highly classified but there are some things we do know, such as the fact that the Rafale’s RBE2-AA can perform more simultaneous scan and track functions but at a slightly reduced maximum range compared to the Super Hornet’s APG-79. The APG-79 has also been notable for a litany of poor test and evaluation reports, from both the dedicated department of test and evaluation (DOT&E) and the US Navy’s own Operational Test and Evaluation Force. It has suffered from numerous reliability and operational suitability deficiencies since introduction in the late 2010s, and fixes and improvements such as built-in electronic attack options have been repeatedly deferred. Competitive evaluation and mission analysis in the early 2010s found that there was no significant difference in mission effectiveness between Super Hornets with the APG-79, and those with legacy mechanically scanned radars. Dassault has also proven capable of excellent mission system and sensor integration in the Rafale within the bounds of what the design is capable of mounting. Combat trials over Iraq and Syria with the land-based Rafale variants with the same radar and software fit produced very favourable results according to the Rafale pilots I have spoken with. Therefore, it is probably reasonable to conclude that the Rafale M in F3R configuration has the superior radar in most multirole scenarios compared to the Block II Super Hornet.

The Rafale M also carries the OSF (optronique secteur frontal) electro-optical and infra-red search and track, and video imaging sensor suite in a permanent mount on the nose ahead of the canopy. This system comprises a pair of sensors. The first is an IRST* designed for BVR scan and tracking of air targets at medium ranges without emitting any detectable radiation, which also has a secondary capability to scan for land or maritime targets at much shorter ranges and can function as a FLIR for the pilot in low-visibility conditions. The second part is an electro-optical/IR video imaging sensor for use within around 35-40km, and which includes a laser range finding capability. The Damocles targeting pod is also regularly carried for multirole or strike missions, which includes full IR/EO imaging and laser designation and spot track capabilities, as well as datalink relay node for transferring ISR data to tanker and AWACS assets in flight. However, the Damocles lags behind the AN/ASQ-228 Advanced Targeting Forward-Looking Infrared (ATFLIR) pod carried by the Super Hornet in terms of resolution and multi-spectral imaging capabilities. On the other hand, the Rafale’s OSF is a core part of the aircraft’s sensor suite and has been since early development due to the fact that the Armée de l’Air and Aéronavale maintained a medium-range IR seeker missile in the form of the MICA-IR to allow fully passive BVR engagements. By contrast, the podded IRST and sensor pod options for Super Hornet are all external additions to date, and the aircraft as a whole does not have a flawless reputation for integrating new sensors with high mission availability and reliability.

Interview with a Super Hornet pilot here.

 

In all, I would assess the Rafale M F3R-standard as having a significantly more capable fused situational awareness picture against aerial, ground and maritime targets than a Super Hornet Block II, if operating alone. In reality, however, the Super Bug routinely draws on situational awareness from a range of other fleet assets – most notably the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye (which France has also purchased but not yet received), and AEGIS-equipped vessels in the battlegroup, and integrates them seamlessly into both its RWR and main radar displays for the pilot. 

*Editor note

IRST is probably not operational 

F3R standard does not include IRST, though it should be return on the future F4 standard. The removal of the IRST came with the upgrade of the OSF to OSF-IT standard. This improved the TV sensor, but deleted the IRST section. Any new F3R won’t have IRST capability, unless it is taken from older Rafales.

In 2013 standard F3-04T saw the removal of the IR channel in favour of an improved TV sensor the OSF-IT. There is currently a plastic placeholder in its position. 

 

Within visual range combat 

Within visual range, the Rafale M would be in a very dominant position against a Super Hornet in almost all circumstances. The Super Hornet has pedestrian energy retention and acceleration capabilities, and its performance falls off dramatically with external loads and at altitudes above 25,000ft. The Rafale M itself is most at home at altitudes below 35,000ft and can best the Super Hornet in instantaneous and sustained turn rate at all comparable loadings at all altitudes. The Super Hornet has superior high-alpha ‘nose pointing’ capabilities in the initial merge, but if the pilot fails to kill the Rafale M during that one initial manoeuvre then they will find themselves with almost no energy and struggling to sustain manoeuvres or accelerate away, while the Rafale M generates massive lift and has much better thrust-to-weight at combat loadings and superior acceleration too. The Mica and AIM-9X are both lethal WVR weapons with significant off-boresight capabilities, including ‘Parthian shot’ capability in the case of the Mica. Mica also has greater kinematic energy compared to the AIM-9X, being faster off the rail and with a longer burn, and able to pull 50g. However, only the Super Hornet currently has an operational helmet mounted sight in the shape of the proven Joint Helmet-Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS), increasing the odds of a kill during the initial merge and ‘bug nose pointing magic’ turn.

Top WVR fighters of 2019 here

If in a guns-only situation, with both aircraft slicked off; the Rafale M will eat the Super Hornet at any altitude. A head-on would be the Bug’s only chance assuming a 1v1 with reasonably comparable pilot skill.

Over 99.5% of our readers ignore our funding appeals. This site depends on your support. If you’ve enjoyed an article donate here. Recommended donation amount £12. Keep this site going.

 

Beyond visual range combat 

With a slight advantage in general radar detection range for the APG-79 on the Super Hornet over the RBE but a significantly lower frontal radar cross section and better ECM capabilities on the Rafale, the Rafale will probably get the first look.

A F3R standard Rafale M brings the very-long ranged Meteor missile to the BVR arena, comfortably out-ranging the F/A-18E even from a similar launch speed and altitude with AIM-120D. Rafale is also capable of supercruising comfortably at around 30,000ft, with the option of going higher without issues, whilst the Super Hornet cannot supercruise and is more comfortable at lower altitudes, meaning its missiles start with significantly less energy at launch. Therefore, even though the APG-79 would probably detect the Rafale at longer ranges than the AIM-120D’s no-escape launch zone, the Rafale M would detect the Super Hornet in time to launch Meteor with a good Pk from significantly futher out. First shot and first kill are likely to go to the Rafale M.

Top BVR fighters 2019 here. 

Acceleration/ climb rate / top speed/ ceiling 

The Rafale M wins comfortably over the Super Hornet in all these categories, despite being considered somewhat underpowered compared to dedicated air superiority fighters like the F-15, Typhoon, Su-35 and F-22.F-15, Typhoon, Su-35 and F-22.

Instantaneous turn rate / sustained turn / High alpha / G loadings/ sustained G

Here again, the Rafale M wins on most counts, with the advantage in instantaneous turn, sustained turn and sustained G turning performance. The Rafale M is cleared to +9G whilst the Super Hornet is limited to +7.5G. However, if carrying a multirole load, both would likely be limited in terms of permissible G loading more by stores than airframe strength. The Super Hornet wins on high alpha but not by as much as when compared to many other aircraft.

Defensive aids and radar conspicuity 

The latest version of the SPECTRA electronic warfare and countermeasures suite on the F3R standard of Rafale (both naval and land based variants) is widely considered one of the most capable self-defence suites in operational service today. Having chosen to forgo development of stealth aircraft, France has put significant resources into the SPECTRA suite – counting on it, coupled with the standoff range of the Air-Sol Moyenne Portée Amélioré (ASMPA) missile to allow penetration of the latest enemy air defence networks for the airborne nuclear delivery mission. In 2011, the Armée de l’Air showed that it was able to strike targets within Libya before the main US Air Force suppression of enemy air defences (SEAD) strikes had taken place by relying on the SPECTRA system for self-protection.  The Rafale M also benefits from a reduced frontal RCS compared to the Super Hornet, although given the AESA radars mounted by both types, this would be of limited usefulness in a 1v1 especially with external stores mounted. India’s Rafales will include a Rafael manufactured new X-Guard towed decoy but it is not clear whether the Aéronavale’s Rafale Ms include a similar system.

Typhoon versus Rafale here

The Super Hornet Block II has the improved AN/ALQ-214 Integrated Defensive Countermeasures (IDECM) system which includes a highly capable radar warning receiver, automatic chaff, flare and decoy programmes and various options for self-protection jamming. It also carries the combat-proven ALE-55 towed decoy, meaning that it stands a reasonable chance of absorbing at least one radar-guided missile which makes it to terminal homing without damage. However, in general, the electronic warfare and RCS reduction options potentially available to the Super Hornet have not been prioritised during Block II development, due to the standard presence within the air wing of dedicated EA-18G Growlers to support the Super Hornets in these areas.

Human machine interface/situational awareness

The Super Hornet has a relatively straightforward and ergonomic cockpit design with an emphasis on safe deck operations and multirole combat capability over specialisation. Its three large MFDs ensure that information from the various sensors and weapons systems being carried are easily displayed. However, there is little in the way of sensor fusion techniques, beyond the integration of off-board situational awareness data via Link 16, which is displayed on both the main attack radar display and RWR/EW pages. The use of the JHMCS adds an additional layer of situational awareness during stressful combat situations when heads-up time is at a premium. In all, the Block II Super Hornet is a fairly middle-of-the-road advanced fourth generation aircraft in HMI and SA terms.

The Rafale M, by contrast, has an ergonomically slightly cleaner design with minimal knobs and switches included in favour of five full colour MFDs and an electronic ‘knee-board’ tablet carried for additional flexibility and ease of access to information. In the F3R standard, there is a greater emphasis on post-sensor fusion than on the Super Hornet Block II – with tracks from the SPECTRA system, RBE2-AA and OSF all processed and shown on a single situational awareness display as standard, with the option to open separate windows for each if required. However, compared to something like the F-35, there is still a great deal of mental multi-tasking required for pilots processing information from multiple displays simultaneously in different sections of the cockpit.

Overall, however, the F3R-standard Rafale M beats the Super Hornet Block II on cockpit interface and general SA, but in a WVR or otherwise stressful ‘heads up’ situation, the lack of a helmet mounted display leaves it behind the Super Hornet in HMI.

Sortie rate/maintainability/spares cost/unit cost of aircraft/cost of operating

The French Aéronavale has been pleased with the ability of the Rafale M to generate multiple sorties per day and be rapidly turned around when required. Readiness and spares availability is helped by the close synchronisation between the specialised Aéronavale Rafale M fleet and the refit/work up/deployment schedule of the sole French aircraft carrier, Charles de Gaulle. The latter provides a predictable basis for planning aircraft maintenance, upgrade work, stockpiling spares and getting personnel qualified and current when needed. When the carrier is at sea, the Rafale M’s are ready to deploy and operate with high efficiency. However, if viewed as a long-term multi-year enterprise, only periodic capability is generated in return for significant costs.

The Super Hornet has had more issues with spares and availability in recent years, but this has at least as much to do with the US Navy’s carrier groups and air wings operating far above long term planning assumptions for many years as it does anything to do with any inherent properties of the Super Hornet itself. Exceptions would be continued problems with the on-board oxygen generation system (OBOGS), and APG-79 radar issues. However, the sheer size of the Super Hornet fleet in US Navy service, as well as with overseas customers like the Royal Australian Air Force leads to significant economies of scale in terms of operating costs and spares costs compared to the small Rafale M fleet.

Landing/take-off handling? 

Sadly I wouldn’t know – not having deck landed either of them. Whichever of Dassault or Boeing gives me a backseat cat and trap ride first will win! 😉

Range/endurance 

Range is extremely subjective for combat aircraft since a huge amount depends on the weapons and other stores carried, the external fuel tanks carried, mission profile flown, time on station required at the destination, and reserve allocation for recovery to deck or diversion. Both Rafale M and Super Hornet are also capable of air to air refuelling using probe and drogue equipped tankers, or buddy buddy refuelling.

However, with a significantly greater payload capacity, less draggy airframe and ability to fly higher and faster especially in dry power, it is safe to say that the Rafale M has a significantly greater overall combat radius for most missions than the F/A-18E.

Weapons options 

The Super Hornet is the winner on most counts on weapons options. Whilst the Rafale M can carry a significantly greater external payload, especially when also carrying three external fuel tanks, the Super Hornet benefits in terms of flexibility and cost of munitions from being cleared to carry and deliver practically every weapon in the vast US air-launched inventory. This gives it relatively affordable options for close air support, interdiction, long range strike, anti-shipping strikes and air superiority, as well as the ability to draw on forward position stocks all over the world during deployed operations.

By contrast, the Rafale M relies predominantly on the excellent but extremely expensive AASM-Hammer series of guided bombs. These include dual-mode laser and GPS/INS guided and IR guided variants, as well as extended range kits with a rocket booster motor. It is also, however, cleared for delivery of the Paveway II/III series of laser guided bombs too for a lower cost direct-attack option. In terms of standoff attack, the Rafale M can fire the SCALP (also known as Storm Shadow) low-RCS cruise missile, and the Exocet anti-ship missile. Both remain expensive compared to their US-made equivalents. The same is true of the MICA medium/close range missile which is extremely capable within around 20km but struggles to compete with AIM-120C, let alone AIM-120D in longer range BVR engagements. However, the MICA-IR does give a rare Western option for fully passive (i.e. non-radar dependent) medium range engagements in conjunction with the OSF system. Meteor – now integrated in F3R standard Rafale M aircraft – is undeniably expensive, but offers better range, terminal performance in long distance engagements, and reportedly better resistance to DRFM jammers than AIM-120C or AIM-120D. 

Interview with a Rafale M pilot here. 

 

Biggest plus and minus for each aircraft 

For Super Hornet

+ huge user community resulting in affordable spares and upgrades, as well as docile handling, excellent high-alpha performance in a merge, and access to the full suite of US air-delivered weaponry.

– Underpowered for its weight especially at high altitudes, and high-drag pylon arrangement means external stores drag penalties are increased. 

For Rafale M

+ advanced aerodynamic design and avionics fit at least half a generation ahead of the Super Hornet, with brutal WVR performance below 35,000ft

– relatedly small user community and French-specific weapons and systems mean operating costs are higher and global spare parts base is much more restricted. Also still not operating with a HMS.

Over 99.5% of our readers ignore our funding appeals. This site depends on your support. If you’ve enjoyed an article donate here. Recommended donation amount £12. Keep this site going.

 

Born Marina Lavrentievna Vasiliyeva in 1931, the aptly monikered ‘Madame MiG’ lived her 86 years on and above planet Earth to the full.

So often overlooked as an icon of female aviation history, Marina set an astonishing 102 world records in over 40 types of aircraft – including becoming the first soviet woman to break the sound barrier. She earned not only the Orders of the Red Banner, Red Star and Badge of Honour, and the Honoured Master of Sports, but also won the FAI Great Air Medal for as she had “contributed greatly to the development of aeronautics.” 

A steep trajectory
Marina had learned to fly as a child, but the Soviet Union barred women from serving as military pilots following World War II. Undeterred from her self-appointed destiny, she wrote to Soviet Marshall Kliment Voroshilov and persuaded her way into the Novosibirsk Aviation Technicum, She graduated in 1951, aged just 20. Four years earlier she’d told Voroshilov she was 22.

She joined the first female cosmonaut programme in 1961, but lasted only two months. Redirecting her indefatigable ambition, she had become a Soviet air force pilot by 1963. By 1964 she was a military test pilot, and was first to break the sound barrier in a MiG 21. In the meantime, husband Pavel Popovich was no slacker, becoming the eighth person to go into space, aboard Vostok 4 (he was also among the tiny amount of people to win an FAI Gold Medal).

A record-breaking 80s
Marina became a formidable go-to test pilot for the Soviet air force, thanks to her unrivalled skills and insights, and her willingness to push boundaries in pursuit of continuous aeronautical advance. Entering the military reserves in 1978, she then joined the Antonov design Bureau as a test pilot. She set ten of her world records – most for speed – in the Antonov An-22, which remains the world’s largest turboprop and is still in service.

An otherworldly talent
On ‘retiring’ in 1984 at the height of her game, Marina wrote prolifically, authoring nine books and two screenplays. She also spoke openly about her experience of UFOs during her flying career – in her writing, and in person through public lectures and interviews. She claimed Soviet military and civilian pilots had confirmed 3,000 UFO sightings, and that the Soviet Air Force and KGB had recovered fragments of five UFOs from sites at Tunguska, Novosibirsk, Tallinn, Ordzhonikidze and Dalnegorsk. She also claimed to have met a yeti.

In 2007, Vladimir Putin awarded Madame MiG the Order of Courage. She passed away on November 30, 2017, and was buried with full military honours at the federal military memorial cemetery, north of Moscow.

— George Caveney

Over 99.5% of our readers ignore our funding appeals. This site depends on your support. If you’ve enjoyed an article donate here. Recommended donation amount £12.