Devilishly tough and well researched. Much of the online quizzes are pretty ropey, so lovely to have a quiz book made with such attention to detail and subject knowledge. In fact, that this encourages socialisation, as opposed to solo time online, is to be applauded. The love of nomenclature and sub-variant identification will not be to everyone’s taste, and it leans a little dry at times, though this is offset by many wonderful photographs (especially the lovely image of the Supermarine Attacker). That it combines civil and military is interesting, considering as they are often a different audience, and makes you wonder how smaller volumes separated into military and civil would have sold. Can’t wait to try going head-to-head on this quiz against another plane-bore!
Not a new book but one worth mentioning, this interesting book covers Soviet aces who flew Western-provided fighters. As such it is intriguing parallel universe for those used to Euro- or US-centric histories of World War 2 air combat. Spitfires, Hurricanes, P-40s, Airacobras and Thunderbolts formed the bulk of the land-lease fighters, and it reveals how they performed in the dirty, often cold and low-level conditions that typified the Soviet air war. Much has been made over the last twenty years of how the Soviets generally preferred the Airacobra to the Spitfire in World War II, and this book adds more to the story.
Extremely fine, and appropriately grubby, profile artworks by Jim Laurier are what first impresses the reader. For a reference work this is excellent, those more interested in the human story may require a longer work.
The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes is a completely unique form of literary art! Fantastic photos and rich illustrations abound. They are accompanied by a deeply researched and hilariously irreverent text. Many subjects are covered. From ‘best’ and ‘worst’ listings (with detailed documentation to justify the listings) to rare aviation art of lost projects and concepts, this book deftly explores both familiar and esoteric subjects. One of my personal favorites is the Freudian analysis of night fighter designs. Hilarious and thought provoking! Joe Coles has created a thoroughly unique book on warplanes. From Great War ( World War I) combatants to World War II legends and losers to the most modern 2022 superfighters, The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes provides an immersive experience in the things that make warplanes so fascinating!
This is a welcome relief from the many turgid military aviation books. Adrian is a confident clear writer covering a potentially ghoulish subject with sensitivity and panache, while consciously avoiding many of the cliches often encountered in books on Japanese air power. The dreadful slide from volunteer to forced (by social coercion as much as anything) kamikaze pilots is covered in a fascinating and human way by a capable writer and excellent researcher.
Barely known outside of South Africa, Petri van Zyl test flew the rarest attack helicopter in the world, the extremely capable Rooivalk. We talked to him to find out more about the continent’s first purpose-designed attack helicopter.
What is the best thing about it?
The best thing about the Rooivalk, was the incredibly low workload that the pilot had in flying the helicopter. The handling qualities and the performance of the aircraft was superior to anything I have flown up to that stage giving the pilot a stress-free environment to concentrate on the mission and not battle the aircraft into accurate flying. On top of that, all systems were designed to manage the aircraft by itself leaving the pilot free to concentrate on the mission elements.
My first contact with the Rooivalk was when I became part of the development team as a Test Pilot on the project, around the time of the first flight of the EDM model. The basic airframe was thus already developed using the XDM version. The EDM version had undergone a major weight reduction exercise as well as a full avionic update to represent the production models and still needed lots of development test flights to tweak, change and qualify all the new systems. My first flight was on the XDM model though and I was super impressed with the low-workload and vibration-free environment of the helicopter coupled with its brute power and performance, even at 10,000 feet density altitude. I could not stop smiling for a week.
I started on the project as a developmental test pilot and my biggest role was to develop and qualify the helmet mounted display systems with NVG, the digital autopilot as well as the weapons systems. In the latter part of the project, I was the Chief test pilot concerned with the qualification test flying of the whole aircraft and systems.
What is the worst thing about it?
It gets very hot in the cockpit when the air conditioner fails.
In your opinion how does it compare with other attack helicopters, such as the Apache?
It is a difficult question to answer as I have never flown an Apache. I can thus only say that the Apache has been proven in various operational scenarios and proved to be an excellent attack heli. Rooivalk has been exposed to limited operational duty but proved itself from the first moment to be up to the challenge.
What was the biggest challenge to the programme?
The programme was hampered by a lot of politics and I have never seen a programme survive such opposition, with so many stops and starts and still survive. The helicopter was developed in a time when the politics in South Africa changed totally and the new government unfortunately did not put all its weight behind the programme until it was too late to rescue. Internationally, it had to deal with a lot of challenges as it used engines and blades and other stuff from international suppliers. This came with the sanction that in certain markets it could not compete with products of those countries. Potential customers always feared that those companies would not support the product after sales.
How would you rate the cockpit? Is there a helmet display/cueing system?
The cockpit of the Rooivalk is brilliantly designed around the pilot and weapon system operator. Incredible detail planning went into it and the end product was almost and extension of the pilot’s body. Visibility out of it is incredible and the machine was optimised for the low-level nap-of-the-earth (NOE) environment. It was the launch customer for the bi-ocular Helmet Mounted Display system, which was perfected by some brilliant engineers in South Africa.
How you rate the aircraft in the following categories: A. Man Machine interface – I believe the acceptable term these days is Human Machine Interface (HMI). I have never seen a programme put in more time and effort into the HMI design than on this programme. Like I said, the HMI on this machine was an extension of the pilot’s body.
B. Combat effectiveness – I have never taken the Rooivalk into combat so I cannot comment from personal experience. But its successes with the United Nations in the DRC speaks for itself. The biggest advantage of the Rooivalk is that it can be supported in remote conditions with very little ground support. The helicopter is designed to operate in dusty, hot and remote locations and support by less than a handful of ground crew.
C. Reliability – The reliability of the helicopter has never been in doubt. It was based on the Oryx Helicopter which has proven itself over and over in extreme conditions and is maintaining the same reliability.
D. Performance – Designed for South African conditions, the design factor was for performance at a density altitude of 8000 feet plus. The performance of the two Makila 1k2 engines are simply super and it has adequate performance at this altitude even at maximum all up mass. The aircraft cruises easily at 130 KIAS with full armament even in hot and high conditions.
E. Climb rate – The climb rate starts of at around 2600 feet /min at sea level. The aircraft has adequate climb rate throughout the operational configurations. It has a service ceiling of 20 000 feet which was easily attained during certification testing.
F. Agility – Anyone that has ever seen an air display of the Rooivalk helicopter will be witness to the super agility of the helicopter. Although it is not fitted with a rigid rotor system, we performed loops, rolls and all the necessary combat manouvres with her. The incredible handling qualities of the aircraft are mainly due to the 50 knot sideways and rearward envelope which it handles with extreme ease and the incredible digital artificial flight control system. During envelope expansion the helicopter has been flown to figures in excess of twice the rearward limits to prove the stability and controllability. It is just an absolute pleasure to fly the machine and I personally have never flown another helicopter even closely in the same class.
G. Armour/survivability – Rooivalk does not carry any armour except for the seats. The design drivers of the survivability of the aircraft were:
“Do not be seen, if seen, do not be hit, if hit, do not crash, if you have to crash, survive the crash.”
The helicopter had two major crashes in the early years during flight testing. During both crashes, the crew walked away unharmed. This was an indication of the exceptional survival design.
H. Situational awareness – The helicopter is almost totally free of vibration feel inside the cockpit. This in itself already lowers the workload on the pilot tremendously. Combining this to the excellent performance, handing qualities and HMI and the pilot is free to concentrate on the mission whilst flying the helicopter is stress free and the pilot can fully concentrate to what is going on around him.
What was the aircraft originally created to do- and is it capable of doing that today? The helicopter was designed as an attack helicopter and it is being applied in that role today.
What is the aircraft’s current status? The Rooivalk is fully operational in the SAAF
Why did SA not buy an off-the-shelf foreign system? The development of Rooivalk started in the 1980s under the sanction years when off the shelf systems were not available to South Africa. When the markets opened up in 1994, the aircraft was already so far developed that it would have been a stupid decision to go after something else. In any case, most of the off the shelf items would not be compliant to the desired user specification for the South African environment.
Is the aircraft related to the Puma, if so how? Denel developed the Oryx helicopter based of the S1 Super Puma. The Oryx thus were related to the Puma. The development of the Rooivalk from the same manufacturer thus maintained the same type of blades and engines. But that is as far as the relationship stretches.
What are its likely roles and threats in a war situation? Would you be confident taking it to war? The Rooivalk can take on all the roles required of an attack helicopter. It is busy proving itself with the United Nations as a firm favourite.
Guy Plopsky is the author of a number of articles on air power and Russian military affairs. He holds an MA in International Affairs and Strategic Studies from Tamkang University Taiwan.
Here I will share some thoughts on the significance of the damage and implications for the war of the attacks on Russian airbases. These don’t cover the recent (second) attack on Engels, as very little about it is currently known, and anything that could be said would be pure speculation. This also doesn’t cover what Ukraine may have used to carry out the attacks – I am not very familiar with Ukrainian unmanned capabilities and so would rather not speculate on that.
Post-strike satellite imagery suggests that at least two Russian aircraft were damaged in the attacks, both likely belonging to the VKS’ 22nd Guard Heavy Bomber Aviation Division: a Tu-22M3 long-range bomber at Dyagilevo and a Tu-95MS strategic missile carrier at Engels. Photos from Dyagilevo that were uploaded on the internet following the attack clearly show damage to the Tu-22M3’s stabilators and engine nozzles. As for the Tu-95MS, no photos from Engels are available, so it is difficult to assess the extent of the damage; however, satellite imagery of the base shows a large area near the aircraft covered in firefighting foam.
The attack on Kursk-Khalino caused an “oil tanker” to catch on fire (presumably a fuel storage tank). It appears that no other damage was caused to the base. Kahlino is actively used by Russian aircraft taking part in operations against Ukraine, including by VKS Su-30SM fighters assigned to the 105th Mixed Aviation Division’s 14th Fighter Aviation Regiment based there. Videos released by the Russian Defense Ministry also show a detachment of Su-35S mutirole fighters forward-deployed at the base. These appear to belong to the 159th Fighter Aviation Regiment (based in Besovets, Republic of Karelia). A detachment of Su-25-series ground attack aircraft is also known to have been deployed at the base (possibly still is).
Effects
On the whole, the effect of these attacks on Russia’s warfighting capability is negligible. The VKS operates a relatively large fleet of both Tu-22M3 and Tu-95MS bombers, and the damage caused to its air base infrastructure does not impede operations from these bases. That said, the attacks represent a huge blow to the Russians from a propaganda/morale point of view for a number of reasons:
– Firstly: Ukraine has demonstrated that it can hit targets quite deep in Russian territory – something the Russians (or at least the Russian public) may have not deemed possible. Essentially, by carrying out these attacks, Ukraine sent a clear message to the Russian military: “even far from the frontlines, you are not safe.”
– Secondly, Engels isn’t just any air base – its one of two Russian strategic bomber bases. The Tu-95MS strategic missile carrier that Ukraine damaged at Engels is not only a conventional warfighting asset, but also a part of Russia’s strategic nuclear force. Russian strategic nuclear forces are revered by many in Russia. They are viewed as a symbol of Russian power. By attacking Engels and damaging a Tu-95MS (even if it will likely be repaired and returned to service at some point in the future) Ukraine struck another major blow to Russian military prestige.
– With regard to the above, while little remains known about how these attacks were carried out (for example, how many drones were launched against the bases, etc.), they have once again led to many criticisms in Russia of Russian air defense capabilities. To be fair, the Russians have strengthened air defenses around some potential targets (including air bases) closer to Ukraine and, generally speaking, have reportedly become much more effective at intercepting Ukrainian drones. Furthermore, Russia simply lacks enough air defense assets to cover a very large number of military and other high-value targets across the country. That said, the attacks have once again brought to light questions about the effectiveness of Russian air defense equipment. In this regard, while Engels is relatively far from Ukraine, there are two S-400 sites manned by the 76th Air Defense Division’s 511th SAM Regiment that are deployed relatively close to the base; one is only about 7km away, the other a little over 20km. Why were they unable to defend the base? There could be a number of reasons. Surprise may have played an important role as the Russians possibly did not expect that the Ukrainians could carry out an attack using drones this far from Ukraine.
– Lastly, the attacks no doubt served as a big morale booster for the Ukrainians, especially the attacks on Engels and Dyagilevo, given that Russian bombers have been launching missiles at Ukrainian cities. In this regard, the attacks also once again demonstrated to the Ukrainian people and to the world that their military is trying its best to protect its people from the Russian onslaught.
The prospect of facing the most potent Russian fighters in a sluggish converted bomberwas a sobering prospect, but as former Tornado F3 pilot Jon Dunn explains, there were reasons to be confident.
Thank you for reading Hush-Kit. Our site is absolutely free. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here.
Did Tornado F3 crews think it was likely they would have faced Soviet/Russian escort fighters in the event of war? And if so, how do they feel about the possibility?
Quite likely. Not too worried about it really, our situational awareness and weapons were generally better. So long as the rules of engagement were there to allow a Beyond Visual Range engagement – which in a shooting war there would be. The tactics, doctrine and surveillance assets along with our C3I (Command, Control, Communications and Information) would give us the ability to effectively engage a threat at range and negate the superior manoeuvrability of the modern fighter threat. But, as Uncle Joe says ‘Quantity has a quality all of its own’.
Is this in AMRAAM days? As I understand in Sky Flash times you would have likely be outraged by enhanced range R-27s
Well to a certain extent both, but you are right. The trick was the Situational Awareness – and with the radar coverage and Joint Tactical Information Distribution System (JTIDS), even Skyflash could make you pretty potent. But you would have had to be careful. The AA-10 series had a few fairly potent models which made engaging them a non trivial task.
Were you more wary of MiG-31s or Su-27s?
Su-27s, has they had more fuel. Longer range. More endurance. It is the whole weapons system that you have to consider and that includes sensors, weapons, airframes, aircrew and support. Often the AA-10 (R-27)was the longest range weapon there if coupled to an AA-12 (R-77) threat it made for a concerning potential. However, if that is coupled to an aircraft with a poor radar or operated by aircrew who were unaware of the Radar Warner or a radar Warner that wasn’t accurate enough then the whole system is less potent.
What are your thoughts on the air war in Ukraine from the perspective of someone who trained against the Russian threat?
The air war in Ukraine is far more complex than old style Soviet aircraft coming across the North Sea. There is the combined element with artillery operations and a potent surface to air missile threat.
Does part of you wish to be there?
Yes. As an Air Defender who served while Iraq and Afghanistan were absorbing the bulk of the UK Military focus it was dispiriting to be sitting at home or in the Falklands on QRA because there was no air threat.
If you had to choose the ten best fighter (or fighter interceptors) currently in service how would you rank them and why?
10? Chuffing hell!
F-22 has to be the top of the tree, the bench mark for what everyone wants to beat. The SA provided by the sensor suite and the weapons systems are unparalleled
2. F-15 because of its longevity and it actually has a proven track record.
3. Su-27 because of its payload, you can’t beat being able to take a lot of rockets places
8. Gripen because the Swedes always made lovely aircraft
9. Rafale because the French have always made good aircraft and coupled them with potent weapons
10. J-20 because the Chinese are missing and I don’t know much about it
What was your relationship like with your pilot/Nav in the F3? Were aircrew paired or did they fly with different people? Did any not get on with each other? We tended to be paired for big exercises or Ops but generally you just flew with anyone. Mostly people got on, though there were a few who were difficult to work with and typically everyone found the same people hard to work with.
Complete this phrase…two-seat aircraft are better than single-seat aircraft because… there is somebody to talk to.
Does an aircraft in a museum seem ‘alive’ to you? How do you feel seeing an F3 in a museum?
I get a bit choked up seeing them in museums. I loved flying it and will always be proud of having done so. Was it a good aircraft for the job it was supposed to be doing? No, but it was what it was. I took my children to East Fortune and was opening panels showing them the gun and other bits and pieces, I am fairly certain the museum were less than happy with me.
Tell me something I don’t know about the F3
Mostly we taxied with the wings swept. That meant there was better clearance. At Leeming, there was a very narrow exit to the 25 Sqn Hardened Air Shelter site and you had to swing the wings forward quite close to the runway. My friend taxied out for a night sortie and they decided that they would skip the first two of the pre take-off checks and complete the rest while waiting inside the HAS site (wings 25 degrees sweep, flaps take off). They then got a bit of a rushed take-off clearance and tried to take off with the wings swept. At 169 knots Bill pulled the stick back and not much happened. Rapidly running out of runway and too fast to stop he looked around and slammed the wings forward and popped the flap. He said it didn’t half leap airborne at over 200 knots as the flaps bit, and the piano keys at the far end slipped under the nose.
Which do you find more attractive, the F3 or the Typhoon, and why?
Typhoon, does the job it was designed to do. Not a bomber turned into a fighter.
What was the most challenging opponent you faced in exercises, why?
Swiss F-18s because we turned up thinking they were still flying Hunters and F-5s so got quite a shock when they were F-18-equipped and bloody good
What did the F3 force think of F-15s and vice versa?
Most F3 guys simply wanted to have an F-15, be that a C model or an E model, as both were just superb. I don’t think the F-15 guys thought about us but if they did they probably wondered why we were trying to do an Air Defence job with a bomber.
Describe your most memorable flight/mission?
Flying to Red Flag, Azores to Bermuda. Diverted to Halifax in January. We landed on a snow covered runway and very nearly ejected because when we used thrust reverse we disappeared in our own little ‘white out’.
Which aircraft would you most like to fly, and why? F-35. The sensor fusions, the power, hovering, stealth, weapons – all sorts of reasons. Just a really sweet ride.
Follow Hush-Kit on Twitter for aviation news, history and satire.
NOW AVAILABLE: The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes, a gorgeous heavily illustrated – and often irreverent- coffee-table book covering the history of aviation 1914 – the present.
If you have enjoyed The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes there is 2 things you can do to share your love:
NOW AVAILABLE: The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes, a gorgeous heavily illustrated – and often irreverent- coffee-table book covering the history of aviation 1914-the present.
Leave a nice Amazon review (this is EXTREMELY helpful)
Thank you for reading Hush-Kit. Our site is absolutely free. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here. Hush-Kit depends on your donations to keep going, and funding is currently very low. If you love this madness then do support us, we may need to pause service if we can’t increase funding levels.
If you like books, and you do, The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes is now on general release and is bloody lovely. A big glossy feast of irreverent humour, delectable facts, thrilling combat pilot interviews, VERY obscure aircraft types, and MUCH more. You can order it here.
You can make The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes Vol 2 happen here.
Whiteness. Unforgiving whiteness…though I’m not sure which colour could forgive – perhaps burgundy?
Winter is hard for any military, with harsh weather, freezing temperatures and impeded mobility. It can change the whole backdrop – where once lush painted greens, dark browns and dusty khakis may once have provided some level of camouflage on the battlefield, suddenly they become shining beacons against what may be a world that has become entirely white. Aircraft are no exception to this, and camouflage has traditionally been just as vital in combat in the air as on the ground, where a moment’s loss of sight in a dogfight can mean death or a few miles less spotting distance can mean you get back home alive. The ability to hide an aeroplane or helicopter against the ground or sky has proven to be vitally important over the decades. As the northern hemisphere finds itself plunged into the depths of coldness and with Jolly Saint Nick already warming himself up for the world’s longest cargo flight we thought it was time to rate those schemes that let us know that winter is indeed coming (it’s still 2018 right? That reference still flies I’m sure?). Sam Wise reports.
Vehicle camouflage was developed later than soldier’s camouflage clothing, which itself arrived later than hunter’s camouflage. One of the known earliest known adopters of hunter’s camouflage were several tribes in what is today Mali, who are believed to have used bògòlanfini or bogolan ‘mud-dyed’ fabric to colour match their backgrounds during hunts for several hundred years. Soldiers improvised camouflage in the battlefield from the at least the early 20th century, but it probably wasn’t until the 1920s that a form of disruptive military camouflage entered mass production with Italian M1929. Multi-coloured aircraft camouflage paint schemes, sometimes conceptually developed by artists and camoufleurs, saw widespread use in World War I.
By World War II there were well established conventions of aircraft camouflage, but many of these temperate schemes proved extremely conspicuous in snowy conditions. Winter often required a different scheme for warplanes, here are my top 10 winter or snow schemes.
10. Soviet World War II schemes
The Eastern Front of the Second World War was brutal for both sides. The famous steppe winter saw what the Nazi German regime had hoped – and assumed – would be a quickly-executed summer offensive bog down and take a devastating toll on the invading forces. With aerial combat on the eastern front taking place at much lower altitudes than on the other side of Europe it was even more important to ensure the aircraft didn’t stand out against the now-white ground. In many cases, rather than putting their aircraft through a whole repainting process, which would then have to be undone again once the thaw set in, both sides applied a whitewash over the aeroplane’s existing paintjob (which often began to show through again soon after as the water-soluble wash began to wear off, especially on the front parts of the plane).
The scientifically-developed wash added weight and increased drag, but that was a trade off against survivability. It’s common to see photos of Soviet aircraft with only partial wash applied, usually around the rear portions of the airframe. This probably derives from the knowledge that at the front much of it would wear off anyway, as well as the fact that the most frequently accessed parts of the plane for maintenance were located at the front – as panels were opened and replaced, reapplying the wash every time would increase the time until the aircraft was ready again, and the applied white at the rear served the break the aircraft shape up well enough notwithstanding the bright red bort numbers, stars and (occasionally) patriotic slogans. It may have also helped limit the loss of speed from increased drag.
9. Japan Ground Self Defence Force helicopters
Photo [March 2017]: akihiro via Twitter @dragon192
One of the main goals camouflage can aim to achieve is shape disruption – break up the shape of an aircraft so that it’s less easily identified by the human eye. Our first rotary-wing entry on this list we turn to the Japan Ground Self Defence Force. Many of the JGSDF’s helicopters are already painted in a very enjoyable two-tone camo, but for winter training exercises every JGSDF unit will apply snow camo to a small number of their aircraft, usually by, apparently, applying a whitewash over the lighter brown sections of the camo (if present). Maybe the most exciting example of this is the service’s AH-1S Cobras, just because, you know, Cobras. Camouflaged attack helicopters are always cool, and the winter scheme gives them a real menacing look.
The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes, “aviation book of the year” can be purchased here.
8. Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II
The Warthog (let’s be real, no one’s calling it the Thunderbolt II, are they?) is one of the most iconic western aeroplanes of the Cold War, and even today carries a myth and legend that has proven exciting for some and frustrating for others. It is unique in appearance, standing out on any lineup of USAF jets and built around the world-famous GAU-8 Avenger that produces the sound that shall not be written out here. Once closely associated with the central European plains on which it was originally conceived to be fighting and tank-busting and more recently the stuff of legends for its Close Air Support services in Afghanistan and the Middle East, one environment it has never really been pegged with is the snow.
However, as early as 1982 the USAF were experimenting with winter schemes on the ‘Hawg, painting airframe 80-221 in a black and white camouflage for the…questionably-named Exercise Cool Snow Hog in Alaska. It was never adopted operationally, though, and the aircraft was repainted into its operational scheme after not too long.
7. Junker Ju 87 ‘Stuka‘
Back to the eastern front again and an aircraft that has some fascinating snow schemes applied – the Ju 87 Stuka dive bomber which proved so effective in the early years of the war. Aside from the aforementioned all-over wash, variants included a broken, patchy white-on-green that serves to break the aeroplane’s shape up and imitate vegetation among the snow, spots of white over the base camo. Perhaps the most eye-catching version was one that featured painted on ‘worms’ of white all over the plane, in clear plagiarism of Jackon Pollock’s style. In addition to the winter camo, some Stukas were also fitted with skis to better adapt to the snowy conditions, which is cool because skis on planes is always pretty rad.
6. F-16 Aggressor camouflage
One of the most defining characteristics of any modern fighter aircraft is that it’s grey. Battleship grey, light grey, dark grey, but almost interminably grey. So when an exception comes along we have to give it its dues, and one of the best sources for those exceptions is the aggressor units of the US Air Force. The scheme is based on multi-layered polygonal Russian scheme (informally referred to as a splinter) applied to Su-35s
For winter camos we look to the 18th Aggressor Squadron at Eielson Air Force Base in Alaska who fly F-16C/Ds. While blacks and whites aren’t technically that much of a departure from the traditional Viper scheme, they do look pretty good in both the ‘traditional’ and splinter forms, serving to act as imitation enemy aircraft among the snowy landscapes of the northernmost US state. Among the mountains and glaciers this disruptive scheme would help the blend the aircraft’s shape into the rocky picture beneath it. This scheme has been replicated elsewhere with variations on civilian aggressor A-4 Skyhawks and even, weirdly, MiG-17s…
Well, this one sort of makes it onto the list because it’s so mental, but whether or not it’s actually a snow camo is up for debate. This experimental splinter camo was developed by the Czech Air Force’s Letecký zkušební odbor (Flying Test Department – LZO) in the nineties and applied to MiG-21MF 7701 which carried the scheme even after it was passed over for operational use. This airframe made it as far as RAF Fairford (in summer) for airshows, and remains stored today at the Museum of Air and Ground Technology in Vyškov. One of the more peculiar and rare aspects of this is that the radar cone and dielectric panels of the aircraft, which are normally painted in dark green on MiG-21s regardless of the livery used, are also painted over in this scheme. Combined with the low-vis roundel this gives the jet an absolute uniformity of appearance that’s quite unusual with Soviet aircraft.
4. SEPECAT Jaguar RAF
After giving up bright red, the British military has often made excellent choices regarding camouflage. An early adopter of the effective khaki colour for ground forces, it then went for the superb DPM from the 1960s. The story of British aircraft camouflage is generally positive, with the exception of painting night fighters black. The RAF reconnaissance Spitfire’s Recce Pink was considered especially effective.
One of the Cold War’s most perceived-to-be vulnerable fronts was NATO’s northern flank on Norway’s 200km border with Russia. The fear of a Soviet invasion from the arctic, with many bases and powerful assets based on the Kola Peninsula, meant that NATO frequently exercised (and continue to do so) in northern Norway to prepare for warfare in winter conditions. The RAF in particular frequently deployed to Norwegian bases, and very often applied makeshift snow camouflage to their aircraft travelling there, including on the SEPECAT Jaguar which would deploy to northern Norway, including Bardufoss within the Arctic Circle, to perform ground attack and tactical reconnaissance missions.
In the event of the Cold War bursting into flames, three RAF Jaguar fighter-bomber squadrons would have been dispatched to Scandinavia to bolster the defence of NATO’s vulnerable northern flank. Two squadrons would be sent to perform the ground attack mission, and the third – 41 Squadron – would deploy to the harsh climate of Bardufoss. Bardufoss, in Norway, is within the arctic circle and as well as surviving the snow and wind, RAF Jaguars would be flying the perilous tactical reconnaissance mission.
The Jaguar being relatively simple, was easier than other types to deploy at short notice, a skill in which the Jaguar force become adept. The Jaguar’s hefty undercarriage and large wheels would serve it well on the icy runways of Bardufoss, and its normal lack of thrust was less of an issue in the cold dense air.
Not only did you see whitewash applied over the greens on the Jag’s regular camo, such as with other examples on this list, but also more imaginative bespoke schemes, including some proper leopard-print affairs and a beautiful blue and white spotted scheme. The weirdest one by far would have to be a sort of conjoining rings of white applied all over the aircraft, overlapping even onto the RAF roundel.
3. Finnish Buffalo
The Brewster Buffalo was one of the Second World War’s unlikeliest successes. Obsolete in US service by the time the country entered the war and suffering heavy losses in British and Dutch hands by the Imperial Japanese Navy’s A6M Zeros, it weirdly enough proved to be a formidable opponent in Finnish hands during the Continuation War against the USSR (despite some being combat ready by the time it ended, the type never saw combat in the immediately preceding Winter War).
Technically the B-239E and known simply as the Brewster by the Finns, it proved itself more than a match for most Soviet types it faced, racking up some incredible victory ratios. Finland’s cooler weather aided the Brewster’s reliability and it earnt a popular reputation in the country. Unsurprisingly, it was applied with several different winter schemes to suit the country’s climate, including a fantastic leopard-print white application.
2. Westland Sea King
Long Live the King! The Westland Sea King is an utterly iconic type in the UK, a proper beast of a helicopter and a helicopter still seeing service across the world – with Ukraine becoming the latest operator of the nearly 53 year old type! The Royal Navy’s famous “Junglies”, the discerning Royal Marine Commando’s transport of choice, were expected to serve in almost any environment including, of course, wintery warfare.
To that end, a number of airframes were painted in a tiger stripe snow camouflage, perfect for frozen operations but also looking pretty great on the King as well with one airframe, ZF115, wearing the scheme right up until the type was retired. Others in the scheme also took part in the Balkans under the Implementation Force (IFOR) and Stabilisation Force (SFOR) in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
HS/BAE Systems Harrier
Staying with the UK but returning to Norway is the RAF’s Hawker Siddeley Harrier GR3s and T4s painted in wraparound black/grey and white camo, often looking a bit worn and rough as all Harriers should do. It’s a combination that just screams Cold War, especially with the early Harrier’s gigantic inflight refuelling probe stuck on the intake and the GR3’s famous porpoise nose. Although slightly less symbolic of an era, the later BAe Harriers in RAF service did also have temporary winter paint applied from time-to-time as well.
Thanks to some of the incredible imagery of Harriers flying over the Norwegian fjords and mountains that the RAF’s ever-prolific photographers blessed us with as well as the undeniable cool-factor of the Harrier in every form it took, it takes the top spot on this list. The shots of Harriers set against snowy fields and forests are just iconic and no fan of military flying can deny how good they look.
Austro-Hungarian ski patrol on Italian front in snow camouflage, 1915-1918.
Sam Wise is an opinionated aviation enthusiast who definitely doesn’t think that TSR2 was the best plane ever. His views of many different subjects can be found at @SamWise24.
The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes, “aviation book of the year” can be purchased here.
Sea Hurricane, one of the few times the RN applied artic camouflage to an aircraft.
Perhaps the very pinnacle of British aero-engineering was the superlative Handley-Page Victor nuclear bomber of 1952. The world’s greatest medium bomber, the Victor was far superior to rival designs. Key to its superiority was its distinctive crescent wing. Considering the excellence of the wing we wondered why this design solution is dead. We turned to Jim Smith to find out.
Hush-Kit asked me about the Victor crescent wing, and why it had not been more widely used. The answer needs a bit of discussion about what was being sought, and the problems of flight at high altitude and high transonic speed.
The unusual Victor wing design is extremely interesting. Like all aircraft wing designs, it must balance the competing needs of required lift, altitude and speed capability, while carrying the powerplants and minimising structural weight – without falling off.
So… why the crescent shape?
This primarily derives from the desire to cruise at high subsonic speed and high altitude over long distances, going right back to the original requirement as a strategic nuclear bomber. This requirement means that it will be helpful to have good internal volume for fuel, in an aerodynamic shape that has low drag at speeds close to the transonic drag rise.
What’s that the transonic drag wave?
The transonic drag rise is the increase in drag of an aerofoil or wing as speed is increased towards the speed of sound. The rise in drag is typically due to the formation of shock waves in the flow as areas of locally supersonic flow develop over the wing. Bear in mind we are aiming for high altitude, so the wing will be having to generate reasonable lift coefficients (a daunting term that simply means the effectiveness of an aircraft wing) in the cruise, and those are generated by suction due to increased local air speed. Hence areas of locally supersonic flow may develop, which may result in the formation of shock waves and increases in drag. The speed at which shock waves first appear in the flow is called the critical Mach number, and it is at around this Mach number that potentially performance-limiting drag rise occurs.
Not only that, the shock waves that form are likely to interfere with the flow over the wing, and badly affect handling. For a conventional, straight-tapered, swept wing (Sabre, for example) at a given incidence, subsonic, the greatest lift coefficient will be at perhaps 70% span, and this area is likely to be where shock waves first appear in the flow as speed is increased. Because a shock wave is essentially a sudden jump in pressure in the flow, it can, and does, greatly affect the flow close to the wing surface in the boundary layer. At high speed and high altitude, this can cause the flow to separate, resulting in a drastic loss of lift, and a phenomenon called transonic pitch up.
All of the above can be delayed by a combination of wing sweep (which reduces local Mach number), and low thickness-chord ratio, which reduces local suction, hence delays formation of shock waves.
Now, to the Victor. The Victor was designed to achieve the same critical Mach number across the whole span of the wing. The wing design has a very large inboard wing chord, with high sweep, and this allows it both to have sufficient depth to accommodate the engines (more on this shortly), while still allowing a high critical Mach number. Outboard, the wing tapers, and reduces significantly in thickness, and moderately in sweep, these two factors resulting in a constant critical Mach number, and no tendency to transonic pitch up. Overall, the result is a max cruise speed of Mach 0.92 at 55,000 ft, which is a fairly remarkable achievement for an aircraft which first flew in 1952.
So why doesn’t every aircraft look like this? Well, there are two short answers to this – one, because they don’t need to, and two, because of the disadvantages of the engine installation. The Victor is a great package, but you don’t really want to bury the engines in the wings if you can avoid it, notwithstanding a certain post-war British fascination with doing just that. If you bury the engines, you will have to redesign the wing if you choose to upgrade the engines – see Victor, Nimrod, Nimrod MRA4 for example, quite apart from the added time and cost of routine maintenance or engine changes. Intake design also turns out to be tricky, because leading edge intakes next to the fuselage will see substantial changes in flow with varying incidence and lift. In addition, there are structural benefits to distributing the engines across the span, due to something called inertia bending moment relief, which results in lower stresses at the wing root, and hence lighter wing structure. However, podded solutions at these high cruise Mach numbers will also be tricky to design, as they may well reduce critical Mach number.
The Naan Bread Triangle, Mr Old Skool and Captain Fantastic
Today’s airliners are among the most efficient aircraft ever made, and this has been achieved by not needing to do some of the things the Victor could do. If you do not need to travel at such a high cruise speed, you can go for structurally-efficient podded engines, and gain a bonus in upgradeability and maintenance costs, as well as lighter wing weights. The wings can be lighter as the weight of an engine on the wings gives relief from wing bending.
Additionally, at lower cruise speeds, and with modern aerofoil design methods, lower sweep and thicker wing sections can be used, and higher local Mach numbers can be tolerated without shock waves causing flow separations. All of this, and the use of new materials, result in lighter and more aerodynamically and structurally efficient wings.
The Victor and the Vulcan both resulted from a desire to cruise fast, high and for long-distances. With the exception of the B-2, the subsonic military transport and bomber aircraft of today are essentially transports, and are designed like transport aircraft. These aircraft are all vulnerable to advanced anti-air weapons, which is why the strategic capability now generally resides with submarines rather than aircraft. The B-2 (and B-21) are pursuing a different survivability route (stealth), which imposes its own constraints and compromises.
Supersonic aircraft tend to punch through the difficult transonic area at low lift coefficient, and are driven to completely different configuration solutions depending on their particular requirements.
Today only one or two business jets operate in the difficult transonic cruise environment, aided by advanced aerofoil design, and generally rear-mounted podded engines with integrated design of the fuselage, wings and engine pods to reduce drag. Respect is due to any aircraft capable of cruising at Mach 0.9+ for long distances, even though the Victor and Vulcan have passed into history.
The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes, featuring choice cuts from this site along with a wealth of new previously unpublished material, world-class illustrations is a thrilling, irreverent, and informative celebration of military aircraft.
The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes features the finest cuts from this site along with exclusive new articles, explosive photography and gorgeous bespoke illustrations. Buy The Hush-Kit Book of Warplaneshere.
Thank you. Our merchandise shop is here and our Twitter account here @Hush_Kit. Sign up for our newsletter here.
This F-35B (STOL) at Fort Worth had a problem. I’m not certain but it appears to me that the pilot couldn’t stop the thrust once it flipped over. The ground ejection was very impressive. pic.twitter.com/uBSASXiWWv
The recent Lockheed-Martin F-35B Lightning II (STOVL variant) accident at Fort Worth (see video) is, of course, subject to detailed investigation. Any speculation, of course, is just that, but there are some possible pointers in the video which may be worthy of comment.
The aircraft performs a low-speed, near-vertical, landing, and touches down with sufficient descent-rate to experience a bounce on landing. Following the bounce, it pitches rapidly nose down, strikes the ground, and falls over onto its side. The engine remains running, and thrust from the deflected rear nozzle drives the aircraft around in a circular motion on the ground. Towards the end of the sequence, the rotation of the aircraft on the ground reverses, suggesting that the fan may have re-engaged. The pilot ejects, and there is no fire.
What could have caused this mishap? The initial pitch down is immediate and quite rapid, suggesting a large thrust imbalance rather than an intentional manoeuvre. This might be caused by a fan system failure, noting that single point failure of the clutch, the gearbox, the drive-shaft, or of the fan itself could cause such a thrust imbalance. Of these, the clutch and gearbox appear most significant, given the apparent re-engagement of the fan, inferred from the reversal of the motion of the aircraft.
ASTOVL aircraft in jet-borne flight are vulnerable to single-point failures of this sort, as are helicopters. The cause of this particular accident should be relatively rapidly identified, given the apparently successful ejection by the pilot, the relatively limited damage to the aircraft, the available video imagery, and the lack of a post-crash fire.
Aspects of particular interest are likely to be the nature and cause of the initial failure; whether there was any adverse interaction between the propulsion control system and the flight control system; whether, and why, the fan re-engaged; and why the engine continued to run throughout the sequence, rather than being shut down automatically or through pilot control.
Creating a supersonic stealthy vertical take-off fighter is an extremely difficult task, and years of studies —and a healthy handful of initialisms and acronyms — paved the path to today’s F-35B. Jim Smith describes his role on the ASTOVL project and the challenges it facedhere.
Top 11 RAF & Commonwealth warplanes of World War 2 Ranked by Total number of air-to-air victories
Which Royal Air Force aircraft type scored the most kills in World War 2? We ranked RAF and Commonwealth warplanes of the Second World War using a brutally simple metric: how many enemy aircraft they shot down. Assembling the information for this proved fiendishly complicated, but Eddie Rippeth (Hush-Kit’s tamed numbers-man) did it*. The results are extremely surprising in several cases.
Mired in the morass of war and the chaos of counterclaims, the exact numbers are up for debate. Some numbers are crude estimations based on best available sources, while others are well documented. If you can offer solid data that can improve this list, please add it in the comments section along with information about the source. These are best estimates based on the victory records of aces and near-aces, checked against squadron numbers – exactly as I did with the Spitfire count. And obviously these are confirmed victory claims – not confirmed enemy losses. Though sporting words like ‘score’ and ‘victories’ may put us in a cooly comparative or even recreational frame of mind, it must be remembered that any score was marked in gore and grief.
*A little more on how he did it at the end.
Before we start with the RAF aircraft, let’s get the Royal Navy’s top scorer out of the way, the Fulmar.
Fairey Fulmar (1940) – 112
Aces: Stanley Orr 9 (of 10.5); Jackie Sewell (Eng) 8 (of 9.5); Graham Hogg (Sco)
The very similar cousin of the disastrous Fairey Battle, the technical performance of the Fulmar was every bit as modest, yet it outscored the Corsair, the Hellcat, the Wildcat and carrier versions of the Hurricane and Spitfire. As a concept, the long-range two-manned carrier fighter proved effective in the North Atlantic, and surpassed any reasonable expectations when it got embroiled in the air battles around Crete and Malta in early 1941. Only once, taking on Zeros in the attack on Ceylon, did it take anything like a beating. Elsewhere in the hands of superb FAA aces like Orr, Sewell and Hogg, it downed a good number of Italian and German bombers with minimal losses.
We cheated and added a number 11…
11. Boulton Paul Defiant (1937) – 148 victories
Leading aces: Edward Thorn 12.33; Nicholas Cooke 10; Michael Young 9.83
Opinions vary on the Defiant. Some see it as the one of the worst fighters of World War 2; others regard it as a very well-designed aircraft servicing a flawed concept – that as a bomber destroyer it only needed rear-facing guns. Some even argue that it was the victim of a conspiracy led by Keith Park and Hugh Dowding. The Defiant had one spectacular day of success over Dunkirk on May 29th, 1940, with 39 (or 38) claimed victories, but it was soon found wanting and after heavy casualties in the Battle of Britain, both squadrons were withdrawn. The Defiant then found work as a night-fighter, to which it was far more suited. It was a top scorer in the Blitz of 1940/41 until the development of on-board radar, where its single-engined layout precluded effective adaptation. Nonetheless, on its day of days, Nicholas Cooke and his air gunner, Albert Lippert, claimed eight victories plus two shared – an RAF record.
10. North American P-51 Mustang (1940) – 185 victories
Leading aces: Maurice Pinches 6.33; Basilios Vassiliados (Gr) 5.83; Eugeniusz Horbaczewski (above) (Pol) 5.5 (of 16.5)
The RAF commissioned the Mustang and was its first user. The RAF deployed Mustangs in cross-channel operations (including Dieppe) to modest effect, but a number of squadrons, including 122 and the Polish 315, were equipped with the new Mustang IIIs in early 1944, where their main tasks were tackling V1s and escorting Coastal Command Beaufighters. Their finest moment came when 315 Squadron, led by the great Polish Battle of Britain veteran Eugeniusz Horbaczewski tackled 60 Fw 190s. 16 Fw 190s were shot down, but Horbaczewski was killed in the battle.
9. Hawker Tempest (1942) – 239 victories
Leading aces: David ‘Foobs’ Fairbanks (US) 12.5, Pierre Clostermann (Fr) 12; Warren ‘Smokey’ Schrader (NZ) 9.5
The Tempest, built as a thin-winged and more reliable successor to the Typhoon, was fortunately free of the Typhoon’s vices, and was among the fastest fighters of WW2. Initially deployed in 1944 as a V1 hunter, it shot down more pilotless bombs than any other type (638). It was also active in post-invasion Europe, where it was used to great effect by aces like Fairbanks, Clostermann and Schrader, who led the highly successful 486 RNZAF squadron. Tempests were also notable for the number of Me262s they shot down.
8. Hawker Typhoon (1940) – 246 victories
Leading aces: John Baldwin (Eng) 15.5, Charles Detal (Bel) 6.5, Remy van Lierde (Bel) 6
The troubled replacement for the Hurricane, the Typhoon’s excellent low-level performance meant it did two things rather well: ground attack, particularly during the invasion of Normandy; and intercepting low-level fighter-bomber ‘Jabo’ raiders. However, it suffered heavy casualties in this role – which, when coupled with early technical failings, gave the Typhoon an unenviable reputation. Of the aces, John Baldwin stands out, although his superb record of aerial kills was interrupted by involvement in two tragedies. First, he led his squadron in an attack on a mine-sweeping flotilla, sinking two vessels and crippling a third, only to discover that they were RN ships that had failed to identify themselves. Second, on 3 May 1945, Baldwin’s wing was involved in another anti-shipping operation, sending three liners believed to be packed with German troops to the bottom of the Baltic. Instead, several thousand concentration camp prisoners were drowned.
7. Avro Lancaster (1941) – 320 victories
There are three Lancaster air gunner aces: Wallace McIntosh 8, C. Sutherland 7; Bradford 6
Not a fighter, but with participation in so many massive raids, coming under relentless attacks by a highly effective night fighter arm, the Lancaster bomber with its three air gunners did claim some successes.
This is a crude estimate of claims, based on actual Luftwaffe night fighter losses. These were surprisingly high, with at least one nachtjager lost for every four RAF bombers shot down, even during the Battle of Berlin, which is regarded as their biggest victory. By the end of 1944, more night fighters were being lost than bombers. The majority of these were through accidents, with the rest split between air gunners and ‘bomber support’ Mosquitos and Beaufighters, although the latter became much more significant from mid-1944. While air gunner claims in daylight tend to lead to massive overclaiming (sometimes of the order of 10 to 1 and higher), paradoxically night claims tend to be more accurate, as actions tend to be one-to-one (rather than involving large formations, leading to many gunners making multiple claims on the same aircraft); and serious damage (involving explosions / flames) is easier to see, while light damage much more difficult to discern. For this list, I’ve not included other numerous bomber types like the Halifax (with one air gunner ace) the Wellington and the Bristol Blenheim (which had some fighter kills as well as one air gunner ace), which probably also amassed over one hundred claims, but I would be happy to receive more information on this (please add verifiable sources in the comments section).
NOW AVAILABLE: The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes, a gorgeous heavily illustrated – and often irreverent- coffee-table book covering the history of aviation 1914-the present.
6. Gloster Gladiator (1934) – 304 victories
Leading aces: Marmaduke ‘Pat’ Pattle (SAf) 15; William Vale (Eng) 11; Joseph Fraser (Eng) 9.25
Obviously, everyone knows everything already about the Gloster Gladiator, don’t they?
So, what nationality was the first pilot to score a kill in a Gladiator?
That’s right: American. John ‘Buffalo’ Wong, flying in the Chinese Air Force in 1938, shot down a Mitsubishi A5M, long before the ‘Flying Tigers’ had even been thought of. This kind of cosmopolitanism is typical of Britain’s last fighting biplane, as the Gladiator was little more than a convenient stop-gap to keep fighter numbers up until sufficient quantities of Hurricanes and Spitfires came on stream and was thus released for export at a fairly early date.
Curiously, the Gladiator pops up in an unusual number of far-flung and unequal conflicts where it was forced to operate (invariably heroically and to great propaganda value) in the face of numeric and technological superiority – thus conveniently mirroring the general experience of the biplane fighter in World War II. Flying for the Chinese against the Japanese, for the Finns against the Soviets, for the Belgians against the Luftwaffe and, most famously, for the RAF against the Italians over Malta, the Gladiator stoically defied the odds. More prosaically, when operated in numbers against a similarly equipped enemy, it performed excellently. A similar situation to the CR.32/I-15 situation in Spain developed over Africa, where it clashed regularly with the Fiat CR.42, which, though slightly faster, did not handle as well as the Gloster. Despite being the RAF’s last biplane fighter, it was also that service’s first fighter to sport an enclosed cockpit. There are not many aircraft that were simultaneously in the vanguard of development while being totally obsolete.
The Gladiator biplane produced the RAF’s first ace of the war, the Rhodesian Caesar Hull, during the Norwegian campaign. The biplane fighter went on to run up quite a total in the Mediterranean and in East and North Africa, usually against Italian biplane opposition, with two squadrons, 80 and 33, standing out. By the time the Luftwaffe got involved, the Gladiator had largely been replaced by Hurricanes, and escaped any serious maulings by the far more potent Me 109.
Clive Caldwell (Aus) 20.5 (of 28.5); Billy Drake 17.5 (of 24.5); James Edwards 15.83 (of 19.08)
The best early-war American fighter made a major difference in the harsh environment of North Africa, where its low-level performance and ruggedness contributed to its success as a fighter-bomber. All its RAF scores were achieved in North Africa, where it supplanted, and in some squadrons replaced, the Hurricane as a fighter and fighter-bomber, particularly following the arrival of the Kittyhawk in 1942. Caldwell was just pipped as top ace in the theatre by Lance Wade (Hurricane / Spitfire). The ‘Star of Africa’ Hans-Joachim Marseille claimed to have shot down 96 P-40s – the highest number of any single type shot down by a single pilot.
4. de Havilland Mosquito (1940) – 835 victories
Branse Burbridge (Eng) 21; Charles Scherf (Aus) 14.5; John Watson Allen (Sco) 14
The fast, elegant Mosquito entered service a little later than the Beaufighter, and finished the war as the greatest night fighter of all time. Low drag, a light airframe and a high power-to-weight ratio combined with heavy firepower to create an aircraft that was both versatile and survivable.
I’ve seen figures of 478 and 600 attributed to the Mosquito, however my analysis of confirmed claims shows 523 ace kill claims, with aces accounting for, on average, 63% of kills in key Mosquito squadrons like 85, 418, 488 and 219 – so this higher number is solid. Mosquitos as night fighters had a much lower overclaim than single-seat fighters. The lower published figures might allude to night fighters only (Mossies flew Day Ranger missions with some success as well), or perhaps a measure of confirmed Luftwaffe losses.
A well-informed, irreverent feast of military aviation history – a beautiful lavishly illustrated coffee-table book. Support The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes Vol 2 here
Note that John Watson Allen aced in a day in Sicily in a Mossie in June 1943, destroying four Ju 88s and a CANT Z.1007 Alcione, although arguably more impressive was Canadian Robert Kipp’s haul of four Focke-Wulf Fw 190s in a single night intruder mission over Munich (top Mossie ace Branse Burbridge also destroyed four Me110 night fighters in a single mission).
3. Bristol Beaufighter (1939) – 965* victories
Leading aces: John ‘Bob’ Braham 19 (of 29 on all types flown); John Cunningham 16 (of 20); Robert ‘Moose’ Fumerton 13
The biggest upset in this list was the startlingly high score of the Bristol Beaufighter.
It was the most heavily armed fighter in the world when it entered service, with four 20-mm cannon and six .303 machine guns. The twin-engined Beaufighter was a malevolent thug of a plane, causing carnage in all theatres on land, sea and air. Beaufighter pilots became aces all over – as premier night fighters from 1940-43, taking part in daring night intruder missions; as Coastal Command long-range fighters over Biscay and Atlantic; in Burma; and as a key element of the RAAF against the Japanese in the Pacific. In the Mediterranean they were used to great effect as a heavy fighter, notably intercepting air transport during daylight and scoring heavily against German and Italian bombers by night over Malta, North Africa, Sicily and Italy. On April 30th, Alwyn Downing aced in a day by bringing down five Ju 52s in one of these massacres.
For a British aircraft it was surprisingly easy to escape from in an emergency. Both crew had a large entry hatch in the fuselage floor. When opened it also served as a windbreak. The pilot simply lowered the rear of his seat and could then just drop out backwards, while the observer rotated his seat to the rear and could leap straight down and out. Page 38 in the pilot’s notes has an explanatory diagram.
CREDIT: Jim San
Then there’s the alleged Japanese ‘Whispering Death’ nickname…which was made up. “And it was in Burma that the Beaufighter acquired its legendary nickname, ‘Whispering Death’ – a soubriquet which, despite the many versions of its origin published in the past, actually originated as the whimsy of an RAF officers’ Mess in India.” – Beaufighter at War, Chaz Bowyer, 1976, Ian Allan
The Air Ministry tried to royally fuck it up by fitting a turret to it (they did that to the Mosquito too). What else? I love the Beaufighter – the Mosquito was obviously better but the Beaufighter is so brutally unsubtle, it’s compelling. I want one. I hope that the one that’s been under restoration at Duxford seemingly forever actually gets to fly eventually.
*The total figure here is higher than I’ve seen published, but I’ve checked in some detail the individual squadron scores, so it is likely to be pretty accurate.
Leading aces: Marmaduke Pattle (SAf) 37 (of 51); Frank Carey (Eng) 26.5; Michael Crossley (Eng) 21 261 aces with RAF, RAAF, RN, SAAF, etc. Not included are 300-plus victories with the Red Air Force.
Hurricanes gained more aces in a day than any other RAF aircraft – and arguably had the first ace in a day of any country in World War 2, with Australian Les Clisbie in France on May 12 edging the first Luftwaffe pilot (unless one includes Sino-Japanese and Finnish Winter Wars). South African Albert ‘Zulu’ Lewis was first to ace-in-a-day twice, nine days before Helmut Wick. And the top RAF ace of all, Pat Pattle, scored the bulk of his victories in the Hurricane. Not only that, but Germany’s top ace for the allies, Manfred Czerzin, scored all of his 15 victories in a Hurricane, while the fabulously famous children’s author Roald Dahl achieved acedom in a Hurri too, as recounted in his autobiography, ‘Going Solo’.
The Spitfire’s rugged partner, which some claim was the real winner of the Battle of Britain, struggled without its more photogenic brother-in-arms in Greece and Malaya.
The beautiful Spitfire divides opinion between those who view it as an actual war-winner and those who see it as a shameless attention-grabber always turning up to claim credit for someone else’s victories. But contrary attempts to knock its from it perch can’t deny it was a potent interceptor, a beast of a dogfighter and future-proofed to the point that it fought with ferocious efficacy from 1939 to 1945.
It was a front-line fighter throughout the war, with notable campaigns in Dunkirk, Britain, the Channel, Malta, North Africa, Sicily / Italy, Burma, Australia, and from Normandy all the way to Berlin. Top aces include J.E. ‘Johnny’ Johnson (Eng) 36.91, George Buerling (Can) 31.33 and Adolphus Malan (SAf) 29.5.
Notably, it fought in most theatres where British forces won – and was absent during defeats, with some of the last aces of World War 2 flying the godlike Spitfire XIV. Top British ace of the War, Johnny Johnson, and created two aces in a day – Kiwi Brian Carbury, during the Battle of Britain, and Canadian Richard Audet in a Spitfire IX on 29 Dec 1944.
USAF and Red Air Force kills are not counted here (440 in all).
—-
Disclaimers These are best estimates based on victory records of aces and near aces and checked against squadron numbers – I used exactly the same system I did with the Spitfire count. And obviously these are confirmed victory claims – and not confirmed enemy losses.
No unmanned aircraft/missiles included in scores – but I have figures for V1 victories by type here
Tempest – 638 (Joseph Berry 59, Remy van Lierde 36.5)
Mosquito – 623 (Francis Mellersh 39, Edward Crew)
Spitfire XIV – 305 (R.S. Nash 16.5)
Mustang – 232
Others – 158 (including Gloster Meteor with 14)
FUNDING IS VERY LOW FOR THIS SITE
Thank you for reading Hush-Kit. Our site is absolutely free. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here. Hush-Kit depends on your donations to keep going, and funding is currently very low. If you love this madness then do support us, we may need to pause service if we can’t increase funding levels.
If you like books, and you do, The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes is now on general release and is bloody lovely. A big glossy feast of irreverent humour, delectable facts, thrilling combat pilot interviews, VERY obscure aircraft types, and MUCH more. You can order it here.
You can make The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes Vol 2 happen here.
What is or was Project Tempest and what is its relationship to GCAP? We untangle the Tempest.
In engineering slang, Project Tempest is a ‘pipe-cleaner’. The UK hasn’t built a supersonic combat jet since the EAP of the 1980s, and the early joint Typhoon development was years ago. Everyone who was worked on those projects has either retired or is about to. So Project Tempest was a dusting-off, assessment and cleaning up of Britain’s ability to create new advanced combat aircraft. It’s about retaining and building that capability and taking potential technologies through to maturity so the UK can hit the ground running. Designing and developing fast jets isn’t easy – witness to that is the fact that BAE Systems have been helping on the Turkish TFX programme as Turkey couldn’t do it alone, and the never ending saga of the Tejas in India. Retaining the hard-won capability to create advanced warplanes is crucial because not many nations have it and it’s exceptionally difficult to build it back up once it’s gone. The UK is one of the few nations that has all technologies required to make a modern warplane, but some of these capabilities are currently ‘rusting’ and may need an ‘oil’.
In essence, Project Tempest is about getting the organisations ready for GCAP, a British/Japanese/Italian 6th Generation combat aircraft effort announced last week. Britain and Japan have enjoyed successful collaborations for some time, and are currently working on a new air-to-air missile featuring propulsion technology developed for the MBDA Meteor with a seeker head based on Japanese innovations.
We know nothing (yet)
All of the interesting specifics about GCAP / FCAS are classified as secret, and a lot of the specifics are still being defined, so any journalistic articles claiming to offer specifics should be treated with extreme caution.
Technology demonstrator
For the moment let’s decouple Tempest and what has been announced last week as GCAP (although the aircraft in GCAP might end up being called Tempest, Tempesta or even Arashi, who knows). GCAP will be developing the successor to Typhoon with a proposed Entry Into Service of 2035. Tempest is the UK initiative that is effectively a ‘pipe cleaner’ for what was known as FCAS-AP but is now GCAP. It is within Tempest that tech is being developed in the UK for GCAP, and while this is being led by BAE, Rolls, Leonardo UK and MBDA, other UK based second tier suppliers and universities are involved. It was announced in parliament in July this year and at Farnborough that BAE Systems are building a flying demonstrator that will fly ‘within 5 years’.
There is a video about it on the BAE Systems website. No pictures on it and it’s mainly talking heads but don’t underestimate how critical this aspect of the programme is. It’s effectively a 21st century EAP, which helped very much helped inform Typhoon, but it wasn’t a prototype. The other component of Tempest is the technology development which isn’t just the aircraft systems but how it’s being designed and developed. This is not just the Tempest partners (BAE, RR, Leonardo UK and MBDA) but also other industry 2nd tier partners and university research. There is lots going on around model-based systems engineering to reduce development and qualification times as the goal is to have the production aircraft in service in 2035, but this is drifting into GCAP territory now. That goal of ten years between expected contract placement in 2025 and EIS, covering design, development, prototype, test flying and production start – is somewhat quicker than Typhoon. It also needs to be cheaper as Britain can’t afford to do it alone hence the GCAP announcement.
Global Combat Air Program (GCAP)
GCAP is much more complex and some kind of Eurofighter/Panavia-type organisation needs to be established to manage it. Each country has its own operational requirements as well as technology- industrial bases to consider. Technical details are vague if nothing else because it’s classified as secret and because of the potentially differing requirements. However it will be a Typhoon replacement that will also fly alongside the F-35 so you can probably extrapolate from that some of the roles it will likely perform, with air dominance high on the list of priorities. The slowness of Typhoon’s upgrade path will be a cautionary lesson to the new coordinating body, and they must work out a far better system of who ‘who will pay for what’ if new ideas are proposed. They must also work out how ideas are not ‘cock-blocked’ or sidelined by differing national needs.
Japan is an island facing off against China, so a major consideration will likely be a long-ranged ranged aircraft with the ability to counter (and possibly deploy) hypersonic weapons. GCAP also needs to be exportable to other nations who aren’t currently partners (and may not ever be) so the whole requirements question poses some interesting questions as to the design and trade-offs. Both the UK and Japan have historically run extremely costly aircraft projects, examples including the Japanese F-16 derivative (the Mitsubishi F-2) and the UK’s aborted Nimrod MRA.4; so a radically new approach will need to be found to avoid the mistakes of the past. Some in British aviation may recall the time Japan assessed the Anglo-French Jaguar, mulled over licence-production, before settling on building their own aircraft. Many eyebrows were raised at the similarity in overall configuration the resultant Mitsubishi F-1 had with the scorned Jaguar. They will be hoping a similar exercise in alleged tech harvesting will not happen in GCAP.
The Swedish defence and aerospace leader Saab once flirted with involvement, but now seem to be out of the picture. Rumour has it they were more interested in the unmanned adjunct, but then the MoD announced project Mosquito with Spirit in Belfast in 2021….then cancelled it this year citing developments in additive tech making the project obsolete. Then, at RIAT, BAE Systems showed two UAV concepts. Coincidence? I’m not one to gossip.
