I just went to see Top Gun Maverick. I went with high expectations as I have only seen and heard good things; I don’t know why…I almost fell asleep twice.

By Nick Astle

I don’t know what ideal the brave pilots of Maverick are defending, or why I should like them. Their world is one without humour, the characters have the kind of wit, emotional intelligence and sensitivity of a tired stag party staggering through a city centre dressed as Spice Girls. The credo Maverick teaches his aircrew: Don’t Think, Do. I lazily wondered if this made the film Trumpist, but it could only dream of having a relationship with reality as tangible as that (though it’s not not Trumpist). The lack of likeability is an issue, as though Cruise is fun to watch, he hasn’t got much to work with as the dialogue is just guff – though mercifully minimal.

Still Gay enough?

The 1986 Top Gun was famous for its beach volleyball scene, an unapologetically homoerotic celebration of the male form, youth and life in the sunshine. As a couple of tokenistic female fighter pilots are chucked into the new movie, I wondered if we would be perving over them in the same way during Maverick’s inevitable volleyball call-back scene – interestingly we were not. The girls wore more than the boys and remained in the shadows while the glistening semi-nude young men (and Cruise) sweated in the sunshine. While this could be viewed as progressive, the women in the film are literally and figuratively in the shadows throughout the film. Any viewers fearing the film would be overly woke can sleep easily, it reaches, in terms of representation, a film from around 2003. This is perhaps understandable when you remember the central theme of the first film seemed to be masculinity (along with militarism and an awkward attempt to reconcile the individualism of American capitalism with the collaborative conformist nature of military culture). How do you make a handsome brilliant test pilot and war hero an outsider? Not very convincingly is the answer in this case. The ‘man’, the voice of bureaucratic naysayers is played by Jon Hamm. Maverick’s renegade views are a bit Clarksonesque, the sleepy unimaginative mantra of men of a certain age complaining everything is ‘health and safety gone mad’. Quite how a carrier pilot who is so clearly slapdash has survived this long is anybody’s guess. Can’t imagine Eric ‘Winkle’ Brown in Maverick’s role (though a British Top Gun set in the 1950s would be amazing).

Darkstar

The Darkstar aircraft section is very revealing. Why did Lockheed Martin Skunkworks help with the design of this stealthy Mach 10 aircraft – and allow their logo to be used? Because the virtual absence of F-35s must have been embarrassing. The F-35 cannot be used for the main mission in the plot as the target is protected by GPS-jammers and requires the laser designation capabilities of the Super Hornet. I’m not sure this stands up to much scrutiny, and I guess the real reason is that it was easy to film using Super Hornets rather than precious and security restricted F-35s. Or maybe it’s just hard to film in a single-seater! Without Darkstar, Boeing with its Super Hornet would have all of the glory. Wanking over the hardware of the military-industrial complex is, like the first film, a major part of the film. In a comically shameless defence of the F-35 programme and eternally delayed Lockheed Martin projects, Darkstar is threatened by the usual pencil-pushers who believe that the aircraft project is behind schedule and are threatening to cancel it. The project can only demonstrate the required milestone of development by Maverick risking his life and the aircraft by flying irresponsibly fast – and then flying even faster for no reason other than his own inexplicable need for speed. Making multi-billion dollar warplane acquisition projects vulnerable underdogs is really weird.

The enemies – a chimera of Russia and Iran boringly enriching uranium – are faceless, an utterly childish and dangerously easy way to dehumanise them (Austin Powers had greater sympathy for the ‘bad guys’). They operate Su-57s (as Russia pretends to), F-14s (as Iran actually does) and pimped-up Mi-24s (as pretty much everyone does).

The real hero

The hero of the film is not Tom Cruise – or the Super Hornet – or the CGI F-14 for that matter – It is the Su-57 ‘Felon’ (or rather the CGI depiction of it) described vaguely as an invincible ‘fifth generation’ fighter, that steals the show. It is a real Russian fighter design, and it looks utterly badass in the film, piloted by black-visored baddies in black. It is far more exciting than the rather workmanlike Super Hornet or tired F-14, though predictably as combat effective as a TIE fighter. There is strong Firefox (the film not the web browser) and MiG-28 energy in the ‘Felon’ scenes and these are the high points of the movie.

As in all war movies featuring jets, infra-red flares can fool radar-guided missiles. The pedantically minded may also enjoy spotting that shadow of Maverick’s single-seat aircraft is that of a two-seater.

What, if anything, is the film’s central message? It is far too conventional not to have a central message – and it seems to revolve around ageism. Both Maverick and the F-14 are older, seemingly obsolete, and win the day. This is reassuring to the millions of 40+ plus moviegoers feeling increasingly obsolete in their own lives.

The flying sections are very well done, but much like the first film, do not represent a great percentage of screen time.

The movie is a pointless – and occasionally fun – exercise in nostalgia. Is American cinema a rusty old F-14 expensively limping home with one engine? Unmanned aircraft are villainous threats to the future existence of fighter pilots in this movie, and Maverick would clearly rather have his kicks than entertain a future without friendly casualties. Villianising unmanned aircraft is itself a quite old fashioned view nowadays, it should be noted that songs are sung in celebration of the Bayraktar in 2022. The whole experience was like lying in a long cold bath. It is soupy pointless nostalgia that cost god knows how much to make.

The biggest mystery of the film, apart from the inexplicably universal positive reviews, is that a naval aviator would choose a P-51, an air force aircraft, as his weekend ride.

Click here for part 1 of Guy Plopsky’s fascinating analysis of Russian air power in Ukraine.

Part 2 will be out soon and will cover the more recent news.

A great aircraft is the civil (or military) partnership of a good engine and good airframe, and sometimes a separation is necessary to make way for a more appropriate partner. Many great airframe aircraft have been held back by combination with inappropriate or inferior engines. Here are 10 power-hungry flying machines that finally got the grunt they deserved.

10. Tupolev Tu-22/Tu-22M ‘Ziggy Red Stardust’

The Tu-22 is the David Bowie of aircraft, reinventing itself with such radical vision that you’re left to ponder what exactly is left of the original. Little wonder the supersonic bomber required reinvention really when you consider how awful the original Tu-22 was. The original Tu-22 was abysmal in almost every sense and detested by its crew and maintainers. Appalling unserviceability, misanthropic handling characteristics – a wing that allowed aileron reversal at high deflections – a tendency to pitch up and strike its rear end on landing, disappointing range and poor pilot view were only some of the problems endured by the hapless Soviet aircrew condemned to fly the ‘Blinder’.

The design bureau, Tupolev, was under pressure and didn’t take long to plan a major upgrade to this stinker, starting work the very same year the type entered service, 1962. Ten years later a virtually unrecognisable aeroplane, with different (and variable geometry) wings and a host of other modifications, entered service.

Despite all the radical changes, it didn’t get a new model number, just the humble addition of an M. NATO intelligence more appropriately, but incorrectly, guessed it to be the ‘Tu-26’. But it was still a dog. The terrible Dobrynin RD-7 turbojet of the Tu-22 had been replaced with the newer, but also shit, NK-22.

The most important change didn’t happen until the Tu-22M3 update, which included the replacement of the NK-22 with the hunky-dory Kuznetsov NK-25 turbofan and rather handsome wedge intakes. The new engines came hand-in-hand with other aerodynamic improvemts including a recontoured nose and greater maximum wingsweep. With these all new refinements, the top speed leapt from Mach 1.65 to 2.05 and its range was increased by a third.

(In retrospect I feel terrible comparing a Russian bomber to David Bowie)

9. Blackburn Buccaneer ‘The Speyed Seadog’

Blackburn are famous for making less than brilliant aeroplanes, and the initial Blackburn Buccaneer was no exception. The innovative S.Mk 1 was powered by the de Havilland Gyron Junior, and was a weakling. It was underpowered, as test pilot Dave Eagles quipped in his Hush-Kit interview it “relied on the curvature of the earth to get airborne ”. This was solved when the S.Mk 2 was introduced in 1962, powered by the Spey. Replacing the Gyron Junior of 7,100 pounds-force each with the 11,000 lbf Spey was a masterstroke. The result was a superb low-level aircraft with a long-range (longer even than the Tornado), a virtually indestructible construction and a rock-steady low-level ride. The type proved its worth in Desert Storm, and remained to the end of its life a potent weapon.

-Joe Coles

8. Douglas C-47/DC-3 ‘Dakota turbo Fanning’

The DC-3 was a civilian airliner developed in the mid-1930s. At the beginning of the Second World War, it was adapted (with minor modifications) into a military transport aircraft and (predominately) designated the C-47. Over 95% of the airframes built were these military versions. During the decade of C-47 production, several engine variants were used, without significant changes to the type or size of the engine. The original DC-3 was powered by the 9-cylinder Wright R-1820 Cyclone 9 producing 1,000 horsepower. The C-47 predominately used the 14-cylinder Pratt & Whitney R-1830 Twin Wasp which produced 1,200 horsepower.

Roughly one-third of the US-built aircraft was the C-47B variant. This aircraft used Pratt & Whitney R-1830-90 engines with a high-altitude two-speed supercharger. This 1942 modification was critical for the China-Burma-India supply routes and allowed the aircraft to carry full payload over the 15,000’ mountain passes.

The Super DC-3 was developed post-war using 9-cylinder Wright R-1820 Cyclones producing 1,475 horsepower. While not commercially viable due to the extensive airframe modifications required, the US Navy converted 100 aircraft and they were designated R4D-8 and later the C-117D. This variant had a cruise speed of 250 mph, up from 224 mph for the original C-47.

C-47s were also produced during the war in the Soviet Union and in Japan (due to pre-war licensing agreements). In both cases, similar engines produced in those respective countries were used. The Soviet version used the 9-cylinder Shvetsov M-62 producing 900 horsepower, and the Japanese used the 14-cylinder Mitsubishi MK8 Kinsei 43 producing 1,000 horsepower.

On a final note, a few airframes have been upgraded in recent years with various turboprop engines. With similar power, the aircraft performance is only modestly improved. However, the upgrade does significantly improve the engine maintenance and reliability.

-Joe Wilding

7. Lynx RR Gem to LHTEC CTS800 ‘Lynx Wray’s Comanche‘

The Westland Lynx burst onto the scene in the 70s showing previously unknown levels of manoeuvrability for a helicopter thanks to a semi-rigid rotor head hewn from a solid block of titanium and two Rolls-Royce Gem gas turbines. The 2,000 odd horsepower available from two tweaked Gem 60s helping drive G-LYNX to a helicopter World Speed Record of 216kts (400 km/h, M0.32) in 1986, a record which it still holds today.

The Gem began life with de Havilland prior to its merger with Bristol Siddeley in 1961. Rolls-Royce acquired Bristol in 1966 and the engine finally entered production in 1970 as the Gem RR.360. A compact design the Gem features an axial and a radial compressor, mounted on separate concentric shafts, with a third shaft for the power turbine passing through the centre to the reduction gearbox in front of the intake. The small size is aided by reverse flow combustion chambers where compressed air enters towards the rear of the engine before moving forwards to have fuel added. The resultant hot gases then turn through 180 degrees to pass over the three turbine stages which are surrounded by the combustion chambers.

Unfortunately, as with people, as aircraft age they tend to put on weight – the odd defensive aids suite here, an infra-red camera there – and suddenly you’re struggling to see your toes in the morning. A process made worse if rather than flitting around the North Atlantic you find yourself committing the classic blunder of getting involved in a land war in Asia, where the air is hotter and thinner. Both factors that count against engine and rotor blade performance. There are basically two ways out of this inevitable decline, you could choose violence, set higher limits for the engines and gearbox to run at, and accept the parts won’t last as long. Or you could try finding a new engine.

Handily for Westlands, the Light Helicopter Turbine Engine Company (LHTEC) had just want they needed left over from the RAH-66 Comanche programme. The CTS800 despite weighing the same as the Gem produces 35% more power with a max output of 1563shp. Only 300 less than the max continuous power you could get from two Gems. This massively improved the hot and high performance of the Lynx Mk9A introducing novel concepts such as taking a full fuel load, and maintaining level flight after an engine failure, things the Mk9 couldn’t do in places such as Afghanistan or Iraq. The CTS800 also bought with it FADEC controls which are far more responsive and reliable than the frankly baffling system the Gem used to control fuel flow which seemed to involve blowing air from the compressors through a stainless-steel ocarina. Perhaps most confusing of all for aircrew and maintainers bought up on earlier gas turbines is the complete absence of oil or fuel leaks from the LHTEC engine.

The CTS800 was basically hormone replacement therapy for the Lynx and was so successful that after receiving the first of 12 converted aircraft the UK MoD stumped up £42M to have the remaining 10 Mk9s upgraded.

-Bing Chandler

6. Wessex Wright Cyclone to Gnome, via Gazelle ‘Gnome Alone’

The Sikorsky S-58 was an entirely adequate helicopter powered by a Wright Cyclone piston engine that wouldn’t have looked out of place in a Dauntless dive bomber, or a Wildcat. If only because that’s where it started out. US manufacturers apparently having the same problem kicking the radial engine habit as British ones did going cold turkey on the Merlin. In the mid-1960s With the Royal Navy in the market for an ASW and General-Purpose helicopter Westlands hit on the idea of licence building the American aircraft, with one crucial difference. Out went 1200hp of high-octane, war-winning reciprocation and in came the Napier Gazelle. Which looked like an accident in a metal tube factory.

This was in fact a move of some genius. Although the Gazelle was down on horsepower compared to the Cyclone, 1450shp to 1525shp [1], it made up for this by being a few hundred pounds lighter. This gave it a power-to-weight ratio of 1.31shp/lb to the Cyclone’s 1.03shp/lb. Unlike the Cyclone the Gazelle didn’t need a heavy clutch and fan to keep air flowing over its cooling fins, nor did it vibrate like a tumble dryer full of bricks. For while the piston engine attempts to recycle dead dinosaurs into a rotational force by accelerating lumps of metal up and down a collection of tubes the gas turbine is a far more civilised device that does its magic by spinning a balanced shaft at high speed. Say 20,400 RPM for the Gazelle or about 10 times what the Cyclone was doing. At the same time gas turbines have about an order of magnitude fewer moving parts which is less of a headache if you’re trying to maintain them.

If one gas turbine is good, then two must be better right? Right. Which is just the approach Westlands took an upgrade was called for. This time two Rolls-Royce Gnome engines [2] were substituted for the Gazelle. These provided 1350shp each giving the Wessex Mk2 and 5 almost the same performance with One Engine Inoperative (OEI) as the Mk1 achieved with everything working. The Mk1’s OEI performance being something of an obvious weak point. The packaging was made relatively easy due to the compact size of the Gnome, 18.2” wide to the Gazelle’s 33”. In fact, the nose of an early Mk 2 is virtually indistinguishable from a Mk 1, apart from a baffling halving of the number of exhausts. To simplify the engineering challenge the output from the two Gnomes feeds into a combining gearbox the output of which goes to the same input on the main rotor gearbox as the Gazelle and Cyclone’s driveshafts did.

This extra power didn’t significantly alter the basic performance of the Wessex, the main rotor gear box just wasn’t designed to take much more than 1550hp continuously. However, it did allow it to take this basic performance to new places. For example, the H-34A had an out of ground effect hover ceiling of 5,500’, where the Wessex Mk5 had one of 10,000’ at an all-up mass of 11,500lbs. More power, smoother running, and capable of surviving an engine failure the Gnome-powered Wessex were Top Gun to the S-58’s Iron Eagle. [3]

[1] Accurate engine power figures are a bit tricky to get as it can be hard to know if the figure quoted is the max continuous power, or just what you can wring out of it for two minutes if your life depends on it. These figures are undoubtedly the latter.

[2] Inherited from de Havilland who had obtained a licence to build the GE T58.

[3] An honourable mention could be made for the S-58T where Sikorsky replaced the Cyclone with a Pratt & Whitney PT6T Twin-Pac turboshaft giving similar performance to a Wessex Mk5. But the resulting nose job was too ugly to be considered an all-round success.

– Bing Chandler

(special thanks to Ron Smith)

5. Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker ‘Stratocruising’

The KC-135 is a great example of an aircraft with enough longevity to receive a significant performance upgrade with a new-technology engine. This aerial tanker, which is roughly based on a Boeing 707 airliner (both of which evolved from the Boeing 367-80) first flew in 1956 when turbojet engines were the norm. A turbojet, the simplest version of a jet engine, passes all the engine airflow through the compressor, burner and turbine. By contrast, later turbofan engines have a ducted fan at the front of the engine, and only a portion of the airflow goes through the core of the engine. This allows better optimisation of the engine and provides better fuel and weight efficiency, lower noise and less pollution. The KC-135 originally used four Pratt & Whitney J57 engines each producing 13,000 pounds of take-off thrust (with water injection). The first production turbofan engine, the Rolls-Royce Conway, entered service soon after the KC-135. However, its performance was only marginally better than a turbojet, and an engine retrofit at that time was not justified. Turbofan technology continued over the next twenty years, and it was finally time for an upgrade in the 1980s. And what an upgrade it was! An initial upgrade to the Pratt & Whitney TF33 engine was performed on 157 aircraft. This increased the tanker performance (fuel off-loaded and/or mission range) by 20%. The more significant upgrade came in the mid-1980s with the KC-135R model. This upgrade used the CFM56 engine and was applied to a majority of the fleet. The CFM56 produces 22,000 pounds of take-off thrust, a 60% increase over the J57 engine. This, along with a few airframe upgrades, allowed for a maximum take-off weight increase, and a significant increase in aircraft performance. Compared to the original A model, the R model can offload nearly 30% more fuel, and its mission radius is increased by 60% or more, depending on fuel offload. Takeoff field performance, noise, and emissions are also improved.

As a postscript to this story, the B-52 Stratofortress bomber is in the process of a modern turbofan upgrade. The aircraft, from a similar era, was upgraded to TF33 turbofan engines with the H model in the early 1960s. Further upgrades have been discussed for decades, but finally last year a retrofit to the Rolls-Royce F130 engine was approved by the USAF, with full development work now in progress.

– Joe Wilding

4. North American P-51 Mustang ‘The 51st State’

Pairing the most aerodynamically advanced airframe in creation with the best aero-engine in the world was a match made in heaven. An excellent low-level fighter became a superb all-round fighter. Jealous British historians may claim the re-engining was an entirely British idea, but several in the US had also considered this happy marriage.

-Joe Coles

3. Macchi C.200-C.202/205V

When the Italian air force took the Macchi C.200 to war on the French border, Africa and the Balkans it proved utterly and dangerously outclassed. Its Fiat radial engine generated an unimpressive 870hp, leaving it underpowered compared to Allied opposition boasting 1000hp inline powerplants. Poor thinking in the 1930s had led Italy away from adopting powerful inline engines, in favour of the promise of reliable uncomplicated radials; in reality, all this thinking had got the Regia Aeronautica was a fighter force too slow to survive. Aware of the mauling Italian fighters were receiving, the General Staff frantically turned to Alfa Romeo and Fiat begging for radials of greater power, but none were forthcoming. In desperation, they turned to their German allies to request licence-production rights for the inline Daimler-Benz DB 601, as used by the formidable Bf 109 and Bf 110. The German engine had a far smaller frontal cross-section than the Fiat engine allowing for greater streamlining and far more power. A 601 was fitted to a C.202, and the machine was also given an enclosed cockpit. Thus the ‘Folgore’ was born in 1940- and it was one hell of a fighter. With a top speed of 372mph, it was as fast or faster than contemporary Spitfires and 109s – and its climb rate was spectacular, it was also agile and of extremely rugged construction. In North Africa, the Folgore proved a viciously superior fighter to the Kittyhawks, Tomahawks, Hurricanes and Fulmars it faced.

-Joe Coles

2. Grumman F-14 Tomcat ‘Flopgun’

The F-14 inherited a curse from the fat wheezy abortive F-111B it was made to replace, the lamentable TF30 engines. The TF30 story goes back even further, as it was originally conceived for the Douglas F6D Missileer a loitering ‘missile-truck’ of an aircraft which never flew. The TF30 proved passable for bombers looking to move extremely quickly at low-altitude without the violence of extreme dogfight manoeuvring and found gainful employment with the F-111. But, as a fighter engine it was terrible. Weak, thirsty, smoky, unreliable, pilots of the otherwise excellent Tomcat had to learn to manage these untrustworthy engines. The TF30-P-414A solved the reliability issue to some extent but the Tomcat was still underpowered. Eventually the Tomcat got the engine it needed, with the fitment of the excellent General Electric F110-GE-400. The new Tomcat was an awe-inspiring machine, with performance to match the world-class weapons and sensors.

-Joe Coles

The F-14’s engines have a bad reputation, is this deserved?

“Yes, as long as we are talking about the TF30 engines of the F-14A. You may know that the TF30 was intended as an interim engine for the F-14, but for several reasons it ended up as the primary. Plenty of other sources have described its limitations in a fighter. Something hardly ever mentioned is that in order to improve engine stability and longevity, maximum thrust in afterburner was actually decreased to roughly 17,000 lbs per engine. As I mentioned before, the TF30 did have good fuel specs and it also had good thrust, especially at lower altitude – but these points did not outweigh their poor performance as a fighter engine. But still, I flew A-models my entire career and I can tell you pilots did not sit around complaining about the TF30: they learned its weaknesses, worked around them, and went out and flew the best jet they could. They were Navy fighter pilots.” – Dave ‘Bio’ Baranek, TopGun instructor and Radar Intercept Officer

1. Avro Manchester ‘So much to answer for’

The famous Lancaster was more than a re-engined Manchester, but was not that much more. In fact, the prototype Lancaster was a conversion of the earlier twin-engined bomber and was initially known as the Manchester III . The obvious change was the addition of two extra engines, but there was also a larger wing, general beefing up and a new undercarriage. Despite these changes it is absolutely fair to describe the Lancaster as a new ‘Manc’. The result was spectacular, and the mediocre Manchester became the most destructive and survivable bomber of its time.

-Joe Coles

Unbearably beautiful, featuring a wealth of innovations and capable of recording gypsy jazz singles in flight, there are many reasons why the Caravelle was a technological tour de force that inspired love in those that came close to the French jetliner. We take a jet-age saunter through the boulevard of aeronautical nostalgia to meet an incredible (and all too frequently overlooked) masterpiece to take a look at just 10 fantastic things about the Caravelle.

10. X-210 Tri-Atar

By the end of the War, the French aviation industry had been reduced to nothing. Its factories, in the hands of the Germans, had been priority targets for the Allied bombers. The French aeronautical industry had lost the international lead it had held since the very beginning of aviation, and had seemingly lost everything else. Its renaissance was close to a miracle and was the result of extremely confident and clear thinking. This assertiveness led to the superlative Mirage series in the military realm, and civil ambitions were no less hopeful. In 1951, the General Secretariat for Civil and Commercial Aviation (SGACC) launched an extremely ambitious competition among French aircraft manufacturers to develop a medium-haul aircraft. This new airliner was to connect the main European destinations, with 55 to 65 passengers and one ton of freight, on routes of more than 2000 km, flying at a minimum cruising speed of 600 km/h at an altitude of 7,500 meters, and be able to take off in less than 1800 metres for a maximum landing distance of 1125 metres. Despite the technical and technological backwardness of France at the time, the vast majority of response proposals made the bold choice of skipping the turboprop stage and opting instead for the use of turbojets, a new and risky technology. This was a daring choice, as only the United Kingdom had developed (somewhat hastily) a commercial jet aircraft, several years ahead of the USA and the Soviet Union*.

The SNCASE company’s answer to these specifications was the X-210 Tri-Atar. It was planned, as its name indicates, to be an aircraft powered by three SNECMA Atar turbojet engines with an arrangement that would later feature on the Boeing 727: two turbojets in nacelles at the rear of the fuselage and a third one integrated into the fuselage. However, there were delays in the development of these Atar engines and when Rolls-Royce announced that its new, more powerful version of the Avon turbojet engine was available for civil aircraft under development SNCASE paid close attention. Thanks to the power gain the new engine had over the Atar, a new aircraft could easily make do with only two engines. This new configuration, with only two engines placed far from most of the cabin would be far quieter than any rivals. It would certainly offer a far quieter experience for travellers than rivals like the British Comet and Soviet Tu-104 with their engines buried into the inner section of the wing. In 1953, shortly after the tri-jet concept had become a bi-jet, it was definitively renamed SE-210 Caravelle, and the appearance we know today was finalised. The name refers to the caravel ships of the 15th century, which by dint of their speed and strength opened the world to European exploration.

Many radical technical solutions put the aircraft at the forefront of technology. For example, the Caravelle’s designers opted for hydraulic servos whereas the Boeing 707, Tu-104 and D.H. Comet used entirely mechanical flight controls operated by a system of cables running through the fuselage and wings. The Caravelle was the first commercial aircraft certified to fly with hydraulic servos. Piloting the Caravelle was thus far less tiring than for its rivals, and it had the most comfortable controls of any civil aircraft of the time.

9. Triangular portholes

Caravelle is a unique aircraft because of its many small eccentricities. One of the most obvious, at first glance, is surely the strange shape of its windows: triangles with widely rounded-off corners. Although some may think that they result from a study of pressurization carried out after the various accidents of the English D.H. Comet (the square shape of its portholes being one of the main causes of the accidents), the triangular shape was actually decided well before the complete analysis of the causes of the crashes had been concluded. Indeed, the final report of the Cohen C1 committee, in charge of understanding the disasters, gave its conclusions on November 24, 1954: the first Caravelle prototype registered F-WHH, had been in production since March 1953.

The truth about this surprising shape comes from a very thorough study on the visual comfort of the passenger: the section was narrow and partly high to limit the risks of glare due to the sun, and the lower wider part gave a clearer view down, allowing the travellers to more easily admire the often epic landscape visible from 10000 metres in the sky. This formula obviously passed numerous pressurization tests, just like the rest of the Caravelle airframe, which was immersed in a large water chamber to study the weaknesses and possible premature fatigue of the metal. The iconic windows become omnipresent in the 1960s advertising campaigns of the 60s of Sud-Aviation and the airlines operating the SE-210. The campaigns were so successful that the general public learnt to associate the image of triangular windows with the Caravelle.

Unfortunately, this shape, although innovative, was something of a design cul de sac. It can nevertheless be found on the private jet Rockwell Sabreliner 65 which, in the broad lines, takes again the general configuration of Caravelle.

8. Land anywhere

It was all very well for France to develop the first medium-haul jet, but were airports around the world ready to receive it? For an aircraft of this category, it is imperative to be able to land on as many runways as possible, everywhere in the world, and not just at international airports. The problem was the length of runways. At that time, the most modern four-engine aircraft with their greed for long strips of concrete could enjoy 170 sufficiently long runways in the United States of America. But on how many European, African or South American runways could such a plane land? This is where the genius of Sud Aviation comes into play again. The Caravelle was designed to land on all runways built for the earlier DC-4 era, and even shorter ones if necessary. For the latter, a tail parachute – until then the reserve of military aircraft – could be deployed, reducing the landing distance considerably (this would also feature on the Tu-104).

This is how Caravelle became the first commercial jet to land at the airports of Buenos Aires, São Paulo, Porto Alegre, Belem, Montevideo and many others. But another problem arose at many airports still suitable for traditional propeller planes: there was no infrastructure in place for boarding and disembarking passengers from a jet. Once again, this problem was quickly solved, Sud-Aviation equipped its aircraft with an elegant retractable staircase located in the tail of the aircraft, allowing passengers to board and disembark the aircraft anywhere without infrastructure.

7. A gliding airliner

On April 15, 1959, Air France carried out a novel publicity event to promote the safety of the new aircraft. A Caravelle deliberately glid, without propulsion, between Paris and Dijon in France, a distance of more than 262 kilometres (163 miles). The first production aircraft (F-BHRA) Alsace was chosen. The aeroplane took off with its two engines at 13:42 from Orly airport near Paris piloted by Marcel Guibert and René Duguet. The aircraft climbed to 13200 m and reached speed of 665 km/h above Paris, at 14.46, the engines spooled down. Above the capital, the thrust of the engines was now cut.

The Alsace then turned towards Dijon, 265 km away. The aircrew experienced an eerie silence across the flight only disturbed by the sound of wind on the windshield. After 46 minutes of gliding, the plane finally reached Dijon at 3:32 pm, at an altitude of 1600 m. After its descent to the arrival airport, the throttle was only turned on for the last moments of the final approach, in order to guarantee the safety of the passengers.

“Passengers?” You may ask. Yes indeed, remarkably the aircraft was loaded with 35 passengers and journalists in addition to the crew and two flight attendants for this somewhat hair-raising flight!

Shortly after, on October 11, 1959, the Brazilian airline VARIG seeking to justify to the public the purchase of a jet produced in France and not on the American continent, repeated the feat of a gliding flight in the same conditions between the airports of Passo Fundo and Ossario, almost 327 km away, thus pushing back the record of Air France, and, demonstrating once again the incredible gliding characteristics of the Caravelle. The aeroplane had a glide ratio of over 22, better than many pre-war competition gliders. The glide ratio of an aircraft is the distance of forward travel divided by the altitude lost in that distance; for comparison, the tiny-winged F-104 has a glide ratio of 5. The Caravelle’s, at 22, is almost the same as the famously glider-like U-2 spyplane!

These feats were the only demonstrations of the gliding capabilities of an airliner of such importance (except for flight accidents such as Air Transat flight 236). This was made possible thanks to the incredibly efficient wings of the aircraft, which free of any engine, offered a very pure aerodynamic form.

6. A recording studio in the stratosphere

In 1959, Air France set up another world first to promote the plane’s superiority over its competitors: in this case, it was no longer a question of its gliding abilities, but of celebrating the quiet cabin. Whereas competitors had engines in or under the wings, noisily close to most areas of the cabin, the Caravelle’s two engines were neatly tucked away in nacelles at the rear end of the aircraft. It was said that the noisiest seat on board the Caravelle was only as noisy as the quietest seat in the quietest rival airliner.

To demonstrate this guitarist and singer Sacha Distel, accompanied by his orchestra, took a trip aboard the Caravelle III Alsace to record a single inside the aircraft during a dedicated flight on 17 April 1959. In addition to musical instruments – including a piano weighing over 200 kg – a complete recording studio was installed on board. Once the plane was at an altitude of 10500 metres the recording began, made possible by the extremely quiet cabin.

Sacha Distel chose to perform a cover of the jazz guitarist Django Reinhardt’s instrumental ‘Nuages’ (cloud) a fitting title. The recording, in the form of a single called “Altitude 10 500 m”, was released by the Philips record company in the same year, 1959.

5. Caravelle to the Americas: First JFK jet

After a promotional tour of both American continents in 1957, Brazil’s leading airline VARIG was utterly seduced and placed an order with Sud-Aviation. VARIG originally planned to use both Boeing 707s and Caravelles on its network, the former for overseas routes – and the Caravelles for domestic travel. While Boeing fell behind in the production and delivery of its many 707s, the first VARIG Caravelle was delivered to Brazil on 24 September 1959. For its introduction, VARIG chose to operate the Caravelle on its prestigious Rio de Janeiro – New York service. VARIG was proud of its new jet and still lacking the promised 707s. With this route, VARIG became the first airline to operate a jet from Idlewild Airport (now known as John F. Kennedy Airport) in New York, making the Caravelle the first jetliner to operate on both American continents.

On 25 February 1960, United Airlines, then one of the world’s largest airlines, signed a contract for 20 Caravelles and took 20 options, for a contract worth about $65 million (equivalent to over $635 in 2022 dollars). A huge success for Sud-Aviation. Few European aircraft had been successful in exporting to the US at that time; it would not be until the Falcons and Airbus that such successes would be seen again. The American company requested a number of small modifications to the airframe, including the enlargement of the cockpit windscreen and the addition of thrust reversers and more powerful brakes, the resultant variant was known as the Type VI-R Caravelle. The first United Airlines Type VI-R, christened ‘Ville de Toulouse‘, was received on 10 June 1961 and scheduled flights began on 14 July, Bastille Day.

4. Tough as hell

Sometimes accidents highlight theoretical but normally unprovable technical characteristics of an aircraft. The robustness of the Caravelle’s airframe and its ability to withstand collisions were proven in a spectacular accident early in the aircraft’s operating career. On 19 May 1960, at 9.46 am, a small SV 4-C Stampe biplane, registration number F-BDEV, owned by the Club aéronautique universitaire de Chelles-les-Pins and piloted by Mr René Fabbro, collided in mid-air with a Caravelle belonging to Air Algérie departing from Orly. The impact completely destroyed the small plane, which was partially stuck in the Caravelle, killing its pilot on the spot. The propeller tore the roof of the airliner over several metres, severing the back antenna in the process, killing one passenger and injuring several others. Despite extensive structural damage and a now disabled radio, the Caravelle managed to land safely at Orly airport. The damage would, in similar circumstances, have caused the loss of many comparable airliners, but the robustness of the Caravelle and its airframe demonstrated the care that Sud-Aviation had taken with its aircraft. The investigation will reveal that the Stampe was in a restricted area and that the pilot simply did not see the Caravelle coming.

3. First autopilot

The Caravelle, as you will have seen from the various points already highlighted, was a safe aircraft, especially if you compare its accident rate to its counterparts, the first generation commercial jets. The aircraft was already superb, but there was a desire to make the aircraft even more dependable, as punctual as a train. One way to do this was to ensure it could operate in weather conditions that would hinder all of its rivals. As early as 1962, the first Caravelle prototype, F-WHHH, was modified and carried out the first automatic landing tests. A military system comprising a Lear Siegler autopilot was installed and coupled to a TRT radio altimeter. This was the first time that a civilian aircraft had been fitted with such a system. (A British system developed by the Smith Company was also tested but was found to be too complicated.)

When the Caravelle entered the Air Inter fleet, it was equipped with this brand new Sud-Lear system called ‘Autoland’. This system made Air Inter’s fleet of Caravelles the first airliners in the world certified to make Phase III approaches, with 50 feet of visibility and 150 meters of runway visibility. It was not until 9 January 1969 that one of these aircraft, filled with fifty-six passengers, left Lyon and landed at Orly fully automatically in the fog, without pilot intervention. On board, Captain Pierre Larribiere had just achieved a world first: from now on, planes would no longer be afraid of fog.

2. The SE-210 Vomit Comet

Parabolic flights reproduce gravity-free conditions and involve an aircraft flying upwards and downwards in arcs interspersed with level flying. They enable research in microgravity conditions without the expense of spaceflight. So violent are the flights that they are informally known as ‘vomit comets’. At the end of the 1980s, France sought to extend its independence from the USA for parabolic flight. Indeed, for any training or experiment in microgravity, Europeans were dependent on NASA flights, which gave priority to its own activities. It was under the impetus of French astronauts Jean-François Clervoy and Jean-Pierre Haigneré that the Centre national d’études spatiales (CNES) and the flight test centre (CEV) decided to convert a Caravelle for microgravity flights. A Caravelle of type VI R produced in 1968 and which had enjoyed a successful (but relatively boring) career as an airliner in Luxembourg returned to France in 1989 under the registration F-ZACQ.

It was assigned to the Flight Test Centre and became the famous Caravelle Zero-G, after a general refit. CNES entrusted the marketing and management of this new sector to its subsidiary Novespace. Thanks to this, the Europeans gained their independence and Caravelle Zero-G allowed the first scientific parabolic flight campaigns from 1989 onwards. Caravelle Zero-G stopped flying in 1995, after six years at the CEV and a busy career before its conversion. It was this aircraft that made it possible to carry out more than 40 scientific flight campaigns, accumulating more than 4000 parabolas for a total of 24 hours of weightlessness. Thanks to the Caravelle, European was able to carry out independent research without dependence on NASA. It was replaced by another European type, the Airbus A300 Zero-G.

1. After Caravelle, Super-Caravelle: The Mother of Concorde

After such an obvious technical success, France, having gained confidence, decided to embark on the adventure of supersonic commercial transport and started the Super Caravelle project in the late 1950s. Numerous exotic projects were then explored including flying wings, nuclear aircraft but most were far too ambitious.

Sud Aviation was then asked to repeat the Caravelle’s success with the support of Dassault, with its vast experience of the science of supersonic flight. Dassault and Sud Aviation presented their work and a model of the project in 1961 at the Paris Air Show.

The conceptual aircraft was a medium-haul design with delta ogival wing with accommodation for 70 passengers over distances of 2,000 to 3,000 km at speeds of between Mach 2 and Mach 2.5. The aircraft was promoted as a winning mixture of the Caravelle and the Mirage IV. 

At that time, the British were also developing a supersonic airliner with a rather similar project, the Bristol 223. The French and British projects were already well advanced, but it was the realisation and the enormous costs of developing a prototype that led the two countries to embark on a collaboration, both nations seeking above all to counter American market dominance. So in 1962 Super Caravelle merged with the Bristol 223 to create the famous and fabulous Concorde.

Concorde retained the look of the Super Caravelle, as well as its wonderful “ogival” wing.

By Hugo Mark Michel

(The name “Super Caravelle” will nevertheless be reused for longer models of the SE.210)

*Leaving aside abortive Canada’s C102 Jetliner

The trouble you have when describing the Harrier is that folk immediately assume that you are trying to mount a defence of an icon-based on heartfelt fondness and not hard fact. The battle lines are pretty rigid. Harrier fans and critics never seem to agree. In an attempt to bridge this divide I write today to argue a not often argued point. That the Harrier was adequate.

Let’s start with something uncomfortable but true. Not a lot of aeroplanes are good. Good is a hard milestone to achieve because it’s relative. Relative to the other aircraft available at the time and relative to the threat. To get to good you have to be broadly comparable to the best in class. For air-to-air fighters this became the F-15 Eagle in 1976 and was upgraded to the F-22 in 2005. The world makes some poor aircraft. Usually by a combination of poor performance but usually by being late to the party by a decade or two – and delivering what would have been good, but 20 years after it mattered. So good is tough, poor is not uncommon – in the middle comes ‘adequate’. Nothing fundamentally wrong with them, able to contribute, sometimes in niche roles. A lot of aircraft are adequate as all are compromises, the pluses just have to balance the minuses. For attack aircraft the water is slightly muddier than the air-to-air fight but seeing as though a Harrier will never be the fastest, carry the most, or go the furthest – adequate maybe the most you are ever really going to be able to argue. Here are my top ten reasons for thinking that the Harrier was and is adequate.

By Paul Tremelling, author of Harrier: How to be a fighter pilot here

Paul’s 10 fav things about flying the Sea Harrier can be found here and Super Hornet here.

10. Being there. It sounds daft but sometimes in warfare something really isn’t better than nothing. A good example of this would be a strike being mounted into a Missile Engagement Zone by an air force that didn’t have an ARM capability (don’t suppose you can think of any?). Something and nothing would have largely the same effect. Sometimes, however, something is very much better than nothing and, as the Harrier GR3 along with its FRS Mk1 stable mate proved in the Falklands crisis – you can be the best at what you do if you’re the only show in town. The Harrier was pretty good at being there. With an engine designed to hover and therefore gulp air down like it was going out of fashion (it won’t so please don’t panic sell air on my account) it had a blistering first 100 paces or so and could therefore use short runways to operate from. That meant that not only could it do dispersed operations, it could do austere operations and sea-based operations. Having afterburners can be pretty cool, opponents will argue. Needing them to take off or tank is totally uncool. I cannot speak for the customer but I can’t think a JTAC or a ground commander would probably be very glad indeed to have CAS at hand in some out of the way location, Belize, the Falklands, Kandahar amongst others whilst someone else worked out how to get the best in class to the fight, let alone into it. Yes, everything is a compromise (may have mentioned that!) so short strips and small regional runways do not equal large weapon loads but on the other hand – rapid turn rounds at austere locations can give you belt-fed CAS if you’re good at it. There are other considerations such as it being possible to base yourself a little too close to the enemy but, by and large, the Harrier’s ability to be there probably takes us into adequate, maybe even beyond.

9. Das Boot.

There are a lot of odd things written about sea basing. They usually take the form of left and right of arc zealotry. On the one hand it’s argued that carriers are far too vulnerable to be viable and on the other that only carriers can give you worldwide freedom of manoeuvre. Neither are true. But everything’s a compromise so the ability to base a VSTOL fighter at sea and move it around between days gives you some flexibility in where you may appear from. I believe that may be called surprise and in war it’s one of those things that is worth doing. It’s not half the battle though. Moving around could give you the ability to attack someone without having to ask a third party’s permission to over fly them on the way, or indeed base yourself there for the fight. That gets awkward for everyone. It hopefully goes without saying that sea basing isn’t a great idea if the aircraft isn’t actually designed for it or if the crews and maintainers aren’t trained. But if you do have a VSTOL aircraft, then you probably have a sea base-able one as well and you may roam the high seas looking for trouble. And if you can roam the oceans, land on the land, and patrol the skies…well that only leaves space, so I think we are on safely adequate ground.

8. So we may as well mention VSTOL. The main benefit of VSTOL is actually nothing to do with airshows or aircraft carriers. It takes a little explaining. Aircraft carry more fuel than they need. This is obviously totally inefficient and everything on an aeroplane should be absolutely vital for the types operation. If that’s not the case then you are carting stuff around you don’t need which means less space for stuff you do need and more work for engines pushing things you don’t need through time and space. Why do people of sound mind do this? Simple. It’s to do with redundancy when things go wrong or when the enemy gets a vote. So a triplex redundant hydraulic system is great if you want to cope with a failure or battle damage. So long as you’re happy to take it along with all that entails. Fuel is very similar and people carry more than they need to in case the weather is bad, the cross wind exceeds limits or someone ahead of you crashes. VSTOL removes at least two of these reasons and VSTOL aeroplanes therefore carry less contingency (wasted) fuel then their conventional counterparts. There is no crosswind in a vertical landing and if the guy ahead of you crashes, you can land on the taxiway or any other surface. I once read about a particular high-level ISR aircraft operating over Afghanistan whose crew were using a taxiway as a divert option. Whilst innovative for that type – that’s always been the Harrier fuel plan! So VSTOL, underwritten by true engineering genius really is a useful tool. I’d call that adequate. Possibly better than adequate.

7. Canopy. Have you ever looked at a hunched aircraft and wondered what they were thinking? Frogfeet are particularly bad as an exemplar.

The Harrier cockpit as modelled by the AV-8B and Harrier GR5/7/9 were and are superb. The canopy is simply excellent for Close Air Support and the much underrated skill of looking out of the window. If the transparency surrounds you then it is a natural contributor to Situational Awareness and SA is what you need to build to win battles. Yes there is a canopy rail, but apart from that no forward supports to get in the way, so maybe not up there with the ‘good’ F-16 beauty but certainly not poor either. Rearwards visibility is fine, some would say for good reason as you may spend a fair amount of time scurrying around hiding from people. That’s a separate point. The long and the short of it though is that the canopy was just the job, whilst accepting that the Viper community probably have a cooler one.

6. Cockpit.

What sorts of things would one need for a CAS mission? Nice big TV screens, Sniper Pod picture direct to the pilot. Mission computer able to accept Lat/Long and grid. A decent moving map. A Digital Terrain Elevation Database and all of a sudden you have all you need. If it’s all there at your fingertips with minimal button pushes to access data and weapon modes then you have an easily adequate system. The same could be said of a strike mission with up to six Paveway 4 weapons. Need to take your own targets? Just be sure to ‘Box’ the blue plan on the stores page. Want to change and double tap your wingman’s? Easy. Unbox blue and box yellow. Want to use a spare weapon on a different target because the Tornados are a jet short (again), no dramas you can load the target direct to the weapon using the predictive text function – you just have to know what it’s called. These sorts of things are important because they free up time for other activity such as flying the jet, although to be honest that’s quite straight forward (insert VSTOL joke of your own here) so no major dramas. The jet will need a communications fit of frequency agile and secure radios, hopefully with Saturn and Havequick available. The Harrier had those. It was due, in UK service, to receive Link-16 too…but then the darkness came, leaving it with only 250 or so channels for radio frequencies – which is somewhere on the bit of the scale marked ‘easily enough’. Another system you may want to consider was the FLIR. The ability to see through dust is a useful one; as is the ability to see whilst flying at low level into the sun in winter. The ability to have a spare HUD on one of your TV screens was a good thing to have for ramp launches. The ability to project FLIR onto the HUD for night flying was exceptionally useful. The ability to carry the Digital Joint Recce Pod gave another string to the bow. Let’s call that adequate.

5. Single seat. Oh no, he went there. There are plenty of good multi-crew aircraft. B-1, B-52 are great examples as are tankers and trash-haulers. In tactical flying there are fewer great examples of world class platforms that are twin seat and a huge list of those that aren’t. Spitfire, P-51, A-10, F-15C, F-16, F-18, F-22 are a couple of single-seat examples of greatness. To be fair though one does have to think of greats such as the Mosquito, Tomcat and F-15E when making sweeping generalisations. Then again, out of the Mosquito (kind of) came the Hornet. Half the chairs, more performance. However, the crux of this is that if the platform can present the pilot with all the information they need then you’d be daft to design a twin seater if you could avoid it. Think Uber. Have you ever felt the need to order a cab and then give someone else you phone so they can tell you where it is? No. Why? Because it’s a simple and effective bit of Human-Machine Interface that works and doesn’t need complicating. This is similar to a CAS situation where a mind meld between pilot and JTAC is what is required. There are other really boring reasons why single seaters are better for air forces than multi-crew. These range from the simple maths of it being half as likely that one of your formation might be ill in the morning, to the need for the HQ to only provision for one pension instead of two…not very interesting but worth considering.

4. Air-to-Air.

Now remember, we aren’t trying to be good. We’re aiming for adequate, for now. The Harrier could carry various 118, 218 and BOL countermeasures, had a Missile Approach Warner and could even carry a TERMA pod with another missile detection device in it. That probably takes it out of poor. With the addition of 2 x Sidewinder in the AIM-9L and AIM-9M guise one really wouldn’t want to be thinking of taking on roles such as Offensive Counter Air but you could certainly have a crack at other muds if you saw them. The jet was actually very good at certain aspects of Basic Fighter Manoeuvres, particularly the single circle and slow speed fights. No, the Harrier was not a fighter (you wouldn’t believe how many people have reminded me of that since the book came out) but for a striker it had an adequate air-to-air capability. Until someone gave it the APG-65 and the ability to carry the AIM-120. That’s right, the currency air-to-air weapon of every fighter in Christendom. Imagine the CAP briefing the day that became a thing. No longer the ability to stay high, come down the 1000ft per mile gradient with a bit of aspect and use a shoot-look-shoot Fox 3 to Fox 2 policy as you came down the hill. The game had changed and there would be slammers coming the other way. That’s completely different; adequate in anyone’s language, maybe even better. So by bringing the AV-8B II+ into the scan – we start talking about a completely different beast.

(By the way this paragraph actually brings up one of the great tragedies of our time. The FA2 prototype flew in 1988 and it entered service in 1993. In a parallel lane the RAF were procuring and upgrading GR5/7/9. However, at the same time the AV-8B 2 plus was also reaching maturity. If a radar equipped Harrier II is available but you procure a Harrier 1 with a good radar – including 18 new builds – and a radar-less Harrier 2 in dissimilar fleets instead. You may want to have a word with yourself!)

This site is facing a funding shortage and may pause or shut down in June, please consider donating. Our site is absolutely free and we want to keep it that way. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here. Your donations keep this going.

3. Weapon loads

The Harrier could find a way of cracking most tactical nuts. Let’s get one card on the table, it didn’t in UK service have a cannon – which was odd on the grounds that the GR1, GR3, FRS1 and FA2 all did as does the AV-8B. That’s a minus. However, there were lots of pluses. Where to start. 540 and 1000 lb freefall and retarded weapons with impact or air burst fusing. (Please don’t be suckered into the ‘everything must be a PGM’ story. It really doesn’t have to be, not for accuracy and not for Law of Armed Conflict and not for Rules of Engagement. There are plenty of scenarios where an unguided munition will be just fine if you can drop, loft or scrape it onto the target accurately). CRV-7 rockets in either training pods of 6 or Op Pods of 19. Heads could be high explosive semi armour piercing or point detonating. PGMs include Paveway, Enhanced Paveway, Enhanced Paveway Plus, Paveway 3, Paveway 4. Maverick in TV and IR guises. That will probably offer a way of skinning most cats. And yes carriage of some would require the use of a balancing store or in the case of Paveway 3 a lower than ideal fuel load – but all jets have their short comings. It has to be said though that medium level strikes were boring, even with a Deck Landing to look forward to. That leaves the Harrier as a competent striker. For now let’s assume competent and adequate are about the same.

2. The big engine

There are some truisms in military aviation. It usually makes things more difficult if you try them at night; it usually helps if you add more power. That’s exactly what they did with the Harrier. The GR7 and 9 became the GR7A and 9A. There were fewer engine limits and the amount of thrust the engine could produce was now even more staggering than the staggering amount we started off with. So what? Well, the point of inflexion in all of the compromises above moved towards the correct end of the spectrum. VSTOL was easier and safer, because there was more thrust available. The aircraft’s ability to operate off short strips was improved. Bring back was improved. Survivability was improved as one could get above the threat quicker. The aircraft’s already adequate handling in air-to-air was improved. In short, a system that was hovering (pun intended) at the higher end of the adequate range was made better. Now, it would be wrong to argue that the threat hadn’t increased or that this modification took us into good. Let’s just say it nailed on adequate. Even in the heat, even when high.

1. The sum of all adequacies. If you end up with a single seat striker, that can look after itself in the air-to-air arena, that has a broad range of weaponry, that through unique characteristics is able to get to almost any fight and contribute when it gets there. You’ve got a reasonable machine. If you can carry a counter measure pod, a recce pod and a targeting pod along with your war load from a hot and high strip, you’ve got a reasonable aircraft. If your designers and engineers have created the ability to land with minimum fuel reserves and have given you a machine that can operate in dust and at night, you’ve got a reasonable machine. If you have the ability to come from a highway strip, a gap in the trees or from the vast expanses of the open ocean. You have a reasonable machine. If the cockpit gives the pilot everything he needs along with superb visibility, you have a reasonable machine. You know what? I’ve argued myself to a standstill. If you wrap up all of the above I don’t think the Harrier is/ was adequate. I think it was bloody brilliant.

The brilliant Hush-Kit Warplane series is now crowd fund-raising for volume 3 here

Do you wake up in the middle of the night screaming? Feel lost in life? Don’t really know who you are? It sounds like you don’t know which World War II fighter you are. Thankfully, we have teamed up with Professor Wichsflugzeug from the Institute of Psychoaeronautical Historical Research to bring you a 100% accurate personality test.

Simply answer each question and record your answers to reveal which WW2 fighter you really are…

1. What were you doing in 1969?

A. Fighting and killing

B. Nothing

C. Fighting, racing and being shot down

D. Regretting

E. I was a filmstar

F. Nothing, as I was burned in a field in 1941

2. Your retirement plan is:

A. Lazy days in Honduras

B. Becoming a suicide robot – and later attacking Indochina

C. Lazy days in the Dominican Republic 

D. Shooting down Spitfires while defending the Jewish state

E. Entertaining Brexiteers over fields in the home counties

F. To be burned in a field in 1941

3. How do you like to dress?

A. A dark blue tracksuit

B. Dark blue tracksuit …or a little orange number when there’s no-one around

C. Happiest naked

D. Crudely spray-painted and covered with offensive symbols

E. Camo jacket and duck egg blue leggings

F. Camo jacket and grey jeggings

4. How would you describe your physique?

A. Muscular and a bit odd

B. I’m a big butch beast

C. I’m sleek, sexy and shiny

D. Small and unremarkable

E. Slim, elegant and purposeful

F. Acceptable

5. Your name is…

A. Appropriate for a ship

B. Really cool (in a heavy metal kind of way)

C. Cool in a cheesy American way

D. More a designation than a name

E. Weird and archaic

F. So frequently mispronounced by English speakers I’ve given up and changed the spelling

6. How many pubs are named after you?

A. A fair few bars in France

B. One in New York and one in Belfast (both combined with another name)

C. A handful in eastern Europe

D. Zero

E. Fucking millions mate

F. Are you having a laugh? None.

7. What does God look like?

A. A fictional CIA director

B. A fictional racist police chief

C. Sherlock Holmes

D. An angry boss from a Carry On film

E. A sickly minor Royal from Downton Abbey

F. A chinless farmboy

THE ANSWERS ARE NOW BEING COMPUTED…READY?

Mostly As

You are a Vought F4U Corsair. Fast-talking, hard-punching and unconventional, you are a tough resultant soul who can survive anything.

Mostly Bs

You are a Grumman F6F Hellcat. No wonder people find you overwhelming, as you are a bit of a thug. You are capable of anything but need to tone down your aggression.

Mostly Cs

You are a North American P-51 Mustang. Attractive, high-achieving and spectacular you use your charisma and extraordinary skill to get what you want.

Mostly Ds

You are a Messerchmitt Bf 109. You have no moral compass and use your many strengths for evil. Despite the advantages life has given you, you are a fast-living amoral mess. You are hard to handle and difficult to be around.

Mostly Es

You are a Supermarine Spitfire. Gorgeous, formidable yet a trifle oversensitive, you are a distinguished and much-loved character. You need to work on your thin skin and expensive habits.

Mostly Fs

You are a Rogožarski IK-3. Often overlooked by the unsophisticated, you are the quiet interesting one in the corner and worthy of more attention.

The Darkstar from Top Gun Maverick – How close could this be to reality?

Hush-Kit has asked me to have a look at the cinematic hypersonic fighter, Darkstar, shown in various teaser clips and publicity material for the Top Gun Maverick movie. The movie version gains an added cachet because Lockheed-Martin are stated to have assisted with the design concept, and with the construction of a full-sized mock-up for filming.

The movie Darkstar is not to be confused with the real Lockheed Martin Darkstar, an unsuccessful high-flying UAV reconnaissance platform of the late 1990s, but does bear a striking resemblance to renderings prepared by Lockheed-Martin of their ‘SR-72’ concept. So much so, that this article will look at the SR-72 renderings as indicative of the Darkstar movie concept, and consider how close to reality the Darkstar, and by implication, the SR-72 could be.

Clearly, any publicly available rendering of the ‘SR-72’, and the movie Darkstar, is not going to be a faithful representation of ‘the real thing’, and indeed, the programme is unlikely to be delivering ‘the real thing’ just yet. Consequently, this article is speculative. It looks at the material that is out there, on the net and open-source, and at the technologies that might be required to realise the stated objectives, noting that these may themselves be plausible rather than accurate.

Configuration

So, what can we observe about the SR-72 concept? The rendering shows what we can infer to be a large twin-engine slender delta aircraft, with a single fin. The engines are mounted below the wings, on a basically flat undersurface. This surface consists of a slender triangular forebody, with highly-tapered wings, located about halfway along the fuselage. The wings have approximately 60 deg leading edge sweep, and a 20 degree forward sweep on the trailing edge.

Statements about the Darkstar refer to it as being ‘hypersonic’, and the SR-72 is also stated to be intended to achieve a maximum speed of about Mach 6 at high altitude. As might be expected for a high-speed vehicle, the propulsion system consists of two large nacelles, but, unlike the slower SR-71 Blackbird, these nacelles are rectangular in section rather than circular, and lack the inlet cones which are distinctive features of the Blackbird.

High-speed intakes are a specialist subject in themselves, but the shape of the Darkstar/SR-72 inlets suggest that the intake shock structure is managed by variable ramps in the inlet, as opposed to the translating shock cones of the Blackbird. For more on supersonic intakes see my article here.

The exhaust system extends well behind the trailing edge of the wing, and, perhaps unsurprisingly, is not shown in any detail in the rendering, but appears to be contained within a rectangular shroud.

Statements about the SR-72 suggest that its role is to deliver rapid, reactive strike, on a global scale, at short notice, a very different role to that of the Blackbird. A possible reason for this is the apparent preference of the USAF to consider persistent, stealthy, high-flying unmanned platforms as future ISR and communications nodes, as indicated here. That said, the renderings do not reveal and stores carriage, weapons bay or targeting sensors, and the ‘SR-72’ is clearly depicted as unmanned.

In contrast, the movie Darkstar, no doubt driven by the imperatives of the script, is a manned aircraft. The teaser clip appears to include a laser weapon, suggesting, as might be expected from the nature of the film, an air combat role.

An interesting feature of both concepts is that the slender triangular forebody is followed by an essentially parallel-sided centre and rear fuselage, this starting ahead of the wing leading edge. In planform, then, there are two discontinuities: at the rear of the slender blended forebody; and at the junction of the wing leading edge. Moreover, while the forebody appears to lie within the Mach cone which would be generated from the fuselage nose at Mach 6, the wings will extend beyond this, which has implications for aerodynamic heating and wave drag.

Other mild surprises include an abandonment of stealth as a feature of the aircraft. I make this comment because of the evident corner reflectors in the airframe between the fin, the wings and the nacelles, and because of the essentially straight engine ducts.

There are various reasons for this, but a simple explanation is that the aircraft is supposed to be invulnerable because its high speed and its operating altitude would make it extremely difficult to intercept. It will also, of course, be subject to such high surface temperatures that its infra-red signature will enable detection and tracking by infra-red sensors with some ease.

Technology Aspects

The premise of the movie is that Darkstar is a manned aircraft capable of flight at ‘hypersonic’ speeds, with an air combat capability. The supposition for the SR-72 is that this is a Mach 6-capable reconnaissance and weapons delivery platform that is unmanned but reusable. Both aircraft are to operate from, and be recovered to, conventional runways.

So why, given the strides that have been made in aircraft and space technologies, would this be difficult? The difficulties arise from the ways in which the stated aspirations create conflicting requirements. For example, if we want to be able to deliver kinetic effects anywhere on earth within a short period (say an hour or so), we can already do this using either tactical or strategic ballistic missiles. To achieve a greater degree of unpredictability, we might use a boost-glide vehicle as the delivery system, a capability I have written about here.

But neither of these established solutions are re-usable, neither operate from conventional runways, and neither are manned (or optionally manned). Why does this make a difference? After all, the Space Shuttle was manned, re-usable, and was at least landed on a conventional runway.

The critical factor is the desire to operate from a runway in the same way as an aircraft, with some additional elements to be considered for a manned platform. Why would operation from a conventional runway be desired? Principally so that the system can operate at very short notice, without using special launch facilities, so that a responsive system is available, and so that, if necessary, flights can be made without signalling this intent. A long-range manned vertical launch system would be restricted to operation from pre-prepared locations, with large rockets, fuel tanks and launch facilities, and would be incapable of delivering strategic surprise.

A second factor is that, to operate from a conventional runway, wings will be required that are large enough in area to provide acceptable take-off and landing speeds from normally available runway lengths. The wings allow sustained cruise flight in the upper atmosphere to achieve the range required, but will themselves face the challenges of prolonged exposure to kinetic heating throughout the flight.

The kinetic heating issue affects many aspects of the design of such a vehicle, particularly in the areas of structural materials, thermal protection systems, aerodynamics and propulsion. In the case of a manned aircraft, additional complexities arise because of the need to protect the pilot, and to provide external vision and, for a combat aircraft, targeting sensors. These latter aspects apply to Darkstar, but possibly not to the SR-72 concept, which is consistently portrayed as unmanned.

Possible Propulsion Systems

There are many challenges in designing a system with the capabilities that appear to be required, but propulsion is perhaps the critical one to consider. The SR-71 used variable geometry within its J58 engines, which, in concert with a complex intake system allowed the engine to operate both as an afterburning turbofan, and at high speeds essentially as a ramjet. This approach was clearly successful in enabling speeds of Mach 3.2 to be achieved; however, a different approach is required to achieve the anticipated Mach 6.0 of the SR-72.

The available material on the SR-72 suggests that the powerplant will be a turbine-based combined cycle (TBCC) engine, operating as a conventional turbine engine up to Mach numbers of perhaps Mach 2.5, but changing over to a supersonic combustion ramjet (scramjet) at higher Mach numbers. A major issue has been that scramjets have required a speed of about Mach 4.0 to operate, and in consequence, a dual mode ramjet might be required, capable of operating from Mach 2.5, and becoming a scramjet at speeds greater than Mach 4.

All of this technology must be regarded as very flaky, but relatively recent statements from Lockheed suggest that technology breakthroughs are emerging to allow speeds of Mach 6 to be achieved. Advances in manufacturing, modelling and 3-D printing are hinted at as having enabled this breakthrough.

In considering potential propulsion solutions, I came across references from the UK, China, Japan and Lockheed, all indicating that an engine incorporating an internal airflow cooling system could be critical in enabling a hypersonic powerplant.

With this in mind, let’s have a look at the SABRE powerplant, which had been under development in the UK, with Single-Stage To Orbit (SSTO) capability as the intended application. SABRE is an acronym which stands for Synergetic Air Breathing Rocket Engine, referring to a combined cycle rocket engine which features an air-breathing mode for use within the atmosphere. Critical to the concept is a precooler located within the intake which is capable of very rapidly cooling the intake flow, increasing the density and leading to a very high pressure-ratio within the engine when operating in its air-breathing mode. This system is used up to a Mach number of 5.4, after which the intake is closed, and SABRE run as a rocket engine, using liquid oxygen and hydrogen as fuel.

Engaging, beautifully illustrated and fascinating, The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes.

The precooler concept dates from NASA work as far back as 1955, and was picked up in the UK, initially for use in the HOTOL project, and latterly in the SABRE engine, which is stated to be capable of producing high thrust efficiently, from zero speed up to Mach 5.4. The precooler is critical in achieving this, and represents the highest technical risk aspect of the engine. Initial work by Reaction Engines at Westcott has quietly transitioned to a DARPA project based in Colorado, where demonstration activities of the precooler heat exchanger have been successful, apparently leading, in late 2019, to successful cooling of 1000 deg C intake flows to a target of -150 deg C. In achieving this, a liquid helium cooling loop is used, which avoids hydrogen embrittlement issues which had affected earlier attempts to develop a precooler, but introduces additional complexity.

The demonstrated cooler used 16,800 thin-walled tubes, and has been shown to achieve the dramatic cooling required in 0.01 seconds, which seems remarkable, to say the least. 3D-printing would seem to be an ideal technology to construct such a device, and this, coupled with the move of the facility to Colorado, and the involvement of DARPA, may indicate that this precooler represents the breakthrough suggested by Lockheed-Martin. The application would not be to achieve a SSTO capability, but to enable a propulsion system capable of sustained hypersonic flight in a vehicle such as the SR-72.

All this is speculation, but given a claimed air-breathing performance delivering high efficiency thrust from zero airspeed to Mach 5.5, it would not be surprising if Lockheed-Martin were to be highly interested in the potential of such a system. And maybe, a little development of the intake system, the nozzle, and perhaps other elements of the engine installation, might make the aspiration of Mach 6 capability achievable.

If you are interested in this technology, here’s a technical paper from China, which may add some credibility to my speculation on the relevance of precooling systems.

Other technical challenges

As indicated earlier, kinetic heating of the vehicle is likely to pose significant problems. However, at least for limited exposure times, suitable materials have been developed for many other space-based applications, particularly those featuring wing-based re-entry and landing. A combination of Carbon-Carbon composite materials, ceramic tiles, insulating and thermal protection systems have been developed for systems such as the Space Shuttle, X-37, and other hypersonic projects.

A host of additional technology issues may be anticipated, but, again, the variety of space-based activities and other high-speed projects may be maturing solutions to issues such as:

Thermal protection systems;

Crew environment management;

Vision systems;

Sensor, targeting and communications systems;

Deployable approach path guidance.

Noting that missions may involve much greater time at elevated temperatures than a re-entry manoeuvre, any of the above issues may prove more challenging for an SR-72 than, for example, the X-37. The greater heat soak may prove to be a challenge in areas which might otherwise be regarded as mature, such as hydraulic systems, or even wheels and tyres.

Weapons, weapons bays, and carriage and release systems are specialist areas where new technologies may be required to deliver kinetic effects from a high-speed platform. Aerodynamic and heating loads look to be a significantly challenging issue, quite apart from target assurance – the need to be sure that the correct target has been identified and located.

Another issue needing consideration is whether, and what, defensive aids might be required. Such systems might be required because it seems likely that a hypersonic strike platform would be highly detectable, and would also be likely to have limited manoeuvre capability when flying at high speed and altitude. Of course, proponents will argue that such systems are essentially invulnerable because of the difficulty of a successful weapon engagement against such a fast-moving high-altitude target. Maybe so, but it is surprising what can be achieved, given sufficient incentive to find a solution.

Are these concepts feasible?

My answer is – closer than you think, if my speculation about propulsion is correct.

The big issue for the SR-72 is whether a subsonic, stealthy, high-flying unmanned system can do the ISR job at a lower cost, albeit without the rapid response capability of hypersonic speed. If that should be the case, then the SR-72 looks like a very niche, very expensive, capability as a reactive precision strike aircraft. So, the biggest threat may be cost and relevance, rather than feasibility. When has that ever stopped the US?

This site is facing a funding shortage and may pause or shut down in June, please consider donating. Our site is absolutely free and we want to keep it that way. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here. Your donations keep this going.

The issue for Darkstar, if conceived as a hypersonic fighter, is the sheer implausibility of manoeuvring air combat in that class of platform. With the added complexities and penalties of carrying a pilot, and the difficulty of integrating information and providing sensor and weapons capabilities. In my view, this is a much more difficult ask than the SR-72, and would be likely to be an even more expensive solution. My advice – don’t go there.

Unless the Chinese are going there already …

• Jim Smith

Across the tortuous development of Top Gun 2 many directors offered to work on the movie. Here are our favourite Top Gun 2s that never happened.

Mike Leigh ‘Top Gun 2: Higgledy-Piggledy’

Captain Pete “Maverick” Mitchell (Alison Steadman) is a social worker in 1980s London trying to help Mike “Viper” Metcalf (Timothy Spall) to conquer his gout and start a restaurant. Maverick finds London depressing and longs for the sunshine of Nevada.

Maverick is always working on a 1/72 F-14 model kit plane that is never completed. Maverick never gets to Nevada but Metcalf’s vegetarian restaurant is a moderate success. The film ends with Maverick and Metcalf sitting peacefully in the evening sunshine in Finsbury Park.

Jane Campion – ‘Top Gun 2: Sea Mist’

Maverick (Genevieve Lemon) is an electively mute Welshswoman sold by her father into the US Navy. She expresses herself through her cello playing and through puppetry. While being helicoptered out to the aircraft carrier with her baggage, all her belongings – including her cello – are thrown into the sea. As it sinks, she deliberately tangles her foot in the rope trailing after it. She is pulled overboard but, deep underwater, changes her mind and kicks free and is pulled to safety and becomes the most kickass fighter pilot in the Navy.

Maverick is later seen picking out a coffin for her wingman Goose (Benedict Cumberbatch) while his body is prepared for burial. At the funeral, the doctor tells Maverick that Goose most likely died of anthrax. This puzzles Maverick, as Goose was always careful to avoid placing diseased cattle in the cockpit of his F-14.

John Waters Top Gun 2: Goose me!

Maverick (played by Divine) is the sluttiest pilot in the US Navy, a degenerate kleptomaniac sex addict mocked for her homemade fighter aircraft (played by Iaio Qaher) – her bitter rival Viper Metcalf (Sasha Grey) publicly humiliates Maverick by making her drink a glass of real vomit in the Navy bar as the attendant sailors sing ‘You’ve Lost that Loving Feeling’. Hellbent on revenge, the day before the final Top Gun dogfighting contest Maverick fills Viper’s cockpit with live eels. However, it is the wrong cockpit: it is the aircraft owned by stuffy authoritarian weapons instructor Commander Lizzie Gudge (Mink Stole). The mix-up causes Maverick and Viper to become friends and they leave the Navy to open an F-14-themed sex club in Baltimore called ‘The Guzzle’.

Alejandro Jodorowsky – Top Gun 2: El Gato Místico

The film starts with a naked Captain Pete “Maverick” Mitchell (played by Tom Cruise) sitting in a tree in a mental asylum in Chile. Nurses come out to him, to try to coax him off of his perch, using a plate of raw fish to persuade him to come down. As the nurses get him to put on his flightsuit the viewer sees that he has a tattoo of an F-14 on his chest.

We flashback to Maverick’s childhood, which he spent performing as a fake monkey in an underground bar run by his father Flymo, a sword-swallower with dwarfism, and his mother Banzo, a blind unicyclist and conjoined twin.

As a teen Maverick is led through a series of transformation rituals by a half-human half-dog god (played by Juan Ferrara). His transformation to fighter pilot involves the sacrifice of an actual dog and the eating of an entire T-38 – which he accomplishes with chopsticks in the Mojave desert. Maverick leaves Chile for Berlin where he falls in love with naval aviator Klina Gadski (Teté Delgado).

In a dream, Gadski invokes the Top Gun shaman Mike ‘Viper’ Metcalf. During a sexual encounter with the Goddess Molda (Meg Ryan) both Maverick and Molda are beheaded by a low-flying MiG-28. As his head regrows he becomes the greatest pilot in the US Navy before being ingested by a volcano run by dogs dressed as clowns.

The MiG-31 interceptor, fully loaded, weighs the same as four double-decker London buses, whereas the svelte KAI FA-50 Golden Eagle is four times lighter than the MiG and far cheaper to operate. Modern light fighters, like the Gripen, boast of being credible deterrents to far heavier opponents – but are light fighters as good as their word, and are they worth the effort?Jim Smith investigates.

Throughout the development and application of aircraft to air combat, there have been proponents of both ‘Heavy’ and ‘Light’ fighters. In thinking about why this interest has been sustained, I realised that the close linkage between air combat and aerospace technologies has varied substantially over time, as new technologies have enabled new approaches to air combat, and challenged existing doctrine and policy.

So, we’ll start by considering the different ‘ages’ of air combat, and how the technologies available, and the capabilities they enable, have changed the attributes required of fighter aircraft, and how this has influenced design choices. In looking at the technology aspects, we will find that armament, propulsion, and sensors have perhaps been as significant as aerodynamics in fighter aircraft design, and, at times, more so. For each of the identified ages of air combat, I’ll identify some representative ‘Lighter’ and ‘Heavier’ fighters.

This review will bring out the differing circumstances in which ‘Light’ fighters have been favoured, and allow me to consider what aspects might favour the ‘Lighter’ fighter, and what the trade-offs might be against ‘Heavier’ fighter aircraft. Finally, we’ll speculate about the future, and consider whether ‘Light’ fighters are of continuing relevance, and if so, what their future roles might be.

This article has been prompted by a fascinating input from warspot.ru examining a series of light fighter concepts developed by US Aerospace Engineer Bud Nelson for first Boeing, and later Northrop. My intention is to use this piece to set out the landscape over the relevant period, to aid in understanding those concepts, which I look at separately here.

Before launching into this, a word to the reader. The review of air combat, and the place of the light fighter that follows is an overview. It is not a comprehensive all-encompassing study – were one to attempt that the result would be a book, not a Hush_Kit article. I have also excluded carrier-based fighters, partly because I am trying to keep this reasonably short, but also because carrier aviation tends to favour heavier aircraft, in pursuit of operational flexibility and reach. And I know there are exceptions to this (Escort-carrier-based aircraft, and the Grumman F-11F, for example).

Air Combat – Beginnings. First World War to the mid 1930s

This period began with aviation in its infancy, and ends with the last of the biplane fighters.

The challenges facing designers at the start of this period were propulsion, performance, armament and robustness, and these problems were gradually resolved through technology developments. To succeed in air combat, it was necessary to bring armament to bear on the opponent, preferably in a tactically favourable situation to achieve a rapid and successful outcome. However, it was inevitable that, at times, fighter pilots would find themselves in situations where there was no tactical advantage, in which case, manoeuvring air combat would be required, coupled with the ability to disengage by diving at high speed without hazarding the aircraft.

The Hush-Kit aviation podcast here

Key requirements were a powerful, reliable engine; high speed; a rapid climb rate; excellent turning performance; good armament; and a strong airframe. These requirements shaped the fighter aircraft of the day. Initially, the engines were largely rotary, offering light weight but relatively low power. Armament was a problem. Before the invention of interrupter gear, twin-boom pusher aircraft had a period of success, but once the problem of firing forward through the propellor had been solved, most fighters adopted a biplane configuration with a tractor propellor. Wire-braced monoplanes and triplanes were also used, the former offering higher speed for a given engine power, but perhaps with lower strength, and the latter great agility and climb performance.

As engines became more powerful and reliable, rotary engines were largely replaced with compact and powerful in-line, V-8 or radial engines, most being water-cooled. Over time, increases in power enabled increases in speed and operating altitude, as well as greater endurance. The lighter aircraft emphasised manoeuvrability, and the heavier aircraft speed, altitude performance and armament. Consequently, different tactics began to be employed, exploiting the different characteristics of the aircraft.

• Light Fighters: Sopwith Tabloid, Fokker Eindekker, Nieuport 10. Later examples: Sopwith Camel, Nieuport 17, Fokker Triplane
• Heavy Fighters: RAF SE 5a, Bristol F2B, SPAD XIII, Fokker D VII

Air Combat – The Piston Engine Supreme. Mid 1930s to the end of World War 2

In this period, the introduction of stressed-skin monocoque construction transformed the shape and potential performance of fighter aircraft. Combined with dramatic advances in engine power, the speed, altitude performance, armament, range and versatility of both fighter and bomber aircraft were transformed.

The fundamental requirements remained much the same as in the First World War. To succeed in air combat, it was necessary to bring armament to bear on the opponent, preferably in a tactically favourable situation to achieve a rapid and successful outcome. One difference from WW 1 was that ground-based radar installations and control systems could provide better awareness of the location and strength of airborne attack, aiding pilots in achieving a good tactical position at the start of combat.

Given the numbers of aircraft involved, it was still inevitable that, at times, fighter pilots would find themselves in situations where they were at a disadvantage. Cooperative tactics, coupled with high speed and evasive manoeuvring were required in these circumstances. Other advances, such as improved gunsights, heavy armament, and some armour protection were useful.

Key requirements remained a powerful, reliable engine; high speed; a rapid climb rate; excellent turning performance; good armament; and a strong airframe. To these might be added high octane fuels to enhance engine performance, one of the important technologies pursued by the combatants, whose engine development strategies had a key influence on fighter development.

In the UK, it was necessary to disperse production under the threat of Luftwaffe bombing, and, as a result, a limited number of fighters were used, principally the Hurricane, Spitfire, Typhoon and Tempest. The Spitfire was developed incrementally, more than doubling in both weight and power over the duration of the conflict, and effectively being transformed from a ‘Light’ fighter to at least a significantly heavier one.

Jeffrey Quill, speaking in 1976 at the RAeS Mitchell Memorial Symposium, noted that the Spitfire Mk I had a normal operating weight of 5820 lb, a maximum power of 1050 hp and maximum level speed of 362 mph. The final operational variant, the Seafire 47 had a max. overload weight of 12,500 lb, 2350 hp powerplant, and max. level speed of 452 mph. From a weight perspective, the Seafire 47 delivered its performance at a weight equivalent to a Mk I carrying 32 passengers (with baggage).

The Typhoon was developed into the Tempest and both aircraft represented a discontinuous increase in weight, power and performance over the Hurricane. The Mosquito and Beaufighter exploited their size to be successful heavily armed multi-role aircraft. These developments were very dependent on engine technologies, notably multi-stage supercharging, and the use of advanced material solutions to allow sustained high-power operation.

German developments followed a similar initial pattern, with incremental development of the Bf 109, and a jump in capability to the Fw 190 and incremental developments of that aircraft, with the Dornier 335 Pfeil being perhaps their ultimate piston-engine fighter, albeit too late to enter service. German engine developments gained advantages through direct fuel injection and clever internal design, but were handicapped by the inability to access some materials, and limited supply of high octane fuel.

The US developed, with the British Merlin engine, the excellent Mustang as a long-range escort fighter, but, aided (or perhaps compelled) by their development of the turbo-supercharger, embraced the ‘Heavy’ fighter, with the P-38 Lightning and P-47 Thunderbolt being the obvious examples. The US also made extensive use of large and complex radial engines, which were a feature of their bomber aircraft, and many of their Naval aircraft.

During this period, the development of Airborne Intercept (AI) radar enabled the development of effective night fighters, leading to a new class of radar-equipped heavy fighter, generally twin-engined and with multiple crew, due to the size and weight of early AI radars.

• Light fighters: Early Spitfire Marks; Messerschmitt 109; Yak 3; Curtiss P-40
• Heavy fighters: Late Mark Spitfires; Hawker Typhoon and Tempest; Focke-Wulf FW 190D; Dornier Pfeil; P-38 Lightning; P-51 Mustang; P-47 Thunderbolt
• Night Fighters: Bristol Beaufighter; De Havilland Mosquito; Junkers Ju 88; Heinkel 219 Uhu; Northrop P-61 Black Widow

Air Combat – The Early Jets – 1944 to the mid-1950s

Towards the end of World War 2, notwithstanding a deteriorating military situation, and shortages of critical materials, German aerodynamic and propulsion research developments, led to another discontinuous jump in capability, with the Me 163 and V2 exploiting rocket propulsion, and the Me 262 emerging as a capable jet fighter. Parallel jet engine research in development led, in the UK, to the Gloster Meteor twin-engine jet fighter, which saw limited service in the closing months of the war.

In an interesting parallel to the early aircraft of WW1, early jet aircraft development was critically dependent on the performance and operational life of their engines. The relatively low thrust of early jet engines resulted in the twin-engine configuration of the Messerschmitt 262, but this was perceived to be an expensive and difficult to produce aircraft.

Competition for a lighter, simpler, single-engine fighter led to the development of the Heinkel 162 Volksjäger. This aircraft was developed in just 90 days, and used wood in the construction of the wings, fins and some other components. As a result, surprisingly large numbers were built in the short time between its first flight on 6 December 1944, and the end of the war in May 1945.

Following the Second World War, aircraft manufacturers and research agencies in (primarily) the US, UK and USSR sought to exploit captured German research data and research scientists to marry advances in jet engine design to the many and varied airframe concepts that had been considered, and in some cases, built, in Germany. Principle among these technologies was the swept wing, but flying wing, delta and variable-sweep wings were also investigated.

In the period considered, air combat was still primarily conducted by day, using cannon as the primary armament. Unguided rockets were available, but their use was primarily in attacking ground targets, or conceivably against bomber formations. This was a time of rapid development on jet fighters by all the major powers. In the US, the principal early jet fighters were the F-80 Shooting Star, F-84 Thunderjet and the F-86 Sabre. The UK used the Gloster Meteor and the de Havilland Vampire, with the Hawker Hunter and Gloster Javelin in development. The USSR used British jet engine technology to develop the superb MiG-15 and -17, following on from early straight-winged designs such as the Yak 17.

At the same time, the realisation of the threat of night bombing, and of atomic weapons, led to a need for all-weather day and night fighters, using onboard radar systems to locate targets. The first jet night fighter was the Douglas F3D Skynight. Large, and relatively slow, this aircraft had the distinction of making the highest number of US aircraft kills in the Korean War.

• Light Fighters: de Havilland Vampire; F-86 Sabre; Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15; MiG-17; Heinkel Volksjäger
• Heavy Fighters: Messerschmitt 262; Douglas F3D Skynight;

Air Combat – Radar and Guided Missiles – Mid-1950s to the 1970s

In this period, spurred by a continuing post-WW2 contest of ideologies between US-led capitalism and Russian and Chinese Communism, giving rise to conflicts in Korea and Vietnam, and, following those, a continuing Cold War, aerospace technology continued to develop rapidly. The aerodynamic, propulsion and handling problems of the early jets were largely resolved, resulting in significant numbers of capable supersonic jet fighters becoming available.

On the other side of the coin, however, the improvements in Western fighters were mirrored by their opponents, and, to further complicate the situation, nuclear weapons proliferation resulted in much greater threats, initially from manned bomber aircraft. The first move to counter this emerging threat was to move away from the use of cannon as the primary anti-air weapon to the use of air-launched guided weapons instead. Coupled with the development of compact and effective fighter radars, heat-seeking or radar-guided air-to-air missiles (AAM) could allow fighters to engage each other, and bombers, at much greater distances. This not only offered greater prospects of survivability for the fighters, but also allowed the possibility of disrupting bomber attacks before they could reach their targets.

To achieve the capability required, fighters became larger, heavier, more powerful, more complex, and more expensive. But also much more capable, with the air-to-air effectiveness very dependent on missile capabilities, but the additional size and weapons capability allowing the flexibility to use the same airframe in strike and air-to-air roles.

In this period, a good US exemplar would be the F-4 Phantom II, which became a long-serving air defence and strike aircraft for many air forces over decades of service life. Carrying shorter range infra-red (IR) guided Sidewinders, and longer range, radar guided Sparrow missiles, with two crew, radar and two powerful J79 engines, the F-4 was developed for the US Navy, but later adopted by the USAF and proved to be exceptionally versatile in service. Initially flown with no cannon armament, experience in Vietnam led to the addition of this for later aircraft.

The UK were early entries into the world of missile-armed fighters, with the Gloster Javelin and the BAC Lightning both able to carry the Firestreak IR-guided missile, and the Lightning also carrying the longer-range Red Top IR-guided missile.

The USSR essentially replaced earlier MiG fighters with the fast and small MiG 21, a type which was incrementally developed over the years leading to innumerable variants, generally featuring additional fuel and improvements in the mission system – the radar, armament and defensive aids that enable an aging design to stay relevant.

Early air to air missiles such as the Sidewinder and Firestreak featured infra-red guidance. Initially IR AAM engagements were limited to stern attacks, but gradually became more flexible in operation as missile seekers improved. IR-guided missiles had an advantage over the early radar-guided missiles, as they required continuous illumination of the target by the fighter’s radar, which limited the pilot’s scope for manoeuvre.

In this environment, despite the major powers developing a range of highly capable heavy fighters, a class of small, agile, air defence aircraft emerged. These aircraft served two main purposes: meeting the needs of smaller Nations that required air power for defensive purposes, rather than to attack their neighbours; and to equip Client States of the major powers. These Client States were those countries, generally allied to the US or the USSR, that were supplied with large numbers of reasonably capable aircraft, at least in part to provide a means of the major powers distancing themselves from combat involvement.

Export sales of these lighter fighters was important in maintaining, and in some cases growing, industrial aerospace capability, as well as providing economic benefits, and maintaining Client States’ dependency on the major powers. In this context, the Mirage III became an important aircraft for France, as it proved both capable, and popular with non-aligned countries, and was exported in large numbers.

Light Fighters: F-104 Starfighter, Northrop F-5, Mirage III, MiG 21

Heavy Fighters: F-106 Delta Dagger; BAC Lightning; F-4 Phantom; SAAB Viggen; Sukhoi Su 15

The current day: BVR combat and Stealth

Over the past few decades, there has been a dramatic shift in air combat policies away from manoeuvring visual air combat – ‘dog-fighting’ to long-range engagements enabled by advances in guided weapon propulsion and seeker technologies, aircraft radar technologies, and the use of off-board information supplied through networked communications.

As a result, the desirable form of air combat is now beyond visual range, or BVR. Ideally, the fighter aircraft possesses longer-range missiles and sensors than its opponents, and has better situational awareness, allowing it to identify and engage opponents at distance. These combats preferably take place when the opponent is at a range where he is in the ‘no escape zone’ of your missile, but while you remain outside his ability to engage your aircraft. 

Key enablers for BVR combat have included the development of advanced radars, particularly those featuring Active Electronically Scanned Arrays (AESA). These radars can search for new targets, track previously detected targets, and provide datalink support to AAM after launch. Other advances in AAM technology have given greatly extended range capabilities to missiles like the MBDA Meteor through the use of rocket-ramjet propulsion systems. Missile seekers have also improved in range and aspect capability, enabling IR missiles to make all-aspect attacks at significant range.

One mechanism giving advantage in this sort of combat is to have very low detectability so that the opponent cannot locate and track your aircraft. Low radar signature helps to achieve this, but it must be remarked that the low signature also has to be achieved against Infra-Red sensors as well as a wide range of radar sensors which may be feeding information to opposition fighters.

Achieving a low radar signature requires the majority of weapons to be carried internally, increasing the size of the aircraft, limiting the number of weapons available, and potentially using space that might have been used for fuel, but delivering the intent of ‘first look, first shot and first kill’ capability.

Although this environment is challenging, there still remains space for the lighter fighter. As the systems and missiles have improved in capability, it has become possible to equip relatively small single-engine aircraft with capable radar, networked information systems and long-range weapons. Such aircraft are particularly useful as Air Defence rather than Air Superiority assets, largely because their small size limits the internal fuel that can be carried.

Light Fighters: Mirage 2000; SAAB Gripen; HAL Tejas

Heavy  Fighters: F-15 Eagle; F-20 Raptor; Shengdu J-20; MiG 29; MiG 31; Su-35 and derivatives; Su-57; Dassault Rafale; PANAVIA Tornado; Eurofighter Typhoon

Light Fighters: What’s in it for me?

When we review the development of air combat, we can observe that despite the enormous changes in technology that have occurred in the last 110 years or so, ‘Light’ fighters continue to be developed alongside heavier alternatives.

This section identifies the main drivers for this, and shows they are not as simple as the assumption that light weight gives greater agility. It does, but there other reasons that may make the lighter alternative attractive, as well as many reasons which may favour the flexibility gained through the use of a larger and heavier aircraft.

• Technology

At a couple of points in the development of air combat, technology constraints have favoured the ‘Lighter’ fighter. These two points were:

• at the start of the First World War, where immature engine technology favoured the light fighter, and the greater performance and agility that came with light weight
  • at the beginning of the jet age, where the higher speed and altitude achievable with jet engines was a prize worth having, but the low power available favoured a small, light design.

• Cost

While deeply unpopular with Industry and with requirements staffs, the truism that heavier aircraft cost more, has not been seriously countered. Every attempt to produce an aircraft that breaks this paradigm has failed. This may be considered a bold statement, but I stand by it, at least until I see evidence to the contrary.

The cost-weight relationship is a key tool used by Treasury Departments to put pressure on new aircraft development proposals. Historically, the correlation  between weight and cost has been relatively robust, and has allowed early and penetrating analysis of suggested unit costs.

Industry and operators will argue that new technologies allow lighter airframes and more capable systems, delivering more capability for a given weight. Treasury sceptics will point to the cost and risk of developing new airframe materials, and the cost and complexity of validating and certifying software intensive complex systems. In the end the result is usually a draw, with pressure being placed to reduce mass as a way of reducing cost – not least because weight and cost are both much easier to measure than capability.

Low cost is desirable, as greater numbers of aircraft can be procured from a given budget, and, if care is taken at the design stage, cheaper, simpler, lighter aircraft might even prove to be cheaper to operate.

• Production

Dr Ron Smith documents, in his British Built Aircraft 5-part series, the large numbers of aircraft built during World War I. In the period of that conflict, the British produced some 55,000 airframes; the French nearly 70,000 aircraft and more than 85,000 engines; the Germans nearly 50,000 aircraft and about 40,000 engines, with significant numbers also being produced by the USA and Italy. In four years, the equipment of the RFC/RAF grew by a factor of eighty, and the production rate by a factor of fifty.

The Second World War prompted an even greater surge in both technology and production capacity. Figures available for aircraft production in the 1939 to 1940 period do vary, but British, German, Soviet and American production numbers were in the order of 130,000, 120,000, 160,000 and 325,000 respectively.

Some countries became concerned about the availability of strategic materials for aircraft production, leading, at least in WW 2, to the exploration of lighter fighter aircraft, using wood rather than metal as the principal material for their construction. Examples of this include the British Miles M20 and Mosquito; German Ta 154 and Heinkel Volksjäger; and American Bell XP-77.

• Capability

Can cheaper, lighter, aircraft do the job?

Firstly, it should be said that air combat up to the time of the Korean War was conducted principally in daytime and under visual conditions. In these circumstances, lighter fighters had the potential to offer higher manoeuvrability compared to heavy fighters, but would perhaps have lower maximum speed and range, and generally have lighter armament.

These capabilities could, and did, lead to different tactics being employed, with light fighters seeking to exploit manoeuvrability, while heavy fighters used high-speed passes with minimum manoeuvring air combat.

As a comparison between a heavier, and a lighter fighter, consider the Hawker Hunter and the Folland Gnat, both designed in the UK. This example is drawn from Jet Fighter Performance, Korea to Vietnam by Mike Spick, Ian Allan, 1986.

The Hunter was a relatively heavily armed day fighter with four 30 mm Aden cannon, which entered RAF service in 1954, and was extremely successful once fully developed. Widely exported, and respected for its good handling, a few examples remain in use today. The primary intent of the design was the engagement of Russian bombers, but roles inevitably diversified over time, and the aircraft was very often used in the ground attack role. In service, it was complemented by the heavier Gloster Javelin night fighter, with missile armament, two crew and a large airborne intercept radar.

The Folland Gnat was broadly contemporary with the Hunter, its initial prototype, the Midge, making its first flight in the same year that the Hunter entered service. The Gnat was about 2/3 of the size of the Hunter, and weighed about 40% of the Hunter with a gross weight about 3 tonnes, compared to the Hunter’s 8 tonnes.

With closely comparable wing loading, slightly higher aspect ratio and 20% greater thrust to weight ratio, the Gnat had exceptional handling and higher climb rate than the Hunter, but only half the firepower, with two rather than four 30 mm cannon, partly because its role was seen as air defence against fighters, rather than bombers. In air combat with the Indian Air Force, the Gnat proved to be both agile and effective, hard to track visually, and with good climb performance.

The job to be done by the fighter aircraft changed dramatically with the introduction of capable, long-range AAM to air combat. Capability in current air combat situations has been explored in a couple of previous articles for Hush_Kit, looking at what makes a good BVR fighter, and at the future of air combat. These can be found at the following links:

Top 10 beyond visual range fighter aircraft 2018: selection process and the science of BVR combat

This discusses what capabilities you need to provide Air Defence, and to establish and maintain Air Superiority, and discusses how these capabilities drive towards somewhat different requirements.

Re-read this article in forty years time: We predict the future of aviation

This covers the future of air combat, emphasising the system-of-systems approach on which the major players appear to be converging as a means of delivering air power, in the broadest sense.

Some key points arising from these articles are:

• A distinction between Air Superiority, where the desire is to establish temporary or enduring air control over hostile territory, and Air Defence, where the focus is on deterring and defeating enemy air attacks and on ensuring air control over one’s own territory;
• The importance of sensors and systems in enabling long-range engagements whenever possible, using long-range and highly capable missiles;
• The importance of the electronic domain in ensuring and maintaining situational awareness across the battlespace, as well as providing opportunities to deceive and nullify opposition sensors and situational awareness;
• The emergence of low observable operations as a pervasive feature of future air operations.

Big as the damn world: Strategic considerations

Some geo-political and geographical considerations have worked in favour of lighter fighters. For some countries, engaged perhaps in a contest of political ideologies and looking with suspicion at others, it has been useful to build alliances with smaller countries, under the guise of providing defensive aid. Yes, we are looking at the USA and the USSR in the period of the Cold War, but this is not to exclude other possibilities.

A number of benefits flow from supplying their friends and allies with large numbers of light fighters, including:

• provision of a defensive umbrella so that if local disputes erupt into conflict, this can be kept remote from the homeland;
• maintaining the allies and friends (Client States) in a position where they are dependent on the homeland for support, hence helping to ensure political alignment;
• limiting the capability to primarily defensive, rather than offensive capabilities, aiding political stability;
• and providing business to maintain homeland armaments industries.

Light Fighters – Advantages

Summarising, we can observe the following benefits of light fighters:

• Low cost
• Simplicity, leading to
  • more rapid production
  • higher reliability
  • easier training
  • and availability in greater numbers
• Small size and weight, leading to
  • greater agility
  • potentially higher climb rate and performance
  • less visual signature
  • potential ability to use shorter airstrips and more austere bases
  • delivery of complementary tactical capabilities to heavier fighters
• Potential to further broader strategic aims
  • The Client State approach
  • Support to Industrial capability

Trade-offs compared to heavier fighters

One of the attributes strongly linked to the weight of a fighter is size, and, via size, the surface area and volume. This might seem academic, but for the fact that it is the volume of the aircraft which is available for payload and fuel.

In the case of a fighter aircraft, the payload is not just armament, but also sensors and systems, a myriad of which are critical to modern fighter aircraft, and some of which have certainly been critical for older designs. Obvious examples include radar, communications equipment, optical sensors, defensive aids like chaff and flares, electronic combat equipment such as jammers, missile launch and approach warners.

The surface area of the aircraft is most evident in the wing area, and the relationship between this and the weight of the aircraft will play a key role, not just in determining turn performance, but also take-off and landing requirements, as well as space for the carriage of external stores and sensors.

The fuel available for the aircraft is directly linked to the internal volume available – i.e. that space not already occupied by the structure, powerplant and intake system, undercarriage, pilot and the other systems which deliver flight control, armament management, displays and so on.

To generalise, a larger, heavier, fighter will be able to carry a greater proportion of sensors and fuel than a smaller, lighter aircraft, and is also likely to be able to carry a wider range of armament. However, it is likely that the wing loading of the aircraft will be higher, implying lower agility and greater take-off and landing requirements.

Sweating the elephant: Design and policy choices

Of course, all these aspects are subject to choices by the designer. If the agility is not sufficient, larger engines will help, but will consume more fuel. Multi-axis thrust vectoring can provide great agility but will increase weight and engine and flight control system complexity. Similarly, more complex wing designs incorporating variable sweep and high lift devices can improve take-off, landing and manoeuvre performance, but will come at the expense of complexity and additional weight.

These design choices have tended to lead to heavier fighters, with more powerful engines, driven by two principal factors. Firstly, there is a desire to engage at greater range, using long-range missiles. This is enabled by the use of powerful sensors, and assisted through the integration of both onboard and off-board systems, to aid the missile attack, and to confound enemy missile attack.

Secondly, there is a desire to reduce the size and cost of armed forces, so for most air arms there is continuing pressure for each aircraft type to be more capable than the last, again tending to increase size, weight and complexity, which in turn drives up the size of powerplant required. Paradoxically, the result is not just increased capability, but increases in the unit cost of the aircraft, although fewer will be purchased, and savings in manpower may also be made.

Investing in reduced signature, or low-observable aircraft, has three effects. Success means greater capability because of the ability to engage when the opposition is unaware of your presence, or, perhaps, your location. Along with this success comes significant cost increases due to the need for advanced production and maintenance processes, and the specialist materials required. In addition, internal carriage of stores is likely to result in a competition for internal volume between fuel and weapons, which may in turn impact on external aerodynamics and performance.

Measures to combat the trend of ever increasing cost, complexity and weight   include extensive use of airborne refuelling aircraft, which can enable extended patrol times without increased fighter size and weight. However, provision of extensive air-to-air refuelling introduces its own vulnerabilities and costs, particularly if offensive operations, rather than air defence, are to be conducted. A force-mix approach may also be used, with high-end air superiority roles restricted to a smaller number of high-performance strategic fighters, while lower-performance or shorter-range aircraft are used for strike operations or local air defence tasks.

Most major forces are now adopting a system of systems approach, devolving some systems to co-operating unmanned assets with roles varying from electronic combat to strike, air refuelling, communications relay and, perhaps in the future, air combat. Geography, and strategic intent also have a part to play here. Defence of a large homeland with many possible directions of attack, is likely to require high-speed, long-range interceptors, probably backed up by numerous smaller and reactive fighters providing local air defence against possible ‘leakers’ that have evaded interception.

Aspirations for global air dominance drive in the direction of air superiority systems, creating an environment for long-range strike operations, using manned or un-manned assets, and potentially, significant numbers of tactical fighter and strike assets to provide air cover and support to surface-based operations.

Will light fighters continue to be relevant?

Earlier in this article, I referenced a couple of other pieces covering BVR air combat, and future developments in air combat. In general, these articles suggest a future drive towards combat persistence and range, coupled with advanced sensors, long-range weapons and stealth to deliver Air Superiority. This would be backed up by a mix of advanced sensor and electronic combat platforms, and an extensive networked information capability. Strike missions would be delivered by a mix of manned, unmanned and autonomous systems, with target location, confirmation and dissemination a key enabler.

At first glance, these points suggest that there might be little room for ‘light’ fighters in delivering these capabilities, but that would be to ignore the opportunities which may lie in the systems-of-systems approach. For example, options may exist to use shorter-range, highly reactive and manoeuvrable light fighters to provide Air Defence capabilities, as well as protection for high value assets. These would exploit third party sensing and targeting system to ensure rapid and effective reaction to threats, or to provide reactive tactical support to ground forces.

In addition, as identified in the BVR combat article, some Nations have a need for Air Defence to deter potential aggressors but have no desire to impose their political ideologies outside their own borders. For such nations, a small, networked air defence aircraft, equipped with advanced radar, infra-red tracking capability, and long-range anti-air weapons might be sufficient, noting that any such aircraft would also have some capability as a strike aircraft if necessary.

From a capability perspective, for those Nations which do require an ability to deliver Air Superiority outside their own borders, a light fighter might provide a niche capability, focusing on responsive air defence, but also providing additional numbers to strengthen tactical support. In addition, of course, such an aircraft might also provide sufficient capability for regional Client States, as outlined earlier.

Industrial considerations are also important. Many nations enter the world of aerospace manufacturing through the production of advanced training aircraft, and over time, manufacturing capability improvements can bring the production of light fighters within reach. Given a reasonably benign operating environment, this may be sufficient to meet National needs, noting that if necessary, manufacturers of more advanced aircraft will generally be only too enthusiastic to fill any remaining capability gaps.

An emergent need for light fighters might be in the loyal wingman concept, if applied to air combat. By removing the pilot and his support systems, a new class of highly manoeuvrable unmanned weapons platforms might emerge, with higher manoeuvre capability, and, in extremis, expendable. Such systems might function as a disruptive element to force combat with enemy defensive assets, causing them to expend weapons and fuel, and diminishing their ability to respond to air superiority or strike elements.

Are Light Fighters worth the Effort?

It depends who you are. For a large nation seeking to be at the cutting edge of everything, your need might be rather niche. Advanced trainers that can be militarised and exported or used for initial air combat training – perhaps.

A nation with a large geographic area offering many possible lines of attack for an opponent – almost certainly useful as an adjunct to your reactive strategic fighter force; to cover less likely avenues of attack, and greater areas of your airspace; and as Air Defence assets for your Client States.

A nation seeking to enter the aerospace manufacturing arena – certainly.

A manufacturer – perhaps, but perhaps as a partner in a risk-shared programme, or as a means of gaining access to new markets.

As a DARPA equivalent – Highly likely, looking for novel ways to reduce the cost of low signatures; increase agility without compromising signatures; examine the human factors, technologies and robustness of unmanned air combat and loyal wingman concepts.

–Jim Smith

To be frank – if it’s good enough for Tom Cruise it’s probably good enough for me. We probably have to accept that a significant amount of allegiances to aircraft types are not rational or explicable. Most grew out of simply liking the aesthetics of a type, which is fair enough. But then again we should be able to explain why we love our aeroplanes, particularly one that I have publically stated is the best multi-role platform in the world. Wouldn’t it be nice, in a boring sort of way, if you were only allowed to like an aircraft based on how good it was compared to its peers? So I’ll have a go with the F/A-18E Super Hornet. It obviously has a slightly less cool ‘almost twin’ brother in that there is a twin-seat, or family, model knocking around. But I flew those on very few occasions. It has an even less cool but amazingly effective cousin in the EA-18G Growler and I didn’t fly them at all – but watching one have an inflight engagement with the USS George HW Bush and lose the subsequent tug of war with a Nimitz Class carrier was easily one of the top ten coolest things I ever saw. We used to call the jet the Rhino. I’m not sure of the exact reason why but was told that it was because the ‘Ball Call’ needed only two syllables. It was my great privilege to join that bunch of warriors who have uttered ‘Rhino Ball’ at one point or another. Here are the top ten reasons that I loved flying the Super Hornet.

By Paul Tremelling, author of Harrier: How to be a fighter pilot

Paul’s 10 fav things about flying the Sea Harrier can be found here

10. Multi-Role.

Actually multi-role. Not just the usual definition which involves an air-to-air missile or two, some air-to-surface weaponry, and a targeting pod. Multi-role in the case of the F/A-18E actually means it; in a way that quite a few designers and operators would choose to ignore as it’s a little inconvenient when a competitor gets it right. In fact, I’m not sure it’s all the way down at 10 but I wanted you to read it first. Multi-role in the case of the F/A-18E includes the AGM-88 HARM and its stablemate the AARGM. That brings a true self-escort strike capability to the party. If you don’t have ARMs and you are not a LO platform you might want to think about staying at home. This is a non-negotiable rule of warfare that people tend to forget. You have to survive to fight. You must be lethal, but to be lethal you need to be survivable. Quite a few aircraft do this using the assumption that someone else will do it for them. Seems somewhat risky. If you have a look, you’ll also see that multi-role for F/A-18E includes the Harpoon and the Quick Strike. That’s right. Anti-shipping missiles and sea mines. Now we’re talking true multi-role, the ability to affect the naval battle as much as the air and the land equivalents. Need some gas? Well, that’s doable if you have a F/A-18E/F with a tanking store close by. Not much by way of give compared to the wide bodies, I get that, but now we’re talking multi-role in a way that no other aircraft types can manage. We’ll talk about the plethora of strike weapons available further down. I can’t give up too much subject matter as we’re only on point 10, but multi-role and multi-basing option are two complementary things. Any of you boys seen a carrier around here?

The brand new Hush-Kit aviation podcast can be found here.

9. Night trap. I’m not saying this for effect. I enjoyed the deck at night. I found the deck during the day to be a bewildering morass of procedures. The night trap was like the day trap, but without all the things that could put you off, for example, convoluted procedures, anxiety about where other jets were and visual illusions from deck heave. Plenty of people have disagreed with me on this one but for me it really did boil down to needing to see three things; meatball, line up and angle of attack. At night those were the only three you could see! Simples. At night, or in poor weather the USN uses an approach pattern called the Case 3. The RN does too. Case 1 is when you can find the boat all on your lonesome and Case 3 is an approach using the ship or onboard systems to get you down to a position where you can pick up the ship and land. Case 2 was an unholy amalgam of the two. I never used it. The Case 3 allowed you to marshal at your given range at a given height on a specific radial and then come inbound to the boat at a given time. This made everything very simple. So long as you got the timing right and sorted your fuel to be at ‘Max Trap’ as you came over the round down then it was an exercise in instrument flying and the Super Hornet could give you both altitude hold and auto-throttle to get set up. There were three separate systems to follow – a TACAN and two precision approach aids and that all led to being on the ball, in good shape with only the 18 seconds of impending disappointment and the trap itself to be worried about. Yes, it was a pulse raiser, but what do you expect when you’ve got 44,000lbs or so of jet, fuel and weapons strapped to your backside?

8. Catapult Shot. I’m putting this in even if there is a strong argument for the removal of the cat shot from the list altogether. The catapult shot is like a fairground ride. Followed by a fairground ride. I genuinely believe that there is nothing in aviation as thrilling as the yellow-coated shooter beating their hands on their chest to signify that you are now theirs. This is the very end of the ballet that is deck ops. From dropping the weight chit off, to finding the aeroplane, to getting it ready in all respects. Aircraft systems, nav systems, comms systems, weapon systems – all checked and ready to go, and then with chocks and lashings removed you follow the marshallers’ every signal to get to and over the Jet Blast Deflectors and before you know it the holdback is fitted, you’ve acknowledged the weight board, the T-bar is in the shuttle and you’re under tension. Given the wind-up signal you go to full power and check you have ‘full and free’ controls. What a rush. So what’s not to like? What happens next! The cat shot is ferocious, Ferocious enough to throw feet pedals, to throw mask across face, loft some of your saliva into an eye or two. And at the end of the cat run when Mr Bernoulli is invited to take over it’s like running into a wall. An amazing achievement for mankind, but one I can’t say I actually enjoyed. More a case of ‘proud to have done’.

7. Air-to-Surface weaponry. Air-to-Surface made easy. The weapon systems available to the Rhino could be thought of as a bewildering array of potential destruction. Only they weren’t bewildering because the aircraft integration was so good. Getting the aircraft into an air-to-mud role was a single button push and thereafter the stores selection was common for the weapons – whatever they were – which came from a ‘too long to write out’ list. However, from a PGM point of view the basic weapons were probably the JDAM from a GPS point of view and the GBU-49 from a LGB point of view. These weapons could be used in any of their 500lb, 1000lb or larger guises. However to them were added various stand-off weapons such as JSOW, Maverick and SLAM. The key to their use and the utility of the jet and the need to keep the training burden reasonable – was that as an operator there really wasn’t that much to care about because the modes all looked and smelt the same; whilst the ranges from which you could employ changed, the symbology didn’t. That meant that a pilot’s job of being in the right bit of sky on the tactical display was the same for all of them. The aircraft also had a very good dumb weapon model. Against one target dropping from medium level I witnessed a four aircraft strike generate a target coordinate at range and then flow in for an attack using unguided free-fall weapons. Result: four weapons getting a ‘metal on metal’ hit on the target which was an F-4 minding its own business and trying to enjoy its retirement in the desert. As ever, there was one last trick, the cannon. Aimed using a simple dot, it really was a case of ‘put the thing on the thing and press the thing’. I did hear once that one pilot had managed to fire all 400+ rounds in a single pass. Good effort!

6. Monster racks.

Let’s be honest, if anything on your aircraft is called ‘The Monster’ then it’s going to be worth talking about. With the monster racks came the ability to fight in a fit I’d seen at an airshow – 10 AIM-120 and 2 AIM-9X. And a gun. Yes, some of the weapons weren’t perfectly aligned with the aircraft and yes lugging metalwork through the air is tiresome from a physics point of view, but when 2 of you can take down the entire opening Red Air presentation at Red Flag that’s got to be a good thing. The real convenience of it was that in exercise it removed the necessity to count. Gone we’re the ‘Dirty Harry’ days of ‘Have I fired 4 shots or 3?’. They had been replaced with the carefree knowledge that you couldn’t possibly have fired all 10! It also allowed you to be a little more flexible with the mission plan because if anyone ever suggested adopting a ‘missile conservation mindset’ then you would look at them like they were insane. You could fire the first for a laugh and the next just to get something downrange if you really felt like it.

5. Handling and Angle of Attack. All jets have limits to the angle of attack you can use and this usually reflects itself in how hard you can pull and how slow you can fight. The Super Hornet didn’t have one. I wouldn’t go as far as to say that pilots are naturally lazy, quite the opposite. But something eventually has to give and one of them is the ability to store every limit and parameter in your head. What could therefore be better than finding out that there was no alpha limit? Technically I suppose you could forget the fact that there was nothing to remember. Yes, there were angles of attack at which it was sensible to fight, but there was no limit. There were some very clear times when you would think an alpha excursion was a good idea and the jet would simply give you what you needed. To be able to put both hands on the stick and pull it back to the stops, thereby asking the jet to give you all it had – and know that it was going to deliver was awesome. Some of the other manoeuvres were equally rewarding to fly. The Super Hornet had a means, at high angle of attack to pirouette. It took some bullying on the controls and was only to be used for defensive means really – but if the idea of having someone in your shorts was getting tiresome the ability to throw your own tail in the opposite direction was really handy. Yes, the jet was still bound by the laws of physics, but it did seem to be pretty good at negotiating some flexibility with them.

4. Radar. There are sensors and there are sensors. This is where I may start to court an element of controversy. A jet’s goodness in the modern age, dating back to about 2010 is measured in three bins. Sensor, weapon and datalink. They are all underpinned by performance but most jets are actually ‘much of a muchness’ performance-wise. The entry point for fighters for each of the bins changes with time but essentially nowadays it boils down to needing an Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA), a long-range weapon and a full-up Link-16 fit. If any of those are missing, go and talk to Dad and don’t come out to play until it’s sorted. Back in Sea Harrier days you might expect to have well-formed tracks on F-15 size-targets at 30 or so miles, F-16s a little less and developmental Eurofighters a whole heap more. That gave you enough time to get in order for a shot. With an AESA this could be three or four times that amount with no need at all to ‘neck down’ the search to get more ‘trons on target. The result is phenomenal. Consider a fighter with a mech scan radar to be like a single man, in a warehouse, at night, with a pencil torch, trying to work out where the bats are. The APG-79 gave the same man the ability to switch on every fluorescent strip in the house.

Night and day. It was also a nightmare to fight against. On the occasions that I used APG-73 against APG-79 it was like using your pencil torch to shine up range whilst the screen told you that someone was shining the sun back. The radar had so much time on its hands because it wasn’t wheeling a plate from left to right that it even looked in places you hadn’t asked it to – just in case you missed something. It was so quick and so powerful that there was simply no point dividing up the sky and each looking in different bits. In legacy fighters, a formation might decide between them as to who looked high, who looked low etc. With the APG-79 one could simply ask it to look at everything. This had one massive technical advantage on top of the obvious ones. Anything you threw out on link was a very tight low latency track. That made everyone’s life easier, apart from the enemy’s who would probably rather it didn’t. In fact, the APG-79 may not have been a radar. I suspect it was actually the Eye of Sauron.

3. Mirrors. Mirrors are very simple in that they show you what is going on in front of them, backwards. There are two mirrors you should think twice before using. The first is a mirror on a boat – because the chances are that your inner ear is suffering enough already and being in synch with a reflection is unlikely. The other mirrors that you may want to avoid are mirrors that show you what a simply amazing Flight Control System is doing on your behalf with the surfaces that lurk behind you. So number 3 isn’t really the ability to use a shiny surface to look behind you. It’s what you see in those shiny surfaces that tells you in no uncertain terms that the jet is fine and it’s going to deliver a response to your inputs, and you really don’t need to concern yourself with how it’s doing it. In the slow-speed fight in particular the jet was superb. The canted tail added greatly to aft end lift and the multiple surfaces moving in, and out, of synch to give you control was as heartwarming as it was startling. This jet gave you what you needed, even if how it was doing it was a bit of a mystery. Another way of demonstrating the same point was to look at another aircraft when they deployed the airbrake. Obviously termed speed brake in US parlance. The argument about whether you are braking air or speed is semantic and tedious. The interesting piece is that there was no brake to deploy whether you fancied getting rid of speed or using air. The jet simply deployed aerodynamic surfaces in whatever way it thought best to slow you down.

2. Redundancy and general hardness.

Redundancy in the aviation sense is only bad for one reason, that you have to learn about 3 systems wherein UK ground school one would do. With two engines and various backup systems the Rhino was ideally set up to allow you to keep fighting and get you home. You could even use the Auxiliary Power Unit to add another trench to the defence if you wanted to. With hyds (hydraulics) and electricals having triplex redundancy this was a very clever system of systems. The other thing about the jet was how tough it was. Upon landing, you could use the fuel and engine page to record fault codes from the jet called BLINS. I can’t remember what that stood for or what the individual codes were but there were two for the time that the aircraft sensed a heavy landing. When I watched the Growler engage in flight I was very close. I was getting fuel near the island and was arrayed across the ship, with my nose a few feet from the wing tip safety line. I heard the Landing Signals Officer scream ‘Power, Power, Power!’ and looking to my right I saw a Growler in plan form tail-walking down the deck…grabbing a wire as it did so. The jet was in full blower and settled above the flight deck pointing up at a daft angle. God was obviously watching and after enough time to take in the spectacle adjudicated in the boat’s favour and the jet came crashing down between me and the bow. A crash almost vertically onto the deck. It sat shaking like a wet labrador as the Flight Control System attempted to make sense of what its crew had just put it through. Not a single BLIN. The jet just walked it off and as the crew made their way sheepishly into the superstructure the jet sat and waited for its next ride. These things are tough.

1. The whole package. I’m sure most folk remember certain programmes being talked about in terms of sensor fusion. Mainly in the sense that it didn’t work. Sensor fusion is about the ability to be sure that the radar track is the same enemy aircraft as the link track – and therefore present the pilot with a single track with additional information rather than two contacts. It is possible on a badly fused system to think that you are up against 3 contacts when in fact you are looking at radar track and Interrogator hits from your own system, plus a track from a buddy and they are all actually the same enemy aircraft. The obvious downside is that you might get a little anxious and hoof off three shots when one would do. The Super Hornet inhabited the very end of the fusion scale. A track from the radar would be backed up by link, with the IFF latched to it. The jet was even clever enough to lock the targeting pod to the air target. Sadly I was never clever enough to check how it was getting on. I ran out of capacity and the jet never did!

Paul’s 10 fav things about flying the Sea Harrier can be found here

You may also enjoy interviews with pilots of the following aircraft: F-104, F-106, F-4, SR-71 and B-57,

Follow our obscene contrails on Twitter here

So in summary. A superbly integrated jet. Harder than granite. Equipped with the all-seeing eye and a plethora of air-to-surface weapons; and one of the more absurd air-to-air fits available. Capable of taking a whole heap of pain, of looking after itself on the way to and from the target whatever the threat. It got you back to the boat with minimum of fuss, having probably never explored its extraordinary flight envelope. In fact the only bad thing about the Super Hornet wasn’t the jet, nor the boat, it was what waited for you after that. Burger and fries or beer and wine? The USN’s opinion on the matter was bitterly disappointing.

This site is facing a funding shortage and may pause or shut down in June, please consider donating. Our site is absolutely free and we want to keep it that way. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here. Your donations keep this going.