Modern fighters are ‘multi-role’, meaning they can attack aerial or surface targets. They can carry the same weight of anti-surface munition as a World War II bomber, yet are also capable of performing the air superiority mission which demands extremely high performance. The ‘swing’ or ‘omni’ mission is one in which both air and ground targets are attacked in the same sortie. 

In 2020, fighter-bombers dominate, with only the US and Russia rich enough to produce and field single-role fighters and attack aircraft. Here we assess and rank the ten most capable multi-role combat aircraft in service in 2020. 

Before we reveal our top 10 for 2020, Jim Smith, who took an active role in in the development of many British warplanes, shares an analysis of what ‘multi-role’ means.

Note: The introduction section is by Jim Smith, the top 10 section is by Hush-Kit (with a section from Justin Bronk) with recommendations from Jim, but does not reflect his opinions. 

Why do air arms select multi-role aircraft?
“When considering the qualities of particular systems, or classes of capability, it is always good practice to start with an examination of what objectives might drive their selection.
In the case of multi-role aircraft, having been peripherally involved with Tornado, and fairly deeply involved with both the Typhoon and JSF projects, I can well remember the much rehearsed argument ‘Another Jack of All Trades, and Master of None’ directed against the Multi-Role solution as opposed to separate Air Combat and Strike platforms.

I can also remember the German Government attitude to Typhoon (when it was still EFA) ‘Not a Deutsche Mark for air-to-surface’*. And the Treasury coming in with “As it’s multi-role, I assume you’ll be taking at least two types out of Service when it comes in” – bye-bye Jaguar and Harrier …

So those are the rather glib messages suggesting multi-role aircraft might not be the way to go. But what are the counter arguments? And where might a multi-role solution be just the thing. Well, there are two obvious drivers – force structure constraints, and the economy. For the first, consider maritime air power, specifically carrier-based operations.

You need to be able to provide fighter aircraft – as a Combat Air Patrol (CAP) screen to deter attacking forces, defeat threat anti-shipping and air combat capabilities, and protect other assets, such as airborne early warning (AEW) aircraft, tankers and electronic warfare (EW) platforms. But you also need a strike aircraft, capable of projecting power from the ship – otherwise what’s the point of being there? And you only have limited space on the ship to store and maintain your aircraft.

Hence even the US select multi-role aircraft for naval air, most notably the F-4 Phantom II and more recently the F/A-18F Super Hornet. Not to say they don’t also have some single role aircraft, but these two excellent aircraft give the lie to the “… Master of None” gibe.

In addition, in smaller air arms, and in smaller economies, it may be neither necessary or affordable to maintain separate strike and fighter capabilities. The development of air combat aircraft has been increasing in both cost and time as more and more capability is both sought and delivered. This trend has placed relentless pressure on forces to reduce the number of different types in the inventory, partly because of the continuing increase in development cost and time of such systems, but also because of the operational costs in maintaining, and in training air and ground crew for multiple different systems. As an example, in the UK, we can see a fairly near-term future in which a mix of Typhoon and Lightning II will provide the core air power for the nation, excepting long-range precision strike by cruise missile.

The pressure to reduce the number of types in the inventory has also driven some innovative and successful solutions, where different variants of aircraft have been produced optimised for the Fighter and Strike roles, the most notable Western examples being the F-15C and F-15E, and the Tornado GR and F3 aircraft. These aircraft have differing avionics, and some significant airframe differences, yet still manage to retain significant commonality in propulsion and other, not directly role-specific, systems. However, these aircraft are not truly multi-role, as they are specialised variants of a near-common platform, rather than truly able to be used in many roles.

The third reason to adopt a multi-role approach is simply the flexibility in defence planning which it enables. Many recent conflicts have not involved a contest for air dominance. In general, although fighter aircraft have been used to escort high value targets, the air threat in (say) Afghanistan, Mali or Yemen, has been minimal, and the ability of air combat aircraft like Typhoon or Rafale to ‘Swing Role’ and deliver strike missions has been invaluable. The F-16 also provides a good example of a fighter that has spent most, though definitely not all, of its life operating as a strike asset.

What makes a good multi-role combat aircraft?

Let’s start with a brief indication of the capabilities we might expect such an aircraft to have. A multi-role combat aircraft is one that is used to perform many different types of mission.
Examples might include the delivery of precision guided bombs; the delivery of long-range stand-off weapons; the suppression of enemy defences, perhaps through the use of anti-radar missiles in support of other aircraft; carriage of tactical reconnaissance systems; and the ability to both defend itself against air threats, and, when necessary, escort other aircraft.

Sadly, this site will pause operations if it does not hit its funding targets. Donate here and keep this aviation site going. Many thanks

In some cases, possibly many cases, a swing-role capability may be desirable. This means the ability to switch from one mission to another if required, for example, the carriage of mixed weapons so that alternative targets can be addressed. Carriage of both laser-guided bombs to allow direct attack, and anti-radiation missiles to allow defence suppression, for example. Fighter aircraft may carry a full air-to-air load out as well as air-to-surface weapons, allowing them to retain an air combat capability once the air-to-surface stores have been released. As a capability, ‘swing role’ may be particularly important in delivering Close Air Support (CAS), where precision is required due to the proximity of friendly troops, but the nature and location of the target will be unknown until an airborne taking is received.

Delivering this flexible capability is going to drive a number of aspects of our aircraft. To be effective in air combat, it is going to need a radar, an infra-red seeker tracker (IRST), if it has aspirations to either be somewhat stealthy or tackle stealthy targets, and ideally both Long-range or Medium-range and Short-range air-to-air missiles (L/MRAAM and SRAAM). To survive, it’s also going to need the defensive aids that support air combat – a towed decoy; defensive aids system, chaff, flares, missile launch and approach warner, for example.
Beyond this, our aircraft is going to need to be effective, at a minimum, as a tactical strike aircraft. This means having the payload-range to deliver its weapons to their targets. Precise requirements will depend on the targets to be engaged, as this will drive the nature of the weapons to be carried, and the sensors needed to support them. A basic precision-guided bomb delivery capability will require either a podded or internal laser designation system, and the necessary weapons stations and pylons to carry and release the weapons. A JTIDS (Joint Tactical Information Distribution System) or other equivalent datalink capability will also be essential to enable situational awareness, and to receive in-mission target tasking and authorisation.
If the targets are heavily defended by anti-air systems, or are hardened, then it is likely that the ability to deliver weapons with significant stand-off capability will be needed. Because of the need for these weapons to make a powered fly out to their targets, they will be larger and heavier than unpowered bombs or glide-bombs. Similarly, the use of larger and more complex warheads against hardened targets will also drive up weapon size and weight.

Unless a stealthy multi-role system is available, the stores are likely to be mainly carried externally, which compromises radar signature, and increases drag very significantly. To achieve a useful mission radius on a strike mission, it is likely that increased fuel will be required, either through the use of external fuel tanks (e.g. Rafale, Typhoon), fuselage saddle tanks (e.g. F-15E, Late-model F-16) or increased platform size (e.g. Su-32, J-20).

It is important to note that having plenty of pylons available to carry weapons is necessary, but not sufficient. For a multi-role aircraft to be an effective strike platform, the weapons it carries must be integrated with the aircraft system. Aircraft sensors have to be able to cue weapons; the weapon capability envelopes have to be displayed to the pilot; the appropriate carriage and release envelopes must be known and respected; and pilots and maintainers have to be trained in the use and the maintenance of the various systems.

Low Observable Systems
What of stealth? By this I mean systems that are hard to detect by surface and air-based sensors of all types, but generally at least radar and infra-red sensors. One impact of seeking to avoid detection is that when this is necessary, no external stores can be carried. The effect of this is to require stores to be carried in internal bays, which limits the size and number of weapons that can be carried, impacting on both fighter and particularly strike capability.

This has driven the development of specialised stores such as the Small-Diameter Bomb (SDB), but use of internal weapons bays for air-to-surface stores will generally be at the expense of carriage of MRAAM. The inability to carry external tanks or stores without compromising the aircraft stealth capability will reduce both strike range and mission flexibility. That said, the low signature of these aircraft does allow greater utility in high threat environments (sometimes described as the ‘first day of the war’ capability).
A related issue is that while internal stores carriage also means that (generally) there is plenty of space for internal fuel, the resulting configuration can also have higher wave drag. This tends to result in less combat radius or combat persistence than might be expected, and can also result in less energy manoeuvrability.

We sell fantastic high quality aviation-themed gifts here

Are the F-22 and F-35 multi-role? Well, they do have both fighter and strike capabilities, but will be constrained by weapons bay size if they are relying on stealth to survive. Certainly, the Royal Navy and Royal Australian Air Force will be seeking to use their Lightning IIs for both air defence and strike. Some other air arms will rely on a force mix approach, using their Lightnings mainly as a strike asset, supported when required by air superiority fighters.

The F-22 is effectively optimised for the fighter role, and JSF for strike. In service, F-22 is likely to be used primarily an air superiority fighter, even though it is capable of carrying a mix of JDAM and SRAAM to deliver a strike capability, largely because it is available in limited numbers. Arguably, the F-22 is better employed to achieve air superiority, enabling other aircraft and systems to deliver the strike missions.
Conversely, at least in high-threat environments, the F-35 might best be considered as a strike aircraft with a self defence capability, or perhaps as an air defence aircraft without an effective strike capability. Of course, both air combat and strike effects can still be achieved, using aircraft with a mix of strike and air combat load outs – effectively functioning as ‘bombers and escorts’.

Is a stealthy multi-role aircraft possible? Certainly, but such an aircraft may need to have a larger weapons bay than the F-22 or F-35 to accommodate the variety and size of weapons required for strike missions. Inevitably such a design would be large and expensive, and an exemplar perhaps already exists in the Chinese J-20.

Mission Support

Much depends on the target set, and particularly whether moving targets as well as fixed targets are to be addressed. If targets are fixed, pre-planned strikes are possible and may be conducted with ‘fire and forget’ systems such as cruise missiles and other stand-off weapons. If targets are moving, or are re-locatable, and are thus uncertain in position, a more flexible approach will be necessary.

A variety of approaches are possible, the simplest being laser designation from the aircraft, with the laser being enabled to track the target. This approach, however, relies on a line of sight being available to the target, and hence results in relatively short-range engagements, which may not be feasible against some targets. Alternatively, an active seeker on the weapon may be used, for example using a millimetric wave radar or an infra-red sensor to track and guide to the target.

Importantly, appropriate operational doctrine and command and control systems need to be in place to enable swing role, close air support and dynamic in-mission planning to allow targets of opportunity, or urgent tasking requests, to be addressed. Avoiding casualties to friendly forces or civilians, ensuring the validity of targets and the suitability of the weapons carried, coordinating actions with coalition ground forces, and ensuring the safety of air operations in a complex environment, will all require secure, high confidence datalink communications, and a system for receiving, processing and approving taskings.
While what is described has a Western and Coalition perspective, it is clear that any multi-role, dynamically planned short-notice operation is unlikely to be possible unless some process is in place for issuing and accepting valid taskings in a dynamic environment.

Features enabling a multi-role capability – a reprise
A summary list of good attributes for a multi-role combat aircraft might be (in no particular order):

1. A suitable integrated suite of air-to-air weapons for self defence and escort capability. Likely to be a minimum of 4 MRAAM and 2 SRAAM
2. A suitable integrated suite of air-to surface weapons.
3. Precise capabilities will depend on the target set, but likely to include precision guided bombs, anti-armour and/or anti-shipping weapons, stand-off weapons and cruise missiles, anti-radiation weapons.
4. Appropriate sensors to detect targets and provide necessary weapons guidance. Likely to include Air-to-air and air-to-surface radar, IR Tracker, laser designator and capability to carry other systems such as a tactical reconnaissance package.
5. Sufficient internal fuel to deliver required mission radius, enhanced when necessary by additional external fuel, and ability to receive air-to-air refuelling.
6. Defensive aids including chaff, flares, active radar and IR jamming capability. Ideally a towed radar decoy, or other means of electronic attack
7. Datalink communication to off-board assets such as AEW&C aircraft; ability to receive and pass on target information and authorisation; necessary datalink support to weapons, and desirably ability to provide third-party targeting and weapons support.
8. Air vehicle performance sufficient to deliver Beyond visual range (BVR) air combat, and desirably to survive WVR air combat.
9. An affordable and supportable airframe and weapons systems.
10. If stealthy, a sufficiently large internal weapons bay, or bays, to be able to carry both MRAAM and air to surface weapons simultaneously.
11. An appropriate command, control and doctrinal environment to allow dynamic in-flight mission targeting.

–– Jim Smith

Aircraft discounted from the list 

Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor 

An unmatched air superiority aircraft –but a waste of capability to use as a strike aircraft.

Chengdu J-20

I see this as air superiority, but with an anti-access edge. If armed with a hypersonic air-to-air weapon it would have to be a concern for US AWACS and AAR assets. If capable of fielding a similar anti-ship weapon it might also be a concern for the USN.

Sukhoi Su-57 Felon 

Impressive looking beast, which could well be a good future multi-role platform.

Mikoyan MiG-35

Should become a decent all-rounder but is currently immature.

Top 10 multi-role fighters 2020

10. McDonnell Douglas F/A-18C Hornet (APG-79v4)

The number ten slot is the most contested, with each potential candidate bringing something to the table: the JF-17 has a state-of-the-art cockpit, a stand-off ground attack capability and a potent EW suite; the Mirage 2000 is a proven and well equipped platform; the Tejas is tiny, with a good sensor package and the best carefree handling system of any fighter. But it can only go to one aircraft, so by a slim margin we are handing the number 10 slot to the upgraded FA-18Cs of the USMC. Though they may lack endurance, they may be ancient, they are currently been given a new lease of life with the retrofitting of the APG-79v4, a baby version of the Super Hornet’s AESA radar. This results in excellent situational awareness in an engine/airframe combination already loved for its reliability and legendary manoeuvrability, and one cleared to deploy a wide-range of modern munitions. The Hornet has been combat proven for over 30 years and earned its spurs itself in the heartbreaking wars of the Middle East, Afghanistan and Libya. Back in the early 1980s the legacy Hornet led the way, demonstrating how an electronic cockpit and a decent multi-mission radar was the way forward. In 2020 it can still hold its own and it will continue to serve for some time.

9. Chengdu J-10C

Observers tend to be cautious of heaping praise on Chinese hardware, which (other than engine technology) may be a position more rooted in historical prejudice than fact. Judging an aircraft that has not been exported is tricky, but it is noteworthy that Pakistan cancelled their 2009 order for the type in 2011 to concentrate on improved JF-17 variants in the short term, followed by a likely commitment to the J-31. This may point to the aircraft’s capability edge over the JF-17 being too marginal to merit the cost, but this is pure speculation. What is more certain is that this is modern design that is being rapidly updated.

The Chinese J-10 is in service in large, and growing, numbers. The latest version, the J-10C, is a formidable machine. We spoke to Justin Bronk, Research Fellow for Airpower and Technology at the RUSI think-tank to find out more. 

No nation has more new aircraft programmes than China, and the progress it has made in the twenty years has been spectacular. In the field of fighter aircraft much media attention has been paid to the rather spectacular J-20, a monstrous stealthy combat aircraft comparable in some respects to the US’ F-22, while less has been paid to the J-10.

The J-10 entered service in 2006 and since than around 350 have been built, more than the number of French Rafale, or Swedish Gripen and very close to the number of F-35s. With an estimated empty weight of 8850 kg and maximum weight of 19277 kg it is comparable to the F-16, as is its reheated thrust of around 130kN. The latest version, the J-10C, is the most potent – with a modern AESA radar and the ability to carry the PL-15 long range air-to-air missile, a formidable weapon in the same class as Europe’s much lauded Meteor. We asked Justin Bronk how the aircraft would fare against the F-16, the most widely used modern fighter aircraft.

“On J-10C in Beyond Visual Range combat; kinematically, it is likely to be somewhere close to a later Block F-16; the original J-10A’s thrust-weight ratio most likely having degraded due to weight growth as more advanced sensors, stores and kit such as HMS have been added.” — the J-10C’s thrust-to-weight, an important measure for how ‘energetic’ the aircraft is, remains decent- above 1.1 -1 in a typical combat configuration. “With a light airframe, relaxed stability, decent (although not stellar) thrust to weight ratio and large canards, the J-10C is very agile in airshow configuration and the option for thrust vectoring only increases this capability at low speeds. However, the light airframe and small size relative to fighters like the J-20, Typhoon or F-15 mean that external stores and fuel tanks will have a more serious impact on both performance and agility than on larger fighters.”

China has long struggled with aero-engine technology, so how good are the J-10C’s WS10s? “The WS-10 series has suffered from persistent problems with engine life, mean time between failures and throttle-spool response time. Whilst it has improved sufficiently to enter quantity production for later J-10Bs and J-11s, the Russian AL-31FN Series 3 developed for the J-10B is still a superior engine on almost all metrics aside from cost. Chinese military turbofan engines are improving rapidly but are at best only at par with Russian equivalents and are not yet in a position to compete directly with European or American designs.”

The PL-15 missile is something of a bogeyman to US planners, as if fully operational and as good as the Chinese say it condemns AMRAAM-armed legacy platforms to a position of vulnerability.

Bronk believes the Pl-15 is not yet fully operational, “The PL-15 is certainly being shown off on carriage flights with a number of different PLAAF types, so being somewhere around what we in the West would term Initial Operating Capability but not near Full Operational Clearance is probably a decent bet. There is a fair bit of concern in the US fighter community about the PL-15; its size and design should allow it to technically outrange the AIM-120 series and a proper active radar seeker head gives a lot more tactical options than older semi-active Russian and Chinese ‘sticks’.”

Though mechanically scanned radars are considered a technologically of the past, they remain the most common fighter sensor in the West. The J-10C has an Active Electronically Scanning Array radar, “Finally, its AESA radar should give the J-10C a significant advantage over older Mech-Scan equipped F-16s in the BVR arena; although having a great deal more experience in the technology, American fighter AESA sets are likely to remain superior where fitted especially in terms of advanced low-probability of intercept/detection (LPI/LPD) scanning modes.” In summary, Bronk firmly places the J-10C in Generation 4.5* “All in all, the J-10C is a significant leap into true ‘4.5th Generation’ capability for the PLAAF compared to the earlier variants of this distinctive bird. 

*something he defines as including “low-observability to radar; the ability to supercruise (fly at supersonic speed without using afterburners); and extreme manoeuvrability at all speeds.”.

8. Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II

In the scenario of war against Russia or China, the F-35 should be able to operate on Day One. If the US doesn’t want go to war with Russia or China, and just fancies bombing poor people, then the F-35 offers a great deal of over-capability (as do all the aircraft on this list). As a Rafale pilot recently noted in an interview, a weaponised C-130 or 737 would be able to do everything currently expected of a frontline fast jet in real-world operations.

The F-35C lacks maturity, and the F-35B has a short range. In time, the C variant would perhaps be the best multi-role one, with its bigger wing, then the A. The F-35B has significantly less range. As discussed above, I wouldn’t see this delivering a swing role very well. It has the advantage of stealth, and good data-links within F-35 to F-35, but would be unlikely to fare well in WVR combat.

7. Lockheed Martin F-16 Block 70

It would be easy to dismiss the F-16 as it is so old, but the latest versions have very little in common with the aircraft that flew 46 years ago.

The F-16’s traditional dominance in the WVR regime is dependent on a relatively clean configuration. Whereas the eurocanards carry their vital EW kit internally, the F-16 will in any real-life situation go into battle with a very draggy 600-pound pod. Above 25,000 feet and at higher speeds it is dominated by the eurocanards in air-to-air combat.

The latest F-16s carry AESA radar, an impressive weapon load of modern weapons and some avionics and systems superior to even those of the F-35. The cockpit of the block 70 is excellent and future variants are likely to benefit from Lockheed Martin’s experience of wide-screen displays.

The F-16 has seen as much combat as any US aircraft type, and has demonstrated itself for 40 years. It remains an aircraft to be respected.

(Note: Mitsubishi F-2 is included as an F-16 variant for our listing)

6. Saab JAS 39C Gripen

The Gripen has a good mix of external stores, fuel capability and good connectivity, but is a single-engine and smaller design and hence has less range with a useful load. Its air combat capability, with the superlative Meteor long range missile, is likely to be better than the F-16. The Gripen pilot is imbued with excellent situation awareness and protected by an exceptional electronic warfare system. 

The Gripen is also the cheapest aircraft to operate on this list, the least fuel thirsty and the smallest. Its small size, combined with high off-boresight missiles and a helmet cueing system make it a particularly nasty opponent in within visual range combat.

5. Boeing F-15SA/QA Eagle 

Though the USAF’s F-15E force is old, it is unmatched in the strike role. But it is is also rarely used in a dedicated air combat role, which raises questions about it being counted in this category. Self defence certainly, but given the F-22 and F-15Cs, in service it’s not really a multi-role aircraft. It is however a multi-role aircraft for some of the export operators of the type. The latest members of the Strike Eagle family, (the SA and QA) are lavishly equipped with all the latest sensors and systems.  The SA is ferociously capable as will the QAs when they reach a greater stage of maturity.

HK notes

Personally I would have placed the F-15SA or QA higher in this list. In payload performance, sensor suite and modernity of systems it ranks very highly. Depends whether we give more importance to the ground attack or air role. At the risk of committing to the Turkey at Christmas argument I would argue that the former has dominated the last two decades of air operations.

4. Sukhoi Su-35/Su-30M series

Deciding which ‘Flanker’ to include is challenging. It would be tempting to include the Chinese J-15 on the grounds that carrier fighters must be multi-role but the J-15 currently shares many of the limitations of the Su-33 (which are described here) — is not optimised for air-to-ground and lacks a meaningful load-out when carrier deployed.

The Sukhoi Su-35 is generally better equipped than the Su-30M series though lacks the situational awareness and workload benefits of the M’s backseat WSO, but does benefit from the very capable Russian defensive electronic warfare system. The vast sums that the Indian Air Force is willing to pump into Rafale procurement does not boost confidence in the similar vintage Su-30M (the Russian type having entered Indian service only five years before Rafale entered French service). The Su-34 is more of a medium bomber than a multirole fighter. The Su-35 has a very powerful radar, excellent kinematic performance and an exceptional un-refuelled radius of action. It should be able to give a decent account of itself in air combat with any type short of the F-22 or Su-57. Another contender is the Chinese J-16, a twin-seat multi-role Flanker.

The Russian Su-35 and related aircraft have high payload range, a very good range of weapons carriage options, including large numbers of pylons and high internal fuel. They also have large radars and are fitted with IRST. They might not do too well against stealthy fighters, but in a permissive environment, or against non-stealthy opponents, would be a capable multi-role aircraft in at least the F-15E class.

3. Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet

The Super Hornet is very well equipped, and needs to be. Whereas the air force can rely on a mixed force of F-15C/Es, F-16s, F-35As, A-10s etc, the Super Hornet has to do pretty much everything (at least until the F-35C is more mature). The range of weapons it can carry is impressive, ranging from the stealthy AGM-158 JASSM (Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile) to the AGM-88 for anti-radar attacks, the JDAM series and the AGM-84 Harpoon anti-shipping missile. Air-to-air weaponry is decent but typical of the current US lag behind Europe. Though the AIM-120D is highly regarded, it is an enhanced range AIM-120 rather than the new breed of long-range air-to-air missiles.

It is much slower than the European canards, and the extremely draggy manner in which the fuel and weapons are carried further compounds this disadvantage. The aerodynamic configuration is optimised for low-speed handling. The most notable omission equipment-wise, an IRST, will be solved with a combination sensor/fuel pod carried on the centreline. This inelegant solution will have a deleterious effect on the Rhino’s already lacklustre performance. Boeing had earlier proposed an internal IRST at the expense of the aircraft’s gun, but this was rejected by the Navy.

I have placed this ahead of the F-15E because I think it achieves a better balance between both roles. The F-15E is a very capable strike aircraft, but I’m suggesting less emphasis is likely to be given to air combat missions (at least in US hands) because of the availability of other assets. At present the F/A-18E is the primary strike and air combat asset for the US Navy.
2. Eurofighter Typhoon

Cynics might note that the Eurofighter nations have spent a great deal of time and money on turning the Typhoon into a Rafale, i.e. converting it from a fighter to a fighter-bomber (this idea would have been taken further if the rather silly idea of a carrier Sea Typhoon had actually happened). Today’s Typhoon, especially the British examples, are a very different beast from the fighter-intercepter that entered service in 200

The long road to AESA seemed to be finally reaching a happy conclusion but has recently split into a complicated mess of different nations and different radar. Still when Kuwait receives their Typhoon’s this year they should have a functional AESA in the Captor-E Radar 0.

Like Rafale, it has demonstrated capability in both the air-to-air and air-to-ground role, and likely exceeds Rafale in the former domain due to greater energy manoeuvrability.

1. Dassault Rafale 

Other than low observability the Rafale has almost everything. The most notable absence, a helmet mounted display/cueing system has, with the introduction of the type into Qatari service, been addressed (though no photos have yet been released to support this). It also lacks a towed radar decoy though it is believed this will enter service with the Indian Air Force in the near future. There is some question regarding whether all Rafale’s have an IRST, though it was a certainly a part of the original internal sensor set.

It edges out Typhoon due to better strike optimisation and greater number of ‘wet’ pylons, giving a broader range of weapons fit options and potentially greater range.

Future Capabilities – By Jim Smith 
“What of the future? Well, who would dare to predict anything in the world of 2020? However, if the material out there in US and European future air power projections is to be believed, a system of systems approach is likely to be the key to future air power.
It seems likely that, at least from a US and European perspective, autonomous, cooperating systems of systems will form the basis of future air power. To implement this, it is likely that we would see a return to a variety of specialised platforms, rather than the current move towards fewer multi-role systems.
The driver for this is likely to be survivability. Wherever possible, systems will be unmanned and either autonomous or operated remotely. If this approach is to be believed, future manned platforms will largely be limited to a manned multi-role system such as Tempest or Future Combat Aircraft System (or their US equivalents), accompanied by a series of unmanned co-operating systems, which could include a ‘wingman’, a Neuron or Taranis platform to augment air combat capability or provide a strike platform. Other functions, such as refuelling, Electronic Attack, Electronic Intelligence, Target Detection and Geolocation, and Communications Relay, would all be delivered by specialist autonomous or remotely operated vehicles.

Manned platforms would be limited to, perhaps, Airborne Early Warning & Control platforms, and the manned fighter aircraft, operating principally as a fighter and weapons director, controlling cooperating unmanned weapons carriers. All elements of the system would be stealthy, and linked by secure data-links, with the intent of separating command and control, sensor and weapons delivery elements.
Is this plausible? Well, technically this might be an endpoint of a road-map, and individual elements of such a system are likely to be achievable in the relatively near term.
A better question might be ‘Is such a system affordable?’ Separating the functions across 7 or 8 specialised platforms would certainly increase costs, as each would need to be designed, developed and integrated. It would also be unlikely to reduce manpower costs all that much, as experience seems to show that unmanned and autonomous systems still need to be maintained and ‘crewed’, even if the crew is not actually in the aircraft.
Among the most powerful drivers against the implementation of such a system would be its vulnerability to cyber attack through interference with communication links. Its most effective opponents are, however, likely to be the accountants in Treasury departments, who may not be swayed by survivability arguments when asked to disaggregate the functions of one multi-role platform to two, three or four specialist, stealthy and autonomous platforms.

In any case, it is perhaps a safe bet that this route will not be affordable outside the Super-Powers – China, Russia and the USA. The EU, and the UK, would, in my view, not be able to take on this approach without cooperation, and in the current climate, that seems a big ask. Maybe the first integration should be between the Tempest and Neuron or FCAS and Taranis if a European approach is to be sought.

It is also not clear how a carrier task group could accommodate such a proliferation of platforms, and it is also clear that this type of solution will not be available without very significant expenditure. So – for the UK and EU, it would be best to design FCAS and Tempest with capability growth in mind. Build growth avionics capacity and some extra volume into the initial aircraft, because more sensors, more functionality, and more roles are likely to be required. And I would not expect the USN to adopt the same solutions as the USAF – the (big) carriers might not be big enough to accommodate the system of systems approach.

Multi-role systems are likely to be of continuing value to Air Arms and countries that are not seeking world domination, but need to address local defence issues, and to deter external aggressors.”

––– Jim Smith

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

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

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

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

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

FEATURING

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

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

Unlike the many brilliant British aero-engineers of the 1930s and ’40s, who were repeatedly thwarted by crusty officialdom, their German equivalents were lavishly funded and nurtured by both a determined state and a brutally efficient military …or so the myth goes. As we shall find out in ’10 things you didn’t know about World War II Warplanes’, the truth was rather different. Calum Douglas B.Eng M.Sc is a piston aero-engine history specialist, and author of The Secret Horsepower Race – WESTERN FRONT FIGHTER ENGINE DEVELOPMENT The reason Germany missed out on the two-stage supercharger  The Mk IX Spitfire, with its two-stage supercharged engine, is lauded for having rescued the RAF from the clutches of the Focke-Wulf 190. Given the new Spitfire’s effectiveness did the Focke-Wulf rapidly counter it with a similarly equipped fighter? No. Germany only fielded a couple of fighter types with two-stage superchargers and both entered service far later, very close to the end of the War. They were the Fw 190D-11 and Ta 152, powered by the Jumo 213E/F. The Jumo 213E had a system like the Merlin, but only appeared in tiny numbers a few months before the collapse of Germany. German failure to develop a two-stage supercharged fighter is widely regarded as one of their great technical failures in high-altitude flight. However, this was as much an organisational failure as anything else, as Daimler-Benz had been running two-stage supercharged DB601 engines since around 1936 in their test cells in Stuttgart Untertürkheim. Focke-Wulf master designer Kurt Tank told incredulous American engineers that the notion of a two-stage supercharged fighter had been quashed by German military bureaucrats before it could take full form. The Luftwaffe was regarded at the time as purely a tactical force, designed to support ground operations. They saw the ability of fighters to attain very high altitudes as an anathema to this strategic concept, and cancelled all such projects. They did have their own equivalent to the Spitfire Mk IX’s engine, but wasted the opportunity with sheer ineptitude. 2. Britain needed fuel from the US to survive?  Germany is well known for its successful synthetic aviation fuel programme in the Second World War, which created fuel from coal and hydrogen, mixed under high pressure and temperatures. However, Britain had embarked on a programme to do the same thing. This began as early as 1932 and received strong Air Ministry support from about 1936 onwards. Not as outlandish as it sounds, Britain was at the time the third largest producer of coal in the world, and could therefore, have waged war against Germany even if no fuel from America had ever arrived. When, later in the war it became imperative to increase the performance of fighters stationed in Britain to combat the German pulse-jet powered V1 flying bombs, it was the British synthetic fuel programme which helped yield ingredients for the 150 Grade fuel that was needed. This fuel was also made in the U.S.A., but the process was pioneered at I.C.I. Billingham in the laboratory of Ronald Holroyd. 3. Radio gagger After the ascension of Nazis into power, all amateur radio activity and associated clubs and component development was banned. The paranoia of the Nazi state couldn’t allow the thought of young Germans freely communicating with long distance HAM radio, or listening to remote foreign broadcasting stations. This had a catastrophic impact on German radar and electronic warfare development a decade later. Dr Wolfgang Martini, in charge of all German radio technological development was fired by Göring not long after Martini admitted that he had no countermeasures to British jamming devices. Erhard Milch dryly reminded Göring that having no enthusiastic young radio fanatics to help had likely been a direct result of their earlier policy on banning youth radio. Not long before this meeting, on 8th October 1943 Göring had also harangued Martini on why they had not been able to shoot down more de Havilland Mosquitos, which were now roaming with almost complete impunity over all of Germany day and night. Martini had reported that their radar was struggling to get a reliable echo return on the Mosquito, due in part to its very high speed and also its primarily wooden construction. Göring, infuriated with the lack of technical prowess, told Martini: “Er hat Genie, und wir haben Dösköppe.” (“They [the English] have the geniuses and we have bone-heads.”) While a popular documentary was made about the German Horten jet-fighters being the first stealth aircraft, in fact the best real evidence for a high speed intruder aircraft which (probably inadvertently) had a very small radar signature was the British Mosquito. 4. The lost List  Hans List, was probably the most renowned piston engine development scientist in Germany in the Second World War. In Europe he was second only to Sir Harry Ricardo in stature. Whilst Ricardo was busy helping Rolls-Royce develop a two-stroke engine to replace the Merlin in the Spitfire, Dr List squandered much of his time on bizarrely speculative projects, such as working out how to increase the performance of the enemy’s Packard-Merlin engine. Ostensibly this project (which must have absorbed the work of his laboratory for several months) was to provide technical intelligence predictions to the German designers by judging what technical steps the British might take in their own development methods. However, there is a strong case that the entire project was an unbelievable waste of the talents of the great Dr List. Not long after the war, List started the engine development consultancy AVL, which remains the largest privately owned engine development firm in the world today. This kind of abysmally poor usage of German talent was very representative of the gigantic failure to leverage science by the Nazis in the Second World War. Whilst they are acknowledged for having started the jet, rocket and space race, this appears to have been the fruits of a totally unbalanced research programme, which required the resources of the Allies to make full use of post-war. Figure 2: Translated version of Dr List’s report on the Merlin. 5. Why did the Germans really put a german engine on a Spitfire?  The now well-known ‘MesserSpit‘ or  ‘German Spitfire’ was a captured Spitfire Vb fitted with a Daimler-Benz DB605 engine. The re-engining largely took place to settle a feud between the head of Daimler-Benz Fritz Nallinger, and Professor Willy Messerschmitt. Messerschmitt, furious with being blamed for the poor performance of German fighters compared to the latest Allied types in 1943, told Erhard Milch that this was no surprise to him, because he was forced to fit water radiators twice the size of those the Spitfire used, per horsepower delivered. Erhard Milch, astonished, turned to the head of German Engine Development Wolfram Eisenlohr and asked him: “How have our designers not noticed this?” Germany, had failed to develop high-pressure-high-temperature water cooling. This meant that their radiators had to be significantly larger in section than the Allied fighters used, adding to their drag values. They estimated this was costing German fighters at least 15mph in top speed, enough to turn a performance edge into mere equality. 6. Speer’s fake miracle  Albert Speer is credited with the miracle of German fighter production in 1944, where vast numbers of fighters were built. However when Allied investigators interrogated Speer and started adding up the numbers in his departments production figures they discovered an incredible secret. Eight thousand German single engine fighters in the ledgers, didn’t exist. Further investigation revealed that although Speer had managed to dramatically increase the number of fighters produced, he had also cooked the books to gain favour with Hitler. American engineers discovered that Speer had done it by having all aircraft being repaired, or refitted re-allocated to the ‘new aircraft’ ledger. Thus, giving a dramatically over inflated impression of his achievements. That was not all, German engine designers told Allied engineers that the impressive final boost levels released by Daimler for the Bf 109 of +2.1 and even +2.3 atmospheres manifold pressure, where in fact needed just to get the 109 to meet its basic service specifications. Speer’s ‘miracle’ had created fighters of such incredibly poor build quality that the Daimler-Benz engine designers told the Allies that the fighters reaching the front line were on average an incredible 25mph slower than their claimed performance (over 6%). The allies had faced hordes of ‘ghost fighters’, those which were not figments of Speers ledgers were in performance terms, shadows of their potential.

Sadly, this site will pause operations if it does not hit its funding targets. Donate here and keep this aviation site going. Many thanks

7. Sexing down the ‘Butcher Bird’ The Fw 190 was judged to be such a serious threat when it arrived, that the Chief of Air Staff, Sir Charles Portal wrote to Churchill on the matter. The archives show that he rewrote the letter twice in March 1942 before sending it, each successive letter putting the threat across in more nuanced language than the last. The first read: “adverse casualty rate”, the second version scored out this line and replaced it with “unfavourable balance” and finally “unfavourable factor”. Figure 3: One of the draft letters Portal prepared for Churchill. 8. Why the chaos?  There is strong evidence to suggest that German aviation production planning was thrown into the ruinously bad state of organisation which plagued it during the Second World War as early as 1936. One of Germany’s most renowned aviation designers Dr Robert Lusser (who had worked for Messerschmitt and Heinkel) wrote to the Secretary of State for Air, Erhard Milch on 15th January 1942 to inform him that German aviation was being destroyed by the application of badly thought out plans to accelerate production of new types. Figure 4: Dr Robert Lusser, German aviation designer. Lusser explained how up to 1936, the path from aviation development to mass production had taken (in planning) at least 4 years. This began with design, then testing, production simplifications and prototype building over the course of the middle 2 years, with mass production beginning in the 3rd year. Support Hush-Kit with our high quality aviation themed merchandise here

Figure 5: Lusser`s chart of how production was planned up until 1936 in Germany. At a certain stage, due to the pressures from above, planning had attempted to be ‘compressed’ by one year, to allow mass production (Gross Serie) to begin after just two years. This involved both testing (Erprobung), production simplifications (Serieneinfachung) and prototype build (Null-Serie) all occurring at once, over the course of just one year. To make this (in theory) a possibility, demands were also made that design and testing resources might have to be drafted in from other firms who were being under utilized in some particular capacity at the time. Figure 6: The same chart modified to show how it was altered post-1936. The process was in fact, according to Lusser, a disaster. It resulted in several aircraft of appalling quality being made, and the changes needed to rectify the faults ended up putting on far more time than would have been taken to just stick to the original, (proven) time plan. Lusser, regarding these compressed plans told Milch: “Diese Glaube hat sich als eine schwere illusion!” (“These beliefs [that production can be accelerated] are nothing more than a fantasy!”) 9. Willy’s Frölich? The Messerschmitt Me 210, the much-needed replacement for the ageing Me 110 was a disaster which tarnished Professor Messerschmitt’s reputation for decades and resulted in him temporarily being demoted. However, it appears from archive records of interrogations carried out in 1945 of German aviation designers that it may not have been his fault. According to British Technical Intelligence files on the Me 210, a series of problems occurred, none of which were instigated by the professor himself. It turned out that in the concept phase, the German Air Ministry (the RLM) told Messerschmitt that a team of designers from the Arado firm would be drafted in to the Messerschmitt offices to design the wings and tail section. This team was led by Arado engineers Rethel and Frölich. There was a fundamental disagreement about the ideal concept to take, but the RLM insisted that the Arado engineer’s idea was to be followed, and the original twin-fin tail layout was rejected. If that were not enough, for reasons of expediting the development timeline the RLM ordered that the drawings were to bypass the manufacturing department (fertigungsbüro). When the aircraft was tested, it displayed appalling aerodynamic instability and frightening structural failures (the wings sometimes broke off at about 2/3 of the distance from the wing-root). It killed many pilots and was branded a dangerous menace. Two hundred had been made when production was stopped whilst the errors were fixed. The tail was modified five times before it had been enlarged enough to induce stability. This never worked very well, and only when the original specifications were re-issued as the Me 410 was the fighter a success. By the time that occurred, the design was nowhere near as useful as it would have been had it been in service two or three years prior. Messerschmitt had fallen victim to RLM incompetence and demonstrated exactly why Lusser had been right when he wrote to Milch. 10. Teacher’s pets  German technical intelligence spent its time producing wonderfully artistic but useless reports on British aircraft development possibilities, whist the British produced simple projections on possible German developments on a single sheet of paper with a typewriter and some hand-drawn arrows. Figure 7: Typical British Intelligence chart showing projections for the Bf 109 development. The German reports were produced by Dietrich Schwenke, who was the head of German aviation technical intelligence. What follows is a page showing the equivalent projections on possible British developments with the Spitfire. This was part of a mammoth 60-odd page report, the illustrations for which must have taken weeks to prepare. Figure 8: One of the well-illustrated pages from Schwenke’s huge pamphlet on Allied aviation developments We can conclude from this only that the German report was not written to provide a timely and useful memo for German engineers, but was written to show superiors an impressive looking publication to convince them what a thorough job they were doing. It would have taken so long to prepare that by the time it was released much of the utility of the information was lost. This concentration of appearance over substance is representative of much of the failure which resulted in the German defeat in the air over Germany in 1943 and 1944. In conclusion, it was not in fact the Allied engineer who struggled against all odds to succeed but the German. Whist Allied policies and choices are full of incompetence and failure, the German story simply has even more disastrous strategic errors, and so reached the event horizon of defeat.

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

From the cocaine, blood and flying scarves of World War One dogfighting to the dark arts of modern air combat, here is an enthralling ode to these brutally exciting killing machines. The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes is a beautifully designed, highly visual, collection of the best articles from the fascinating world of military aviation –hand-picked from the highly acclaimed Hush-kit online magazine (and mixed with a heavy punch of new exclusive material). It is packed with a feast of material, ranging from interviews with fighter pilots (including the English Electric Lightning, stealthy F-35B and Mach 3 MiG-25 ‘Foxbat’), to wicked satire, expert historical analysis, top 10s and all manner of things aeronautical, from the site described as: “the thinking-man’s Top Gear… but for planes”. The solid well-researched information about aeroplanes is brilliantly combined with an irreverent attitude and real insight into the dangerous romantic world of combat aircraft. FEATURING

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

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

Oasis, The Godfather, Champagne, many things in life are over-rated. Popular opinion will hold that they’re the outstanding examples of their kind, but popular opinion is merely the collective braying of the uneducated hordes. To elevate you above the uneducated horde the following list is ten of the most over-rated military aircraft, allowing you to display a veneer of sophistication when they crop up in conversation. To be clear most of these aircraft aren’t bad, generally they’ve at least displayed some level of basic competence, but this has been over-inflated in the popular imagination to an unwarranted degree. The Bruce Springsteen of aviation if you will.

To avoid filling the complete article with flights of fancy cancelled projects don’t count. This saves you the reader from my multi-volume rant on the TSR.2 having fewer flying hours than the X-35 did when it was selected to be the Joint Strike Fighter. It’s also pretty much all combat aircraft as it’s hard to think of any over-rated cargo haulers. Or helicopters. Or Blackburn products.

National chauvinism frequently plays a part in aircraft, or anything else, being overrated. For this reason, the list would appear to be biased against British aircraft, because those are the ones the author has most often heard being praised while thinking, ‘steady on, they aren’t that good’. Plus let’s face it, most other countries’ aircraft are average at best.

 

Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor ‘Pointless Craptor’ 

The F-22 is an impressive aircraft to be sure, fast, extremely agile, and almost invisible to radar. Slightly short on range compared to some other modern military aircraft and more expensive than even the F-35 it is none the less the fighter to beat. It’s not however without its problems. Early Raptors appeared to have been inspired by HAL from 2001, making multiple attempts on their own pilot’s lives which lead to a four-month grounding while the USAF tried to resolve the issues. These were eventually traced to a faulty g-suit inflation system and an erratic onboard oxygen generating system.

The small matter of attempted pilotcide [1] out of the way you’re still left with helicopter levels of maintenance activity, each aircraft having to undergo a three-week work package every 300 flying hours, primarily due to the stealth coating. There’s also the issue of a relatively small fleet size of around 180 aircraft due to the early programme cancellation. Now to your average European air force that sounds like excessive largesse, but if you’re trying to maintain a global presence it barely scratches the surface.

Perhaps more critically the F-22 seems wholly unsuited to the wars the USA has spent most of the century fighting. Yes, they have been employed dropping the occasional JDAM on Syria, and have apparently conducted Close Air Support which makes criticism of the F-35 conducting the role look wholly misplaced. But is a $150 million air superiority fighter really the best tool for the job or was that an attempt to justify its existence. Because at ~$60,000 per flying hour you could have employed 3 A-10s to do the same thing.

Don’t say – The ultimate manned fighter.

Do say – Overkill when you’ve decided to spend the last twenty years dropping bombs on people without an air force.

[1] If we use it enough in print the OED have to make it a word, work with me.

 

 

McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II

Hush-Kit’s top Cold War Carrier Combat Aircraft was the F-4 Phantom, probably the first jet aircraft to succeed at being multi-role and so good the USAF swallowed its pride and brought a few. Thousand. Contrary to popular opinion, and some dialogue in Top Gun, it also achieved a respectable kill-ratio in the Vietnam War against smaller more agile opponents. It wasn’t however without its problems.

Designed as a missile armed all weather interceptor this proved to be overly ambitious when put to the test in South East Asia, the performance of the early Sidewinder and Sparrow missiles being sub-optimal. Initially this led to crews’ ripple firing missiles in an attempt to gain a hit, foreshadowing the author’s attempts to stay alive in DCS World. But with the close in fighting that developed due to the rules of engagement in force even this wasn’t guaranteed to work. Indeed, it was not uncommon for a Phantom to find itself too close to the enemy to fire even the short-ranged IR seeking missiles. This led initially to the fitting of gun pods, the accuracy of which was variable especially when fitted to aircraft subject to catapult launches. Ultimately an internal gun was fitted on the Air Force’s aircraft from the E model onwards. A solution that required the shuffling around of internal components to maintain the centre of gravity and the deletion of the ram air turbine that supplied hydraulic pressure in the event of engine failures.

To add to the woes over Vietnam the J79 engines used by the Phantom produce copious amounts of black smoke, providing a convenient pointer towards the aircraft for any enemy fighters or anti-aircraft batteries. Still at least it only took two decades to fix that issue with the J79-10A fitted to the F-4S in 1977. Two years after the end of the war in Vietnam. Having two of the J-79s also meant the ‘Toom drank like a furloughed single man during lock-down, getting through about 5 times as much fuel as a Harrier or Corsair just to get airborne.

Having just about got the F-4 sorted the world’s air forces started replacing it as newer designs were introduced that fixed its various short-comings. Or in the case of the RN fitted on their ships. Despite this the Phantom actually remains in service with a variety of air arms in 2020, 60 years after the first USN squadron formed. Nominally Iran, Japan, South Korea, Greece, and Turkey are still operating McDonnell Douglas finest. The last two presumably refusing to retire their aircraft until the other does.

The Phantom was a good aircraft at its peak although inevitably compromised when compared to more specialist airframes such as the A-6 or F-8. But this peak was broadly the late 60s through to the early 80s. For the other two-thirds of its life it’s either been struggling through development woes or stumbling around in the early hours trying to find the toilet as bladder control starts to become an issue.

Don’t Say – Confusingly mixed messaging from the clowns at Hush Kit.

Do Say – Good for its time, but increasingly out classed during the latter four decades of its service.

More about the Phantom’s flaw’s here.

 

Mikoyan MiG-25 ‘Foxbat’

For the younger reader it may be hard to imagine the degree of paranoia and secrecy that permeated the Cold War. The rivals on either side of the iron curtain were equally desperate to find out what their opposition were building while guarding their own secrets. Aircraft performance had to be estimated from looking at reconnaissance photos and figuring out what the design was supposed to achieve. If you weren’t there it was basically like Firefox and The Hunt for Red October but with better accents.

Consequently, when the first images of what was to become the MiG-25 appeared there was much scratching of heads. To Western thinking, influenced by Col John Boyd’s energy manoeuvrability theory, the large wing and monstrous engines were optimised for dogfighting. This led to significant increases in the performance requirements of what would become the F-15 which had previously assumed the MiG-23 was the aircraft to beat. [2]

In reality the wing was sized to lift what was a very heavy aircraft, being made of stainless steel rather than aluminium alloy like pretty much everything else. Why stainless steel? Because the Foxbat was intended to intercept the, ultimately cancelled, B-70 Valkyrie bomber which would operate at Mach 3. Matching these speeds would heat the airframe to around 300°C at which point aluminium tends to lose structural integrity. Titanium presumably not being used due to a desire to have an aircraft that could be maintained by conscripts. A problem the similarly speedy SR-71 didn’t have allowing it to be built from the metal, ironically sourced from Russia. The speed requirement also drove what is a relatively thin wing profile to minimise drag, increasing take-off and landing speeds to the extent it has a 4,500’ take-off run. In contrast to RAF practice of the time the Soviets required some degree of endurance from its aircraft, consequently ~70% of the internal volume is given over to fuel. Which to limited what other equipment could be crammed in there.

Much of this was revealed to the Capitalist Running Dogs of the West when Lieutenant Belenko used one to take a day trip from Vladivostok to Hakodate Air Base in Japan in 1976. While Belenko was whisked away to a life of luxury and questioning in the USA technicians took apart the MiG to discover its secrets. They then boxed it up and returned it to the Soviets in crates, who gave the Japanese a bill of $10 million for damage to the aircraft. The Japanese countered with $40,000 of charges for shipping costs, which makes an Amazon Prime subscription seem good value.

By this point though the damage had been done, the F-15 was entering service designed to counter abilities that didn’t exist.

(still it is the only MiG with a teenfighter kill)

Don’t say – The fastest fighter in the world.

Do say – Made into a bogey man by the USA to justify the F-15’s performance requirements.

[2] In something of a pattern the MiG-23 was also considered by Western powers to be more impressive than it really was.

Heinkel He 113

It’s fair to say the first half of 1940 hadn’t gone well for Britain and her allies, having lost the Battles of Norway and France everything relied on winning the upcoming home match to stay in the championship. Worryingly for Fighter Command who would bear the brunt of the upcoming fighting they’d only just held their own against the Luftwaffe’s current fighters the Bf109 and Bf110. It was obvious from intelligence reports that the far superior He-113 would be a completely different proposition. With a top speed of 390mph some 35mph faster than the Spitfire and a fuel injected engine allowing negative g flight the Super Jaegar would be able to run rings around the RAF’s best. Perhaps more worryingly where the British aircraft were armed with eight, or sometimes twelve, .303 calibre machine guns photos indicated the Germans had managed to incorporate three 20-mm cannon into their fighter. For those not up on the technicalities of fighter weaponry machine-guns fire inert lumps of lead, 0.303 inches in diameter in this case. Cannon on the other hand fire mini projectiles that incorporate explosives that detonate on contact, which makes much more of a mess. The Allies were working on arming their aircraft with cannon, but they wouldn’t start to see wide-spread adoption until the following year due to difficulties developing them and the performance hit due to their greater mass.

Everything then indicated the He 113 was going to be a tough customer and so it would prove. The first encounter seems to have been while Hurricanes were covering the Dunkirk evacuation when they were bounced by the Super Fighters while themselves preparing to attack a group of He 111 bombers. This pattern would repeat itself throughout the subsequent rather predictably named Battle of Britain, flights of He 113 would strike from high level just as the attacking fighters were about to engage bombers. Later they would use their great speed to carry out lightning raids on ground targets, the first on 18 August when they destroyed a Hurricane and seven Spitfires at RAF Manston for no losses. Indeed, throughout the battle there were no confirmed kills of the He 113 only a handful of probables. The only relief for the Allies was that the Germans seemed to have only limited numbers of the aircraft available, it was speculated due to difficulties operating what was obviously a highly advanced aircraft from muddy fields in France.

In reality it was because they hadn’t actually built any He 113s. The whole thing was a ruse by Nazi head of propaganda Joseph Goebbels and the Luftwaffe using repainted He 100 prototypes to convince their enemies they were far ahead of them in aircraft development. The He 100 had set a world air speed record shortly before the war so was a plausible basis for a new fighter but for a variety of reasons hadn’t been selected as such by the Luftwaffe. The 113 designation was chosen in an attempt to play up to the stereotypical image of German methodical predictability, being a logical follow on to the He 112 that had seen limited service. That the ruse worked can be demonstrated by the willingness of allied pilots to report higher flying faster aircraft as He 113, when in reality they’d just been Bf 109s using a height advantage to gain speed. More crucially as the Super Fighter’s reputation grew, they would become increasingly wary of engaging any formation they mistakenly identified as consisting of them.

To say the He 113 was over-rated is probably under-stating things, fear of its ability allegedly factoring in Dowding’s decision not to deploy Spitfires to France. When in reality it was a prototype cosplaying as an end of level baddy.

Don’t say – What?

Do Say – The kind of information warfare Alistair Campbell would be proud of.

Avro Vulcan ‘Hero of Operation Slack Fuck’

Say V-Bombers and if you’re basic your first thought is the Avro Vulcan and why not, it’s a moderately attractive cranked delta with four Olympus engines. Its greatest claim to fame is of course the Black Buck raids during the Falklands Conflict which saw pretty much the entire surviving V-Force execute possibly the most complicated refuelling plan in history to hit a runway. With a bomb. Followed shortly after by the retirement of most of the Vulcan fleet at the end of the year. Which is the kind of thing someone should write a book about.

So, job done, Vulcan, greatest V-bomber, if not strategic bomber, of all time, right? Well no frankly. It was certainly in the top three V bombers beating the Short Sperrin by entering service, and the Vickers Valiant by not falling apart after ten years of pootling around the sky. Although to be fair that did have the distinction of actually dropping a nuclear bomb and beat the Vulcan to conventional bombing missions by 26 years during the Suez Crisis. They managed more than one hit on the runway as well.

Still if you’re a Top Trumps kind of aircraft fan it could at least carry the same bomb load as the Valiant slightly faster. It fails utterly in comparison to the other V-bomber though. The Victor could carry 14 more 1000lb bombs than its sisters in the V-Force for a total of 35,0000lbs. Or half a B-52’s payload. It could also go further and in a shallow dive break the sound barrier.

The only real problem with the Victor was the manufacturer, Handley Page’s chairman being less keen on the government’s ideas for manufacturer consolidation than they were. That combined with potential issues fitting the Skybolt missile meant only a handful of Victor B2s were ordered compared to an extravagance of Vulcans. Consequently, when Skybolt was cancelled the greater numbers of Vulcans meant they were a shoe in for the bomber role while the Victors became tankers.

Not a bad aircraft overall, the Vulcan’s reputation today seems to rest on its role in Black Buck rather than its overall capability. Plus it’s in Thunderball which can’t have hurt.

Don’t say – A triumph of British design and engineering.

Do Say – The Victor could carry more further, what else do you want in a bomber?

Mitsubishi A6M Zero ‘

To say that the Mitsubishi Zero came as an unpleasant surprise to the Allied forces during December 1941 would be a bit of an understatement. Nimble, fast, and long ranged it was everything you’d want in a carrier fighter. Okay slightly more armour and radio aids would be nice, but their absence didn’t stop it racking up an impressive kill rate during the sudden expansion of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere into the Indian and Pacific oceans. During raids on the only ‘civilised’ bit of Northern Australia, Darwin, they easily dealt with the Spitfire Vs that had been rushed there for its defence. This despite the defenders being flown by experienced Battle of Britain veterans.

The evidence for the Zero’s reputation seems pretty clear-cut then, cutting a swathe before it even when opposed by the ‘greatest fighter of all time’ flown by the best of the best. Or at least the best of the RAF. Mitsubishi had obviously created some sort of uber-fighter, probably either with the direct help of the Germans, or inspired by an obscure Gloster design that never got ordered. [3] Because the alternative would be that the Zero was an average fighter with strengths and weaknesses and the Japanese were producing better pilots than the Allies. Which would be incredibly inconvenient given all the intelligence assessments and propaganda that had asserted the Japanese were producing inferior knock-offs of Western aircraft and were themselves physically inferior. Particularly inconvenient if you’d then based your defence policy on those assumptions and left a variety of obsolete aircraft to defend your key outpost in the region. Still at least the loss of Singapore put an end to any conceit of racial superiority in the British populace.

The Zero wasn’t a bad aircraft, it was very manoeuvrable, had decent armament, and had excellent low-speed handling. It wasn’t however particularly fast, and its critical altitude, where the supercharger can no longer compensate for the depredation of altitude on engine performance, was a relatively low 16,000’. Useful for naval air combat but much lower than the Spitfire’s and other fighters optimised for the European theatre. Its main advantage was in the cockpit where the pilots sat, after undergoing what at the time was the longest training course in the world. This allowed them to make the most of their aircraft and drag allied pilots into combat on their terms. Meanwhile the Australian Spitfire pilots insisted on using tactics that wouldn’t have cut the mustard in Europe by getting into turning fights with one of the few aircraft that could out-turn them. Indeed, the score could probably have been reversed if they’d used high speed dives to make slashing attacks on the Zeros before climbing away to position for a follow up.

As a fighter the Zero was a good aircraft, however, to compensate for the shocking performance of the Allies against what they’d been told was an inferior enemy it had to become a great one.

Don’t say – It swept a wave of terror across the Pacific.

Do say – Made into a bogey man by the Allies to cover-up their pre-war intelligence failings.

[3] The Gloster F5/34, Google it, it’s pretty similar.

Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress ‘Captain mediocre’ 

Ask the average man in the street to name a WW2 USAAF bomber and they’ll probably ask you to stand two meters away and put a face mask on. Repeat the experiment enough times however and you’ll soon realise the Flying Fortress is probably the most famous American bomber of WW2. Capable of delivering 4,500lbs of high explosives to Berlin while fighting off hordes of Fw 190s and Bf 109s with an ever-increasing battery of .50 cal machine guns the B-17 played a major contribution to attempts to flatten Germany into submission.

We sell fantastic high quality aviation-themed gifts here

Impressive as that sounds it was also broadly what the Mosquito could do on half the engines, only two crew, and about 130mph faster. Meanwhile the USAAF’s other heavy the B-24 Liberator could fly further, faster, with more. It was also the most produced bomber in history, with 18,482 to the B-17s mere 12,731. [4]

So why the love for what was at best the equal of its peers? Mostly good PR. Even before the USA was bombed into entering the war against fascism the B-17 was getting publicity for its work with the RAF. Ironically mostly with Coastal Command the early models being considered unsuitable for its primary role after initial trials over occupied Germany had achieved at best mixed results. With the late entrants to the war doing their best to play catch-up the USAAF were keen to push the message that they were taking the fight deep into Nazi Germany.

Until mid-43 this meant lots of reports of Flying Fortresses, cementing its place in the public’s heart before the B-24 had got down to business. If this wasn’t enough just as the Liberator was deploying in May ’43 the first B-17 completed a tour of 25 missions, the following week the Memphis Belle did to a blitz of publicity including the 1944 release of a documentary broadly documenting their final mission. In a further insult to, well everyone, the 1990 film Memphis Belle fictionalised the making of the documentary, added to the profile of the B-17, and gave Harry Connick Jr an acting career.

Essentially then the Flying Fortress was an alright bomber with a great PR department. The Adam Sandler of strategic bombing. Seriously how is he still getting roles?

Don’t say – The Bomber that won the war.

Do say – The Liberator did the work the B-17 got the glory.

[4] The Ju-88 making second place with 15,183 built, fact-fans.

English Electric Lightning ‘Exciting & useless’ 

Continuing the RAF’s love affair with short ranged aircraft the Lightning was designed to defend V-Force airfields long enough for the bombers to get airborne. This led to an aircraft with a phenomenal rate of climb, impressive top speed, and for the time, 1959, cutting edge weapons system. Contrary to claims by Lockheed-Martin about the F-22 it was also the first aircraft to be able to super-cruise. All things that bring aviation enthusiasts of a certain age to a near priapism.

The Lightning was very impressive in its niche, and if it had stuck at being a short-range point interceptor it would have been great. But awkwardly that role didn’t last for long the nuclear deterrent role going to the navy’s Polaris submarines in 1968 removing the strategic requirement to defend the V Force airfields. Meanwhile the air defence requirement changed to intercepting aircraft over the North Sea and GIUK gap. [5] More awkwardly thanks to the Sandys’ review passing off savage cuts as strategic long-term planning, there were no successors to the Lightning in the offing, manned aircraft being considered obsolete.

This left the Lightning by default as the RAF’s best choice of aircraft for the role, the alternative being the Javelin possibly the only all-weather fighter with a restriction on flying in cloud. However even with an increased fuel load in a gradually expanding pot belly the Lightning would be heavily reliant on tanker support. The ultimate F.6 model only had a combat range of around 135nm for a supersonic intercept. Perhaps less usefully there doesn’t seem to have been anything in the way of an effort to increase the Lightning’s armament, the F.1 entering service with two heat seeking missiles and two internal 30mm cannon, and the F.6 leaving service with two heat-seeking missiles and two 30-mm cannon. This wasn’t necessarily an issue when the aircraft was intended for a last-ditch defence of the UK’s airfields to allow the deterrent to get away. Operating over the North Sea to hold off the advancing Soviet hordes it would seem to be more of an issue. Hence 43 Squadron forming on surplus Royal Navy Phantom FG.1s in 1970 to take on some of the air defence burden solving the range and payload problems simultaneously. Although to be fair that was a far more advanced aircraft having first entered service 12 months after the Lightning.

As an air show performer and rocket emulator the Lightning was fantastic, but that’s not what its actual role was.

Don’t say – A triumph of British design and engineering.

Do say – Woefully under-armed, unless the Soviets were planning on invading one at a time.

[5] For the younger reader the GIUK gap is the area between Greenland, Iceland, and the UK through which the Soviet Navy would make their way to the North Atlantic.

Harrier ‘Vectored trust’ 

The 1960s were a time of great experimentation as the world’s aircraft manufacturers attempted to produce viable VSTOL aircraft. British aviation enthusiasts take a considerable degree of pride in the emergence of the Harrier as the only successful aircraft from this period of sometimes crazed tinkering. No, the Yak-38 Forger doesn’t count as successful. This pride is enhanced by its ability to inflict wide area tinnitus via air show performances.

You do though have to question whether it was all worth it. The genius of the Harrier was doing away with a separate lift engine by using the front stage of a turbofan to provide thrust forward of the centre of gravity. The hot stage does the same aft of it, a bit of shuffling around with the aircraft’s mass and voila you can hover. It does mean you need a turbofan with a reasonable bypass ratio though which is the sort of thing you normally see on a business jet. It also makes engine maintenance something of a challenge, the wing having to come off if you want to change it. Plus, the usual problem of any powered lift aircraft using full thrust for a vertical landing increasing the fatigue and vibration load, decreasing airframe life.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and it’s notable that the Royal Air Force was the only land-based operator of the Harrier. All the other Harrier variants were sold to people who wanted to fly from ships, the USMC, the Spanish Navy, the Royal Navy, the Italian Navy, etc. Indeed, the major operation the RAF’s second-generation Harriers were involved with was Afghanistan. Where their VSTOL capability was well used operating from a runway only otherwise suitable for, checks notes, Tornadoes.

Another area of misplaced pride in the Harrier is the assumption it’s somehow better than the F-35 because it doesn’t have a lift fan and the UK ‘should have just made a better Harrier rather than wasting money on the F-35’. Which overlooks the fact the Harrier’s lift fan is essentially the first stage of the Pegasus, is always engaged, and creates an increasing amount of intake drag as you approach Mach 1. Never mind that for a turbofan producing a similar level of thrust to the F-35’s engine you’d be looking at something that’s usually hung off an A320. Good luck building a fighter around that. The Pegasus configuration anyway makes for some awkward packaging decisions when designing your aircraft, look at the P. 1214 to see some of the work rounds needed to use it on an Advanced STOVL project.

The Harrier then, a really successful technology demonstrator that probably degraded the UK’s overall defence capability. Still handy if you’re going to cheap out on your aircraft carrier.

Don’t say – A triumph of British design and engineering.

Do say – Pardon? I can’t hear you over the sound of the Harrier.

 

Supermarine Spitfire

If you’re British and aren’t particularly interested in aircraft the Spitfire is your favourite. It’s probably also what you call every camouflaged aeroplane with a propeller that you see. This helps the aviation connoisseur avoid you.

Not that the Spitfire was a bad aircraft, as a short-range interceptor it was exactly the sort of thing you’d want if say you were planning on defending an island against an aerial onslaught. Once that unpleasantness is out of the way however you really need something with more range. Despite Photo-Reconnaissance Units and the USAAF proving you could usefully cram more fuel into the Spitfire, almost equalling the range of the Mustang, the RAF proved resistant to the idea. This made it difficult providing an escort to any missions going further than say the beaches of Pas-de-Calais.

Nor did this limited range gain the Spitfire much in the way of performance, with broadly similar Merlin installations the P-51C was 7% faster than the Spitfire MkIX with 10% better fuel consumption, thanks to a more aerodynamic form. This despite the Mustang being 20% heavier. The Spitfire was faster climbing, which did at least let it spend its limited time airborne at a decent altitude.

Sadly, this site will pause operations if it does not hit its funding targets. Donate here and keep this aviation site going. Many thanks

Long range escort not being an option attempts were also made at dive-bombing, where the Spitfire would build up speed too quickly. This would have been less of a problem if it couldn’t lead to the ailerons detaching if unchecked by the pilot. The light build of the aircraft also left it able to only carry half the bomb load of its contemporaries, 1000lbs to the P-51 and P-47’s 2000lbs.

But at least it was unrivalled in air-to-air combat. Apart from say against the Zero, or when operated by the Soviets who relegated it to the rear with the PVO’s air defence forces, favouring the Bell Airacobra for the VVS busy engaging the Luftwaffe over the battlefield. That’s right they preferred the Airacobra, something virtually no one has heard of, to the Spitfire.

The less said of the attempts to make the Spitfire seaworthy the better, suffice to say the undercarriage was never really up to the job even with multiple upgrades. By the time it got to the Korean War the Seafire was so stretching the original design that the fuselage was wrinkling from conducting deck landings. Which is a bit of a design flaw in a carrier aircraft.

The Battle of Britain gave the Spitfire great PR, this has overshadowed its later perfectly average performance.

Don’t say – A triumph of British design and engineering.

Do say – The sort of dead horse flogging that saw the original Mini in production for 40 years.

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

Don’t say – Deliberately contentious waffle, a Pound Land Clarkson.

Do say – Thought provoking and insightful, the thinking woman’s Brad Pitt.

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

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

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

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

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

FEATURING

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

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

 

The most beautiful machines in sporting history were the unforgiving brutes designed to win the Schneider Cup for seaplane racing. Dangerous, glamorous and with international pride at stake, the racers were fire-breathing monsters operating at the absolute limits of what was technologically possible. In the ten years from 1921, the Schneider record speed doubled, from 205mph to 470mph. The final figure of 470mph was also a staggering ten times faster than the first race winner of 1913.  The world of racing seaplanes is a very limited one so when I was asked to put together a piece about the top 10, the first thing I did was bend the rules and include flying boats. Even so, this really only leaves Schneider Trophy (more properly ‘Schneider Cup’) contestants, with an oddball excursion thrown in for variety. First held in 1913, Schneider’s intent for his eponymous trophy was that it should encourage the development of reliable, safe, waterborne aircraft. This being seen as a more practical proposition in those early days of sparsely distributed random muddy airstrips for land-borne planes. The First World War arrived a year later immediately rendered the concept anachronistic, with surviving members of the air forces emerging from those dark days educated with all they needed for setting up a more formal land based aviation network, equipped by an industry that had developed from inspired geniuses and lunatics into fully mature and generally competent businesses. However, the Schneider Trophy carried on, and it developed into an arena for government funded racers. It was finally won in perpetuity by Great Britain in 1931. The selection of aircraft for this list could have simply been made based on the number of wins and increase in performance over previous winners, but where’s the fun in that? Instead I have made my selection based on historical significance, success, flair and aesthetics. 10. Savoia S21  This is a fictional aircraft but please bear with me. Porco Rosso is a film from that doyen of anime, Studio Ghibli, and although an animated fairytale of sorts it is multi-layered and well regarded by those who know about this sort of thing. The plot is based around 1930s ‘air pirates’ in a pseudo-Mediterranean setting with some of the aircraft being clearly based on Schneider Trophy competitors (in particular those of the two main protagonists). There are fictional aspects to suit the storyline but, even so, the aircraft maintain a close visual relationship to the source material. Porco Rosso’s S21 is obviously inspired by the Macchi M33 of 1924 and arch villain Donald Curtis flies a Curtiss R2C-2. As the hero’s mount it has to be the ‘S21’ that gets the vote for inclusion here.  This film introduces this extremely appealing subject to a wider audience in a colourful and entertaining way. It’s clear that whoever drew these has a real love of the aircraft and as such it cannot help but encourage interest in this period of aviation history, and the Schneider Trophy in particular. If I’ve learnt anything about anime fans it’s that they can be a tad obsessive, so you can guarantee a fair number will dig deeper into what lies behind the designs. It’s the education of a wider public – almost through subterfuge – that earns this aircraft a place on the list and, if nothing else, it’s the best porcine aviation based animation you may never have seen! 9. Macchi M.39 America had shown the old countries the way with regard to what was required to win the Schneider Trophy in its later years, with the CR-3 in 1923. In 1926, the USA was on the cusp of winning it forever. The Italians retorted by showed how they had learned from the American success with the Macchi M.39. As the Curtiss had set the model for success before it, the M.39 refined this further and introduced the basic aircraft configuration that would be followed by all subsequent winners. Castoldi had studied the entrants in 1925 and applied what he’d learned to his new design, concentrating on attention to detail around the streamlining and packaging. The other aspect embraced was government backing; Il Duce’s regime funding it and creating the Reparto Alta Velocita (High Speed Unit) as the team to uphold Italy’s honour. The M.39, with its Fiat AS2 engine, was the first to hold the fuel in the floats and crystallised the classic late 20’s design (albeit as an all-wood construction) The key features were a faired in cockpit with minimal height screen, low monoplane wing, surface radiators and minimal external bracing. There were problems at the start with the aircraft being difficult to handle, both on the water and in the air, but the initial development programme at least got these to a point where they were manageable. There were also problems with the inlet duct causing a reduction in engine power, something that would reoccur with a number of later aircraft as the limits of testing and knowledge were pushed further. In this case it was solved whilst out in America for the race where the M.39 was finally able to show its class and grab the win, vanquishing the biplane as victor to the history books forever. 8. Piaggio Pegna PC7 The Piaggio Pegna PC7 manages to clamber so far up the list simply by being so inherently audacious and, given it was such an ambitious design, having come so close to flying. Pegna had been creating various wild schemes for some time and in 1928 his persistence was rewarded with a contract from the Italian government for two examples of the PC7. Sadly there were too many novelties and too little time to develop them, but the PC7 wasn’t simply a madcap scheme. The overall driver for the design stems from the use of hydroplanes instead of floats or a conventional hull, an approach which required with numerous additional, and very complex, features. Pegna had been actively researching hydroplanes during the First World War and returned to them as a way of reducing weight and drag. The problem of creating a ‘vane design’ that would work well when on the water and in flight occupied quite a bit of time. There was also the matter of how you deal with the low lying propeller at the front. This was solved by installing a clutched variable pitch water propeller in the back and a clutched drive to the main prop up front. The latter also had a cunning device to ensure that when stopped it would always be with the propeller blades across the aircraft (the position shown in the photograph above). All of which allowed for a slim, low-sitting, fuselage-hull without wing tip floats. The nose was extraordinarily long and the pilot located pilot well back toward the fin. Both PC7s were completed but an inherent instability during take-off, and the passing of the race itself, meant they never actually flew. Instead they simply became beautiful, visionary, and utterly glorious cul-de-sacs. 7. Gloster Napier VI The Gloster Napier VI only came about because of the decision to change the Schneider Trophy into a biennial event after 1927. At the time, Gloster were shaping up to develop their series of good but not quite good enough biplane racers a little further. Meanwhile, the aero-engine manufacturer Napier were reconciled to the Lion engine finally being outclassed. However, an additional year of preparatory time was enough to spur both airframe and engine designers to greater ambition. The result was VI with its supercharged version of the W-12 engine. Two aircraft were built and, with their gold painted fuselages, the type soon became known as the ‘Golden Arrow.’ If nothing else the looks promised much. Even by Schneider Trophy standards, the new type had a small fuselage and highly polished finish. In fact many still view this as the most handsome aircraft ever to be built in pursuit of the trophy. The slim wings (with their hint of the elliptical) had a ‘kick up’ at the root to provide an aerodynamically efficient junction with the fuselage revealing the extreme care with which the type was designed. The supercharger, designed under contract by British Thomson-Houston, was fed by three carburettors which in turn were fed by air from three separate intakes. It is here that the key to the VI’s failure lay: the engines could not be made to run consistently under race conditions, a problem generally attributed to the related inlet ducting. The tendency to cut out during high speed turns was especially dangerous in the racing environment. The Gloster VI may never have competed because of this, but N249 momentarily snatched glory in 1929 when it set the world speed record at 336.3mph. Sadly for Gloster, the Supermarine S6 topped this a mere two days later, but at least it had earned its brief place in the sun – and validated Henry Folland’s masterly, but flawed, design. 6. Supermarine Sea Lion II Supermarine first entered the Schneider Trophy in 1919 with the Sea Lion and, truth be told, it hadn’t gone at all well. They returned with the Sea Lion II in 1922 and this time they were far more successful, taking the win in Naples. Sea Lions I and II are related but its not quite so simple as one being a development of the other. Supermarine had built and supplied three aircraft to the government in support of a bid to supply single-seat fighter flying boats during World War I. After the cessation of hostilities they bought them back, possibly with a view to selling them onto wealthy individuals for ‘sports’ flying. What two of them actually ended up being used for was forming the basis for the racers, the small single-seat hull being an ideal starting point. The Sea Lion II had the more convoluted evolution of the two, passing through an intermediate phase before emerging as the aircraft that would finally race. New wings and a new tail got it match fit, while swapping the engine for a development of the Napier Lion W-12 didn’t do any harm for its chances of success either. Whereas the Sea Lion looks a little ‘square rigged‘ to our eyes the Sea Lion II at least has the streamlined nose the modern eye expects. The latter aircraft makes it onto the list for one very special reason though, and that is by it being the last flying boat to win the trophy. There were flying boats that came later and flew faster but this was the last time an integral hull was proven as giving the best solution to building a waterborne racing aircraft. As such it is arguably both the last and the ultimate of its kind. 5. 1913 Deperdussin The first Schneider Trophy was held in 1913 and the Deperdussin earns its place in the top 10 by being the first winner. However, the reason for inclusion does go a little deeper. The intent of the race was to promote the reliability of seaplanes and flying boats, thereby improving the breed. This is why, right up to the end, competing aircraft still had to carry out sea worthiness and taxiing trials. It was never simply an outright speed contest. Deperdussin entered a number of slightly different aircraft in the inaugural competition although only one made it to the start line. With a wood ply monocoque forward fuselage to which were attached just the single set of wings, this was an aircraft far removed from the Wright Flyer of only a decade before. Up against a Morane-Saulnier and a couple of Nieuports, the surviving Deperdussin came in first due to various problems befalling the other competitors. 1914 saw a near doubling of the winning speed and a similar level of attrition before the clouds of war halted flying for sport (other than blood) in Europe for the following four years. By the time the contest resumed in 1919, the sustained – desperate – military funded development of aviation had brought a relatively high level of reliability with it. The game had changed, and manufacturers were compromising a little too much for teh sake of outright speed, and the initial objective for the Schneider Trophy had been undeniably diluted. The Deperdussin and 1914’s Sopwith Tabloid stand then as the only winners that had to be designed as a complete package, to struggle to be superlative across the complete range of disciplines originally demanded by Jacques Schneider. 4.  Supermarine S5 Italy well and truly established the way forward in 1926, and R. J. Mitchell, who would later create the Spitfire, responded with the audaciously sleek S5, designed for the 1927 Schneider Trophy contest in Venice. The gentle waters of Venice would reverberate to the fire-breathing majesty of the fastest and most beautiful machines in existence. Conforming to the new norm for success, this was a design both supported by the government and benefiting from extensive testing in government funded institutions. In addition the RAF formed its own High Speed Flight to provide the team that would enter on Britain’s behalf. The S5 though took the principle of reducing drag to obsessive levels of detail. The radiators were of the surface-type mounted on the wings and the fuel was held in one of the floats, removing the need to find room for it in the fuselage. The oil was also cooled by surface radiators but this time mounted on the fuselage sides. Although this basic architecture had been a feature of the M.39, Mitchell saw beyond that design and realised it unlocked a potential for dropping the cross sectional area to minuscule proportions. Napier helped by cleaning up the Lion, and Mitchell packaged it so tightly that the cam covers formed the external surfaces of the aircraft. The fuselage behind this was tiny, the pilot only being able to get into it by half turning until his shoulders were below the cockpit edge. The overall result was that the S5 had a clear advantage over its opponents even before the propellers turned. The S5 seemed to fly well with no particular indication of vices but despite this Flight Lieutenant Kinkead lost his life while attempting to set a speed record in 1928. The S5 succeeded in 1927 and was so good that two years later it only lost second place to Italy’s M.52R by a trifling two mph.

Sadly, this site will pause operations if it does not hit its funding targets.Donate here and keep this aviation site going. Many thanks

3. Curtiss CR-3 Up to 1923 the development of racing water-borne aircraft had followed a process that veered between seaplanes and flying boats, but which was still a recognisably evolutionary path (excepting the leap forward in technology that came with WWI). The Curtiss CR-3 that won in 1923 indicated a step change from this and became the pattern for how people went about winning the Schneider Trophy from then until the competition’s conclusion in 1931. It is apparent from photos of the CR-3, when compared with its peers and predecessors, that it was a very clean design, reduced to what at the time must have seemed to be the smallest overall package. The others are obviously racing aircraft in that they are small with a large engine but this has the look of every aspect having been reviewed and pared down individually. The major mechanical components were similarly optimised in support of this. The engine, Curtiss’ own D-12, was superlative. Later, even Italy went on to source examples to power its own racers, and the Reed patent metal propeller also became the default fitment for serious contenders. It was the perfect storm to be faced by its fellow competitors. The other key change the CR-3 brought with it was less obvious but equally important, it was ordered by the U.S. Navy to enter into the contest. This was now essentially a government backed endeavour and from here on a private venture would no longer have the money or resources to win the competition alone. It could be argued that up to this point companies had entered to promote themselves and also, perhaps, to fly the flag for their country. Now it was a straightforward matter of national prestige with all the hopes and pressures that brought with it. 2. Macchi-Castoldi M.C.72 Although conceived to contest the 1931 Schneider Trophy, the M.C.72 ruled itself out by being too late however it did go on to set an outright speed record that stood for five years. The journey to success wasn’t easy though, with Fiat’s A.S.6 24 cylinder engine being the main culprit. The A.S.6 is one of those pieces of engineering that seems half inspired and half insane: take two highly strung V12 race engines and bolt them back to back, having one drive one element of a contra-rotating prop and the other drive the second, with no direct link between the separate throttles for each half of the combined engine. Surprisingly, all this wasn’t the main source of the problem but rather it was the inlet tract, all the way from the carburettor inlets to the cylinder ports. The way the problem generally manifested itself was through backfires and these caused a number of failures which included the splitting of the supercharger casing. Ultimately this caused the deaths of two pilots, Monti and Bellini, and led to the M.C.72 being a no-show at the 1931 event. A protracted development programme, aided by advice on fuel mixtures by Britain’s Rod Banks, eventually brought just enough reliability to allow record attempts to be made. An ultimate speed of 440.68mph was set in 1933, only being bettered in 1939 (by a German landplane), and it’s still the case that no piston-engined seaplane has travelled faster. The proportions dictated by the long engine made it a magnificent looking aircraft. It may have failed in its original aim but the M.C.72 is a worthy runner -up. Support Hush-Kit with our high quality aviation themed merchandise here

1. Supermarine S6 Series R.J. Mitchell realised that the S5, along with the Napier Lion, would not be competitive in the race of ’29. The replacement S6 was late to the starting gate, being delivered on August 5th with the competition starting on September 6th. This was partly down to prevarication by the government and RAF, something that would also blight the 1931 attempt, but mainly it was the difficulty in getting the new Rolls Royce R type engine to run reliably. Despite this, it stormed to victory in a 1929. When the S6 followed this with a second win in 1931 Britain got to keep the Trophy forever. In a further flourish of glory, it achieved an ultimate speed record of 407.5 mph shortly thereafter. Admittedly there were no other competitors in 1931 –  but before the race it was decided that a minimum increase in speed had to be met for a win. This was never simply a case of turning up and claiming the prize. There’s also the minor matter that when you enter a race you need to ensure you’re there at the start, having something faster later rather misses the point. Two wins, numerous records and a speed increase of 80mph over its short life are reason enough for the S6 to claim the top spot, but take a moment to look at it as well. There is a lean beauty that comes with the pursuit of aerodynamic cleanliness, the aeronautical equivalent of high cheekbones and in this case it’s perfectly accentuated by the blue and silver paint scheme. The legacy is rather important too, lessons from the S6 and R were applied to the Spitfire and Merlin. Simply sublime on all counts. By Actuarius

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

From the cocaine, blood and flying scarves of World War One dogfighting to the dark arts of modern air combat, here is an enthralling ode to these brutally exciting killing machines. The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes is a beautifully designed, highly visual, collection of the best articles from the fascinating world of military aviation –hand-picked from the highly acclaimed Hush-kit online magazine (and mixed with a heavy punch of new exclusive material). It is packed with a feast of material, ranging from interviews with fighter pilots (including the English Electric Lightning, stealthy F-35B and Mach 3 MiG-25 ‘Foxbat’), to wicked satire, expert historical analysis, top 10s and all manner of things aeronautical, from the site described as: “the thinking-man’s Top Gear… but for planes”. The solid well-researched information about aeroplanes is brilliantly combined with an irreverent attitude and real insight into the dangerous romantic world of combat aircraft. FEATURING

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

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

As the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev said, “Berlin is the testicles of the West: every time I want to make the West scream, I squeeze on Berlin.”. In 1948 the Soviets wanted to castrate the West and take all of the city, isolated as it was 100 miles in the Soviet-occupied east of Germany. Taking west Berlin would have fortified already growing anti-US feeling in West Germany and could have led to a disaster for the US: all of Germany turning Communist. Whereas the Western powers envisioned a future Germany as vast industrial and military stalwart at the centre of Europe that needed to stay functional to avoid another Hitler, the Soviet Union feared a strong Germany and wanted to keep it weak and use it as a bulwark against the West. In an attempt to starve out West Berlin and force the population to look east, the Soviet Army blocked all roads and rivers. Effectively depriving its already desperate citizens of electricity and food. The battered city sat on the edge of catastrophe. Losing Berlin was a nightmare that President Truman could not bear to consider. While his military advisors suggested withdrawal, the British Royal Air Force suggested an exceptionally unlikely solution: supplying 4,000 tons of food and fuel a day to the beleaguered city. Truman agreed, and the West responded with the greatest humanitarian effort in history, the Berlin Airlift. Finding enough aircraft proved hard, and air forces looked everywhere to find suitable aeroplanes. A motley armada was assembled and against all odds succeeded. Here are the 14 most important aircraft in this titanic enterprise. 

 

14. Yakovlev Yak-3 ‘Yak Cult’

If the USSR had decided to oppose the great airlift with force, hundreds of transport aircraft would been savaged by Soviet fighters. The most significant Soviet fighter in terms of number and potency was the Yakovlev Yak-3. Marcel Albert, a French ace, who flew the Yak-3 in the USSR with the Normandie-Niémen Group, considered it a superior fighter to even the the P-51D Mustang and Spitfire.

Whereas other nations had moved toward ever bigger and heavy fighters, the Soviets had gone in the opposite direction with the Yak-3; a loaded Supermarine Spitfire XIV weighed a whopping 2,500 pounds more than a similarly configured Yak-3. Every measure was made to keep the weight down to ensure it was the best-of class for power-to-weight ratio and wing loading, this included partial construction in laminated wood and the use of pneumatic systems in place of the more usual electrical/hydraulics. 

 

During the war, the Yak-3 had been found to be an outstanding dogfighter below 13,000 feet. Unarmed, fully laden transport aircraft would have been easy meat for the superb Yak-3. As it turned out, the Yak-3s did no more than buzz the transports. The world could have become a far worse place if the Yak pilots had been given more aggressive orders.
Loaded weight: 2,697 kg / 5,946 lbs
Favourite cargo: 150 rounds 20mm ShVAK cannon ammunition

13. Amiot AAC.1 Toucan ‘Me Julie’

Mention the Berlin Airlift and few people think of France’s contribution (nor do we generally remember the help from Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa). But France did help and it did so using a German aircraft design. The Amiot AAC.1 Toucan was a French-built Ju 52/3m produced at the same former Amiot factory that had previously turned out 320 examples for the Luftwaffe. Following the war, Amiot was renamed the Atelier Aéronautiques de Colombes (AAC) and continued to turn out ‘La Julie’, the French nickname for the ’52.

Loaded Weight: 10,499 kg (23,146 lb)

Favourite cargo: coal and sugar

12. Douglas C-74 Globemaster ‘The Wasp Factory’

The C-74 was a giant new airlifter in 1948.  A single Globemaster aided the operation from the 14 August. Over the next six weeks, the Globemaster crew flew 24 missions delivering 1,234,000 lb (559,700 kg) of supplies. It once delivered 20 tons of flour in one mission, as well as delivering  quarter of a million pounds of coal in a single day. 

Favourite cargo: coal, rock crusher (in parts), flour

11. Short S.25 Sunderland/Hythe ‘The Flying Porcupine’ 

These big flying boats had been with RAF Coastal Command on the first and last day of the Second World War. Theirs had been a very busy war but yet more was to be asked from them. Taking advantage of their ability to take-off and land from water they were operated between the Elbe Estuary in Hamburg and Berlin’s Lake Havel. The Sunderlands and Hythes (the name for the unarmed civil version of the Sunderland) added capacity to the airlift without consuming space and resources at ground bases.  The seaworthy paint on Sunderlands enabled them to carry sacks of salt without fear of corrosion.

Loaded weight: 27,200 kg / 60,000 lbs
Favourite cargo: steam irons, rolls of newsprint, sacks of salt, children not feeling well, cardboard boxes with MADE IN CANADA printed on them.

10. Avro Lancaster/Lancastrian ‘Gert Lancaster’

To a wartime Lancaster crew, the seemingly innocuous word ‘cookie’ had a macabre meaning, it was another word for a ‘blockbuster’* bomb, so-called because it was big enough – sometimes weighing as much 12,000Ib – to destroy an entire block of streets. The aircraft went from dropping ‘cookies’* of death from 25,000 feet to bringing actual cookies to the people of Berlin. The most warlike aircraft on this top list is surely the Lancaster, working with its civilian sister, the Lancastrian.  Good luck overstating the irony of seeing Bomber Command’s premier high explosives delivery platform in the role of humanitarian relief with a fuselage full of essentials.  The very people subjected to the Lancaster’s nocturnal attentions during the war were, before they knew it, eating a warm dinner by the stove only thanks to the presence and capacity of this machine. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.  Either way, the Lancastrian would have about a decade of service on long-range air routes after the war until modern passenger airliners were available (ones that could carry more than nine people in side-facing chairs).  Unconverted Lancasters, it can be noted, had repatriated prisoners of war back to the UK in another operation so the Berlin Blockade is not the only time this aggressive machine did more heart-warming, less people-burning, duties.

Loaded weight: 29,484 kg / 65,000 lbs
Favourite cargo: Nivea moisturizer, tinned creamed corn, exercise equipment, comic books, pork sides.

*It is from this we have the word to describe a successful film

9. Avro 688 Tudor ‘A Tudor rose’ 

The Tudor was a big plane, an ambitious design intended for long range civilian air travel. It had Lancaster DNA: the Tudor used the same wing as the Lincoln, which was essentially a stretched Lancaster. But it sported a new tail and circular fuselage and such comforts as kapok insulation and the first pressurised fuselage on a British airliner.  Sales were slimmer than hoped due to what is looked back upon as a combined government and industrial failure to capitalise on post war opportunities and the fact that better quality or cheaper alternatives were available from American firms or in the form of war surplus. The air effort to supply Berlin was simply ramped up so fast it couldn’t help but suck in a few civil-registered Tudors to move liquid fuels, securing the type’s only real claim to fame. If we discount the Rolls-Royce Nene testbed VX158, that is.

Loaded weight: 34,473 kg / 76,000 lbs
Favourite cargo: barbecue starter fluid, Ronson and Zippo lighter flints, gasoline, nylons.

8. Handley Page Halton/Halifax ‘ ‘Last cargo in Halifax’ 

Aircraft from the Second World War served in the Berlin Airlift in modified, civilianized forms and in their exact wartime configurations. Newer aircraft produced after the war were also present.  Sometimes such aircraft were operated by civilian airlines (with, no doubt, demobilised service personnel in their crews) contracted to help military organisations.  The most visually striking aircraft of the entire effort must be the red Halton freighters belonging to Eagle Aviation Limited.  Four-engined bombers were among the top three or four strategic weapons of the war and they were nearly always a noisy and impressive sight in any numbers.  In comparison to the Lancaster, the Halifax suffered from the kind of airplane sibling rivalry that assigns reputations sometimes unfairly in the manner of the Supermarine Spitfire and Hawker Hurricane.  The demilitarised Halifax, the Halton, adds a thick layer of obscurity to that process. Either way, the mail brought in and out of Berlin by Haltons was probably cherished in a Europe still heartbroken by the worst war in human history.

Loaded weight: 25,000 kg / 54,400 lbs
Favourite cargo: coal, flour, mail, Coke, dog food, prams, car engines, aquarium filters, feather pillows.

7. Bristol 170 Freighter ‘Lovely Bristols’

To many the Bristol 170 Freighter conjures up nostalgic thoughts of  mid-century air travel. The idea of Triumph convertibles or Rolls-Royce Silver Wraiths disgorged onto French airfields from a giant aluminium nose now seems utterly exotic, and sadly they are gone for ever. Less glamorous but far more important was the Bristol Freighters role in Berlin, as part of the mixed collection of types operated by Silver City Airway. 

Loaded weight: 34,473 kg / 76,000 lbs
Favourite cargo: Leica cameras for export, Life magazine, tinned sardines, bricks, sewing pins, pianos.

Sadly, this site will pause operations if it does not hit its funding targets.Donate here and keep this aviation site going. Many thanks

6. Handley Page Hastings ‘The cattle of Hastings’

The largest aircraft ever designed for the RAF

A heavyweight champion of the airlift, with a physical resemblance to the Focke-Wulf Fw 200 Condor, the Hastings was a massive tail-dragger with 6,700 horsepower turning a set of four-bladed props. Its service adoption was accelerated by the demands of the airlift, especially the need for coal. The three RAF squadrons operating the type delivered 55,000 tons of supplies. 

Loaded weight: 80,000 lb (36,287 kg)
Favourite cargo: coal, lumber, Mars bars, books, rope, anvils, printing presses, fabric swatches, cigars.

5. Fairchild C-82 Packet ‘The Boomers’

Like the Sunderlands, the Packets were given a specific job to do in support of Berlin. Graders, bulldozers and other machinery, sometimes partially disassembled, were loaded into these aircraft and sent over to Berlin’s airports. There to be employed building and maintaining the aprons, taxiways, cargo dumps, parking areas and runways.  The twin-boom tail on the Packet, found later on the C-119 Flying Boxcar and the Nord Noratlas, allowed loading clearance for objects of almost any kind and for trucks to reverse directly up to the aircraft.

Loaded weight: 24,500 kg / 54,000 lbs
Favourite cargo: earth-moving equipment, racks of bottled milk, evening wear, eggs

 4. Douglas C-47 Skytrain/DC-3 Dakota ‘Dakota spanning’

We sell fantastic high quality aviation-themed gifts here

The C-47 was arguably the most important transport aircraft of the Allied nations in the 1940s. It had served at D-Day, Market Garden and the Burma-India theatres with aplomb and developed a reputation for rugged do-anything reliability.  In the Berlin Airlift it performed thousands of sorties into Tempelhof and Gatow airports. Many Dakotas even remained in their wartime camouflage schemes while doing so. All ranks in the C-47 units must have felt as if the war days had come right seeing row upon roaring row of the beloved aircraft loaded and dispatched for Berlin. But the Skytrain’s day was over and it was time to make way for the bigger, more capable, C-54.

Loaded weight: 13,200 kg / 29,000 lbs
Favourite cargo: accordions, X-ray equipment, cats, atlases, vacuum tubes, dentist’s chairs.

Sadly, this site will pause operations if it does not hit its funding targets. Donate here and keep this aviation site going. Many thanks

3. Avro 685 York ‘The Grand Old Duke’

Into this list of butch utilitarian designs arrives the feminine triple-tailed Avro York. Churchill and Charles de Gaulle used one each during the war and whatever else those men got up to, you can’t blame them for wanting to be seen next to one of these silver Art Deco beauts. Not just a pretty thing with portholes*, no, the York had Merlin XXs and the same wings as the Lancaster. Still a fairly fresh design in 1948, Yorks performed sterling service during the airlift. Nearly half of the British contribution to supplying Berlin was carried by Yorks: a million tons, over 58,000 sorties.

(*Ed: This is bit ’70s and borderline sexist. Stephen, you have been warned)

Loaded weight: 29,500 kg / 65,000 lbs
Favourite cargo: coal, flat-pack furniture, plaster-and-lathe supplies, bronze statues of classical musicians, shoes, umbrellas, Jazz LPs.

2. Vickers VC.1 Viking ‘Horny Vickers’ 

An evolution of the successful Wellington bomber, much was anticipated of the Viking as the world returned to peace.  First flying in 1946, the Viking would go on to become a global success story.  In 1948, a mid-air collision between a Soviet Yak-3 and a British European Airways Viking over Berlin killed 15 people. This incident would set the stage for the airlift, in which the Viking would participate and quickly prove itself.  The controversy and tension created by the’ Gatow air disaster’ further soured the already hostile mess of Germany’s diplomatic, political and economic relationships to her former enemies, allies and subjects.  This encouraged Stalin to isolate Berlin, and to further test western resolve. From such a dramatic and pivotal youth, the Viking enjoyed a happier later life and become a common sight at airports all over the world.

Loaded weight: 15,422 kg / 34,000 lbs
Favourite cargo: machine tools, nail files, lead ingots, concrete blocks, mail, passengers.

1. Douglas C-54/R-5D ‘Candy Bomber’

Absolutely the icon of the entire operation and the immortal ‘candy bomber’, was an ocean-spanning, four-engined cousin of the DC-3. What a machine. After a respectable wartime career, the C-54 came into its own during the airlift. The famous photograph of a C-54 passing over German civilians gazing up with hearts full of democratic warmth illustrates the success of the operation in both humanitarian and public relations terms.

Few expected such a vast, complicated and dangerous operation could succeed in the face of abysmal winter weather. How could aircraft take over the daily mass bulk movement of goods like coal and flour normally handled by trucks, canal barges, and rail cars?  The handsome C-54 would more than answer the doomsayers and Premier Stalin in equal measure.

Loaded weight: 33,100 kg / 73,000 lbs
Favourite cargo: refrigerators, switchblade knives, juke boxes, chocolate bars, toys and raisins and the feeling that we all really cared and had something to stand up for.

Stephen Caulfield (with Joe Coles, Ed Ward and Thomas Newdick)

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

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

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

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

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

FEATURING

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

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

Who? English aircraft designer, William Edward Willoughby ‘Teddy’ Petter

 

Who would play him in a film? Charles Hawtrey with a fake nose or  Phoebe Waller-Bridge

 

Born: Highgate, London

 

When? 1908

 

Famous for: Lysander, Gnat, Canberra

 

Estimated boxing weight class: Bantam

They should have listened to him:

He was an early proponent of Britain’s thwarted supersonic efforts.

He thought simple very light agile fighters were a good idea, the Gnat/Ajeet proved successful in India but was relegated to the trainer role in the UK. 

The almost brilliant: Whirlwind.

Did he work on the Spitfire? Yes, he worked on the ‘Westland Elevator’ which produced a ‘remarkable’ improvement in longitudinal stability.

Didn’t know that he also worked on the: No surprises here I can find

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

Weird fact

In January 1960 Petter left the aircraft industry forever to become a holy man. He joined the religious commune of ‘Father Forget’ in Switzerland. 

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

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

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

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

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

FEATURING

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

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

The JAS 39 Gripen entered service with the Swedish Air Force in June 1996 and is now the sole combat type in the Flygvapnet. Paul Stoddart compares this fourth generation aircraft with its ancestor, the portly yet effective, J 29 Tunnan which entered service 46 years earlier. 

Part Onecan be read here. 

Saab began its J 29 work by considering a straight wing design but in November 1945 obtained some German swept wing research data. The benefits of sweep back prompted a very rapid re-evaluation of the project and by February 1946, a 25-degree swept wing design had been selected for development. Automatic leading edge slats were fitted to prevent the airflow over the wings from separating in high AOA manoeuvres. At the transonic speeds achieved by post-war jets, shockwaves forming on the tailplane would render conventional (ie trailing edge mounted) elevators, downstream of the shock, ineffective. Those speeds also moved the mainplane centre of pressure rearwards resulting in pitch-down that the ineffective elevators struggled to correct. The solution was the flying tail in which the entire horizontal tailplane could move in pitch. Shockwaves still formed on a flying tail but its area ahead of the shock front would remain an effective control surface. As stated earlier, the Tunnan was the first Western European jet fighter to have this system and it has become standard for transonic and supersonic aircraft of conventional tail layout. Fighter agility depends, inter alia, on a rapid roll rate. The J 29 prototype featured full span ailerons but these produced an excessive rate of roll of 180 degrees per second. They were superseded by ailerons of around 65% span with the remaining inboard section replaced by flaps. From March 1953, the J 29B became the standard Tunnan version. The major change was the installation of internal wing tanks that added 154 Imperial gallons (700 litres) of fuel taking the internal total to 462 Imperial gallons (2,100 litres), a 50% increase. Twin 99 Imperial gallon (450 litre) drop tanks could also be carried so offering a total load of 660 Imperial gallons (3,000 litres). The tanks were fitted at roughly mid-span on the outer of the two main pylons with the inboard hardpoints retained for weapons. The original Gripen uses a 242 Imperial gallon (1,100 litres) drop tank that can be fitted on the centreline and inboard underwing pylons. With three tanks in place, total fuel carried is 1,386 Imp gallons (6,300 litres); the internal load being 660 Imp gallons (3,000 litres). The Tunnan’s wing was shoulder mounted, meeting the fuselage somewhat above the centreline. The wing was a one-piece structure and ran straight through the capacious fuselage passing just behind the cockpit rear pressure bulkhead and above the intake duct. Gripen also has a shoulder-mounted wing, which is set roughly at the centreline of the slim fuselage. This is slightly below the level of the canards that in turn are mounted just below the upper surface of the intakes. Fuel tanks are fitted in the upper part of the fuselage middle section with the intake duct(s) and main undercarriage bays placed below. A one-piece wing could have been mounted level with the fuselage upper or lower surfaces as per the Jaguar and Phantom respectively. A low mounted wing on the diminutive Gripen would have offered insufficient ground clearance for loading underwing stores without a longer and heavier undercarriage. To achieve favourable interaction, the canards have to be set above the level of the mainplanes. Lack of suitable alternative mounting points for the canards would rule out the high wing location option. Furthermore, in order to reduce drag, it is best to avoid forming acute angles at wing-fuselage fairings. A mid wing configuration arguably offers the best overall solution in this and the other respects; it is therefore an entirely reasonable design choice. Support Hush-Kit with our high quality aviation themed merchandise here

The Tunnan was of monocoque structure built from aluminium alloy. High strength and stiffness were required to withstand the loadings imposed by transonic flight and a very fine standard of surface finish was also achieved in order to reduce skin drag. In structural terms, the Gripen marked a major change for Saab with composite materials (carbon fibre, glass fibre and Aramid) accounting for 20% of the structure by weight. Fatigue life consumption is reduced by a gust alleviation system. Aircraft disturbance is sensed by the flight control system, which prompts control surface reaction to alleviate the loads imposed. The most obvious difference between these aircraft is in their lifting and control surfaces. Although radical at its inception for its swept wing and flying tail, the J 29 was standard in being longitudinally stable with a conventionally sited tailplane. Such tailplanes apply a download to balance the mainplane’s lift (the mainplane’s centre of pressure being behind the centre of gravity). In turn, the mainplane must generate additional lift to counter the tail’s down force and as a result lift-induced drag is increased. The Tunnan’s primary flying controls were the tailplane for pitch and the ailerons for roll. By contrast, the Gripen controls pitch by the canard while the inboard and outboard elevons on the delta wing act in both pitch and roll. The canard applies a lifting force to balance the mainplane and this co-operative interaction reduces the overall lift-induced drag. Saab originally reversed the traditional arrangement with the Viggen and adopted a tail-first or canard design although it retained natural longitudinal stability. With the JAS 39, the full potential of the canard was realised. Full time, full authority, digital, fly by wire flight control system (FCS) allowed the adoption of artificial stability in pitch with attendant gains in agility and aerodynamic efficiency. At supersonic speeds the centre of lift on all wings moves aft promoting a nose down moment. A conventional aircraft trims this by increasing the tailplane download whereas the opposite applies with the canard, a more efficient solution. An unstable canard design offers more lift during take-off and landing, better supersonic turning performance and lower supersonic drag. The FCS keeps the Gripen’s instability in check and allows the full envelope to be exploited without the risk of overstress or departure from controlled flight. This carefree handling facility enables the pilot to concentrate on the mission while the FCS controls the load factor, AOA, angle of sideslip and roll rate. Another function unavailable to the Tunnan is CG control. The fuel control system not only monitors the fuel remaining but also balances the amounts drawn from the various tanks to keep the CG within limits. Weapons and Systems The early swept wing combat aircraft were designed as gun-fighters and the Tunnan was no exception. Its original standard armament was a battery of four 20 mm Hispano cannons with 180 rounds per gun. Stemming from an original design of the early 1930s, the Hispano weighed 84 lb (34 kg) and fired a 4.88 oz (138 gram) round with a muzzle velocity of 2,880 ft/sec (878 m/sec). The muzzles were spaced circumferentially on the underside of the nose, a short distance back from the intake. Some jet fighters (eg the Hunter F.1 with its axial Rolls Royce Avon 100 series) experienced considerable engine problems through the ingestion of the shock waves of their cannon shells. A centrifugal compressor may be broader than its axial flow equivalent but it is inherently more tolerant of disturbed airflow. Cannon blast ingestion was inevitable on the Tunnan but no engine surge problems appear to have been experienced. Two factors combined to make cannons alone an insufficient armament for air combat. The speed of jet fighters made for only fleeting firing opportunities while their stronger structures (for the high aerodynamic loads) could withstand cannon shell damage – up to a point. Cannons therefore required both a high rate of fire and a heavy high velocity round but these features tended to oppose each other. The more powerful cannons had a slow rate of fire and the faster models had less punch. One attempted solution to this problem was to fit fighters with batteries of unguided air-to-air rockets that would be fired in a barrage of a dozen or more in the hope of at least one hitting a fighter target or several hitting a bomber. The Tunnan was fitted with twenty-four 75 mm (2.95 in) diameter rockets carried in vertical stacks of four on three close-set hardpoints inboard of each wing drop tank. In the event, such rockets were to prove a blind alley and although adopted by several air forces they were superseded by guided missiles. From 1963, the J 29E could carry a pair of Sidewinder air-to-air missiles (AAM) termed Rb 24 in the Flygvapnet inventory. This addition helped keep the Tunnan viable until it went out of service in May 1967, the Saab Draken having progressively taken over the fighter role from 1959. Proving to be a fine weapons platform during testing, the Tunnan J 29B was applied to the ground attack role with the new designation A 29B. The four Hispanos were retained and either fourteen 14.5 cm (5.7 in) anti-armour rockets or four 18 cm (7.1 in) rockets for hard, fixed targets could be carried. As mentioned above, the drop tanks were fitted to the outboard main pylons where they would have helped relieve the wing bending moment. Inboard of the tanks, there were up to four hardpoints under each wing. The 14.5 cm rockets were carried in six vertical pairs plus a single rocket on the furthest inboard position to avoid a clash with the undercarriage door. The 18 cm rockets had individual pylon mountings. All the Tunnan’s weapons bar the Rb 24 Sidewinder were unguided whereas the opposite obtains with the majority of the Gripen’s armament. Although guided weapon unit cost is greater than the ballistic equivalent, their higher accuracy makes for better cost-effectiveness. As fewer rounds and aircraft sorties are needed to destroy a target, the result is a lower overall cost in weapons plus likely lower aircraft and aircrew losses.

Sadly, this site will pause operations if it does not hit its funding targets. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here and keep this aviation site going. Many thanks

The USAF had expended time, effort and lives but the B-36 was still just as v The JAS 39’s interceptor predecessor, the JA 37 Viggen was equipped with the 30 mm Oerlikon KCA cannon, a weapon of exceptional performance. With the high muzzle velocity of 3,937 ft/sec (1,200 m/sec), it could engage targets at 1.25 miles (2 km). The KCA was simply too bulky for the diminutive Gripen and instead it has a single 27 mm Mauser BK27 cannon (as used in Eurofighter Typhoon) with 120 rounds. It is fitted in a semi-scabbed arrangement in the port lower fuselage behind the cockpit and with the muzzle emerging about 0.5 m ahead of the intake. Although a lighter weapon than the Oerlikon, it has a higher rate of fire, 1,700 rounds per minute compared to 1,320, so putting out 28% more shells in any burst. It fires the 9.2 ounce (260 gram) rounds at a muzzle velocity greater than 3,280 ft/sec (1,000 m/sec). There is a 300 rounds per minute option for air-to-surface targets; barrel life is extended in this mode. The cannon is deleted from the trainer in order to free internal volume for the second seat. In the air-to-air role, the Gripen’s main weapons were originally the Rb 74 Sidewinder (the AIM-9L variant) and the RB 72 AIM-120 AMRAAM. Later, the IRIS-T (Rb. 98), A-Darter and MICA were cleared. One Rb 74 is carried on each wingtip; the four underwing hardpoints can each carry an Rb 72 although a typical fit might see the two inboard missiles replaced by drop tanks. The integration of radar guided AAMs in Saab aircraft began with the Draken, the Tunnan never gaining such a weapon. In the Gripen, the core of the system is the Ericsson Microwave Systems PS-05 pulse-Doppler radar that has look-down, shoot-down capability for the air defence mission. Moreover, it is a multi-mode radar with full, rather than secondary, attack and reconnaissance functions available in the one package. The PS-05 was based on the GEC-Marconi Blue Vixen (also the basis of the Typhoon’s CAPTOR radar) and was regarded as having similar performance to the Northrop Grumman AN/APG-66(V)2 radar of the F-16AM. For air-to-surface, the Saab-Bofors Rbs 15F radar homing missile is the main anti-ship weapon with the infra-red imaging Rb 75 employed for high value land targets. The latter is the Swedish designation for the Raytheon AGM-65 Maverick; it is a fire-and-forget weapon with its own seeker image displayed in the cockpit before launch to allow target selection. For anti-ship missions, the radar is operated in search mode while the Rbs 15F has its own radar allowing the Gripen to turn away after launch. It is also fitted with a jet engine rather than a rocket motor so conferring greater range for a given size; rockets are not efficient at low altitude. The precision, long-range, Taurus KEPD 350 stand-off weapon has also been flown on the aircraft. Other than its radar, Gripen also has several systems that were simply not available in the Tunnan’s day. Through its encrypted tactical datalink, a JAS 39 can receive updates on the battlespace from a ground controller, airborne early warning (AEW) aircraft or other Gripens. Its navigation suite is based on a ring-laser gyro integrated with GPS (global positioning system) satellite navigation. Head down information is presented on three screen displays while a head up display (HUD) provides the essential flight and aiming cues. By contrast, the Tunnan pilot had a map, compass and stopwatch for navigation and his head-up information was limited to a gyro gunsight. The main JAS 39 system and weapon functions are selected through HOTAS (hands on throttle and stick). Weapon selection is through stick-mounted switches. The throttle has two pistol grips; sensor controls (radar range and scan angle) are on the upper with the lower switches providing airbrake selection and certain navigation functions. The Litening G111 FLIR/LDP (forward looking infra-red/laser designator pod) has been integrated to support the use of the GBU-12 and GBU-16 LGB (laser guided bombs). Systems integration is achieved on Gripen through a MIL-STD 1553 databus, a massively more advanced technology than that of the J 29. The Swedish developed datalink of the JAS 39 A/B is not compatible with any NATO datalink, nor was the Swedish Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) compatible with the NATO equivalent. By contrast, the Gripen C/D is NATO compatible featuring a Link 16 datalink (essential for operating alongside US aircraft) and NATO IFF Mode 1-4.

This article is Paul’s personal view of the development of the Tunnan in comparison with the Gripen A.  It contains no implication of Ministry of Defence policy nor should any be inferred.

If this article interests you, support Hush-Kit.net with a donation (buttons above and below). If this goes well we’ll be able to give you much more! Recommended donation £15. Many thanks for helping to keep us impartial and independent.  You may also enjoy A B-52 pilot’s guide to modern fighters, Flying and fighting in the Lightning: a pilot’s guide, Interview with a Super Hornet pilot, Trump’s Air Force Plan, 11 Worst Soviet Aircraft, 10 worst US aircraft, and 10 worst British aircraft. MiG-21s, MC-21s and the overrated Typhoon: In conversation with FlightGlobal’s Stephen Trimble, The F-35 will fail, until the US learns to share, An air force of my own #1, Top 8 Mach 3 fighters

People often call aircraft beautiful. There’s no disputing that the act of flight itself is a thing of beauty. Breaking the shackles of gravity, reaching for the freedom that only the sky allows, that is a truly wondrous thing, but it’s a much more intangible thing to discuss the actual looks of the aircraft that do it themselves. By Sam Wise No doubt there have been hideous aircraft, this website alone is testament to that. Which aircraft are actually beautiful, which evoke a sense of aesthetic pleasure, is a different matter. On the face of it, it’s a very subjective subject – beauty is in the eye of the beholder, after all. This oft-repeated phrase is always trotted out when someone is called out on a claim that an objectively ugly plane is good-looking – see, for example, the mistaken belief that the neanderthal-looking B-1B is the aesthetic superior to the heart-achingly beautiful Tu-160. So people will debate for hours on the subject of which of their favourite aircraft is beautiful and which aren’t, often confusing capability with looks and almost always leaving people scratching their heads wondering how on earth ​that​ could be called good-looking.

“It is unlikely that Keats knew much of Cold War bomber aircraft (probably) but his famous line “Beauty is truth, truth beauty” rings just as true for Mach 2.2-capable commercial airliners as it does for Greek pots.”

If we want to take a firmer, more definitive approach to the matter, as with all things in aviation we must turn to the wisdom of our forebears and of the ancients. It’s evident that the physical appearance of the aircraft plays a role in producing its beauty. As Aristotle describes in his ​Poetics​, “to be beautiful, a living creature, and every whole made up of parts, must … present a certain order in its arrangement of parts”. There is a clear “look” that lends itself to this evocation, something organic. Note the moth-like planform of the Avro Vulcan or the curves and symmetry of the Spitfire vs the angular and brutish lack of appeal of the likes of the F-22 and F-35. Certainly Aristotle could think of beauty as something calculable and mathematic, something you could take in a vacuum, apply a formula to and see if it checks all the boxes. But beauty is an inherently emotional response to an object or vision, and there’s plenty of emotion in aviation.

Sadly, this site will pause operations if it does not hit its funding targets. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here and keep this aviation site going. Many thanks

Plato disagreed with Aristotle’s views. For Plato, beauty was an inherently spiritual concept. Taking his concept of beauty from the ​Symposium​, we cannot understand the beauty of an aircraft based purely on its lines, its form, its shape, rather it has to be part of the Form of beauty, an unchanging and eternal truth that defines whether something is beautiful or not. Plato describes the advancement through the realisation of beauty – from love of the physical object, through the to the love of the soul, transcending to the love of knowledge, of laws, to a final understanding and love of Beauty itself, an appreciation of the actual existence of that concept. We sell fantastic high quality aviation-themed gifts here It is unlikely that Keats knew much of Cold War bomber aircraft (probably) but his famous line “Beauty is truth, truth beauty” rings just as true for Mach 2.2-capable commercial airliners as it does for Greek pots. I’m not talking about the plainly untrue line “if it looks right it flies right”, but a far more metaphysical concept of aviation truth. This truth isn’t some capability stat, or top speed, or record broken, it’s a moment of aviation that is evoked across the ages, a representation of the ‘truth’ of the beauty of flight itself. Much like Keats’ Peloponesian vase, it is not so easily defined in terms of this line or that curve but the feeling it creates within us, when we look at a beautiful aircraft and ​understand​ the beauty of flight. This, in aviation, is the Form of beauty that Plato proposes.

The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes can only happen with your support. Preorder your copy today here. 

An aircraft’s looks and the feeling of the freedom that flight offers earthbound humans are one and the same. An ugly aircraft cannot offer us that dream of flight in the same way that a beautiful one can but at the same time that beauty is only derived from that feeling. This could be perfectly encapsulated in the Mirage IV. On the face of it, there are several things that you could say make it less than stunning – the poor positioning of the probe, the harshness of the canopy, the size of the tail. And yet, it is a beautiful aeroplane. Something about the jet scream ‘flight.’ It speaks to us of the joy of riding the clouds, of looking down on the Earth from above, the unbound liberty of taking to the air. The Mirage IV is a beautiful aircraft.

The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes can only happen with your support. Preorder your copy today here. 

Commander Nigel David ‘Sharkey’ Ward, DSC, AFC  is a retired British Royal Navy officer who commanded 801 Naval Air Squadron during the Falklands War. We asked him his view on British air operations during the 1982 war in which he fought. 

If you could have changed one thing about British air operations in the Falklands what would it have been?

“There are two subjects that continue to leave a bad taste in my mouth.

One is the completely disingenuous propaganda campaign conducted by the Royal Air Force immediately after the war which sadly persuaded the gullible British public that they, the RAF alone, had won the air war over the Falklands. The full story of this deception and attempt to rewrite history is told in detail in my new book, soon to be published.

Suffice it to say here that the Sea Harriers of the Fleet Air Arm conducted 1,500 war missions over the Islands. The small detachment of RAF ground attack Harriers in HMS Hermes flew about 150 sorties of which less than half were combat oriented. All the air to air combat kills were achieved by naval aircraft (indeed, it is worthy of note that all air to air kills by British forces since 1948 have been achieved by naval aircraft – not one by RAF aircraft – and yet they claim they won the air war in Operation Corporate, the Falklands war).

Adding insult to injury, the propaganda campaign glorified the small but extremely expensive part that RAF Vulcan bombers played in the conflict. The real facts are that of the 63 bombs dropped by the Vulcan in three missions against Port Stanley runway, only one bomb was on target and that only damaged the side of the runway which was repaired on the same day. The four other Vulcan missions delivering anti-radar missiles only managed to hit one small radar emitter, that of a radar-controlled anti-aircraft gun on the outskirts of Port Stanley. These seven missions had no material effect whatsoever on the course of the Falklands conflict. To claim otherwise is wishful thinking.

The suggestion that the Nimrod aircraft played any effective part at all in or near the combat zone is also facetious propaganda.

The second ‘bad taste’ is an in-house naval affair.

HMS invincible had been formally given the responsibility of Anti-Air Warfare Control (AAWC) ship which principally meant having full and direct control over all Sea Harrier assets, including those in HMS Hermes, for Combat Air Patrol (CAP) duties on the outer ring of Task Force air defence. The AAWC established three permanent CAP Stations to the South-West, the West and the North-West of the San Carlos beachhead. Invincible’s instructions to the Sea Harrier air groups onboard each carrier were very clear. Each station had to be manned by a pair of Sea Harriers who would have to conduct their patrol at low level, thereby providing an up-threat barrier against incoming Argentine attack aircraft. HMS Hermes, the flagship, had 50% more Sea Harriers than Invincible and these were needed to ensure a complete and secure barrier against incoming threat aircraft.

What happened? Without informing Invincible, the Flagship ignored the AAWC and instructed their Sea Harrier CAP aircraft to station themselves directly above San Carlos Water at 20,000 feet.

This provided no deterrence at all to attacking aircraft. Low-level CAP Stations were left empty and through these empty stations came the enemy fighter bombers and delivered their attacks against beachhead units and forces. As a direct result, several warships were attacked and disabled or sunk: including HMS Ardent and HMS Coventry. After releasing their weapons and as they left the beachhead area, more than a few Argentine aircraft were destroyed by the overhead CAP aircraft – but it was “after the horse had bolted” and at the unnecessary cost of many brave lives and several ships. The loss of HMS Sheffield in the open ocean was also a direct result of the Flagship re-tasking CAP aircraft from the air defence barrier to search for surface contacts, again without any ‘by your leave’ to Invincible. An Étendard aircraft penetrated the empty CAP station and delivered its deadly Exocet attack.

Despite all this Flagship interference, 801 Squadron low-level CAP aircraft managed to turn away more than 450 Argentine attack missions. Without this success, the war could well have been lost.”
What was the biggest mistake of the Royal Navy?

“Bearing in mind that this round of Hush-Kit interviews relates to Operation Corporate and retaking the Falkland Islands, I find this question rather odd and misleading.

When Argentina invaded South Georgia and the Falklands, the firm response (to Maggie Thatcher in the hastily convened War Room) from the Chief of the Air Staff and the Chief of the General Staff was that the Air Force and the Army were powerless to intervene. The then Defence Secretary, John Nott, who was a rabid critic of maritime power (about which he knew nothing) immediately tried to prevent the Prime Minister from listening to the Chief of the Naval Staff and First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Henry Leach. Nott was overruled and Sir Henry informed Mrs Thatcher, “Yes, Prime Minister. I can assemble a Task Force forthwith and retake the Falklands.” Delighted, she told Sir Henry to make it so.

That was how Operation Corporate was born.

Admiral Sir John Fieldhouse, Commander-in-Chief Fleet was appointed Task Force Commander and Royal Marine Major-General Jeremy Moore was appointed Land Forces Commander. He in turn appointed Brigadier-General Julian Thompson as Amphibious Brigade Commander. Sir John Fieldhouse appointed Rear-Admiral Sandy Woodward, then Flag Officer Mediterranean, as Commander Carrier Battle Group and Commodore Mike Clapp as Commander Amphibious Group. The Naval Service therefore provided all the Commanders of the Task Force elements (the Royal Marines, of course, being part of that Naval Service). By their own admission, the RAF could not provide any combat aircraft in support of the Task Force.

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

In four short days, the Naval Task Force was gathered, provisioned, armed and the Carrier Battle Group with 20 Sea Harriers embarked in HMS Hermes and HMS Invincible set sail for the South Atlantic amidst huge patriotic fervour. Two days before sailing, Air Vice Marshal “Blue Rinse” Menaul appeared on public television and stated categorically that the Task Force would fail ‘because it had no fighter air defence capability’! How wrong he was!

In relation to the Falklands War, the Royal Navy made no big mistake. They and the Amphibious Brigade land forces contrived and achieved a remarkable victory against all odds. The only major failure was that of the Royal Air Force who, despite their earlier outrageous claims to Ministers, were unable to provide the Task Force with any air defence or antisubmarine capability en route to the conflict or during combat operations. They have not yet been held accountable for this abysmal failure.

My new book attempts to rectify this.”

What is the greatest myth about air combat in the Falklands?

“Without banging the drum too much, the greatest myth about air combat in the Falklands is that generated by the RAF propaganda campaign post the conflict. They proclaimed loudly and strongly to the British public that the Royal Air Force had won the air war over the Islands and, thanks to the extraordinary silence of the Naval Staff, they were allowed to get away with it.

They managed to convince the British public through disingenuous inference and innuendo that the fighter combat that took place over the Islands was at the hands of the RAF. The very existence of the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm and Carrier air power was neither mentioned nor alluded to. And yet, clearly, it was carrier-borne Sea Harrier fighter aircraft and Royal Navy surface warships which won the day.

This was a disgraceful attempt to rewrite history and, because it was believed by gullible ministers and civil servants, resulted in a severe and misguided decline in investment in true maritime/Fleet power that may well come to haunt us in the near future. China’s claims over the South China Sea, through which much of our trade passes, will soon reach critical mass. We and our allies need to be able to contain China’s territorial aggrandizement. If we do not wish to become embroiled in a fighting war, we and our allies need to be able to deter this emerging military giant.

Our other interviews with Sharkey Ward are here and here

Deterrence through visible strength is the key to maintaining an acceptable peace.

And so the media, the Secretary of State, the House of Commons Defence Committee and our politicians should now be asking the question:

‘Following the investment of hundreds of billions of pounds sterling in land-based combat aircraft and supporting units over the past four decades, what can the RAF do in the South China Sea to deter the power grab by China?’

One or two Typhoon fighters supported by a £1 billion Voyager tanker flying out of Singapore on short range missions cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered an effective 24/7 show of force. Only well-armed fleets at sea can deter or effectively counter this sinister Chinese initiative.”

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

•