Pariah states and those seeking independence from the traditional plane-making nations have repeatedly attempted to go it alone and built their own fighter aircraft. All of the following projects, many tantalisingly close to being brilliant, failed. Some were crushed by spiralling project costs, some by bad timing and some by death threats! 

10. FMA Pulqui II (1950)

Kurt Tank, who developed the Fw 190 and other design masterpieces for Nazi Germany, fled his defeated homeland to work in Peron’s Argentina. Here he was involved in several bizarre projects (including a possibly fraudulent nuclear fusion-powered airliner which will be covered on hushkit.net soon), including the Pulqui II, an indigenous jet fighter based on the unflown Ta 183. Whereas the Pulqui I was a disappointing straight-wing fighter prototype designed by Émile Dewoitine, the II was far more ambitious: a swept-wing fighter powered by the British Nene II. With a top speed of 671 mph and an armament of four-20mm the aircraft had the potential to be one of the most capable fighters of its time, though the similarly Nene powered MiG-17 also flew in 1950 and was 40mph faster.  The Pulqui II was successfully deployed in combat trials in the Revolución Libertadora. The type was cancelled due to long-running programme failures and a failing national economy.

9. FMA SAIA 90

An extremely far-sighted and in many ways brilliant concept, the SAIA 90 had the misfortune of being born in the wrong country. A stealthy (with consideration being paid to both radar and infra-red conspicuity) agile fighter powered by two F404s is an idea so appealing it would still find buyers today. It was to have a Low Probability of Intercept radar, one 27-mm Mauser cannon and six air-to-air missiles (four medium ranged radar-guided and two short-range infra-red guided).

Design assistance for the Argentinian company Fabrica Militar de Aviones came from the West German company Dornier (whose experience with composites on the Do 228 and AlphaJet would be vital for the project). The project would have been ambitious for any nation, but for Argentina, which was in the grip of an economic meltdown, it was just too much — and it was cancelled.

Like this kind of thing? 10 incredible cancelled military aircraft here

8. Australian Commonwealth CA-15 ‘Kangaroo’

A strong contender for the title of the ultimate piston-engined fighter is the Australian Commonwealth CA-15 ‘Kangaroo’. The RAAF wanted a fighter superior to the highly respected P-51 Mustang, so accordingly issued an exceptionally demanding requirement. The specification called for a machine with a high rate of climb, excellent manoeuvrability including a high roll rate, and a generous range. The resultant Kangaroo delivered on all promises, and boasted a top speed of 458mph, and a range on internal fuel of 1,150 miles! The addition of drop tanks allowed for 2,540 mile flights. These remarkable figures were attained with the Griffon 61, even more impressive figures would have been achieved if the desired Double Wasp or three-speed Griffon had been fitted. Like the MB5 it was just too late to the party.

7. Helwan HA-300 (1964)

In the mid 1950s Egypt wanted a lightweight supersonic, single-seat fighter-intercepter. Depending on the now hostile Britain for military aircraft was impossible and President Nasser also wished for the prestige and independence of an indigenous solution.

Wilhelm Emil ‘Willy’ Messerschmitt, designer of the Bf 109, banned from designing military aircraft in Germany, came to their assistance. In collaboration with India and Spain, the sleek HA-300 was created. The aircraft attained Mach 2.1 with indigenous Brandner E-300 engines.

It is uncertain exactly why the project was cancelled but it was having financial and technical problems, and the German engineers were receiving death threats from Mossad.

 6. Qaher-313

Voted in the 2013 world fighter yearbook ‘least likely project to come to fruition and most dishonest PR‘, the Iranian Qaher-313 was something of a joke in international media. Extremely silly claims were made of this aircraft – and the subscale mock-up claiming to be an actual aircraft was widely derided. The project continues, though the public statement have become more modest. Far from being the F-35 killing superfighter described in 2013, it is now reported as a short range close air support aircraft. It is unclear whether it has yet flown.

We have big plans! We exist today thanks to our reader’s generous donations, it’s a team effort and you are a vital part. The next step is a regular podcast featuring interviews with famous pilots, histories of obscure aircraft types, aviation satire and the latest news. We want to entertain you at home or on your way to work. To do that we need more funds. Please donate here  and let’s make this happen! 

5. IML ADDAX

One free-thinking group of aircraft designers considered how to make a new multirole fighter. The result of the study was a design for an aircraft like nothing else before or since. Even more surprisingly, this exciting plan for a futuristic superfighter came not from the elite fighter houses of the USSR or the US, but an unknown company in New Zealand.

From the late 1970s, the IML Group in New Zealand studied existing combat aircraft to see if they could come up with a better solution. Their concept, the Addax, proved to be exceptionally bold. The Addax-1 was to be powered by two vectored thrust turbofans in the 10,000-Ib thrust class (obvious contenders would have included derivatives of the Rolls-Royce Spey or TF34).

A world where the British super-bomber wasn’t cancelled here

The aerodynamic configuration was unusual to say the least, consisting of a ‘self-stabilising aerofoil’ formed by the fuselage between the tailbooms, with upper surface blowing across all lifting surfaces providing the aircraft with extreme short take-off and landing capabilities.

Internal weapon bays could carry up to ten 1,000-Ib bombs and external pylons could carry an additional 3,000 Ibs. The gun armament would have been ferocious, comprising either four 30-mm Oerlikon cannon or two 20-mm M61A1 Vulcans. Maximum speed would have been 740mph, and it would had a lo-lo-lo tactical radius of 480 miles with maximum bombload.

The Addax-S was even more impressive. This was a supersonic air-superiority fighter based on the same configuration, with outstanding manoeuvrability.

Of course, The New Zealand Government was never really going to fund either Addax, but it was an intriguingly left-field glimpse of how fighters could have evolved. The designs were released in 1982, but even today they appear more futuristic than any known aircraft programme.

The Italian supersonic jump-jet that never was, here

4. PZL-230 Skorpion

A mid ’80s Polish requirement for a small, agile battlefield attack aircraft resulted in the PZL-230F. Looking like a Manga cartoon of a SR-71, it was actually a serious design with an emphasis on survivability, ease of use and economy of operation. Slow (around 400mph) and capable of forward basing it would have offered a flexible close air support capability. Armament would have consisted of a gun (possibly the GAU-12 rotary cannon) and a light load of guided and unguided munitions.

Initially a degree of stealth was desired, but later in the programme it was decided that this was a redundant quality in an aircraft operating so close to the frontline it would be visible with naked eyes. Its rivals were the IL Kobra 2000 and PZL Mielec M-97/M-99ch. Several configurations of the PZL-230  were offered with turbojet, turboprop and turbofan engines. The 230 won the contest and some development work was done, but it was unsustainable, as Poland faced the economic crisis of transitioning from communism to capitalism. It was terminated in 1994, never having reached a flyable prototype stage.

3. Atlas Carver

Thanks to its horrific apartheid system that enshrined racism and inequality into law, the outside world eventually refused to provide military aircraft to South Africa. In the 1980s, the pariah nation required a high performance lightweight fighter to counter threats that included Angola’s MiG-23s. The design resembled the Mirage 2000, but with splitter plates (some versions showed F-15-like ramps) rather than shock-cones, and LERX resembling those of the the F/A-18 Hornet.

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

It was to incorporate composite materials and be armed with indigenous weapons. Some design iterations showed single engines and some a twin arrangement. It is likely that it would have featured a helmet mounted sight, this being a technology South Africa led the world in. The nation did not have the know-how to build its own jet engines and instead unsuccessfully attempted to acquire French M53s and designs for the M88 by subterfuge, and it was stuck with the elderly Snecma Atar.

Meeting payload-range requirements with this old engine proved very hard and the project was also very expensive; with a diminished threat this could not be justified and the project was canned in 1991. As the political system changed, military imports became available and the SAAF chose the Swedish SAAB Gripen. 

Top 11 cancelled French aircraft here

2. ALR Piranha 6 ‘Swiss multi-roll’

Yet another ‘eurocanard‘ that never was, the Piranha was a Swiss mini-fighter project that started in 1977. The idea was to produce a fighter for nations on a tight budget, and it seemed a sensible enough idea.

It was very small and very light, to put it into context its planned max take-off weight of 6,900kg was around half that of the lightest true fighter in production, the Gripen (which is only marginally heavier than the KAI FA-50). There was several proposed variants of the Piranha. But an earlier concept of the Piranha was even lighter…powered by a single Adour!

Unlike today’s eurocanards the foreplanes featured full length flap à la Viggen, which would have aided short field performance. Whether it could have carried enough fuel to get to the promised Mach 2.2 top speed is a good question, as is why the RB199, with its lamentable performance above low altitude, was chosen over the Hornet’s F404. It was expected to be armed with one Oerlikon KCA 30-mm cannon and two Magic II or ASRAAM missiles. ALR was a well-run private company self-funding the project but they eventually gave up due to a lack of interest from the Swiss government.

10 Incredible Soviet Fighter Aircraft that never entered service here

1. Soko Nadzvučni Avion
   

Yugoslavia remained neutral throughout the Cold War, a complicated and remarkable position considering its location. By the 1980s, it had obtained production licences or self-designed all major weapon systems apart from a supersonic high-end fighter aircraft. For this it required international assistance and looked around for possible partners (one of the collaborators it considered was BAe with their abortive Gripen-like P.106).  Dassault and the French Government stepped into the project, resulting in the aircraft becoming essentially a mini Rafale. Engines under consideration were the PW1120, GE404, the Turbo Union RB199 and Snecma M88. Of these, the RB199 was probably the least likely — and the M88 the most. The Civil War, starting in 1991, put paid to the Avion.

If developed, the type would have likely replaced MiG-21s and complemented the MiG-29 force — it could have been a very potent aircraft comparable to the Saab Gripen as an advanced fourth generation lightweight fighter.

 

We have big plans! We exist today thanks to our reader’s generous donations, it’s a team effort and you are a vital part. The next step is a regular podcast featuring interviews with famous pilots, histories of obscure aircraft types, aviation satire and the latest news. We want to entertain you at home or on your way to work. To do that we need more funds. Please donate here and let’s make this happen! 

Hush-Kit would like to give a special thanks to Thomas Newdick for his kind assistance in creating this

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

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.

Radar stealth, the use of shaping and materials to minimise an aircraft’s visibility to hostile radars comes at a cost. Jim Smith, a man with significant technical roles in the development of the UK’s leading military aviation programmes, explains. 
Much depends what you are trying to achieve, and how far you are willing to compromise performance and cost to minimise signature. As noted in my earlier Hush-Kit discussion on aircraft for BVR combat, there is a difference for offensive aircraft, designed to be sent ‘in harm’s way’ in penetrating and seeking to dominate defended airspace, and defensive aircraft, particularly if armed with long-range systems and supported by an integrated air defence system. For the latter, the fact that the opposition is aware of their presence may not be a bad thing, as they are there to deter and defend, rather than to penetrate and secure.

Striking heavily-defended targets deep in the opposition’s territory, or seeking to achieve air superiority by controlling and denying the opposition’s own airspace, is a high-stakes, dangerous game. And is likely to require the highest degree of signature minimisation, currently apparently delivered by the F-22 Raptor and the B-2 Spirit. Similar characteristics are claimed for the F-35 Lightning II, alongside supreme situational awareness, through the use of shared multi-platform sensor data.

What are the penalties and possible impacts of achieving the lowest possible signature, not just in the radar domain, but also in the infrared? A few potential challenges are listed below:
Cost – of design, of security, of special protective systems, and of materials. Cost of maintenance will also increase, due not only due to the requirements of specialist materials, but to the need to make good the signature every time the surface has been disturbed. There is also potentially additional cost, due to a larger and heavier airframe being needed than might otherwise be the case.
Size and weight – the necessity of carrying stores internally means that the fuselage volume has to be greater, increasing weight and drag. The propulsion system will need to be screened or shielded, probably reducing propulsive efficiency and increasing weight due to intake treatments. In some cases, the exhaust system will also require treatment, which will decrease efficiency and increase weight.
Wave drag – this is likely to be increased due to the increased fuselage volume, necessitating larger engines to meet performance requirements.
Control system – The US view is that European, Chinese and Russian aircraft equipped with canards are at a signature disadvantage compared to the F-22 and F-35. The alternative view is that canards offer significant aerodynamic advantages in lift-dependent and wave drag.
Weapons requirements – Low signature may result in highly successful ‘one shot, one-kill’ engagements, where the opposition is unaware of the low signature aircraft’s presence until it is engaged. In general, however, stealth aircraft weapons bays are relatively small, and may carry fewer weapons than opposing air defence fighters.
Through the use of tailored electromagnetic materials and coatings, it seems likely at present that low signature can be achieved without great compromise to the configuration, apart from the measures required to reduce signatures from the engine intake duct and exhaust system, and the need to provide internal weapons bays. The Chinese J-20 and Russian Su-57 are beginning to be operationally deployed, but the F-22 Raptor remains a stand-out as a capable manoeuvring fighter aircraft with low signature.

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

Thank you. 

 

Turkey is doing it’s own thing, spurning US fighters in favour of an indigenous fighter — and relying in the short term on Russian-made air defences. If TFX lives up to the hype it will be a formidable aircraft, but has Turkish aerospace bitten off more than it can chew? 

What is the current status of TFX? How much funding has been dedicated to the project?

The TFX program consists of four main phases: Conceptual Design, Design and Prototype Qualification, Initial Operation Capability and Full Operation Capability and Serial Production. The first phase, with the assistance by SAAB (under a contract) was started in 2011 and completed in 2013. A contract for the first stage of the second phase, namely Engineering Development and Preliminary Design was signed between the Presidency of Defence Industries (SSB – Savunma Sanayii Baskanligi) and Turkish Aerospace in August 2016. Following this Turkish Aerospace signed a contract with BAE Systems for consultancy and technical assistance in 2018. The project schedule officially started in September 2018.

The first stage of the second phase is planned to last four years, It will be followed by the second stage, Critical Design and Prototype Qualification, which is expected to take eight years.

There are various estimates about the total cost of the project but it will almost definitely cost double-digit billions of dollars. Turkish government announced an incentive program with a budget of around USD1 billion allocated to Turkish Aerospace last August for infrastructure and investment associated with the project.

Top fighters of the 2030s here.

Which companies are working on it?

Turkish Aerospace is the main contractor of the project. ASELSAN and TRMotor are the main subcontractors for mission systems and engines respectively. BAE Systems is providing consultancy and technical assistance to Turkish Aerospace. ROKETSAN is expected to provide weapon systems such as smart bombs, SOM air launched cruise missiles etc. TUBITAK SAGE is developing the Goktug family of air to air missiles, and ROKETSAN could be responsible of serial production and delivery of them also.

Does the team have all the experience necessary to make it?

This is a difficult question with no easy answer! It is a fact that Turkish aerospace industry has yet to complete the lifecycle of a modern military aircraft, i.e design, test, manufacture, serial production, upgrades and retirement.

 

Apart from early attempts like THK-5,  and the Ugur from the 1950’s, the very first Turkish military aircraft to be designed, tested and manufactured in Turkey is the Hurkus.

 

 

The Hurkus is a turboprop trainer and is in the same class as the  EMBRAER Super Tucano, the KAI KT-1 (which Turkish Air Force already operates) and so on. Turkish Air Force ordered an initial batch of 15 Hurkus B trainers and these are undergoing operational acceptance tests.

 

Turkish companies have some experience in providing subsystems and parts to major aircraft programs like F-35, A400M. Turkish has achieved significant self sufficiency in air launched weapon systems, some sensors and communications equipment. Furthermore, local avionics and structural upgrade programs are underway such as Ari avionics upgrade for the T-38 Talon trainer jets and Ozgur (local upgrade of F-16 with indigenous mission computer and avionics). But then again, these are all some parts of a very complex puzzle. The main deficiency is the lack of experienced engineers and infrastructure, especially for test, verification and qualification.

Compensation of these shortcomings is possibly, especially through international partnerships, but at no low cost.

Are you confident TFX will happen?

From the very first day the project was announced, I have been defending a low cost, low risk approach for the TFX program: I am a believer in the balance between affordability and effectiveness. A single engine, maybe a derivative of a proven design or a product of joint development would be a lower-risk approach, similar to what South Korea has been doing. The Hurjet should have been the TFX.

As a Turkish national, I would love to see the design presented at Paris Air Show flying. As an engineer and realist I am quite skeptical that I will see it, under this project model, schedule, infrastructure and economic conditions.

What is the current state of US/Turkish relations re. F-35/S400? What do think will happen?

Unless an unexpected or extraordinary development takes place, Turkey is going to take delivery of the S400 in July, as announced by the President Recep Tayyip Erdogan several times. I expect the US impose sanctions immediately, but their severity might be limited. Turkey’s withdrawal from the F-35 program, postponement of the delivery of aircraft will most likely take place, accompanied by CAATSA sanctions. The latter will possibly result in a domino effect for the Turkish defence industry in particular and Turkish economy in general.

What will TFX be armed with? Who will supply the weapons & sensors?

ASELSAN will be the contractor for the sensor suite and avionics of the aircraft. We know that ASELSAN is currently working on an AESA radar. For the TFX, an integrated communication and navigation suite is planned.

ROKETSAN is the main contractor in Turkey for rocket and missile systems. It already manufactures the SOM cruise missile (developed by TUBITAK SAGE) and working on a version of it suitable for F-35 together with Lockheed Martin, designated SOM-J. ROKETSAN is also manufacturing precision guided bombs, while ASELSAN produces guidance kits. As mentioned, TUBITAK SAGE is working on the Goktug family of air-to-air missiles. All in all, air-launched weapon systems are one of the most mature areas of the Turkish defence sector.

ASELSAN has been manufacturing ASELPOD targeting pods for Turkish and Pakistani fighters. They are also providing secure comms, IFF systems, multi function displays and mission computers. There are also numerous smaller subject-matter expert companies in the sector specialised in airborne software and mission systems.

Could more nations join TFX or TFX merge with another project for a future fighter? (NGF, Tempest, Japanese F-3 or South Korean fighter for example)?

Turkish officials previously mentioned negotiations with several countries from Asia, without giving names. Given the strong relations of Turkey with Pakistan and Malaysia, these two are the first ones that comes to mind. A general from Malaysian Air Force posed in front of the TFX mock up in Paris Air Show, an indication of negotiations between the countries or at least of an interest by this country.

Strong partnership between Turkish Aerospace and BAE Systems and the latter’s work on the Tempest programme suggests a possibility of a merger of some kind of the two programs. This possibility was also voiced by Turkish press as an alternative of F-35, in case Turkey is kicked out of the project. But the realisation of such partnership will depend on a number of quite complex factors, starting with requirements, priorities, schedules, budget and political issues.

It is known that at earlier stages of the TFX, there were some talks with South Korea to merge TFX with the KFX programs. Because of the technical requirements and priorities of the two countries, it was not realised. Lockheed Martin’s involvement of the programs and US – Turkish relations make is very unlikely for a partnership in the future.

Some sort of partnership with either Tempest or NGF is not a far fetched possibility, though being dependent on mainly political factors. I personally expect a lot of “fluctuation” in these projects in the coming years, in terms of teaming, project models and requirements. Turkey might benefit from these.

Did the mock-up at Paris reveal anything new? What was the point of the Paris public relations exercise?

Presentation of a full scale mock up is an important milestone in the development process: It shows that the project has achieved some progress and certain critical decision regarding the main design parameters have been finalised. It also represents an opportunity to keep the public interest and support alive. The Franco – German FCAS project mock up was also revealed at the very same show.

By judging the look of the two mock ups, we can say that the TFX project is at a more advanced stage than the FCAS, since it had landing gears! 😊

Joke aside, this move can also be interpreted as a message to US for the F-35 issue. From the very start, TFX was envisaged as an air superiority fighter to supplement F-35As. The design characteristics shown during the Paris Air Show reflect more emphasis on swing-role capability for the TFX, suggesting that it is being considered as an alternative solution in the absence of F-35’s.

What should I have asked you?

How urgent is the need for TFX?

Turkish Air Force currently has around 240 F-16C/D’s and 40 F-4E 2020’s. The F-4E’s are at the very end of their service lives. 30 of the F-16’s are of Block 50+ with CFT and they were received between 2011 and 2013. Around 35 of the F-16’s are of Block 30 and the remainder are Block 40 and 50 which received CCIP upgrade. The Block 30’s are receiving structural upgrades to extend their service lives by 4,000 hours.

All in all, Turkish Air Force will have a capability gap in early 2020’s with the retirement of F-4E’s and later Block 30’s. This gap will pose a significant challenge especially by developments in the region such as F-16V upgrade of Greece and their interest in F-35, Israel’s F-35’s and Egypt’s procurement of advanced fighters such as Rafale.

What is going on with the engine?

The engine issue is the Gordion’s knot for the whole project. Turkey has an engine manufacturer, named TEI, a joint venture between Turkish Aerospace and General Electric. This company manufactures many parts for GE engines and also works on indigenous powerplant projects such as TS1400 turboshaft and PD170 diesel engine for UAV’s. Turkey also has recently formed an engine company, TRMotor and this company was selected as the main contractor for the TFX.

Until now, Turkey has held talks with various engine manufacturer in the world for joint development or technical assistance of the power plant of TFX. Among these, Rolls Royce seems -or seemed- as the leading candidate: They formed a JV with Kale, one of the leading private defence companies in Turkey which developed a turbojet engine for the SOM cruise missile. But negotiations between SSB and Rolls Royce has not been fruitful.

There are some reports that GE F110 engine was selected to power the prototypes. This might be sufficient for flight tests but it will also create some challenges in terms of design and cost. The design will have to be modified for the final engine whereas first stages of testing will be done with another one. If the final engine will be different with F110 in terms of tooling, connections, subsystems and interfaces, then the cost and engineering work required to modify the aircraft design according to the indigenous engine will be significant.

TAI’s capability to mass produce high tech composite body parts?

Turkish Aerospace has invested a very large budget in advanced materials and structural parts manufacturing capabilities. This is the strongest part of the capability range of the company. I personally do not see any major challenge in this field.

As proposed will it be underpowered?

During the Paris Air Show, the aircraft is presented as being powered by two 27,000lb engines. The overall dimensions of the aircraft (21m length, 14m wingspan, more than 60,000lb MTOW). I am doubtful that 27,000lb engines will be sufficient to provide enough power for agility and especially supercruise capability.

Save the Hush-Kit blog! This site is entirely funded by donations – Donate here. 

 

Arda Mevlutoglu is an astronautical engineer. He is currently working as the VP of an international trading and consultancy company, focusing on defense and aerospace sector. He is currently working as the Vice President of Defense Programs at an international trading and consultancy company. His research focuses on defense industry technology, policies and geopolitical assessments, with a focus to the Eastern Mediterranean and the Black Sea region. His works have been published in various local and international journals such as Air Forces Monthly, Air International, Combat Aircraft, EurasiaCritic, ORSAM Middle East Analysis. He has been quoted by Financial Times, Reuters, BBC, Al Monitor, CNN Turk and TRT on issues covering Turkish defence industry and military developments.

Since the 1960s USAF aircraft have become progressively grayer, losing their bright markings and colourful schemes to become uniformly gray,  in the name of camouflage. Thanks to advances in ‘lo viz’ (low visibility) markings, the badges that inform friends and enemies of an aircraft’s nationality are now invisible beyond 50 metres. According to Gen. Fulsom Boutay of Semiotics Command this is only the beginning, “Despite the ubiquitous application of invisible signage on our aircraft, bases are still covered in signs that are highly visible from ground level. The most obvious is the signage of ground vehicles, for instance, signs to the car lot or showing the speed limit on-base. By reducing the contrast of the colors used in these signs – say using gray on gray – we can have signs that are completely unreadable by 2026. We will then move on to the bigger picture, a system of systems of symbols of symbols that are all invisible to both human eyes and on the infra-red spectrum. An example: internal emails still use black text on a white background, by simply changing the text color to white we should give them a true lo-viz capability without costing tax payers a cent. By 2070, we hope all airmen will have no distinguishing features – except during Mustache March, where they will all (male and female together) have 3mm long upper lip hair in FED-STD-595 Federal Standard 595 Color FS 36251. ” 

The greatest fighter pilot in the within-visual range combat arena was Red Baron Richthofen, popularly known as the ‘Schicker Psychopath’ (which translates as Red Baron). His victory was greatly aided by his use of camouflage – he painted his aeroplane red and then filled the sky with British airmen’s blood, rendering himself invisible. Similarly, British nuclear bombers were painted white to symbolise the horror beyond words of a nuclear holocaust. Today, the best US pilots, who are trapped within aggressor units to stop them from actually hurting anyone, are allowed the most vibrant camouflage schemes on their aircraft.

The leaders of several African air forces have been vocally critical of the lo-viz approach, Air Force Commander Abbas Al-Badboy of the Sudanese Air Force noting, “I’ve got a load of lovely bright green paint in my shed I got from B&Q and I am determined it will get used.” Similarly the Russian aircraft design bureau Sukhoi announced in last press conference/ barbecue party “We may not have the funds to run a full test programme of all our aircraft, but we can at least paint them in a different cool scheme every month – lo viz is (an) unwelcome distraction from this distraction. We offer discounts to Frogfoot operators who paint them like a survivalist’s Humvee.”

Article Spelling in NATO British-US English. 

At the Paris Air Show, Turkish Aerospace displayed a model of the TF–X fighter. Turkey has never designed an advanced combat aircraft before, and the aircraft is symbolic of the nation’s new confidence in breaking its dependence on the US. Looking every inch a Lockheed Martin model, could the TF-X become the air superiority ‘F-35’ that Turkey, and other air forces, are crying out for? 

The TF-X is at first sight a twin-engine F-35 look-alike. Turkey projects this aircraft as a replacement for the F-16, and might operate it alongside the F-35, although this currently looks a bit uncertain for Turkey due to the deterioration in its relationship with the Trump administration. Either Turkey is seeking a more agile, air-to-air aircraft to complement F-35, which might then be used mainly for air strike, or perhaps TF-X can be seen as a move to develop both Turkey’s Industrial capability and its Defence self-sufficiency.

I would expect the aircraft to focus on the Air Defence role, because this would provide an opportunity to supplement rather than simply duplicate F-35 capability. A secondary strike role for the aircraft is likely.

The TF-X has been the subject of a technical agreement with BAE Systems, and initially, two EJ200 engines were to be used. However, the technical dialogue with Rolls-Royce has apparently been broken off. The configuration recently shown at the Paris AirShow is unchanged from previous illustrations. Claimed characteristics include 2 x20,000 lb thrust engines, Max Take-Off Weight (MTOW) of 60,000 lb +, Max speed of Mach 2 and a ceiling of 55,000 ft+.

A stealthy Typhoon? 

Broadly, then, Turkey appears to be, seeking to build a stealthy Typhoon. Is this achievable? I think it is doubtful that Turkey could achieve such an outcome without significant design and manufacturing assistance.

From a configuration viewpoint, the quoted Maximum Take-Off Weight (MTOW) appears pretty high. It is about 10,000lb greater than the max overload Take-Off Weigh of the comprehensively equipped Typhoon. The claimed Mach 2 maximum speed and ceiling of 55,000 ft match those of Typhoon, but the MTOW seems high. I cannot comment with confidence onTurkey’s ability to design and build such an aircraft, and make it stealthy as well, but it does seem questionable.

Top fighters of the 2030s here

Otherwise, if the aircraft is to accommodate fuel and weapons internally, it is likely that wave drag will become an issue, although the additional internal fuel may increase combat persistence.. Similarly, the simple intakes shown lack the variable area and boundary layer management of the Typhoon to reduce signature. From these aspects, I would suggest that Mach 2.0 is an optimistic figure.

Musings on Project Tempest

All-in-all, the TF-X is much more like a twin-engined F-35 than a Typhoon. I doubt speeds greater than M 1.8 are achievable. From a manoeuvre perspective, I’d expect reasonable manoeuvrability in an air combat configuration, but I would be concerned that the relatively tall fins might be subject to significant buffet loads at high incidence.

Airbus/Dassault reveal full-size model of New Generation Fighter here. 

Could Turkey deliver the TF-X as an F-35-clone, but optimised for air defence? It’s a nice concept, but a huge step forward from their current Industrial capability.

— Jim Smith

Jim Smith had significant technical roles in the development of the UK’s leading military aviation programmes from ASRAAM and Nimrod, to the JSF and Eurofighter Typhoon.

We are currently well behind our donations target. This site can only survive with your donations. Click here to keep this site going.

Want to see more stories like this: Follow my vapour trail on Twitter: @Hush_kit

Have a look at How to kill a Raptor, An Idiot’s Guide to Chinese Flankers, the 10 worst British military aircraft, The 10 worst French aircraft,  Su-35 versus Typhoon, 10 Best fighters of World War II , top WVR and BVR fighters of today, an interview with a Super Hornet pilot and a Pacifist’s Guide to Warplanes. Was the Spitfire overrated? Want something more bizarre? The Top Ten fictional aircraft is a fascinating read, as is The Strange Story and The Planet Satellite. The Fashion Versus Aircraft Camo is also a real cracker. Those interested in the Cold Way should read A pilot’s guide to flying and fighting in the Lightning. Those feeling less belligerent may enjoy A pilot’s farewell to the Airbus A340. Looking for something more humorous? Have a look at this F-35 satire and ‘Werner Herzog’s Guide to pusher bi-planes or the Ten most boring aircraft. In the mood for something more offensive? Try the NSFW 10 best looking American airplanes, or the same but for Canadians. 

 

Following chaos at last month’s Rafople spelling press conference, a new controversy has come to light regarding the pronunciation of FCAS (Future Combat Air System) a joint Dassault/Airbus plan for a combat aircraft system or system of systems (which may develop into a systems of systems of systems). According to Eric Frappier, Head of Nomenclature & Onomastics for aero giant Dassault, FCAS is pronounced ‘F-cass’ and not ‘Fuck-ass’. In the press release he noted, “any connections with anal sex are unintentional – this system is strictly for killing.” 

A spokesperson for rave weapons manufacturer MDMA we talked to noted, “We initially had the same issue with the ASRAAM (a missile) – which is said as ‘az-ram’ and not ‘ass-ram’. I mean ass is an American thing – it is arse over here anyway.” 

Frappier’s release was criticised by sex positivity activist Titty McShane who was angered by the denial, ‘The idea that anal sex is something to be distanced from is quite frankly disgusting…and also where have the vertical tails come from? Have they given up on true low observability?” 

It is likely that FCAS will rely on the new concept of a remotely piloted/unmanned loyal (or poly) wingperson, a simpler but still high performance aircraft known colloquially as a ‘strap-on’.

Some see Britain’s rival Tempest as an attempt by BAE Systems to enter FCAS by the backdoor. Both Britain, Europe and Turkey have created doll versions of their proposed fighters in an attempt to let influential politicians get a selfie in the cockpit “holding the steering wheel and looking like a cool fighter pilot.” The mock-ups are slated to be used as disappointing museum exhibits from 2025.

In attempt to quell the storm in both the world of sexual politics and the defence industry, Spain has joined the project and has requested that FCAS be renamed CARAJO (Combat Aircraft/Remote Aerial Joint Offence). This will see the project merge with ATROYA (Advanced Technology Remote Offensive Yuropean Aircraft).

A few short years ago, it seemed as if the future of the European fighter industry had been all but quashed by the US — today is a different story. As the Eurocanards continue to generate orders, Europe looks ahead to the creation of a multi-role stealthy combat aircraft to serve from the 2030s. The  Next Generation Fighter is an ambitious project led by Dassault of France and Airbus Defence, two organisations with a wealth of experience. Jim Smith reports. 

The sleek mock-up revealed this week at the Paris Air Show demonstrated a confidence fortified by the signing of an accord by the defence ministers of Germany, France and Spain. But what does the mock-up reveal? 

“Airbus Defence and Space of Germany, and Dassault of France, have agreed to cooperate on the Next Generation Fighter, the manned air combat element of the Future Combat Air System (FCAS) project to develop a future European air combat capability. France and Germany have been joined in this effort by Spain, and a mock-up of the proposed aircraft has been shown at the Paris Air Show.

It is expected that the aircraft will be multi-role, with both air combat and strike capabilities. The platform will be stealthy, and is envisaged as operating as part of a networked system-of-systems, in conjunction with other manned and unmanned capabilities, which together will form the FCAS.

The mock-up shown at Paris is perhaps 15m long, and features a wing with a planform resembling a delta wing, but with swept outer panels. A feature drawing significant comment is the broad butterfly tail, resembling that of the Northrop YF-23, but with even greater cant angle from the vertical (earlier artworks showed a tailless configuration). 

To me, the configuration suggests significant trades have been made with an intent to minimise signature, at least in the forward and side-on aspects. The profile from the side is very low and flat, with the highly canted fins clearly intended to reduce signature in side-on aspects. I assume internal carriage of fuel and weapons, and bays intended for both air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons. The intakes are simple, and would probably limit the aircraft to about Mach 1.6.

The cranked wing configuration assists in providing internal volume for fuel and weapons, possibly at the expense of rear aspect signature. Such a planform would also ease the development of a naval variant, allowing lower approach speeds and/or a reduced nose-up attitude on the approach than a delta wing.

The platform does not seem to be designed with high manoeuvrability in mind, and looks to be likely to rely on its low signature, weapons system, and cooperative systems, rather than manoeuvrability or dash speed to survive in air combat.

Although, in a configuration sense, plausible, the mock-up shown at Paris somehow lacks the credibility of a fully developed design. It’s a little difficult to put one’s finger on why this should be the case, but the apparent lack of sensors, undercarriage, access panels, cockpit transparency, joint and panel lines with common angles to aid in managing signature, all contribute to this impression.”

The desired schedule demands a first flight of a demonstrator in 2025 and service entry in around 2040. Our full article on future fighters can be found here.

— Jim Smith

We are currently well behind our donations target. This site can only survive with your donations. Click here to keep this site going.

Want to see more stories like this: Follow my vapour trail on Twitter: @Hush_kit

Have a look at How to kill a Raptor, An Idiot’s Guide to Chinese Flankers, the 10 worst British military aircraft, The 10 worst French aircraft,  Su-35 versus Typhoon, 10 Best fighters of World War II , top WVR and BVR fighters of today, an interview with a Super Hornet pilot and a Pacifist’s Guide to Warplanes. Was the Spitfire overrated? Want something more bizarre? The Top Ten fictional aircraft is a fascinating read, as is The Strange Story and The Planet Satellite. The Fashion Versus Aircraft Camo is also a real cracker. Those interested in the Cold Way should read A pilot’s guide to flying and fighting in the Lightning. Those feeling less belligerent may enjoy A pilot’s farewell to the Airbus A340. Looking for something more humorous? Have a look at this F-35 satire and ‘Werner Herzog’s Guide to pusher bi-planes or the Ten most boring aircraft. In the mood for something more offensive? Try the NSFW 10 best looking American airplanes, or the same but for Canadians. 

When we think of a fighter aircraft we think of its high manoeuvrability. Even today, this exciting and romantic trait is still highly desirable. We look at the best ‘turners and burners’ in service today and the science behind it. 

A missile needs to be placed into the right section of sky to kill its target, and a fighter aircraft must also have a decent chance of dodging enemy missiles. High manoeuvrability also gives the fighter a greater opportunity to evade enemy sensors or eyes. Even when missiles can be told the position of their target not just through their own limited ‘vision’ by via the direction the pilot is pointing her head, or sensors both on and off the launcher aircraft, manoeuvrability is still valuable. High manoeuvrability is expensive though both in terms of the g-force it generates, and the demands it will put on the design of the aeroplane. The g-force, is a measurement of the type of force that causes a perception of weight. On Earth normal gravity gives us 1G conditions, and that’s what the human body is best at dealing with. A hard manoeuvring fighter can reach 9G, though greater G is possible, 9G is the effective limit of what the body can withstand repeatedly while performing the tasks required of a fighter pilot. At 9G a 100kg pilot would feel and move as if he weighed 900kg.

Over to Jim Smith for more:  “For significant parts of the flight envelope, manoeuvre performance may be limited by the structural design of the aircraft, which is likely to be constrained to no more than 9g. This is due to the limitations of the human pilot, even supported by a ‘g-suit’. One key manoeuvre parameter is the instantaneous turn rate (the ability to suddenly pull a turn from level flight), which fundamentally depends on wing loading (how much weight each square of metre is supporting) and usable lift coefficient (in simple terms, how much lift is available to the aircraft). The significance is that this is a measure of how rapidly energy may be traded against turn rate to temporarily point the nose to the aircraft, for example to gain a firing opportunity, or to evade a threat such as a surface-to-air missile. Since supersonic combat aircraft have relatively low lift curve slopes*, due to sweep, and low aspect ratio wings, a number of the following may be used to provide a short-term increase in turn rate: Thrust-vectoring (the mechanical steering of the jet exhaust) provides a powerful way of nose-pointing, particularly at relatively low speeds; A delta wing with sharp leading edges will generate a leading edge vortex, which will increase both lift and drag; A leading-edge root extension (LERX) or strake may be added to a lower sweep wing to mimic the vortex flows generated by a delta and increase lift; Higher thrust-to-weight ratio may be required to overcome the drag at high incidence – particularly if the turn is to be sustained, rather than allowing energy to bleed off; Finally, unstable configurations are preferred, as these maximise the effect of controls. European and Chinese aircraft favour the use of a destabilising canard, while US aircraft generally do not, preferring closely-coupled tailed near-delta configurations.

*Lift curve slope is the amount of lift you get for a given angle between the wing and the airflow. Low lift curve slope means this is less than usual.

For instantaneous turn rate  the aircraft may be either structurally limited to 9g, or aerodynamically limited by the lift available, dependent on the maximum possible wing lift (known as CLmax), speed, density and wing loading. Except for that area of the flight envelope where the aircraft is capable of delivering a sustained turn at 9g, energy and speed will reduce, and the rate of reduction will depend on Thrust to Weight ratio (high T/W reduces decay rate), and lift dependent drag (high lift dependent drag increases decay rate). 

At altitude, at some point, an instantaneous turn rate of 9g will no longer be achievable because the wing will have reached maximum available lift, Clmax. Above this altitude, the turn rate available will depend on wing loading and Cl max, and the bleed off in energy will depend on T/W, and lift-dependent drag as indicated above. Thrust vectoring may assist in generating a rapid pitch response, as will an unstable configuration with an advanced flight control system.

At transonic and supersonic speeds, wave drag will become an additional factor, with high wave drag increasing the speed decay rate.

From all this, we can extract the following pointers for good instantaneous turn rate:

– Low wing loading (the ‘wing loading’ is how much weight each square metre of wing is supporting)

– High max lift coefficient

– Thrust Vectoring

– Unstable designs with advanced Flight Control Systems

And for lower bleed-off in energy

– Low lift-dependent drag

– High Thrust to Weight

– Low wave drag if transonic or supersonic

The close coupled Euro-canards, Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen are likely to be very good; F-22 is also good due to high T/W, thrust vectoring, and wing area; Su-35 likely to be pretty good too – big wing, reasonable aspect ratio, canards, and thrust vectoring. F-35 will perhaps have more energy bleed off due to its higher wave drag, lower T/W, and higher wing loading

Best current aircraft: Difficult to assess and likely to vary dependent on Mach number and altitude, but suggest Typhoon and Rafale, with perhaps Gripen, F-22 and Su-35 also very good.

 

Sustained turn rate for part of the flight envelope will be limited to the best that can be achieved with a ‘g-suit’ equipped human pilot. Reaching those levels may influence wing design, through wing loading, aspect ratio and sweep, unless these are constrained by other requirements. Thrust-to-weight ratio will possibly also be influenced by the turn rates required, as sustained turning flight is a high drag situation.

However, the area of the flight envelope in which the aircraft will be capable of sustaining 9g will be substantially less than the area in which it can generate an instantaneous 9g turn rate. To generate and sustain a high turn rate, the aircraft will be relying on the extra energy available – as we have seen ((T-D)/W) x V, but with the wing at high lift.

For good sustained turn rate, we need:

– Low lift-dependent drag, and hence a higher aspect ratio

– Low wave drag if transonic or supersonic – noting this is likely to drive to low aspect ratio and high sweep

– High Thrust to Weight

– Low wing loading

The highly-optimised close-coupled Euro-canards are likely to be the best current aircraft; the Su-35 has higher aspect ratio but potentially higher wing loading. I suspect F-22 will be competitive, but F-35 is likely to have lower sustained turn rate, as it has higher wing loading. In considering the F-22 and F-35, one should remember that the operating concept for both is likely to avoid the close-in turning fight typical of within-visual-range air combat. 

 

Flight at high-alpha seems to me to be a contentious requirement that, in general should not be a design driver. At high incidence, a combat aircraft is likely to be at low, or very low speed. While, given powerful control effectors, this may minimise turn radius and allow rapid change in nose pointing angle, the loss of energy may make surviving a missile engagement very unlikely, and re-joining combat difficult. 

However, given the convergence of structural limits, and the limitation of airshow performances to subsonic speeds, high-alpha performance remains one way of impressing the tax-payers. With unstable aircraft, thrust vectoring and a host of other aerodynamic gizmos, the Su-35 is probably champion at this. But many of today’s aircraft have at least equally high thrust to weight ratios, and similar aerodynamic and structural performance at low altitude and subsonic speeds. Personal experience of displays by the F-22, F-35, Typhoon, Rafale, Su-27, Su-35 and even the less capable Super Hornet show that all of these can put on a jolly good airshow performance.

On turning performance, and generally awesome airshow characteristics, the canard-equipped, thrust-vectoring Su-35 gets my vote for high alpha performance. On more general manoeuvre performance, all the other aircraft mentioned are very capable, with Typhoon, Rafale and F-22 all benefitting from high thrust to weight ratio, clean aerodynamic design and sophisticated flight control systems.

Click here for part one.

Take thirty supersonic seconds to donate a small amount here to keep this site going.

Want to see more stories like this: Follow my vapour trail on Twitter: @Hush_kit

Have a look at How to kill a Raptor, An Idiot’s Guide to Chinese Flankers, the 10 worst British military aircraft, The 10 worst French aircraft,  Su-35 versus Typhoon, 10 Best fighters of World War II , top WVR and BVR fighters of today, an interview with a Super Hornet pilot and a Pacifist’s Guide to Warplanes. Was the Spitfire overrated? Want something more bizarre? The Top Ten fictional aircraft is a fascinating read, as is The Strange Story and The Planet Satellite. The Fashion Versus Aircraft Camo is also a real cracker. Those interested in the Cold Way should read A pilot’s guide to flying and fighting in the Lightning. Those feeling less belligerent may enjoy A pilot’s farewell to the Airbus A340. Looking for something more humorous? Have a look at this F-35 satire and ‘Werner Herzog’s Guide to pusher bi-planes or the Ten most boring aircraft. In the mood for something more offensive? Try the NSFW 10 best looking American airplanes, or the same but for Canadians.