What if the two most formidable European fighter aircraft of the 1980s and ’90s crossed swords? One, the Tornado ADV, was the RAF’s prime interceptor, the other — the Mirage 2000 — a masterpiece of fighter design, was the pride of the French Air France. Ian Black flew both and is qualified to answer.
Biggest advantage of each type?
“The Tornado F3 was designed for a specific role, UK Air Defence or to be 100% accurate: policing the UK airspace. When the RAF wanted was a replacement for the Vulcan / Canberra /Phantom FGR2/ Jaguar — it also had specific needs for a two-seat twin-engined nuclear strike aircraft (that also had a Recce role). In order to achieve the lion’s share of development rights the UK hid the fact from the other two partner nations (Italy and Germany ) that 165 of their 385 total order would be for air defence variants. So to answer the question, the biggest advantage of the F3 was that it was tailor-made for the job – day or night all-weather long range interceptor. It had a crew of two, long range un-refuelled, plus eight missiles and a gun.”
“Putting the flaps down in combat was pretty much a last ditch deal and firing a Sidewinder off the wing would probably have burnt a hole through them! In short, the F3 was best below 5000 feet.”
The Mirage 2000 was essentially a fly-by-wire Mirage III — albeit a very good one! The big advantage of the M2000 is its built by Dassault who make superb aircraft all French ! apart from the Martin Baker seat – Limitations – size the M4000 would have been perfect – only four missiles – and a gun.”
Biggest disadvantage of each type
“F3? Lack of manoeuvrability perhaps, the fact it was a fighter converted from a bomber meant its high level performance was poor.
M2000? Not a lot, though as a single-seater it had a high workload at night or in poor weather.”
At what height and speed would each aircraft want the engagement to take place?
“The M2000 would try and go high 40,000 feet plus to maximise missile range but stay out of contrails, the F3 would be better around 28-30,000 feet”
“The Mirage 2000 was the master of the ‘Bat Turn’, the ability to make a very quick instantaneous turn and take a shot. The big drawback was the delta wing gave huge amounts of drag, so you would bleed energy very very quickly – you had to be sure if you pulled a quick 9G turn that it was going to achieve a kill.”
How would each aircraft fight?
“The F3 would prefer to take long range shots – ‘fire and forget’ with AMRAAM – not Sky Flash – and not get into a turning fight. The M2000 would do the same but be better placed if it got into a (close-in) fight.”
Sensors & countermeasures compared
“The F3 was very poorly placed when it entered service but after years of upgrades was second to none. The M2000 had a host of onboard jammers and infra-red decoys. In fact, the F3s Radar Warning Receiver or Radar Homing and Warning Receiver was superior to the GR4’s.”
Weapons compared
“The F3 began life with four Skyflash and 2 AIM-9L sidewinders this became 4 – later on it was upgraded to take AMRAAM and ASRAAM = both superb weapons – The 27-mm gun was also excellent and very accurate.
The Mirage 2000 had Magic 2 which was actually slightly better than the Sidewinder but during my time Matra Super 530, which was a big missile and not as agile as Skyflash or as resistant to jamming .The internal cannon on the M2000 was also very effective”
“The Mirage 2000 had Magic 2 which was actually slightly better than the Sidewinder.”
Performance compared
“The Tornado F3 was good below 5000 feet — in fact surprisingly good. Limited to 6.9 G it could hold its own with a Hawk at low level mainly due to its RB199 104 engines. Clean in training fit it was a different aircraft to the war fit of 2250 litre tanks and eight missiles, it is often overlooked, but carrying eight missiles added a big weight penalty! The F3 would normally enter the fight wings back 67 deg or 58 deg then as the energy levels dropped off the wings would go forward to 45 with manoeuvre or 25 degrees – once you were experienced you could also use flap but it wasn’t really recommended. Putting the flaps down in combat was pretty much a last ditch deal and firing a Sidewinder off the wing would probably have burnt a hole through them! In short, the F3 was best below 5000 feet.
The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes will feature the finest cuts from Hush-Kit along with exclusive new articles, explosive photography and gorgeous bespoke illustrations.Order The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes here
The Mirage 2000 needed to be flown with a bit of trick flying: you had to fly it as a delta not like any other aircraft you had flown. The Mirage 2000 was the master of the ‘Bat Turn’, the ability to make a very quick instantaneous turn and take a shot. The big drawback was the delta wing gave huge amounts of drag so you would bleed energy very very quickly – so you had to be sure if you pulled a quick 9G turn that it was going to achieve a kill. Getting energy back meant unloading and putting the nose down, even though the SNECMA M53 engine was very powerful.”
Situational awareness
“SA in the later F3 was unequaled with its two crew and Joint Tactical Information Distribution System (JTIDS).”
Joint Tactical Information Distribution System (JTIDS) – a way of sharing battlespace information.
Tactical culture of likely operator
“France became immersed in NATO in the late 1970’/80s and adopted standard NATO tactics.”
Which aircraft would you choose to be in in this engagement?
“Being honest I’d probably go to war in an F3 due to its bigger weapon load, crew of two and greater situational awareness. However, for pure fun and in a close-in visual fight: M2000 no contest.”
What should I have asked you?
“Lots I guess, such as why would the RAF never have bought the M2000? Mainly because they need an aircraft that can sit at night over the sea in all weathers for long periods of time — and that is not the M2000.”
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.
Despite economic recession, Turkey is investing a great deal in its aircraft industry. The most ambitious project is the TFX, a plan to build a 5th generation stealth fighter similar in size to the Eurofighter Typhoon. We asked Arda Mevlutoglu.“The new fighter development program, known as TFX or MMU (Milli Muharip Ucak; National Combat Aircraft) was started in 2011 with the conceptual design phase. The next stage, preliminary design phase was started in 2016 with a contract signed between Turkish Aerospace (TAI) and Undersecretariat for Defense Industries. BAE Systems was selected to support on the skills, technology and technical expertise required to deliver the programme.
The TFX project calls for a twin-engine, high performance 5th generation fighter aircraft with stealth characteristics, primarily for the air-to-air mission. According to TAI data, the aircraft will be powered by two 20,000lb engines* with a service ceiling of more than 55,000ft. Maximum speed is around Mach 2 and the combat radius will be more than 600nm. Maximum take-off weight is expected to be more than 60,000lb. It has recently been announced that the roll-out of the aircraft is planned for 2023 with the maiden flight taking place in 2026 and service entry into Turkish Air Force in 2031.”
*(This week Rolls-Royce announced they were withdrawing from this project citing irreconcilable intellectual property concerns)
Image credit: Turkish Air Force
Is it a good idea? “The Turkish Air Force currently has a combat aircraft fleet of 240 F-16C/D Fighting Falcons of Block 30, 40, 50 and 50+ types as well as around 40 F-4E 2020 Terminators. The Terminators are optimised for ground strike and stand-off precision strike missions with around 35 of the Block 30’s nearing the end of their useful service lives. These two models are planned to be replaced by the F-35A. Starting from the 2030s, Block 40s, and later Block 50s, will need to be replaced — and that is where TFX comes in.
Therefore, the TFX is not an unfounded or unnecessary project. The model of it, on the other hand, is indeed ambitious.
It is true that Turkey has achieved significant progress in the past 20 years in the defence and aerospace sectors. The industry has expanded greatly and many indigenous designs have been completed and entered serial production. However, design, development, manufacture and sustainment of a fifth-generation fighter aircraft is a highly complex undertaking, requiring the existence of established infrastructure, human resource, experience pool and most importantly — financial resources. Therefore, it is practically impossible to conduct such a project without partners, as seen in the Tempest, FCAS, KFX programmes.
Officials have recently revealed that Turkey is in talks with several countries, without giving names, on establishing partnership for the development and production of the TFX.”
The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes will feature the finest cuts from Hush-Kit along with exclusive new articles, explosive photography and gorgeous bespoke illustrations.Order The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes here
What is the future of Turkey’s aerospace industry?
“The sector has a very wide range of products and projects, such as TFX, Hurjet advanced jet training and combat aircraft, Hurkus turboprop trainer and close support aircraft, T129 Atak attack helicopter and a heavier version of it designated Atak 2, T625 Gokbey general purpose helicopter.
The Anka MALE and Bayraktar TB2 tactical unmanned aircraft systems are in active service, and have the ability to fire indigenous precision strike weapons. The next step for the industry is to mature these products, sustain itself with new projects and last (but not least) increase its footstep in the export market. So far TB2 tactical UAVs have been exported to Ukraine and Qatar, and a contract for 30 T129 attack helicopters was signed with Pakistan. The helicopter was also selected by the Philippines. Increasing export sales will guarantee the future of the industry, especially once reliance on foreign (read Western) countries in critical subsystems such as engine and electronics is overcome.”
We are behind our funding targets. This site is entirely funded by donations from people like you. We have no pay wall, adverts or subscription and want to keep it that way– please donate here.
Thank you.
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 defence industry technology, policies and geopolitical assessments.
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. All of which make him gloriously over-qualified to be our correspondent from the Avalon 2019 airshow in Australia.
“Every two years, a major airshow is held at Avalon, South-West of Melbourne in Victoria, Australia. The show is extraordinary because, unlike Paris and Farnborough, it does not just focus on the latest aerospace industry products and systems, but also encompasses major Air Force and Scientific Technical Conferences, and showcases general aviation, home-built aircraft, classics and warbirds as well as attracting participation from regional Air Forces and manufacturers.
I have been in the habit of attending these shows whenever I can. There is always a visual feast for the photographer, but there are also items of technical interest, the rare, unusual and simply odd. As an example, here is something covering all those descriptors, and surely to be found ‘only in Australia’
In case you are wondering, yes, that is a Martin Mariner caravan. Sold off from Lake Boga in Northern Victoria after the war, and converted into a quite colossal caravan.
This year, I attended the show on the Friday. For photographers, this is a good idea, as with the right entry ticket one can see the visiting aircraft in the slightly more relaxed atmosphere of the morning Trade Show, before the crowds are admitted at midday. Having taken a number of photos through the day, Hush-Kit has asked me to put together a top-twelve of my own choice, together with a commentary explaining why I have chosen them.
“The sheer brutality of the manoeuvre was extremely impressive, although there was a significant bleed-off in energy”
— Jim Smith, on the F-22 display
12. Oxai Skywave
I selected the Oxai Skywave as an example of Avalon attracting interest from the broader Asian Aerospace community. This is, I believe, the first time a Chinese light aircraft has been exhibited at a Western airshow, and is in advance of its expected participation at Oshkosh later in the year, where direct comparison with the similar Icon A5 will be possible. Apparently, the Skywave will fly over to Oshkosh from Shanghai, travelling west through Dubai, which would be an impressive achievement for this small aircraft.
The Skywave looks an attractive proposition for the reasonably active amphibious aircraft community in Australia, which already enjoys the good weather, extensive and attractive coastline and many rivers and lakes as possible operating areas. The aircraft itself is mostly Carbon-fibre, has an empty weight of only 350kg, and is Rotax-powered. Unusually, the sponsons can be removed if one wishes to operate it as a landplane.
11. Sikorsky MH-60 Romeo ‘Wherefor art thou Jin-class submarine?’
The MH-60R is now in service with the Royal Australian Navy, and replaces the SH-70B Seahawk as the Navy’s anti-submarine and anti-shipping helicopter. At the show, the Navy gave a spirited performance showing off their new helicopter, and participated in the Capability demonstration, showing off the Joint capabilities of the Australian Defence Force (ADF). In the case of the Romeo, this included a simulated sonar dip to locate that most elusive of prey, the underground submarine!
I included the Seahawk, not just for the photo, but for fond memories of the spirited debates which always seem to accompany helicopter acquisition, not just for the ADF, but, in my experience, also for the UK Forces, and, I dare say, worldwide.
I also wanted to showcase one of the less publicised examples of the transformation in the ADF which has been in progress for the last several years. Other examples not featuring in this list include the entry to service of the P-8 Poseidon and the E-7 Wedgetail, with the latter, in particular, proving to be a very capable system, very popular with not only the RAAF, but also the USAF in coalition operations.
10. A330 MRTT refuelling boom aerodynamic fixes ‘Address: Karman street, Boomtown’
As an ex-aerodynamicist I find this fascinating. The refuelling boom of another new ADF capability, the Airbus A330 Multi-Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) is loaded with flow control gizmos.
Running down the length of the boom on both sides are two perforated strakes. These, I surmise, are there to prevent the shedding of a Kármán vortex street ,which would otherwise cause lateral shaking of the boom. The strakes are perforated so that the disturbances they introduce themselves are small in scale and dissipate rapidly. The strakes are performing the same function as the spiral strakes seen on slender chimneys, but in this case, the flow direction is predictable, so a linear strake can be used.
Further aft, the lower surface of the boom has a nice array of vortex generators. These are there to encourage the flow around the end of the boom to stay attached as long as possible, again to reduce buffeting and boom motion. Inside the boom aperture are a row of small cylinders, which may be there to promote mixing in the shear layer between the internal and external flow around the boom.
Finally, the fences at the end of the boom vanes serve to separate the flow over the vanes from the disturbed flow around the boom.
Looking at these aerodynamic fixes, it is easy to see why it can take some time to refine and achieve the right behaviour from the boom, especially if a hose and drogue attachment may be attached, as every vibration of the boom can be amplified at the receiver end of the system.
9. Cessna A-37 Dragonfly ‘Aussie dog whistle’
The Cessna A-37 Dragonfly represents the enduring and active participation of the Temora Aviation Museum at Avalon. This year, in addition to the Dragonfly, the museum brought their Lockheed Hudson, Supermarine Spitfire and Commonwealth Boomerang to the show. As well as the Temora contingent, other participants from the same era included a Curtiss P-40, a Douglas DC3 and a Lockheed 12. On the day I attended, expected participation from the RAAF Museum Sopwith Pup, Sopwith Snipe and Royal Aircraft Factory RE8 did not occur due to relatively strong winds.
However, the Dragonfly put up a very sprightly show, as seen here. This particular aircraft is one of two operated by Temora, and has recently been completely rebuilt. The A-37 has more than twice the thrust of the original T-37, at 5,700lb, and operating at relatively light display weights a thrust to weight ratio of about 0.8 appears plausible.
Aided by blue sky, sunshine, and very effective smoke generators, the Dragonfly put up a fine display to represent the Temora contribution to Avalon.
8. Pilatus PC 21 ‘PC gone mad’
Of course, the RAAF Roulettes are, to the Australian airshow scene, as iconic as the RAF Red Arrows are in the UK. The Roulettes first displayed in 1970 at Point Cook, using the Macchi MB 326, and this year’s Avalon show featured the last Roulettes display with the PC9, a type they have been operating since 1989.
To mark the transition to the new PC-21, the team flew their normal 6-ship PC9 routine accompanied by a 4-ship formation of PC-21s. The new aircraft has some attractive features, including a 1600 shp engine driving a 5 -blade propeller, giving the PC-21 much higher performance than the 1150 shp PC-9, and a quite different look and sound in the air.
These offset to some extent the ‘what were they thinking?’ colour scheme, which really does not do this attractive aircraft any justice at all. Notwithstanding this, I am hoping to see the full team equipped with the PC-21 at the Wings Over the Illawarra airshow in early May, where I anticipate the higher performance PC-21 will breathe new life into the RAAF Roulettes display.
7. Boeing CH-47F Chinook ‘Gizzardgulper handler’
The ADF has been operating the CH-47F Chinook since 2015, so this is again a relatively recent enhancement in capability for helicopter lift. The photo shows one of the two CH-47Fs participating in the Joint Capability demonstration, lifting off after unloading ground troops to assist in wresting Avalon airport from unspecified foes.
The cloud of blackened dust rising in the background is the by-product of pyrotechnics and petrol used to simulate the effects of earlier ‘cannon and rocket fire’ from two Tiger attack helicopters. In passing, this was a pretty sporty thing to do on a 40 deg C day with a stiff Northerly breeze.
I chose this picture because the Chinook is a pretty impressive aircraft, and has given sterling service to its many customers since first flight of the type back in the mists of time in 1961. The latest model follows the well honoured tradition of having everything you could imagine hung on it, including huge particle filters and IR suppressors for the engines, and an impressive elephant’s trunk-like tube on each side to carry waste shells away from the rotary cannon. An impressive piece of kit.
6. Lockheed C-130H Hercules ‘Kiwi Fat Albert’
Why the Hercules? Well, the RNZAF put up a really good display with their Hercules, and had the endearing habit of treating the long runway at Avalon as the perfect opportunity to turn every take-off into an enduring low pass, in this case at a height of 14 ft.
In addition to the low passes, parachute dropping, and general all-round spirited handling display, this particular airframe dates from 1966, and is therefore one year older than my kombi, and quite a bit more capable.
The RNZAF is really quite a small force, but regularly appears at Avalon, and I well remember low passes in earlier years by their 757 VIP transport, and even the 727 which it replaced.
So hats off to the Kiwis.
The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes will feature the finest cuts from Hush-Kit along with exclusive new articles, explosive photography and gorgeous bespoke illustrations.Order The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes here5: Boeing C-17 Globemaster III ‘Globemaster Flash’
Avalon this year was graced by both USAF and RAAF C-17s in the flying display. This is the USAF one, illustrating what brings the crowds to Avalon year after year. The crowd line is close enough to the runway to allow a really imposing view of the aircraft, big or small, noisy or quiet.
In this case, of course, the Globemaster, always imposing, but when seen up close, raising clouds of dust on take-off, truly impressive. And, as always, an equally impressive flying display, enhanced by the absence of the usually patronising and overdone US commentary.
In this year’s display the aircraft were generally supported by well-informed and interesting commentary, and were, in many cases allowed largely to speak for themselves. If you want to experience a well-run airshow, in ways that now appear impossible in Europe, come down to Oz for Avalon. Next time it will be the 100th anniversary of the RAAF, so expect big things!
4: Kawasaki C-2 Japanese jet ‘Atlas’
I was delighted to see that the JASDF had brought a Kawasaki C-2 down to Avalon. I was not aware that the aircraft was at the show, and its participation in the flying display was a bonus.
The aircraft has quite recently entered service with the JASDF, and its presence was another indicator that Japan is now prepared to export some military aircraft capability (they are actively promoting this aircraft for New Zealand). This follows on from the recent overseas tour made by the Kawasaki P-1 Maritime Patrol Aircraft, and discussions on possible sales of the Shin-Mewa US-2 amphibian.
The C-2 has something of the appearance of a turbofan powered A400M Atlas, or a scaled down C-17 Globemaster. Compared to The Atlas, it carries a smaller payload, but at significantly higher cruising speeds. There have been a few issues in development, and six years elapsed between the first flight of the aircraft and its acceptance into service in 2016.
The display aircraft gave a generally rather sedate performance, rather late in the day, before signing off with some fairly extravagant wing rocks, as seen in the picture.
3: McDonnell-Douglas F/A-18 Hornet ‘The badass bug’
As part of the general flying programme, the RAAF put up a four-ship Hornet display team, made up of aircraft and QFI pilots from Nos 3 and 77 Squadron, and No 2 Operations Conversion Unit, all based at RAAF Williamtown.
Although the practice sessions for the team were apparently held outside normal working hours, a very creditable result was achieved, including the echelon pass shown here. It is quite unusual these days to see a formation display team using operational fast jets (leaving aside one-off passes for special occasions, like the recent Tornado farewell fly-pasts in the UK), so I thought I would recognise this by including this picture.
Although the first F-35s are beginning to join the RAAF, and some of the F-18s are apparently going to go to Canada, the type will remain in RAAF service until 2022, with the Super Hornets and Growler serving on well beyond that.
2: Lockheed F-35A Lightning II ‘Panther burns’
Although the first F-35 for the RAAF appeared briefly at the previous show, and performed a few sedate fly-bys, this year was the first occasion at which a full on, high-energy display of the aircraft was available to the public. In fact, the displays were quite extensive, as in addition to the solo display of the aircraft, it also featured in some mixed formation fly-pasts with 2 Hornets and the F-22 Raptor.
Impressive features of the display included the rapid acceleration on take-off, the noise, which was colossal, and a significant amount of high-g manoeuvring. It was interesting to observe one of the high-speed turns concluding with significant down elevator and large taileron deflection, as the aircraft was rapidly unloaded and rolled to level the wings.
In the low humidity of a 40C day, there was very little of the condensation so beloved of fast-jet photographers, visual effects being limited to occasional tip vortices, the afterburner flame — an extensive exhaust hot-gas ‘jelly’.
An impressive display, but the true test of this aircraft is in BVR combat in contested airspace – hopefully never to be realised except in training exercises.
1: Lockheed F-22 Raptor ‘Patchwork Pete’
With a degree of inevitability, my final choice is the magnificent Raptor. On a previous occasion at Avalon, we were treated to blue skies, cooler weather, and lots of atmospheric effects accompanying the Raptor display.
This time, what we got was just a display of brute power. Very noisy, and full of very aggressive manoeuvres. The photo was taken just at the end of a fast pass, with the aircraft beginning to roll hard-left into a thrust-vector assisted 9g turn.
The sheer brutality of the manoeuvre was extremely impressive, although there was a significant bleed-off in energy.
Both the F-22 and F-35 did passes with the weapons bay doors open, revealing in both cases a surprising complexity of plumbing and hardware. The F-22, in particular, presented a very mottled appearance, suggesting servicing activity requiring much making good of signature reducing surface treatments.
How to sum up Avalon? On the one hand, it’s the display with everything: comprehensive trade show; general aviation; home-built aircraft; executive jets; warbirds; military helicopters, transports and heavy metal; all in an environment with generally fine weather, tolerant of noise, and with great viewing opportunities from the flight line and the grandstands.
I am conscious too, that my 12 photos do not do justice to the breadth and scope of the show, with no insane aerobatic aircraft, and almost no warbirds, and little coverage of the extensive and fascinating ground exhibits.
For me, this was another great show, but the good weather on Friday, extending as it did to high temperatures, a hot North wind and 7 hours of airshow in an open grandstand, turned into such an endurance test that I did not return on the Saturday.
Will I be back in two-year’s time? Definitely. But I’ll be hoping for cooler conditions to really enjoy what should be an absolute cracker – Avalon does 100 years of the RAAF!”
Yesterday we took at the reasons Turkey made the controversial decision to purchase a Russian air defence system. Today – will Turkey get the F-35 stealth fighter— and how effective would the S-400 be in service? We asked Arda Mevlutoglu.
“It seems that the whole deal has turned into a game of who will blink first: Turkey repeatedly stated at all levels including the President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, that there will be no backing from the contract with Russia. The US on the other hand threatened to block the deliveries of the F-35, removing Turkey from the Joint Strike Fighter (F-35) programme and impose of sanctions under the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA is a United States federal law that imposes sanctions on Iran, North Korea, and Russia). Unless an interim or an ‘innovative’ solution can be found, it seems that Turkey will not get F-35 if the deliveries of the S-400 commences.
Turkey so far has taken delivery of two F-35A’s (18-0001 and 18-0002) in June last year. These aircraft are used in pilot and ground crew training at Luke AFB. Third and fourth aircraft are expected to be delivered in March this year. First two F-35A’s were planned to be flown to Turkey towards the end of this year. Malatya 7th Main Jet Base 172nd Squadron is the first unit to be equipped with F-35A’s, to be followed by 171. The other base to house F-35A’s is Eskisehir 1st Main Jet base with 111 and 112 Squadrons.
It should be noted that there has been a new move from the US side earlier this year —the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2019 was brought before President Trump on February 15th. This Act has a section about Turkey, one article deals with the sanctions for Turkish Presidential Protection Directorate, and another on deals with the S-400 procurement. The Act directs the Department of State to prepare an update to the report that was submitted by the Department of Defense late last year regarding the implications of S-400 deployment to Turkey. The update that this Act asks for will include a plan (or a roadmap) to impose sanctions to Turkey because of the S-400 procurement under CAATSA. The report will be take at least six months. but no later than 1 November 2019. In other words, the US government will prepare sanctions for Turkey if S-400 deliveries commence. The act also calls for no F-35 delivery to Turkey until the update is submitted.
The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes will feature the finest cuts from Hush-Kit along with exclusive new articles, explosive photography and gorgeous bespoke illustrations.Order The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes here
This act was signed by Trump on the very same day it was submitted for approval.
“The airspace is filled with manned and unmanned air platforms of many military, civilian and ‘unknown’ users. To make things more complicated, the airspace is hammered by electronic warfare signals of all bands and spectrums.”
And if Turkey does get the S-400 will there be problems operating both US and Russian equipment?
The Turkish Armed Forces already use a number of Russian made equipment such as BTR-60 and armoured personnel carriers, Mi-17 general purpose helicopters (in Gendarmerie service), Kornet E anti tank guided missiles as well as infantry weapons like PKM’s, SVD’s, AK’s. However, a complex weapon system such as S-400 will be a first. There certainly are many risks and issues in terms of interoperability, logistics, training, infrastructure, doctrine, security and intelligence.
The effective use of such a long-range air defence system like S-400 in a complex air threat environment requires a multi-layered air defence network with overlapping weapon, sensor and intelligence gathering systems, connected to a network-monitored and controlled by command & control nodes. We are seeing the unforgiving and complex nature of modern air warfare in Eastern Syria on a daily basis, especially by the strikes of Israeli Air Force in Syria — the airspace is filled with manned and unmanned air platforms of many military, civilian and ‘unknown’ users. To make things more complicated, the airspace is hammered by electronic warfare signals of all bands and spectrums. Providing 3- dimensional situational awareness in real time, and establishing and sustaining air defence protection requires a robust, interoperable network of weapon and sensor systems.
Stand-alone deployment of one or two S-400 batteries does not fit into this equation.
Save the Hush-Kit blog! This site is entirely funded by donations from people like you. We have no pay wall, adverts or subscription and want to keep it that way– 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 defense industry and military developments.
Turkey is buying an air defence system, the formidable S-400, from Russia. The deal has sparked fury from the US government, which is threatening economic sanctions and the withholding of F-35 stealth fighters.
The situation is complicated and heated, there being several reasons for the US’ ire that include: the belief of some in the US that the international community should be united to punish Russia for annexing Crimea; the US wish to sell their own weapon systems; the complication of a NATO nation using high-tech Russian equipment; the risk of Russia accessing information on how well the S-400 system can detect and potentially counter the F-35, the mainstay of NATO’s future warplane force. To further complicate this, three NATO nations already operate Russian air defence systems (Greece, Slovakia & Bulgaria), something Turkish officials are keen to point out. Today the situation grew even more tense, as the two famously hot-headed national leaders, Presidents Trump and Erdoğan fail to resolve the crisis. We spoke to Arda Mevlutoglu to find out more about why Turkey has chosen to buy the S-400 and whether it’s a good idea. Why has Turkey chosen the Russian S-400 air defence system?
The official reply to this question is based upon two main factors:
1. The reluctance and even denial of NATO partners to provide similar systems and technologies, and consequently-
2. (an) Attractive Russian offer. The Russian offer is stated as involving much better terms in pricing, delivery time and joint production.
Last, but not least, S-400 is favoured because of its unrivalled performance, being able to eliminate targets as far as 400km.
However, a close examination of these reasons leads to a different conclusion: the Russian side repeatedly state that the deal involves no transfer of technology or joint production, i.e the systems will be delivered ‘off-the-shelf’. Furthermore, Turkey officially stated that the S-400 system will not be integrated into Turkey’s air defence network, which in turn is a part of NATO air defence early warning system. In other words, S-400 battery will be used ‘standalone’, which will significantly decrease its effectiveness against especially low flying targets. How the interoperability or Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) issues will be resolved is a complete mystery. These inconsistencies suggest that the decision to purchase S-400 was mostly, if not completely a political decision, rather than a technical one.
Therefore, the S-400 deal should not be examined without taking into consideration the other factors such as Syria, Turkish – Russian rapprochement after the Su-24 incident, and Turkey’s strained relations with the West after the July 15th 2016 coup attempt.”
The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes will feature the finest cuts from Hush-Kit along with exclusive new articles, explosive photography and gorgeous bespoke illustrations.Order The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes hereWhat are the reasons the US is unhappy about this?
“The main publicised concern is the interference of the S-400 with F-35. Also there has been other issues stated by officials including the risk of espionage and the weakening of NATO’s stance against Russia.
The S-400 is a very advanced air defence system: It incorporates long range search and tracking radars, can be integrated into different intelligence and target acquisition systems and also has a high-performance command & control system. It is the backbone of Russian air defence today and the centrepiece of its Anti Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) strategy. Today we see scores of S-400 battalions being deployed to annexed Crimea, Kaliningrad and Syria to establish ‘air defence bubbles’. Deployment of a similar system, albeit in a stand-alone mode, is stated as a risk to NATO assets deployed in or by Turkey.
Turkey is a Level III partner of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program and one of the biggest customers of the aircraft with a requirement for 100 F-35As for the air force and around 16 – 20 F-35B STOVL version for the navy. (the F-35B deal is not yet confirmed) As a state-of-the-art 5th generation fighter, F-35 being in close proximity to S-400s is the most prominent concern voiced by NATO and US officials.
“Does Turkey need an S-400 in a standalone mode with so many military, industrial and political consequences? Probably not.” — Arda Mevlutoglu
There is also another issue in terms of industrial and human espionage. Strategic weapon systems such as S-400 are operated in an ‘out of the box and then plug & play’ fashion. The training of their crew, deployment and operation planning, Concept of Operation (CONOPS), maintenance and sustainment of these systems require constant communication and coordination between Turkey and Russia through military, industrial and bureaucratic channels. This fact alone is expressed as a risk, as Russia is officially the number 1 threat to NATO.”
Are the US concerns valid?
The US concerns are not totally unfounded. It is indeed a risk for NATO assets, one reason being the potential proximity of F-35s to the radars of S-400, especially its engagement radar. There also is a significant risk of HUMINT (human intelligence, traditional spying) operations by Russia, an intelligence gathering approach Russia favours.
What is the the nature of the HUMINT threat?
The main threat here is that Russian spies posing as engineers or advisors coming to Turkey might attempt to infiltrate Turkish / NATO network. Another risk is Russian attempts to engage Turkish personnel. In other words, Russian intelligence might use S-400 delivery / training / support as a disguise for increased espionage activities.
And what exactly is the nature of the fears of the F-35s being near the S-400?
“US / NATO circles voiced concerns about S-400’s sensors collecting sensitive information about F-35 such as detailed radar cross section profile, communications and electronic warfare performance. On the other hand, it should not be overlooked that Turkey is one of the oldest members of NATO, participating in many operations and making huge contribution to the collective security of the alliance. Turkey has all the means and capability to assess the possible security and intelligence risks of this programme and is taking measures accordingly. Furthermore, the S-400 is being procured as a national asset, it will not be integrated into the NATO network, meaning that it will be a separate, independent entity.”
What is the general Turkish view of US Government opinions on the deal?
The Turkish reaction to the US government can be summarised under three main topics: 1. There is widespread frustration and reaction to the US regarding its support to PYD, which is the Syrian branch of the PKK, which is officially recognised as a terrorist organisation by many international organisations and even the US itself. The open support of the US of the PYD is not a factor of the decision for S-400 per se, but it is indeed one of the main reasons for Turkey distancing itself.
2. US (as well as Germany and Netherlands) premature withdrawal of Patriot air defence batteries from Turkey, which were deployed under Operation Active Fence in 2015 created deep impact in the collective memories of Turkish public as well as decision makers. This decision by the three allied countries is seen as “our NATO allies failing to come to our aid in times of need”. The said batteries were subsequently replaced by a SAMP/T battery from Italy and a then a Patriot battery from Spain.
3. The reluctance of NATO allied countries, especially the US, to share know-how and joint production resulted in discomfort in Ankara, which has ambitious plans to establish a self-sufficient defence industry.
More on this story here.Does Turkey need the S-400?
“Currently the air defence of Turkey mostly relies on a fleet of around 240 F-16C/D fighter aircraft. Ground based air defence systems consist of Atilgan and Zipkin self-propelled low-altitude air defence systems using FIM-92 Stinger missiles, short-range Rapiers and medium-ranged Hawk XXI missiles Early warning is done through a fleet of four Boeing 737 Peace Eagle AEW&C aircraft, 14 TRS-22XX mobile long-range early warning radars and some NATO radar assets as well as NATO air defence early warning assets. Additionally, the 3rd Main Jet Base in Konya in central Anatolia is a Forward Operating Base for the NATO E-3 AWACS aircraft.
The requirement for a long-range high-altitude air defence system has been on the agenda since late 1980’s, when Iraq, Iran and Syria were conducting ambitious missile and WMD development programmes. The Gulf War in 1991 underlined this requirement and immediately afterwards, Turkey started studies of ground-based air defence systems. However, budget constraints prevented Turkey from moving forward. It was not until the early 2000’s that it resumed these studies. In 2006, separate projects were started to reinforce the air defence capability: off-the-shelf procurement of long-range air defence systems (LORAMIDS; Long Range Air and Missile Defence System) and low- and medium altitude air defence system development programmess (Hisar A and Hisar O respectively).”
Keep this site independent. Take one minute to support us by donating here. People like you keep this going.
“The LORAMIDS tender saw three companies being shortlisted in late 2013: Chinese CPMIEC, French-Italian EUROSAM and the American Patriot. Turkey started contract negotiation with CPMIEC for the FD-2000 system. But increasing pressure from NATO and disagreements over transfer of technology resulted in the cancellation of the project in late 2015.
Therefore, the answer to the question is —Turkey needs a long-range high-altitude air defence system, but does Turkey need an S-400 in a standalone mode with so many military, industrial and political consequences? Probably not.”
Update on this story here. About the author 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 defense industry and military developments.
Save the Hush-Kit blog! This site is entirely funded by donations – Donate here.
We all know the fastest US plane was the X-15 or SR-71, and the fastest Soviet was MiG-25 – but what was the fastest European?
Was it Swedish? Nope, the fastest Swede was the Mach 2.1 Viggen. British then? The Lightning, depending on who you talk to – had a top speed of between Mach 2.0 and 2.3 — close, but no cigar. German? Nowhere near – the EWR VJ 101 experimental jump-jet only got to Mach 1.04 (the Mach 1.28 X-31 was half American). Is it a trick question – Europe collaboration? Nope — the Tornado could allegedly get to Mach 2.27 (though presumably only if the pilot skipped lunch) — and no, it’s not Concorde either which topped out at Mach 2.23 (though normal operating limit was 2.04)
West German jump-jet barely overtaking a bicycle.
So French right? Yes, but not an aircraft that made operational service. The fastest operational aircraft was the Mirage F1 which clocked around 2.22, the Mirage 2000 is fast too — around 2.2 —and the mighty Mirage IV nuclear bomber may have been able to exceed 2.2, the extremely capable Mirage 4000 could make Mach 2.2, but the fastest was an experimental swing-wing. According to Dassault —
“Mirage G8 02 made its maiden flight at Istres, on July 13, 1972, piloted by Jean-Marie Saget. For its first anniversary – and its 74th sortie – on July 13, 1973, it achieved the highest speed ever for an aircraft in Western Europe: Mach 2.34 at 42,000 ft.”
The fastest European since Cicciolina. Image credit: Dassault
A very French ‘Tornado’ – the Mirage G4. The G8s were converted G4s.
The general staff asked Dassault to look into a lighter (and cheaper) shorter ranged single-seat interceptor, and the two G8s (which were converted G4s) were flown in support of this effort. The second aircraft G8 02 was an actual single-seater (the backseat removed) and simpler weapon system introduced — it is likely that these weight savings helped it achieved its record speed. A record that has stood for 46 years!
Keep this site independent. Take one minute to support us by donating here. People like you keep this going.
Why hasn’t the record been broken?
The Chinese J-20.
So why has it not been broken? The main limiting factors on an aircraft flying beyond Mach 2.2 are canopy transparency materials and the engine’s air intake. The former requires the use of a material for the cockpit transparency (the ‘window’) that doesn’t melt at the temperatures created by the air friction of such high speed. Efficiency of the intake airflow slowing device on the intake is also important; to exceed around Mach 1.8 requires a means of slowing and controlling the airflow to the engine to a speed it can tolerate, this can done with shock-cones (as is the case with the Mirage family), splitter plates (like the Phantom) or ramps or variable geometry ramps (as used by the F-15 and Tornado). A modern modern solution is the diverterless supersonic inlet (DSI) It consists of a bump and a forward-swept inlet cowl, and can be seen on the US’ F-35 and the Chinese JL-9, J-10B/C and J-20 and the Pakistani/Chinese JF-17.
The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes will feature the finest cuts from Hush-Kit along with exclusive new articles, explosive photography and gorgeous bespoke illustrations.Order The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes here
The Mirage 4000, a French equivalent to the US Strike Eagle — that never entered service, could reach Mach 2.2.
Specialising aircraft engines for flight much above Mach 2.3 demands huge compromises in size and fuel consumption at lower speeds. These type of speeds have been deemed unnecessary for modern fighters (though MiG may disagree), though fourth and fifth fighters do speed far more time at supersonic speeds than did the preceding generations.
Bump ‘n’ grind – the F-35s bumpy Divertless Supersonic Intakes (DSI). As well as being relatively simple, DSI’s are generally less radar reflective than intake ramps or splitter plates.
A severely sweptback wing is useful for low drag at supersonic speeds, but a thin wing relatively unswept wing is another approach – the F-104 Starfighter being an example. Airframe materials also come into it, and maybe one of the reasons that the F-22 (Mach 2.25) uses more titanium and less plastics than its slower peers the Typhoon and Rafale (Mach 2.05 and Mach 1.8 respectively) is its need to withstand prolonged supersonic flight and a higher absolute top speed.
The manned missile sweeps for no man. OK, it sweeps a little.
As Jim Smith explained to HushKit, “Aerodynamic heating is a problem, as conventional aluminium alloys lose strength. So special materials are needed if extended flight above Mach 2 is required, for example in the SR-71. Intakes will generally be complex and have variable geometry, normally using ramps or a translating cone to create a shock structure which reduces the flow to subsonic speed. The configuration generally needs to be such that the wing leading edge sits behind the Mach cone from the aircraft nose to avoid high wave drag.”
A Typhoon or Rafale has the power to achieve a new European record, but converting these types to make this possible would be expensive and not overly impressive as unless it was radically modified neither would be able exceed the speeds of the MiG-25 orSR-71.
The two G8s demonstrating the range of available wingsweep.
I spoke to Defence News Air Warfare Reporter Valerie Insinna. Here she describes the highs and lows of defence reporting, her love for the X-32, the Hip Hop F-35B video — and I totally fail to get her to share her opinion on the controversial KC-46 tanker. What is your role and who do you work for?
I’m the air warfare reporter for Defense News. Mostly my coverage centees on US Air Force stuff, with a little Navy/Marine Corps aviation and a sprinkle of international defense aviation for flavor.
How did you start in defence journalism?
By accident, really, My first job out of college was a gig as an editorial assistant at the Tokyo-Chunichi Shimbun’s DC offices, and basically that meant that I did a lot of grunt work for Japanese reporters for about three years. Initially, I helped those correspondents cover the State Department, as I wanted to write about international affairs. But when I got transferred to covering the Pentagon for them, it opened up a whole new world to me.
I liked the candor of the military (relative to the State Department, at least) and the camaraderie of the Pentagon press corps, and realized that almost everything that interested me about international affairs also had a national security angle to it. So I applied for a job at National Defense Magazine, and the rest is history.
What are the biggest pitfalls facing defence writers?
Our beat is so big–there are always so many stories out there to cover, and we owe it to the public to cover it well. But the general public doesn’t know a lot about the Defense Department, and a lot of the policy and technology is very difficult to explain (and even more difficult to explain in a way that generates and retains people’s interest). I struggle with all those issues daily, and often think about how I can be doing my job a lot better.
What have been the highest and lowest points of your career so far?
My low point was definitely missing Scott Disick (Kourtney Kardashian’s ex husband and a major figure on Keeping Up With the Kardashians) show up to Saab’s Gripen display at Farnborough 2016. I’m one of maybe ten avgeeks in the world who also love trashy reality TV shows, so I feel like I blew my major crossover opportunity.
I hope there are more high points of my career coming…
Honestly, it changes all the time.
It was a hard story to write because of how tragic the subject matter was, but I’m pretty proud of this story exploring the cause of a horrific KC-130T crash. I also went to Romania and Poland last summer to explore what the US Air Force is doing with the money it’s spending to deter Russia, and all of the stories that came out of that trip are ones I really loved producing. I don’t think many reporters in the US were paying attention to those investments.
The F-35 — best and worst thing about the programme?
I try to remain as neutral on the F-35 programme as possible. I don’t want my audience to be able to point to me as either an F-35 fan or critic.
So, in that spirit:
(Fif: means to plead the fifth amendment; to not tell something to someone else because of whatever circumstances. )
What is the most over-rated military aircraft, and why?
I’m not a pilot, so who am I to say an aircraft is overrated?
..and under-rated?
My beloved X-32, of course. His smile is a gift.What is the most scandalous thing in military aircraft procurement?
Oh man, where to start?
…anywhere..go on
One thing I’ve been thinking a lot about is the Defense Department budget, how it gets made, and how little insight or transparency we have into what discussions are happening and why.
I don’t know if it’s scandalous, but I don’t think the American public understands how many different stakeholders have their hands in military procurement, and all of these entities have their own opinions.Within a given service, you have leadership, but also the heads of commands. The Office of the Secretary of Defense can basically rule things in or out, and there are organisations like the office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) that have a ton of influence. And this is even before it gets to Congress.
So when you see a service brief something new in the FY20 budget and it’s surprising or ridiculous or a big change, I always start to wonder who were the parties supporting it and why? Is it really a strategy-driven decision, or was it a compromise driven by funding or other concerns? Are there big differences between the service and OSD’s position? Are people within the service fighting over this?
The revolving door between Pentagon and industry is also something that gives an appearance of impropriety, even when all rules are followed. I think those laws should be re-examined. Of course, it makes sense that former military officials go on to jobs where their expertise is of use, but perhaps more oversight might be called for.
The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes will feature the finest cuts from Hush-Kit along with exclusive new articles, explosive photography and gorgeous bespoke illustrations.Order The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes hereHow much are US procurement decisions affected by pork barrel politics?
It happens a lot, and not just in procurement matters, but also in terms of how aircraft are based and how long they are maintained. Local National Guard units have strong pull with Congress, which has used to its advantage in the past when the active duty service wasn’t cooperative, sometimes to great effect.
Some parochialism isn’t always bad, either. The lawmakers fighting to keep the A-10 were all from states that have units operating it. In the end, I think even most Air Force officials now agree that retiring them circa 2015 would have been a mistake.
And sometimes Congress can be incentivised to come onboard with a new plan as long as they see the benefits. The JSTARS recap would have probably been a great program for Georgia. In the end the US Air Force decided to take a more disaggregated approach, and they took care to explain that to Congress and to create some opportunities for Georgia to be a player in the future Advanced Battle Management System concept that is now replacing JSTARS.
But yeah, supporting something just because it benefits your district financially is bad, bad, bad. Too bad almost everyone does it in Congress, so no one really goes after the problem.
Was the decision to go from Airbus to Boeing for USAF the right one?
I think we’ll see a definitive answer to that in the next decade.
Go on…
I think we’ll see a definitive answer to that in the next decade, but I really don’t like weighing in with my opinion. As a journalist, it’s really important for me to be able to cover KC-46 fairly, so my approach with that program is to scrutinise closely but also to wait and see before coming to a personal judgement.
If Boeing is able to deliver tankers meeting the Air Force’s specifications at the lowest price possible, the service can perhaps make the argument that it was worth the wait. But Airbus has a proven tanker already in operation, which I think speaks for itself.
What is the technology to look out for in the future of military aviation?
Well, if you ask the US Air Force, it’s systems of systems of systems of systems of systems of systems of systems of systems….
What should I have asked you?You should have asked me about my kitten, Vlad the Impaler! He’s adorable!
What ethical considerations do defence reporters have to negotiate in dealing with the Military Industrial Complex?
I thought about this question for a long, long time. I think it’s one of the toughest things we deal with. And I think it all comes back to the adage, “Trust, but verify.”
Being a good journalist involves building relationships with sources throughout government, industry, the operational community and other organisations. And in order to get them to tell you things that they aren’t telling other people, there has to be a certain amount of trust and respect established.They have to trust you enough to give you that information, and you have to trust them enough to believe it…but from there, it’s time to put on your critic’s hat and verify with other sources to ensure its the truth and to make sure you have the full story.
I have sources that I really like as people, we can each chat about our personal lives and interests over a beer and whatever. But when it comes down to it, they know they are not safe from getting a call from me where I am asking them to answer for something negative, and they don’t take it personally when I do (and, trust me, I do).
Do you have a favourite aircraft and if so, why?
I know probably everyone says these two, but are there any aircraft more beautiful than the SR-71 or U-2? Also, they are painted black, and I’m partial to the colour.
Does a defence reporter’s nationality affect how they write about military matters, if so, how?
I think it definitely does. I think most reporters naturally write what is in their own backyards, and as much as one tries to be unbiased, we all want our country to be successful, to protect its service-members and not waste our money. So maybe we’re all a little too soft on our own nations’ defence apparatus at times.
But even beyond that, I think there’s a bit of a divide on how US and European defence writers operate. I think the big glossy feature magazine piece on particular military technologies tend to be really big in Europe even now, so reporters across the pond tend to be military technology specialists who understand aircraft at a level that absolutely blows my mind. There are exceptions, but I think the European defence journalist crowd is predominantly made up of old dudes perhaps for that reason.
In the US, the focus is on breaking news, exposing new information or problems that institutions are trying to bury, and generating content. To do that, you don’t need to know an aircraft at the same level as an engineer does, you just have to be a good journalist. Because the barriers to entry are different, there is a balance between more seasoned reporters and young, hungry ones, and there’s more of a gender balance as well (even at the top levels, with editors and managers).
What is the story with your hip-hop F-35B video?
I don’t know, dude. I just always think of the aft portion of a plane as the aircraft booty, and I love late 90s/early 00s hip hop music. Defense aviation can be a stuffy place, so it’s nice to have a laugh over something stupid sometimes.
Love what you’ve come up with here. Good looking aircraft! Whilst I think what you propose is perfectly possible I do wonder about a couple of aspects (though of course this is massive speculation so I freely admit there are no right or wrong answers). With regard to the airframe I find everything you say to be highly likely though I do wonder about the wings.
Supermarine Type 224 fighter was intended as a Gauntlet replacement, it never entered service.
Given that Mitchell had utilised cantilever wings on the S.4 and would use them again on the Spitfire (and indeed the more relevant to the timeframe Type 224), I am slightly surprised that he wouldn’t have applied them to the S.7. Pressures of time perhaps? I think they’d be a definite on the S.8 though. I wonder if he might have cleaned up the strut arrangement for the floats as well? The which Mitchell began designing in 1931 had an inverted gull wing and trousered undercarriage, something along those lines could fit the bill for a floatplane.
Our proposed S7 from last week
However, to my mind the Schneider trophy was won or lost not by a seaplane’s airframe but by its engine. The Gloster VI was in some respects more aerodynamically advanced than the S.6, it certainly had a finer fuselage form, and there is, so far as I can tell, no reason to suppose that Gloster would not have won the Trophy in 1931 or set the world speed record, with their own floatplane had it been fitted with the Rolls-Royce R rather than the notably long-in-the-tooth Napier Lion.
With regard to the Rolls-Royce R, I am not entirely sure that it was actually at the limit of its development. For the S.6s the engine was not flown at full power, and operated on an overly rich fuel mixture which also sapped power but increased reliability. Further development work was discussed, though not undertaken, by the RAE in 1932 advocating testing four engines to destruction. Not only that but the R was still a very young engine, having first run in 1929. By contrast the Napier Lion first ran in 1917 and developed 450hp, twelve years later it was delivering 1200hp, and before it managed that output it had powered the S.5 to win the Schneider in Venice. If one looks at the later Rolls-Royce Merlin (which owed a lot to the R) the power increase from an initial 750hp to 2000hp was mostly delivered through a process of aggressive supercharging and much higher octane rating of the fuel.
The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes will feature the finest cuts from Hush-Kit along with exclusive new articles, explosive photography and gorgeous bespoke illustrations.Order The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes here
Keep this site independent. Take one minute to support us by donating here. People like you keep this going.
An often overlooked, though totally critical figure in the success of the Schneider Trophy racers was fuel expert Rod Banks of the Anglo-American oil company. Whilst seconded to the Schneider team From 1929 – 31 he developed the 30% benzole, 60% methanol, 10% acetone (yes, the Supermarine S.6 was partly fuelled by nail-polish remover) plus 4.2cc of tetra-ethyl lead per gallon fuel blend that powered the S.6b to its world record speed in 1931. Later Banks was drafted in by FIAT when the AS.6 of the Macchi MC.72 failed to work properly. The success of his work there being reflected by the 440mph record set by that aircraft in 1934 and later still his work was crucial in maintaining the dominance of British aircraft engines over their larger volume German counterparts. It is likely that spurred by the further development of the S.7, Banks would have furthered the development of exotic fuels for the R engine, readily able to accept a more potent supercharge without detonation.
Hooker and a Harrier. Sir Stanley Hooker. From left to right Fred Sutton, Chief Flight Development Engineer, John Farley, Chief Test Pilot. Sir Stanley Hooker, John Dale, Chief Pegasus Development Engineer, Bill Bedford, former Chief Test Pilot. Image credit: Rolls-Royce.
The suggestion that the R might be developed into a V-16 is the most fanciful aspect you present though. Rolls-Royce has never built a V-16. Indeed, historically Rolls-Royce was far more likely to bolt two V-12s or V-8s onto a common crankcase in an X formation. Rolls-Royce’s solitary 16 cylinder engine was the Eagle XVI, an X-16. Later when the war was on and the need for increasing the power of the Merlin was at its most urgent (and money was no object) Rolls-Royce still didn’t go down the extra cylinders route but improved supercharging (notably Stanley Hooker gained a 30% increase in power in one fell swoop by improving the internal streamlining of the supercharger) and ultimately running on 130 octane fuel, though this of course was not available in 1931. Talking of things that were not available in 1931, I am unsure if ethylene glycol was available as a coolant but if it was it would have improved the radiator situation, likewise Rolls-Royce were tinkering with evaporative (or steam) cooling during this period for high performance applications and it is possible they might have managed to shoehorn it onto the S.7. Mitchell was not averse to the idea as his (unsuccessful) Type 224 employed this novel cooling system.
So, I propose a cantilever winged version with an X-24 engine formed from two Rolls-Royce Rs on a common crankcase (call it the Rolls-Royce RR) with an indeterminate calling system, a VP airscrew and cleaned up fuselage and float struts (though I suspect these might have been under too great stress-loading to be viable, ah well…).
As the most beautiful manmade object celebrates half a century since its first flight, aviation journalist Joe Coles reflects upon the supersonic airliner’s iconic design, and its place in visual culture and the popular imagination.
The future began 50 years ago today. On 2 March 1969 onlookers at Toulouse Airport gazed skyward as a new shape thundered into the air. Concorde, the most beautiful manmade object ever created, was utterly different from any other airliner in service. Unlike the other airliners, which were conservative ‘cigars with wings’, Concorde was a swan-like dart of seductive curves, its form screaming urgency and modernity. It was extremely fast; the previous generation of airliners had traveled below the speed of sound — Concorde could go more than twice that. At 1,340 mph it would travel 22 miles a minute! The speed of sound is measured as a ‘Mach’ figure, and Concorde could exceed Mach 2. The only operational aircraft of the time that could do this were military, and apart from specialised spy-planes, they could only travel at such a fuel-thirsty pace for a matter of minutes. What had been the exclusive realm of fighter pilots in g-suits, was now shared with Chanel-wearing actors sipping champagne. Not only did they travel supersonically in great comfort, they did it for hours. Journey times were snipped in two. Traveling from Heathrow to Kennedy airport, this miraculous machine would arrive 90 minutes before it had taken off, local time. Concorde would make the extraordinary every-day.
Keep this site independent. Take one minute to support us by donating here. People like you keep this going.
Speed alone would not have made Concorde as loved as it became, and as was mentioned, it was also extremely beautiful. The 1960s was an era of television, cinema and photography, and it is via the latter that Concorde seduced the world. Throughout its life it was beloved by photographers, artists and the public alike, but were its good looks accidental? When I asked the supercar designer Peter Stevens why streamlined designs are often gorgeous, he noted that to some extent we ‘see’ with our hands. When we look at an object we imagine running our hands across it, “You can push the airflow around but you cannot force it to do what it does not want to do. I see the air as being lazy and wanting to take the least stressful path, and it is the same for your hand when passing over a form. Natural transitions, as seen in nature, almost always have something to tell us about the best aerodynamic shapes.” With Concorde, the form absolutely followed function, and this resulted in an exceptionally beautiful design. Though cars can sacrifice aerodynamic efficiency for beauty, an aircraft cannot – and this pleasing shape was indeed a desirable byproduct. The wing needed to be sharply swept back for efficient flight at Mach 2, but a simple triangular shape (known as a delta for its similarity to the shape of the Greek letter) would have resulted in an exceptionally long take-off distance and unpleasant handling characteristics. An ‘ogival delta’ proved the solution. Appropriately for this cathedral to speed, the ogee is a s-curved shape common in English gothic architecture.
A new Europe
Europe was uniting, partly as a counter to the economic supremacy of the USA, and the Concorde was the child of a very special friendship between Britain and France. As well as a hope for a more united Europe, it also spoke of a global utopian desire. With the moon landings a few months away, 1969 carried a strong sense of optimism. Boundaries were being broken both technologically and socially, and anything was possible. Concorde was almost a spaceship, and one that anyone rich enough could fly on. Earlier advertising for airliners had compared them to ocean liners, but this was a rocket-ship. Much of the marketing was based on this clean, futuristic image, a probing, heroic machine in empty skies. Far from the egalitarian vision of cheap, mass air travel delivered by the Boeing range, the Concorde experience was elitist and extremely expensive. Considering the huge operating costs, it had to be. Champagne, lobster, caviar and foie gras delivered by immaculately dressed stewards made Concorde the highest, fastest, high-class restaurant in the world. The creation of advanced aeroplanes is a very conspicuous way to wave the flag. Though its cultural exports were booming in the 1960s (notably music and fashion), Britain’s earlier position as leader in the automotive and aeronautical industries was on the wane.
France’s, meanwhile, was on the rise. Civil aviation is historically dependent on military research, and as Britain’s military aircraft manufacturing shrunk, its civil industry followed suit. Britain had produced the first jetliner, the beautiful Comet, in 1947, but now America had almost complete market dominance. Since the mid-1940s the US had usurped Britain and Germany as the most technologically advanced nation. The Anglo-French Concorde was a bold counter-attack from Europe. Concorde was twice as fast as any other operational airliner in 1969, and this remains true today. Though the Soviet equivalent, the Tupolev Tu-144 (nicknamed the ‘Concordski’), had beaten the Concorde into the air by a matter of weeks, this inferior rival would ultimately fail, leaving the Concorde as the only successful supersonic jetliner. Its US rival, the Boeing 2707, though bigger and faster, proved so expensive and technically daunting it was canceled before it flew. With the nascent 747, the US was now betting the farm on size and efficiency, while Europe was rooting for speed and luxury. Though it first flew in the 1960s and found fame in the 1970s, the Concorde’s roots lay in the 1950s, and in many ways it represented the ultimate ‘50s vision of the future. Until 1969, progress had a close relationship with speed: technology gave us faster trains, cars, ships and aeropalnes. With Concorde, and military aircraft generally, speed came up against practicality — was it necessary to go any faster? Market forces said ‘no’. In 1969, the F-4 fighter had a top speed of Mach 2.2. Today, the US’ most advanced fighter, the F-35, can reach Mach 1.6. In 1969, Concorde could exceed Mach 2, in 2019 the fastest airliner cannot achieve Mach 1. Simply put, aeroplanes stopped getting faster in 1969.
The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes will feature the finest cuts from Hush-Kit along with exclusive new articles, explosive photography and gorgeous bespoke illustrations.Order The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes hereSelling the supersonic dream
Concorde’s shape sold itself, as mentioned, the power of Concorde is largely in the mind, and equally emotive to onlookers as to passengers. The wing is the most visible symbol of flight, had Concorde’s been a simple straight-edged triangle it would have communicated speed and aggression. However, the addition of curves on Concorde’s iconic wing added a unique sensuality; the future was fast, but it was also elegant. Design was once satirically described as the art of adding curves, by this measure Concorde was a masterpiece. This sophistication was clearly a marketing coup, with many on both sides of the Atlantic entertaining the idea of Europe as being more ‘sophisticated’ than America, a nation that some saw as a brash new upstart.
Air France’s branding led the way with an appropriately modern appearance for both the exterior and interior of the aircraft. British Airways was a little slower, but the company’s radical 1984 revamp transformed the Concorde brand. The new look moved away from staid, patriotic Britishness to a fresher, and swifter, present. Gone was the old-fashioned typeface that had declared ‘British’ across the forward fuselage in a seriffed, curved and rather imperial style, replaced with a bold but smaller all caps ‘British Airways’. The famous, blue ‘Speedbird’ motif that ran the length of the fuselage was superseded by a more dynamic, red ‘Speedwing’. Whereas the older look was one of national confidence and a pride in the past, the new image whispered high velocity, style and refined luxury. In 1997, British Airways enjoyed another, arguably less popular, rebranding. The geometrically tidy national colours on the tail become a wavy, irregular ‘fluttering banner’. The Speedwing was replaced with a smaller ribbon known as the ‘Speedmarque’. This lighter look, though less authoritarian, was Concorde’s blandest scheme. Yet despite this, Concorde never grew boring, and it was a sad occasion when the type was retired in 2003, a mere 27 years after the aircraft was introduced to commercial service. It died a champion and in its absence the world slowed down.
Key to Concorde’s iconic mystique was its failure. Though technologically it was a resounding success, it was a commercial disappointment: a mere twenty were built, which is a tiny amount when compared to its contemporary, the larger Boeing 747, of which over 1,500 have been produced (and continue to be produced in 2019). Though at times Concorde was profitable, it was expensive to operate and maintain — and this become starkly apparent in its final years. This meant its unusual shape was always special, always identifiable. Familiarity breeds contempt, but Concorde remained gloriously special to the end.
The original version of this article can be seen here with wonderful images
The Federal Republic of Hushkonia is yet again riddled with political problems. Following an attempted coup by members of the air force, all military aircraft were destroyed in 2018. Now under UN Resolution 8576, no new military aircraft can be procured, “…unless demonstrably offering no threat to the neighbouring countries or region.” The government noticed a loophole in this; if they picked the worst aircraft possible they could still rebuild their air force. The UN resolution also banned the nation from converting civilian or historical types, meaning they had to procure types that were still in active military service in 2019. With this in mind the Huskonian Air Force went shopping for the world’s worst operational aircraft.
—————————————————————————————————————————————-
Fighters
Shenyang F-6 ‘Kim Jong’s Longjohns’
Even Bangladesh, which is on a pretty tight budget, got rid of their’s in 2014. Yet the F-6 — a Chinese MiG-19, a type that first flew in 1952 — is still operated by the North Korean Air Force. And an aircraft that has been obsolete for at least forty years is an excellent choice for the air force of Hushkonia. No missiles, no search radar, a slow top speed and terrible pilot situational awareness all count against a fighter designed to fight F-86s and B-47s in a world long gone.
The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes will feature the finest cuts from Hush-Kit along with exclusive new articles, explosive photography and gorgeous bespoke illustrations.Order The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes here IAIO Qaher-313 ‘Qaher as folk’
Iran’s 2013 announcement of a new stealth fighter was greeted with bewilderment, derision and incredulous curiosity by Western observers. Was it a toy? A mock-up? Could it even fly? Whatever the truth, Huskitonia will be the first export customer for the deeply weird 313.
Attack helicopterIAR-317 Airfox ‘Samantha Mambo Foxtons’
When a shopping trolley loves an Alouette you get an Airfox. When Hushkonia found a Romanian drugs cartel using this remarkable machine they immediately took out their cheque books, arguing that legally the cartel had an air force.
BomberXian Y-7 ‘Cokehead’
The Sudanese Air Force use the Antonov An-24 tactical transport as a makeshift bomber rolling unguided bombs out of the rear cargo doors. Inaccurate, vulnerable and slow, the An-24 is a terrible bomber – we’ll take ten please, maybe Chinese Y-7s.Jet trainer/maritime patrol/armed reconnaissance PZL TS-11 Iskra ‘The Iskranoplan’Iskra Arabella Lawrence is a British plus-size model who refused to serve as our maritime patrol aircraft. Fortunately, the next best thing, the Polish Iskra, was willing to serve. The Iskra remains in service with the Polish Air Force — despite it being 2019 and the Iskra dating back to 1960.
10 worst Soviet aircraft here
Iskra Arabella Lawrence, not to be confused with the TS-11.
Basic Trainer AMD AlarusCH2000 ‘Let’s meet up in the CH2000′
Look at it.
TransportAlenia C-27A ‘Sparta tomata’
While the C-27J Spartan is brilliant, the US ‘Alpha’ version has proved a huge flop. $486 million was spent on 20 secondhand C-27As (from the Italian air force) for the Afghan Air Force. They proved practically unserviceable, probably as spare parts were no longer made. This half-a-billion purchase resulted in 16 C-27As being sold as scrap to an Afghan construction company for $32,000. The four remaining aircraft were stored at Ramstein Air Base, Germany before being sold to Huskonia.
10 worst German aircraft hereTankerBoeing KC-46 Pegasus ‘The 7 ‘666’ 7′
In 2001, the USAF began a programme to replace its oldest KC-135E Stratotanker tankers, and selected Boeing’s KC-767. By 2003 the Pentagon smelt something fishy with the deal and paused the project while corruption investigations took place. It turned out that the deal was indeed crooked. In October 2004, one Darleen Druyun was sentenced to nine months in prison for corruption, fined $5,000 (she was allegedly on a $250K salary with Boeing and had received a $50,000 sign-up bonus). Druyun was also investigated for a 1993 McDonnell Douglas scandal and would later be found guilty of dodgy dealings in connection with the Boeing Small Diameter Bomb contract. The Air Force’s KC-767A contract was officially cancelled in January 2006. A new search for the now desperately aged tankers began. When USAF picked the Airbus/Northrop Grumman KC-45 in 2008 they chose a winner, a world-beating versatile tanker. However, Boeing didn’t like Europeans muscling in on their turf and kicked up a fuss — and eventually their entry, the considerably more speculative KC-46 (based on the Boeing 767 again) won. 11 years later the Airbus design is serving seven nations with aplomb and the KC-46 is still in testing as USAF soldiers on with tankers as old the hills. The aircraft are too late, too expensive —with $3.2 billion cost overruns, additionally “The Air Force is withholding as much as $28 million from the final payment on each aircraft as a financial hook to ensure Boeing makes the necessary improvements.”Despite the USAF’s huge thirst for new tankers, only 179 KC-46s will be procured while a new generation tanker is being studied. The Pegasus is thus the perfect tanker for the HuAF. An additional plus is that none of the HuAF have a refuelling capability anyway.
(In late February 2019, the KC-46 fleet was grounded following the discovery of tools and debris within the aircraft, left from an allegedly ‘sloppy’ manufacturing process.)
10 worst US aircraft hereVVIP transport ‘Careless love’
Loud, fuel thirsty and crashy, the Tu-154 is perfect for our Presidential transport.
————–
Thanks to Thomas Lovegrove for his generous help in creating this.
You love planes. We love planes. Save the Hush-Kit blog!
What if the two most formidable European fighter aircraft of the 1980s and ’90s crossed swords? One, the Tornado ADV, was the RAF’s prime interceptor, the other — the Mirage 2000 — a masterpiece of fighter design, was the pride of the French Air France. Ian Black flew both and is qualified to answer.
Weapons compared
“The F3 began life with four Skyflash and 2 AIM-9L sidewinders this became 4 – later on it was upgraded to take AMRAAM and ASRAAM = both superb weapons – The 27-mm gun was also excellent and very accurate.
The Mirage 2000 had Magic 2 which was actually slightly better than the Sidewinder but during my time Matra Super 530, which was a big missile and not as agile as Skyflash or as resistant to jamming .The internal cannon on the M2000 was also very effective”
“The Tornado F3 was good below 5000 feet — in fact surprisingly good. Limited to 6.9 G it could hold its own with a Hawk at low level mainly due to its RB199 104 engines. Clean in training fit it was a different aircraft to the war fit of 2250 litre tanks and eight missiles, it is often overlooked, but carrying eight missiles added a big weight penalty! The F3 would normally enter the fight wings back 67 deg or 58 deg then as the energy levels dropped off the wings would go forward to 45 with manoeuvre or 25 degrees – once you were experienced you could also use flap but it wasn’t really recommended. Putting the flaps down in combat was pretty much a last ditch deal and firing a Sidewinder off the wing would probably have burnt a hole through them! In short, the F3 was best below 5000 feet.
Tactical culture of likely operator
“France became immersed in NATO in the late 1970’/80s and adopted standard NATO tactics.”
Which aircraft would you choose to be in in this engagement?
“Being honest I’d probably go to war in an F3 due to its bigger weapon load, crew of two and greater situational awareness. However, for pure fun and in a close-in visual fight: M2000 no contest.”
What should I have asked you?
“Lots I guess, such as why would the RAF never have bought the M2000? Mainly because they need an aircraft that can sit at night over the sea in all weathers for long periods of time — and that is not the M2000.”
Despite 
The TFX project calls for a twin-engine, high performance 5
I selected the Oxai Skywave as an example of Avalon attracting interest from the broader Asian Aerospace community. This is, I believe, the first time a Chinese light aircraft has been exhibited at a Western airshow, and is in advance of its expected participation at Oshkosh later in the year, where direct comparison with the similar Icon A5 will be possible. Apparently, the Skywave will fly over to Oshkosh from Shanghai, travelling west through Dubai, which would be an impressive achievement for this small aircraft.
The Skywave looks an attractive proposition for the reasonably active amphibious aircraft community in Australia, which already enjoys the good weather, extensive and attractive coastline and many rivers and lakes as possible operating areas. The aircraft itself is mostly Carbon-fibre, has an empty weight of only 350kg, and is Rotax-powered. Unusually, the sponsons can be removed if one wishes to operate it as a landplane.
11. Sikorsky MH-60 Romeo ‘Wherefor art thou Jin-class submarine?’
The MH-60R is now in service with the Royal Australian Navy, and replaces the SH-70B Seahawk as the Navy’s anti-submarine and anti-shipping helicopter. At the show, the Navy gave a spirited performance showing off their new helicopter, and participated in the Capability demonstration, showing off the Joint capabilities of the Australian Defence Force (ADF). In the case of the Romeo, this included a simulated sonar dip to locate that most elusive of prey, the underground submarine!
I included the Seahawk, not just for the photo, but for fond memories of the spirited debates which always seem to accompany helicopter acquisition, not just for the ADF, but, in my experience, also for the UK Forces, and, I dare say, worldwide.
I also wanted to showcase one of the less publicised examples of the transformation in the ADF which has been in progress for the last several years. Other examples not featuring in this list include the entry to service of the P-8 Poseidon and the E-7 Wedgetail, with the latter, in particular, proving to be a very capable system, very popular with not only the RAAF, but also the USAF in coalition operations.
10. A330 MRTT refuelling boom aerodynamic fixes ‘Address: Karman street, Boomtown’
As an ex-aerodynamicist I find this fascinating. The refuelling boom of another new ADF capability, the Airbus A330 Multi-Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) is loaded with flow control gizmos.
Running down the length of the boom on both sides are two perforated strakes. These, I surmise, are there to prevent the shedding of a
Further aft, the lower surface of the boom has a nice array of vortex generators. These are there to encourage the flow around the end of the boom to stay attached as long as possible, again to reduce buffeting and boom motion. Inside the boom aperture are a row of small cylinders, which may be there to promote mixing in the shear layer between the internal and external flow around the boom.
Finally, the fences at the end of the boom vanes serve to separate the flow over the vanes from the disturbed flow around the boom.
Looking at these aerodynamic fixes, it is easy to see why it can take some time to refine and achieve the right behaviour from the boom, especially if a hose and drogue attachment may be attached, as every vibration of the boom can be amplified at the receiver end of the system.
9. Cessna A-37 Dragonfly ‘Aussie dog whistle’
The Cessna A-37 Dragonfly represents the enduring and active participation of the Temora Aviation Museum at Avalon. This year, in addition to the Dragonfly, the museum brought their Lockheed Hudson, Supermarine Spitfire and Commonwealth Boomerang to the show. As well as the Temora contingent, other participants from the same era included a Curtiss P-40, a Douglas DC3 and a Lockheed 12. On the day I attended, expected participation from the RAAF Museum Sopwith Pup, Sopwith Snipe and Royal Aircraft Factory RE8 did not occur due to relatively strong winds.
However, the Dragonfly put up a very sprightly show, as seen here. This particular aircraft is one of two operated by Temora, and has recently been completely rebuilt. The A-37 has more than twice the thrust of the original T-37, at 5,700lb, and operating at relatively light display weights a thrust to weight ratio of about 0.8 appears plausible.
Aided by blue sky, sunshine, and very effective smoke generators, the Dragonfly put up a fine display to represent the Temora contribution to Avalon.
8. Pilatus PC 21 ‘PC gone mad’
Of course, the RAAF Roulettes are, to the Australian airshow scene, as iconic as the RAF Red Arrows are in the UK. The Roulettes first displayed in 1970 at Point Cook, using the Macchi MB 326, and this year’s Avalon show featured the last Roulettes display with the PC9, a type they have been operating since 1989.
To mark the transition to the new 
The ADF has been operating the CH-47F Chinook since 2015, so this is again a relatively recent enhancement in capability for helicopter lift. The photo shows one of the two CH-47Fs participating in the Joint Capability demonstration, lifting off after unloading ground troops to assist in wresting Avalon airport from unspecified foes.
The cloud of blackened dust rising in the background is the by-product of pyrotechnics and petrol used to simulate the effects of earlier ‘cannon and rocket fire’ from two Tiger attack helicopters. In passing, this was a pretty sporty thing to do on a 40 deg C day with a stiff Northerly breeze.
I chose this picture because the Chinook is a pretty impressive aircraft, and has given sterling service to its many customers since first flight of the type back in the mists of time in 1961. The latest model follows the well honoured tradition of having everything you could imagine hung on it, including huge particle filters and IR suppressors for the engines, and an impressive elephant’s trunk-like tube on each side to carry waste shells away from the rotary cannon. An impressive piece of kit.
6. Lockheed C-130H Hercules ‘Kiwi Fat Albert’
Why the
Avalon this year was graced by both USAF and RAAF C-17s in the flying display. This is the USAF one, illustrating what brings the crowds to Avalon year after year. The crowd line is close enough to the runway to allow a really imposing view of the aircraft, big or small, noisy or quiet.
In this case, of course, the Globemaster, always imposing, but when seen up close, raising clouds of dust on take-off, truly impressive. And, as always, an equally impressive flying display, enhanced by the absence of the usually patronising and overdone US commentary.
In this year’s display the aircraft were generally supported by well-informed and interesting commentary, and were, in many cases allowed largely to speak for themselves. If you want to experience a well-run airshow, in ways that now appear impossible in Europe, come down to Oz for Avalon. Next time it will be the 100th anniversary of the RAAF, so expect big things!
4: Kawasaki C-2 Japanese jet ‘Atlas’
I was delighted to see that the JASDF had brought a Kawasaki C-2 down to Avalon. I was not aware that the aircraft was at the show, and its participation in the flying display was a bonus.
The aircraft has quite recently entered service with the JASDF, and its presence was another indicator that Japan is now prepared to export some military aircraft capability (they are actively promoting this aircraft for New Zealand). This follows on from the recent overseas tour made by the Kawasaki P-1 Maritime Patrol Aircraft, and discussions on possible sales of the Shin-Mewa US-2 amphibian.
The C-2 has something of the appearance of a turbofan powered A400M Atlas, or a scaled down C-17 Globemaster. Compared to The Atlas, it carries a smaller payload, but at significantly higher cruising speeds. There have been a few issues in development, and six years elapsed between the first flight of the aircraft and its acceptance into service in 2016.
The display aircraft gave a generally rather sedate performance, rather late in the day, before signing off with some fairly extravagant wing rocks, as seen in the picture.
3: McDonnell-Douglas F/A-18 Hornet ‘The badass bug’
As part of the general flying programme, the RAAF put up a four-ship Hornet display team, made up of aircraft and QFI pilots from Nos 3 and 77 Squadron, and No 2 Operations Conversion Unit, all based at RAAF Williamtown.
Although the practice sessions for the team were apparently held outside normal working hours, a very creditable result was achieved, including the echelon pass shown here. It is quite unusual these days to see a formation display team using operational fast jets (leaving aside one-off passes for special occasions, like the recent Tornado farewell fly-pasts in the UK), so I thought I would recognise this by including this picture.
Although the first F-35s are beginning to join the RAAF, and some of the F-18s are apparently going to go to Canada, the type will remain in RAAF service until 2022, with the Super Hornets and Growler serving on well beyond that.
2: Lockheed F-35A Lightning II ‘Panther burns’
Although the first F-35 for the RAAF appeared briefly at the previous show, and performed a few sedate fly-bys, this year was the first occasion at which a full on, high-energy display of the aircraft was available to the public. In fact, the displays were quite extensive, as in addition to the solo display of the aircraft, it also featured in some mixed formation fly-pasts with 2 Hornets and the F-22 Raptor.
Impressive features of the display included the rapid acceleration on take-off, the noise, which was colossal, and a significant amount of high-g manoeuvring. It was interesting to observe one of the high-speed turns concluding with significant down elevator and large taileron deflection, as the aircraft was rapidly unloaded and rolled to level the wings.
In the low humidity of a 40C day, there was very little of the condensation so beloved of fast-jet photographers, visual effects being limited to occasional tip vortices, the afterburner flame — an extensive exhaust hot-gas ‘jelly’.
An impressive display, but the true test of this aircraft is in BVR combat in contested airspace – hopefully never to be realised except in training exercises.
1: Lockheed F-22 Raptor ‘Patchwork Pete’
With a degree of inevitability, my final choice is the magnificent Raptor. On a previous occasion at Avalon, we were treated to blue skies, cooler weather, and lots of atmospheric effects accompanying the Raptor display.
This time, what we got was just a display of brute power. Very noisy, and full of very aggressive manoeuvres. The photo was taken just at the end of a fast pass, with the aircraft beginning to roll hard-left into a thrust-vector assisted 9g turn.
The sheer brutality of the manoeuvre was extremely impressive, although there was a significant bleed-off in energy.
Both the F-22 and F-35 did passes with the weapons bay doors open, revealing in both cases a surprising complexity of plumbing and hardware. The F-22, in particular, presented a very mottled appearance, suggesting servicing activity requiring much making good of signature reducing surface treatments.
How to sum up Avalon? On the one hand, it’s the display with everything: comprehensive trade show; general aviation; home-built aircraft; executive jets; warbirds; military helicopters, transports and heavy metal; all in an environment with generally fine weather, tolerant of noise, and with great viewing opportunities from the flight line and the grandstands.
I am conscious too, that my 12 photos do not do justice to the breadth and scope of the show, with no insane aerobatic aircraft, and almost no warbirds, and little coverage of the extensive and fascinating ground exhibits.
For me, this was another great show, but the good weather on Friday, extending as it did to high temperatures, a hot North wind and 7 hours of airshow in an open grandstand, turned into such an endurance test that I did not return on the Saturday.
Will I be back in two-year’s time? Definitely. But I’ll be hoping for cooler conditions to really enjoy what should be an absolute cracker – Avalon does 100 years of the RAAF!”
Yesterday we took at the reasons Turkey made the 
It should be noted that there has been a new move from the US side earlier this year —the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2019 was brought before President Trump on February 15th. This Act has a section about Turkey, one article deals with the sanctions for Turkish Presidential Protection Directorate, and another on deals with the S-400 procurement. The Act directs the Department of State to prepare an update to the report that was submitted by the Department of Defense late last year regarding the implications of S-400 deployment to Turkey. The update that this Act asks for will include a plan (or a roadmap) to impose sanctions to Turkey because of the S-400 procurement under ![DSC_8452 [1600x1200].jpg](https://i0.wp.com/hushkit.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/dsc_8452-1600x1200.jpg?resize=830%2C557&ssl=1)
The effective use of such a long-range air defence system like S-400 in a complex air threat environment requires a multi-layered air defence network with overlapping weapon, sensor and intelligence gathering systems, connected to a network-monitored and controlled by command & control nodes. We are seeing the unforgiving and complex nature of modern air warfare in Eastern Syria on a daily basis, especially by the strikes of Israeli Air Force in Syria — the airspace is filled with manned and unmanned air platforms of many military, civilian and ‘unknown’ users. To make things more complicated, the airspace is hammered by electronic warfare signals of all bands and spectrums. Providing 3- dimensional situational awareness in real time, and establishing and sustaining air defence protection requires a robust, interoperable network of weapon and sensor systems.
Stand-alone deployment of one or two S-400 batteries does not fit into this equation.
Turkey is buying an air defence system, the formidable S-400, from Russia. The deal has
Why has Turkey chosen the Russian S-400 air defence system?
The official reply to this question is based upon two main factors:
1. The reluctance and even denial of NATO partners to provide similar systems and technologies, and consequently-
2. (an) Attractive Russian offer. The Russian offer is stated as involving much better terms in pricing, delivery time and joint production.
Last, but not least, S-400 is favoured because of its unrivalled performance, being able to eliminate targets as far as 400km.
However, a close examination of these reasons leads to a different conclusion: the Russian side repeatedly state that the deal involves no transfer of technology or joint production, i.e the systems will be delivered ‘off-the-shelf’. Furthermore, Turkey officially stated that the S-400 system will not be integrated into Turkey’s air defence network, which in turn is a part of NATO air defence early warning system. In other words, S-400 battery will be used ‘standalone’, which will significantly decrease its effectiveness against especially low flying targets. How the interoperability or Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) issues will be resolved is a complete mystery. These inconsistencies suggest that the decision to purchase S-400 was mostly, if not completely a political decision, rather than a technical one.
Therefore, the S-400 deal should not be examined without taking into consideration the other factors such as Syria, Turkish – Russian rapprochement after the 
The US concerns are not totally unfounded. It is indeed a risk for NATO assets, one reason being the potential proximity of F-35s to the radars of S-400, especially its engagement radar. There also is a significant risk of HUMINT (human intelligence, traditional spying) operations by Russia, an intelligence gathering approach Russia favours.
“Currently the air defence of Turkey mostly relies on a fleet of around 240 F-16C/D fighter aircraft. Ground based air defence systems consist of Atilgan and Zipkin self-propelled low-altitude air defence systems using FIM-92 Stinger missiles, short-range Rapiers and medium-ranged Hawk XXI missiles Early warning is done through a fleet of four Boeing 737 Peace Eagle AEW&C aircraft, 14 TRS-22XX mobile long-range early warning radars and some NATO radar assets as well as NATO air defence early warning assets. Additionally, the 3rd Main Jet Base in Konya in central Anatolia is a Forward Operating Base for the NATO E-3 AWACS aircraft.
The requirement for a long-range high-altitude air defence system has been on the agenda since late 1980’s, when Iraq, Iran and Syria were conducting ambitious missile and WMD development programmes. The Gulf War in 1991 underlined this requirement and immediately afterwards, Turkey started studies of ground-based air defence systems. However, budget constraints prevented Turkey from moving forward. It was not until the early 2000’s that it resumed these studies. In 2006, separate projects were started to reinforce the air defence capability: off-the-shelf procurement of long-range air defence systems (LORAMIDS; Long Range Air and Missile Defence System) and low- and medium altitude air defence system development programmess (Hisar A and Hisar O respectively).”
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 defense industry and military developments.
My low point was definitely missing Scott Disick (Kourtney Kardashian’s ex husband and a major figure on Keeping Up With the Kardashians) show up to Saab’s Gripen display at Farnborough 2016. I’m one of maybe ten avgeeks in the world who also love trashy reality TV shows, so I feel like I blew my major crossover opportunity.
What is the most scandalous thing in military aircraft procurement?
Oh man, where to start?
…anywhere..go on
One thing I’ve been thinking a lot about is the Defense Department budget, how it gets made, and how little insight or transparency we have into what discussions are happening and why.
I don’t know if it’s scandalous, but I don’t think the American public understands how many different stakeholders have their hands in military procurement, and all of these entities have their own opinions.Within a given service, you have leadership, but also the heads of commands. The Office of the Secretary of Defense can basically rule things in or out, and there are organisations like the office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) that have a ton of influence. And this is even before it gets to Congress.
So when you see a service brief something new in the FY20 budget and it’s surprising or ridiculous or a big change, I always start to wonder who were the parties supporting it and why? Is it really a strategy-driven decision, or was it a compromise driven by funding or other concerns? Are there big differences between the service and OSD’s position? Are people within the service fighting over this?
The revolving door between Pentagon and industry is also something that gives an appearance of impropriety, even when all rules are followed. I think those laws should be re-examined. Of course, it makes sense that former military officials go on to jobs where their expertise is of use, but perhaps more oversight might be called for.
It happens a lot, and not just in procurement matters, but also in terms of how aircraft are based and how long they are maintained. Local National Guard units have strong pull with Congress, which has used to its advantage in the past when the active duty service wasn’t cooperative, sometimes to great effect.
Some parochialism isn’t always bad, either. The lawmakers fighting to keep the A-10 were all from states that have units operating it. In the end, I think even most Air Force officials now agree that retiring them circa 2015 would have been a mistake.
And sometimes Congress can be incentivised to come onboard with a new plan as long as they see the benefits. The JSTARS recap would have probably been a great program for Georgia. In the end the US Air Force decided to take a more disaggregated approach, and they took care to explain that to Congress and to create some opportunities for Georgia to be a player in the future Advanced Battle Management System concept that is now replacing JSTARS.
But yeah, supporting something just because it benefits your district financially is bad, bad, bad. Too bad almost everyone does it in Congress, so no one really goes after the problem.
Was the decision to go from Airbus to Boeing for USAF the right one?
I think we’ll see a definitive answer to that in the next decade.
Go on…
I think we’ll see a definitive answer to that in the next decade, but I really don’t like weighing in with my opinion. As a journalist, it’s really important for me to be able to cover K
You should have asked me about my kitten, Vlad the Impaler! He’s adorable!
What ethical considerations do defence reporters have to negotiate in dealing with the Military Industrial Complex?
I thought about this question for a long, long time. I think it’s one of the toughest things we deal with. And I think it all comes back to the adage, “Trust, but verify.”
Being a good journalist involves building relationships with sources throughout government, industry, the operational community and other organisations. And in order to get them to tell you things that they aren’t telling other people, there has to be a certain amount of trust and respect established.They have to trust you enough to give you that information, and you have to trust them enough to believe it…but from there, it’s time to put on your critic’s hat and verify with other sources to ensure its the truth and to make sure you have the full story.
I have sources that I really like as people, we can each chat about our personal lives and interests over a beer and whatever. But when it comes down to it, they know they are not safe from getting a call from me where I am asking them to answer for something negative, and they don’t take it personally when I do (and, trust me, I do).
Do you have a favourite aircraft and if so, why?
I know probably everyone says these two, but are there any aircraft more beautiful than the SR-71 or U-2? Also, they are painted black, and I’m partial to the colour.
Does a defence reporter’s nationality affect how they write about military matters, if so, how?
I think it definitely does. I think most reporters naturally write what is in their own backyards, and as much as one tries to be unbiased, we all want our country to be successful, to protect its service-members and not waste our money. So maybe we’re all a little too soft on our own nations’ defence apparatus at times.
But even beyond that, I think there’s a bit of a divide on how US and European defence writers operate. I think the big glossy feature magazine piece on particular military technologies tend to be really big in Europe even now, so reporters across the pond tend to be military technology specialists who understand aircraft at a level that absolutely blows my mind. There are exceptions, but I think the European defence journalist crowd is predominantly made up of old dudes perhaps for that reason.
In the US, the focus is on breaking news, exposing new information or problems that institutions are trying to bury, and generating content. To do that, you don’t need to know an aircraft at the same level as an engineer does, you just have to be a good journalist. Because the barriers to entry are different, there is a balance between more seasoned reporters and young, hungry ones, and there’s more of a gender balance as well (even at the top levels, with editors and managers).
As the most beautiful manmade object celebrates half a century since its first flight, aviation journalist Joe Coles reflects upon the supersonic airliner’s iconic design, and its place in visual culture and the popular imagination.
Europe was uniting, partly as a counter to the economic supremacy of the USA, and the Concorde was the child of a very special friendship between Britain and France. As well as a hope for a more united Europe, it also spoke of a global utopian desire. With the moon landings a few months away, 1969 carried a strong sense of optimism. Boundaries were being broken both technologically and socially, and anything was possible. Concorde was almost a spaceship, and one that anyone rich enough could fly on. Earlier advertising for airliners had compared them to ocean liners, but this was a rocket-ship. Much of the marketing was based on this clean, futuristic image, a probing, heroic machine in empty skies. Far from the egalitarian vision of cheap, mass air travel delivered by the Boeing range, the Concorde experience was elitist and extremely expensive. Considering the huge operating costs, it had to be. Champagne, lobster, caviar and foie gras delivered by immaculately dressed stewards made Concorde the highest, fastest, high-class restaurant in the world. The creation of advanced aeroplanes is a very conspicuous way to wave the flag. Though its cultural exports were booming in the 1960s (notably music and fashion), Britain’s earlier position as leader in the automotive and aeronautical industries was on the wane.
France’s, meanwhile, was on the rise. Civil aviation is historically dependent on military research, and as Britain’s military aircraft manufacturing shrunk, its civil industry followed suit. Britain had produced the first jetliner, the beautiful Comet, in 1947, but now America had almost complete market dominance. Since the mid-1940s the US had usurped Britain and Germany as the most technologically advanced nation. The Anglo-French Concorde was a bold counter-attack from Europe. Concorde was twice as fast as any other operational airliner in 1969, and this remains true today. Though the Soviet equivalent, the Tupolev Tu-144 (nicknamed the ‘Concordski’), had beaten the Concorde into the air by a matter of weeks, this inferior rival would ultimately fail, leaving the Concorde as the only successful supersonic jetliner. Its US rival, the Boeing 2707, though bigger and faster, proved so expensive and technically daunting it was canceled before it flew. With the nascent 747, the US was now betting the farm on size and efficiency, while Europe was rooting for speed and luxury. Though it first flew in the 1960s and found fame in the 1970s, the Concorde’s roots lay in the 1950s, and in many ways it represented the ultimate ‘50s vision of the future. Until 1969, progress had a close relationship with speed: technology gave us faster trains, cars, ships and aeropalnes. With Concorde, and military aircraft generally, speed came up against practicality — was it necessary to go any faster? Market forces said ‘no’. In 1969, the F-4 fighter had a top speed of Mach 2.2. Today, the US’ most advanced fighter, the F-35, can reach Mach 1.6. In 1969, Concorde could exceed Mach 2, in 2019 the fastest airliner cannot achieve Mach 1. Simply put, aeroplanes stopped getting faster in 1969.
Concorde’s shape sold itself, as mentioned, 
Air France’s branding led the way with an appropriately modern appearance for both the exterior and interior of the aircraft. British Airways was a little slower, but the company’s radical 1984 revamp transformed the Concorde brand. The new look moved away from staid, patriotic Britishness to a fresher, and swifter, present. Gone was the old-fashioned typeface that had declared ‘British’ across the forward fuselage in a seriffed, curved and rather imperial style, replaced with a bold but smaller all caps ‘British Airways’. The famous, blue ‘Speedbird’ motif that ran the length of the fuselage was superseded by a more dynamic, red ‘Speedwing’. Whereas the older look was one of national confidence and a pride in the past, the new image whispered high velocity, style and refined luxury. In 1997, British Airways enjoyed another, arguably less popular, rebranding. The geometrically tidy national colours on the tail become a wavy, irregular ‘fluttering banner’. The Speedwing was replaced with a smaller ribbon known as the ‘Speedmarque’. This lighter look, though less authoritarian, was Concorde’s blandest scheme. Yet despite this, Concorde never grew boring, and it was a sad occasion when the type was retired in 2003, a mere 27 years after the aircraft was introduced to commercial service. It died a champion and in its absence the world slowed down.
Key to Concorde’s iconic mystique was its failure. Though technologically it was a resounding success, it was a commercial disappointment: a mere twenty were built, which is a tiny amount when compared to its contemporary, the larger Boeing 747, of which over 1,500 have been produced (and continue to be produced in 2019). Though at times Concorde was profitable, it was expensive to operate and maintain — and this become starkly apparent in its final years. This meant its unusual shape was always special, always identifiable. Familiarity breeds contempt, but Concorde remained gloriously special to the end.
The original version of this article can be seen
The Federal Republic of Hushkonia is 
Iran’s 2013 announcement of a new stealth fighter was greeted with bewilderment, derision and incredulous curiosity by Western observers. Was it a toy? A mock-up? Could it even fly? Whatever the truth, Huskitonia will be the first export customer for the deeply weird 313.
Attack helicopter
IAR-317 Airfox ‘Samantha Mambo Foxtons’
When a shopping trolley loves an Alouette you get an Airfox. When Hushkonia found a Romanian drugs cartel using this remarkable machine they immediately took out their cheque books, arguing that legally the cartel had an air force.
Bomber
Xian Y-7 ‘Cokehead’
The Sudanese Air Force use the Antonov An-24 tactical transport as a makeshift bomber rolling unguided bombs out of the rear cargo doors. Inaccurate, vulnerable and slow, the An-24 is a terrible bomber – we’ll take ten please, maybe Chinese Y-7s.
Jet trainer/maritime patrol/armed reconnaissance
PZL TS-11 Iskra ‘The Iskranoplan’
Iskra Arabella Lawrence is a British plus-size model who refused to serve as our maritime patrol aircraft. Fortunately, the next best thing, the Polish Iskra, was willing to serve. The Iskra remains in service with the Polish Air Force — despite it being 2019 and the Iskra dating back to 1960.
10 worst Soviet aircraft 
Look at it.
Transport
Alenia C-27A ‘Sparta tomata’
While the C-27J Spartan is brilliant, the US ‘Alpha’ version has proved a huge flop. $486 million was spent on 20 secondhand C-27As (from the Italian air force) for the Afghan Air Force. They proved practically unserviceable, probably as spare parts were no longer made. This half-a-billion purchase resulted in 16 C-27As being sold as scrap to an Afghan construction company for $32,000. The four remaining aircraft were stored at 
10 worst German aircraft 
In 2001, the USAF began a programme to replace its oldest KC-135E Stratotanker tankers, and selected Boeing’s 
Loud, fuel thirsty and crashy, the Tu-154 is perfect for our Presidential transport.
————–
Thanks to Thomas Lovegrove for his generous help in creating this.
