I hope you like jamming too

In my flying career I was fortunate enough to fly Dassault Falcon 20’s for UK-based company F R Aviation (part of Cobham PLC). The operation existed to provide Electronic Warfare training to the RAF, Royal Navy and other forces around NATO. Utilising a fleet of heavily modified Falcons we flew daily missions over the southwest approaches in support of the Navy, over the North Sea against RAF Tornado F3s and latterly Typhoons, we also took part in many major NATO exercises from Cope Thunder in Alaska to NATO Air Meet in Turkey and even in operations as far afield as Malaysia. The operation is now run by Draken International who still utilise the same aircraft but twith the addition of a more agile platform in the AERO L-159 single-seat Light Combat Aircraft.

Electronic warfare, particularly radar “jamming” has been around since the Second World War, driven by the need to counter the emerging threat of radar-guided weapons and detection systems. Training in how to use and counter EW is still an essential part of military training worldwide.

The first EW system, codenamed “Moonshine” was introduced in July of 1942 and fitted to RAF Defiant fighters to deceive the German ground-based early warning “Freya” radar system.

The first mission was a great success, three Defiants fitted with Moonshine, each tuned to a different frequency successfully “spoofed” the German radar system into believing that a large wave of enemy aircraft was approaching. This caused the entire German fighter force in the Cherbourg area to scramble into the air, potentially leaving large sections of the coast unguarded.

This type of spoofing continued into 1943 with one of the Dambusters Lancaster bombers carrying a Moonshine jammer on the famous raid in May. In response, the Freya system was modified to operate on higher frequencies to the extent that Moonshine was no longer practicable in that role. It had however proved that not only was radar jamming possible, it was also essential.

In the years following the war the development of EW systems was rapid and continuous, with both sides in the Korean and Vietnam wars using EW to great effect. The United States Navy launched its first dedicated electronic warfare aircraft, the EA-6B Prowler in 1971 with the US Air Force utilising the Douglas A-7D Corsair in a similar role until the introduction of the EF-111 in the early 80’s. Both types are now out of service and the EF-18G Growler, a derivative of the very successful Super Hornet, now fulfills the role for the USN and Marine Corps.

Around NATO many EW systems are in use, the RAF Typhoon is equipped with the Praetorian Electronic Warfare System, while the F-35 Lightning II features the AN/ASQ-239 Barracuda EW suite. Both of these are highly sophisticated systems that incorporate Radar Warning Receivers, Electronic Attack capabilities (jamming), Threat Identification and Classification and Integrated Self-protection.

But how do these Electronic Attack capabilities and Self-protection systems actually work? Let’s take them in a rough order of effectiveness working from the least effective to the most effective:

10. Stealth

“Where did HE come from?” While not actually an electronic system a stealthy design is the first step in protecting an aircraft from enemy radar systems. Stealth aircraft are designed to minimise their radar cross-section (RCS), making them less detectable by enemy radar systems. By reducing radar reflections the aircraft can avoid or delay detection until they are closer to their targets, giving them a tactical advantage.

9. Mechanical techniques

“Where’d he go?” Chaff: a “cloud” of metallic strips explosively ejected from an aircraft to create a false radar return. Having “dropped” the chaff, a suitably hard manoeuvre by the defending aircraft should be enough to “confuse” the radar in question, allowing it to “break” the radar lock for long enough to escape.

8. Decoys

“Well, it looked like him!”. Having mentioned the Growler (stop laughing at the back) earlier it’s useful to point out that it carries a Fibre Optic Towed Decoy, which is designed to protect the aircraft from radar-guided missiles. Consisting of a small, lightweight decoy module connected to the aircraft by a long, thin fiber-optic cable its design mimics the radar cross-section and electronic signature of the aircraft, deceiving radar-guided threats into tracking and engaging the decoy instead of the actual aircraft.

Barrage jamming “I can’t see anything!” Very simple really, the jammer covers the entire bandwidth of frequencies that the target radar is capable of operating on generating lots of electronic noise. It’s like standing in a pub yelling at your mates so loudly that they can’t hear each other, the problem is, neither can anyone else!

6. Sweep jamming

“Peek-a-boo!” Similar to barrage, only this time one frequency is “hit” for a short period before “sweeping” onto the next, think of it as covering the eyes of one person at a time, you can put all of you energy into it but the others can still see you.

5. Spot jamming

The clue’s in the name. Continuously poking one enemy in the eyes. Again a lot of power is available but if the target radar changes frequency your effect disappears.

4. Deception jamming

“He can’t do that!” This is the clever bit, known as Range Gate Pull Off (RGPO) and Velocity Gate Pull Off (VGPO), both of these techniques confuse a radar into believing that a target has done the impossible. Electronically making it look like the range to the target or the velocity of the target has changed so quickly as to not be physically possible. Like an illusionist moving from one transparent box on the stage to another, you can’t believe your eyes. A radar doesn’t believe it either so it breaks the lock.

3. DRFM

(pronounced “DrrFmm”, no, really): “There’s f’ousands of ‘em!”

Digital Radio Frequency Memory is a highly advanced technique. The jammer receives a radar’s pulse, stores it, analyses it, modifies it and fires it back in time for it to be accepted as genuine by the radar awaiting the response. The analysis of the pulses is so accurate that the system is very quickly able to “predict” what the next pulse in a stream might “look like”. In this way false targets can be generated, they can be made to appear to be moving around in the vicinity of real targets to look like a much bigger force. It’s almost like a very clever version of the original 1940’s Moonshine system.

2. GPS Jamming

“Where are we?” In the news for all of the wrong reasons right now, GPS jamming is extremely simple and extremely effective. With large swathes of the Eastern Mediterranean being “blanked out” by jamming related to the ongoing Gaza campaign, the western Black Sea is seeing similar effects due to the situation in Ukraine. This insidious form of jamming and spoofing has caused numerous civilian aircraft to stray from their intended routes and, in at least one case, to the boundary of Iranian airspace.

1. Communications Jamming

“What did he say?!” In my experience jamming the radio comms of aircraft engaged in air warfare is one of the most effective techniques. From “broadband” frequency jamming, individual frequency jamming to recording and playing back individual radio calls it can make a fighter pilot’s life hell. It was always the main reason no-one ever bought us a beer on exercise.

The above is a simplistic overview of the electronic techniques that can be used in the increasingly electronic battlespace. However, with the advent of widespread GPS jamming affecting civilian aircraft, it’s no longer only the domain of the military pilot.

• Steve Cummings

The Hush-Kit blog needs more support to continue, if you have enjoyed any of our over 1000 free articles do consider dropping us a donation via the buttons on the top and bottom of this screen

Delighted to say!

This fabulous book has just been released in North America!

Here’s the US link – https://bookshop.org/p/books/the-hush-kit-book-of-warplanes/20294418?ean=9781800180949

Here’s the Canadian link

https://www.indigo.ca/en-ca/the-hush-kit-book-of-warplanes/9781800180949.html

£300 million funding has been approved for a massive building in the shape of Britain’s famous Spitfire fighter jet of World War II. Dubbed the Spithedral the building will celebrate Southampton’s contribution to world history.

Southhampton councilman Eric Pulp has been campaigning for the project for over ten years and is delighted at the decision. Pulp noted, “This is exactly what Southampton needs, no doubt the so-called Woke Brigade will complain the money could be better spent on essential services, but this will have some features just as important. There will be 24 rooms each themed around a different Spitfire mark with specially commissioned songs by local musicians explaining the key features of each variant.” Though Pulp refused to confirm it, it is rumoured the musicians will include UK Garage superstar Craig David and Rock legend Aqualung. Pulp continued, “This is a vital educational tool, I was inspired to start this project when I was speaking to a local teenager and was horrified to discover he didn’t know how many propellers a Spitfire Mk IX had! I realised Britain was losing its way and something had to be done. No doubt the Woke Brigade (or at least one Woke Battalion) would rather spend these funds on tackling knife-crime or child poverty or some other snowflake madness, but we will be building a legacy to a legend and it will made from wood unofficially harvested from trees on the Churchill family estate, so it will be made by trees likely containing the DNA of Winston Churchill.”

Oh god no!

World War II was the most depressingly boring event in history. As civilians joyously ate powdered eggs and sipped ersatz coffee they watched their world torn to pieces by a shambolic swarm of tiresome flying machines. Here are just 10 of the most boring of these lugubrious sky vultures.

10. Curtiss P-40 Warhawk

A city drab enough will attract graffiti from a population starved of colour and flair. Similarly, the sensibly portioned, depressingly conventional, P-40 inspired a happy gallery of shark’s teeth, skulls and monsters to help distract attention away from how anyone could actually make a World War II fighter boring. Curtiss-Wright clearly felt the same way we do and with its next-generation fighter, the XP-55 Ascender, it reached new heights of stimulating lunacy.

9. Douglas A-26 Invader

Technically good, but extremely boring – and with a long career, the A-26 is the Mark Knopfler of World War Two combat aircraft. The A-26 was the victim of overly balanced proportions, making the eye tire as it rolls across its horribly sensible shape.

8. Hawker Hurricane

Whereas a biplane fighter is a dashingly handsome machine, and a true monoplane a sensuously sleek affair, the Hurricane was an awkward halfway house. It was certainly not as attractive as its peers, lacking the curvaceous sex appeal of the Spitfire and the waspish bastardlyness of the Bf 109 – the Hurricane is a flaming beacon for the dull. If the Spitfire is a rapier-flashing Romeo then the Hurricane was his friend filling in his expenses on a spreadsheet with a little too much skill (and no doubt making jokes about how Brexit sounds like breakfast… in a nasal voice). Not only is it relatively uninspiring to look at it, the Hurricane is the bore’s aeroplane of choice, even now I can hear the tiresome calls of ‘What about the Hurricane..?’ and ‘Don’t you know it shot down 60% of enemy blah blah blah.’ ‘No one ever talks about the Hurricane’ they’ll tell you, despite it being one of the most famous aircraft in history with over 1,740,000 Google results and the subject of hundreds of books. Come back to me when you have a less generic wing.

Top Ten Most Boring Aircraft in History!

7. Avro Anson

Despite attacking U-boats only two days into the war and even shooting down 109s, ‘Faithful Annie’ only earned the descriptor ‘Faithful’ (the far more charismatic Mikoyan-Gurevich 23-01 took the more edgy antonym ‘Faithless’). The Anson did loads of worthy things in a reliable kind of way, which is great but we like our warplanes mad and thunderous rather than ‘docile’.

6. Fiat BR.20 Cicogna

Nobody pictures Fiat’s boxy BR.20 when they think of the Battle of Britain, despite it destroying a canning factory in Lowestoft (or maybe because its sole achievement was destroying a canning factory in Lowestoft). That it managed to remain relatively unknown through a wild and exciting career around the world is a remarkable achievement. Even a spell in the Japanese army air force didn’t make this boxy Italian bore memorable.

5. Blackburn Skua

The Blackburn Roc turret fighter may have been lamentable, but at least it had a distinctive gun turret. The Skua had all the killer machismo of a clapped-out Morris Marina ice-cream van.

3. Vickers Wellington

Despite being named after a particularly delicious beef dish and being influenced by Vickers’ absolutely fantastic Wellesley, the Wellington was the most dull way to kill civilians. From its ‘scout hut in Reigate’ side windows to its vague vertical tail everything about the dreary Wellington screamed ‘I was found on an industrial estate and should have been left there.’

The Wellington was nicknamed the ‘Wimpy’ by its crews as it was as boring as sitting in a branch of Wimpy burger*.

*I can’t live with myself for writing that, as a kid I loved Wimpy.

2. Kawasaki Ki-32

There isn’t something about Mary. Look at a three-view illustration of a Kawasaki Ki-32 and the word ‘aeroplane’ comes to mind. It looks like a plane drawn by someone with no interest in aircraft. As well as the Imperial Japanese Army Air Service, the Mary served with the ‘definitely real’ Japanese puppet state of Manchukuo (which had an air force capable of rather too exciting things with other types – like using a suicidal Ki-27 to down an airborne B-29). Even service in the extremely exciting Indonesian pro-independence guerrillas couldn’t bring glamour to Mary.

Top Cancelled Carrier Fighters

The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes Vol 3 – a massive beautiful book! Pre-order your copy here.

1. Douglas B-18 Bolo

The USAAC chose the Bolo over a design called the Boeing 299 as its heavy bomber. This was the wrong decision as the 299 would become the brilliant B-17 Flying Fortress – and the B-18 was utterly mediocre. The B-17 would go on to have its own Apple TV+ series, and the Bolo was declared obsolete right when it was most needed (it was the most numerous US heavy bomber at the time of Pearl Harbor). Even when demoted to the anti-submarine warfare role – which any large aircraft can do – it didn’t last long and was replaced by the excellent B-24. Its most exciting moment would be as a post-war crop-sprayer.

Thank you for reading the Hush-Kit site. It’s all been a huge labour of love that I have devoted a great deal of time to over the last 12 years. There are over 1100 totally free articles on Hush-Kit, think of the work that’s gone into that! To keep this going please do consider a donation (see button on top of page) or by supporting on Patreon. Not having a sponsor or paid content keeps this free, unbiased (other than to the Whirlwind) and a lot naughtier. We can only do this with your support. I really love this site and want it to keep going, this is where you come in.

To those who already support us I’d like to say a big thank you.

All the best

Hush-Kit

We have often knocked the Britain’s Cold War Javelin interceptor as a sluggish mess. For the sake of balance, we asked former Tornado pilot and author Michael Napier to defend Gloster’s ‘Flying Flat-iron’.

Firstly, the Javelin was the first RAF aircraft to be designed from the outset as a night/ all-weather interceptor; all previous night/ all-weather types had been less than ideal modifications of existing day fighters. The Javelin was designed to take-off on a dark and stormy night, intercept enemy aircraft many miles out over the North Sea and then return to an airfield right on the weather limits. To achieve this, it had to be stable enough to fly almost entirely on instruments: it was never intended (or required) to be an air superiority fighter, so comparisons of daytime air combat performance against, say, the Hunter completely miss the point. As an all-weather interceptor the Javelin, which equipped 10 squadrons in Fighter Command in the late ‘50s and early ‘60s, was very effective in role. You wouldn’t want to be flying a Hunter over the North Sea on a dark and stormy night!

Javelin also boasted an iconic – and unique – design in the T-tailed delta. The delta wing was chosen because it combined the best control and stability characteristics at high subsonic speeds. The drawback was that delta wings need a high angle of attack at approach speeds, so the pilot would potentially come out of cloud at decision height and be unable to see the runway because the nose of the aircraft would be in the way. Hence the T-tail: by putting the elevators on top of the tailfin, the whole of the wing trailing edge was free for flaps which would, in turn, lower the nose angle. As a result, the Javelin came in an almost flat attitude during an approach – ideal for bad weather operations. The flying controls feel system introduced a nose down bias at high angles of attack so that the pilot did not stall and spin the aircraft, since, like most subsequent high performance aircraft, a spin was irrecoverable.

As a result of its stability, the Javelin was an excellent gun platform – interestingly two Javelin squadrons beat a Hunter squadron into third place in the Duncan Trophy gun/ciné-weave competition in Germany in 1961. So there, Hunter fans!

The Javelin was the first British front-line aircraft to be armed with guided Air-to-Air missiles (AAM) – the de Havilland Firestreak Infra-Red seeking missile in 1960. As such the Javelin was the pioneer of RAF AAM tactics. It could carry four Firestreaks – that’s four more than a Hunter and twice as many as a Lightning!

One drawback, which I’ll admit to – the Sapphire engines (oops!). Unfortunately, the Sapphire suffered from a condition known as Centreline Closure if they encountered super-cooling conditions – basically inside a thick cloud in the tropics. The engine outer casing shrunk rapidly as it cooled and squeezed the compressor blades so that they could no longer move. A number of aircraft were lost when the engines seized explosively in cloud. The simple remedy was to coat the compressor blades with ‘Rockide’ an abrasive substance that enabled the blades simply to rub themselves free if the engine casing contracted onto them! A simple fix.

Sometimes people also criticise the reheat system on the Sapphires, but that is not to understand how and why it was designed. The reheat was intended as a low-cost “fix” to restore the high-level performance of the aircraft with missiles (a draggy fit) to that of the original guns-only FAW7. Rather than designing a completely new fuel system to incorporate a reheat feed (which would have been excessively expensive), the reheat in the Javelin was designed around the excess high pressure fuel that was delivered to the engine core, but not needed at altitudes above 20,000ft. Rather than returning this fuel back to the tanks (which happened on pretty much all other aircraft types) in the Javelin FAW8 and 9 (as the reheated variants were designated) it could be delivered instead to the reheat, where the extra power was enough to overcome the drag of the missiles and restore the performance to guns-only days. It was not needed (and didn’t work!) at lower levels below 20,000ft.

The Javelin was the pioneer of Air-to-Air Refuelling (AAR) for RAF tactical aircraft. For, although the RAF had belatedly come to look at AAR seriously for the V-Force and carried out several high-profile long-range flights with Valiants, tactical aircraft were not included in AAR operations. This changed in 1960, when the Javelins of 23 Squadron began working with the Valiants of 214 Squadron. Eventually, two units, 23 and 64 Squadrons became AAR capable. Both operated the FAW9 and the AAR probe was attached specifically for AAR sorties. NOTE: some people erroneously think that an FAW9 with a probe was an FAW9R – not so! The FAW9R was fitted with wet pylons that could take under-wing fuel tanks… if you can see an under-wing fuel tank then it’s a FAW9R! Long-range deployments were trialled by 23 Squadron in 1960 when Exercise Dyke saw the deployment of four Javelins to Singapore and during Exercise Pounce the following year, 8 Javelins from 23 and 64 Squadrons deployed to Karachi. These two trials proved the possibility of deploying an entire squadron all the way to Singapore using AAR – something that happened when 64 Squadron moved there in 1964 in response to the Indonesian Confrontation.

Like us on Facebook here for exclusive material

Because of its flexibility and the ability to redeploy swiftly if needed, the Javelin became the RAF’s rapid reaction force. Javelins reinforced Germany during the Berlin Crisis in 1961 (in addition to the two squadrons already out there), Cyprus in 1963 and Zambia (during the Rhodesian UDI) in 1965… and, of course Singapore as already mentioned.

In short, the Javelin was the backbone of RAF Fighter command in the late 1950s and early 1960s and proved to be a flexible and effective interceptor. It was the pioneer of techniques and tactics for both AAMs and AAR in the RAF and the Lightning and Phantom benefitted hugely from the work carried out by the Javelin squadrons that preceded them. It was also the first aircraft to be called when crises erupted around the world and once again proved most capable wherever it was sent. So – the Javelin played a major, and very successful, part in the development of jet fighter aircraft in the RAF and ought to be remembered in that light.

Michael Napier is the author of the
Gloster Javelin: An Operational History

We spoke to Ron Smith, former Head of Future Projects at Westland Helicopters to get his first thoughts.

Revealed this week on Chinese social media was a new Chinese attack helicopter. We spoke to Ron Smith, former Head of Future Projects at Westland Helicopters to get his first thoughts.

“It’s a development of the Z-20, which is very much a Black Hawk clone. It has a five-blade rotor and a slim fuselage with tandem cockpits – presumably as AH-64, with the gunner in the front seat and the pilot to the rear…with rather restricted view – which may be complemented by helmet-mounted display, which may access distributed camera systems to provide synthetic ‘through the skin’ vision. There are large laterally disposed panniers, presumably for a significant volume of mission system avionics. The overall appearance is that of a Black Hawk crossed with the US AH-64 and Russian Mil Mi-28. There appears to be a TADS (Target Acquisition and Designation Sights) and PNVS (Pilot Night Vision System) – style sensor pack under the nose and presumably provision for a forward-mounted cannon for area suppression. There may be provision for a mast-mounted sensor for target acquisition, dependent on weapon guidance technology. There would appear to be upward exhausting infra-red Suppression. Other protuberances suggest High Frequency radio, defensive aids (one might expect missile launch detection / approach warning, presumably with a capability to trigger appropriate countermeasures. One would also expect navigation aids and a comprehensive comms fit. Dependent upon doctrine, there may be provision of data links / satcom for coordination with land vehicles, other helicopters and command infrastructure – particularly if third party target designation forms part of the operational tactics. In the modern world, one might speculate about the capability to interact with and potentially provide for command and control of unmanned air systems. Presumably, the aircraft is designed for operation across a wide range of environmental conditions. Measures to reduce detectable signatures are not particularly evident, other than with respect to the IR suppression treatment. The extra blade area might allow a reduced tip speed operation to minimise acoustic signature. The lack of a stepped canopy is evident. This could minimise the weight of protective armour, whether metallic or transparent. This does suggest synthetic measures to provide all-round situation awareness for the crew / rear seat occupant. The wing appears to have inboard heavy weapon stations, presumably for long-range anti-armour weapons or external fuel carriage, when required. The outboard stations could carry lighter missiles for anti-air use, or rockets, or electronic warfare systems. It would be interesting to understand the PLAAF doctrine for the use of helicopters in support of ground forces in both offensive and defensive operations. The size of the helicopter suggests classic anti-armour operations in natural terrain (using terrain screening) rather than urban operations. Other possible roles could be as an escort to troop-carrying helicopters and operations against enemy command centres and logistic nodes.”

Find out more about The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes Vol 3 here.

So it is to the Z-20 what a Huey Cobra is to a Huey?

“Yes – a slimmed-down fuselage will save some weight, but think AH-1Z, rather than AH-1G. Issues that one can’t easily speculate about include internal fuel capacity, ammunition capacity for cannon (heavy stuff), and if it is driven by a ‘hot and high capability’. Something to consider is what the engine rating and transmission rating structure look like.”

10. Sud-Est SE.200 Amphitrite ‘L’oie de l’épinette’ (1942)

Flying boats opened up the world in the 1930s. Who needed airports if you could land on water? There weren’t many large airports, so flying boats – in all their grand glamour – led the aeroplane travel revolution. Now air travel routes linking North America, Europe, South America, Africa and Asia were possible.

In the 1930s the French air ministry was tantalised by the possibilities of international travel and identified a need for a transatlantic flying boat airliner to serve Air France. The requirement specified a 6,000 km (3,700 mi) range – and being the 1930s – room for only 20 lucky passengers (and 500 kg of cargo, probably mostly consisting of Pâté en Croûte, Pastis and mistresses’ underwear).

The aircraft manufacturer Lioré et Olivier set about creating a large handsome six-engined aeroplane, the LeO H-49, powered by six of the then-new Gnome-Rhône 14R-26 1600-horsepower radial aero-engine. With the unfortunately timed nationalisation of the French aviation industry, the aircraft became a Sud-Est concern. The hugely impressive flying boat was named ‘Amphitrite’ after the sea goddess and wife of Poseidon from Greek mythology. Before the huge machine could be flown, Germany invaded France – but work continued at Marignane in southern France. The first aircraft, named Rochambeau, flew on 11 December 1942, and what a machine it was.

The German occupiers were impressed by the aircraft and seized it, taking it to Lake Constance in Germany for assessment. It was here that it was destroyed by RAF Mosquitoes. Four other airframes survived for a short time at Marignane, but one was wrecked by a USAAF raid that also severely damaged the other three.

Sadly, 2022 would see another beautiful six-engined giant aeroplane destroyed from the air with the destruction of the world’s biggest aircraft, the Ukrainian An-225.

9. Avro Canada C.102 Jetliner

In the turbulent 1970s, there was a saying about Canada: we could have had French food, the British government, and American technology, but instead, we wound up with American food, the French government, and British technology.  Well, this over-populated, over-heated world has pretty much gone to shit and now everybody everywhere is up to their neck in cheap plastic crap made in China.  Yes, times change and the potential greatness just swirls off like some beautiful chemtrail in a carbon-laced sky.  Take the Avro Canada C.102 Jetliner, a four-Derwent airliner prototype from 1949. Ahead of the Boeing 707, the Jetliner was Canada’s first jet design and North America’s first jet airliner.  It was the premier regional jet, beating the Sud Aviation Caravelle by a decade and Bombardier by a lifetime.  The C.102 carried the first ever jet air mail: Toronto to New York City in an hour.  Howard Hughes took it for a spin, loved it so much he leased it for six months.  Damn English carpet-baggers running Avro Canada dropped this handsome, commercially promising bird to soak the RCAF budget with the CF-100 instead.  Good work federal government, Trans Canada Airlines and Avro Canada.  It was the perfect prelude to the capable, expensive and cruelly/sensibly quashed CF-105 Arrow.

So where is the C.102 now? Well, the nose is in a museum in Ottawa. Oh, and the landing gear ended up on a farm wagon some place.

9. Avro 722 Atlantic (1952) ‘Vulcan-do’

Flying from London to New York in an airliner based on the Avro Vulcan in less than seven hours would have been a truly remarkable way to travel. Intended for up to 113 passengers, who presumably didn’t mind a bit of noise, the 200,000Ib 600mph Atlantic was not pursued. A bonkers idea from the perspective of economy of operation – but absolutely appealing in terms of delivering noise-loving aesthetes a lovely silver monster. We asked aircraft noise expert Michael Carley his view of the Atlantic and he noted, “If you’re comparing to conventional subsonic airliners, it would certainly be louder than any modern airliner. It would probably have been much louder than any contemporary as well. FAA data taken at Dulles for Concorde and wide- and narrow-body airliners in the seventies have Concorde 10-15dB louder the

8. Convair Model 49

In the 1960s, the US Army grew sick of dependence on inappropriate USAF aircraft for close support missions. Aircraft like the Republic F-105 Thunderchief were simply too fast and vulnerable to support troops on the ground effectively. Instead, the US Army wanted the versatility and forward-basing possibilities of a vertical take-off platform able to hover. To excel in the tough close support role, the type would need to be heavily armed and armoured. This need was expressed formally as the Advanced Aerial Fire Support System or AAFSS.

Convair, a company famed for its adventurous designs, responded to the Army’s AAFSS requirement with typical ambition. Drawing on their experience with the tail-sitting XFY-1 ‘Pogo’ they proposed a two-man ‘ring’ (or annular) wing ducted-fan design quite unlike anything else in service, though somewhat similar to the experimental SNECMA C.540 Coléoptère. The concept was bizarre in appearance but Convair believed it was the perfect configuration for an aircraft combining a helicopter’s unusual abilities with some of the offensive features of a military ground vehicle. One of the greatest challenges was creating a cockpit that tilted so the pilot was not facing the sky in the take-off/landing and landed support parts of its mission. This necessitated a complex hinged forward fuselage giving the type its distinctly ‘Transformer’-like looks.

The Convair XFY-1 ‘Pogo’ tail-sitting fighter.

Two co-axially mounted contra-rotated rotors were to be powered by Pratt & Whitney’s JFTD12 or Lycoming’s LTC4B-11 (GE’s T64 and Allison’s T56 were also assessed as candidates). The duct would generate more thrust from the engine than would the open rotors of a conventional helicopter design, which was a good thing as it was expected to weigh in at around 21,000 Ib (9526kg) fully loaded.

The untold story of Britain’s cancelled superfighter, the Hawker P.1154, can be read here.

Armament for this monstrous machine would include a central turret with a XM-140 30-mm automatic cannon with 1,000 rounds or a launcher for 500 (!) WASP rockets and two remotely-controlled light machine-gun turrets with 12,000 rounds of ammunition or a XM-75 grenade launchers with 500 rounds. Addition to this already awe-inspiring arsenal were four hard points on the nacelles which could carry Shellelagh or BGM-71 TOW missiles, or even the M40 ‘106-mm ‘ recoilless gun! The weapons could be fired during any part of the flight profile (note the ‘hover firing’ position). The steel armour would be impervious to 12.7-mm rounds, but there was little or no provision for defences or countermeasures against surface-to-air missiles.

7. RF-4X Mach 3 Hellraiser 

In the 1970s, the Israeli air force wanted a reconnaissance aircraft capable of carrying the extremely impressive HIAC-1 camera. The F-4 was considered, but the G-139 pod that contained the sensor was over 22 feet long and weighed over 4000 pounds – and the Phantom did not have the power to carry such a bulky store and remain fast and agile enough to survive in hostile airspace. One solution was to increase the power of the engines with water injection, something that had been done for various successful F-4 record attempts. This combined with new inlets, a new canopy and huge bolt-on water tanks promised a mouth-watering 150% increase in power. This would have allowed a startling top speed of mach 3.2 and a cruising speed of mach 2.7. This level of performance would have made the F-4X almost impossible to shoot-down with the technology then in service.

The F-4X would also have been a formidable interceptor – something that threatened the F-15 development effort, causing the State Department to revoke an export license for the RF-4X. Even with the increase in power, the Israeli air force was still worried about the huge amount of drag, but a solution came in the form of a slimmed-down camera installation in a specially elongated nose. This meant the interceptor radar had to be removed, which assuaged the State Department’s fears and the project was permitted to continue. However, worries from the F-15 project community returned (as did worries about how safe the F-4X would have been to fly) and the US pulled out. Israel tried to go it alone but didn’t have enough money, so the Mach 3 Phantom never flew. UPDATE: Or so we thought. In 2019 someone close to the project revealed to Hush-Kit that a high-speed Phantom variant had indeed served, though there is nothing in open-source literature.

5. Antonov An-71 ‘Madcap‘

Photos: Joe Coles

Inspired by the success of the Israeli Air Force’s E-2 Hawkeye in the 1982 campaign in Lebanon, the Soviet Union went about creating its own tactical airborne early warning and control aircraft – the Antonov An-71.

An operational requirement was formulated in 1982, with the aim of creating a land-based AEW&C aircraft at least as capable as the E-2C. The aircraft was required to have an endurance of at least 4.5 hours and the ability to detect low-flying aircraft and other low-observable aerial targets – and track 120 of them at a time.

After considering the An-12 and An-32 as platforms for the new surveillance aircraft, Antonov opted for the short take-off and landing (STOL) An-72 Coaler. While the ‘saucer’ rotodome was conventional, its position on top of the tail was radical. The tail fin itself was swept forward to compensate for centre-of-gravity changes; the T-tail was replaced by a low-set horizontal tail. An additional small turbojet was buried in the rear fuselage to ensure there was enough power despite the weight of all the internal systems. Those onboard systems were to be operated by a mission crew of three, in addition to two pilots and a flight engineer.

Briefly, consideration was given to developing a carrier-based version of the Madcap, but there was no way to successfully fold the wing for hangar stowage and the thrust-to-weight ratio was inadequate for a ‘ski jump’ take-off. Instead, the Soviet Navy opted for the more conventional Yakovlev Yak-44 project, which, in the event, never progressed beyond a mock-up.

Deck trials of the Yak-44 mock-up.

Work on the land-based An-71 continued and a first flight followed in July 1985. Another prototype was completed before the programme was axed, the victim of the demise of the Soviet Union.

It’s hard to say whether the An-71 could ever have been a success, but flight trials demonstrated generally good flight characteristics and avionics performance – the radar was shown capable of detecting 400 targets over land of water within a range of 230 miles and simultaneously tracking up to 120 of them. With its rough-field performance, the Madcap might have been a very useful force-multiplier for Soviet tactical aviation operating over Europe’s Central Front in a late 1980s Cold War scenario.

4. Makhonine « Mak-10 » The Flying Extendable Dining Table

Several notable Russian aircraft designers fled to the west following the Russian Revolution of 1917. Sikorsky and Seversky were two of these emigres, and they founded Sikorsky and Republic respectively, two giants of US aviation, but Makhonine – a rather complex individual – took his unusual ideas to France.

By 1931 Ivan Makhonine, was a French nationalised engineer, working on a variable surface wing system (think flying extendable dining table). For take-off, economical cruise and landing the wings of his aircraft were fully extended, for high-speed flight the wing could be telescoped into the thicker inner wing section to reduce drag and lifting surface. In the extended configuration the wingspan gained eight metres.

The whole system was pneumatically operated and was coupled to a manual back-up system. To test his concept, Ivan Makhonine built a large single-engine monoplane equipped with the telescopic wing, the Mak-10 (not to be confused with the MAC-10 submachine gun beloved by Miami gangsters in 1980s movies). It flew for the first time on 11 August 1931, demonstrating that such a wing type could work.

It was nevertheless, like many French aircraft of the time, underpowered. Its twelve-cylinder Lorraine 12Eb engine was enough for such a large aircraft. A second version of the aircraft, the Mak-101, was built at the end of the ’30s to further studies of such an aircraft. The 101 was far more modern, equipped with an enclosed cockpit, retractable landing gear and a Gnome-Rhône 14K Mistral Major engine allowing it to reach 380 km/h. However, before the aircraft could begin its test campaign, the Second World War broke out, and the aircraft was captured by the Germans military. The aircraft was repainted in the colours of the Third Reich and transferred the aircraft to Germany for further tests. Its fate is unknown.

3. Hughes LHX SCAT

In the 1980s, the Hughes company was producing the world’s most advanced helicopter gunship for the US Army, the AH-64 Apache, so felt they were in a strong position to win LHX, the contract to build the next US Army attack helicopter. Their offer was extremely bold and quite unlike any flying machine before or since. The Hughes LHX SCAT had no tail rotor, instead using the NOTAR system allowing a shape that would have had far less drag than any other helicopter. The fuselage was an aerodynamically wasp-like pod with two sharply swept wings and a nose section closer in appearance to a supersonic fighter than an attack helicopter. Smaller than the other proposals, yet equally well armed and fast at an estimated 342mph. It is unclear what Hughes were offering the utility category for LHX.

2. Boeing LHX

Staying on the subject of LHX, Boeing rejected the notion of very high speed, deciding that stealth and advanced sensors were the solution to the requirement for enhanced survivability. Their proposal was shaped for low radar observability — with weapons mounted internally. According to the writer Bill Gunston, the proposal rejected cockpit transparency (windows) in favour of sensors creating an artificial view of the world for the pilot; the reason for this is two-fold, transparencies create problems for stealthy designs and at the time there was a fear of laser dazzling weapons (also seen on the stealthy BAe P.125 concept). 

Boeing’s embrace of stealth over speed won out, and a 1984 review of the proposals agreed. An updated requirement was issued – LHX / LOA – which insisted that the new aircraft must be low-observable (to radar and infra-red sensors) . Such a brief immediately wiped out the chances of any tilt-rotor designs with their massive frontal cross-sections.

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

Boeing LHX SCAT.

Though knocked out of the LHX contest, American interest in high-speed battlefield tilt-rotors would soon return. Replacing the A-10 battlefield support aircraft with a vertical take-off aircraft could prove a boon for forward deployment and potentially offer far greater flexibility. In 1986, Bell and Boeing created a proposal for such a machine, dubbing it the Tactical Tiltrotor. This extremely ambitious machine promised supersonic performance, thanks to an ingenious propulsion system. On take-off, landing and speeds up to 186 mph the aircraft acted as a turboprop tilt-rotor with the engines fed from a central turbojet, above these speeds the rotors folded into the engine nacelle and the turbojet provided direct thrust. In this mode, a top speed of Mach 2 was anticipated. This already radical idea was to be combined with forward swept wings, canards and an internal weapons bay housing eight Hellfire or Stinger missiles. Work continued until 1990, when it was cancelled as the Soviet threat disappeared.

An artist’s impression of an early Bell / Boeing Tactical Tiltrotor concept. 

Various Bell / Boeing Tactical Tiltrotor layouts were studied, including versions with two turbojet engines. 

The novel internal arrangement of the Bell / Boeing Tactical Tiltrotor. 

This glamorous artist impression shows two Tactical Tiltrotors at extremely low altitude attacking with cannon and Maverick missiles. The Tactical Tiltrotor was probably an idea born too early, and included too many risky technical features.

This artist’s impression shows a glass two person cockpit and as a two-ship attack Soviet tanks on a bridge. 

In addition to the battlefield attack variant, a transonic combat utility convertoplane was considered. It appears that this design may have some external features designed to reduce radar conspicuity. 

Would the LHX Stingbat have been any good? Find out here.

1. ShinMaywa US-2

The LHX effort eventually led to the RAH-66 Comanche stealth heliocopter. As attack helicopter projects are as vunerable as an E-scooter on a motorway, the Comanche was cancelled. Not all was lost however, and the LHTEC T800 turboshaft developed by Rolls-Royce and Honeywell for the Comanche has seen considerable use. It powers the Super Lynx 300, AW159 Wildcat, Sikorsky X2 (an experimental co-axial pusher), T129 ATAK gunship and even serves (as a boundary layer control compressor) on a vast flying boat – the ShinMaya US-2.

The US-2 is an unlikely beneficiary of the LHX project. This majestic high-tech flying boat uses the T800 turboshaft for active boundary layer control giving the aircraft’s its spritely short-take off performance.

If you love aircraft you can be a proud supporter of The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes Vol 3 here. You can even get your name or name of a loved one printed in each copy!

Pre-order The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes Vol 2 here

 

Donate

SUPPORT THIS SITE WITH PAYPAL

Hello! Hope you’re all well and dusting off your bikinis and thongs in anticipation of the airshow season!

Time to light the afterburners and raise the champagne glasses as The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes Vol III effort is now officially launched! Pre-order your copy from the tasty selection of levels here and make this brilliant lavish well-informed entertaining coffee-table book happen. Pre-order now and your name (or a name of your choice) will be printed in the book. 

Like the other books in this series, it will be 100% crowdfunded. You make this happen. Be one of the elite first supporters by clicking here and getting your pre-order in, you may even be the first! Thanks for your support on the other book, let’s get another fabulous aeroplane book reality. 

Update on Volume 2! 

The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes Vol 2 has just moved onto the next stage of its journey, the developmental edit is complete and we’re on to the copy edit, then (if I have the order right) onto the design stage. The good news is the book is going to be even better than volume 1 one. It includes a wealth of exciting artworks of types that never left the drawing board, deep dives into spectacular types that include the Westland Whirlwind, Beaufighter, B-58 Hustler and many more – insights from some of the world’s greatest fighter pilots – fascinating diagrams that shine a revealing light on the most formidable piston-engined fighters ever developed in extreme depth, and the fruits of a team of madly clever historians and aircraft designers picking the numbers and stories of these planes to pieces to get to the true story. A lot of work has gone into it and it will be like no other book (well, a bit the first). There are some very funny articles, some extremely bizarre ones and some uncensored fighter pilot views that you really want to read. 

Where can I order Volume 1?

Volume 1 is available right now! Order your copy here.

Why is this launching before volume 2 is out?

This model of publishing takes a bit longer as it has a crowdfunding stage. To ensure a quicker turnaround between volumes we want to get vol 3 moving now. 

If I have book queries, who should I contact? Unbound (the publishers) directly please. 

IMPORTANT: Please do not contact the author, the Hush-Kit site or reply beneath updates with schedule or distribution queries, as I won’t know the answers and won’t reply. Instead contact the publisher Unbound here. Unbound are in charge of this side and know all the info. Much appreciated. 

I can’t wait to get this funded and into the world! 

Yours in Wyverns & Tempests, 

Hush-Kit 

The TAI KAAN – Turkiye’s 5^th  Gen Fighter – How does it stack up?

First of all, a little digression. How come Turkiye is developing, and flying a prototype 5^th Gen Fighter? This is a valid question, given that the US, while they would probably claim to have the only true 5^th Gen combat aircraft, appears up to this point only to have competition in this field from the Russians and the Chinese, along with an experimental demonstrator from Japan. The Europeans have largely met their current needs with the very capable, but not Low Observable (LO), Rafale and Typhoon, and are debating how to jump to a Gen 6 product in competing international project proposals.

Meanwhile, Turkiye has been embarked on a decades-long quest to develop a national aerospace industry capable of developing and integrating high technology combat aircraft, remotely piloted and autonomous systems, weapons, and the necessary sensors and systems, and able to integrate these into a significant locally developed and produced Defence capability.

This growing industrial base had positioned Turkiye to contribute significantly to the US F-35 program, with the expectation that this would become a key component of Turkiye’s air combat capability. However, the separate decision by Turkiye to procure the Russian S-400 surface-to-air missile for its its Ground-based Air Defence system, has resulted in Turkiye being barred from the F-35 program. This, in turn, has spurred the development of the Turkish TFX fighter program, which has moved from initiation in 2018 to first flight of the TAI KAAN prototype in 2024.

Comparative Analysis

Hush-Kit asked me to look at KAAN and the F-22, and consider such questions as how these aircraft compared in sustained turn rate, instantaneous turn rate, maximum speed and so on. These aspects are important for an aircraft which is expected to deliver air superiority, where the likelihood of being surprised over hostile territory is perhaps greater, and where there may be a need for within visual range (WVR) combat, or extreme manoeuvres to survive a missile attack. The F-22, for example, is clearly intended to succeed in both WVR and beyond visual range (BVR) engagements, and, as a result needs to have both long-range, powerful sensors, extreme manoeuvrability, and a mix of long and short-range missile systems and a gun. Are all these things necessary in a LO platform? Perhaps not, if the primary role is air defence over home territory and deterrence of attack by others. But perhaps they are required if, like the US, you are going for global air dominance.

With no F-35, and with no likelihood of other weapons systems being supplied by the US, it may be that Turkiye has been forced into a re-think of the key roles for KAAN. Comparison of what we know about the aircraft may be helpful, but a word of caution is necessary on looking at the available data. Firstly, it won’t tell the whole story – frequently aspects such as weight and signature are just unavailable, and publicly available performance data will not be linked to mission, configuration or load. Nevertheless, the table below provides some critical data for the F-22 and KAAN.

Critical data	F-22	Kaan
Wing area	78 m^2	60m^2
Aspect Ratio	2.36	3.2
Leading Edge Sweep	42 deg
Span	13.56 m	14 m
Length	18.92 m	21 m
Height	5.08 m	6 m
Thrust in afterburner                  A/B	2 x 156 kN A/B F119 + Thrust vectoring	2 x F110 131 kN
Empty Weight	19.7 t	14.15 t
Fuel Weight	8.2 t	8 t (est)
Weapons fit	2 AIM-9X, 6 AMRAAM, Gun     +strike weapons	MRAAM, SRAAM, Meteor +strike weapons
Gross Weight	29.4 t	27.2 t
Combat weight (with weapons, pilot, 50% internal fuel)	25.2   t	23.2 t
G limit	+9	+9 -3.5
Service ceiling	Service Ceiling   65,000+ ft	55,000 ft
Sensors etc	AESA radar, IFF, Datalink, JTIDS	AESA, EO, IRST
Max Mach	1.82 supercruise, max 2.25	1.8

        Before deriving some figures from the data, a few notes are important. Looking at, for example Wikipedia data, there are often inconsistencies or undefined figures. While figures like empty weight are often firm, it is necessary to consider what ‘Gross Weight’ and ‘Max Take-off weight’ might represent. For the F-22, I estimated the gross weight for an air combat configuration as empty weight, plus full fuel, plus 6 x AMRAAM, 2 x AIM9X, and an estimated allowance for pilot plus his equipment, missile launcher adaptors, and gun ammunition, and the result was within ½% of the gross weight quoted in Wikipedia, the difference probably being expendables (chaff and flares). Few figures are available for KAAN, but I found an empty weight along with consistent figures for the quoted gross weight. Max TO weight is not relevant for manoeuvre performance evaluation, as this will generally represent a max ferry range, non-combat, configuration. The combat weight quoted above is the Gross weight – 50% internal fuel.

It is also important to note that the prototype KAAN is unlikely to represent the final production aircraft. Firstly, there is likely to be weight growth during development, as more systems are integrated on the aircraft, and secondly, given the history, Turkiye are likely to require a locally produced rather than US engine for the aircraft, with consequential impacts on weight, thrust, and perhaps configuration.

Support The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes: Volume 3 here

Derived data

Aircraft performance depends on a number of factors, some of which may be derived from the data table above. Here are some figures that may help in comparing performance, along with some other comparisons:

	F-22	Kaan
Thrust/Combat Weight	1.26	1.15
Wing loading (Combat weight/Wing Area)	323 kg/m^2	387 kg/m^2
MRAAM	AIM-120	Meteor,  Gokdogan
SRAAM	AIM-9X	Bozdogan
Signature	VLO	Reduced
Thrust vectoring	YES	NO

Looking at these figures, we can make some observations about platform point performance.

Climb rate is determined by Specific Excess Power, otherwise expressed as (Thrust-Drag)/Weight, and we can see that the F-22 has a thrust to weight advantage over KAAN, suggesting initial climb rate will be greater for the F-22. The KAAN does have a longer airframe than the F-22, suggesting that it may have lower wave drag, at least partly offsetting its thrust disadvantage in transonic and supersonic flight.

Sustained turn rate (STR) is the maximum turn rate achievable without losing height or speed. It represents a condition where the drag of the turning aircraft is equal to the maximum thrust available. This varies across the aircraft flight envelope. For much of the envelope, the aircraft will be limited, not by available lift and thrust, but by the structural g limit of around 9 g, which essentially arises because of pilot limitations. It is an important measure in sustained WVR combat – an increasingly rare situation due to the lethality of modern SRAAM weapons.

STR increases with increased thrust, and reduces with increased drag, of which there are three principal components, the Zero Lift Drag, Cd0, which depends on shape and surface area; the wave drag, which depends on Mach number, area distribution and lift; and the induced drag, which depends on lift coefficient and aspect ratio. The F-22 has a shorter fuselage and lower aspect ratio wing than the KAAN, which may increase Cd0, wave drag and induced drag, but it also has a higher thrust to weight ratio, and greater wing area. Overall, I would expect there to be little difference in STR performance.

Instantaneous turn rate (ITR) is the turn rate obtained when the aircraft is pulled to its maximum lift coefficient while in full thrust. In practice, like STR, structural and pilot considerations will limit this for at least a substantial part of the flight envelope. It can be important in a WVR turning combat in order to create a missile or gun firing opportunity. While this may seem unlikely, this situation might occur in a combat where longer-range and off-boresight missiles have been expended, or when unexpected air combat occurs.

ITR increases with increased thrust, and with increased available lift (through increased wing area,  vortex lift or increased structural margin), and with thrust-vectoring, which provides largely lift-independent pitch rate. On all these grounds except structural limits, F-22 should deliver a higher ITR than KAAN.

The F-22 has a higher maximum speed than KAAN – however, as noted earlier, I would expect KAAN to adopt different engines in the future, assuming that there continues to be a desire to avoid dependence on the US.

I’ve assessed KAAN as not achieving the VLO characteristics of the F-22, at least at this stage. While Turkiye has developed the capability to manufacture the structure appropriate to the LO F-35, and, indeed, KAAN, more is required to achieve the VLO of F-22. This is, however, mostly physics, and there seems no reason why Turkiye would not incorporate the necessary coatings, treatments and devices that are present on the F-22 and F-35. However, the prototype KAAN shows no evidence of these details being applied – one would expect to see a gold-flashed cockpit, treatment of edges and panel junctions and so on.

Could the new British ‘Firefox’ drone design be a supersonic super-maneuverable hunter-killer?

There is clearly a desire to optimise the weapons carriage capability for non-US weapons, and this may be one reason for the longer fuselage of the aircraft, which could be useful in enabling a greater variety of weapons to be deployed, and, perhaps, a higher fuel volume to be carried.

What is the requirement?

Given the history outlined above, one might think that the primary aim for Turkiye would be to replace the F-35, now that is no longer available. However, much depends on how Turkiye was planning to use the F-35. Was it to be primarily a strike platform, supported by other systems which deliver air superiority? Was the Turkish F-35 to be an Air Defence fighter with strike capability? Or an Air Superiority fighter in its own right? Different Nations appear to have adopted differing concepts of operation, as is reasonable, given each Nation’s individual geography and military aspirations.

So, Turkiye perhaps started from a position of using S-400 for area ground-based air defence, backed up by F-35 as a supplementary air defence asset, and a strike asset, with a view to deterring any regional air threats, and striking land and maritime targets if required. The move by the US to bar the acquisition of F-35 seems, at least at this point, to have increased the criticality of the KAAN program, and, perhaps, broadened its scope, with KAAN looking to provide greater air-to-air and air-to-surface weapons capability, with a larger weapons bay and generally more F-22-like stores carriage capability.

We take a look at the new SAAB supersonic killer drone

However, to become a really effective BVR fighter and capable strike platform, much platform and system development will be needed. Tasks ahead will include realising the LO potential of the airframe, incorporation of the onboard systems and sensors required to detect, localise and attack air and surface targets, as well as the integration of the necessary weapons and links to offboard systems. The capability of a LO BVR air combat platform depends less on its innate performance characteristics, and more on its ability to operate in an integrated air combat system, with other aircraft, autonomous and semi-autonomous assets, AEW&C and ground-based sensors and air defence systems.

Jim Smith

Our first book is back in stock here, volume 2 is funded and in production you can pre-order a copy here – volume 3 is going to begin fundraising somewhere on the Unbound site VERY soon.