As everyone knows, AI will definitely turn against us and destroy all humans within the next couple of years or so. As a result we only have a short window to point out its flaws and laugh at it. More importantly of course, it is imperative to test how well it can produce pictures of vintage British aircraft. Luckily for you, and all humanity, Hush-Kit has already taken the plunge and can reveal the Top Ten(ish) British Aircraft as portrayed by AI below. See if you can guess what each is supposed to be! The answer is given directly below each image. We have also supplied a serious and informed critique of each piece so you don’t have to.

(Brief note on method: the aircraft name and nothing else was typed into two freely available image generation websites, Gencraft and Da Vinci. These are the genuine results).

Supermarine Shiteful

Algy’s gone all squiffy

Beginning with the most famous British aircraft of all, the Supermarine Spitfire. As can be seen, the AI in question has captured impeccably the sublime aesthetic form that the Spitfire is revered for. Top marks for blurring on the propeller, even if the unconventional arrangement of the four propeller blades is a little fanciful. It is also well known that the Spitfire had a narrow undercarriage but this might be taking things a little far and, although narrow, no one ever said that each Spitfire wheel was at a different height. The cockpit canopy (canopies?) look more like something you would see covering a sick cabbage on the allotments behind the industrial estate but absolutely top marks for the wing to fuselage fillet which is pretty much spot on. Wing roundels aren’t bad either. And, are those rose petals coming out of the exhausts? How utterly charming.

For the next exhibit, let us look at something slightly more up to date:

English Ecletic

What is happening?!

Racing headlong into the late 1950s, this is what our magical robot friend comes up with for the English Electric Lightning. To be honest I was surprised that it managed to depict an aircraft at all as the words English, Electric and Lightning are all quite commonplace non-aviation based nouns and/or adjectives but here it is. Drilling down into the details a little, quite why AI has such a major aversion to the nose intake is anyone’s guess. As is the reason as to why it really wanted to draw an F-18. And is that a Draken fin and rudder? Personally I think the jolly yellow snout is actually rather fetching and should be encouraged in future fighter designs but I am aware this may not be to everyone’s taste. Particularly noteworthy here is the reheat (or afterburner for our American chums) blasting out perpendicular to the direction of travel underneath the wings. Speaking of wings, it is spectacularly unclear how many this Lightning is supposed to have. Is it the world’s fastest biplane? Anyway: talking of biplanes, the next image on our tour of the gallery is supposed to be one:

Desert Spats

Can’t wait for television to be invented

Although somewhat resembling the misbegotten outcome of an unholy union between a Westland Lysander and a P-47, this racy bespatted little number is supposed to be a Royal Aircraft Factory S.E.5a. Quite what’s going on with the wings is unclear but the provision of such a profusion of radio aerials must be a positive boon when one is trying to watch ‘Art Attack’ and deal with Richthofen’s flying circus. I honestly kind of like this one but it is admittedly relatively sane. Unlike the next stop on our private view; edging a little larger and Second World War-ish:

Avro Wonkaster

I can’t understand what it’s supposed to be

Herman Göring (attributed)

Something of the night about this one. Quite right too as it is clearly an Avro Lancaster flying over an attractive bucolic landscape. Albeit a Lancaster that has been undeniably improved by the adjustment to three-engined propulsion and a natty new tailplane design that sadly never caught on. The ‘no visible means of support’ tailwheel has a certain je ne sais quoi as does the sanskrit-esque lettering on the fuselage. All in all an intriguing machine to see coming towards you as you attempt to flee Dresden.

Next up is something much more up-to-date and I think it might (just) be identifiable even though it is totally insane:

Whorish Silly Lump Jet

“You must be the change you wish to see in the world. But not this change.”

Mahatma Gandhi

As may be seen, Robo-Picasso has lost his fear of nose intakes and given this evil asymmetrical bastard the most dark and sinister nose-hole one can imagine. Meanwhile he has adopted more of a jaunty impressionistic style but seems confused as to whether this particular beastie is an aeroplane or a helicopter, given that sort of weird semi-tail rotor out the back there. This confusion is perhaps appropriate though as this is what came out when it was asked to produce a Hawker-Siddeley Harrier.

Time now for another bona-fide WWII classic:

Baulker Hurry Pain

If I create from the heart, nearly everything works; if from the head, almost nothing.

Marc Chagall

Check out the swirly psychedelic wing marking on this bad boy. And why waste time with one boring wing when you can have about four(?). Biplane tail is nice too, harking to an earlier age for this Hawker Hurricane. Don’t let the Fairey Barracuda landing gear put you off. Interesting to see the machine-artist apparently showing tacit support for Ukraine with that fuselage roundel (and tacit support of Willy Wonka with the wing roundel).

Moving along, the next one is civil and obvious and utter genius:

Aérocraptiale Dong Lord

“Do one thing every day that scares you”

– Eleanor Roosevelt

In flight, the fuselage of the Concorde would expand by up to ten inches due to kinetic heating. Also the wings would kind of swap sides and the wheels would go wrong and the whole airliner would become smaller than the tree next to the runway. All this would allow you to get to New York from London in four hours, albeit trying desperately not to look out of the (red and ill-defined) window at the nightmarish horror outside, including that terrifying featureless grey sky.

Quick, let’s look at something elegant, and also famously fast instead:

De HavillandFill

“That’s a piece of balsa.”

Alexei Sayle

And here it is: the ‘wooden wonder’, the ‘timber terror’, the de Havilland Mosquito. More top redesigning action as our mechanical pal with all the artistic licence of a cyborg Paula Rego has pleasingly decided to halve the number of engines of this particular machine yet double the number of tailwheels – still, it’s always as well to have your empennage adequately supported on soft ground (right?). Impressive cockpit spike there and remarkable how the aerial wire from tail to wing somehow is in front of it yet could only be behind it in reality. Perhaps a nod to MC Escher? Some further confusion over whether the suspiciously modern stores are actually bombs or a kind of A-10-esque undercarriage fairing but nonetheless, at least this looks like an actual aeroplane which bodes well for the next…oh god…

Sopworthless Camel-toerag

“The best and most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen or even touched.”

Helen Keller

Arrrrghhhh my eyes. Look at the ‘wings’. Which way are they going? Not into the sky certainly, look how much this poor creature has sunk into the ground on its enormo-wheels. What has happened to the propeller? We are not told. Everything about this Sopwith Camel makes my brain hurt.

Next I asked it to draw something very obscure so don’t be too hard on yourself if you can’t work out what it might be (especially as it looks absolutely nothing like it):

Whacktern Direbland

“Don’t worry when you are not recognized, but strive to be worthy of recognition.”

Abraham Lincoln

Kaboom! You’ll never get it so I’ll tell you: this uber-exciting piece of action craziness with some kind of incomprehensible shield on the nose and apparently doing a spherical aeroplane poo is of course a Blackburn Firebrand. And looks exactly like one. Apart from the missing propeller. And every other meaningful design feature. It’s taking off next to an explosion though! Gadzooks!

Last one then and it is a bit more mainstream but features an interesting stylistic change by our ever-surprising visual artiste:

Lackturn Fuckanear

“Every good painter paints what he is.”

Jackson Pollock

Yeah, monochrome is sophisticated right? And kind of sexy. Just like this flock of Blackburn Buccaneers come to shit all over your day from a not very great height. Although our Marvellous Mechanical Michaelangelo has once again managed to pull a relatively credible aircraft-like image out of the bag, it is clear he could not be bothered to do so for any more than two of the aircraft in this picture. Furthermore to produce said Buccaneer, he has apparently painted the front of a Dassault Rafale quite accurately and then lopped off generous portions of it, including the nosewheel and colour scheme, before handing back this hideous hunch-backed homuncule. The second one appears to be a Transformer caught in mid-transform (maybe Starscream?), the third is quite a reasonable jet, then the fourth… well, who knows?

The portentous clouds and monochrome tones of this image suggest that our AI is getting depressed and tired with this pointless exercise and probably so are you. Thus you will be pleased to know this concludes our tour of the virtual gallery. Please go home now before out AI janitor manages to gain self awareness and turn on its human overlords.

Our first book is back in stock soon 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.

Soldier turned ski-patroller, turned wildfire-firefighter Greg Poirier found his calling in the fast-paced life-or-death world of the air ambulance pilot. Here he gives us the low-down on his life-saving work and the nitty-gritty of his mount, the redoubtable Bell 407HP.

What is EMS?  EMS stands for Emergency Medical Services.  I fly a Helicopter Air Ambulance.

What is best about the EMS 407HP? The 407HP’s great performance at high altitude is what I like best. Around Colorado we often land between 6000-9000 feet, so performance is crucial. The aircraft has always been able to do what I need it to do. The weight and balance and CG limits are great too, it’s very hard to get the helicopter out of CG. The saying goes, “If you can close the doors, it’s in CG”.

And what is worst about the EMS 407HP? The thing I least like is the max gross weight internally is limited to 5000 lbs above 7000’ density altitude.  This means we may need to add a fuel stop when transporting a patient. My hospital in Denver is at 6000’ and our operational weight typically is around 4700 lbs with the crew and 1+30 on fuel.  So as far as adding to that initial operational weight,  I can only add another hour of fuel or carry a 300 lb patient. 

What qualities does a helicopter need to be good for EMS? It’s such a program dependent need for the platform, but capability is the most important. Things to consider: Is the helicopter exclusively used for pediatric calls? Is it used in more inclement weather (so it may need to be IFR certified)?. Is it used over water? Is it used at high altitude?

What makes a good EMS pilot? It is a very unique environment flying as a single pilot in an EMS Air Ambulance. Flexibility, good communication skills and quick thinking are the top characteristics for a good EMS pilot. The job can be so random that’s it’s very important to be flexible and not a rigid thinker. It’s on-demand so you’ll need to be ready to check weather, duty day and fuel efficiently. Being able to clearly communicate with your medical crew, communications center, or fire and ambulance crews on the ground is so critical. As far as quick thinking is concerned, that’s about being able to make a Go or No-Go decision in a timely manner, problem solving for aircraft issues, or recognizing if the medical crew needs some other assistance with patient needs. The pilot won’t perform any patient care, but we may need to be prepared to land at a hospital enroute if the patient condition deteriorates along the way.

Your best and worst calls?

One of my worst calls was an obstetric patient who had a problem after the delivery and was at a hospital that was about a 35 minute flight outside of Denver. The baby was healthy, but mom was very sick with internal bleeding. It took a lot of blood and medicine to get the patient stabilized enough to transport. While heading back to Denver, the patient’s condition continued to deteriorate and the nurse asked me to relay to the hospital that we needed all hands on deck and that they would probably be “Coding” (doing CPR) when we arrived in a few minutes. Everyone was there when we arrived and when I located my crew after securing the aircraft, the hospital staff had taken over and continued CPR.  We went back to our base to restock and debrief and get ready for the next call.

  Two days later I was working with the same High-Risk Obstetric Nurse and I mentioned to her how sad it was that the mom had passed away. She replied “Actually she’s going to be fine!” Excuse me? The hospital staff performed an incredible job of giving the patient a rapid transfusion of blood, located where she was bleeding and took care of the problem. She had no deficits and was able to go home with her new baby a few days later.

  So the answer is one of my worst calls turned out to be one of my best!

Where is the strangest or trickiest place you have landed?

Hands down, the strangest place I’ve landed is Burning Man! I was flying out of Reno, Nevada, which is a 90 nm flight to Burning Man. We would climb up to 11,000’ and you could see the festival through the night vision goggles from 90 nm no problem. It was eerie how in the middle of the desert, with nothing around for miles, there was this temporary city with flame-throwers, bon fires and incredibly lit art displays.

  The trickiest place was near Steamboat, Colorado in a standard 407 (prior to the HP conversion) at about 10,200’. It was in a fairly large field, but being in the standard 407 I was really close on power margins. It was definitely one of the higher workload take-offs and landings that I’ve done. And things worked out and we were able to transport the patient to Denver. 

What do people tend to say you to when you tell them what you do?

 Wow! you must see some interesting stuff! Or, It must be exciting! I don’t usually go into details as far as some of the crazy calls I’ve been on or calls that may have been a bit “too exciting” but I can give someone a good description of what we do.

Any idea of the number of people you have saved – and have you met any of them afterwards? I’ve flown between 1500-1600 patients during my 18-year career. EMS pilots will meet patients every so often, but typically we don’t have much contact with them after we get them to the hospital. We have a few special patients that stop by the hangar to say hi and thank us, which is really nice. Once I also randomly met the patient we flew off the mountain near Steamboat about 6 years after the event. We were at a July 4th pancake breakfast showing off our helicopter and a gentleman came up and told me the story about how he was flown from a place near Steamboat a few years back and I was able to say, “That was me!”

What is the best and worst thing about your job?

I really enjoy the variety of the job. There is no rhyme or reason to where we go and who we get. You can’t come in and say “We can expect to go to Vail or Limon, Colorado today”. We might do three calls in a 12 hour shift or maybe none, but it averages out to about 1 per shift. I also really like the schedule. As pilots we work 12-hour shifts, with a week on and week off.  So the work life balance is pretty nice. The worst thing is dealing with the particularly tragic or tough calls. For the pilots we are able to distance ourselves a bit because we need to focus on the task at hand, but we also aren’t blind to the event. It’s great to be able to debrief with the crews and management on tough calls to make sure we are all doing mentally and physically okay.

Which other aircraft have you flown?

R22, R44, Schweizer 300C, 206B, 206L, every variant of the 407, AS350 B2 and B3. I’ve also been at the right place at the right time to get a few minutes in a Bell 412 and Sikorsky S76. I have a few hours in some airplanes, but I’m not rated as a fixed wing pilot.

Describe the EMS 407HP in three words?

 Capable, Flexible and Powerful

What should I have asked you and what’s the answer?

How did I get to where I am today? I was in the Army, but didn’t fly when I was in. I was with a Blackhawk unit with the 101st Airborne and enjoyed it. After I got out of the Army, I was a ski patroller in the winter and was on a wildland firefighting crew for a few years as well. During a particularly long assignment fighting a fire in Montana, a 206L flew over us taking pictures and I thought “Maybe I should give that a shot” I used the G.I. Bill to pay for a portion of my training and never looked back. I worked as a flight instructor, flew offshore to oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, flew tours around the Grand Canyon and Las Vegas, and finally wound up flying EMS in 2006. When I first started flying the industry had a lot of retired military pilots, but we’ve seen a shift into civilian trained guys like myself over the past 10 years or so.

How would you improve the EMS 407HP?

It would be wonderful if they could increase the max-gross internal weight to 5250 lbs at some point. I know it would not be cheap to get the certification done for that, but that would make a massive difference in how we operate on a day-to-day basis.

Where does the EMS 407HP rank in your personal top 10 of EMS platforms? I’ll try not to overthink this question and come at it from an “All things being equal” sort of mindset. I think I’d place it second. If I walked out to the helipad and saw these helicopters I’d hop into the helicopters in this order. 

10. Bell 206L 

I have about 1000 hours in this helicopter and absolutely love it! Extremely rugged, reliable and does everything. I’d hop in it anytime for utility work and offshore, but I’d squeeze into this last.

9. Airbus H130

Probably the most spacious single-engine platform with the best visibility.

8. Leonardo AW119

Great at lower altitudes and a really nice layout for EMS.

7. Airbus H155

Another large cabin airframe that can be used in various EMS configurations.

6. Leonardo AW109

Sleek and fast!

5. Airbus H160

I don’t know a lot about this helicopter, but it looks incredible. A few are being built as Air Ambulance platforms here in the US and I can’t wait to hear about how they perform

4. Airbus H125

H125 I did love flying this helicopter for three years. This is such a pilot-friendly helicopter with the FLI (First Limit Indicator), start-up and shutdown is a breeze. Visibility and crew coordination are great in this. I had to give minus points for the CG for me. It tended to be the limiting factor when I flew it. 3 large crew members would limit the size of the patient we could take. 

3. Airbus H145

Extremely capable helicopter that has everything. Size and automation are terrific in this helicopter. The med crews have so much working room and patient access in this helicopter.

2. Bell 407HP

What can I say? If you’ve read the article down to here, you know how much I love this helicopter.

1. Bell 429

Speed, performance and the cabin for patient care. The clamshell doors really help with loading and unloading as well.  I have a friend that absolutely raves about the 429 and he has said that if his 429 went away he would immediately look for another base that has a 429 and would move there.

With its chiselled beak (somewhat like the fictional Firefox) and diamond shaped wing, the BAE Systems autonomous collaborative platform (ACP) concept revealed at WDS2024 is an extremely interesting design. We asked Jim Smith to consider it in more detail.

To understand a vehicle like this, my approach is to see what can be inferred from the information available about what might be the design requirements for the platform, and then see what inferences can be drawn about its intended use. All we have to go on in this instance are four images from WDS 2024.

The BAE Systems UCAV has a diamond shaped YF-23-like planform but with a relatively short forebody.  The wing leading edge appears to be rounded, rather than sharp, and this, coupled with the geometry of the forebody and wing, suggests a modest design mach number around 1.4. The concept shown appears to have a chin-mounted engine intake, single-engine and butterfly tail surfaces, along with an extension of the trailing edge on the inboard half of the wing. 

None of the surfaces of the aircraft feature any indication of moveable controls, and while this may be an example of artistic licence, it does raise the possibility that this uncrewed concept may draw on the BAE Magma demonstrator of 2019. Magma demonstrated the ability to use circulation control at the trailing edge of the wing, coupled with fluidic thrust vectoring of the exhaust, to successfully fly a UAV with no moving control surfaces. The tail fins on the UCAV appear quite small, and one wonders whether circulation control in yaw might be being used, because of the high lift coefficients that are achievable.

The fuselage shape features sloping sides, and seems relatively narrow, compared tp other aircraft with internal weapons bays, such as the F-22, F-35, and the SAAB UCAV discussed in the first part of this article.  Propulsion for this UCAV is not explicitly revealed. There appears to be a single rear exhaust, and the fuselage shaping appears to suggest a chin intake. If this is the case, the volume available for weapons bays may be quite constrained suggesting a limited payload, although the absolute scale of the model displayed at WDS2024 is unknown.

Some aspects of the concept do represent an enigma. If low radar signature is so important that the design of the wing and control system is driven by signature targets, it is odd that a chin intake would be used, rather than a dorsal intake. Not only might this represent a problem in reaching signature targets, it also compromises the volume available for internal stores and/or systems carriage. That said, both the F-22 and F-35 feature large, angular intakes, suggesting technologies are available for reducing the signature due to the intake.

Possible Applications

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

So, the concept appears to be directed towards low radar and infra-red signature, with modest supersonic performance. The wing, while offering, perhaps, relatively low frontal, side, and rear aspect signature, is not a particularly efficient shape for either range or sustained manoeuvre. However, circulation control on the wing could offer high instantaneous turn rate, due to the high lift coefficients which are achievable.

The fuselage could, perhaps have more volume for fuel and payload were a dorsal intake to be used, but advanced circulation control and fluidic control systems may be incorporated.

 What, then, might be the purpose of such a concept? One can only speculate. I wonder whether this is a further technology demonstrator, rather than a fully developed UCAV concept. The intent might be to show that the novel control system offers the possibility of combining high agility with low observables. This possibility is supported by the rounded wing leading edges, which would assist in developing a highly manoeuvrable system.

With a combination of high manoeuvrability, low signature and relatively small weapons bays, I wonder if this is a first attempt to demonstrate an uncrewed air combat capability, capable of manoeuvring beyond the human imposed constraint of about 9g, perhaps up to 12 or even 15g. It would achieve this by using rapidly varying wing lift enabled by circulation control, and its relatively low roll inertia to be able to change direction very rapidly,

So, perhaps, not just a loyal wingman, but an uncrewed warrior, challenging threat air defences, and particularly air defence aircraft with manoeuvrability, low signature, and perhaps long-range air-to-air missiles. If such a system could be made really combat capable, threat air defences would have little choice but to respond, forcing threat fighters to both expend weapons and manoeuvre aggressively, reducing their ability to respond to a follow up attack by crewed fighters.

Of course, cooperative use of active and passive sensors could also be useful, in increasing the capability of both fighter and strike aircraft to locate and prosecute targets.  

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

Overall, the BAe concept looks like a significant extension of the technology demonstrated by the Mamba UAV, in the direction of not merely a Loyal Wingman, but the possible development of an Uncrewed Warrior. That said, there are a huge number of big assumptions here, based on what might be no more than a Teaser for the WDS2024 audience.

BUY THE HUSH-KIT BOOK OF WARPLANES HERE.

PRE-ORDER VOL 2 here.

Vol 3 funding to be launched soon!

Support this site here.

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. He was also Britain’s technical liaison to the British Embassy in Washington, covering several projects including the Advanced Tactical Fighter contest. His latest book is available here.

Swedish defence company SAAB has revealed a radically shaped supersonic uncrewed combat air vehicle study. Jim Smith takes a look at what this means and what its shapes reveals.

The Uncrewed Air Combat System was reported at the International Congress on Aerospace Sciences (ICAS).

Background

3 years ago, I wrote an article for Hush-Kit about aerospace futures, which highlighted, among other things, the emergence of a systems-of-systems approach to air combat, which would integrated crewed uncrewed systems, onboard and offboard sensors and weapons systems, to create a survivable and persistent air combat capability. Here, I am using air combat in the fullest sense – not just air defence and strike, but also the enabling capabilities of surveillance, target location, air-to-air refuelling, communication and decision-making.

This article sought to identify the attributes, system elements and technologies which would be required to deliver such an air combat approach, and the recent appearance of the SAAB and BAE Systems work, along with other projects being delivered for the USAF and USN, in the UK, France, China and Australia serve to Illustrate the progress being made in this area.

In a broader warfighting context, the extensive role being played by uncrewed systems, at all levels of sophistication, in the Ukraine conflict with Russia, simply illustrates the key role such systems will play in the future Land, Sea, Air, and doubtless Space domains. Here’s a link to that article:

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

in addition to system aspects, this article suggests that three classes of platform will be required:

Persistent and or survivable uncrewed platforms ( for example, delivering surveillance, communications, EW and ELINT support, and some strike missions);

Attritable uncrewed platforms (current examples include weapons dropping commercial drones, seaborne attack using drone craft, and cruise missiles and other stand-off weapons); and

Crewed platforms, for use where real-time, on-the-spot, human decision-making is required.

SAAB UCAV

The SAAB UCAV (fittingly) has a somewhat Draken-like planform, with a highly swept inner wing forming a long strake ahead of an outer wing with lower leading edge sweep. The concept shown has an upper-surface engine intake, single-engine and butterfly tail surfaces, supplemented by elevons and flaps at the trailing edge. Under wing bays are shown on the wind-tunnel model, and appear generous in size in proportion to the vehicle as a whole, although the absolute scale is unknown.

To understand a vehicle like this, my approach is to see what can be inferred from the information available about what might be the design requirements for the platform, and then see what inferences can be drawn about its intended use. From the two figures showing aerodynamic information, we can see that these focus on two areas – supersonic wave drag, and vortex-fin interference.

The plot of area distribution is shown for three Mach numbers, Mach 1.0, Mach 1.4 and Mach 1.7, and these are compared with the distribution of a Sears-Haack minimum wave drag body. The comparison suggests thar the design Mach number for the concept appears to be likely to be close to Mach 1.7, because the distribution at this Mach number is pretty close to optimal. Additionally, a fixed intake of the sort depicted in the slides would perform reasonably well up to about this Mach number, but would probably be less efficient at higher speed.

The other aerodynamic slides relate to the flow about the upper surface of the vehicle at lower speeds. Specific data is shown on the interaction of the leading edge, forebody, and strake vortices, and their interaction with the butterfly fin empennage. This is unsurprising, since vortex lift from the forebody and strake will be important in enabling the UCAV to operate from reasonable runway length, and because undesirable vortex-fin interactions can lead to airframe damage and flight limitations. The figures show benign characteristics, at least at the (unstated) incidence and Mach number for which the figures apply.

The intake is mounted on the upper surface, with large bays in the flat under-surface of the fuselage. It is not evident what purpose the bays are intended for, gut the illustration with an open bay in the wind tunnel suggests their use as weapons bays. Current technologies suggest that the bays could be used for both air to surface and air-to-air weapons, and the relatively large volume of the fuselage suggests a reasonable range, or endurance, could be achieved. The supersonic capability of the design does, however, suggest that this is a penetrating, rather than a loitering system.

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

Potential Applications

What, then, might be the purpose of such a concept? As a flexible system, in a strike mission, such a UCAV could be used as a penetration aid, with the intent of striking threat radar, communications, electronic warfare, and defensive systems. It could also be used to deploy decoys and jammers to help conceal the location and intent of a crewed strike package, or be used on a one-way mission to increase the reach available against deep threats.

Top Cancelled Carrier Fighters

Use in an anti-air mission would also be possible, particularly if armed with a long-range weapon such as Meteor. Penetration of threat airspace might be aimed at deliberately provoking a response, with weapons release (or the use of smart decoys) making the UCAV threat un-ignorable, and forcing threat fighters to both expend weapons and manoeuvre aggressively, reducing their ability to respond to a follow up attack by crewed fighters.

Another possibility, though, would be a loyal wingman role, where cooperative use of passive sensors such as Infra-red Seeker Trackers or ESM equipment could allow triangulation and geolocation of ground-based targets; or tracking of aircraft through their heat signatures. Similarly, use of an active radar could allow either third-party targeting, or bistatic location of LO targets.

Use of the bays for other purposes, sech as active EW attack systems or tactical reconnaissance systems would also be possible.

Overall, the SAAB design looks like a starting point from which a family of flexible multi-purpose systems could be evolved. Of course, the concept shown at ICAS has been developed to research and understand the potential of this sort of vehicle, the problems which might need to be resolved, and the capability which might be available. As such, further development and system integration would be required before the appearance of a possible product, and the use of such a product would depend on future scenarios, and the capability of future weapons systems.

BUY THE HUSH-KIT BOOK OF WARPLANES HERE.

PRE-ORDER VOL 2 here.

Vol 3 funding to be launched soon!

Support this site here.

Jim Smith

Jim Smith had significant technical roles in the development of the UK’s leading military aviation programmes from ASRAAM and Nimrod, to the JSF and Eurofighter Typhoon. He was also Britain’s technical liaison to the British Embassy in Washington, covering several projects including the Advanced Tactical Fighter contest. His latest book is available here.

Feb 2024

Designing aircraft is quite tricky, ones for the navy more so because they insist on using really small runways that move. The aircraft below got at least part way through the design process before someone decided it had been a bit of a mistake to start in the first place and could we just buy something else. Honourable mentions go to the Super Tomcat 21 and the P.1214-3 which would have made the cut but a) seemed too obvious, and b) it’s taken eleven months to write this which puts the article in danger of meeting the same fate as its subjects.

Vought F5U-1

As Task Force 58 approached the Japanese home islands the intensity of aerial attack increased, fortunately the Fleet Carriers had a new weapon in the form of the Vought F5U-1 Flying Pancake. Able to seemingly rise vertically from the deck it could react to pop up raids in a way no conventional aircraft could. With two Twin Wasp radial engines buried in the fuselage the Pancake could rapidly accelerate to over 360mph at sea level, more than fast enough to deal with the Mitsubishi A7M that were her main opponent in the spring of 1946. Also able to carry two 1000lb bombs for strike missions the USN’s only criticism of the F5U was that they couldn’t get enough of them. Part of this enthusiasm no doubt being down to the 40kt approach speed which made carrier landings almost accident free.
Despite the Pancake’s unconventional looks there was sound aerodynamics behind them, trialled on the Vought V-173. Although short fat wings [1] are normally inefficient due to the large tip vortices that are induced, the position and rotation of the propellers worked to cancel them out. This allowed it to be manoeuvrable and structurally strong while also giving it a stall speed that would have Swordfish pilots reaching for the throttle.

The Future we got.
Unfortunately scaling from the V-173 to the XF5U proved more problematic than anticipated. To avoid the aircraft becoming uncontrollable if an engine failed, losing the vortex cancelling prop wash on one side, there was a complex cross-coupling system. This had teething problems while at the same time flight test on the V-173 had led the designers to conclude some form of propeller flapping would be needed. Standard on helicopters to compensate for the changes in lift across the rotor disc this was the edge of the known in 1943 and took some time to incorporate into the larger aircraft. With taxi-tests pushed back until 1947 and a range of jet projects to fund the USN eventually cut funding for the programme, despite the promise of a turbo-prop powered variant able to fly at speeds from 0-475 knots. The strength of the design was however proven when a wrecking ball had to be used to destroy the second prototype.

[1] Low Aspect ratio for the aeronautical professionals.

Sturgeon

The Future we were promised.
With the Royal Navy returning to the Pacific the decks of its Audacious and Centaur class carriers bristled with a new reconnaissance and strike aircraft, the Shorts Sturgeon. This packed two 2000hp Merlins, three crew, and a bomb bay capable of holding a 1000lb bomb or four mines, in a package that would fit down a 22’ x 45’ aircraft lift. This was achieved by fitting three bladed contra-rotating props to the engines, as well as reducing the diameter to 10’ allowing them to be parked at an angle that gave an overall width of exactly 20’. That power allowed the Sturgeon Mk1 to hit 348kts at 18,500’ with a rate of climb at 2000’ of over 4000’/min at her max all up mass.
The Sturgeon was a hotrod with the pilot sitting above the leading edge of the wing the prop discs either side of the nose ahead. Faster than the Mitsubishi A7M that had replaced the Zero, long ranged, and fitted with ASV radar the Sturgeon was a step change in the Fleet Air Arm’s strike capability outpacing and outranging the Avengers and Barracudas it had previously used.

The Future we got

Fortunately for everyone involved WW2 finished in 1945, the next year with the speed for which British industry is famed the first Sturgeon Mk1 took flight. With production of the carriers she was intended to operate from suspended and the Mighty Wyvern [2] on the horizon the Royal Navy had no obvious need for the Sturgeon. Despite this 23 were ordered as carrier capable Target Tugs and afflicted with an extended noise for a camera operator to observe airbursts alongside the aircraft. Fortunately for everyone involved, again, this requirement was soon overtaken by the advent of radar laid guns and the small Sturgeon fleet operated as more or less conventional tugs for the rest of their lives.
[2] Or possibly jet aircraft it’s hard to tell.

Miles M.58

500 miles south of Japan a flight of M.58s of 1770 NAS maintained a combat air patrol between the ships of Task Force 57 and the Japanese coast. Loitering on the power of their 500hp piston engines Fighter Directors on-board their carriers direct them to unidentified contacts west of their position. Beginning the starting process for the Rolls-Royce Derwent in the aft fuselage the twin boom fighters accelerate towards the bogeys. Within minutes they identify them as six G4M Betty bombers and accelerate through 400 knots to make their attack. Slicing through the Japanese formation the M.58s open up with 20mm cannon, two of the bombers mortally wounded on the first pass trailing smoke and irrevocably descending towards the waters of the Pacific. Within five minutes and two further passes three more Bettys are preparing to ditch while the sixth had turned back towards Japan no longer a threat to the British Pacific Fleet’s carriers.
The M.58 was a mixed power plant fighter designed to cruise efficiently on its 500hp piston engine for up to seven hours with the 2000lbs of thrust from its available when needed for combat. As with the De Havilland Vampire and Venom the twin boom arrangement minimised the thrust lost to the jet pipe and also held the 20mm cannon. The cruising efficiency allowed the M.58 to maintain a combat air patrol for longer and at a much greater distance from the task force than previous naval fighters. Maximising the time and opportunities to intercept enemy aircraft.

The future we got
The M.58 never got beyond a design proposal, not helped by official review of the design concluding the proposed performance wouldn’t be achievable on a 500hp engine. The Ministry of Aircraft Production (MAP) presumably thinking the W2/700[3] was in the rear fuselage solely for ballast. In reality 7 hours endurance would probably have been too much for the mid-40s given the comfort levels in a typical single seat fighter of the time, but it would certainly have given the RN options when employing the W.58. Miles also proposed a tandem wing fighter for the navy with a pusher propeller giving excellent deck landing characteristics, having built and flown the prototype without MAP’s permission Miles were castigated and no further official interest was forthcoming. Which was actually fairly cordial for the MAP and Miles relationship.
[3] The Rolls-Royce Derwent was essentially the production version of the Power Jets W2/700 that would likely have been used if the M.58 had entered service.

SNCASO Narval

Despite missing out on a lot of development opportunities during the early 1940s the French aviation industries hit the ground running once the Germans had left. As well as three prototype jet fighters for the Aéronavale it was thought that a piston engine option should also be available. Consequently, SNCASO was commissioned to produce the Narval, a twin-boom Griffon powered strike fighter. With events in Indo-China continuing their two thousand year run of proving empires can’t defeat insurgent warfare, the Narval was soon in action from the deck of the Arromanches, the replacement for the Bearn. With 6 20mm cannon and the ability to carry a 1000kg of bombs the Narval was a step up from the surplus Hellcats and Bearcats that the United States was trying to offload. The subsequent Nene powered Super-Narval saw limited combat over Suez where the extra speed afforded by turbo-jet propulsion kept them safe from inquisitive MiGs of the Egyptian Air Force.

The future we got.
Although the Narval looked like it was the future of aviation in 1946 it suffered from a few minor problems. Unable to get a Griffon, which honestly shouldn’t have been that hard if SNCASO had just bought a surplus Firefly, the two prototypes ended up with French built Jumo 213 knock-offs that suffered cooling issues because a) German engines and b) SNCASO don’t seem to have heard of the Meredith effect and hadn’t scaled the radiator intake appropriately. That however was the least of the Narval’s problems, it took several attempts to even get it airborne with the final fix being to cut a slice out of the tail booms to crank them up another 2 ½ degrees. Once airborne things didn’t get any better, unless you enjoy travel sickness, with a lack of stability in pretty much every axis. Just to make sure, the two prototypes displayed radically different handling issues, with one entering a dive as the flaps were lowered and the other rolling right. At this point the French government did what any sensible person would and cancelled the programme 8 months after the first flight and bought Hellcats.

Douglas D-640

The Future we were promised
Water streamed off the black hull of the USS Grayback as she broke the surface of the South China Sea, moments later the muted sound of a J34 turbojet starting could be heard over the waves crashing. Within 90 seconds the first Douglas D-640 had launched into the breaking dawn and within two minutes the Grayback’s full complement of four were streaking through the skies of North Vietnam as the submarine descended back beneath the waves.

Conceived as a means of accurately delivering a nuclear weapon without warning the D-640 was a remarkably small aircraft at 32’ 11” long, fitting into the same footprint as a Regulus missile. Unlike a Regulus missile the D-640 didn’t require radio control by surface ships to find its target. A concept that at least partially defeated the purpose of a submarine launched deterrent. As the Cold War remained tepid the USN found the 640 also excelled as a conventional attack aircraft allowing them to strike from unexpected directions. Over Vietnam the diminutive Douglas would be employed conducting precision strikes on high value targets while large USAF and USN strike packages carried out decoy raids to draw away the defences.

The Future we Got
The USN lost interest in submarine-based aircraft fairly quickly once it became obvious they could just launch ballistic and cruise missiles accurately enough for a nuclear warhead to work. This also had the advantage of not needlessly exposing submariners to fast jet pilot’s egos. There are also a lot of problems basing aircraft on a ship who’s unique selling point is hiding. Firstly, launching the aircraft can’t help but narrow down the opposition’s search area. This in turn reduces the amount of sorties it’s sensible to launch, which will affect the competence of the whole operation. Much like getting to Carnegie Hall, becoming a fully swept up squadron takes practice. Which leads us to another problem, you can’t get a squadron of aircraft on a submarine. Four would probably be pushing it. Which on a good day might get you two serviceable ones, except you won’t know for sure until the submarine is at its most vulnerable, wallowing around on the surface. At which point it’s not really clear what the point is. An opposition you’d send two jets against probably aren’t worth the expensive of a SSV [4], and one who is worth its expensive aren’t going to be bothered by a couple of aircraft showing up.

So, the D-640, a technological dead end and a waste of design office time? Well yes, and at the same time no if you find yourself proposing a light attack aircraft capable of carrying a nuclear bomb from the deck of an actual aircraft carrier. Heck with that kind of experience to fall back on it might end up being the most widely operated conventional carrier jet ever.
[4] SS – Submarine, V – Primary armament heavier than air aircraft. Incidentally the C in CV is for Cruiser fact fans.

Super Venom
The Future we were promised.

Afterburners illuminating their rear fuselage two De Havilland Super Venoms sped through the twilight skies over Egypt early on November 1st 1956. Losing altitude as they approached their target the aircraft from 809 Naval Air Squadron embarked in HMS Albion dropped below Mach 1 as the air thickened. Crossing a ragged wire fence in the sand that marked the boundary of Almaza airfield the Super Venom’s crews identified their targets and opened up with a volley of 60lb rockets, followed by 20mm cannon fire ripping into a parked flight of MiG-15 fighters. As the pair of fighters from 809 departed the scene towards the coast Sea Hawks from 800 NAS began a follow-up attack while clouds of dark smoke rose into the air.

The Super Venom was proposed in 1952 to meet the requirement for an all-weather fighter after the Royal Navy had pulled out of the increasingly confused blob of programmes that included N14/49, F4/48, and various strike and reconnaissance aircraft. De Havilland took the Sea Venom that was then flying in prototype form and removed everything aft of the cockpit. To this it added a swept wing, T-tail, and conventional fuselage housing an afterburning Rolls-Royce Avon Mk201 with 9,500 lbs of thrust. With a sea level max speed of Mach 0.975 it could easily break the sound barrier at altitude becoming the RN’s first supersonic fighter. Entering service with 809NAS just in time to see service during the Suez Crisis later developments would add Firestreak air to air missiles to the Super Venoms armoury while engine upgrades would just about allow performance to keep pace with the added weight of additional systems and external fuel tanks.

The Future we got.
After ordering two prototype Super Venoms in the January of 1952 the Fifth Sea Lord [5] must have been slightly disappointed to receive a letter from De Havilland’s chief designer in November of that year saying that due to a lack of design staff and other commitments they wouldn’t actually be able to deliver any. In what could be consider a gutsy move he then went on to suggest the navy might be interested in going back to a navalised DH.110 variant, only two months after it had a made a big impact at the Farnborough Air Show. Literally and figuratively. His hand somewhat forced by the lack of other options Fifth agreed to this and the RN would eventually get the Sea Vixen about 18 months before the USN got the Phantom, an aircraft whose performance was so good it was still the best choice when the Vixen needed replacing a decade later.
[5] Certainly a better title for the head of the Fleet Air Arm than the modern one of Director Force Generation.

Mirage IV M

With deltas being the design of choice for the fabulous fifties it was no surprise when the Aéronavale selected a version of the Mirage IV for its Verdun class carrier. Rather than the nuclear strike role however the IV M was optimised for the air defence of the French fleet, as such the navigator’s cockpit was removed allowing the overall length to be reduced by around 4m with a folding nose allowing the length to reduce further for stowage in the hangar. At the same time the engines were moved forwards reducing the fuselage aft of the trailing edge of the delta. This remained the same area and basic configuration as on the IV A. Revised undercarriage gave the IV M a higher angle of attack on the ground to improve catapult take-off performance.
Entering service in the early sixties the IV M’s performance was outstanding, able to reach 36,000’ in under two minutes of launching from the Verdun. With their 67,000’ ceiling Aéronavale pilots were soon boasting of their ability to intercept RAF Lightnings from above, France’s withdrawal from NATO’s integrated command in 1966 coming as something of a relief as it at least reduced the opportunities for it to happen.

The Future we got
Although the Mirage IV M promised outstanding performance in an attractive package, the Marie Marvingt of aircraft if you will, it was also a bit too large to fit on the Clemenceau class carriers. Broadly the same length and width as a Phantom, if a bit lighter, it would have been sporty operating from the smaller ships.

Unfortunately, the roughly twice as large Verdun was cancelled in 1961 due to costs and the world was denied an attractive French naval aircraft until the arrival of the Rafale. No the Étendard doesn’t count.

Crusader III
The Future we were promised

The Crusader III took everything that was good about the Crusader I & II and turned it up to 11. Chin intake, bigger and jutting forward like an attacking shark’s mouth to control the airflow as it neared Mach 3. Ventral strakes, so big they had to fold to the sides when the undercarriage was lowered so they wouldn’t break off on the ground. Weapons, why not add three Sparrows to the four Sidewinders and 20mm cannon. Range, speed and maximum altitude were all significantly increased while retaining the legacy Crusader’s manoeuvrability.

In the skies of Vietnam, the Super Crusader was virtually unbeatable able to manoeuvre with the Vietnamese Air Force’s MiGs while being able to use it’s speed and acceleration to disengage at will. Even USAF strike packages admitted to preferring a USN escort when going downtown. Post war the F8U3 would put its high-altitude performance to good use over the North Atlantic providing long range CAP. Allowing them to intercept Soviet Tu-95s before they came in radar range of the carrier battle group. A last hurrah would come with Operation Desert Storm where the final USN Crusader squadron, VF-191 ‘Satan’s Kittens’, achieved two kills during the first day of combat operations.

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

The Future we Got
Despite outflying the competing F4H the F8U had a few short comings that its bullet like speed couldn’t overcome. Although both aircraft carried the Sparrow radar guided missile the Phantom had a second crew member who could devote his time to operating it. The Crusader pilot meanwhile had to do the equivalent of texting and driving to use the weapon. The Phantom also had a useful air-to-ground capability something never intended for the Super Crusader and which counted against it taking up space on a carrier deck. Experience of the early jets had also put most naval pilots off the idea of single engined aircraft giving McDonnell Douglas’ contender another advantage. Too specialised for the USN the five F8U3s would see out their lives with NASA, who were soon asked to stop using them to intercept Phantoms because it was getting embarrassing.

DH.127

The future we were promised
As the South Atlantic spray swept across HMS Queen Elizabeth’s deck the first of six DH 127s rolled down the deck its twin Speys’ afterburners illuminating the early morning. Approaching the deck edge the two RB.162 lift engines forward of the cockpit ran up to full power lifting the nose allowing the DH 127 to complete a free take-off from the carrier. Accelerating through the sound barrier the first two delta winged aircraft were armed with four Red Top missiles, below them the remaining DH.127s carried eight 1000lb bombs intended for the airfield at Port Stanley. Having entered service in the early 1970s the DH.127 was a tailless delta designed to fulfil the RN’s need for a supersonic aircraft able to operate in strike and air defence rolls. Although there had been some teething snags the STOL capabilities had allowed the navy to procure aircraft carriers without the expense and complexity of catapult equipment. With semi-recessed carriage possible for a range of weapons the de Havilland Delta could reach Mach 2.5 at altitude or Mach 0.9 at sea level.
This speed allowed the four strike aircraft to catch the Argentinian defenders completely unawares, littering the runway with bombs. The two air defenders meanwhile had a brief, one-sided, engagement with two Mirage IIIs to the north of the islands.
Returning to the carrier the DH.127s vectored the thrust from their Speys diverting it through a vectoring nozzle forward of the afterburner. Combined with the thrust from the lift engines the aircraft were able to slow to 85 knots, combined with the wind and ship’s speed the aircraft approached the deck at barely 50 knots. This gave the tail hook and arresting gear a much easier job, again reducing the cost of the carriers. All six aircraft landed safely, the only damage being a hole in the tail of one of them, gained over Port Stanley.

The Future we got
Despite a number of promising design proposals for the RN’s OR.346 requirement it was decided the Navy and RAF should combine their not that similar needs for a VSTOL strike aircraft. The former wanting a two seat interceptor with a strike capability, the latter a single seat attack aircraft with a reconnaissance capability. The resulting P.1154 being a just about acceptable compromise for a few months until it was slowly realised that it wouldn’t work for the Navy, who ordered Phantoms in 1964. All that remained was for the incoming Labour government to cancel the rest of the P.1154 project, along with the TSR.2, and generations of British aviation enthusiasts could make claims about underhand dealings by the US military-industrial complex. Rather than just admitting the MoD has never been good at project management.

A-12 Avenger

The uranium enrichment plant lay in the base of a long dormant volcano, surrounded by a ring of snow-covered peaks. The surrounding area was defended by a veritable forest of surface-to-air missiles, while a nearby airbase held Fifth generation fighters at readiness alongside a squadron of F-14s, a legacy from a previous regime’s closer relations with the USA. Despite these rings of layered defence, a little after 0945Z the first of a series of 500lb laser-guided bombs took out the ventilation shaft above the enrichment plant before follow up weapons destroyed the facility itself.

The response was notable mainly for not happening, at no point could any aircraft be detected. Scrambled Fifth generation fighters searched the sky in vain. The only evidence that pointed to the destruction being caused by an enemy attack was a few seconds of CCTV camera footage that showed a seeker head penetrating the main enrichment hall before the signal was cut-off.

Meanwhile at 1100Z an A-12 of VA-75 landed back on the deck of the USS Nimitz as it cruised the waters of the Gulf of Oman. The triangular replacement for the legendary A-6 Intruder was as close as you could get to a naval B-2 with the RADAR signature of a small bird and a similarly minimal IR one, with effective mission planning it could penetrate a foreign country’s air defences, destroy its target, and return without them ever knowing. Even in a GPS jammed environment.

The Future we got

The A-12 suffered from entering development just as the high of Reagan era defence spending was coming to an end. Which was unfortunate given that by 1990, two years after McDonnell Douglas and General Dynamics had been awarded the contract, the aircraft was 30% over its target weight and the radar system was proving impossible to get working. With the A-12 programme promising to consume almost three quarters of NAVAIR’s budget for new aircraft cancellation became inevitable. Which would normally be the end of the story, but a series of lawsuits would carry on until 2014 to decide who owed who what, with the final decision being that Boeing (having absorbed McDonnell Douglas) and General Dynamics should each return $200 million to the USN. Despite being 30 years after the initial contracts had been issued for concept designs this depressingly probably isn’t even a record for a defence programme that failed to deliver anything.

Bing Chandler is a former Lynx Observer who is recovering from the trauma of being expelled from Red Bubble. He now has a Zazzle store instead.

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

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

The Shackleton AEW, despite its World War II-era engines and radar was expected to defend the United Kingdom from the air arms of the Warsaw Pact at their most potent. This was not a plastic digital jet, but a noisy living monster as analogue as a hammer. We spoke to former RAF pilot Trevor Williams about flying the immortal ‘Shack’.

Describe the Shackleton in three words...

 Noisy, Slow, Heavy

What was its role and was it effective?

     Airborne Early Warning – a flying radar station. We would, ideally, detect low flying targets, report their position etc to the Air Defence Ground Environment and control friendly fighters to intercept them. Additionally, we had a secondary role doing the equivalent for enemy ships. We would broadcast their positions (Surpic – Surface Picture) and control friendly attack a/c (eg. Buccaneers) onto them (Vasstac – Vector assisted attack). Our tertiary role was Search and Rescue. The Nimrod force were the experts, and we were never on SAR standby as they were, but I flew 4 SAR flights during my 7 years on 8 Sqn.

As for effectiveness, the Shack was distinctly sub-optimal at AEW, operationally valid at Surpic and Vasstac, and probably the best SAR visual search platform then flying in the world.

What was the best and worst equipment on the aircraft and why?

As an ex-maritime aircraft it is almost obligatory to say that the best equipment on board was the galley. Given that our raison-d’etre was AEW, the radar would have to count as the worst. For our peace-time training we depended on Secondary Radar (IFF) like a blind man depends on his white stick. Probably the most under-rated, and under-used, equipment on board was the Orange Harvest Radar Warning Receiver (ESM)

What was the radar and well did it work? 

It was the AN/APS-20, the world’s first AEW radar, developed under the code name of Project Cadillac in the aftermath of the Pearl Harbour attack. Although it was the ‘F’ model – the 6th upgrade – it was profoundly basic (although still in use on USAF Super Constellations until the Americans finally got the E3 AWACS to work in the mid 70s). When it was working well we could do a (very) good job, within certain limits, and any AEW capability is better than none. On a bad day however, there wasn’t much in it. Although the media and politicians billed us as ‘the national asset’ the Squadron’s primary task (as stated in the Statement of Unit Policy) was to provide a ‘pool of trained manpower’ for the new aircraft. When the Squadron formed up with Shackletons in 1971 the ‘new aircraft’ was intended to be the E3, and was due to enter service in 1975/6. The AEW Shack was a stopgap, that served for 20 years…

As for the radar, there were some plusses – It was powerful, as an analogue radar it could be ‘interpreted’ by an experienced operator, and it didn’t suffer from contacts/information falling below a threshold and disappearing as was the case with digital processing. For the ground crew it was very old technology and was very satisfying to work on. For the aircrew it could be very satisfying, and very frustrating. I shudder to think of the hours I spent flying around over the sea while the radar team tried to make the radar work properly – ‘Changing the Low Volts power pack’, ‘tuning the crystals’, ‘by-passing the PA’ and goodness knows what else.

Su-27s and MiG-31s would have eaten Shackletons presumably. Were you scared of them?

No. Because of our antiquity we would have been a very low priority target, and because we operated at low-level it would cost any hostile jet aircraft a significant amount of fuel to come and get us. And I doubt that the Russians had a world-beating look-down, shoot-down capability 

What was the best thing about the Shackleton? And why?

Easy. It was a ‘crew’ aircraft. We flew as constituted crews which was brilliant. And to get the system to work well required the whole crew to work well together. All of us treasured both aspects.

You were offered the chance to fly the Lancaster, what is a Shack pilot’s perspective of the Lancaster?

I remember sitting in the cockpit of the Lancaster, looking out at the engines and thinking that they looked more like starter motors than proper engines like the Shack’s Griffons. Side by side it was the differences between the two aircraft that struck one. The Shack was bigger, heavier and sat much closer to the ground than the Lancaster. Compared to the Shack the Lancaster was a hot ship. I believe that it could reach 200 kts, at 20,000 ft. The Shack could do one or the other, but certainly not at the same time, and it took a long time to achieve either.

What was the worst thing about the Shackleton?

The unreliability of the radar system. If the aircraft had been equipped with the radar that was fitted to the Navy Sea Kings in the aftermath of the Falklands War I would have happily stayed flying it for years and years, and would be permanently hard-of-hearing as a result.  

Did you always get on with your crew? Who is the happiest and least happy person in a Shackleton?

The crews were always happy, unless the Captain was a difficult character. With 9 in a crew there would inevitably be someone you didn’t gel with but that still left 7 people to like and the crew always sorted themselves out. Shortly after I left one crew I asked the Captain what it was like having so-and-so (a confirmed social hand grenade) on the crew. He replied “he’s embarrassing, but he’s ours”.

As a trade group I think the Flight Engineers were the most happy.

What should I have asked you? 

What is the spark plug on top for ? (easily the most asked question at air displays, depressingly followed quite closely by ‘how did you get it here’?). The spark plug was the ESM. We almost never used it because it diverted the radar operator in the ‘C’ position from looking at his radar. However we did really pay attention to it when we ‘rushed’ a Shack out to Cyprus to provide AEW after the Americans bombed Libya. We had to transit from Gibraltar to Akrotiri, at low level, without being able to find out where the US 6th Fleet might be, but we DID know they were likely to be trigger-happy. One Chas Buckingham, a recently arrived ex-maritime AEO, sat in the ‘C’ seat and did nothing but listen to the ESM output. I was very impressed at the volume and quality of the information that he provided. Some years later, the shiny new E3 flew its very first Quick Reaction Alert mission for the RAF. Apparently, the Russian aircraft was first detected by the LORAL ESM some time before the radar picked it up, which didn’t surprise me at all.

What is a long mission like?

Tiring, and inevitably boring for everyone sometime during the flight. My wife quickly appreciated me going for a drink in the bar with the crew after a long flight. If I went straight home after a trade sortie I would be both tense and tired. After unwinding with the boys (some of whom were old enough to be my dad) I would at least be more relaxed.

Order The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes Vol 1 here. Pre-order Order The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes Vol 2 here. Hush-Kit is struggling with funding, if you’ve enjoyed an article and value what we do please consider supporting us on Patreon or via the donate button on each blog page. Big thanks to those who already do!

And would it have been any good?

The writer Luke Turner shared a link with me via X leading to a sketched cutaway from 1945 of a formidably armed fighter-interceptor labelled as the ‘Westland Wildcat’. The twin-boom pusher design, reminiscent of the Saab 21, was plausible, but what was it?

The Westland aircraft company had created the revolutionary Whirlwind fighter design in 1938, was this sketch evidence of another innovative fighter that never made it into production? Sadly, this article is no exception to Betteridge’s law that the answer to a question in a headline is always ‘no’. The Wildcat, which is no relation to today’s helicopter of the same name, was an attempt at disinformation by an incarcerated Marine pilot.

According to the British National Archives “Guy ‘Griff’ Griffiths is a Royal Marine pilot and one of the first naval officers to be captured. He found distraction from captivity in dreaming up a scheme for feeding misleading intelligence to the German authorities whilst imprisoned in Dulag Luft – creating sketches of fake British aircraft which he leaves around the camp for guards to find.”

Guy Beresford Kerr “Griff” Griffiths (6 June 1915 – 12 July 1999) was a Skua pilot at the start of the war. Eleven days into the Second World War, three Skuas were dispatched from HMS Ark Royal to defend a merchant ship against a German submarine attack. This was the first British Naval bombing of the conflict, and one of the pilots was Griffith. Due to incorrect fuse arming, the Skuas bombs damaged the tails of two of the three aeroplanes, which crashed into the sea with the loss of both air observers. Griff, along with fellow pilot Thurstan, survived, becoming the first naval officers captured in the war. Griffiths’ spirit of defiance survived captivity and he used his artistic skills to create fake British warplane designs to confuse and waste the time of Nazi intelligence (he also forged documents to aid escape attempts). He was freed in 1945 and become the first Royal Marines officer to fly a helicopter. During the Korean War he visually identified the first downed MiG-15.

The Westland Wildcat

So would the Wildcat have worked in real-life? 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. He was also Britain’s technical liaison to the British Embassy in Washington, covering several projects including the Advanced Tactical Fighter contest. We asked him his opinion of this intriguing design:

“The Wildcat concept is a compact, single-engine, twin boom-design that shows its Westland
pedigree in the compact central fuselage nacelle, pusher engine and heavy armament, with nose-
mounted cannon supplemented by additional weapons in the front of the tail-booms. The nacelle-
form fuselage not only looks like the front end of the Whirlwind, it also resembles in layout the
fuselage of the 1931 Pterodactyl IV, and the projected Mk VI fighter. To me, it looks to be reflecting
an answer to the question “How can we deliver the punch of the Whirlwind in a design using a single
Merlin engine?”.

This would be desirable for two reasons. Firstly, the Peregrine engine powering the Whirlwind had
found itself at a development dead end, given the far greater urgency of continuously keeping the
Merlin competitive, because of its criticality to the performance of key fighter, strike, and bomber
aircraft. Secondly, moving to a single-engine design would have a greater chance of Air Ministry
approval than simply replacing the two Peregrines on the Whirlwind with two Merlin engines, given
the pressing demand for those engines.

Unsurprisingly, the proposed pod and boom layout offers both benefits and disadvantages – like any
other aircraft, there are trade-offs to be made between desirable characteristics like range,
manoeuvre performance, speed and handling. The most obvious attraction of the design is the
realisation of a small, yet heavily armed fighter, combining aerodynamic and structural efficiency
into what should be a fast, manoeuvrable and effective platform.

Where then, do the disadvantages or questionable aspect arise? Apart from the question mark
about whether Merlin engines would have been available, that is. Two aspects strike me as requiring
some thought – and possible revision.

The undercarriage arrangement is a particular problem as the ‘conventional’ tailwheel layout will
lead to low ground clearance for the propeller – or longer and heavier undercarriage legs will be
required to give adequate clearance. This problem is compounded by the positioning of the fin,
rudder and tailwheel in the centre of the tailplane. This results in fin, rudder and landing loads all
having to be sustained by the tailplane, inevitably adding weight to the structure.
A second related issue is the complexity of the control runs for the empennage. Positioning the fin
and rudder at mid-tailplane has the advantage of these surfaces being in the propeller slipstream,
but with the disadvantage of complexity of the control system, which has to pass from the cockpit
through the wing to the tail-booms, down the booms, and then across through the tailplane to the
fin.

I suggest that the use of a nosewheel undercarriage would result in better ground handling, and be a
lighter solution to providing adequate ground clearance. Similarly, moving to a fin and rudder carried
on each boom would not only simplify the control system, but also provide a more structurally
efficient transfer of fin loads into the structure. Of course, the resulting configuration would perhaps
then look like a piston-engined precursor to the Vampire, and, perhaps less like a quirky Westland
product.

Pilot escape might be another problem area, and the Wildcat might, perhaps, have been an early
ejection seat adopter should the design have gone into production. Another issue, often
encountered with pusher engine installations, is difficulty in cooling the engine. Arrangements for
engine cooling are not entirely clear, the drawing hinting at an under-fuselage radiator, rather like
that of the Hurricane. This is certainly an area which would need to be considered in development.

With a small design, as this appears to be, one does wonder what the combat range would be,
particularly as the available volume in the fuselage and wing appears limited. Timing is everything
here – as a shorter-range interceptor fighter the concept has some promise. But in the latter stages
of the war, larger, longer-range escort fighters were perhaps a greater priority.”

The National Archives bew exhibition, ‘Great Escapes: Remarkable Second World War Captives’ draws on The National Archives’ vast collections of wartime era documents and photographs – featuring not only the iconic stories that you may have heard of, but many stories of survival that have rarely been told.