Airborne early warning, and command and control, are a vital part of modern air warfare. Justin Bronk, from the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) think-tank gives us a quick heads-up on the state of airborne early warning, and looks at the shortcomings of the RAF’s AWACS fleet. 

Those wishing to read more about the subject should read Justin’s full paper ‘The Future of Air C2 and AEW’ here

 AEW, what’s that and does the RAF need it?

AEW stands for airborne early warning and is one part of the broader AWACS mission set which also includes increasing command and control (C2) capacity for the air commander. Whereas fighter radars can be likened to using a very bright but narrow beam torch in a large dark warehouse, an AEW radar like the big AN/APY-1/2 array on the RAF’s E-3D Sentry is rather like turning on a lightbulb on the ceiling in this analogy – providing 360-degree long range coverage to enable it to give situational awareness and coordination to all other participants in an air battle in terms of what friendly and enemy aircraft are doing.

So, does the RAF needs its own- could it not just use the NATO aircraft? 

The RAF operates 6 frontline E-3Ds as a core part of the UK’s sovereign capability to conduct complex air operations. The French Air Force and US Air Force also operate modernised E-3s and there is a communal NATO fleet of E-3As. However, for a nation that still prides itself on fielding a ‘reference air force’ which can conduct high end warfighting, some form of AEW and even more crucially Air C2 capacity is essential.

Datalinks, is that the transfer of digital tactical information by radio? 

Datalinks involve the transfer of information – be that text, imagery, voice or digital code through the electromagnetic spectrum across a variety of frequencies which have different capabilities and limitations. Link 16 is the most commonly used datalink standard for NATO aircraft.

Are we becoming overly dependent on datalinks, is it theoretically possible to jam datalink signals? 

Almost all aspects of modern air warfare as practiced by first-line NATO air forces depend to a large extent on having access to datalinks of various types for all sorts of purposes. Those might be between fast jets within a formation, between fast jets and their AWACS and other surveillance enablers such as UAVs, ground and naval forces, communications with the COAC etc. It is certainly possible to disrupt and jam datalinks just as with any form of radio-based communications. However, certain modern datalinks use waveforms that are frequency agile, directional and hard to detect and disrupt. The F-35’s MADL is a good example.

 Is the equipment of the RAF’s E-3D any good?

The RAF’s E-3D was state of the art amongst AWACS during the 1990 and early 2000s but has been seriously neglected since then with planned midlife upgrade programmes falling foul of ‘efficiency savings’ being pressed on a cash-strapped MoD. It is now facing serious reliability problems and carries mission systems that are extremely out of date in terms of computing power and capacity compared to the modernised E-3s of the French Air Force and US Air Force.

How should it be updated? 

There is an ongoing capability sustainment programme (CSP) which will cost about £2bn between now and 2025 which aims to upgrade the aircraft’s computing power, address as many of the chronic mechanical reliability issues as possible and perform various other upgrades to allow the E-3D to serve out to its nominal out of service date in 2035 when the US will replace its own E-3Gs. However, the most serious limitation for all E-3s is the AN/APY-1/2 radar itself which is a capable mechanically scanning array but cannot compete in terms of detection of low-observable, hypersonic and other difficult targets with modern AESA technology.

How vulnerable are AWACS or AEW aircraft to:

A. Hostile SAMs?

They simply have to stay outside their missile engagement envelopes. AWACS types are all medium-large airliner derivatives with a huge RCS and emissions signature – they have no significant defensive capabilities against modern SAM systems and so must avoid them.

B. Hostile fighters?

Normally a valuable and vulnerable target like an AWACS will be well protected from hostile fighters. However, with the maturation and possible proliferation on non-Western stealth fighter technology and very long range air to air missiles (VLRAAMS), it is becoming harder to ensure their total protection against really serious opponents. This is especially true if the AWACS in question does not have an AESA array and so is really limited against LO targets…

  Royal Air Force Museum. Photo credit: Royal Air Force Museum

Has AEW ever been used in peer-peer warfare? How did it fare? 

The E-3 was one of the defining advantages of the US-led coalition against Iraq in 1991 and gave coalition pilots an overwhelming situational-awareness edge over their Iraqi opponents. It was almost always the E-3s which detected Iraqi fighters and verified their IDs so that they could be engaged at beyond visual range. However, China and Russia have learnt from this and developed very long range missiles to try and keep E-3 and other AWACS types far enough away from their territory that their radar coverage would be less useful in the event of a conflict.

 Mech scan radars, are they a dead technology? 

Certainly a limited one in the modern world. Against fourth generation combat aircraft, mechanically scanned radars can still be highly effective but as more and more low-RCS missile and fighter threats appear, they are less and less capable of ensuring a representative threat picture. Furthermore, a mechanically scanned radar is much easier for an opponent to detect and jam than an electronically scanned array.

Why is AESA better for a AEW aircraft? 

Massively increased simultaneous search, track and targeting capabilities, frequency agility makes it harder for opponents to detect or jam. Furthermore, AESA radars offer the potential to function as high-powered jamming devices and even cyber payload insertion vectors since they are essentially software-limited at present rather than hardware limited. Also AESA arrays have a much lower number of moving parts compared to mech-scans and so are in general more reliable assuming mature software.

What is the most capable AEW aircraft in the world and why? 

In terms of a fully functioning system, I would suggest the US Navy’s E-2D Hawkeye given its capability to interface with Aegis vessels and other fleet assets, coupled with an interesting and apparently highly capable AESA-Mechanical scanning hybrid array. However, in terms of pure radar array capabilities I would say the latest Erieye ER array from Saab which the UAE have just ordered using Saab’s gallium nitride technology is the most technically capable AEW array in production. Power levels are very impressive and its backed up by characteristic Swedish ingenuity in terms of signal post-processing.

12. What kind of detection ranges would the best AEW aircraft have against an F-35? A B-2? A F-22? A F-15? 

F-35: Top secret and aspect-dependent, but better than an E-3.

B-2: Top secret and impossible to speculate on meaningfully

F-22: Top secret and aspect-dependent, but better than an E-3

F-15: At least the radar horizon so altitude dependent but minimum 370km+

 Could a data-linked force of several fighters provide the same coverage as a AEW aircraft? 

No. However, modern fighters like the F-22 and F-35 are increasingly capable of providing a higher fidelity picture within their arcs of radar coverage than an E-3. Furthermore, passive tracking using ELINT, RWRs, IRST, EO sensors and the like coupled with impressive computer-enabled sensor fusion and interpretation capacity is increasing the 360 degree awareness of modern fighters significantly. I’d commend the torch vs lightbulb analogy from the start…

What are the most exciting technologies in AEW?

Large electronic-warfare capable AESA arrays for traditional airliner-derived AWACS, and distributed UAV/HAPS based sensor clusters linked to ground stations (see China’s Devine Eagle concept) as an alternative to traditional AWACS. Also the potential offered by modern computing power to fuse data from multiple sources and multiple sensors across different spectra in order to ‘fill in the gaps’.

What will the British aircraft carriers use for organic AEW, is it the right choice? 

Initially a mix of the F-35B and the Crowsnest system on the Merlin HM.2 medium lift helicopter. However, both lack endurance on station and the Merlin cannot attain anything like the operational altitudes of a traditional fixed wing AWACS so suffers from a much closer radar horizon and corresponding decreases in possible threat detection ranges.

The E-2D is considered very capable, how does it compare with the best Russian and Israeli equivalent aircraft? 

I really don’t know beyond confirming (as above) that the E-2D is amongst the most capable AWACS systems in the world at present. The Russians and Israelis are both very secretive about the performance of their radar technology on the frontline. I would suggest that in part on the Russian side that is because their radars’ technical potential is not reached due to out of date mission systems and reliance on (now unavailable due to sanctions) foreign electronic components.

What is the most common myth about AEW or C2 aircraft? 

That the E-3’s prominent AN/APY-1/2 radar dish is really heavy. It is but only on the ground – it is actually shaped as a circular aerofoil to generate its own lift and so at cruise speeds is effectively weightless.

What should I have asked you? 

What would I personally recommend for the RAF as an alternative to E-3D…?

I won’t point to specific companies’ offerings but I’d say any replacement should certainly be based on either the 737-800max like the P-8 or the A330 like the Voyager for commonality with existing fleets and needs to have a modern AESA array which limits options somewhat.

Those wishing to read more about the subject should read Justin’s full paper ‘The Future of Air C2 and AEW’ here

Justin Bronk, is a Research Fellow specialising in combat airpower and technology in the Military Sciences team at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) and Editor of the RUSI Defence Systems online journal. 

Follow my vapour trail on Twitter: @Hush_kit

Guide to surviving aviation forums here

You may also enjoy A B-52 pilot’s guide to modern fighters, Flying and fighting in the Lightning: a pilot’s guide, Interview with a Super Hornet pilot, Trump’s Air Force Plan, 11 Worst Soviet Aircraft, 10 worst US aircraft, and 10 worst British aircraft 

SAVE HUSH-KIT. Hush-Kit needs donations to continue, sadly we’re well behind our targets, please donate using the buttons above or below. Many thanks. I really hope Hush-Kit can continue as it’s been a fascinating experience to research and write this ridiculously labour-intensive blog.

Everything in your life has led you to this moment. Write your answers in the comment section and I’ll be revealing the answers later this week.

A. Republic RC-2

B. Republic XF-12 Rainbow

C. Miles Marotta

D. Vickers V6000

2. 

A. Ford 13-A Trimotor

B. Junkers G 24

C. Stout Bushmaster 2000

D. Estella/Lockheed Rapido

3. 

A. OKB-1 140

B. Junkers Ju 287

C. Junkers Ju 543

D. Blohm & Voss Bv P192

4. 

A. Sikorsky ‘Bumblebee’

B. Hughes XH-6 Wyoming

C. Kellett XR-8

D. Halvard HV10 Ottawa

5.

A. SNCAC NC.1071

B. Sud-Aviation Léchouille

C. Dassault ‘Lorraine’

D. Douglas XB-23 Jet Siege

6. 

A. Supermarine Seawolf

B. Bristol Barricade

C. SNCASO SE.100

D. Northrop XP-75

7.

A. AirColt Bangor

B. Springfield Nancy

C. Callista Topper

D. Tipsy Nipper

8.

A.  Renard R.36

B. Packard XP-22 Eliminator

C. Société des Avions Caudron Enculage

D. Phillips Sea Hoffman

9.

A. Genairco Seaplane

B. de Havilland Lake Baby

C. de Havilland Fairy Moth

D. Muntainard Waterbus

10.

A. Canadian Car and Foundry FDB-1

B. North American Comanche

C. Antonov An-4

D. Slingsby Trebuchet Mk I

Answers: 

1. A
2. C
3. A
4. C.
5. A
6. C
7. D
8. A
9. A
10. A

Find out about the latest Hush-Kit articles on Twitter: @Hush_kit

If this article interests you, support Hush-Kit.net with a donation (buttons above and below). If this goes well we’ll be able to give you much more! Recommended donation £11. Many thanks for helping to keep us impartial and independent. 

You may also enjoy A B-52 pilot’s guide to modern fighters, Flying and fighting in the Lightning: a pilot’s guide, Interview with a Super Hornet pilot, Trump’s Air Force Plan, 11 Worst Soviet Aircraft, 10 worst US aircraft, and 10 worst British aircraft. MiG-21s, MC-21s and the overrated Typhoon: In conversation with FlightGlobal’s Stephen Trimble, The F-35 will fail, until the US learns to share, An air force of my own #1, Top 8 Mach 3 fighters

Not forgetting:  11 Cancelled French aircraft or the 10 worst British military aircraft, Su-35 versus Typhoon, 10 Best fighters of World War II , Su-35 versus Typhoon, top WVR and BVR fighters of today, an interview with a Super Hornet pilot and a Pacifist’s Guide to Warplanes. Flying and fighting in the Tornado. Was the Spitfire overrated? Want something more bizarre? Try Sigmund Freud’s Guide to Spyplanes. The Top Ten fictional aircraft is a fascinating read, as is The Strange Story and The Planet Satellite. The Fashion Versus Aircraft Camo is also a real cracker. Those interested in the Cold Way should read A pilot’s guide to flying and fighting in the Lightning. Those feeling less belligerent may enjoy A pilot’s farewell to the Airbus A340. Looking for something more humorous? Have a look at this F-35 satire and ‘Werner Herzog’s Guide to pusher bi-planes or the Ten most boring aircraft. In the mood for something more offensive? Try the NSFW 10 best looking American airplanes, or the same but for Canadians. 10 great aircraft stymied by the US. 

You may also enjoy top WVR and BVR fighters of today, an interview with a Super Hornet pilot and a Pacifist’s Guide to Warplanes. Want something more bizarre? The Top Ten fictional aircraft is a fascinating read, as is The Strange Story of The Planet Satellite. Fashion Versus Aircraft Camo is also a real cracker. 

The F-16SFW responding to the 1980 ‘Queen Kong attack’.

Today, every aircraft that travels faster than 500 mph has a swept-back or delta wing. However, this isn’t the only solution to high-speed flight: the swept forward wing offers several advantages (for the same given wing area), among them a higher lift-to-drag ratio, better agility, higher range at subsonic speed, improved stability at high angles of attack, and a shorter take-off and landing distance. In the early to mid 1980s it seemed inevitable that forward swept wings (FSW) would catch on, but despite some mouthwatering artist’s impressions they never did. Despite advances in materials that made FSW designs viable, the advantages weren’t enough, and despite a few limited production oddbod aircraft, the concept never really spread. Here are ten FSW aircraft that never made it into production. 

The Hush-Kit blog is hitting funding problems again. Please keep us independent and free from adverts by donating here. Your donations keep this going. Thank you. 

10. Rockwell Sabre Bat ‘Hyper Sabre’ (1980)

Neeeoowww! Rat-a-tat! Boom!

If the world was run by 7-year-old boys (admittedly we’re not far off this right now) the skies would be full of Sabre Bats duelling with MiGs. The name is perfect,  it looked perfect- but it was not to be. The Sabre Bat was Rockwell’s response to a DARPA brief for a FSW research aircraft, that led to the Grumman X-29. Though Rockwell’s entry offered 10 degrees greater forward wing sweep than the winning X-29, the Sabre Jet did not win the tender. However, Rockwell got quite caught up in the Sabre Bat project and proposed it as the basis for a super agile light fighter.

According to Boeing: “Mike Robinson, the Sabrebat (sic) program manager for Rockwell and now with Phantom Works business development, recalled that the Sabrebat FSW concept was based on the HiMAT (Highly Maneuverable Aircraft Technology) test flight experience (see Page 8 of the May 2007 Boeing Frontiers). “That program amassed a wealth of transonic/supersonic data on HiMAT’s graphite composite variable-camber wing.” Robinson continued, “The FSW demonstrator program proved to be very successful in that we developed a high-tech design team, tools and insights at a time when there were few new designs in work.”

The Sabre Bat mock-up.

Intriguingly, North American (Rockwell’s predecessor) had experimented with wind tunnel models of P-51 Mustangs with swept forward wings for greater manoeuvrability.

9. Junkers Ju 287 ‘Junk, gifted und bleak’ (1944)

With their thick reptilian skin, beady eyes, grasping claws and thin reedy voices it’s not hard to spot an affectionado of late-war German aircraft, and one of their favourite aeroplanes is the Junkers Ju 287.  The ‘287 was a testbed to explore the technologies required for a new jet bomber. The forward swept wings allowed space for a large single bomb-bay at the aircraft’s centre of gravity – and helped achieve a swifter take-off (early jet aircraft, especially the Me-262, were particularly vulnerable during take-off runs as they required a long distance to reach flight speeds). A version controlled by a piggy-backing fighter aircraft, and released as massive missile was considered but never used. Aeronautical engineer Brunolf Baade, who had worked on the  Ju 88, Ju 188, Ju 388 (and at North American before the War)- was a vital member of the Ju 287 design team.

8. OKB-1 140 ‘OKB cupid’ (1948)

Following a period of capture by US forces, Baade continued work on a variant of the Junkers Ju 287 jet bomber known as the OKB-1 EF 131 for the Soviet Union. The final prototype was adapted for use in the OKB-1 140 programme, an improved variant with changes that included Soviet engines and defensive guns. The OKB-1 150 used advanced materials, but progress was hampered by the official suspicion of German expatriates. This concept grew into a larger and more capable aircraft, but was cancelled in favour of far more ambitious bomber designs in 1952.

7. Sukhoi S-37 ‘Berkut’ ‘Gorbachev’s Cobra’/Yeltsin’s Toboggan’  (1997)

‘Flanker’s flanking.

The US spent the ’80s and ’90s in a stealth frenzy while the Soviet Union seemed more interested in fast climbing aircraft with extreme agility. As the Su-27 prepared for service entry in the early 1980s, the Soviet Union started considered its next generation of advanced tactical fighters.

Though the operational fighter that could have evolved from the Sukhoi S-37 ‘Berkut’ would have been stealthier than this technology testbed, it’s hard to imagine it being very stealthy, which raises the question of what advantages it would have offered over an advanced ‘Flanker’?  Today’s heavyweight future fighter, the Sukhoi PAK FA, does not feature forward swept wings. The degree to which it was a general testbed rather than the template for an actual fighter remains a hotly debated subject. It was certainly superbly sinister its black paint scheme.

Work done on the internal weapon’s bay of the S-37 may have aided the design of the PAK FA. Similarly, the S-37 large round LERX may have led to PAK FA’s unique adjustable leading edge vortex controllers (LEVCONs).

6. North American WS-110A Supersonic Bomber ‘Nemesis the supersonic warlock’ (1955)

In 1955, USAF issued General Operational Requirement No. 38 for a new bomber. The new aircraft should have the payload and intercontinental range of the B-52 combined with the Mach 2 top speed of the Convair B-58 Hustler. This was a time when anything could be improved by adding a fin, some Brylcream or a nuclear reactor so both conventional and atomic powered (or fuelled) aircraft would be considered. The (barely) conventional jet-powered version was assigned the designation Weapon System 110A. North American Aviation’s responded to this extremely demanding brief, clearly after their draughtsmen had got smashed on martinis, with the WS-110A.  The WS-110A featured huge wing tip fuel tanks that could be jettisoned when their fuel was expended, allowing a supersonic dash to the target. The tanks also consisted of the outer portions of the wing, which were swept forward. Properly insane, and possibly wonderful, the WS-110A never happened but it did pave the way for the doomed, and incredibly impressive Mach 3+ North American XB-70 Valkyrie.

Top 11 Cancelled French aircraft here

7. Grumman ‘Concept 9’ ‘Bananarama’ (1982)

After winning the DARPA contract, Grumman flew the X-29 in 1984. Prior to this, Grumman submitted four different concepts for the 1982 USAF Request For Information for an advanced tactical fighter (a project that Lockheed won that culminated in the F-22 Raptor). All featured twin vertical fins (the single finned aircraft illustrated is an earlier study) and vectored thrust. ‘Concept 9’ was a 51,414 lb fighter with a forward swept wing design based on the nascent X-29. It is likely that the real designs were stealthier than the artist’s impressions shown.

6. Rockwell D-645-1 ‘Rocky’s Revolver’ (1979)

The Rockwell D 645-1 was a 1979 concept for a low-cost subsonic missile carrier. Why are the engines located above the wings? I don’t know. Why has it got such an unusual configuration – again I don’t know. Seems kind of stealthy  (in terms of frontal cross-section) in a squashed pancake kind of way, but then there’s hugely visible open compressor faces and a massive vertical tail -so who knows? I’m going to have to dig out my ‘Warplanes of the future’ (1985), do some homework and then amend this entry. Cruise missiles were to be carried on a rotary launcher, effectively making the aircraft a giant flying revolver.

You’d think that a low-cost subsonic cruise missile carrier would just be a 737 derivative, but I suppose that wouldn’t interest Rockwell.

5. General Dynamics F-16 SFW (Swept Forward Wing) ‘Windscreen Viper’ (1980)

You can do anything with an F-16: stick a delta wing on and you’ve got a long-range attack aircraft (F-16XL), change the landing gear you can make a decent naval fighter (V-1600) – so why not make a FSW demonstrator? In 1976, DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) awarded funds to General Dynamics, Rockwell and Grumman under the Forward-Swept Wing Program. The engineers at General Dynamics, of course, suggested fitting a FSW to their F-16. In 1981 DARPA decided to opt instead for the Grumman X-29 based on the F-5/F-20, a decision many said was due to the F-16s over -representation in upcoming DARPA test programmes. In the end the X-29A featured a load of F-16 components, including an adapted form of its fly-by-wire system.

Ten incredible cancelled military aircraft here

4. Convair XB-53/XA-44 ‘Convair the meerkat’ (1945)

This was an unusual forward-swept wing medium bomber design powered by three J35-GE turbojets, proposed in the 1940s. The wing, with its 30° forward-sweep and 8° dihedral was strongly influenced by wartime German research. Classified as a medium bomber, the XB-53 would have carried up to 12,000 pounds of bombs as well as 40 High Velocity Aerial Rockets (HVAR) mounted on underwing pylons.

3. British Aerospace P.1214  ‘Bond’s X-wing’ (1980)

You can’t put conventional afterburners on a Pegasus engine for several reasons – the hot and cold air is separated, the inlets do not slow the airflow sufficiently for serious supersonic flight, and the jetpipes would be too short- and it would also set fire to everything (it was tried from the 1960s and proved problematic) . This is a shame as a Harrier is desperate for thrust on take-off and could do with the ability to perform a decent high-speed dash. Though conventional afterburners are out of the question, you you could however use plenum chamber burning (PCB). This technology was developed for the Mach 2 Hawker Siddeley P.1154 (think the lovechild of a Harrier and a F-4, with the wingspan of a Messerschmitt Bf 109) – which never entered service.

PCB chucks additional fuel burnt into a turbofan’s cold bypass air only (instead of the combined cold and hot gas flows as in a conventional afterburner). This is great, but how do you incorporate this into swivelling nozzles without destroying the rear fuselage with heat and vibration? BAe thought it found the answer – get ride of the rear fuselage altogether, and mount the tail onto two booms. Worried that this already eccentric idea might seem too conventional, BAe decided to add an ‘X-wing’ configuration with swept forward wings (which were in vogue in the early 1980s). This did produce the coolest fighter concept of the 1980s, even in the -3 variant shown which had conventional tails.

The P.1214 would have been extremely agile (and probably short-ranged). As fashion changes, the P.1214 lost its swept forward wings and became the P.1216 which was intended to satisfy the USMC and RN’s desire for a supersonic jump-jet (a need eventually met by the F-35B). A full-sized wooden P.1216 was built to distract Thatcher from stealing children’s milk, predictably (as it was British) the whole project was scrapped.

The P.1216: think P-38 for the F-16 generation.

2. Northrop-Grumman ‘Switchblade’ ‘X-files jetski’ (1999)

This 1999 patent is most often viewed online through the skunk weed fug of a Black projects observer’s bedroom in Delaware. No other variable geometry- or swing wing- aircraft came close to having the huge arc of possible wingsweep angles of the ‘Switchblade’. Did the severe raked-back wing-sweep hint at a mach 3+ plus capability? Was the forward sweep for a short take-off, or extreme dogfight agility? Little is known for sure but it looks like stealth was a consideration. Note the unusual placing of the engines – to shield them from ground radars perhaps? The Switchblade remains to this day a mysterious concept.

One thing it did influence was the fictional F/A-37 from the 2005 borefest ‘Stealth’.

Boeing Model 449-3 ‘Antoine de Saint-Exupéry Pootly Pepperpot’ (1944)

The 1940s were for jet fighters what the 1960s were for Rock ‘n ‘Roll — it was a time for wild experimentation, the ingestion of copious quantities of LSD and it ended in Prog Rock. Shortly after World War II had ended, Boeing produced a series of designs for a swept-wing jet fighter under the Model 449 designation. Both swept-forward and -back wings were considered, but it is unlikely that contemporary materials would have been able to deal with the loads and aeroelastic twisting imposed on a FSW design.

________

The Hush-Kit blog is hitting funding problems again. Please keep us independent and free from adverts by donating here. Your donations keep this going. Thank you. Recommended donation £11. 

.

You may also enjoy A B-52 pilot’s guide to modern fighters, Flying and fighting in the Lightning: a pilot’s guide, Interview with a Super Hornet pilot, Trump’s Air Force Plan, 11 Worst Soviet Aircraft, 10 worst US aircraft, and 10 worst British aircraft. MiG-21s, MC-21s and the overrated Typhoon: In conversation with FlightGlobal’s Stephen Trimble, The F-35 will fail, until the US learns to share, An air force of my own #1, Top 8 Mach 3 fighters

Not forgetting:  11 Cancelled French aircraft or the 10 worst British military aircraft, Su-35 versus Typhoon, 10 Best fighters of World War II , Su-35 versus Typhoon, top WVR and BVR fighters of today, an interview with a Super Hornet pilot and a Pacifist’s Guide to Warplanes. Flying and fighting in the Tornado. Was the Spitfire overrated? Want something more bizarre? Try Sigmund Freud’s Guide to Spyplanes. The Top Ten fictional aircraft is a fascinating read, as is The Strange Story and The Planet Satellite. The Fashion Versus Aircraft Camo is also a real cracker. Those interested in the Cold Way should read A pilot’s guide to flying and fighting in the Lightning. Those feeling less belligerent may enjoy A pilot’s farewell to the Airbus A340. Looking for something more humorous? Have a look at this F-35 satire and ‘Werner Herzog’s Guide to pusher bi-planes or the Ten most boring aircraft. In the mood for something more offensive? Try the NSFW 10 best looking American airplanes, or the same but for Canadians. 10 great aircraft stymied by the US. 

You may also enjoy top WVR and BVR fighters of today, an interview with a Super Hornet pilot and a Pacifist’s Guide to Warplanes. Want something more bizarre? The Top Ten fictional aircraft is a fascinating read, as is The Strange Story of The Planet Satellite. Fashion Versus Aircraft Camo is also a real cracker. 

This picture again.

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

If this article interests you, support Hush-Kit.net with a donation (buttons above and below). If this goes well we’ll be able to give you much more! Recommended donation £15. Many thanks for helping to keep us impartial and independent. 

(Part 1 can be read here) 

The J 29 concept started with a straight-wing, but this did not last. In November 1945 Saab obtained a windfall of German research data. The future was clearly swept. By February 1946, a 25-degree swept wing design had been selected. Automatic leading edge slats were fitted to prevent the airflow over the wings from separating in high angle of attack (AOA) manoeuvres.

At the transonic speeds achieved by post-war aircraft, shockwaves forming on the tailplane would render conventional (ie trailing edge mounted) elevators, downstream of the shock, ineffective. Those speeds also moved the mainplane centre of pressure rearwards resulting in pitch-down that the ineffective elevators could not correct. The solution was the flying tail (pioneered by the Bell X-1 seen here- and Miles M.52 concept) in which the entire horizontal tailplane could move in pitch. Shockwaves still formed on a flying tail but its area ahead of the shock front would remain an effective control surface.

The Tunnan was the first Western European jet fighter to have an all-moving tail – something which has since became standard for transonic and supersonic aircraft of conventional tail layout.

Fighter agility depends, among other things, on a rapid roll rate, something the J 29 prototype had in spades. Fitted as it was with full-span ailerons, the prototype had a pilot nauseating rate of roll of 180 degrees per second – this was excessive. The ailerons were reduced to around 65% of the span, with the remaining inboard section replaced by flaps, and the aircraft was tamed. 

Roll out the barrel

Following four prototypes, 224 J 29As were produced. From March 1953, the J 29B became the standard Tunnan version. This had internal wing tanks that added 154 Imperial gallons (700 litres) of fuel taking the internal total to 462 Imperial gallons (2,100 litres), a 50% increase. Twin 99 Imperial gallon (450 litre) drop tanks could also be carried so offering a total load of 660 Imperial gallons (3,000 litres). The tanks were fitted at roughly mid-span on the outer of the two main pylons with the inboard hardpoints retained for weapons. Gripen uses a 242 Imperial gallon (1,100 litres) drop tank that can be fitted on the centreline and inboard underwing pylons. With three tanks in place, total fuel carried is 1,386 Imp gallons (6,300 litres); the internal load being 660 Imp gallons (3,000 litres).

The Tunnan’s wing was shoulder mounted, meeting the fuselage somewhat above the centreline. The wing was a one-piece structure and ran straight through the capacious fuselage passing just behind the cockpit rear pressure bulkhead and above the intake duct. Gripen also has a shoulder-mounted wing, set roughly at the centreline of the slim fuselage. This is slightly below the level of the canards (that in turn are mounted just below the upper surface of the intakes). Fuel tanks are fitted in the upper part of the fuselage middle section with the intake duct(s) and main undercarriage bays placed below.

A one-piece wing could have been mounted level with the fuselage upper or lower surfaces as per the Jaguar and Phantom respectively.

A low mounted wing on the diminutive Gripen would have offered insufficient ground clearance for loading under-wing stores without a longer and heavier undercarriage. To achieve favourable interaction, the canards have to be set above the level of the mainplanes. Lack of suitable alternative mounting points for the canards would rule out the high wing location option. Furthermore, in order to reduce drag, it is best to avoid forming acute angles at wing-fuselage fairings. A mid wing configuration arguably offers the best overall solution in this and the other respects; it is therefore an entirely reasonable design choice.

The Tunnan was of monocoque structure built from aluminium alloy. High strength and stiffness were required to withstand the loadings imposed by transonic flight and a very fine standard of surface finish was also achieved in order to reduce skin drag. In structural terms, the Gripen marks a major change for Saab with composite materials (carbon fibre, glass fibre and Aramid) accounting for 20% of the structure by weight. Fatigue life consumption is reduced by a gust alleviation system. Aircraft disturbance is sensed by the flight control system, which prompts control surface reaction to alleviate the loads imposed.

Insane in the mainplane

The most obvious difference between these classics is in their lifting and control surfaces. Although radical at its inception for its swept wing and flying tail, the J 29 was standard in being longitudinally stable with a conventionally sited tailplane. Such tailplanes apply a download to balance the mainplane’s lift (the main plane centre of pressure being ahead of the centre of gravity). In turn, the mainplane must generate additional lift to counter the tail’s down force and as a result lift-induced drag is increased. The Tunnan’s primary flying controls were the tailplane for pitch and the ailerons for roll. By contrast, the Gripen controls pitch by the canard while the inboard and outboard elevons on the delta wing act in both pitch and roll. The canard applies a lifting force to balance the mainplane and this co-operative interaction reduces the overall lift-induced drag.

During pre-Gripen studies a conventional layout was considered. 

http://live.warthunder.com/

Saab originally reversed the traditional arrangement with the Viggen and adopted a tail-first or canard design although it retained natural longitudinal stability. With the JAS 39, the full potential of the canard was realised. Full time, full authority, digital, fly by wire flight control systems (FCS) allowed the adoption of artificial stability in pitch with attendant gains in agility and aerodynamic efficiency. At supersonic speeds the centre of lift on all wings moves aft promoting a nose down moment. A conventional aircraft trims this by increasing the tailplane download whereas the opposite applies with the canard, a more efficient solution. An unstable canard design offers more lift during take-off and landing, better supersonic turning performance and lower supersonic drag. The FCS keeps the Gripen’s instability in check and allows the full envelope to be exploited without the risk of overstress or departure from controlled flight. This carefree handling facility enables the pilot to concentrate on the mission while the FCS controls the load factor, AOA, angle of sideslip and roll rate. Another function unavailable to the Tunnan is CG control. The fuel control system not only monitors the fuel remaining but also balances the amounts drawn from the various tanks to keep the CG within limits.

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

If this article interests you, support Hush-Kit.net with a donation (buttons above and below). If this goes well we’ll be able to give you much more! Recommended donation £15. Many thanks for helping to keep us impartial and independent. 

You may also enjoy A B-52 pilot’s guide to modern fighters, Flying and fighting in the Lightning: a pilot’s guide, Interview with a Super Hornet pilot, Trump’s Air Force Plan, 11 Worst Soviet Aircraft, 10 worst US aircraft, and 10 worst British aircraft. MiG-21s, MC-21s and the overrated Typhoon: In conversation with FlightGlobal’s Stephen Trimble, The F-35 will fail, until the US learns to share, An air force of my own #1, Top 8 Mach 3 fighters

Not forgetting:  11 Cancelled French aircraft or the 10 worst British military aircraft, Su-35 versus Typhoon, 10 Best fighters of World War II , Su-35 versus Typhoon, top WVR and BVR fighters of today, an interview with a Super Hornet pilot and a Pacifist’s Guide to Warplanes. Flying and fighting in the Tornado. Was the Spitfire overrated? Want something more bizarre? Try Sigmund Freud’s Guide to Spyplanes. The Top Ten fictional aircraft is a fascinating read, as is The Strange Story and The Planet Satellite. The Fashion Versus Aircraft Camo is also a real cracker. Those interested in the Cold Way should read A pilot’s guide to flying and fighting in the Lightning. Those feeling less belligerent may enjoy A pilot’s farewell to the Airbus A340. Looking for something more humorous? Have a look at this F-35 satire and ‘Werner Herzog’s Guide to pusher bi-planes or the Ten most boring aircraft. In the mood for something more offensive? Try the NSFW 10 best looking American airplanes, or the same but for Canadians. 10 great aircraft stymied by the US. 

You may also enjoy top WVR and BVR fighters of today, an interview with a Super Hornet pilot and a Pacifist’s Guide to Warplanes. Want something more bizarre? The Top Ten fictional aircraft is a fascinating read, as is The Strange Story of The Planet Satellite. Fashion Versus Aircraft Camo is also a real cracker. 

It’s hard to know which is creepier, using sexual words to describe war, or the reverse. The military, and the United States Air Force in particular, loves talking about ‘penetration’. The USAF has even started to study the concept of a ‘Penetrating Counter-Air’ (PCA) fighter to escort stealth B-21 bombers deep into enemy held territory. This is a job the F-35A was never designed for and cannot accomplish.

The problems with the F-35 will be fixed. The hardware issues will each be dealt with in turn and even the intractable software bugs will be corrected.  All of this will take a lot longer and cost a lot more than it should have, but it will be done. There simply isn’t a credible plan-B.

The fixed F-35 will then be adequate for its assigned mission, but even this multirole aircraft doesn’t meet the requirements for every role the USAF needs from their tactical aviation. Air defences are already being upgraded with advanced UHF radars that defeat stealth by detecting the tail fins on the F-22 and F-35A. The longer wavelengths of these radars can detect these features by their size, undoing the advantages of shaping and materials that let the F-22 and F-35A evade the shorter wavelength radars that other fighter jets carry. The F-35A simply isn’t shaped correctly for longer wavelength stealth.

This notional delta winged F-35 variant features vertical fins, our hypothetical F-35D would be tailess.

http://www.moddb.com/groups/aircraft-lovers-group/news/report-045-f-35

The F-35A’s stubby shape and small size also prevent it from carrying internally enough fuel to accomplish deep penetration. To actually reach the target the F-35A (or F-22) would need to carry non-stealthy external fuel tanks or be accompanied by a non-stealthy aerial tanker.

Finally the F-35A can’t carry enough internal weapons in a stealthy configuration to win the deep fight. The four missiles of the F-35A or even the eight missiles of the F-22 won’t be enough to engage the hornet’s nest.

While the B-21 could carry a large number of air-to-air missiles (displacing some of its bombload), its flying wing configuration prevents it from operating in supersonic flight. Combined with the limited agility of a bomber sized aircraft the B-21 will be unable to control the engagement and so will be mobbed and shot down by cannon fire if nothing else. The bomber needs an escort that can sneak in deep, engage and break off.

Is the only choice to start yet another decades long development process for a clean sheet fighter that will be extremely expensive because it will be bought in small quantities for a niche mission?

The F-35 already exists in three different variants that share many parts and most importantly the same software, so why not just create a fourth variant?

This F-35D will need extended range and supercruise. Get this with a tailless delta wing and two F135 engines in place of the F-35A’s single F135 engine. The overall shape of the aircraft is a large pointed triangle with no extra bits hanging off the sides or rear for longer wavelength radars to home in on.

The extra thrust, reduced drag and larger internal fuel tanks then give extended range supercruise, allowing the F-35D to keep its distance from threats, engage and withdraw at will. But it still needs fighter levels of agility.

Some of the F-22’s agility comes from the 2D thrust vectoring of its twin engines. The two dimensions of control come from directing the thrust of both engines up or down together to control pitch and directing the thrust in different directions to control roll. But for yaw control the F-22 must depend on its airfoils, especially those UHF-stealth ruining tails.

As a tailless delta the F-35D must have 3D thrust vectoring to provide agility. The Russian T-50 gets 3D thrust vectoring by directing the thrust of its twin engines side to side in addition to up and down, but the exposed engines on the T-50 are very non-stealthy.

Stealthy 3D thrust vectoring can be achieved with twin engines which have fixed height openings that swivel up and down and then inside these are baffles that constrict from the sides to control the flow and direct it to the sides. When both engines are working you have full 3D thrust vectoring and if only one engine is working you can return to base on 2D thrust vectoring.

Given all these structural changes (not even mentioning the obvious such as two seats and expanded weapons bays), why call this “F-35D” a F-35? Because all the system components, seats, engines, radar, sensors, CPUs, etc. are all standard F-35 parts interchangeable with any F-35A. No other aircraft can be developed for the PCA role as quickly and cheaply as simply adapting the F-35A design while the F-35A remains in production.

By Henry J. Cobb

If this interests you, support Hush-Kit.net with a donation (buttons above and below). If this goes well we’ll be able to give you much more! Recommended donation £15. Many thanks for helping to keep us impartial and independent.

You may also enjoy A B-52 pilot’s guide to modern fighters, Flying and fighting in the Lightning: a pilot’s guide, Interview with a Super Hornet pilot, Trump’s Air Force Plan, 11 Worst Soviet Aircraft, 10 worst US aircraft, and 10 worst British aircraft. MiG-21s, MC-21s and the overrated Typhoon: In conversation with FlightGlobal’s Stephen Trimble, The F-35 will fail, until the US learns to share, An air force of my own #1, Top 8 Mach 3 fighters

Fidget Jones is an ageing F-15C, here is an extract from her diary

Weight: 68,000 lb (but post-Christmas), kerosene units 1400 (but effectively covers 2 days as 4 hours of party was on New Year’s Day), lubricants 22 gallons 🙁

Consumed today:

9,000 Ib jet fuel (I was hungover!)

1 AIM-120 AMRAAM (too much time on the wing)

2 rivets

1/3 Ciabatta loaf with brie (FOD)

MM/FH: 65 🙁 I’m having a difficult day OK!?!

Noon. London: my hangar, Langley. Ugh. The last thing on earth I feel physically, tactically, or emotionally equipped to do is take part in an international war-game with that show-off the F-22 (over achiever- but dresses cybergoth in 2017- I mean who does that?) and those snobby European Typhoons (maybe pretty fast, but short legs- sorry, but it’s true). Embarrassment on walk-around this morning: some of my maintenance flaps were incorrectly secured- why does this always happen in front of the dishy Staff Sergeant? 

My long planned promotion to get an AESA upgrade has been delayed again. Feel like the last F-15C in the world to have a mechanical scanner. Thought my day couldn’t get any worse…

My pilot this morning:

    “Would you like a surprise, darling?”

    “No!” I bellowed. “Sorry. I mean …”

    “I wondered if I could take you to the theater?”

Gobsmacked at this unfamiliar thoughtfulness I blurted out ‘yes’ before I considered what he meant. 

“What are we going to see?”

“Graf Ignatievo Air Base, near Plovdiv, Bulgaria. It’s a Theater Support Package.”

I had been tricked.

11:45 p.m. Ugh. First day of New Year has been day of horror. Cannot quite believe I am once again starting the year in as a non-stealthy fighter. It is too humiliating at my age. I wonder if they’ll smell it if I test my port engine? Having skulked in the hangar all day, hoping hangover would clear, I eventually gave up and accepted the maintainers’ help.

January 2nd

    Oh God. Why can’t tankers accept that we all have off-days? We wouldn’t rush up to them and roar, “What are you armed with today? Been supersonic recently?” Everyone knows that flying in your thirties is not the happy-go-lucky free-for-all it was when you were twenty-two. A cocky F-16 tells me you know you’re old when your fly-by-wire system aches. I haven’t the heart to tell him I don’t even have one.

January 3rd

Caught my pilot watching a Su-35 aerobatics display on YouTube, keep telling him that this is giving him unreasonable expectations of what an airplane is capable of. Feel inadequate. 

If this interests you, support Hush-Kit.net with a donation (buttons above and below). If this goes well we’ll be able to give you much more! Recommended donation £10. Many thanks for helping to keep us impartial and independent.

You may also enjoy A B-52 pilot’s guide to modern fighters, Flying and fighting in the Lightning: a pilot’s guide, Interview with a Super Hornet pilot, Trump’s Air Force Plan, 11 Worst Soviet Aircraft, 10 worst US aircraft, and 10 worst British aircraft. MiG-21s, MC-21s and the overrated Typhoon: In conversation with FlightGlobal’s Stephen Trimble, The F-35 will fail, until the US learns to share, An air force of my own #1, Top 8 Mach 3 fighters

The aircraft will differ from the existing An-225 in several ways, most notably the replacement of the six ZMKB Progress D-18 turbofans with four uprated Rolls-Royce Trent XWB turbofans.  According to Antonov, the new engines will improve reduce fuel usage by 30%; other benefits will include increased reliability and a lower noise footprint. New avionics systems will include a glass cockpit and navigational aids from the Thales Group.

The first An-225 will be delivered to France in 2021, the second in 2022 and the last one the following year. In French Air Force service the type will be known as the Gargantua (a giant from a 16th Century French story). It will be equipped with the Airbus Refuelling Boom System and underwing hose-and-drogue refuelling pods. The aircraft will offer a vast increase in power projection and emergency relief capability to the French airforce. The An-225 is capable of transporting four main battle tanks, something no other aircraft can do.

If this interests you, support Hush-Kit.net with a donation (buttons above and below). If this goes well we’ll be able to give you much more! Recommended donation £15. Many thanks for helping to keep us impartial and independent.

You may also enjoy A B-52 pilot’s guide to modern fighters, Flying and fighting in the Lightning: a pilot’s guide, Interview with a Super Hornet pilot, Trump’s Air Force Plan, 11 Worst Soviet Aircraft, 10 worst US aircraft, and 10 worst British aircraft. MiG-21s, MC-21s and the overrated Typhoon: In conversation with FlightGlobal’s Stephen Trimble, The F-35 will fail, until the US learns to share, An air force of my own #1, Top 8 Mach 3 fighters

Shiv Aroor makes himself familiar with India’s next fighter, the Dassault Rafale

My name is Shiv Aroor. I’m a journalist based in New Delhi, India. I’m a TV anchor & consulting editor with the India Today Group, where I’ve spent ten years reporting on the military, conflict and the country’s big stories. I’m also editor of Livefist, where I do original reporting on defence and aerospace in India and the neighbourhood. I started Livefist in 2007 when I moved from a newspaper to a television station as a space to continue my writing. The blog became much more popular than I had anticipated and will be, starting April, my principal work. In ten years, Livefist has won two awards.

The Indian Air Force claims to have a fighter shortage, is this the case and if so, how should they solve it?  

The Indian Air Force has a legacy ‘sanctioned strength’ of 42 full-ops fighter squadrons, and currently operates a little over 30. The reason I say ‘legacy’ is because that number, defined many decades ago, doesn’t quite take into account higher performance jets eroding the need for larger numbers. You’re inviting problems if the planning-related bean-count involves both MiG-21s and Su-30MKIs in the same sweep. It’s a bit of slippery slope. The ‘no replacement for numbers‘ theory has some good arguments, but many bad ones — not least inventory and cost. Many of the IAF’s logistics and planning issues probably have a road leading to that inescapable tether around its sanctioned squadron strength. I’ve suggested in the past that the indigenous LCA Tejas should be inducted in large numbers to build an eco-system around the platform and help speed up the replacement of MiG-21 squadrons.

Flying and fighting in the Mirage 2000 here.

What is ‘Make in India’ initiative and how do you think it should proceed? 

Is it possible to write about military aircraft in a non-political way? Is there a risk of normalising them by celebrating the amazing technology they include? 

 Does India spend too much or too little or defence?

 Terrific question. India definitely spends enough, but it certainly doesn’t spend it smartly. We still don’t have lean forces, and like other countries with large armed services, spend a colossal amount on salaries and pensions. Budgets for modernisation and acquisition of weapons are frequently returned to the treasury unspent. There are grave overlaps and double-efforts across agencies, a lack of synergy that has a huge attendant cost too.

In terms of training time/flight time/tactics how good are IAF crews?

 They compare very favourably, in many cases better than a lot of air forces. The IAF cadet navigates a training regimen that’s buffeted by obsolete aircraft and changing doctrine. The IAF also has a pretty substantial shortage of pilots. In terms of tactics, a combination of type diversity and a very long wait outside of real fourth generation tech gives IAF pilots a frequent edge in that adage that applies to all militaries, but especially to India’s — they’ll fight with what they have.

Is the Pakistan Air Force still viewed as the primary notional threat, and if so how do the air forces compare?

No longer. An air war with Pakistan isn’t the aggravating prospect it was in the sixties and seventies. The PAF is very well trained and professional force, but a full-scale air power confrontation of the kinds that took place between India and Pakistan and 1965 and 1971 would likely end quite badly for Pakistan.

How does the IAF match up against the Chinese air force?

Like most countries, the Indian military regards their Chinese counterparts with one enduring question: ‘what’s their long term gameplan?’ In terms of a straight bean-count, China outclasses the IAF in size and structure. In terms of how things are matched in terms of logistics, deployment and how stretched the PLAAF is in its areas of responsibility near India, the game is a measure more equal. Chinese air power, in my mind, is less of a pressing concern to India than its naval strength.

You may also enjoy 11 Cancelled French aircraft or the 10 worst British military aircraft, Su-35 versus Typhoon, 10 Best fighters of World War II , Su-35 versus Typhoon, top WVR and BVR fighters of today, an interview with a Super Hornet pilot and a Pacifist’s Guide to Warplanes. Flying and fighting in the Tornado. Was the Spitfire overrated?

Tejas has a very bad reputation, is it deserved?

Sukhoi/HAL FGFA – will it happen? Do you think it’s a good idea? 

Do you have a favourite aircraft- and if so, why?

What did you think about the cancellation of the recent Russo-Indian transport aircraft? 

What are your thoughts on the HAL AMCA?

The Su-30 has reputation for poor reliability and maintainability in IAF service- why is this?

I’ve heard wildly differing accounts of the RAF/IAF exercises where Typhoons flew against Su-30s, what is your understanding of this?

The 2015 Indradhanush exercises? The IAF did in fact brief journalists about how they hit that one out of the park in close combat/WVR engagements. I’m not sure we’ll ever know the truth, but I wouldn’t discount either side entirely. Revealing the ‘score’ after an exercise meant to build a joint working ethic (as much as bonhomie) is a bit of a gaffe, so I’m not surprised the RAF reacted the way it did.

 If this interests you, support Hush-Kit.net with a donation (buttons above and below). If this goes well we’ll be able to give you much more! Recommended donation £15. Many thanks for helping to keep us impartial and independent.