The F-14 fighter garnered global fame as the star of the extremely American Top Gun film, but in an unlikely twist of fate, the vast bulk of the Tomcat’s air combat experience actually took place in the hands of the Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force. Col. Mostafa Roustaie (ret.) flew the formidable Tomcat in the Iran-Iraq War (1980-88) in which he shot down five Iraqi Mirages and MiGs. He spoke to Hush-Kit about flying and fighting in this awe-inspiring fighting machine. 

What were your first impressions of the F-14A?

“I believe the first time I set my eyes on an F-14 was during my undergraduate pilot  training (UPT) in the United States in the early ‘70s. There was a massive amount of hype about the F-14A and the F-15 Eagle at the time. Our gut feeling was that the then ruler of Iran, His Majesty the Shah, would eventually choose one of these two beautiful birds. The F-14 was on a US-wide test run and tour visiting all US military bases. It was then in Laughlin AFB that some of us Iranian cadets were allowed to see the F-14 for the first time. I got a chance to check the cockpit out. I was wholly impressed. Believe me, I fell in love right there and then with this beautiful jet, and even more so with its roomy cockpit. After completion of my UPT training in the United States, I went back to Iran to complete my fighter pilot training with the Imperial Iranian Air Force on the F-4E Phantom II (which was a brand new aircraft in our fleet of fighters). Believe it or not, even though I was a full-time F-4E pilot, I could not stop thinking about the Tomcat. I dreamed about it every night, hoping to be able to fly it some day. The requirement to fly and train in the Iranian F-14A demanded around 1000 hours of flight hour on the F-5, or about 1500 hours on the F-4 Phantom II. Those were amongst the most challenging years of my life as I worked hard to be chosen for the F-14 slot.”

Three words to describe the Tomcat? 

“So hard to just choose three. Maybe those three words would not do it justice. Due to my intense interest in the F-14, I would devour anything that related to it. I would constantly speak with my old instructor pilots who had by then been assigned to F-14. The F-4 Phantom II in its time was one of the best fighter aircraft in the world. Flying it was definitely a privilege and a chance of a lifetime. Flying the F-4 made you proud. And I say this now as a former F-4 pilot, but Grumman’s Tomcat was a cut above. It was something else. F-14 was ‘the last word in the fighter business.’”

“I wanted to kill this guy by then. Adrenaline was pumping through me. I was full of rage, disappointment and excitement. I thought if it comes to it, I am gonna have to ram this guy. Maybe he read my mind, I don’t know. At this point, for reasons I will never understand this Iraqi pilot made a rookie mistake. Instead of climbing to clear a ridge, he turned and impacted the hillside at high speed as we flew over.”

What is the best thing about it?

“When (and if) you get to intimately know the F-14, you realise that it is a very forgiving and steady airframe. My honest experience tells me that majority of mishaps are due to pilot error. However, the F-14 was generously forgiving of one’s mistakes… so long as the envelope is not pushed beyond what the airframe and aircraft are designed for.”

What is the worst thing about it?

“I can only speak from my own experience, and in comparison to the aeroplanes I flew (such as the T-37, T-38, and F-4D/E). But I am willing to say that there are no or very few negative issues about it. The F-14 was the ultimate fighter aircraft. It was the result of years of research and combat experience. A generation of fighter design thinking that culminated in the production of Grumman’s Tomcat.
Maybe, since we were an air force and were used to backseat stick and control, the addition of a stick to the backseat would have been desirable (I am saying this only from a training perspective). Although this was not much of hinderance. Our superb US Navy, and IIAF training proved that the Tomcat was a flawless design. It was proven in combat. All in all, it seriously was excellent. Absolute perfection”

How do you rate the F-14 in the following categories?

Instantaneous turn: “I would give it an A+. If you paid attention and watched your angle of attack, stall indicators and whatnot then the instantaneous turn rate was better than great. Although as you know, every airframe has its own G-limits and we made sure not to stress the airframe beyond what was asked of it.”

Sustained turn: “Again I would give it the same rating if not better. 95 out of 100. If you observed the above notes (and I must add it put G pressure on the plane and the pilot which is an extra thing to worry about) then it had no problem. It was good at it. As I will shortly explain, I had an intense aerial duel with a MiG-21, and the F-14 proved more than capable in flying regimes that were not possible in any other fighter at that time. I personally can attest to the F-14’s amazing qualities in the proverbial ‘knife-fight in a phone-booth’.”
High alpha: “The AOA in Tomcat was easily controllable provided you made the right inputs and speed corrections. In fact, the F-14 was great at high alpha flying. I would give it an A+.”
Acceleration: “Never seen an aircraft accelerate this quick. Even with the notorious TF30 engines on our F-14s. Its powerful engines, and its five zones give an experienced fighter pilot a sense of superiority in the sky that is unmatched. I loved it. 100 out of 100 for this one.”

Climb rate: “I would refer you to what I said about acceleration. Same deal. I urge your readers to watch dozens and dozens of video clips out there showing F-14’s superior climb rate in the airshows and displays.”

Sensors: “We are talking about 1970s technology in 2020. For its time in the ‘70s and ‘80s, and well into the 1990s, it was superior to anything that was out there in the Eastern or Western bloc. We proved this in the war against numerous Iraqi Mirage F1 fighters, MiG-23, and in one instance a MiG-29. Its capable radar, jammers and receivers were a world ahead of its contemporaries. It felt like Tomcat designers had gone to war once before and knew what a fighter pilot needed (and desired to have) in combat. Compared to the F-4E, it was light years ahead. The AWG-9 radar and control system was a miracle. I could fly over the northern Persian gulf and could see the movement of Iraqi aircraft as far as Baghdad on my radar scope. This boggled my own mind every time. Its radar warning receiver was excellent. Night flying or flying in weather were a joy.”

Performance: “In general, the aircraft was unrivalled. It was well equipped, and in the hands of a decent fighter pilot who could use all that it offered, it was a great machine.”

Man-machine interface/cockpit?

“The switchology was excellent and thoughtful. I was pretty elated and shocked when I sat in the front seat of an F-14A for the first time. It felt like I was sitting on top or out of the aircraft. I mean it was like sitting atop the jet. It offered the pilot and RIO an unmatched view of the surroundings. I remember when I was an F-4 pilot, my helmet would bang the cockpit each time I wanted to look down and I would end up rolling the aircraft to get the desired view down low. The F-14 was totally different. Each switch was placed in its correct position, was accessible. The seat itself was easily adjustable, and the environmental control system was my favourite.”

Situational Awareness

“My take is that you have to be present in the cockpit to to know what is going on around you. By that, I mean you had to have your mind present and be focused. There are many systems in a fighter aircraft that constantly feed you all kinds of data to keep you alive. A fighter pilot that does not know what is going on around him/her, or isn’t aware of its systems will end up as a guest at Azrael’s (angel of death) evening party. A fighter pilot must have all his six senses tuned to his/her systems while engaging those very senses outside of the cockpit to survive combat. In essence, a fighter pilot has not gone to the park for a walk. He’s gone to war and that is his job. He has to do his job flawlessly to survive.”

Tell me something I don’t know about the F-14?

“I think a lot of ordinary people do not and can not fathom the awesome capabilities the F-14 brought with it. I was an F-4 pilot with hundreds of hours of flight time and despite my affection for the F-14, I really did not know much beyond what others told me and what I had read about it. It was only during training and then actual air combat when its true capabilities came to the fore. There was no peacetime limitations on what I could or could not do with this aircraft. I was told to defend the skies and I did what it took to do so.”

How good was the AIM-54A, what was your experience with the weapon system?

“As you know, the origins of AIM-54 dates back to the missile system that was envisioned for the A-12/YF-12 supersonic interceptor. And we all know the F-111B story. Then it morphs into, and gets finessed to what we now know as the AIM-54A and C variants of the original concept. So it began its journey as a powerful, heavy long-range missile that was to intercept Russian long range bombers threatening US Navy carrier strike groups. But what gave it the lethal punch was the combination of then the AWG-9 system with the missile itself. I personally believe the Iranian kill rate using the missile was above 90 percent. A handful malfunctioned on launch and dropped off the jet cold. Overall it was a reliable and effective weapon system.

Let me add an important note to this whole thing. Our air force’s maintenance squadrons with their highly capable weapons and armament shops (which I might add were all US-trained) provided us with reliable missiles and systems to use in combat. All this could not have been achieved without their dedication in eight years of conflict with Iraq. I personally launched four of those AIM-54A missiles at enemy aircraft. Three performed flawlessly and scored hits giving me three confirmed kills. But the fourth one is most likely a probable. I could not see what it did and so I can not take credit for it. Although after we had landed, our intelligence reported a heightened radio traffic on the enemy side and our SIGINT/ELINT units confirmed search & rescue activity in the area of the probable hit, but I could not visually confirm anything. In order to increase the chance of a hit, we were instructed to launch within 40 miles. It was a proven lethal long range platform. Our F-14A kill ratio is still jaw-dropping. A few Tomcats brought down by friendly fire but that is for another day. ”

What was your toughest opponent, and why?

“I had a few dogfights. I mean very close encounters with an enemy aeroplane. The ones that are known as ‘phone-booth knife fights’ in fighter pilot jargon. Twice against French -built Mirage F1, once against a MiG-23, and one time against a MiG-21 over the town of Ilam in western Iran near the Iraqi border. I had hurried his number 2 back to Iraq, but ended up in a breath-taking four to five minute-long flying duel against their flight lead. He was a superb and capable pilot. And if I may say so here, I still mourn his loss as a flier, an expert. Now more than 38 years after that day, I don’t see him as an enemy. Here is what actually happened. I struggle a lot inside with this one incident.

Hours earlier I had landed around 2030 local time and took a bit of time to debrief. As I was leaving the squadron building around 2230, I saw the next day flight schedule and my jaw dropped. They had set me with 1st Lt Reza Tahmasabi as my RIO for an early 0530 launch. When I got home, I passed out on the sofa while I was eating. And all I remember is the flight scheduler’s call shortly after to remind me that the squadron’s shuttle was en-route to pick me up. It was early morning of October 26th, 1982. The armed conflict that Iraq had commenced against Iran in September 1980 was still raging, and in its third year.

“Seconds ago, I wanted him dead. Now he was dead. But my heart broke for him. Maybe I even shed a tear. That pilot was incredible.” 

Reza and I launched in an F-14A (serial No. 3-6078 BuNo 160376 callsign ‘Captain One‘) around 0530 AM local time and came under the control of Dezful air base’s Ground Control Radar in SW Iran. The area was calm and our radar scope clear. We would run to the vicinity of our border with Iraq under Dezful air base’s radar control and then would head back. This would go on a few times. One time we would turn right, and next we would turn left. In the middle of my last right turn, Reza my RIO strangely (and impatiently) asked me to halt my right bank and hold it. A second later, he called out a high velocity contact on radar fifty miles out. Radar calmly asked us to hang on a second, as it could be friendly aircraft. Seconds passed, and the radar operator calmly told us that there were no friendlies in the area and asked us to watch out. My senses were now in a state of heightened tension. I could tell something was up. Moments later Reza said “… don’t have whatever it was on my scope any more, but it was for real..” He had not finished his sentence when Dezful ground radar officer came back on and told us there were a pair of enemy aircraft 30 degrees to our left, low, with a heading of 180 probably on a bomb run against the Iranian towns of Ahwaz or Dezful. I pushed down low while talking to my trusted radar intercept Officer (the ‘back-seater’ or RIO).

The radar controller kept giving us the updated track, heading and speed of these ‘bandits’ closing on us. Reza was also urging me to keep a tight left turn as he warned me of the closure rate and distance. I reached out and flipped the switches for a heat-seeking AIM-9 missile launch. At first, I got a glimpse of the number 2 in trail, and moments later his number 1 came to view as well. It was hard to tell the type of the enemy aircraft but a guessing game ensued. Was it a MiG-21, or an Su-22 strike aircraft? Unsure, I pressed on, while Reza my good RIO kept an eye out for others. The Number 2 aircraft noticed us and banked so hard to the right I thought to myself that maybe its pilot had gone mad. Now the flight leader was mine. I was prepared to launch the Sidewinder (my guess is that we were about three miles out) but he noticed us either through his fleeing wingman or somehow managed to see us, dropped his ordnance plus fuel tanks as he dove down hard to the right. He entered into a valley and flew fast and furious over a riverbed towards Iraq. We gave chase about 200-300 feet above him and entered the valley. This pilot seemed to know the area quite well. He weaved and whirled so well it enraged me. It was really difficult for me to accept that a 1950s MiG-21 was giving me a run for my money in my modern F-14. A few instances he came close to within range of my heatseeking missile but each time he would turn so sharply and timely as though he could read my mind. This Iraqi pilot was for sure a miracle worker. I was in awe of his superior airmanship. In a nimble MiG-21 he flew brilliantly. I was chasing and admiring when my back-seater Reza called out our fuel level which made me come out of afterburner and give an audible sigh. I was like “Oh man we have come this far for a kill, and now we have to go back due to low fuel.” I wanted to kill this guy by then. Adrenaline was pumping through me, I was full of rage, disappointment and excitement. I thought if it comes to it, I am gonna have to ram this guy then. Maybe he read my mind. I don’t know.

Over 99.8% of our readers ignore our funding appeals. This site depends on your support. If you’ve enjoyed an article donate here. Recommended donation amount £13. Keep this site going.

At this point, for reasons I will never understand, this Iraqi pilot made a rookie mistake. Instead of climbing to clear a ridge, he turned and impacted the hillside at high speed as we flew over. Seconds ago, I wanted him dead. Now he was dead. But my heart broke for him. Maybe I even shed a tear. That pilot was incredible. An exceptional airman. Even though I was unable to shoot him down, the kill was later credited to us as a manoeuvre kill. 38 years after and I am still sad that a good pilot had to pass-on that way. He did not deserve to perish like that. Our fuel level was now critical and finding the airborne tanker was a challenge. However the tanker pilot had heard our plea over the radio and had decided to abandon its track to meet us for a much needed air-to-air fuel transfer. We made contact with them and got home safe.”
What was life like in your unit during the war? What were the biggest highs and lows?

“At the onset of the war, we had very little combat experiences. Our peak adrenaline rush was mock basic fighter manoeuvre (BFM) sorties or air combat manoeuvring (ACM) sorties done under tight pre-determined rules by the air force brass. And then the war broke out. I had not seen a live AIM-54A Phoenix missile until the first night of the war. We had practiced with CATM-54A missiles and such, but never before had I seen an armed missile. On top of this, the stress of combat was felt across our families. My wife ran the family. While I acted like a trained military puppet, day and night roaming the base and preparing for what was then a fully-fledged war with a neighbouring country. Family life was on hold, and military orders were the priority. As there were not enough F-14 pilots available, so we had to fly long hours to cover the skies and provide combat air patrols (CAP) for the nation’s critical infrastructure including ports, major cities and oil facilities. Thankfully, the Shah’s foresight had prepared us for the day we would go to war and as a result the former Imperial Iranian Air Force had acquired several squadrons of aerial tankers. We were well trained in the art of air refuelling and our KC-747s, and KC-707 (Boeing 747-100, and 707-300s) could sustain us in long flights. There were occasions where I personally flew eight–nine hour long missions providing CAP to ocean-going oil tankers in the Persian Gulf. I know of a few pilots who flew even longer hours. The camaraderie was great. Despite all the sacrifices, our families were there for us and they’re the ones who should be thanked. The biggest highs were when there was no fatality or incident in our wing, and the lows were when we’d lose a friend or an aircraft.”

 Tell us about your kills

“I have five kills under my name. One MiG-21 that I maneuvered to impact with the ground, or rather he impacted with the terrain as I was chasing him. Two Mirage F1 jets, and two MiG-23 Flogger strike jets.”

How did you feel going into combat in the F-14A?

“Certainly, the confidence I felt (and I think every one in our squadron surely felt) was very high. That we were in the world famous F-14 with its cutting-edge technology (combined with the training we received from our Iranian and US Navy instructors) made us feel invincible. Given all the challenges we felt as F-14 pilots in post-revolution Iran, I believe the aircraft and its crew overall performed marvellously.”

F-14 combat effectiveness and importance in the war

“Psychologically speaking it was always a boost to know I was in an F-14 facing hostile forces. Having an F-14 in the skies over friendly forces was also a morale booster. I must add that an interceptor is incomplete without its controllers. Some of our ground controllers were so good that we’d blindly go wherever they told us to. I can recall Captain Pezhman, or Major Asem. These two were my own favourites whom I trusted and could tell they had my best interests in mind.
And as a fighter pilot I definitely knew I had the best technology available to me and we were well trained. I had a great number of flying hours by then and my confidence level had risen drastically. All that was needed was a bit of luck to own the skies. I want to say thanks to the person who actually purchased the F-14 for the air force. He chose well.”

What is the biggest myth about the Iranian F-14 fleet?

“There are a few. The biggest lie, I suppose, is that given the chance Iran should have acquired the Eagle. I disagree. Many of my fellow pilots in the Iranian AF would agree with me on this, I am sure. Iran is a vast country with a unique geography. High mountain ranges, deserts and its proximity to the Soviet Union during the Cold War left us no choice but to go for a long range interceptor with a capable radar and deadly armament. The F-15 is a superb dogfighter and its current versions are significantly better than those of the mid 1970s. But looking back, the F-14 offered Iran what the F-15 could not: the ability to deter Russian overflights, and engage multiple targets from unbelievable distances while providing radar coverage for other friendly aircraft. This proved important as the Shah’s attempt to buy the E-3 AWACS never materialised due to the 1979 revolution. The F-15 matured a bit later.

Another myth is that F-14 is indestructible and invincible. I disagree with this assessment a little. The F-14 is like any other weapon system — and  is prone to mishaps, human errors and technological advances that can defeat it.”

What else should I have asked you?

“I can’t think of anything at the moment. Everything that needs to be said about my experience with it has been said here, and there are hundreds of books and documentaries about this venerable aircraft. Maybe I should hint at the TF30 engines. Many comments have been said about these engines. Yes, it is not perfect and a lot has been said about its stall characteristics in certain flying regimes, but in the hands of a stable, well-trained and knowledgeable pilot, these engines are never a problem.

What was your most memorable mission and why?

“Two missions will always stand out in my mind. One was the dogfight with the MiG-21 in 1982, and the other one, a compressor stall incident which took place during a mission I undertook on May 5th, 1985 in central Iran over the city of Kazeroun while tanking after an exhausting CAP sortie.

We were at 24,500 ft performing our second aerial refuelling of the day. Once our aeroplane was full, I pulled the throttles back gently. Quite suddenly, there was frightening noise in the cabin and all went silent. Fog filled the cockpit and I could barely see. At first I thought it was smoke, but when it subsided I realised it was not. My ears were hurting with a kind of pain I’d never experienced before. The aircraft went nose down, and the front control panel blinking like a Christmas tree. Every warning light was on except the ones for ‘fire’. A quick glance at the engine gauges told me all I needed to  know. We had two basic options: get the engines back, or ‘punch-out’ (eject).

My back-seater, that fateful day, was Captain G. Mardani. He started reading the emergency checklist as I was attempting an air start. It was so quiet I could hear my own breath. I told my RIO to be prepared to bail out once we reach 11,000 feet.
From then on, I focused on air start procedures, but then I quickly realised it can only be done under 13,000 feet. Perhaps three or four minutes must have passed but it seemed like three to four centuries to us. Passing 13,000 feet, the ‘Master Caution’ light came on. That meant electrical power was restored to the aircraft, meaning one of the engines was now back on line. Believe me, I could not bring myself to tell my RIO not to punch out. Words would not come out. I mustered all that was left in me and shouted— “Do not punch out!” repeatedly. And he quickly barked back — “Yeah I know. Calm down. I can feel one of the engines running.” It feels like you have hit the jackpot. The right engine came back up, but the left just did not budge, I declared an emergency and returned to Shiraz Air Base for a barrier arrested recovery using the F-14’s hook to catch the cable in order to slow and halt the stricken jet.”

Thanks for taking the time to answer our questions.

“My pleasure. I should thank you for reaching out. Special thanks to Mr. Kash Rayan for conveying my sentiment and words to your esteemed readers. I should hereby say that the Iranian air force combat record is one that gets ignored by western observers for various reasons. It shouldn’t be. I hope more and more of your readers, aviation enthusiasts and academics study this conflict in depth away from the politics of today’s world. The Iranian Air Force used existing western military doctrine to fight a Soviet trained adversary in the air, on the ground and at sea. And a fair study of the war in the air, and at sea at least shows the (albeit slight) triumph of the Western doctrine. It is a great case study for Cold War historians.

Once again, many thanks for giving me an opportunity to speak about my experiences.”

Details of Colonel M. Roustaie’s aerial kills
Date: 15th January 1981
Aircraft: F-14A Serial No: 3-6027
Weapon: AIM-54A Mfg Serial No: 40215/8
RIO: Captain A. Jalal-Abadi
Callsign: Vulture 3
Location: Khuzestan province of Iran.
Target destroyed: MiG-23 Flogger
Date: 5th Oct 1981
Aircraft: F-14A Serial No: 3-6036
Weapon: AIM-54A Mfg Serial No: 6/40261
RIO: 1Lt. Ahmad R. Fereydouni
Call sign: Dragon 4
Location: SW Iran. Slightly west of the port city of Mashahr
Target: MiG-23 Flogger
Date: 26th Oct 1982**
Aircraft: F-14A Serial No: 3-6078
Weapon: None. Manoeuvring Kill
RIO: 1Lt. Reza Tahmasbi
Callsign: Captain 1
Location: West of town of Dezful
Target: MiG-21 Fishbed. (Aircraft wreckage and pilot’s body found).

Over 99.8% of our readers ignore our funding appeals. This site depends on your support. If you’ve enjoyed an article donate here. Recommended donation amount £13. Keep this site going.

4 & 5:
Date: 7th August 1984
Aircraft: F-14A Serial No: 3-6055
Weapon: AIM-54A Mfg Serial No: 40230
RIO: Capt. Hossein Sayyari
Call sign: Khofash (Bat) / Scrambled flight / QRA
Location: 70 miles west of the island of Kharg in the Persian Gulf
Targets: 2 Mirage F-1EQ
One dead Iraqi pilot was snatched from the sea by Iranian Navy helicopters. The other one crashed inside Iraqi airspace. SIGINT reports combined with 6th air base radar data indicated a crash of a Mirage F-1EQ inside Iraqi territory. Later on, Iraqi air force POWs confirmed the loss of one such jet on that specific date to their Iranian debriefers.
**My own note on the third kill…
The logbook shows the date of that kill as October 26th 1982, but during the phone interview the interviewee mentions November 5th as the date. To ensure reliability and honesty, I have chosen to report the logbook date. I must note that the Persian calendar (solar calendar) is obviously different from the Gregorian (western) calendar. So discrepancies in the reports are expected.

I have verified his logbooks and corroborated with another fellow pilot from a different squadron and his account is verifiable..

Colonel M. Roustaie is also the only Iranian air force pilot known to have trapped aboard a US Navy aircraft carrier. He trapped aboard USS Midway in the backseat of a US Navy F-4. during Midlink-77 exercises involving Iranian military assets and US forces in the Persian Gulf and sea of Oman.

Biography: Born 1951. Entered Imperial Iranian Air Force in 1970.
Training: US Air Force UPT. Laughlin AFB, TX. (class 74-04).
F-4D/E Phantom II pilot with 2200 hours.
F-14A Tomcat pilot 2086 hours
Aircraft flown: T-37, T-38, F-4D/E, F-14A
Iran AF’s 6th Tactical Fighter Base deputy of operations.
30 years of service. Honourably retired.

Kash Ryan a native of Iran, hails from a military family. Both his father and grandfather were professional service members. His father served in the Iranian Air Force retiring as a Lt colonel. Kash served mandatory service in the Iranian Air Force in the late 1990s.
Growing up on an air base planted the seeds of curiosity about aviation and aircraft in him. He is a qualified private pilot currently splitting his time between Canada and the United States. As a military history enthusiast, he was compelled to bring several fascinating combat memoirs of the Iranian Air Force pilots to a wider audience in the English-speaking world for the first time.

We’ve interviewed a bunch of warplane pilots- here are some them:

“If you have any interest in aviation, you’ll be surprised, entertained and fascinated by Hush-Kit – the world’s best aviation blog”. Rowland White, author of the best-selling ‘Vulcan 607’

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

TO AVOID DISAPPOINTMENT PRE-ORDER YOUR COPY NOW

From the cocaine, blood and flying scarves of World War One dogfighting to the dark arts of modern air combat, here is an enthralling ode to these brutally exciting killing machines.

The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes is a beautifully designed, highly visual, collection of the best articles from the fascinating world of military aviation –hand-picked from the highly acclaimed Hush-kit online magazine (and mixed with a heavy punch of new exclusive material). It is packed with a feast of material, ranging from interviews with fighter pilots (including the English Electric Lightning, stealthy F-35B and Mach 3 MiG-25 ‘Foxbat’), to wicked satire, expert historical analysis, top 10s and all manner of things aeronautical, from the site described as:

“the thinking-man’s Top Gear… but for planes”.

The solid well-researched information about aeroplanes is brilliantly combined with an irreverent attitude and real insight into the dangerous romantic world of combat aircraft.

FEATURING

• Interviews with pilots of the F-14 Tomcat, Mirage, Typhoon, MiG-25, MiG-27, English Electric Lighting, Harrier, F-15, B-52 and many more.
• Engaging Top (and bottom) 10s including: Greatest fighter aircraft of World War II, Worst British aircraft, Worst Soviet aircraft and many more insanely specific ones.
• Expert analysis of weapons, tactics and technology.
• A look into art and culture’s love affair with the aeroplane.
• Bizarre moments in aviation history.
• Fascinating insights into exceptionally obscure warplanes.

The book will be a stunning object: an essential addition to the library of anyone with even a passing interest in the high-flying world of warplanes, and featuring first-rate photography and a wealth of new world-class illustrations.

Rewards levels include these packs of specially produced trump cards.

Pre-order your copy now right here  

I can only do it with your support.

Saab JA 37 Viggen

Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-19

Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21

Mikoyan MiG-27 ‘Flogger’

BAE Systems Hawk 

Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25 ‘Foxbat’ 

Sukhoi Su-15 ‘Flagon’

Panavia Tornado GR.1

Panavia Tornado F.Mk 3

BAe EAP

Mil Mi-24 ‘Hind’

North American F-86 Sabre

North American F-100 Super Sabre 

McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II

BAe/Md Harrier GR.Mk 7/9

Boeing F/A-18E Super Hornet 

McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle 

Hawker Sea Fury

Boeing B-52 Stratofortress 

Saab JAS 39 Gripen and here too 

Eurofighter Typhoon

Boeing RC-135

Dassault Mirage 2000

English Electric Lightning

Boeing KC-135

How do you destroy an unwanted aircraft from the ground? The first anti-aircraft weapon, the Ballonabwehrkanone (balloon defence cannon) or BaK was deployed in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870.  It was a simple concept, consisting of a modified 37-mm cannon mounted on a horse-drawn carriage for the purpose of shooting down French communication balloons. Since then people have defended themselves from far more alarming aircraft, many hellbent on the destruction of cities, with a bewildering array of unlikely weapons. Here are ten of them. 

7. Unrotated Projectile (1940) ‘Loony Lindemann’s lemon launcher’

In the late 1930s, Britain was sorely lacking in a medium to close-range anti-aircraft weapon to supplement the Quick-Firing 3.7in AA gun (the main land-based anti-aircraft gun of British land forces) and the Quick-Firing 2-pounder gun, (the main naval anti-aircraft gun throughout the War at sea). Winston Churchill was never one to let a lack of expertise in any subject stop him from contributing, and so it was with naval anti-aircraft weaponry, leading to an unfortunate diversion into the vaguely named ‘unrotated projectile’ (UP) that might just have ended far more Allied lives than enemy ones. Churchill had long had the ear of Professor Frederick Lindemann, a physicist, eugenicist and inveterate tinkerer in just about anything, who had developed an entirely amateur interest in aerial defence. Sadly, Lindemann was more Barnes Clueless than Barnes Wallis. One of his big ideas was an aerial minefield which could be laid in front of an oncoming raid. Lindemann latched onto solid-fuelled rocket research that had been conducted since 1938, with the notion of using the rockets to fling a barrage of floating ‘mines’ into the air, from where they would slowly descend, suspended on long cables beneath parachutes. The idea went that aircraft would run into the wire, then the drag of the parachute would pull the mine towards the aircraft and detonate when a proximity fuse was triggered.

Churchill forced the Committee for the Scientific Study of Aerial Defence (the Tizard
Committee), which famously promoted the development of RDF or radar, to include
Lindemann. He promptly attempted to sideline radar and push his own ideas, including the aerial minefield, to the extent that the Committee for the Scientific Study of Aerial Defence had to dissolve itself and form a new organisation just to get rid of him. Churchill, as First Lord of the Admiralty, was however in a position to push the Royal Navy to develop the aerial minefield as an anti dive-bomber weapon before he became PM. The result was the Unrotated Projectile (UP), a name that was supposedly non-descriptive to avoid giving secrets away but was probably just applied out of embarrassment. The UP launcher was a battery of 20 smoothbore tubes for the ‘projectiles’ to be loaded into, and launched up to 3,000ft into the path of oncoming aircraft.

The UP took two minutes to load with a salvo of 20 rockets, and it needed many such 20-rocket salvos to lay a big enough ‘aerial minefield’ to have any chance of successfully catching enemy aircraft.This took an age to create, and the flock of parachutes descending gently in the breeze were highly visible to aircraft and easy to avoid. Bizarrely, the fuse could only work under certain light conditions. Furthermore, the launcher was large and heavy (4 tons), and needed large ready-use ammunition lockers nearby. The RN grudgingly fitted it to a few capital ships from June 1940, and in the short time it was in service, it was not known to have caused the loss of any enemy aircraft. Churchill was still convinced of its benefits, and when HMS Illustrious was bombed to near oblivion by Stukas in January 1941, he demanded to know if the RN had been driven out of the central Mediterranean due to the lack of adequate defences and insisted on further consideration of the UP. Just four months later, however, HMS Hood was sunk during the Battle of the Denmark Strait. She had five UP launchers mounted, four of them on the shelter deck, and the ready use ammunition was
seen to be on fire when catastrophic explosion that caused her loss with the most of her
crew took place. Some at the Admiralty blamed the UP ammunition for causing a fire that spread to the magazines. In truth, it was more likely that one of Bismarck’s shells simply penetrated the magazine, but the writing was on the wall and the UPs were removed from all other ships in their next refits. The truth was that the UP was a bad solution, though at the time the RN had nothing else between the 0.5in Vickers machine gun and the Pom Pom. More sophisticated ammunition for the Pom Pom, and later the 40mm Bofors and 20mm Oerlikon autocannon solved the problem. The rocket research led to the altogether more effective 60lb rocket projectile, the P Catapult, and RATOG. Lindemann ‘failed upwards’ and was elevated to the peerage.

Matthew Willis is a writer and historian of aviation and naval matters. Here is a link to his books.

6. Vickers QF 127/58 SBT X1 Green Mace (1956) ‘The Green Gobbler’

The Green Mace was a 28-ton monster, a 102-mm (some sources say 127mm) calibre cannon capable of firing 96 giant darts a minute that would have been able to shred aircraft eight kilometres away. It was developed in Britain in the 1950s, but by 1957 it was clear that longer range anti-aircraft defence was now the preserve of guided missiles.

5. SAM-N-8 (later RIM-50) Typhon (1961) ‘Cursed rimshot’

A radical effort to field a replacement to the US Navy’s Talos, Tartar and Terrier surface-to-air missiles that had been developed under the ‘Bumblebee’ programme, the Typhon (the name coming from a monstrous serpent from Greek mythology)  ditched the earlier weapons’ clunky beam-guidance for a futuristic weapon-control system that – some 20 years later – would form the basis of the AEGIS.

Work on the SAM-N-8 (later RIM-50) Typhon began in the 1950s and centred on an active-radar-homing missile combined with a Westinghouse electronically scanned array radar – remarkable technology for the time. This would ensure that – unlike its predecessors – the Typhon would be able to engage multiple targets simultaneously. Equally ambitious was the missile’s planned quarry – high-altitude air-breathing targets as well as other rockets and missiles, travelling at up to Mach 4. On top of that, it was expected to take out Soviet warships if required – employing either a high-explosive or nuclear warhead.

Both medium- and long-range versions were planned, the latter reaching a maximum speed of Mach 5 on the power of its Bendix integral ramjet motor.

The Typhon was expected to be so good that it would need to be fielded aboard far fewer ships than the earlier T-series (thereby saving money), its multiple-target capability still ensuring protection against saturation attack. But the US Navy was not completely convinced. With an eye on the poor reliability and hefty price tag of the earlier ‘Bumblebee’ SAMs, penny-pinching Defense Secretary Robert McNamara decided to ditch the Typhon in late 1963. The money saved was spent trying to iron out the inadequacies of the earlier T-series SAMs.

— Thomas Newdick, Editor of Air Forces Monthly & writer

 4. Dr. Gustav Rasmus’ Hearing missile ‘The exploding ear’ 

Dr. Gustav Rasmus, a San Diego patent attorney, suggested the guided surface-to-air missile in 1931. Whereas real-world SAMs rely on optical, infra-red, radar or command guidance, Dr Rasmus’s weapons relied on sound: the missile was to have four ‘ears’ – accurate microphones that could locate an aeroplane and guide the rocket-propelled missile to destroy it. The weapon did not come to fruition, perhaps because of the technical difficulties of acoustic guidance.

Over 99.7% of our readers ignore our funding appeals. This site depends on your support. If you’ve enjoyed an article donate here. Recommended donation amount £12. Keep this site going.

3. M247 Sergeant York (1979) ‘Shoddy shilka’

Take a tried-and-tested auto-cannon, fit it to a tried-and-tested armoured vehicle chassis, add a tried-and-tested radar and you’ll get an excellent weapon system for destroying low-level aircraft. The Soviets achieved this with the superb ZSU-23-4 ‘Shilka’, which entered service in 1965. The US wanted something similar and set about a competition in the 1970s. Prior to this they had been lacking in this crucial role, since anti-aircraft guns had gone out of fashion in the late 1950s. The overly ambitious Mauler failed and was replaced by the underwhelming Chaparral-Vulcan Air Defense System.

In 1977 the need was so desperate that it was announced that the new Division Air Defense (DIVAD) requirement should be met by a self-propelled artillery vehicle using as much off-the-shelf content as possible. Ford Aerospace combined the readily available M48 Patton chassis with two 40-mm Bofors cannon (a weapon that proved indispensable in World War II) with the radar of the F-16 fighter.

After a dodgy evaluation exercise, the Sergeant York (named for a World War I hero) was named the winner. It was awful. It was too slow to keep up with other armoured vehicles, too heavy, and the detection and targeting system proved unreliable and suffered massive cost overruns. Though it was made of tried-and-tested parts, they had not been adequately proven as a combined unit. Even for a late Cold War project, this was too bad a programme, and it was very sensibly cancelled in 1985.

2. Teleforce ‘Telsa’s steamy death slug dispenser’

The Serbian-American genius Nikola Tesla proposed a radical weapon that could have been used for the anti-aircraft role. The Teleforce proposal would have harnessed electrostatic repulsion in a vacuum chamber to propel pellets or ‘slugs’ at a great speed. Tesla noted, “Many thousands of horsepower can thus be transmitted by a stream thinner than a hair, so that nothing can resist.” 

The idea of Teleforce ‘death-beam’ weapon was publicly revealed on Tesla’s 78th birthday, July 10, 1934, in the New York Sun. In this article he claimed a nation could deal shoot down massed aerial forces 250 miles away.

In a 1934 letter he noted,” I have made recent discoveries of inestimable value… The flying machine has completely demoralised the world, so much that in some cities, as London and Paris, people are in mortal fear from aerial bombing. The new means I have perfected afford absolute protection against this and other forms of attack. … These new discoveries, which I have carried out experimentally on a limited scale, have created a profound impression. One of the most pressing problems seems to be the protection of London and I am writing to some influential friends in England hoping that my plan will be adopted without delay. The Russians are very anxious to render their borders safe against Japanese invasion and I have made them a proposal which is being seriously considered.”

Britain considered paying $30 million for the device, hoping that the deterrent effect alone might be enough to discourage German aggression, but by 1938 they had lost interest. As with many of Tesla’s ideas, Teleforce was so advanced (and far-fetched) for its time it was hard to tell the plausibility of the device.

1. Gothaer Waggonfabrik Rammflugzeug ‘One-hit Wundes’ sticky stinger’ (1944) 

A remarkable number of outlandish aviation-related patents were filed by Gothaer Waggonfabrik during the Second World War. From towed gunship gliders to armoured ground-attack rocket aircraft, Gotha had them all – but even among the company’s wilder ideas the ‘Rammstachel für Flugzeuge’ or ‘ram sting for aircraft’ stands out.
Design by prolific ‘wonder weapon’ inventor Oberingenieur Walter Wundes it was an anti-aircraft weapon like no other, combining a manned rocket-propelled rammer with a detachable explosive ‘sting’. Although Wundes’ patent outlining the device is undated, he produced a wide range of similar concepts during mid- to late-1944 and it shares many of their features.

At this time the American daylight bombing campaign over Germany was reaching its zenith and a multitude of unlikely concepts were formulated in a bid to destroy the seemingly endless formations of B-17s and B-24s. Wundes had already dreamt up a teardrop-shaped manned rocket-rammer intended to bludgeon its way through lightweight bomber airframes, but now he decided to add a spiky or possibly sticky pop-up explosive device to its back which could prolong its usefulness.

According to the patent: “A ramming aircraft should approach as close as possible to the aircraft it is attacking and destroy it by damaging flight-important airframe parts. Due to the collision, the ramming aircraft itself is usually so heavily damaged that another attack is no longer possible.

“In order to allow the destruction of the enemy aircraft without direct collision, it is proposed to attach to the ramming aircraft a protruding arm (spike) in which one or more explosive projectiles are installed, and which breaks off when touched with the enemy aircraft and with the help of barbs, a tack or ropes that loop around parts of the enemy aircraft, it remains hanging.

“The sting with the explosive bullets is now stuck to the enemy aircraft and it cannot shake it off or remove it. The subsequent explosion will bring the enemy plane to crash. The protruding arm is usually folded into the aircraft, so as not to cause drag, and deployed just before the attack. In addition, several arms can be provided, which are extended one after another, so that various attacks can be performed.”

The rammer would approach the enemy bomber stream, flip its explosive ‘sting’ up into a vertical position, then fly close enough to an individual bomber so that the ‘sting’ snagged on it and then became embedded – detaching as the rammer flew away. The explosives would then detonate, destroying the target. Assuming that the patent’s final provision was followed, the rammer would then simply flip up another ‘sting’ and perform another attack.

In practice, setting aside the ludicrously dangerous nature of such a mission, missing a target narrowly enough to embed the sting would have been extremely tricky even for a skilled pilot. Fortunately for all concerned, the idea went no further than the patent office.

— Dan Sharp, author of Britain’s secret projects 5.

Sadly, as of February 2020 we’re again far behind funding targets. If you wish this blog to carry on, please donate here. We really do need your donations to keep this labour-intensive lunacy going. 

It’s hard keeping track on Indian’s indigenous fighters, so we asked test pilot Group Captain Rajeev Joshi to give us a two minute run-down. 

“Tejas is operational in the Mk 1 variant. Even as the Mk 1 was being operationalised,
Mk1 A was thought of as an upgrade. This was to address three major
areas:
1. Continually improving sensor technology and the need for the aircraft to keep
pace with it, by incorporating an upgrade to its primary sensor – the radar. The Mk
1A comes with an AESA radar. It has reinforced belief in the basic structure and
architecture of aircraft, with the design being able to seamlessly take up the
upgrade. The prototypes versions are also flying with the indigenous AESA radar
and it would indeed be a feather in the cap of Indian technology when the
indigenous AESA can replace the radar!
2. Requirement to keep the self-protection suite contemporary and up to date with
latest technology. The Mk 1A will be equipped with an AESA based integrated
electronic warfare suite.
3.  Absorbing all the improvements that have been noted in the years that the
Tejas Mk 1 has been in service in all areas of maintenance, flightline usage and
operational aspects.
The Mk 1A is in the design and development phase at present.

 LCA Mk 2

A misnomer….actually, it would be incorrect to talk of this aircraft as a
variant of LCA. This aircraft is called the Medium Weight Fighter, and is a totally
different and new bird in the 17 to 18 tonne class, though from the same design
house and production house. This is in the design phase.
 AMCA – Advanced Multirole Combat Aircraft. A twin engine fifth generation
aircraft in the concept design phase.”

From comically inept aeroplanes designed by overconfident charlatans to nuclear capable supersonic bombers that would have been all too effective in delivering doomsday, the US has created an exceptionally exciting armada of ‘almost-bombers’. By dint of their cancellation, it’s possible to appreciate these incredible machines without the stench of infamy that accompanies many operational bombers. Here are just some of them. 

Boeing XB-55 (1948, unbuilt) ‘Baby Bear’

The XB-55 was a proposed strategic bomber powered by four turboprop engines driving contra-rotating propellers, so think smaller Tu-95 (it would have been ten metres shorter than the 46-metre Tu-95). It was powered by four examples of the Allison T40 – an early turboprop engine composed of two Allison T38 power sections driving a contra-rotating propeller via a common gearbox; the T40 powered a remarkable series of aircraft, including the Convair Tradewind and Pogo, Douglas Skyshark and the XF-84H Thunderscreech, among others. Turboprop engines were more powerful than piston engines and gave better range than the turbojets available at the time – but the use of turboprops would make it slower than the aircraft it was intended to replace, the B-47. Knowing the vital importance of the role, work on the XB-55 began soon after the B-47 had entered service.

The propeller manufacturer believed that the Allison T40-A-2 driveshaft would be able to withstand the forces caused by the extremely fast rotations of the propellers, but the engine manufacturer disagreed. Allison predicted it would take another four years to develop an appropriate engine. Technical arguments dogged its development, meanwhile the B-47 was demonstrating that pure turbojets were more reliable and efficient than predicted. At an Ohio conference lunch in 1948 it was suggested to re-engine another Boeing turboprop bomber concept, the Model 464, with J57 turbojets. This would lead to the XB-52, the aircraft that would become the (seemingly immortal) Stratofortress. The XB-52 was better than the XB-55 in every way, and the XB-55 was cancelled in 1949. 

Boeing XB-59 (1949, unbuilt) ‘Hustler tussler’

The 1949 cancellation of the XB-55 freed up funding for a far more ambitious bomber capable off flight at twice the speed of sound. Just how ambitious it was can be gleaned from the fact that no aeroplane actually reached Mach 2 for another four years! The design had a distinctive anhedral wing and a length of 37 metres. It was cancelled in 1952 in favour of the more compact Convair B-58 Hustler.

Douglas XB-42 Mixmaster (1944) ‘Mixmaster Flash’

The remarkable XB-42 was in many ways the most advanced piston-engined warplane ever flown (though the Republic Rainbow might be a rival for this title). As René J. Francillon put it, “the XB-42 was as fast as the Mosquito B.XVI but carried twice the maximum bomb load…furthermore the Mixmaster had a defensive armament of four 0.50-in machine-guns in two remotely-controlled turrets whereas the Mosquito B.XVI was unarmed.” A variety of offensive gun options were considered including sixteen .50 cals or two 37-mm cannon. The XB-42A had a top speed of 488 mph and a maximum range of 4,750 miles. The Mixmaster was superb. But by the time the war ended the USAAF could afford to wait for the inevitable arrival of the jet bomber. The Mixmaster offers a tantalising insight into how military aircraft may have evolved if the piston age had lasted a little longer.

Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1 Barling Bomber (1923) ‘Mitchell’s Folly’ 

The US military has a surplus of bile, and much of this is expressed through inter-service rivalry. The lamentable Barling Bomber benefited from this domestic squabbling, thanks to the cantankerous persistence of William ‘Billy’ Lendrum Mitchell. Mitchell was an Army general who had led US air combat operations in World War I. He was an ardent believer in air power, and in particular the ability of bombers to destroy battleships. This latter belief was heresy to the US Navy, and threatened the dogma that destroyers were unstoppable (and more seriously threatened to divert funds from the Navy to the Army). While the US Navy commissioned a series of secret tests to prove destroyers couldn’t be sunk by aeroplanes, Mitchell worked on some demonstrations to prove the opposite. Mitchell used Martin NBS-1 short-range bombers for these tests but clearly a large aircraft with an exceptional range would be better for the mission. Mitchell enlisted the help of the worst aircraft designer this side of Dr. William Whitney Christmas, Walter Barling (creator of the catastrophic Tarrant Tabor). Barling seemed to believe the best way to improve on the extremely large design disaster that was the Tabor was to make it even bigger.

The result was the largest aircraft in the world, a triplane with a wingspan seven metres greater than that of the Avro Vulcan! Not bad for 1923, except it was bad. In almost every metric it was pitiful – painfully slow, way shorter-ranged than the ‘short-range’ NBS-1 and underpowered and with more parasitical drag than St Pancras Station. Conceptually, it laid the way for the later large strategic bombers and with them the hundreds of thousands of dead civilians of Dresden, Tokyo, Nagasaki and the dozens of other targets that have suffered their devastating wraith.

Douglas XB-43 Jetmaster (1946) ‘Jetmaster not so flash’ 

The XB-43 was the first American jet bomber to fly. It came three years after the world’s first operational jet bomber, the German Arado Ar 234. If the XB-43 looks familiar it is because you have seen it above in its earlier life as the piston-engined Mixmaster. With its unswept flying surfaces and chunky fuselage it was an awkward halfway house between the piston and jet age – and was pushed aside by the superior North American B-45 Tornado.

Martin XB-51 (1949) ‘No cigar for the silver cigar’ 

Blessed with one of the most exotic configurations of a wildly imaginative crop of experimental bombers from various manufacturers, the XB-51 was, frankly, a bit of a dud. Originally designed as a low-level bombing and close support aircraft, it wound up being considered instead as one of the options to replace the B-26 Invader as a night tactical bomber, alongside the North American B-45 and AJ-1 Savage, and the English Electric Canberra.

The XB-51 featured an engine installation unlike any other, with two General Electric J47 engines mounted in a ‘chin’ position on the fuselage sides, and a third located in the rear fuselage and fed by a dorsal intake. This arrangement enabled a very clean and thin swept wing to be mounted on the fuselage in a mid-wing position. The wing featured a large span slotted flap, full-span leading edge slats, and variable incidence.

Sadly, as of February 2020 we’re again far behind funding targets. If you wish this blog to carry on, please donate here. We really do need your donations to keep this labour-intensive lunacy going. 

The requirements called for a service ceiling of 40,000 ft, max speed of 550 kts and a range of about 1000 nautical miles, together with all-weather and night operation from basic airfields. Against this requirement, to quote ‘Post-World War II Bombers’ by Marcelle Knaack, Office of AF History, “The B-45 was too heavy, and the AJ-1 was too slow.”

The competition came down to a fly-off against the Canberra, which had created a sensation by flying non-stop and unrefuelled to the US from Europe – the first jet aircraft to do this.

In the fly-off, the XB-51 lost out to the Canberra, which could exceed the ceiling required by 15,000 ft, and offered double the required range. Although slightly faster at low level, the relatively high wing loading and low fuel capacity of the XB-51 meant that it lost out to the Canberra in range, ceiling and payload, despite appearing a far more futuristic design.

— Jim Smith 

Martin XB-68 (1954) ‘Steel-eye wingspan’

The extremely sleek XB-68 would have been largely built from steel to soak up the immense heat of flight at Mach 2.4. It was an extremely ambitious design, combining a very high top speed with a long range and a beyond state-of-the-art inertial guidance bombing and navigation system. This was pretty advanced stuff for 1954 and it was predicted to take until 1963 to get it into operational service. The USAF couldn’t wait that long and cancelled it in favour of the far more modest Douglas B-66 Destroyer.

Martin XB-16 (1934) ‘Twin-boom shake the room’

A 5,000-mile range, a 20% greater wingspan than the future B-29, a top speed of 237 mph and the look of an aircraft that was designed by an 11-year-old boy, the XB-16 was a 1934 proposal for a heavy bomber for the US Army Air Corps. Like the Mixmaster, it was powered by Allison V-1710 liquid-cooled engines (four). The engines were mounted in an unorthodox ‘push and pull’ tractor and pusher arrangement. The XB-16 was simply too slow to survive and didn’t progress further than some rather exciting blueprints. The US heavy bombers that actually did enter service where all equipped with radial engines. The design bears interesting comparison with two contemporaneous twin-boom aircraft, the Grokhovsky G-37 and Burnelli UB-14.

McDD/General Dynamics A-12 Avenger II (1991) ‘Cheney’s salty triangle’ 

In the late 1980s the US Navy wanted a long-range stealthy attack aircraft, one that could operate from aircraft carriers. McDonnell Douglas and General Dynamics responded with a radical design, the triangular A-12 Avenger II. The programme went very wrong, with huge technical shortfalls, delays – and cost and weight gains. Dick Cheney wanted to know why the project was going so badly and was given answers he did not consider clear or honest enough — and the axe was swung on the ‘Flying Dorito’ in 1991. The US government was keen for the contractors to pay back the $2 billion that had been spent on the project, but the contractors had other ideas. A lengthy court case ensued, one that extended into the following millennium! In January 2014, the case was settled with Boeing and General Dynamics agreeing to pay $200 million each to the US Navy. 

Despite the huge success of the earlier F-4 Phantom II (as McDonnell) and the F-15 Eagle fighters, the 90s saw MD losing out: in the fighter field, its ATF contender failed to get to the contest finals. It then joined Northrop’s YF-23 offering, which lost in the finals to the Lockheed YF-22. MD also failed to win the JSF contract that led to the F-35. In the civil field its MD-11 was proving disappointing and the A380-like MD-12 proposal was pie-in-the-sky. McDonnell Douglas merged with Boeing in August 1997 with the latter as the surviving company.

If anyone benefited from the A-12 fiasco, it was General Electric. The A-12’s F412 turbofan grew into the F414, which was to power the aircraft that would perform the attack role in the A-12’s absence, the Super Hornet. The engine would also find gainful employment in the Gripen E/F and Korea Aerospace Industries KF-X.

Northrop XB-35/YB-35/YB-39 (1949) ‘Spirited away’

Sadly, as of April 2020 we’re again far behind funding targets. If you wish this blog to carry on, please donate here. We really do need your donations to keep this labour-intensive lunacy going. 

“If you have any interest in aviation, you’ll be surprised, entertained and fascinated by Hush-Kit – the world’s best aviation blog”. Rowland White, author of the best-selling ‘Vulcan 607’

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

 

TO AVOID DISAPPOINTMENT PRE-ORDER YOUR COPY NOW

From the cocaine, blood and flying scarves of World War One dogfighting to the dark arts of modern air combat, here is an enthralling ode to these brutally exciting killing machines.

The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes is a beautifully designed, highly visual, collection of the best articles from the fascinating world of military aviation –hand-picked from the highly acclaimed Hush-kit online magazine (and mixed with a heavy punch of new exclusive material). It is packed with a feast of material, ranging from interviews with fighter pilots (including the English Electric Lightning, stealthy F-35B and Mach 3 MiG-25 ‘Foxbat’), to wicked satire, expert historical analysis, top 10s and all manner of things aeronautical, from the site described as:

“the thinking-man’s Top Gear… but for planes”.

The solid well-researched information about aeroplanes is brilliantly combined with an irreverent attitude and real insight into the dangerous romantic world of combat aircraft.

FEATURING

• Interviews with pilots of the F-14 Tomcat, Mirage, Typhoon, MiG-25, MiG-27, English Electric Lighting, Harrier, F-15, B-52 and many more.
• Engaging Top (and bottom) 10s including: Greatest fighter aircraft of World War II, Worst British aircraft, Worst Soviet aircraft and many more insanely specific ones.
• Expert analysis of weapons, tactics and technology.
• A look into art and culture’s love affair with the aeroplane.
• Bizarre moments in aviation history.
• Fascinating insights into exceptionally obscure warplanes.

The book will be a stunning object: an essential addition to the library of anyone with even a passing interest in the high-flying world of warplanes, and featuring first-rate photography and a wealth of new world-class illustrations.

Rewards levels include these packs of specially produced trump cards.

Pre-order your copy now right here  

 

I can only do it with your support.

 

 

 

 

You may also enjoy 11 Cancelled French aircraft or the 10 worst British military aircraft, Su-35 versusTyphoon, 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. 

Following the Korean War of the early 1950s, the aircraft designation ‘MiG’ had a powerful association to many Westerners: MiGs were fast, agile and hostile fighter planes flown by dastardly communists  — and they were shrouded in mystery. Whereas Western fighter designs were publicly promoted years before their first flight, new Russian MiGs were revealed in blurry photos from spy satellites, as if from nowhere in formations over parades in Moscow or eviscerating NATO opponents in exciting artist’s impressions released by the US Department of Defense. They were perceived as deadly and mysterious, and this was convenient for Western propaganda purposes. The MiG mystique naturally inspired a raft of fictional aircraft waiting to be blown from the sky by heroic Americans. Here are some of the fictional MiGs that appeared in books, TV shows and films in the late 20th century. 

MiG-242 (1968) 

Gerry and Slyvia Anderson created a series of British television puppet shows from the 1960s, including Joe 90. Joe 90 took place in the future — or rather what was the future, as it was set in the 2010s.  It was about a nine-year-old boy who could essentially Google things with his mind, which is not too far off Googling it with your fingers but this was 1968, so meant he was employed by the World Intelligence Network (WIN) as its ‘Most Special Agent’. The shows had a boyish obsession with fantastical vehicles,  many of which were informed by Gerry’s personal love and great knowledge of real-world machines. The first episode of Joe 90 featured the MiG-242. This model was extremely futuristic for 1968, but was clearly a chimera of contemporary aircraft. The MiG-242 had twin outboard-mounted tails, variable geometry wings and was launched from a pivoting platform for near-zero runway length launches.

The Soviets were interested in zero-length launch platforms in reality, and considered using rocket-assisted take-off aircraft for the point defence protection of airfields and critical targets using MiG-19s.  Tests with MiG-19/SM-30 ‘Farmer’ (with the PRD-22R booster unit) were semi successful but it was clear that this was a role that was better suited to surface-to-air missiles, a rapidly maturing technology.

In the US, Boeing proposed a Mach 2.8 carrier fighter operating from a vertical platform in the 1960s, the ultra-sleek ‘Nutcracker’.

The MiG-2000 was a notional threat aircraft devised by General Dynamics’ Richard Ward, of what a follow-up to the MiG-29 might look like. It was intended to give the  international F-16 community an idea of what they may be up against in the year 2000. This was based on Ward’s observations of several technologies the Soviets appeared to be very interested in, most notably thrust vectoring and the canard-delta arrangement. According to Bill Sweetman (in conversation with Hush-Kit) there is a misinformation in Ward’s artwork – as he had a good knowledge of key stealthy design features actually being developed in the classified world and deliberately avoided them in his artwork and description.

___________________

Mikoyan MiG-37 (1989) 

In 1989, stealth was a hot topic. One of the first books on this topic was Stealth Warplanes, by Doug Richardson. It looked to many observers that MiG-37 seemed the most likely designation for the first Soviet stealth fighter (see Testor’s MiG-37 below). Soviet developments could not be ignored by the book, despite the fact that at this time, nothing about Soviet stealth projects was known by the press. So the ‘Mikoyan MiG-37’ was pure conjecture, based on the pure ‘conjecture’ of the MiG-2000 above. 

One of the fascinating features of this book was its strong belief in ‘round stealth’. Many of the hypothetical aeroplanes in this book feature rounded-off wingtips, noses and fin-tips of the hypothetical aircraft. Radar returns would be scattered from these curves:

“…the rounded planform (of the MiG-37) shown here would ensure that reflected energy was scattered over a range of directions.”

In reality, this design idea was never used (albeit to a small degree on some cruise missiles), and it could be argued that the cultivation of this idea was the result of deliberate disinformation by several companies. Loral, Northrop and Lockheed (in several ATF artworks) may have been actively involved in this attempt to draw attention away from the F-117-faceting and B-2 flying wing approach. This idea can be seen on most ‘F-19s’ and is evident on this MiG-37.

Of course complex curves are used in modern low observable designs, but this ‘round stealth’ is not like the two US schools of stealth that have emerged, the Lockheed approach (sharp angles and flat surfaces) and the Northrop approach (as flat as possible, and of the flying wing configuration for subsonic designs, as seen on the B-2, Lockheed Martin RQ-170, Dassault NeuroN etc). When Northrop and McDonnell Douglas designed the YF-23, they incorporated the ‘flat as a pancake’ Northrop approach.

The notional MiG-37 is a tactical fighter that weighs around 50,000 lb and is powered by two 30,000 lb (in reheat) thrust class turbofans. It has two-dimensional vectored thrust provided by ‘slotted low-RCS nozzles’. It is a two-seater, with a canard delta planform and two canted out vertical fins. The concept emphasises performance and reduced radar cross section.

Did history provide us with a real MiG-37 to compare it to? The simple answer is yes. The Mikoyan Project 1.44/1.42 was a technology demonstrator that first flew in 2000. It displayed some similarities to Richardson’s MiG-37.

MiG 1.44/1.42

It was a canard delta, it did have twin outwards-canted tails. The thrust class was similar, though the real aircraft was even more powerful, with two Lyulka AL-41F turbofans rated at 176 kN (39,680 lb) in reheat. Weight was between 42-62,000 lb depending on fuel load, test equipment etc, so again- excellent guesswork. It certainly did not have rounded-off wingtips or tail-fins. The nozzles were not flat, despite the stealth advantages these could have conferred. The reason for the inclusion of round exhaust nozzles could have been one or more of the following-

1. 3D vectoring was envisioned, requiring a circular nozzle (perhaps extreme manoeuvrability was considered more important than minimum RCS)
2. Russian metallurgy was not good enough to make square nozzles which could withstand the  high temperatures of a vectoring jet nozzle
3. The actual production version if made, would have featured 2D nozzles
4. They were not required or were not consider a suitable design feature

(Though recently photographs have come to light of Soviet mock-ups of fighter designs with 2D vectoring thrust nozzles)

It was claimed that the aircraft would feature plasma stealth technology, an exotic idea that a General Electric employee had filed patents relating to in 1956. Little has been heard about plasma stealth since, though the fact that the later PAK FA is so carefully shaped suggests it is not a technology that was made to work satisfactorily. Problems in developing working plasma stealth include the generation of sufficient power to create the required plasma layer, and the operation of radar and radio in what amounts to a ‘radio blackout’. Talk of this technology may have been deliberate disinformation.

The MiG 1.44/1.42, a candidate for the Mnogofunksionalni Frontovoy Istrebitel (Multifunctional Frontline Fighter) programme was cancelled (though some contend that research from this effort found its way into the Chengdu J-20 project though there is no direct evidence of this). Sukhoi’s rival S-47 ‘Berkut’ took a radically different approach and adopted canards with forward swept wings, as can be seen from later developments this configuration appears to have been a design dead-end, at least for the time being.

In reality, thirty plus years later, MiG has only got far as the MiG-35

MiG-31 Firefox (film version) (1982)

The Firefox is a splendidly ambitious design, supposed able to achieve Mach 6 and to embody a range of advanced technologies, including thought control of it weapons systems (as long as you can think in Russian). Other claimed characteristics include 2 x 50,000-lb thrust engines, flight at up to 130,000 ft, internal carriage of 6 AA-11 missiles, 2x 23mm cannon and chaff and flare dispensing pods.

Hush-Kit’s Editor asked Jim Smith for his thoughts on the MiG-31 Firefox.

“Apart from a few obvious blunders, I really quite like the Firefox. If one imagines a strategic air defence aircraft, capable of taking on the XB-70, SR-71, and other high-flyers like the U-2, a configuration which borrows from the Valkyrie makes some sense.

My biggest concern with the Firefox is the propulsion system, but I’ll leave that aside for the moment, and suppose sufficient thrust is available. The highly-swept near delta wing looks to fit inside a Mach 2.9 Mach cone, and it would be plausible to achieve that sort of speed without excessive wave drag and heating, assuming the stated materials for the structure. Mach 6, even for brief periods, does not look likely, particularly given the propulsion system. I like the use of the canard and the fold-down wing tips, both clearly borrowed from the Valkyrie, and the essentially high-speed bomber/transport-like configuration would be well suited for high-speed interception of strategic targets at high altitude. I would, however, expect any kill to be achieved using internally carried long-range air-to-air weapons. There is no need to carry 2 x 23mm cannon, and one cannot readily conceive a situation where this aircraft would be used in WVR combat.

Here are a few other (unsuccessful) aircraft designed with the same sort of performance goals (M 2.5 or thereabouts):   

I particularly like the Douglas one, whose canard and wing resemble the Firefox quite closely, although it has a different propulsion arrangement and a single fin rather than twin fins.

What about propulsion? Well, what we do know about high-flying fast aircraft is that they have large engines, and truly enormous propulsion systems. Managing the intake compression process to bring airflow to the engine front face at stable subsonic speeds requires a very large and complex intake system. Look at Concorde, the XB-70, the MiG-31 (the real one) and the SR-71, and what you will find is huge engines behind bigger intake systems.

I used to attend meetings occasionally with Rolls-Royce at Filton. On the wall of their management conference room, occupying the entire length of the room was a fabulous full-scale drawing of the engine installation of the Olympus 593 in Concorde. Truly, engineering as art. But driven by the physics of getting the air to the engine in a usable state – stable in flow, and at the temperature and pressure required.

There is no way Firefox would work with anything that could be described as a high-bypass ratio turbofan. Something I recall being referred to as ‘a leaky turbojet’ would be more likely. But probably installed either like the Concorde in underwing nacelles, or like the Douglas supersonic transport or the XB-70.

The two twin-engine aircraft known to have this sort of performance are the remarkable SR-71, where the engines have been described as turbo-ramjet, and the MiG-31. For the SR-71, both the intake and ejector exhaust nozzle are critical to engine performance, and very complex airflow management is required. For the MiG-31, the powerplant is the Soloviev D-30R, which is a ‘leaky turbojet’ with a by-pass ratio of 0.57, but only about 2/3 the proposed thrust of the Firefox engine. In describing the earlier MiG 25, Jane’s stressed that most of the thrust at high speed comes from the intake and nozzle, and these are pretty complex for both the MiG-25 and 31.

I regard the splitting of the intake path both by the wing and the fin structure as a concern, given the known complexity and sensitivity of the intake systems for similar aircraft.  I do not believe the system, as drawn, could get the aircraft to Mach 6, and possibly not even to Mach 3.

On the whole, I suggest the aircraft would be suited to two engines installed like Concorde, or indeed like current Sukhoi aircraft essentially in nacelles fed by underwing intakes. If the target performance were to be Mach 3-ish, as suggested by the appearance of the airframe, it does not seem evident that 50,000 lb thrust engines are required, leave alone additional rockets. It’s worth noting that the stated dimensions of the Firefox are significantly smaller than those of the SR-71, supporting the view that 50,000 lb thrust engines would not be required.

But then, all you would have is a sexier MiG-31, not at all what was envisaged by the film script.

What about thought-control? We already have voice control for a number of functions in some advanced aircraft. Thought control might be quite difficult, but programs have existed where there was conceptually a progressive hand-over of autonomy from pilot to system as pilot workload went up, allowing fuel to be managed without intervention, for example.  However, I would think that thought-controlled weapons systems would be among the last to be implemented, because of the need to track ‘who did what’, both for training, and to provide an audit trail for decisions to employ lethal force.

I admire the ambition of the Firefox, and the recognition of the importance of advanced systems as well as the right airframe. There’s no way the stated design would achieve Mach 6, and given that, I prefer to view Firefox as a strategic interceptor, operating at a maximum of Mach 3+, heavily armed and with good systems. But no cannon, no auxiliary rockets, and somewhat smaller thrust. Otherwise, I think that the forward part of the aircraft does look somewhat crude, and would probably produce unacceptable high-speed drag.”

MiG Project 701/Sukhoi T60S

An intelligence blunder made the West believe that what was actually a MiG concept for high-speed replacement for the MiG-31 was actually a Sukhoi bomber. Though not fictional as such, this is a good excuse to mention an interesting design. As of 2020, work continues on a high-speed replacement for the MiG-31.

Mikoyan Gurevich MiG-28 (1985) Top Gun

Real Soviet fighters were not available for the 1986 Top Gun movie so US Navy F-5s (operated by the real Top Gun aggressor units) were painted black and given Communist-style markings. The black paint was sleek and sinister, and made the aircraft both easier for the audience to see and to clearly differentiate from the ‘goody’ F-14 Tomcats.  The MiG-28 is is highly described as manoeuvrable, but somewhat slower than the F-14 Tomcat, both of which are true of the F-5.  The American pilots are warned that the MiG-28 was armed with the AM 39 Exocet, this is a real French anti-ship missile which earned notoriety in the Falklands War which took place four years before the film. The nationality of the air force operating the MiG-28s is not stated but according to a director’s commentary was originally intended to be North Korea, though there is also nods to it Libya or the Soviet Union.  Intriguingly, the Soviets had some actual F-5s of their own.

Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-23 (Kfir)

The Iron Eagle films started bad and got progressively more dire. Simplistic, atrociously scripted and ridiculous – this was fun ’80s action propaganda at its best. It was a paean to the F-16, in the same way that Top Gun drooled over the F-14. Though the poster for the film portrayed USAF F-16s, all the aircraft in the film were (somewhat bizarrely) provided by the Israeli air force. This is said to be due to USAF’s long-standing policy of not cooperating on any film with a plot that involves the theft of an aircraft. If this rule is real it makes one wonder why the USAF appears to have assisted in the 1985 film D.A.R.Y.L. which features an electronically enhanced child stealing a Blackbird. 

Where this rule comes from and why it is in place is unclear, but this led the filmmakers turned to turn to Israel. As well as F-16s, the Israeli Air Force operated Kfir’s (a heavily Isreli adaption of the French Mirage 5) and this unfamiliar aircraft was an excellent choice to portray the ‘MiG-23’s of the Bilyan air force (Bilya being a fictional North African nation)

Iron Eagle II MiG-29 (F-4E Phantom)

For Iron Eagle II (1988) big lumbering F-4E Phantoms of the Israeli Air Force were cast as the small nimble MiG-29. The times they were a changin’ and so this time the Soviet MiGs were allies of the US’. This concord, which happened to a lesser degree in reality,  didn’t last and today the DoD has going back to its comfort-zone of hating/posturing of hating the Russians. Either for legal or safety reasons, real Soviet markings were not used and a made-up hammer & sickle rondel was stuck over a standard 1980s three-tone Israeli camouflage scheme.

Mikoyan MiG-31 ‘Firefox’ (book) 

The MiG-31 ‘Firefox’ of the 1977 novel incorporated stealth technology, was capable of hypersonic speeds above Mach 5 (partly thanks booster rockets) and had a thought-guided weapons system. The real MiG-31 is a very fast, though not as fast the ‘Firefox’, interceptor known by the NATO reporting name of Foxhound.

The idea of a superior Soviet fighter plane eclipsing the West’s machine echoed the panic expressed by defence planners on the perceived capabilities of the real-world MiG-25. Indeed the original frontcover depicted a MiG-25. I don’t have a copy of this novel to hand so welcome any readers to share descriptions of the aircraft’s appearance in the comment’s section below, just to be clear I mean the novel only as I’m fully aware of what the film version looked like.

What is the forum & why did you set it up?
“Secret Projects Forum is both a discussion forum and a database. It’s a place to discover and share interesting nuggets of aviation history, with a particular emphasis on prototypes, cancelled and unbuilt projects, with like-minded people from around the world. It’s been running since December 2005 and hasn’t run out of steam yet, though Facebook groups like ‘The Greatest Planes That Never Were‘ are mounting a challenge.
I was always an aviation nerd and an avid reader; Airfix kits of WW2 aircraft on the ceiling, aircraft books on the shelves. When I got to secondary school I found a copy of Derek Wood’s book ‘Project Cancelled’, which blew my mind with its array of fantastic-looking British designs which were never built, or were cancelled. For someone who felt pretty knowledgeable about aircraft it was like a whole new horizon opening of things to know about. That was the start of something. ‘Warplanes of the Future’ by Bill Gunston showed me a bright future of non-yet-built aircraft.”

‘Stealth Warplanes’ by Bill Sweetman blew the lid on the fascinating world of Stealth. These would be my version of the holy Trinity. Sweetman’s now a member of the forum, by the way.

I failed to make it though an aero engineering degree, the first time I’d failed at anything academically —  and in a fit of pique I threw away most of my aircraft book and magazine collection and decided to pursue an English degree instead. I did well enough at that to get funded for a scholarship for a masters, but doing that masters course (medieval English) cured me of ever wanting a career in academia. I ended up with a career in IT (systems sngineer) mostly by accident.
The internet revived my interest in aviation. A largely solitary interest from my childhood was now something you could share with people all around the world. The chances of finding people interested in such a niche subject in your immediate peer group is tiny, but multiplied across the billions of people in the world, you can form sizeable communities. I lurked on a number of existing aviation forums, posting things I found interesting, but none were quite aligned with my interests, though the www.whatifmodelers.com forum was closest. I met fellow travellers interested in the same things I was, so I decided to start my own forum. It was pretty easy, people joined up in decent numbers, and once there was some content for Google to index, more like-minded people searching for this stuff inevitably found their way to the forum.”

 Why do you think there is such an interest in secret & cancelled aircraft?
“Partly I think because there are relatively few new (manned at least) aircraft in development. Mining the rich vein of aviation’s past is one way to keep discovering interesting ‘new’ designs when nobody is building them. Also, it’s interesting to see the what-ifs, the designs that could have been built instead of the planes we know. Having done some archival research, it’s clear that the process of choosing a winning design is often only loosely aligned with what is technically the best proposal. Of course, unlike real aircraft, designs that weren’t built never suffer the indignity of failing to achieve their promised performance, so you need to guard against believing everything in the brochure. ‘It would have been great’ ignores the giant chasm separating a brochure from an actual finished aircraft.”
Personally, I am very interested in the whole design and engineering process — from first sketch to final hardware for iconic planes such as the F-16, far more than I am interested in their subsequent operational history. There’s a great design progression linking the F-111 to the F-16, unlikely as it seems, and the process of refining the design, the alternate approaches considered, the rival designs proposed by other manufacturers. There’s an interesting book in that, I think. I may have to write it one day.
What is your favourite aircraft and why?
“Probably the MiG-29 and Su-27. I grew up buying the Observers Book of Aircraft, and recall buying a volume where suddenly these cool new planes were included (in artist’s impressions).

They looked very un-Soviet, but they were still largely unknown, mysterious and alluring. I remember my copy of Air International dropping through the mailbox in 1986 with photos of the MiG-29 visit to Finland – I did a lot of drawings inspired by it that week. I went to the Farnborough Airshow in 1988 with my dad, and wasted two rolls of film taking terrible photos of the MiG-29 there. I saw the grainy Su-27 photo in Flight International in late 1987, then a few years later I was watching it do the ‘Cobra’ at an airshow. I have an amazing book on the Su-27 (Su-27 Fighter: Beginning of Story by Ildar Bedretdinov et al) but sadly part two is only released in Russian, so I can only look at the pics. Part 1 is the kind of detailed engineering history I love: 360 pages just covering Su-27 development up to the T-10 prototype.

What is your favourite cancelled British fighter and why?
“Probably the Hawker P.1216 V/STOL fighter from the early 1980s, which was passed over in favour of the Eurofighter. The Typhoon is a bit of a ‘meh’ design, workmanlike but nothing very interesting or innovative. P.1216 would have been a much more interesting aircraft, and Ralph Hooper felt it was achievable whereas the P.1154 was a step too far in the early 1960s. If co-developed with McDonnell-Douglas for the Marines, it might have altered the direction of the later F-35 programme.”
Aurora – fact or fiction?
“Fiction. The ‘Aurora’ name comes from a B-2 related funding line item. Researcher Dan Zinngrabe did think that something classified and fast was flown at least in a prototype form in that timeframe, so I wouldn’t rule out something experimental and fast existing. There’s no infrastructure or funding to support an operational fleet of cryogenically-fuelled aero-spaceplane reconnaissance aircraft. There’s no Mach 6 SR-71 replacement in service, or Lockheed Martin wouldn’t be promoting their SR-75.”
Biggest aircraft myth?
“MiG-25 as a “big bad” prior to Belenko’s defection. Sober intelligence agency analysts correctly saw it from 1967 as an interceptor with limited manoeuvring capability, but a politically useful consensus emerged from the Air Force’s own pet intelligence analysts that it was some kind of Mach 3 super-fighter built from titanium that made the F-4 obsolete, and that helped sell Congress on the F-15. Same people who insisted on a “bomber gap” that never existed but helped fund a pile of B-52s.”

 Favourite secret or cancelled US type and why?
YF-23. If there’s ever been a fighter which looked like the future, its the YF-23. The F-22 resembles a warmed over F-15 in comparison. Would it have made a better choice for the US Air Force? No idea. It would have looked awesomely cool though.
How many Black projects do you believe are flying now and what are they likely to be?
I’m sure there are demonstrators which have not yet been revealed, most likely in the unmanned space. Northrop Grumman seemed to have something more than the B-2 on their stealth CV to get the B-21 program. I’m on the the fence about the Northrop Grumman RQ-180, it makes sense, but I’ve not seen the evidence.”

What is your favourite cancelled Soviet type?
Sukhoi T-4MS. A variable geometry blended-body intercontinental bomber design that lost to Tupolev’s rather pedestrian design that evolved into the Tu-160. It had a very high lift/drag ratio, but would have been a challenging design to build, and Sukhoi really had enough on their plate with the Su-27 and other projects.

 What should I have asked you & why?

What’s been the best thing to come out of running the forum?

“I got to meet Tony Buttler and Chris Gibson virtually, and then in person, and that led directly to me writing a book on the Hawker P.1121. I got to fly to England, visit Scale Modelworld in Telford and do a book signing. That was awesome.”
Tell me about an aircraft type I don’t know about

“I don’t know what aircraft you don’t know 🙂

An oddball one-off aircraft was the Acme Sierra / Sierra Sue, a Y-tail, pusher prop light aircraft built by Northrop engineers Walt Fellers and Ron Beattie in their spare time from 1948 and which first flew in 1953. Walt Fellers revisited this Y tail layout in 1968 for the N-308, a Y-tail pusher turboprop that was for a time the preferred configuration of Northrop’s A-X (A-10 Warthog rival), and Sierra Sue flew some test flights in connection to the Northrop A-X program.

Sadly requirement changes forced Northrop to drop the turboprop design and move to jets. Aesthetically, it was a much more interesting design than the built YA-9, which is rather dull.”

We’re slipping behind again. Over 99.8% of our readers ignore our funding appeals. This site depends on your support to continue. If you’ve enjoyed an article donate here. Recommended donation amount £13. Keep this site going.

Today we are quite used to aircraft such as the B-52 having been in service since the time of the dinosaurs but this is a relatively modern phenomenon. It was rare until well after the Second World War for a combat aircraft to serve much longer than a decade. Here’s a look at some of the more famous long-serving combat aircraft of history and the rather more obscure tales of where and when their fighting careers actually ended.

 

Fighters

North American P-51/F-51 Mustang

Top of the tree when it comes to longevity amongst Fighters of the Second World War, the Mustang’s usefulness and availability saw it appear in the inventories of various air arms for many years. Curiously the US Army even bought a pair of reconditioned P-51Ds as late as 1968 to operate as chase planes for the Cheyenne attack helicopter program despite the Mustang having been withdrawn from Air National Guard service 11 years earlier. Despite losing its last aerial combat action to a Corsair the Mustang outlived the Vought fighter in service, the Dominican Republic finally retired their P-51s in 1984, a mere 42 years after the type first entered service with its first operator, the RAF.

Vought F4U Corsair

Victor (and victim) in the final combat between piston-engined aircraft ever fought, the Corsair was second only to the Mustang in longevity. Its very long production run (1942 – 53) meant there were airframes and spares in abundance for years to come and the game-changing naval fighter of the Pacific spent its dotage flying and occasionally fighting for a variety of Central American nations. Its final combat occurred during the so-called Football war between Honduras and El Salvador. On the 17th July 1969, Ferdinando Soto shot down a Salvadorean Mustang and two Goodyear-built FG-1 Corsairs, becoming the last known pilot to destroy an enemy aircraft in a piston-engined fighter. His F4U-5 is preserved in ground-running condition in the Honduran Aviation museum after finally being retired in 1981.

Republic P-47/F-47 Thunderbolt

Despite being complex and expensive to operate, the P-47 was rugged, potent and reliable. After 1945 the Thunderbolt was eagerly snapped up by a swathe of nations, particularly in Central and South America. Nicaragua was a major user of the type and loaned a handful to the CIA-backed Guatemalan insurgent Air Force in 1954 who used the Thunderbolts in the early stages of a successful coup to oust the democratically elected government and install the military dictatorship of Carlos Castillo Armas. The final aerial combat for the mighty ‘Jug’ came in January 1955: during a border dispute, Gerald Delarm Amador (who has earlier flown in the same aircraft in the Guatemalan coup) shot down a Costa Rican Mustang in a Nicaraguan F-47N. This aircraft survives in the collection of the Commemorative Air Force in the US. Last user of the Thunderbolt though was Peru, the last operational Peruvian Thunderbolts were withdrawn in 1966.

Supermarine Spitfire

Twenty years after entering service, everyone’s favourite flying British cliche was still plugging away. Only this time it wasn’t standing fast as a bastion of the free world against the massive industrial might of Nazi Germany but flying ground attack missions in Burma against Communist fighters in 1957 during the seemingly perpetual Burmese civil war. These aircraft were ex-Israeli and Italian Mk IXs supplemented with Griffon-powered Seafire Mx XVs and this was the last combat use of the aircraft.

Post-war Spitfire air-to-air combat by comparison is somewhat bizarre as, apart from a single one shot down by an Avia S-199 (of which more later), every Spitfire shot down after the end of the Second World War was itself downed by another Spitfire. The very last Spitfire kills occurred in 1948 and early 1949 in a confusing three-way encounter in the Middle East. Some (neutral) RAF Spitfires were attacked on the ground by Egyptian Spitfires who had misidentified them as Israeli Spitfires. A later attack by five Egyptian Spitfires resulted in all five being destroyed, three by ground fire, two by British Spitfires (the last of which remains the most recent victory in air combat by an RAF pilot in an RAF aircraft). Some days later Israeli Spitfires mistook British Spitfires for Egyptian Spitfires and shot down two. In a rare non-Spitfire kill the very final Spitfire victory was scored by American Bill Schroeder in a Spitfire IX on the 7th January 1949 when he shot down an RAF Hawker Tempest (again, apparently, mistaking it for an Egyptian aircraft). A messy aerial finale for this most famous of British aircraft.

 

Love aviation? Over 99.8% of our readers ignore our funding appeals. This site depends on your support. If you’ve enjoyed an article donate here. Recommended donation amount £13. Keep this site going.

Hawker Sea Fury

A surprisingly high achiever, given that the F-86 and MiG-15 were both flying by the time it entered service, the Sea Fury was exported to a swathe of nations across the globe. Its final combat action came over Cuba during the infamous CIA-backed Bay of Pigs invasion. Despite air strikes that destroyed all but three of the Sea Furies, and their best fighter pilots being in Czechoslovakia (learning to fly the MiG-21), the Cuban aircraft wreaked havoc on the invasion force. Cuba’s main ‘fighter’ was the T-33 jet trainer and this scored the majority of kills but two B-26s were shot down by Sea Furies on the 17th April 1961, the second and last being achieved by Lieutenant Douglas Rudd at 9.30 am. Having already been credited with a MiG-15 shot down over Korea in Royal Navy service, this makes the Sea Fury one of very few aircraft to have scored victories for both sides during the Cold War. The Sea Fury’s career ultimately ended over Germany, sixteen civil-registered examples were operated as target tugs until 1970.

Grumman F6F Hellcat

Sidelined by 1945 by the superior Corsair and replaced by its successor the Bearcat, the Hellcat saw no air to air combat after 1945. It was however used as a guided missile(!): in late 1952 F6F-5K drones, flying from USS Boxer and each carrying a 2,000 lb bomb, were used to attack bridges in Korea, radio controlled from an escorting Skyraider.
However, the final combat use of the F6F was in French hands: Aeronavale Hellcats were heavily committed to ground attack operations over Indochina until the French withdrew in 1955.

Messerschmitt Bf 109

As produced by its parent nation, 109 use ceased in May 1945 but production of the Messerschmitt fighter continued in Spain and Czechoslovakia. Spanish 109s ended up being built with Hispano-Suiza engines as the Hispano Aviación HA-1112-K1L and finally with Rolls-Royce Merlins as the Hispano Aviación HA-1112-M1L ‘Buchon’ (Pigeon). Buchons were manufactured as late as 1959 and served in Spanish colonial territories in Africa until December 1965 and may have seen some action against rebel groups (the historical record is unclear). Ultimately these aircraft achieved cinematic immortality by starring as their Bf 109E ancestors in the 1968 film ‘Battle of Britain’.

Meanwhile in Czechoslovakia the Avia aircraft company found itself with a fully operational 109 production line and restarted production for its own Air Force. Faced with a shortage of Daimler Benz engines (due to an explosion at a storage facility) Avia re-engineered the 109 airframe to accept the Junkers Jumo 211, such as was fitted to the Heinkel He 111 bomber, the resulting aircraft being known as the Avia S-199. Despite allegedly atrocious handling characteristics, performance was good and over 500 were produced and served in Czech units until 1957. Rather more excitingly the nascent Israeli Air Force got hold of a few and, despite low serviceability and general unpopularity, Avia S-199s officially scored six kills against aircraft from Egypt, Syria and Jordan, including the first ever Israeli air-to-air victory. Last aircraft shot down by an S-199 was its old rival, a Spitfire, destroyed by Rudy Augarten on the 16th October 1948. It is somewhat ironic that the final combat use of this Nazi fighting machine should occur in the defence of a Jewish state.

 

Bombers

Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress

It is a pleasing irony that an aircraft most famous for starting fires all over Europe for a couple of years then spent decades putting fires out. The career of the Flying Fortress in its intended role was limited after 1945, the advent of the B-29 rendered it obsolescent in its home nation, yet it was too big, expensive to operate, and sophisticated for most developing nations. As a result most of the B-17s operated by air forces after 1945 were utilised as transport craft. The one great exception was Israel which operated three Fortresses for years, bombing Cairo in 1948 to great psychological, though militarily insignificant, effect. The mighty B-17 ended its conventional bombing career by attacking Egyptian targets during the Suez crisis in late 1956.

However, the Fortress’s ‘bombing’ career did not end there. Various private operators bought up surplus B-17s to use as firefighting aircraft. With its prodigious load carrying ability and pleasant flying characteristics the Fortress was a popular choice of air tanker and its immensely strong structure was well able to deal with the punishingly turbulent air in the vicinity of a fire. The final B-17 firefighting operations were flown as late as 1985 and most of the preserved airworthy B-17s today are ex-firefighting aircraft.

Consolidated B-24 Liberator

With its roomy fuselage and massive range the Liberator was an attractive prospect for many operators and the B-24 flew in the air arms of 19 nations. The B-24’s last use in anger was with both sides during the Chinese civil war until 1949. Last operator of the Liberator though was India. Lacking a heavy bomber, during 1948 the Indian Air Force realised there were a large number of ex-RAF Liberators abandoned since 1945 as scrap at Kanpur airfield. Despite their state 42 of these aircraft were flown (by a single pilot, Jamshed Munshi, who had no previous experience flying B-24s – or indeed any four-engine aircraft) to HAL aircraft for refurbishment. The only incident during these undoubtedly risky trips was a small in-flight fire in the cockpit that was extinguished with a flask of coffee. Post refurbishment the Liberators served until 1968, and despite never engaging in combat, they were used for leaflet dropping during India’s annexation of Goa in 1961.

Consolidated PB4Y Privateer

Although essentially an offshoot of the Liberator, the Privateer had a busy postwar career so warrants its own entry. Despite being used by the French as a bomber in Indochina until 1954, the Privateer’s main strength was its vast range and it was used extensively as a long-range patrol, reconnaissance and intelligence aircraft, a US Navy example being shot down by Lavochkin La-11s in 1950 off the coast of Latvia. Final combat involving the Privateer occurred as late as February 1961 when a Taiwanese PB4Y was shot down by a Burmese Sea Fury while it was attempting to carry supplies to Nationalist Chinese forces fighting in Northern Burma.
Like the B-17 the Privateer was a popular choice for firefighting but it outlived the Boeing aircraft in this role for decades. It was only a fatal accident in 2002 (caused by poor maintenance and not due to a fault of the aircraft), that brought the PB4Y’s career attacking fires to an abrupt end some sixty years after the aircraft first flew.

Avro Lancaster

Post-war use of the Lancaster was relatively limited, Canada and France both used the aircraft for long range maritime patrol but it was Argentina that was the last to take the bomber into combat. During the Revolución Libertadora of 1955, Argentine Lancasters flew bombing sorties for both sides in the ultimately successful coup d’etat that ousted Juan Peron from office and installed a military dictatorship. The final flight of an operational Lancaster occurred in 1965 in Argentina, the fleet being finally struck off charge in 1966. One Lancaster was modified as an air tanker in Canada to fight fires but its career was brief and by 1974 it had been sold into preservation.

de Havilland Mosquito

The ‘Wooden Wonder’ also saw its last combat in Israeli hands. Despite the punishing effects of the Middle Eastern climate on its wooden airframe, the Israeli air force was an enthusiastic Mosquito operator. Its unrivalled performance made it essentially immune from air attack and Mosquitoes were heavily employed in the reconnaissance role until the end of 1956. Even after Arab air forces introduced the MiG-15 jet fighter, Israeli Mosquitoes flew deep into their neighbour’s territory and not one was ever lost to enemy action during these missions. Final combat use of the Mosquito came during November 1956 when, as part of Operation Kadesh, the Israeli contribution to the Suez action, 110 squadron Mosquito FB.VIs attacked Egyptian armour and encampments in the Sinai in force repeatedly over four days. 110 squadron was disbanded less than two months later and the Mosquitoes sent to storage.

Love aviation? Over 99.8% of our readers ignore our funding appeals. This site depends on your support. If you’ve enjoyed an article donate here. Recommended donation amount £13. Keep this site going.

This article is from the Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes. Preorder your copy today here. 

From the cocaine, blood and flying scarves of World War One dogfighting to the dark arts of modern air combat, here is an enthralling ode to these brutally exciting killing machines.

The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes is a beautifully designed, highly visual, collection of the best articles from the fascinating world of military aviation –hand-picked from the highly acclaimed Hush-kit online magazine (and mixed with a heavy punch of new exclusive material). It is packed with a feast of material, ranging from interviews with fighter pilots (including the English Electric Lightning, stealthy F-35B and Mach 3 MiG-25 ‘Foxbat’), to wicked satire, expert historical analysis, top 10s and all manner of things aeronautical, from the site described as:

“the thinking-man’s Top Gear… but for planes”.

The solid well-researched information about aeroplanes is brilliantly combined with an irreverent attitude and real insight into the dangerous romantic world of combat aircraft.

FEATURING

• Interviews with pilots of the F-14 Tomcat, Mirage, Typhoon, MiG-25, MiG-27, English Electric Lighting, Harrier, F-15, B-52 and many more.
• Engaging Top (and bottom) 10s including: Greatest fighter aircraft of World War II, Worst British aircraft, Worst Soviet aircraft and many more insanely specific ones.
• Expert analysis of weapons, tactics and technology.
• A look into art and culture’s love affair with the aeroplane.
• Bizarre moments in aviation history.
• Fascinating insights into exceptionally obscure warplanes.

The book will be a stunning object: an essential addition to the library of anyone with even a passing interest in the high-flying world of warplanes, and featuring first-rate photography and a wealth of new world-class illustrations.

This book can only happen with your support. Preorder your copy today here. 

 

India’s 4th generation fighter, the pocket-sized Tejas, is an intriguing design. Resembling a mini Mirage 2000 with the wing of a Viggen — and an empty weight smaller than that of the tiny Gripen — it is an unusual lightweight fighter that is largely misunderstood outside of India. We spoke to test pilot Group Captain Rajeev Joshi to find out more. 

What were your first impressions of Tejas?

“As you walk up to it, you tell yourself – that’s a small one! The notion of aerodynamic shapes come to your mind next; you walk  around the nose and find yourself short of words to explain the wing shape… then you recall – ‘Ah! This is what the reverse compound delta they spoke of looks like’. The ‘Light Aircraft’ part also hits you — literally on the head —when you try to peek into the undercarriage well without bending close enough to the ground. Yet, despite its compactness, the aircraft has a feeling of solidity. Contrary to what you would expect from an aircraft which looks so small, stepping into the seat and looking around for left to right checks is reassuring, and you think ‘Hey, this is not such a tiny cockpit after all’.  Once you strap yourself up, it feels just as comfortable as any mid-size fighter, but don’t include the ‘Flanker’ in that comparison! Neatly laid-out switches, logical control grouping and the glass cockpit seems neat. Reach seems optimal, though higher percentile fellows do report some knocked elbows! Jokes aside, it’s a good cockpit. View over the nose and off your shoulder is good, if not the best in the business. Checks and procedures are minimal, and one could get off the blocks in as less as couple of minutes.

“The full authority Auto Low Speed Recovery makes the aircraft truly carefree, more so than any other fighter in the world…Throw it around as much as you can — when she says ‘no’, she will take over and recover the situation for you. “

It taxies well enough at idle power, and the crisp feel of the nose wheel steer takes you by mild surprise at first, especially if one is used to the steady and comparatively slower feel of the Russian types, but it is easy to get used to it. The checks for take-off, are essentially minimal, and you soon find yourself pushing the GE 404 to the gate. In a clean fighter, take-off acceleration is impressive and likeable. Controls are crisp on the take-off roll, with nose held at the correct angle neatly. The growling of the ‘404 does not show up much in terms of cockpit noise. With a reassuring ‘all-clear’ on the undercarriage panel, you are up and away!”

What is the best thing about it?

“The small size and the good sensor package. The ability of the avionics design to absorb changes and upgrades seamlessly is a positive advantage. The biggest strength of the programme comes from the fact that the design and integration is indigenous. This gives the aircraft the ability to match the best in terms of features, utilities and modes. Small size and low (radar) signature, coupled with a good sensor package, puts the Tejas in a good advantageous spot with respect to bigger birds. The typical ‘first look, first kill’ works very well for the Tejas in a fight, both in the beyond visual and the visual realms. The Helmet Mounted Display System works well in a snap engagement and the coupled missile ‘line of sight’ (LOS) modes allow the first shot to be good. The HMDS is a very versatile piece of equipment for a number of tasks. The handling of the flight control system is fabulous and is being refined continuously. Based on the operational feedback from the fleet, the build up of rates is being refined to make it crisper and yet more responsive. In this area too, the 100% indigenous flight control system is a winner. It’s ours, and can be tweaked continuously. The process is very robust and the feedback about handling and what would ‘feel’ better is addressed very quickly. The full authority Auto Low Speed Recovery makes the aircraft truly carefree, more so than any other fighter in the world. This may be contested, but I’m willing to defend this position in a debate! The ALSR and other higher control law modes put this a notch higher. Throw it around as much as you can — when she says ‘no’, she will take over and recover the situation for you. The control and handling in high gain tasks like aerial refuelling is superb. It will beat contemporaries or older birds in this area. It really makes you feel like a great pilot!”

…and the worst?

“Ironically, the size! It invariably tends to get compared to its bigger cousins in the business. The size essentially limits internal fuel and hence the shorter legs as compared to others. However, if the focus is kept on the fact that it was intended as a light fighter, the fuel fraction is reasonable. The ‘404 and aircraft combo is frugal, and with external tanks and a high flow-rate aerial refuelling system, it’s ok…..”

Love aviation? Over 99.8% of our readers ignore our funding appeals. This site depends on your support. If you’ve enjoyed an article donate here. Recommended donation amount £13. Keep this site going.

How would your rate Tejas in the following categories:

A. Instantaneous turn
“Snaps into it! However, the traditional drag of the delta platform does start showing after a while.”

B. Sustained turn
“Mid mach numbers and mid altitudes, good. Like an aircraft of its size, affected by stores carried.”

C. Acceleration
“Climbs well, and the acceleration is good. The continuing refinement in the drag department is an ongoing process which aims to make this better still. With every drag count being ‘counted’ with a fine tooth comb, it will only get better”

D. Climb rate
“Reasonable and meets the specs laid out.”

E. High alpha performance
“Fabulous! Difficult to enter a difficult situation with respect to this… a very robust control law makes the Tejas a winner here. Do remember though, that comparisons with itsthrust-vector control- equipped Russian cousins would be unfair here. The nose holds up well in low speed fight, and the ALSR makes you trust the aircraft. High angles of attack manoeuvres and reversals are comfortable, albeit with a little ‘barrellish tendency’. Though like any flight control system controlled fighter, the rate of roll and pitch rate does go down with high AoA and/or high pitch angles.”

What is the cockpit like?

“You would not call it a mansion, it’s better described as ‘neat’. Like I said earlier, the space inside is surprisingly un-congested, despite what its external size might suggest. I am a lower percentile fellow, but the some of the jocks flying the Tejas operationally would certainly tip the percentile scales at the top end, and they do not complain!

The existing switchery is minimal and simple. As Tejas is a platform which is operationally evolving, there is space for new hardware panels to come in… it’s been catered for, and that is a good thing. What also helps is that being an open architecture based platform with full glass cockpit, most of what needs to be added is done so in the system. It is handled via existing software and programmable multi-functional (MFDs) and other displays, so the available real estate (though frugal) seems adequate.

The air-conditioning is extremely efficient, perhaps a little too much! You do feel the need to crank up the temp at times. Having operated it across the length and breadth of our country (and we are BIG and touch all extremes!), I have never found it wanting. The initial rush of air feels a lot and is very loud, but the auto management quickly kicks in  to make it a comfortable cockpit. The Martin-Baker seat is a good fit, angled so that you take the G’s well. To sum it, long hauls with air-to-air would be welcome. The three MFDs allow you to see anything on any surface, with an efficiently utilised Up Front Control Panel that lets you handle everything that you are carrying with ease. It is HOTAS (hands on throttle and stick) rich! That part is further sweetened by a ‘near HOTAS’. At Hand Control Panel next to your throttle. Almost all controls for all systems are duplicated across these surfaces, so losing some to a malfunction, does not raise a sweat at all. These retain a good capacity to absorb further systems and their associated controls without maxing out.”

How mature is it? “It is in an operational unit. So that speaks for itself. Open source news source would tell you that the jets in final operational configuration would be delivered soon, and the upgrade to the Tejas Mk 1 is already on! For us, it is a heady new experience, an operational fighter that is evolving. Sound self-contradictory? No, it is mature enough to fight, and yet youthful enough to continuously evolve.”

How does it compare with other fast jets you have flown? Which aircraft has most similar flight characteristics?

“A lot of inspiration for the Tejas came from the Mirage 2000. Of course, the Mirage was a worthy template to look up to, and hence it is quite like it. Flight characteristics-wise? Closest to the Mirage 2000. Lovely similarities in feel and handling.

 

What is the biggest myth about Tejas?

“Before we can tackle the biggest myth, we must first acknowledge the biggest truth. It has taken long years to come, it’s true – you can see this in open sources, it’s no secret. And that leads us to answer the biggest myth about it: that it is not only too late but also less than what was asked for. Now that is a myth. The aircraft is exactly what was asked for. It is nimble, swift, light and frugal. It is also very capable of absorbing new systems for (and I stake my reputation on this) a decade and half to come. It fits right into the slot of a well-made light fighter, which can carry all sorts of heavy and heady new tech for years to come. (tech mind you <Ed: not a super heavy weapon load> as it’s still a light fighter and will always be).

Want some specifics? We’re talking about a superior new radar (either indigenous or imported), superior new missiles (both indigenous and imported), new guided munitions from both our own ODL and new radio; new and more powerful indigenous mission computers and architecture, more powerful displays. AND- the amazing leap-frogging from an air force bird to getting its wet wings! Yes, I am proud of our achievements and I refer to the Tejas Navy having very successfully demonstrated its carrier landings and take-off!

How combat effective is it in its current state?

“It will hold its own with honour in a BVR (beyond visual range) to close-in fight. It can deliver precision guided munitions and iron bombs where they are needed. It’s got aerial refuelling with fat tanks. With this, it is in an operational unit with more coming up. It’s upgrade is rolling: watch out for the Mk 1A in a few years. Teething troubles? Yes of course, they are there, but that is an absolutely normal part of the settling down a fleet from design and development to operational units. So for combat effectiveness, do the maths.”

What was your most memorable flight in Tejas?
“Without a doubt the flight in which I carried out the first aerial refuelling contact of the Tejas.”

Which Tejas variants have you flown?
“The Prototype vehicles, limited series vehicles and of course the in-service series production variant.”

What equipment or kit would you like to see added to Tejas?
“Smaller smart precision munitions for air-to-surface work, to be carried in greater numbers.”

What have been the biggest problems facing the programme?
“Very simply – the time taken in development of multi sectoral multi-dimensional critical core indigenous technology. And very simply again – blessings come along with sanctions: the problems have been overcome and are now simply our strengths.”

What should I have asked you?
“The Tejas story, nay saga…. but honestly, better answered some other time and place. Because now you see, we are busy with the future.”

What do you see as the future of the aircraft?
“A robust and well-rounded upgrade which will be the reason of a successful in service fighter fleet in the short to mid-term, with increasing indigenous systems. The mid to long term future belongs to the next generation birds that will be born out of the success of this one. They are different creatures born out of family. The Medium Weight Fighter and the AMCA are well along in design and may be game changers. Heady days to come.”

 How would you change the programme?
“I wouldn’t. It’s reached this point, and despite its own trials and tribulations, it has done so with an enviable safety record. We, have to just sustain this record with a faster pace (and that is a very tough challenge to rise up to), until one day Hush-Kit’s Joe Coles will ask a test pilot on the MWF and AMCA to answer a few questions on those birds — for a bottle of decent Malbec maybe?”

Special thanks to Harsh Vardhan Thakur

Love aviation? Over 99.8% of our readers ignore our funding appeals. This site depends on your support. If you’ve enjoyed an article donate here. Recommended donation amount £13. Keep this site going.

I considered calling this article ‘Flying & Fighting in the Hawker Hurricane: yes, but not quite a first-hand account) to tie in with this site’s series of excellent pilot interviews. Hush-Kit readers are accustomed to informed, authoritative articles, on flying and fighting in various exotic, high-performance aircraft, representing the best of both Western and Russian technology.  These first-hand accounts come straight from experienced practitioners. The Second World War is in a different category.  Few experienced practitioners from that war are still with us.  Of course, articles from former Hurricane and Spitfire pilots, on flying and fighting in the Hawker Hurricane and the Supermarine Spitfire, would be fascinating.  Thankfully, there are many fine books available, which capture those experiences in the authentic words of people who were there. But accounts by those who flew specifically in the Burma-India theatre are still relatively rare – and accounts of Indian and Burmese personnel rarer still. My book, The Forgotten Few: The Indian Air Force in World War II (HarperCollins India, 2019) makes an attempt to capture some of them.

The Forgotten Few is the first narrative history of the Indian Air Force’s involvement in the Second World War. Informed by access to Indian Air Force squadrons’ war diaries, and first person inputs compiled from over two dozen veterans of the time, it showcases first-person content straight from those veterans, describing the experience of flying and going into combat in Hurricanes, Spitfires and other aircraft of that era. And that experience was very different from the air war over Europe.

The Indian Air Force’s war, indeed that of all the Air Forces in India, was far from being a simple replication of the Battle of Britain in tropical environs.  The physical and meteorological environments were completely different, which drove many changes in equipment and operating procedures.  Even flying clothing had to be re-designed, as may be imagined.  Most importantly, the tasks of the Air Forces in India were different from those of the RAF at home.  They were less about shooting down bombers than about supporting ground (and occasionally naval) forces, by the delivery of fire upon the enemy, sometimes within yards of our own troops; and about reconnaissance and the collection of information, on terrain and enemy dispositions, in an environment with none of the infrastructure that could be taken for granted on the Home Front or in Europe. This was all less spectacular than swirling Battle-of-Britain-type dogfights, but of crucial importance to winning the war in this theatre.

Of course, there were some Battle of Britain parallels. Some fine RAF veterans of the Battle of Britain, and also of the Dams Raid, went on to serve in India; and as elsewhere, they were accorded immense respect.   They and their comrades of the Indian Air Force and the Burma Volunteer Air Force (as well as the RAAF, the RCAF, the RNZAF and the South African Air Force, all of which served in the theatre) wore mostly identical uniforms, and frequently played cricket or football between flying and fighting.  Like them, the Indian Air Force flew Hurricanes (although only from 1943 onwards) and Spitfires (although only when the RAF was moving on to Thunderbolts).  They were all young, high-spirited, and given to schoolboy jokes and pranks.  They too, like the mythical Kilroy, Were There.

Indian airmen served during the Second World War in far smaller numbers than Indian soldiers, but again like Kilroy, they showed up in many theatres. Indian Air Force personnel served in the skies over England and France, and also in the Middle East and North Africa.  Broad recognition of Indian contribution has improved in the last few years, prompted partly by commemorations and publications around the centenary years of the First World War.  But the Second World War was a more complex involvement. Indians took on more complex roles, sometimes in the face of strong imperial prejudice.

For the most part, India embraced its role. Indian princely families made significant contributions to the war effort, and some young princes joined the Indian Air Force, just as during the First World War some Indian princes joined elite cavalry regiments. The Indian film and entertainment industry actively supported the war effort, and outside official view there were some unscripted romances between dashing young flyboys and glamorous figures from the film industry, even across national divides. There were also connections to the Indian cricket world, although Indian cricketers did not have the celebrity status then which they enjoy now.

Beyond fighting and flying in Hurricanes and Spitfires, there is an incredibly rich vein of Second World War stories in India.  This book starts to tell a few of them.

— K S Nair

Love aviation? Over 99.8% of our readers ignore our funding appeals. This site depends on your support. If you’ve enjoyed an article donate here. Recommended donation amount £13. Keep this site going.

It seems hard to even mention Blackburn  (‘Blackburn Aircraft Limited’ – and boy, weren’t they) without eliciting anecdotes about terrible, stolid, ugly or fatal aircraft. But does Blackburn deserve this reputation? Matthew Willis finds out. 

A few years ago this author proposed, half-jokingly, the Twitter hashtag #FirebrandFriday which was met, within minutes, with shrieks of horror – ‘but it was a godawful deathtrap!’ – from a prominent defence expert not entirely unknown to this blog. Mention of the Skua invariably leads to someone repeating ‘a seabird that folds its wings and dives into the sea’ before too long. The Botha is one of those aircraft about which a mythical test pilot is rumoured to have written ‘entry to the aircraft is difficult. It should be made impossible.’

Half of the aircraft on this list of the 10 worst British aircraft are from Blackburn

Blackburn seems alone in the largely awful reputation of its products. No UK aircraft manufacturer has escaped its share of unfortunate aircraft – much of the latter designs of Supermarine were clumsy, dangerous and had a loss rate that made them virtually disposable. Avro, meanwhile proved itself incapable of designing an airliner bigger than a regional feeder machine that didn’t kill frighteningly high numbers of passengers. In most cases this didn’t define the company. With Blackburn, it seems, all the mud stuck.

The company was one of the earliest manufacturers in Britain to attain much success. Robert Blackburn was an engineer who became obsessed with flight in the 1900s while working in France, taking more time off work than his employers appreciated to go and see the Wrights, Blériot and Hubert Latham in their ‘flying machines’. On his return to England in 1908, he immediately began his efforts to emulate these pioneers, and built a monoplane that was completed the following year. This was a rather unconventional affair with several touches that marked it out as the product of an engineer rather than an aeronaut. For one thing, it was built for strength – something that Blackburn products would be accused of throughout the company’s life – and incorporated interesting features such as a fore-and-aft sliding seat to adjust the centre of gravity. The general arrangement was disposed to confer great stability in the air, with all the heavy items – pilot, engine and fuel/coolant tanks – suspended well below the wing. Blackburn failed to appreciate that this might involve too much of a good thing. He made a few hops with this aircraft along a beach in Yorkshire, but sideslipped into the ground on attempting to turn, against the mass trying to prevent the aircraft from rolling.

Top 16 Royal Navy aircraft here. 

Unhurt and undeterred, Blackburn tried again, and this time produced an elegant if conventional monoplane that flew well. At this point he went into the aircraft-manufacturing business, offering to build aircraft to others’ designs, while putting the successful second monoplane up for sale. A larger development of this aircraft, called the Mercury, was produced in 1912 and nine of them were built – a decent production run for a pre-WW1 aircraft. Further aircraft along the same lines were produced in ones and twos, each slightly more refined than the last, until the outbreak of war in 1914.

 

If Blackburn had continued remained unambitious, perhaps it might have become known as a competent if unimaginative maker of attractive aeroplanes. The outbreak of war, however, saw Blackburn’s unconventional, engineering mindset imposing itself once again. The Admiralty called for an aircraft of unparalleled endurance that could hunt Zeppelins, remaining aloft for many hours, even through the night, on patrol for the menacing dirigibles. For its ‘TB’, Blackburn came up with a layout that wasn’t repeated on a production aircraft until the P-82 Twin Mustang of 1945 – two fuselages, each with an engine and cockpit (although only one had controls).

The TB was intended to be powered by a new 150hp engine of low fuel consumption, but beginning something of a trend for Blackburn, this powerplant failed to become available and it had to make do with lower-powered units. The TB was perhaps over-ambitious, and an alarming flex between the two fuselages could never quite be overcome. Not giving up, Blackburn went back to the drawing board and applied the TB’s wing cellule to a conventional twin-engined layout, with a long, narrow fuselage. The resulting aircraft, known as the Kangaroo, was pretty good, and with decent power (250hp RR Falcon), it made the perfect long-range anti-submarine aircraft. In August 1918, a Kangaroo of 246 Squadron RAF discovered the U-boat UC70 lying on the bottom, reported its position and bombed it, causing sufficient damage that it was easy prey when a Royal Navy destroyer reached the scene.

Seafire story here

Blackburn was best known over the company’s life as a provider of aircraft carrier-based aeroplanes. Unsurprisingly this began with an aircraft that was as innovative as it was clunky. Blackburn was developing a talent for creating solutions that were elegant in engineering terms while being shockingly inelegant visually. The 1919 Blackburd – yes, that was honestly what they chose to call it – torpedo bomber was among the most hideous of the company’s many unattractive products. The reason for this was mostly in its fuselage. For many years aircraft manufacturers had simplified wing construction with constant-section mainplanes.

For the Blackburd, Blackburn applied this principle to both wing and fuselage. This had certain advantages – the four longerons were identical to each other, as were all the vertical and horizontal members. It was ideal for wartime mass production – a feature which was largely useless now the war was over – but conferred the aesthetics of a brick.

The Admiralty rejected the Blackburd, and Blackburn tried again in 1920. This resulted in the Dart, an aircraft that was beautifully svelte compared to the Blackburd and unappealingly stodgy compared with just about everything else. But the Dart was a fine aeroplane. It handled beautifully and was a thoroughly practical carrier aircraft. It was easy to land on the small carriers of the early interwar period, even at night, and served for ten years. The Dart was replaced by evolutions of the concept, the Ripon and Baffin, which made Blackburn the sole supplier of torpedo aircraft to the RN between 1921 and 1936.

With the follow-up to the Baffin, the Shark, they almost did it again. The Shark was a thoroughly modern machine for the time (more modern than its competitor from Fairey). Unfortunately for Blackburn, this was where things started to go wrong. Blackburn wanted the Bristol Pegasus engine, but the Air Ministry insisted on the unreliable Armstrong Siddeley Tiger. Problems with the oil system and engine mount were easily resolved, but gave the aircraft a terrible reputation with aircrews (unsurprisingly, given that the engine on the Mk.I had the unpleasant habit of trying to detach itself in flight). Sharks were introduced in 1935 and retired in 1937, despite being fundamentally a good design.

The next two service types from Blackburn only served to reinforce this ill fortune, in many respects ill-deserved though it was. The Skua dive bomber-fighter was, again, in many respects a very good aeroplane. It was a superb dive-bomber, but the Admiralty had decided in its wisdom that it needed its dive bomber to be a fighter too, and this was the use to which it was most often put in the early years of WW2. Once again, Blackburn did not get its choice of engine, and a two-seat fighter stressed for dive-bombing with a 900hp Bristol Perseus was never going to sparkle in the air. In 1940, the idea of a fighter with a maximum speed of 225mph was laughable to everyone but the aircrews who had to go to war in it. It didn’t help that being the first monoplane in service with the Fleet Air Arm meant a painful adjustment to new characteristics. The Skua could catch the unwary with its stall. Then there was the fact that the worn-out machines were repurposed as fighter trainers, and most pilots’ experience of them was in this state – hardly likely to endear itself to would-be aces. The Skua’s contemporary, the Botha, was intended to be a coastal bomber and torpedo aircraft on the same lines as the Bristol Beaufort. While both the Botha and the Beaufort ended up overweight, only Bristol was granted permission to use more powerful engines. The Botha was retired ignominiously in less time than the Shark had been.

Blackburn’s follow-up to the Skua was typical of the company in so many ways. Innovative engineering, solid – perhaps too solid – construction, but denied the best engine, and suffering from official meddling and poor timing. The Firebrand started life as a two-seat fighter and was endlessly mucked about with by changing Admiralty requirements and Air Ministry diktats. The original, Hercules-powered aircraft was to have a lightweight fixed undercarriage and twin tails.

The next iteration was to be even more unconventional, with full-span slotted flaps and spoiler-type ailerons allowing good carrier landing characteristics with a smaller wing for higher performance. It was poked and prodded into a Napier Sabre powered single-seat fighter, then attack aircraft, with by now conventional wings. Again, it had much going for it – a huge load-carrying ability and range, and despite its large size, it was reasonably manoeuvrable, including being fully aerobatic with a torpedo attached. Then the Air Ministry struck again, insisting that the Navy could not have any Sabres and the Firebrand would have to be redesigned with Bristol Centaurus power. Years were spent working the Firebrand into a useful aircraft, and it could have been something like a British Skyraider, but we will never know as it could only be accommodated on the larger fleet carriers, and none of these took part in the Korean conflict. (The RN’s Nato commitments also meant that it had to retain torpedo squadrons in Northern waters).

Over 99.8% of our readers ignore our funding appeals. This site depends on your support. If you’ve enjoyed an article donate here. Recommended donation amount £12. Keep this site going.

After WW2, Blackburn continued to plug away, submitting designs for Air Ministry requirements and mostly being rejected. They built a prototype strike aircraft based on Firebrand experience but there was no call for it, and a prototype anti-submarine aircraft that lost out to the Fairey Gannet.

The one major success of the immediate postwar period – the Beverley transport aircraft – began life as a General Aircraft project and was only inherited by Blackburn when it took over that company in 1949. The company’s redemption, when it came, was dramatic. Finally, by the mid-50s as naval aircraft were approaching transonic speeds, it was appropriate to build them like tanks. The NA39 – later named Buccaneer – was tendered for a requirement for a nuclear-armed carrier strike aircraft to operate at high subsonic speeds at low levels. Blackburn pulled its trademark characteristics together – innovation, engineering elegance, pugnacious appearance and bulletproof construction. And this time, it all came right. Well, almost – as usual, it was the engines that initially let the Buccaneer down, with the de Havilland Gyron leaving the Buccaneer S.1 somewhat underpowered. The RR Spey-engined S.2, however realised the huge potential in the Buccaneer and the aircraft proved a potent weapon in the FAA’s armoury from 1960 until the service gave up fixed wing flying in 1978 (including a ‘show of force’ to persuade Guatemala not to invade Belize in 1975), and then for the RAF until 1994 (including highly accurate strikes during the first Gulf War of 1991).

Blackburn was undoubtedly unlucky with some of its aircraft. Had things turned out differently, the Shark might have been the hero of Taranto and the Bismarck, the Skua might have been the British answer to the Douglas SBD, the Firebrand might have been a feared mud-mover in Korea. The unfortunate looks of many Blackburn aircraft probably didn’t help. After all, in a world where the myth of ‘If it looks right, it probably flies right’ still persists, looks count.

I say it’s time to celebrate Blackburn. Sure, it never produced anything with the perfect poise of a Spitfire, Mosquito or Hunter, but most of its machines were surprisingly good and the Buccaneer was one of the outstanding strike aircraft of the 20th century.

Over 99.8% of our readers ignore our funding appeals. This site depends on your support. If you’ve enjoyed an article donate here. Recommended donation amount £12. Keep this site going.

#FirebrandFriday anyone?

— Matthew Willis

Matthew Willis’ book on the Blackburn Shark, featuring 100 historic photographs, detailed scale plans, and colour artwork by Chris Sandham-Bailey,  is now available from MMP Books