It has been said that all naval aircraft for aircraft carrier use after the War had to fold up into the same width as a Seafire – because that determined the available lift size. Is this true?

Well, maybe not quite, but similar considerations apply to the question of the AW101 and its use of three engines.

Conceptual Design Background

To discuss this question it is worth considering how the conceptual design process works. First, the customer (through the Operational Requirement staff and with Defence Equipment & Support (or MoD PE, as it was then)) identifies a capability gap and commissions preliminary feasibility or concept studies to look at options for addressing this gap.

These options will investigate different technology options to determine what potential solutions could be available to meet the capability requirements within the required timescale at an acceptable cost and risk. (In this instance, Multi-Role Fleet Helicopter; Sea King Replacement; and WG34 (also known as SKR Option 5) studies).

The diagram below gives some idea of the subsequent process. The ‘Requirements & Constraints’ at this early stage are likely to be expressed in terms of a Target. Later on as the project matures, this will harden into a Requirement (used as the basis of a competition to down-select a contractor for the development phase).

Once the solution has been selected for development, that work and the subsequent acceptance of the design will be against a contractually-binding specification.

Operational analysis is used in this process to analyse the Concept of Operation at the system level. OA and trade studies are used to identify how changes in technology influence the effectiveness of individual sub-systems and system attributes (such as manoeuvrability, survivability, detectability, threat detection and prosecution, flight performance, environmental limitations, etc). Parametric cost assessments and risk analysis then allow optimisation in terms of cost effectiveness.

The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes will feature the finest cuts from Hush-Kit along with exclusive new articles, explosive photography and gorgeous bespoke illustrations. Order The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes here

Physical integration (packaging) is likely to set hard constraints on some elements of the system and generally requires design activity (i.e. drawing of the system solution – nowadays on a CAD system).

Effects of a ‘stove-piped’ view

Now, each specialist area tends to have a strong view of how the project should emerge, based on their specific perspective. (We must use this new armour, the radar signature requires these strategies etc. This results in the sort of cartoon reproduced below:

It is the job of the Head of Projects, or the Configuration Team to make sensible cross-system trade-offs to produce a solution which, if not ideal, is acceptable to all.

Naval helicopter design drivers

In the instance of AW101, it is useful to consider the ‘influence diagram’ below, which gives some idea of how specific requirements and factors influence the design solution of a naval shipboard helicopter.

In looking at this diagram, it is instructive to consider how many aspects of the design and the underlying requirements end up driving the system weight.

Now, the system level requirements from the customer (typically driven by his Operational (and Threat) Analysis) include: Performance Requirements (including mission profile), Speed, Deck Motion, Mission Equipment, Endurance, and Crew numbers.

In addition to these there will be a number of Mandatory Requirements (sometimes driven by policy, and sometimes specific to a particular Capability), which have to be addressed. These may also be known as Key Performance Parameters or KPPs.

Examples of candidate KPPs could include

• Crashworthiness,
• EMC and EMP protection,
• Sonar and radar system performance,
• Engine failure criteria (e.g. an engine failure at a critical point during take-off must not result in jettison of weapons or stores on the ship deck)
• Ship deck & hangar size (must be able to operate from a Type 23 ship’s deck and be stowed in a Type 23 hangar
• Environmental (operation in specified environmental conditions – wind, temperature, icing conditions, sea state, deck motion, etc.
• Crew numbers and anthropometry
• Mission profile and endurance
• Weapons and defensive aids fit and capability.

Impact on Design

A further constraint for EH101 (in the early design stage) was the desire to be able to deliver a helicopter with civil certification at the same time as the proposed military utility and naval variants. To meet project timescales, this required that the helicopter make use of an existing engine that was either already certified or on track to so being. (This is because the development and certification of a new engine in parallel to a new airframe would result in unacceptable programme timescale, performance and cost risks).

The mission capabilities for EH101 were expressed in terms of a mission endurance of some five hours with a certain number of crew, plus search radar, sensors, communication equipment, defensive aids and weapons. This mission profile and equipment and crew requirements indicated, via the feasibility studies, a take-off mass of some 13 tonnes (some 33% heavier than the Sea King).

This blog needs donations to carry on to, please donate here to keep us independent. We need your donations to keep this labour-intensive lunacy going. 

There was, however, a mandatory requirement (KPP) that the new helicopter be compatible with the existing Type 23 Frigate landing deck and hangar size. This restricted the rotor diameter essentially to that of the existing Sea King.

With a given rotor diameter, the power required for a helicopter to hover depends on its all-up weight raised to the power 1.5. This implies that a helicopter 33% heavier than the Sea King, with the same rotor diameter, will require 54% more power to hover under the same conditions.

A quick review of available certified engines reveals that three CT7s (or RTM-322s) providing a total 5,100 hp would meet this requirement, compared with the 3,320 hp of the two Gnomes in the Sea King. The need for three engines emerges from these factors, not from any design criteria placed at the outset by the customer.

Of course, by the time a procurement contract is written, the associated Specification will be written around the selected solution and reflect the use of three CT7 engines.

Is this an optimum solution?

The answer to this is both yes and no.

Whereas, on narrow cost and complexity grounds, the three-engine solution would probably not be favoured, a properly constructed COEIA (combined operational effectiveness and investment appraisal) would probably show that it is justified.

This is primarily because the alternative solution (using a pair of newly-developed 2,600 hp engines) would incur significant additional up-front cost, timescale and performance risk, in parallel with the required airframe development.

In this case, the Type 23 ship deck and hangar are analogous to the possibly apocryphal size of the aircraft carrier lift to suit a Seafire.

It also demonstrates that KPPs are capable of driving a design in a particular direction irrespective of the results of any Operational Analysis.

(Although, to be fair, the mission equipment (sensors, weapons and defensive aids) and their performance, mission profile, crew numbers and environmental requirements are probably all driven by appropriate OA and Threat Analysis).

I should say that I did not participate at this level in the EH101 projects, although I was on the Configuration Team of NH90 during its Feasibility and Pre-Definition Study (up to the point where the UK Government withdrew from the programme). –– Former Head of Future Projects at Westland Helicopters, Dr Ron Smith

This blog needs donations to carry on to, please donate here to keep us independent. We need your donations to keep this labour-intensive lunacy going. 

 

“The Testors toy company released this model 2 years after their very successful F-19 kit and only about a year before the F-117 appeared in public. It’s a pretty ugly beast, but, let’s not hold that against it, given the impact that designing for low signature had on Have Blue and the F-117. So what have Testors’ done in ‘Russianizing’ their F-19 stealthy strike concept? Well, somewhere along the way, the Testors team appear to have heard some whispers about ‘The Black Jet’, as insiders were referring to the F-117. The MiG-37 model has outward canted fins, and has a facetted structure, while retaining the letterbox-slot exhaust of their F-19 concept. While the appearance of these features may have caused some disquiet in some circles, there was by this time some awareness of strange black aircraft operating up in Tiger Country (the far reaches of the Nellis, Tonopah and Area 51 complexes). In addition, the Pentagon was moving towards first, disclosure that the F-117 existed, and then, the presentation to families and the media which I attended.

The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes will feature the finest cuts from Hush-Kit along with exclusive new articles, explosive photography and gorgeous bespoke illustrations. Order The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes here

As well as some of the F-117 features, Testors has done quite a good job of giving the aircraft a Russian look. Partly, the use of a MiG-23- like undercarriage, and partly subtle stylistic and colour scheme aspects which just convey a less-Western look. Paradoxically, the crude-looking faceted shaping turned out to be more accurate than the smooth surfaces of their F-19 concept. From a propulsion perspective, the intakes perhaps look a little more likely to work than those of the F-19, and still bear no resemblance to those of the F-117. From a stealth perspective, however, the whole aircraft is full of changes in angle which look counter productive to maintaining a low signature. In particular, the under-surface of the aircraft does not feature the flat surface of the F-117, and appears unlikely to be successful in managing the MiG-37 ‘s signature. In addition, the changes in sweep of the planform, the gaps and joins around wing slats and other features, and the intakes all suggest a less successful stealth design. Aerodynamically, the MiG-37 concept would probably have been more efficient and easier to manage than either the F-19 or the F-117, as the moderately swept wings would allow the use of high lift devices and a significantly lower take-off and landing speed. Like the F-19, the relatively conventional cockpit would probably have resulted in a less constrained environment for the pilot than the essentially pyramidal F-117 cockpit. I am a bit concerned about the extremely large fins, coupled with the anhedral of the wing, which might lead to unusual lateral-directional handling, but again, there is nothing terrible about the configuration (given the open-minded approach I am adopting). It is very ugly, but it is not alone in that. Like the F-19 forward fins, I do have a gripe – the dorsal airbrakes just don’t make sense. There-s no way this aircraft would be used as a dive bomber, and the configuration is likely to be draggy enough that airbrakes are unlikely to be needed to manage the approach. Plus they have the disadvantage that they would deny the opportunity to use uber-cool black silk parachutes deployed by the 2 F-117s that came ‘out of the black’ at Nellis in April 1990. Summing up the MiG-37 – ugly, but closer to the appearance of the F-117 than the F-19. In the aerodynamics vs stealth trade off, perhaps the solution has better aerodynamics than stealth.”

If you decide to donate to the Hush-Kit blog (because you like this kind of thing and want to see more) please donate here. We need your donations to keep this labour-intensive lunacy going. Do it or else I’ll destroy an Edgley Optica. 

“Several different F-19 kits are available, I am going to comment on the Testors one, as I believe it was the first, and most successful. 

However, the one from Monogram, shown below, resembles closely a supposed Northrop F-19 concept, which, who knows, may have had some actual reality as a project.

The whole F-19 saga appears to be littered with guesswork and disinformation, but I have chosen to look at the Testors concept, partly because that is a kit I remember seeing when it first appeared.

The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes will feature the finest cuts from Hush-Kit along with exclusive new articles, explosive photography and gorgeous bespoke illustrations. Order The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes here

Before commenting on the design of the ‘F-19’ and the MiG-37B ferret, I should first say a few words about the F-117. I was in the States when this aircraft first appeared in public, working for the British Embassy in Washington. Through my role, I was at Nellis AFB on April 21, 1990 when the aircraft first appeared in public. One of the reasons I was there was that we had had a pilot flying the aircraft as a RAF exchange posting for a few years prior to its existence being acknowledged.

Here’s a couple of pictures from that day – the full story is in Two Up, a book by myself and my twin brother Ron (recently reprinted in hardback and also available as an e-book). 

I put these F-117 pictures in this article to remind readers just how bizarre and unlikely-looking this aircraft was at first sight. Consequently, it is important to have an open mind when looking at the F-19 and the MiG-37B.

So, the F-117 looks pretty unlikely, but what did the F-19 concept designers get right and wrong?

Well, one thing that was clearly in their minds was that attention needed to be paid to the Infra-red signature as well as the radar signature. Consequently, they seem to have made a couple of good guesses regarding the exhaust system. This resembles the F-117 letterbox style exhaust, and also incorporates (I assume) additional cooling by mixing the exhaust with additional air drawn from the intake louvres on the upper surface of the model. The F-117 achieves the same effect through using cool engine bypass air.

The fins on the F-19 model are canted inwards. The configuration is similar to that used in the initial Have Blue demonstrator aircraft which preceded the F-117. This was either a very good guess, or suggests some awareness of Have Blue.

At the other end of the propulsion system, a shielded NASA flush inlet is used. These inlets normally work by using the shaped inlet sides to create vortices which entrain flow into the inlet. I’m not sure the Testors solution would have worked very well as an inlet, but the triangular shield over the inlet is clearly intended to block a direct line of sight to the engine face.

The F-117 solution may look crude, but is actually an elegant solution to this problem. A grid is placed in front of the intake with a mesh size smaller than the wavelength of the radar systems against which the aircraft is designed. This prevents RF energy from entering the intake and being reflected back towards the illuminating radar.

 

The F-19 and the F-117 share one design feature in having a largely flat underside. This avoids excrescences and apertures which could reflect radar over a broad range of scattering angles. However, the F-19 designers were clearly not aware of the simple and inelegant solution adopted by Lockheed in the F-117, of using faceting, surface and edge alignment to constrain radar reflections to very narrow spikes to reduce the probability of a track on the aircraft being maintained. As a result, the F-19 under-surface is smooth and uncluttered, but not as flat as that of the F-117. The optical sensor is under the nose, rather than in front of the cockpit as on the F-117, which would perhaps be more difficult to screen.

The F-19, instead of adopting the very highly-swept planform of the F-117, uses a narrow curved-delta design, in some ways reminiscent of a stretched F-4D Skyray, with a break in sweep where the fuselage transitions into the wing, and a curved leading edge and wing tip.

Would this work as a stealth configuration? The disadvantage is that the break in planform would probably cause a local return, and the curved planform would spread returns so that they were likely to be detectable over a broader aspect. Making this sort of shape work would probably require extensive use of tailored electro-magnetic materials to control the nature and aspect of radar returns, but this would not have been available when the model emerged, in 1986, four years before Stealth was unveiled at Nellis AFB.

Would the design work aerodynamically? Well, the F-117 is no paragon of aerodynamic efficiency, and the F-19 wouldn’t be either. Given the planform, I’d expect lift dependent drag to be pretty high, and given the intake design, I’d expect a long take-off run, and great care to be required to stay on the right side of the drag curve on the approach. With questionable intake efficiency, particularly at any significant incidence, and a slender low aspect ratio design, getting into a high sink rate on the approach could be a distinct possibility. But otherwise, noting the need to keep an open mind – why not?

I am puzzled by the curious upward pointing fins on the upper surface behind the cockpit. These appear likely to de-stabilise the aircraft in yaw, which is probably not what it needs.

Overall, inefficient, yes, but arguably little more implausible than the real F-117. Testors missed some of the simple but effective stealth features of the F-117, but did identify some of the other features.” 

Jim Smith had significant technical roles in the development of the UK’s leading military aviation programmes. From ASRAAM and Nimrod, to the JSF and Eurofighter Typhoon. He was asked by the British Government to assess the YF-22 and YF-23; we wondered what he would make of a totally fictional aircraft, the titular Firefox from the 1982 Clint Eastwood film.

Hush-Kit’s Editor has asked me for my thoughts about three fictional aircraft: the Firefox; the F-19 and the MiG-37B. Firefox featured in two films, Firefox and Firefox Down. The F-19 was the subject of a famous kit by Testors, and a completely different kit by Monogram. These very different concepts purport to be based around aircraft sighted around Area 51 at the time. The MiG-37B is a concept for a Russian stealth fighter of the F-117 genre, and was the subject of a kit also by Testors. This first study will look at the Firefox. 

Firefox

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.

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.

 

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  

This book can only happen with your support. 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.

A 1957 patent by Skunk Works genius Nathan C. Price envisioned Mach 4 airliners shaped like cigars. Powered by ramjets, capable of vertical take-off and flying in the mid-Stratosphere, the designs almost certainly started as a Black project with a military application in mind. 

The Boeing Model 307 Stratoliner was the first commercial transport aircraft to enter service with a pressurised cabin, thanks to the ingenious cabin pressure regulator created by Nathan C. Price. He also developed the supercharger for the P-38 Lightning fighter without which it would had lacklustre performance at higher altitudes. He was an early champion of the axial-flow jet engine and an important figure in US jet propulsion development.

He was exceptionally far-sighted in his vision: his Lockheed L-133 design (above), work on which started in 1939, was for a blended wing-body canard delta jet fighter capable of 612mph. By the 1950s, as Lockheed’s senior engineer, he was happily designing Mach 4 flying saucers— but even these were conventional compared to his next one. He proposed an airliner with no wing, no control surfaces, no visible cockpit and it was to have a cruising speed between Mach 3-4 and be capable of vertical take-off and landing! 

The machine was essentially a ramjet-powered missile, albeit full of holiday-makers. Ramjets can only function at high speeds, so in order to reach these speeds it harnessed the power of a clutch of turbojet engines. Vertical takeoff and landing would take place by directing the exhaust gases of the turbojets (using the Coandă effect Effect: the tendency of a fluid jet to stay attached to a convex surface). Without visible control surfaces steering was to be via selective vectored thrust channelled through louvres.

The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes will feature the finest cuts from Hush-Kit along with exclusive new articles, explosive photography and gorgeous bespoke illustrations. Order The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes here

Once the huge ramjet kicked in the machine was expected to reach 100,000ft, and achieve intercontinental ranges. The machine would utilise inertial guidance and have a high degree of automation — but would carry a crew to manage emergencies. It is believed that wind tunnel testing took place, though fascinating concept was never built.

It was filed as a patent in 1957 but it was not listed until late 1964. Though revealed as an airliner it seems highly likely — considering both Skunk Works history and the Cold War context —  that the study begun life as a military aircraft, most likely a nuclear strike platform or reconnaissance aircraft.

Is the Gripen E too good to be true? Hushkit met Richard Smith the Head of Marketing & Sales for the Saab Gripen to find out more.  When I interviewed the widely respected aviation journalist Bill Sweetman in 2013, I pointed out the Typhoon, F-22 and F-35 programmes have all received a great deal of criticism, but could he give an example of a well-run military aircraft project? He replied: “Almost anything from the land of blondes, aquavit and IKEA.” In an article Sweetman wrote for Aviation Week he argued that there was a case for describing the forthcoming Gripen E/F as the first sixth generation fighter. Whereas fifth generation was an old (1980s) concept based on the use of stealth and superior situational awareness to defeat a well-equipped (but easy to find and identify) enemy, Saab’s vision of 6th Gen Gripen E is a new kind of machine that puts kinematics second, and software and ISR capabilities first. What ‘software first’ means is that all the important software in Gripen E should be far easier to upgrade than in rival platforms. This is a big deal, as military aircraft technology currently moves at a glacial pace compared to that of the commercial world, such as the rapid developments in smart phones. The conventional approach would have been to produce a higher performance lower-observable fighter, a programme which would have proved too expensive for Sweden. As Sweetman put it in the Aviation Week article, “The requirements were deliberately constrained because the JAS 39E is intended to cost less to develop, build and operate than the JAS 39C, despite doing almost everything better.” While the aircraft will not have the stealth and super-cruising abilities of the F-22, the super-manoeuvrability of the Su-35 or impressive weapons-carrying performance of the Rafale, the Gripen E will be an extremely potent aircraft punching well above its weight. Weight and cost often correlate for military aircraft and it is interesting to note that the F-35, intended as the ‘low’ (weight/capability) to the F-22’s ‘high’, has an empty weight of 13154 kg, compared to the Gripen E’s svelte 8000 kg (the respective maximum take-off weights are 27000 kg and 16500 kg). Though the F-35 may, by a combination of manipulation and mass production, eventually have a competitive quoted price tag, the Gripen E will be far cheaper to operate and maintain. The Gripen has a history of punching above its weight class, with the C/D frequently entered in procurement competitions against the middle-weight Typhoon, Gripen and late-life F-16. Indeed when Hush-Kit asked Jim Smith , who had significant technical roles in the development of the  the JSF and Eurofighter Typhoon, to rank modern modern fighter aircraft he put the Meteor-armed Gripen in joint 2nd place (just behind the F-22) as a homeland air defence fighter (ranking it higher than the current Typhoon, Rafale, Su-30/ F-18E/F, F-15, Su-35, J-11, F-35 and the J-20). He noted, “Starting with Air Defence, let’s suppose you have a small-ish nation, where the Government does not have global dominance in its agenda. For such a nation, the key aim is deterrence, ensuring that any country wishing to invade or dominate you cannot easily do so. For such a nation, Gripen/Meteor might be the ultimate air defender, especially if you have a well-integrated air defence system and dispersed bases. Never being far from the border or a base, fuel volume and even weapons load don’t matter so much, because you’ll scoot back to your cave and re-arm/refuel. Having a big stick, however, is great, because you can defeat threats while keeping out of their missile range.” While some of the ‘Christmas tree ‘ loadouts (seven Meteors!) displayed by Saab seem unlikely to be carried operationally, the Gripen will be able to carry significantly more fuel and ordnance than its predecessor. Intrigued by the Gripen E, I caught up with the Gripen’s Head of Marketing & Sales Richard Smith to find out more.

The Gripen E/F are now in development, what’s new about them? I could write rather a lot on this question alone. Hopefully we will cover a lot in the coming questions. I would like to start by saying why a Brit ended up working at Saab. I came here as part of the original Gripen joint venture between Saab and BAE SYSTEMS, after working for several years on the Hawk programme. But after 6 years, I stayed in Sweden, and joined Saab. Why? Many reasons, but one is that this company is outstanding. It empowers everybody, encourages out of the box thinking, and drives innovative thinking in every area. That way of thinking, that way of working is what makes Gripen such a good product, and many underestimate just how operationally outstanding this fighter system is. Our way of doing things is doing them better and smarter than others. So what have we done that is better and smarter with Gripen E? We have understood that the future of air combat is going to be defined by technology – and we have built a system that truly adapts and embraces new technologies in a way that will keep us ahead of 21st century threats – fast. This is achieved through our deep and long experiences in sensor fusion and a revolutionary avionics system. For me, it means that the talk of generations, I hear so much of from within the industry just no longer means anything at all. The technology we have now, the ideas Saab engineers are working on, ensure that Gripen quite literally transcends all generations.

When it be ready to enter frontline service? Deliveries are scheduled from 2019 to Sweden and Brazil.

Who has ordered Gripen E/F it and in what numbers? Sweden 60, Brazil 36

Its thrust-to-weight ratio seems the lowest of fighters in production, is this true and if not, what is lower? In this context I can say the thrust-to-weight is certainly enough. The design of the aircraft makes it very slick, compare it to a hot knife cutting through butter. This is quite an “old school” question, as the modern warfare is not as dependent on turn and burn fights any longer.

How does it compare in terms of Agility/manoeuvrability with the following platforms: 1.Rafale 2. Typhoon 3. F-35 4. Su-35? Well I can’t or rather we don’t comment on the competition, other than saying these aircraft are all good. But with Gripen E operational capabilities and technological advances – in a “knife-fight” we bring the “gun”.

Without the generosity of our readers we could not exist, please donate here. We are extremely grateful to all those who choose to donate. Recommended donation £15. 

Some companies avoid publicly stating the cost of their aircraft, but Saab seems more transparent. The Gripen is touted as a lower cost option, roughly what would a nation buying 24 Gripen E/Fs pay per unit? Well we are very transparent, but won’t give out flyaway prices. I can say that in Brazil the public figures for the total aircraft, support and Industrial package are quite public, and when compared to other public figures, well we deliver value for money.

Approximate cost per flight hour of the E/F? I can say that the cost per flight hours is very good, but the issue to give a figure is that apples are never compared directly with apples, when it comes to this question.

Radar? This (see below) is the current radar performance on the Gripen C with the PS-05 Mk 4 . It has been improved radically to cope with the change of threats and the integration of METEOR. The AESA on the Gripen E will continue the technology improvement path building on an already capable system – check out this link for the Gripen E raven radar.http://www.leonardocompany.com/en/-/raven-1

Manhours per flight hours of E/F? The Gripen E/F has the same stringent standards set on the expected performance as the Gripen C/D.

General cost of replacement parts compared to mass produced F-16? Impossible to answer, but this is incorporated into the Flight Hour cost and I am totally confident that Gripen is significantly less than any competitor. One further thing to note – we develop fighters that use the best equipment available – tapping into economies of scale – a notable example is that we directly connected to the GE F414 engine.

In the leaked Swiss fighter evaluation (see below) Gripen did very poorly, having an far lower overall score than the F/A-18s it was pitching to replace. It did particularly badly in the categories of detection, combat radius and survivability. Has this been rectified in the new Gripens? How would you respond to the each area of weakness reported? I was the Campaign Director for Switzerland and I won’t comment on the report directly but will say the “leaked” documents covered just a small part of much more thorough evaluation – that by the way Gripen clearly won.

According to Lockheed Martin, the F-35 is the only system that could reliably penetrate a modern air defence system on Day 1 of a war – do you agree with this? Not going to comment on their statements.

Gripen was is first fighter to carry Meteor operationally, how capable are Meteor-armed Gripens compared to AMRAAM/R-77 carriers? AMRAAM C7 is a very capable weapon and we work very closely with Raytheon on the global market. METEOR does have a “significant range”, and very high “no escape” zone. It has range, ram-jet propulsion, data-link communication. Gripen E is designed to be able to carry 7 Meteors. 

Gripen was the first aircraft in the world to become fully operational with the METEOR. The current Swedish Air Force Chief has described the weapon and new radar performance of the Gripen C as “game-changing”. Gripen C, which is operational in Sweden now, is flying operations with Meteor, and can carry 4 Missiles. The Gripen E can be equipped with 7 Meteors, 4 on the wings and 3 under the centre fuselage.

The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes will feature the finest cuts from Hush-Kit along with exclusive new articles, explosive photography and gorgeous bespoke illustrations. Order The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes here

I think many like to boast, but we prefer not to, perhaps that is Swedish Culture. That said, I attach a pdf of some comments made on our capability by others. (Editor notes: Red Flag quote is from a USAF service person)

 How does Gripen compare in terms of reliability to the F-16 and Typhoon? Gripen was designed from the very outset, day 1 of its design, to be easy to maintain and easy to repair. Context here – full air to air re-arm and re-fuel on a FOB in 10 minutes. Can be maintained by 1 fully qualified maintainer and only 5 conscripts. And a full engine change can be made in one hour.

Few land-based fighters have been successfully converted into carrier aircraft, is a Gripen Maritime plausible? Very much so. Gripen is designed for extremely short take-off and landing already.

Tell me something I don’t know about the Gripen I can see that many of your questions focus on ‘turn and burn‘- and sometimes I see discussions on ‘generations’. The modern warfare jet, like Gripen E is designed to be SMARTER than the threat. Technology moves at such high pace, our philosophy to ensure the platform is equipped with new software/hardware, in line with the high speed of technology enhancements. Technology will win the future fight. Gripen is equipped with many modern sensor systems, but why is it so good? Because, Saab excels at sensor fusion, and information interpretation, ensuring the aircraft, sensors and the pilot work as one, no longer just together. To meet this capability Saab has designed an entirely new, some say revolutionary Avionics architecture.

What is the biggest myth about the aircraft? Its name means half Lion, half Eagle!

Without the generosity of our readers we could not exist, please donate here. We are extremely grateful to all those who choose to donate. Recommended donation £15. 

 

When we interviewed RUSI analyst Justin Bronk he noted: “Gripen is a bit of an unknown quantity against modern air superiority machines because it takes a fundamentally different approach to survivability.” What do you think he means by that? 

In terms of the comment by the RUSI analyst – offence is one aspect of warfare, but defence and survivability are equally important as they are the building blocks that ensure the mission is successful. Gripen has a low RCS, a highly advanced AESA<Editor notes: Richard’s answer in this question relate to Gripen E/F which are not yet operational> ,  a passive Infra-Red Search and Track (IRST) sensor system<again this is for future Gripen only) making it difficult to detect, and an improved Electronic Warfare (EW) system for the disruption and detection of threats. All the systems are governed by a new avionics system, where functions that are flight-safety critical are separate from tactical ones.

The improved EW system in Gripen E, MFS-EW (Multi Functional System), is based on the EW product family called Arexis. Arexis is based on wideband digital technology specifically developed for robustness in the very complex signal environment of today. The core technologies in Arexis are ultra-wideband digital receivers and digital radio frequency memory (DRFM) devices, gallium nitride (GaN) solid state active electronically scanned array (AESA) jammer transmitters and interferometric direction finding systems.

The Operational Signal environment for EW systems is becoming more and more complex. Systems developed 20 years ago are not able to handle all these signals, making it difficult to differentiate the threats signals from other signals. MFS-EW is made to handle the signal environment of today and in the future by using ultra wide band digital receivers, advanced signal processing and extensive processing capacity that can distinguish the real threat signals from others. The MFS EW is fully integrated with other tactical mission systems on board the aircraft, and there are also sensor fusion on several layers in the aircraft, combining all tactical sensors in Gripen E such as the AESA Radar, Electro optical sensors, IRST and also the datalink. These sources and sensors are integrated into one high level sensor fusion and situational awareness system for the pilot to enhance the effectiveness of the mission.

Gripen is popularly thought to be the fighter with the greatest ‘connectivity’ – why, and what does that mean exactly? And finally, with years of data-link experiences, that goes as far back as the Draken fighters, Gripen does not just embrace data-links, and connectivity, it has become a world-leader in maximising the benefits of them, and using data links, and connectivity operationally in “wolf pack” tactics.

 

Hush-kit is well behind funding targets, and needs your donations to carry on. Please donate here. We are extremely grateful to all those who choose to donate. Recommended donation £15. 

“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.

Date: March 12

Type: Edgley EA-7 Optica

Operator: Private

Location: Twannock, Suffolk

Details: Edgley Optica piloted by TV presenter Noel Edmonds destroyed attempting to wing-flip a Dutch V1 Doodlebug. Edmonds escaped in the ejection pod but was killed when the pods collided with a passing Dhruv piloted by actor Pauline Quirke. Pauline Quirke sustained Cat 5 damage.

Date: March 22

Type: Fieseler Fi 156 Storch

Operator: Air Uganda

Location: Long Melford. Suffolk

Details: The two pilots baled out from a height of 800ft(244m) after a mechanical failure affecting the onboard milk frother rendered cappuccino creation impossible. According to Uganda media report, one of the crews was a Virgo whose hobbies included ‘going to the theatre’ and ‘butterfly collecting’. The Storch has not been found and is probably still flying over the sea somewhere.

Date: April 15

Type: Tupolev Tu-22M3 & Tipsy Nipper

Operator: Russian Air & Space Force

Location: Coddenham, Suffolk

Details: Due to a malfunction, the Tipsy Nipper (piloted by British poet Pam Ayres) made a belly landing on top of a Russian Tu-22M3 flying in support of Ipswich police force’s anti moped thief initiative Operation Banjo. The Tu-22M3 crew ejected but landed on top of a CapriSun sponsored blimp flying at lower altitude; the crew bounced back into their aircraft which then crashed into a bouncy castle at Coddenham Village Fete causing the aircraft’s flamed-out engines to re-light. The Tu-22M3 with the Tipsy Nipper on top, landed safely at its home base, Essex & Suffolk Gliding Club, Colchester. Pam Ayres has been detained by local police after testing positive for ketamine.

Date: April 24

Type: HAL Dhruv (see March 12 incident)

Operator: Hijacked

Location: Garboldisham, Suffolk

Details: After being abandoned outside the village of Twannock, Pauline Quirke’s personal Dhruv was impounded by the self-styled Fens Militia, a local insurgent group, and transported by low-loader to an undisclosed location on the edge of Thetford Forest. Although the helicopter was believed to be beyond repair, a month later it was noted – now in an armed configuration, with improvised drainpipe mortars – taking part in an abortive attempt to ram-raid a jewellers in Garboldisham. The Dhruv is now immovable, wedged between a derelict branch of Maplin’s and a Cash Convertors.

The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes will feature the finest cuts from Hush-Kit along with exclusive new articles, explosive photography and gorgeous bespoke illustrations. Order The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes here

Date: April 26

Type: Aviation Traders ATL-90 Accountant

Operator: Chinese PLAAF/20th Special Missions Division

Location: The Golden Boar pub, Freckenham, Suffolk

Details: This aircraft was shot down by Basque Separatists led by disgraced former Liberal Democrat MP Lembit Öpik reportedly using a Bloodhound surface-to-air missile. Mr Öpik steered the missile to its target by riding on top of the weapon and manipulating the control surfaces. Just prior to impact Mr Öpik leapt from the missile, held aloft by a paraglider of unknown type. He successfully landed in the car park of the Golden Boar. By this time the crew of the Accountant, who had escaped from their stricken aircraft in three Zorbs were inside the pub having a roast. Mr Öpik and the three PLAAF aircrew were forcefully thrown out of from the pub following an argument with a local poacher. 

As German and France lay the groundwork for the next European combat aircraft, Britain’s BAE Systems, long a major player in European defence, remains uninvited. We caught up with Justin Bronk (Research Fellow at the RUSI  think-tank and Editor of RUSI Defence Systems) to find out more about the future of European combat aircraft.  HK: I’m confused at the current state of next generation European combat aircraft studies- who is proposing what at the moment?  The issue is that the three main players, the UK, France and Germany have different conceptual requirements for next generation combat aircraft; and even more crucially completely mismatched timescales for new airframes in service. In simple terms, the UK is looking for a replacement for Typhoon in the 2040 timeframe, France is looking for a replacement for Rafale in the 2030 timeframe and Germany is looking for a replacement for Typhoon in the 2040-50 timeframe but a replacement for Tornado (which may be upgraded Typhoons) in the 2020s timeframe.

The Dassault/Airbus concept is, at this stage, a primarily political undertaking – a statement of intent if you will. For the UK, FCAS means a joint Anglo-French UCAV technology demonstrator programme on the basis of Taranis and the nEUROn. But for France, FCAS encompasses more than this – constituting their larger effort to decide on either a comprehensive upgrade or replacement for Rafale, coupled with possible unmanned systems, enhanced decoys and stand-off munitions.

Why are Dassault and Airbus Defence not mentioning BAE Systems in their proposal?  Firstly, because it is based on a political drive by Merkel and Macron to make a clear statement on deepening European defence industrial cooperation. The UK does not fit into this yet, at least until the terms of Brexit become clear. The latter creates not only political difficulties for high level cooperation, but also has the potential to introduce serious difficulties in terms of tariffs, security and technology exchange barriers if there is a ‘hard Brexit’ outcome. What is the current state of the Anglo-French UCAV- is it likely to happen? As I said before, the problem is that for the UK, the FCAS programme is narrower in scope than for France. Also, all the current budget headspace for future combat air development and acquisition in the MoD is tied up with F-35. In France, there is an intention to keep producing Rafale up to around 2030 but also to explore other options. A future platform might have resulted from FCAS if the UK downsized their F-35 buy at some point in the 2020s but with Brexit, that is less likely now than a Franco-German aircraft. However, it is worth noting that most in the know see Taranis as a fundamentally more advanced stealth UCAV prototype than the nEUROn so in the case of a specifically UCAV solution in future, France and any other European countries would probably still greatly value BAE Systems’ participation if politically and economically viable. Could the UK join as a late partner, would this weaken their influence on the design process? Any late partner in a programme will have far less influence on the design process. The UK is unlikely to be shut out per se from joining a European programme at any point but it is unlikely to be offered the opportunity to tailor any design to RAF specifications if joining at a late stage which would eliminate much of the rationale of not simply buying off the shelf more cheaply from the US. Thank you for reading Hush-Kit. Our site is absolutely free and we have no advertisements. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here– it doesn’t have to be a large amount, every pound is gratefully received. Recommended amount £15. Thank you _____ Why does the German Government seemed opposed to a F-35 buy? Could Typhoon be a viable replacement for German Tornados in the long term?  The Luftwaffe wants F-35 because it sees itself as being more relevant in the future if it is ‘part of the club’ and able to (at least theoretically) go downtown into the enemy SAM missile engagement zones on night one of a conflict. However, the German government doesn’t really see the role of the German armed forces as requiring that. Typhoon, especially if upgraded with the much talked about but very late CAPTOR-E AESA radar and increased weapons carriage capability, could be very useful for the Luftwaffe in a supporting role within a NATO coalition. It is a superior choice compared to the F-35 for contributing standoff munitions such as Storm Shadow or Taurus for SEAD from a distance, for combat air patrols and QRA, and for contributing Meteor shots to an air combat team from high and fast. However, it cannot go into modern SAM engagement zones without support in the same way that F-35 is designed to do. So it depends ultimately on what the German government wants from an air force. Valuable but fundamentally supporting forces (mass) or more exquisite stealth fighters but with limited range, payload capacity and sortie generation compared to Typhoon (capability). Will RAF Typhoons have all they need to replace Tornados next year? Will some capabilities be lost? Will it have a decent tactical recce capability for example. RAF Typhoons will have all the weapons delivery capabilities to replace Tornado in full. In some cases, the greater kinematics of the aircraft enable delivery options that Tornado could not have performed well, but equally, the loss of a rear-seater will limit some workload dependent functions especially in a complex CAS situation, despite the massively superior HMI and carefree controls in Typhoon.

Typhoon can carry the Litening targeting and recce pod, and once the CAPTOR-E radar is in service will also be able to perform SAR mapping functions. However, it has not been equipped with the DB-110 stand-off wide area tactical reconnaissance capability which will be lost when the Tornado retires. The RAPTOR pod which currently houses DB-110 on Tornado is too long to fit on the centreline station underneath Typhoon and too large to be cleared for asymmetric carriage on an underwing pylon. What should BAE Systems do if it wants to maintain or regain the ability to make combat aircraft? 

The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes will feature the finest cuts from Hush-Kit along with exclusive new articles, explosive photography and gorgeous bespoke illustrations. Order The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes here

They need to at least participate in the design and manufacture of a new combat aircraft. This could be a derivative of Typhoon, a UCAV derived from Taranis or something with Turkey or Japan for example. However, all of these options are united by one factor – there is no headspace for supporting them with a funded future UK purchase for the RAF, due for the most part on the costs for the 138 F-35s which we are still slated to eventually buy. If we are to be part of making a new aircraft, the orders have to come from somewhere and foreign orders want domestic manufacturing and workshare. F-35 production will supply BAE Systems will a lot of money over the life of the programme, but no new intellectual property to be traded for future participation in other projects. Furthermore, it will not sustain the vital expertise required to successfully design, test and produce new combat aircraft. ___ Could Britain return as a manufacturer of combat aircraft? 

Once the industrial capability is lost, history suggests it is almost impossible to regain. The ability to design and manufacture combat aircraft relies not only on having access to a huge range of human talents and expertise but also a massively complex supply chain apparatus. This took a century to build and could be lost in a decade. What kind of aircraft or system will the Franco-German studies lead to? If the project remains purely Franco-German then I think it will end up looking something like a Rafale 2.0 with further signature reduction features, upgraded EW suite and the built-in capacity to operate alongside and perform some C2 functions for UCAVs and UAVs. If more partners come in, who knows. Of course, it Europe finds itself in some sort of major conflict in the mean time then it is much more likely to emerge as some sort of UCAV with basic air to air and strike capabilities. Needs must when the Devil drives… Will it need some British technology, say advanced engines?  Britain can still offer superior engine technology to that which France can call on SNECMA for thanks to Rolls Royce’s enormous R&D budget and workforce expertise which is sustained by a huge civil turbofan market share. This is (hopefully) unlikely to change, but if the UK is not involved at all in the programme, then SNECMA might be chosen for political reasons. Should France lead the design process? France has the more exacting military requirements of the two nations, especially with an enduring requirement to be able to operate across Francophone Africa out of mainland France at short notice and sustain operations from austere bases once there. It is also likely to be the larger technology contributor in terms of airframe design and engines. So in a word, yes – unless something major changes such as Germany achieving 2% GDP spend on defence by 2024… Then economics and order numbers might change the equation. What should Europe learn from the Eurofighter and Rafale programmes?  Stick. To. The. Requirements. Once. Set. Also, don’t over-inflate order numbers to drive estimated costs down, only to find the programme in a death spiral once reality bites. Finally, when it comes to setting contracts, remember that this is the last chance for Airbus defence and Dassault to stay in the fighter business. The prime customers here have a lot of potential leverage. Just as Sweden manages to do consistently for Saab, Germany and France must ensure that the contracts are set out in such a way as to incentivise sticking to time and budget, with extra costs falling primarily on the original equipment manufacturer. What should I have asked you? 

Which fighter programme am I most excited about right now? Definitely the teaser offer of an F-22/F-35 hybrid design for Japan from Lockheed Martin. Something combining the airframe and engine combination of the F-22 with the electronics, coatings and production/testing lessons learnt so painfully with the F-35 just makes too much sense to ever see the light of day though so I’m hoping rather than expecting it to ever fly. Thank you for reading Hush-Kit. Our site is absolutely free and we have no advertisements. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here– it doesn’t have to be a large amount, every pound is gratefully received. Recommended amount £15. Thank you