“Keep your nose out the sky, keep your heart to god, and keep your face to the raising sun.” – Kanye WestÂ
Aircraft have long been disobeying Kanye’s advice. Can you use your alarmingly comprehensive knowledge of aeroplanes to identify the following types from their schnozes alone?Â
To keep this blog going- allowing us to create new articles- we need donations. We’re trying to do something different with Hush-Kit: give aviation fans something that is both entertaining, surprising and well-informed. Please do help us and click on the donate button above – you can really make a difference (suggested donation £10). You will keep us impartial and without advertisers – and allow us to carry on being naughty. Once you’ve done that we hope you enjoy 10 Incredible Soviet fighter Aircraft that never entered service. A big thank you to all of our reader
 2.Â
3.
4.  5.
6.Â
7.
8.
9.
10.Â
11.  12.
13.Â
If you think you know the answers, place them in the comments box below.
Answers coming soon…
To keep this blog going- allowing us to create new articles- we need donations. We’re trying to do something different with Hush-Kit: give aviation fans something that is both entertaining, surprising and well-informed. Please do help us and click on the donate button above – you can really make a difference (suggested donation £10). You will keep us impartial and without advertisers – and allow us to carry on being naughty. Once you’ve done that we hope you enjoy 10 Incredible Soviet fighter Aircraft that never entered service. A big thank you to all of our readers.
Suggested donation £10.Â
At the moment our contributors do not receive any payment but we’re hoping to reward them for their fascinating stories in the future.
Trump has revealed a comprehensive plan for a new USAF, run by local private companies in individual states. He has promised to double or triple funding.
Donald Trump today released a statement mapping out his plan for a better-equipped and more powerful USAF. The plan was revealed at a convention of the Veterans of the Eagle Stars and Stripes in Kansas.Â
“The United States Air Force used to be really, really great believe me and I’m going to make it amazing again. I was told by a good, good friend of mine who is a smart man- who knows everything about the air force- that it now has less fighters than Belgium – can you believe that? That is true- you can check that – believe me. The Chinese air force now has better fighters, more fighters, stealth fighters – which they stole from us by the way. And yet we’re giving away- selling our fighters to other countries? Oh boy.”
A re-engined variant of the World War P-51 fighter would form the backbone of Trump’s proposed USAF fighter force.
“I want to make our USAF amazing- here’s how: I was watching RT the other day, and even a Russian TV station, a RUSSIAN TV station knows more than us. They know the F-35 is trash. I want to fire the F-35. I’m going to replace it with a Trump fighter- it’s faster, better-armed and cheaper than the very bad, very bad F-35- and what more it’s 100% American. The P-51 Mustang is the best fighter in the world- that’s what the best fighter pilots say – amazing men, great people- and does USAF listen to them, these great veterans? No. No. No. It’s just sad. I would listen to them – I would have 10,000 P-51 Mustangs, I would have 20,000 Mustangs. Hell of a fighter, hell of a fighter. I’m going to get the Mustang and give it the biggest, best engine in the world – the General Electric GE90- 100% US made. They don’t tell you this, the whiners, the Europeans, and those trying to take your money- but the GE90 is twice as powerful as the F-35’s very bad, very bad engine. You can check that – twice as powerful. So that’s fighters? Bombers – can we do better than the B-52 that is seventy years old and still in service? Can we do better than the B-1B that’s forty years old? The B-2 that is thirty years old? Right now, Russia has ‘Blackjack’ bombers in production, twice as fast as anything we have and newer. I say we buy 1000 of them. Get em’ in. Get em’ in. Get em’ in. We stick the GE90 in which is huge and amazing. This is a very, very good idea- a smart move.”
“Right now USAF is mostly sending aid to countries that don’t send aid to us- that seem fair to you? 100% of the countries you pay to drop food on – do not – REFUSE to do the same for us. Where was Ethiopia in Katrina? Yep- you’re right. Nowhere. Very true, very bad. Dozens of people tell me this and can’t believe it. Right now- the F-22, the best US fighter after the P-51- and this is true- I saw it on the Sputnik news agency- the F-22 is worse than the Chinese Su-35- and we are weak now. Right now VERY few, very few – maybe a HANDFUL of US aircraft can carry nukes- and every Soviet sub- which are invisible – could, and probably do, sail up the Hudson every day, carry many, many, many nukes. I promise a nuke on every American airplane, every airliner, every private jet – I’m ashamed to be STRONG? You afraid of that? I’m not – I think the world needs a strong, a very very great, America. Right now Obama wants to tell you we need to be weak and let Merkel, an unattractive woman in France, tell us what to do? And the Air Force now takes money from honest hardworking Americans – it’s practically Socialist- can you believe that? It doesn’t make a penny- it loses BILLIONS. TRILLIONS. I understand business and that is bad business. I would not keep it in the hands of idiots, bureaucrats and greedy Federal lawmakers- no way- that’s not right. I would let those who have proved they’re smart business people run it- give it to good guys, to good smart companies who know how to run things. Vote for me for a strong USAFâ€
China’s Chengdu J-20, the aircraft most likely to be stolen by Clint Eastwood.
What year do you expect the J-20 to enter service and how will it compare to Western fighters in terms of capability and technology level?Â
I expect the J-20 to start entering squadron service for IOC around 2020, with deliveries continuing at a fairly impressive rate throughout the 2020s. The J-20 will almost certainly fall short of the F-22 and F-35 in terms of all-aspect stealth and sensor fusion-enabled situational awareness, but will carry a more impressive internal payload and will have significantly greater unrefuelled range which will serve it well in the Pacific. Essentially, the J-20 will present the US and its allies in the region with a long ranged, heavily armed and difficult to track strike fighter-bomber threat. I would suggest its closest Western conceptual analogue would be a low-observable F-111.
How is the Sukhoi PAK FA programme going? What are the biggest challenges it faces?Â
Russia’s Sukhoi PAK-FA, a case of over-ambition?
Not well is the short answer. The T-50 has been downgraded for now to a laughable 12 aircraft for the VVS. This is a huge indicator that the programme is beset by deep-rooted problems in many areas. The T-50/PAK FA as a whole is a perfect example of the lesson that whilst it is comparatively easy to create flying prototypes which look like fifth generation fighters, it is extremely hard to actually make them work as the US alone has managed with the F-22 so far. The huge delays and problems which have beset the F-35 project in spite of the eye-watering quantities of money and expertise which the US has thrown into it should not purely be seen as evidence of programmatic mismanagement (although there is much which I’m sure the US would do differently if given a second chance), but also as evidence of quite how hard what they are trying to achieve is. Russia can make superb airframes but extreme quality control and CPU-crushing electronic complexity are not areas where her aerospace industry has traditionally excelled. Sadly for the VVS, those are precisely what is required to make the T-50/PAK FA into something which can genuinely compete with the F-22 or F-35. Furthermore, Russia simply does not have enough money to fund its massive military modernisation programmes and priority is being given to the Strategic (nuclear) Rocket Forces, submarine force and new tanks for the army.
Many pundits dismiss the JF-17 – what would be a fair assessment of its effectiveness? Is it comparable to the F-16, and if so – which Block would it be on a par with?Â
The Sino-Pakistani JF-17, not to be underestimated.
The JF-17 as an airframe is certainly competitive with the F-16, being slightly aerodynamically cleaner, with a lower wing loading but a less efficient engine than the F-16s latest F110-GE-129/132 engine options. In terms of pilot interface, sensor suite and weapon flexibility, the JF-17 is roughly at a par with 1990s-vintage F-16 Block 40/42 and could be close to the USAF-standard Block 50/52, although without the conformal fuel tanks, JHMCS helmet sighting system and radar upgrades which distinguish the later Block 50/52+ and AESA which equips the UAE’s Block 60/61s.
WVR, equipped with the MAA-1 Piranha missile, the small and agile JF-17 will be a dangerous but not exactly world-beating opponent for existing fourth generation fighters. It is limited to +8/-3g and the current block 1 and 2 fighters do not yet have a helmet mounted sight system as standard (this is promised for block 3). The JF-17 also doesn’t have a greater than 1:1 thrust to weight ratio so would be at a significant disadvantage in terms of energy management against opponents such as the F-15C, Typhoon or Su-35. BVR, the KLJ-7 radar is significantly out-ranged by the F-16’s AN/APG-68 and completely outclassed by the Rafale’s AESA array, Typhoon’s CAPTOR-M and the Su-35’s monstrously powerful Irbis-E. The JF-17s small wing area and lightweight also limit its missile-carrying capacity which further disadvantages it in BVR engagements. However, it is worth remembering that the JF-17 is not really intended to take on Typhoons, Rafales, F-15s or Su-35s. It is meant to be a cheap and cheerful light multirole fighter and configured accordingly.
The Super Hornet, compared to other US fighters, has been a big export flop – why do you think this is, and how effective are the latest versions? Also- which fighter will Canada end up with?
In simple terms, the F-18 series has not sold as well on the export market as other US fighters because it is a carrier-capable fighter competing for contracts with conventional fighters to countries which do not operate big-deck carriers. The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is second only to the Rafale M as the most capable carrier fighter in the world, but to withstand the huge stresses and corrosive environment of carrier operations it is required to be built heavier, more over-engineered and more expensively than land-based fighters in its class. If a country does not need fighters capable of operating from carriers, it is more likely to go for something like the F-16 which offers similar and in some ways superior capabilities at a significantly lower cost than the Super Hornet. The Super Hornet is an excellent strike fighter with a fairly effective radar, huge weapon flexibility, adequate range and breath-taking high alpha nose authority in a dogfight. However, it does not have the thrust-to-weight ratio and manoeuvrability of the Typhoon or Rafale, the value for money of the F-16/Gripen or the raw power of the F-15. It also cannot offer the same future survivability as the F-35 in high threat environments. Canada will probably buy Super Hornet because they already operate the legacy Hornet (easing maintenance and pilot retraining burdens) and the Trudeau government is politically committed to getting out of purchasing F-35.
How is the F-22 ageing? Is it still extremely maintenance heavy? Is there evidence to suggest LO degrades with time?Â
Undefeated champion dependent on a lot of love.
The F-22 is ageing well, having successfully maintained its status as far and away the most formidable air-superiority fighter ever made and with no sign of having that status seriously challenged anytime soon. It is less maintenance heavy than it used to be, especially since the new-generation stealth coatings developed for the F-35 have been incorporated onto the fleet. However, it remains extremely expensive to fly and maintain – USAF figures for last year show a cost per flight hour of $68,000 which is more than even the four-engine supersonic intercontinental B-1B Lancer heavy bomber. This is not only a function of the outdated and highly niche electronics and general mechanical complexity, but also of the very small fleet size compared to what was intended which means that fixed costs for the whole fleet are spread across a comparatively small number of flying hours.
Tejas- joke or hope?Â
Tejas, national pride over practicality?
Joke. Thirty years of development to produce an aircraft with short range, poor payload, and severe quality control issues throughout the manufacturing process leading to badly fitting structural components, slow delivery rates and high costs due to remanufacturing and alterations requirements. India would have done much better to have just bought a licence to manufacture Gripen C/D.
What is the status of the F-2 fleet of the JASDF? How would you rate the F-2 in terms of effectiveness?Â
The Mitsubishi F-2: Big-winged F-16 a waste of effort?
The F-2 is, in effect, an F-16 with Japanese electronic wizardry baked into it and a slight aerodynamics upgrade. However, for that Japan has paid an extortionate cost per aircraft and one which cannot really justified by the marginal improvements over the F-16, especially given that the latest UAE-standard F-16 Block 61 Desert Falcons are cheaper and more capable in almost every way. The F-2 shares almost all the same strengths and limitations of the F-16 family so I won’t go into much more detail here. Certainly a useful aircraft for the JASDF but not worth the money and time it took to develop and procure unless the domestic industrial experience gained eventually enables a workable fighter to be developed from the X-2 Shinshin.
Is the AIDC F-CK-1 Ching-kuo a viable defence against the Chinese navy/air force?
F-CK you I won’t do what you tell me.
One on one, the F-CK-1 is more than a match for the J-7 and can probably hold its own against the J-11, but is outclassed by the recent Su-35s purchased from Russia and is certainly not an answer to the J-20 or Beijing’s huge ballistic and long range SAM arsenal within range of Taiwan. However, the F-CK-1 is unlikely to face Chinese fighters on anything like a one for one confrontation and would be hopelessly outnumbered in any likely invasion scenario.
Which of the new fighter projects (South Korea/Japan/Turkey/Eurofighter replacement) would you predict will come to fruition and how effective do you expect them to be?
Mitsubishi X-2 Shinshin: the next superfighter.
I think the Japanese X-2 follow on fifth/sixth generation project is the most likely of these to actually develop into a frontline type. However, this assumes the US does not build an F-22 Raptor replacement first and export it to Japan. If this does not happen, the fact that F-35 is not particularly well suited to Japan’s specific air superiority requirements suggests that they might well feel their own stealth fighter is essential. If it were developed, the aircraft would most likely be at least comparable to the F-22 to make it worth the trouble and so would be formidably capable by almost any measurement.
The most exotic fighter in development is the MiG-31 replacement – what do we know about this?Â
Pie in the sky?
Source: Bemil.chosun
Sadly, very little indeed. It is yet another potentially very expensive ambition for the VVS but given the fate of the T-50/PAK FA project, I wouldn’t hold your breath on this one until something much more concrete than a statement of requirement emerges.
Will India ever get Rafales? What are the Rafale’s export chances?
Will Rafale become India’s main fighter?
India will most likely get its 36 off the shelf Rafales and then many more once the purchase model has finally been agreed upon. However, the terms of that deal and the timescale are anyone’s guess. Basically, the Indian Air Force is in desperate need of new fighters and the Rafale is simply too capable to stick at 36 aircraft given the poor serviceability which plagues the Su-30MKI fleet and the disappointing Tejas. Assuming they do take delivery of 36, I would bet on India ordering more and possibly a lot more.
What are Typhoon’s export chances?Â
Typhoon: too late and too much.
Whilst the Kuwaiti order has been a great morale boost for Eurofighter, it is difficult to escape concluding that Typhoon has more or less run out of significant new export opportunities for the foreseeable which means production will end by around 2020. The problem is that although the aircraft is formidably capable as a top-class multirole fighter, it is simply too expensive to compete with the F-16 and F-18 for medium-rank air forces whilst it is so late with promised capabilities such as the AESA radar that those countries that are looking for gold-plated solutions and might once have bought the jet are mostly waiting to purchase the F-35.
Any news on the status of the Meteor on Gripen? How would you rate the frontline Meteor-armed Gripens in terms of A2A capability?Â
Gripen with Meteor: the little guy with the long arms.
The Gripen with Meteor is a highly capable platform BVR but relies on permissive rules of engagement to be able to take advantage of the long range punch of the missile. It also does not have the grunt of Typhoon to get the most out of the missile with supercruise launch profiles at very high altitudes guided by CAPTOR. However, Meteor certainly makes the Gripen even more competitive on the export market as it can continue to provide (in very rough terms) 90% of the capability of a Typhoon or F-15 at a third of the price. Coupled with the Gripen NG’s impressive electronic warfare package, Meteor will give the Swedish and Brazilian air forces a very respectable fighter for the next decade with a bargain price tag
What should I have asked you?Â
Probably something on FCAS but that can wait for another time!
I have next to no knowledge in the field of aerodynamics- I stumble to explain the two competing theories of how a wing works, how coupled and uncoupled canard-deltas differ – even the simple equations of Energy Management have me stumped (not even sure this last one solely exists in aerodynamics). So I’m hoping that some bright aerodynamic engineer can help me with this one – ideally using simple language. Why does the F-35 produce such distinctive vortices from the wingtip/flap edge – and are they intentional, and positive in effect? Agile fighters – with strakes or canards – display visible vortices on the inner section of the wing- presumably where it’s wanted. I thought that wingtip vortices caused induced drag and were best avoided? Yet, the F-35 seems to stream them like a ’70s airliner. Educated comments in the reply section are VERY welcome.Â
I found this delightfully bonkers idea while do a patent search- this one is from 2001:
“An autonomous passenger module is releasably carried on a super-sonic aircraft, such as a military fighter jet, for carrying plural passengers on supersonic and near space flights. The passenger module is equipped with passenger service and life support systems to provide oxygen and the like, a parachute system, and a landing airbag or flotation aid system. The module remains mounted on the aircraft throughout a normal flight. In an emergency situation, the module separates from the aircraft by means of releasable connector elements and descends using parachutes. The module provides high passenger capacity at a low cost in a simple manner for commercial supersonic flights using an existing supersonic aircraft as a carrier platform.”
Hush-Kit will only continue with donations- buttons above and below. Many thanks.Â
Boeing has bet the farm on the 787, but do pilots like it? Ian Black bid farewell to his beloved Airbus to train on the latest DreamLiner- so what does he make of the ‘Electric 8-ball’?Â
When did you begin training on the 787? Â January 2016 – my last flight was a very pleasant A330 hop to Antigua
What were your first impressions? First impression was that it is a step forward from the Airbus – even though it doesn’t have a side-stick !
Does it have any similarities to other Boeings? I’ve not flown any other Boeing but everyone says its like the triple 7.
The conventional control yoke seems archaic to former Airbus jocks.
What’s the biggest difference between it and an A340? Biggest difference -hard question as Boeing and Airbus are chalk and cheese – I guess going back to a yolk after a side-stick. Side-stick definitely feels more 21st Century.
What do you like most about it? If I was paying the bills – Â the fuel burn. It literally uses half the fuel that the ‘340 needed. From a pilot view, the cockpit is very bright and spacious.
What do you like least about it? Least of all – the pilots seats are no where near as comfy as the Airbus – I think Porsche build the Airbus seats
Uncomfortable seats are the only downside of the 787 cockpit.
What are the crew rest quarters like? Crew rest is amazing! Said in an American voice -‘they are truly awesome‘. It’s like a proper bed and your quality of rest is much improved. Added to the low cabin Altitude and you genuinely feel better when you get off.
Did anything surprise you about it? Lots of things surprised me. The technology creep is very subtle with small changes from the 777 – and even a pilot from the older 747 and 757 can see the Boeing style. There is a real difficulty now where modern computer technology – like Apple’s iPad – advances at a faster rate than aeronautical technology. This leads to the almost bizarre situation where we have an electronic flight book that is way behind the iPad so we end up relying on iPads for maps and charts – strange when the cost of the EFB is probably a hundred times more.
Is it easy to taxi? Its very easy to taxi and similar in feel to the A330 – perhaps a little more sensitive than an Airbus
What is the acceleration and climb like compared to a A340-600? Pretty similar – The A340-600 was almost overpowered when lightly loaded.
It is a relatively young aircraft, does is it feeling adequately mature? As alluded to in my earlier answer, modern airliners embrace a mixture of old and new to allow crews to be multi-rated on different type and simplify the conversion this is on the plus side. On the down side it means manufactures are reluctant to encompass an entirely new cockpit environment – in modern speak they are more risk aware.
What advice would you give to new 787 pilots? Pretty much the same as a new Airbus – take the automatics out and its the same as any aeroplane where you can manually control the thrust and pitch and roll and it behaves as any aircraft should
What do you think of the 787’s looks? Perhaps the hardest question. Personally I found the A340 one of the most graceful airliners every built – similar to a 707, it looked right. The 777 looks right, but the new generation of airliners the A350 and B787 feature the latest in terms of wing design and fuselage construction leading to a somewhat unbalanced appearance. The undercarriage also draws the aircraft lower to the ground giving a squat look. From the front people have described it as ‘Comet-like’ which is no bad thing but I guess we will have to wait for the 787 -10 to see what the big DreamLiner looks like.
 Three words to describe it?  Futuristic, innovative and aerodynamic.
Hush-Kit will only continue with donations: buttons above and below. Many thanks.Â
Since its combat debut in Vietnam, the B-52 Stratofortress has unleashed more destruction than any other aircraft. Keith Shiban flew the ’52 in the nuclear deterrent role, and in combat missions over Iraq. We spoke to him about flying and fighting in this menacing enforcer of American foreign policy.
To keep this blog going- allowing us to create new articles- we need donations. We’re trying to do something different with Hush-Kit: give aviation fans something that is both entertaining, surprising and well-informed. Please do help us and click on the donate button above – you can really make a difference (suggested donation £10). You will keep us impartial and without advertisers – and allow us to carry on being naughty.  A big thank you to all of our readers.
What were your first impressions of the B-52? 

I was awed by the size of it. You don’t realize just how big it is until you get up close to one. It looks powerful, even sinister with the dark camouflage and ECM blisters all over it.It’s not what I would call a ‘pretty’ airplane. It’s a purpose-built weapon of war and looks the part.
I had just come off instructing in the T-38 and it was like jumping out of a Corvette into an 18-wheeler. I didn’t find the B-52 difficult to fly, but I did find it hard to fly well. Nothing happens quickly and there is a lot of inertia to manage.
Deflect the yoke and there’s a noticeable pause before the plane starts to bank. Centre the yoke and it keeps rolling for a bit. 

After my first training sortie I can remember looking back at this huge beast sitting on the tarmac and thinking “Damn, I landed that?â€
Air refueling was for me the most difficult thing to learn. As an aircraft commander, that’s where you make your money. If you can’t get the gas from the tanker you can’t do the mission. It wasn’t until my seventh or eighth training sortie that I was actually able to stay hooked up to the tanker. The short-tail B-52s (G and H models) have a bit of a dutch-roll to them. It’s not really noticeable until you get right behind the tanker.
You have to constantly work the yoke just to keep the wings level during air refuelling. Once you finally get your muscle-memory programmed it becomes second nature, but it took a while to figure it out. Even then it’s still aworkoutt. Taking on a 100,000 pounds of gas meant being on the end of that boom for 20 minutes or so. I’d feel like I’d been workout out at the gym afterwards.
A B-52G Stratofortress aircraft takes off on its return flight to the United States after being deployed during Operation Desert Storm.
The other big adjustment was handling that large of a crew. The B-52 is very much a navigator’s airplane. I used to joke about me just being the voice-activated autopilot for the navigators.
In training, I was taught that the Aircraft Commander’s job was to “fly the plane and make decisionsâ€. I had to constantly process inputs from the other crew positions and decide how to react. The offense team might be telling me to go one way to get to the target but the defense team might be telling me not to go that way because there’s a threat over there.
You lived or died as a crew. Even if the pilot is Chuck Yeager (and I’m not) it won’t do much if the Radar Navigator can’t hit the target or the Electronic Warfare Officer lets you get shot down on the way there. It was a team effort all the way. The aircraft commander tends to get all the credit but I was only as good as the rest of my crew. Fortunately I had a very good crew. How do B-52 crews view Dr Strangelove- was it realistic? 

Dr. Strangelove was a staple on alert. I’ve seen it enough times to have the script memorized.

 Kubrick got an awful lot right with that movie, especially when you consider that the Air Force was very secretive about the B-52 at the time.

My main critique would be that the final bomb run seems to take up the last third of the movie, when in reality a bomb run doesn’t take nearly that long from Initial Point to release. I think they tried about eight different means of getting those bomb doors open. In reality there was a manual release cable that the navigators could pull to unlatch the doors. But hey, it’s a movie. They have to make it dramatic.
It’s still probably my favourite movie of all time. What tips would you offer to new crews coming onto the ’52?Â
Be proud. You’re flying a piece of history. Even to this day, when we really want some other country to know we mean business, we deploy B-52s. What kit did you wish for when you were serving on the B-52?Â
I would have liked more in the way of standoff weapons. In 1991 we were still mostly dropping iron bombs like in WWII. This required us to fly directly over the target. You can avoid most of the threats on the way to and from the target, but anything worth bombing is probably going to be defended. You can’t do much evasive action on the bomb run, because the whole reason you’re there is to hit the target. Even if the defenders don’t shoot you down, simply making you miss the target means you did all that work for nothing. Â
Please talk me through your first Gulf War mission
My crew was deployed in August of 1990 to Diego Garcia to be part of the 4300 Provisional Bomb Wing. I can remember getting the phone call early on a Sunday morning: “Be here in 4 hours with your bags packed. You’re going away indefinitely.â€
After seven months of living on tiny atoll in the Indian Ocean, the part of me that wasn’t scared shitless was ready to just get the whole mess over with so I could go home.
It was around 5:00 PM when we got notified. I know this because the chow hall opened at 5 and I was getting ready to go eat. Someone banged on the door to the room four of us shared and said “You’re going.â€
I forget how much time we had to get ready but I know I walked over to the dining hall and tried to eat something. My stomach twisted itself into a knot so all I all managed was to eat a bit of salad and sip some ice tea.
At the appointed time we were loaded onto a bus and driven down to the airfield. The security police gave us an escort with lights and sirens going, which I thought was pretty cool.
We had been previously briefed on what our Night One target would be. We would be hitting one of the Iraqi forward-deployment airfields. There were five of these roughly 25 miles from the border with Saudi Arabia. Three B-52s were tasked against each airfield plus we had a number of “airborne spares†in case one of the jets broke on the way there.
We were ushered into the auditorium for our pre mission briefings. Our pep talk from the commander was basically “Don’t run into the ground and do their job for themâ€. Good advice actually.
The mission briefings were pretty short since we already knew beforehand what the target was. We had done a few rehearsals against some islands out in the Indian Ocean so were pretty confident in our ability to do it.
I don’t recall exactly when we launched, but it was getting late in the day by the time we actually got out to the aircraft. We launched 20-some bombers and tankers completely by timing, without a single radio call being made. There was a scheduled time for engine start, taxi and takeoff for each aircraft.
A fully loaded B-52G is a sluggish beast and needs a lot of runway to get airborne. The runway at Diego was relatively short by SAC standards. Only 10,000 feet if I recall. We used up most of it by the time we lifted off.
There was a nasty line of heavy rain showers hitting the area right around then and we flew through some of it. I can recall taking a pretty good beating going through the weather.
A short while after we got leveled off we did our first air refueling. There were normally two air refuelings scheduled on the way up to the Saudi peninsula. The G model was a bit underpowered and the extra drag of having bombs on the wing pylons made it worse. Sometimes I would have the throttles to the firewall just trying to stay on the boom.
A good tanker crew could make you look good back there. If they were jinking around a lot, trying to stay in formation, it could make your job a lot tougher. If their autopilot wasn’t working it was even tougher. Our bow wave would actually move the tanker around. If either one of us wasn’t smooth on the controls it could cause a chain reaction.
Somewhere on the way up to Saudi Arabia we took time to don our survival gear and sidearms. We had flak vests, as I recall, but I think we placed them strategically around the cockpit rather than wearing them. We figured that anything likely to hit us would come up through the floor.
You probably want to know what I was feeling at the time. I am not a particularly brave individual. I was always pretty scared the days before a mission. Once I got in the jet I was fine. That was my comfort zone. No more worrying about if it’s going to happen, it’s happening now. Just do your job.
By this time I was very confident in our ability as a crew to do the mission. We did a lot of training in the six months prior and I knew I could fly the jet to its limits. Knowing that you’re probably going to get shot at in a few months gives you added incentive to train hard.
It was dark by the time we got up over Saudi Arabia. The sky was filled with the lights of aircraft massing for the attack. I can remember commenting on it, right before I fell asleep.
Now I’d to say that I’m such a steely-eyed warrior that I was able to sleep on way into combat but I think I was just exhausted at that point. I had been up most of the day, combined with the stress I think I just shut down.
Next thing I knew, my copilot was waking me up and telling me we needed to get ready for low level. This involved taping over all the lights in the cockpit with electrical tape and taping green chemical light-sticks under the dash to use as NVG lighting. Very high tech. Back then we had red cockpit lighting that would wash out the Night Vision Goggles. The goggles were not our primary method of flying low level but they were an addition to the terrain avoidance radar and the FLIR that were built into the aircraft. The goggles clipped to our helmet visor and had a battery pack mounted to the back of the helmet with velcro. The whole assembly was heavy and would snap your neck in an ejection – so you had remember to take it off before punching out.
Our formation at high altitude was 2 miles in trail with each aircraft stacked 500 feet above the one in front of it. As we dropped down to low altitude we went into what was called a “streamâ€. A bomber stream was normally spaced about a minute apart, roughly six miles at the speeds we flew low levels at.
We dropped down low well inside Saudi airspace so we wouldn’t get picked up by the Iraqi radars. Our tactics at that time were to avoid known threats. No sense tangling with a SAM site if you can just go around it. Of course it’s the one you don’t know about that worries you.
We were running between 300 and 500 on our way to the target. I remember it was pitch black that night and the NVGs weren’t really doing much for me as they need at least some ambient light to work. They were picking up all the anti-aircraft fire, however, and probably making it look closer than it actually was.
It looked to me like they were just trying to fill the air with lead and hope somebody flew through it. I can remember seeing a ZSU-23 spitting out tracers like a fire hose. Fortunately it wasn’t near us because one of those could ruin your day. I saw a lot of heavy stuff, 57mm and larger. I didn’t worry as much about those so much as they had a very low probability of actually hitting something.
I occupied myself with calling out what I was seeing to the crew and pointing out that it was either of range or not aiming at us. It’s hard to tell what you’re seeing at night. Was that light I just saw a missile or just a truck headlight?
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. Save the Hush-Kit blog. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here. Your donations keep this going. Thank you. Order The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes here
The actual bomb run was planned as a “multiple axis of attackâ€. The three bombers in our cell would come at it from three different directions to confuse the defenses. Sixty seconds was normally the spacing between aircraft but in this case we were compressing it to 45 seconds. The idea was to minimize our time over the target. Most critically, we would have to make our time-over-target with zero second tolerance or our bombs might frag the next guy over the target. The plan allowed no room for error.
My aircraft was loaded with fifty one cluster bombs that were filled with mines. The other two aircraft had British runway cratering bombs that we called a “UK1000â€. The bombs would crater the runways and taxiways while the mines would make life difficult for anyone trying to repair them. The bombs also had a variable time delay so some of them would dig a hole and then blow up as much as a day later.
To release the cluster bombs we would have to climb up to 1000 feet going across the target. That is not a good altitude. You either want to be really low or really high. The other two jets were able to drop from 500 feet. We got the first run over the target so that we might at least have surprise on side.
Thank you for reading Hush-Kit. This site is in peril as it is well below its funding targets. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here. A huge thank you if you have already donated and apologies for interrupting your read.
The bomb run itself was uneventful except for not being able to see anything. As soon as started releasing, things got interesting. In my NVGs I saw “Flash! Flash! Flash! Flash!†and I thought “Oh crap, they’re shooting at us and I can’t do a damn thing about it until we get the bombs awayâ€.
As soon as the bombs were gone I went into an aggressive “gun jink†maneuver. This involved rapidly throwing the plane around in multiple directions. At the same time I pointed the nose back at the ground. We started picking up speed fast. Our limiting airspeed was 390 knots indicated and I’m sure I saw 430 on the gauge. At this point the plane was wanting to “mach tuckâ€. The faster we went the more the nose wanted to go down. I had to run the trim nose up quite a bit to counteract that. Meanwhile we’re jinking around low to ground at night, probably being a bigger threat to ourselves than anything the enemy might be doing.
What I probably saw that night was the charges from our own cluster bombs opening. The interval between flashes was just about right for it to look like a 37mm anti-aircraft gun. In 20/20 hindsight we probably weren’t getting shot at but I didn’t realize it at the time.
In all the excitement we turned the wrong way coming off target and ended up doing a 270 degree turn to get back on course. Meanwhile the other two bombers did their thing, followed up by a flight of F-15Es who took out the hardened shelters.
After that I was hyped up all the way to the Saudi border. The plan was for us to land at Jeddah International Airport in Saudi. I think we had to go around at least twice because the traffic pattern was so busy. Once we finally got on the ground some guys in silver hazmat suits checked the outside of our plane for contamination (chemicals). Then the maintenance guys checked us for battle damage and didn’t find any. Finally we got to park the jet. I can remember sitting on the ramp at Jeddah for a very long time waiting for someone to come get us. We didn’t really care, we were just happy to have accomplished the mission and still be alive. Tell me something most people get wrong about the B-52
Most people assume that something as large as a B-52 must be roomy on the inside. In reality it’s quite cramped in there. Most of the available space is taken up either by fuel tanks, bombs or electronics. The only place you can even stand up straight is the ladder between the upper and lower compartments. 

Unlike an airliner, it’s also extremely noisy. We had to wear headsets or helmets all the time to protect our hearing. Talking “cross cockpit†like we do in an airliner was impossible. Everything had to be said over the intercom.
Not a comfortable place to spend 12 to 16 hours. Even training missions would leave you completely drained physically. SAC liked to say “You’ve got to be tough to fly the heaviesâ€.
Tell me something most people don’t know about the B-52
I don’t think our role in the Gulf War was ever well publicized. Especially the low level strikes that were carried out on the first three nights. During the Cold War, did members of the B-52 aircrew community feel confident that they would survive an attack on the USSR? 

That’s the big question, isn’t it? Fortunately we never had to find out.
Soviet air defenses were quite formidable. Our ECM package in the G-model wasn’t as good as what the H-model has. There were some newer Soviet missiles, like the SA-10 (S-300) that we simply would not have wanted to meet. We also feared running into a MiG-31 long before we even got to Soviet territory.

You have to realize though, that by the time we got there both sides would likely have been lobbing ICBMs at each other for eight hours. There may not have been much left of their air defenses to worry about.
9. You stood nuclear alert- how does one reconcile personal ethics with the knowledge one may have carry out a nuclear attack? 

We were so well trained that we’d have probably been halfway to our targets by the time we even thought about what we were doing. We used to joke about turning south and making Jamaica the next nuclear power if the balloon went up but that was just a joke. 

Most of didn’t think we’d have to do it. The whole reason SAC existed was to prevent a war with the Soviets. If things had gotten that bad, we’d have probably been dodging nuclear explosions on our way out of US airspace. The instinct would have been to hit them back with everything we had at that point.

Still, it was sobering to sign for an alert aircraft with sixteen nuclear weapons on it. Quite a lot of responsibility for a 27-year-old aircraft commander.
  What were your favourite and least favourite flights/missions on the B-52?Â
I enjoyed doing anything tactical like low levels or playing with fighters. Touch and go landings were fun but I think SAC overdid it sometimes. We’d fly an 8 hour training mission and then have 3 hours of “transition†as it was called tacked on. We’d already be worn out from flying all night and they’d want us to practice landings from 1 AM to 4 AM. It was especially rough on the other crewmembers, who were just along for the ride at that point. Why do you think the B-52 has stayed in service for so long? 

In some ways it’s such a generic aircraft that it can be adapted to different missions. It can carry a lot of ordnance a long way and it can loiter for a long time. One thing people don’t always think about is it has a tremendous amount of electrical power from its four generators. That allows them to keep stuffing new electronics into it.
What do you think of its Russian equivalent, the Tu-95? 

When the Russians make something that works they stick with it. I’ve had the opportunity to crawl inside one. Like the B-52 it was a mix of very old and very new technology. It’s smaller than a B-52, about 2/3 the size. It’s extremely fast for a turboprop aircraft and also very efficient.

Those props produced a tremendous amount of noise and vibration. I can only imagine that it gave the crews a real beating over time.

Tactically I don’t think they were anywhere close to what we were doing in the B-52. I don’t believe they ever envisioned using the Tu-95 as a low-level penetrator.
 Did you ever fly at low altitude in a B-52?
Low level was our bread and butter in the B-52 community at that time. We were still training to penetrate Soviet air defences in the late 1980s. 

In the daytime it was a lot of fun, at least for the pilots. I don’t know how the other crew positions managed to sit through it. Sitting in the dark while getting bounced around on a hot day was a recipe for airsickness. B-52 navigators are a very dedicated bunch. The downward firing ejection seats the navigators rode in couldn’t have inspired much confidence either. 

At night it was very challenging. Our systems were good down to 200 feet over flat terrain and I think 300 or 400 feet in mountainous terrain. Keep in mind that our wingspan was almost 200 feet. A night low level required a tremendous team effort, especially between the pilots and navs. It was all hand flown in the B-52. Unlike the B-1 and F-111, we only had “terrain avoidance†radar. It wasn’t coupled to the autopilot. So imagine you’re bopping along at 360 knots through the mountains in the middle of the night. 

The SAC tactics people interviewed a Soviet MiG-29 pilot who had defected. The asked him “Do you think you could intercept a B-52 flying 300 feet at night in terrain?†He told them “No fucking wayâ€.
Two weeks ago the Danish government selected the F-35A Lightning II as its future fighter aircraft. The somewhat odd details of the evaluation raised many questions about its validity causing contract loser Boeing (who had offered the Super Hornet) to raise a formal complaint. We spoke to veteran military aviation expert Jon Lake to find out more.Â
______
So – who was in the Danish fighter evaluation – and why no Rafale or Gripen?
Lockheed Martin, offering the F-35, Eurofighter offering the Typhoon and Boeing offering the Super Hornet. In essence Dassault and Saab were not included because they did not think it worth their while to spend money going through the process – which might suggest that they thought that their aircraft would not meet the requirement, or that the result was a foregone conclusion, and that the competitive process was a sham. Saab withdrew before the Request for Binding Information, Dassault did not respond to the initial RFI.
Who won?
Lockheed, with the F-35A Joint Strike Fighter.
A different fleet size was assumed for each type- what was that about?
This was largely based on airframe life and perceptions about availability. An airframe with a longer airframe life and better availability could obviously provide more sorties, and thus a smaller fleet would be required.
Do you agree with the criteria and judgement?
I think that Denmark probably selected the best aircraft to meet its strategic and geopolitical needs, and possibly also the best aircraft to meet its military requirement, though there are elements within the official summary that severely dent the credibility of the entire evaluation process. Ranking the mature, proven Super Hornet as being riskier than the Typhoon, and especially as being higher risk than the immature, troubled F-35, would seem to be perverse and illogical, while rating the Typhoon below Super Hornet for mission effectiveness (and rating both types equally for survivability) also flies in the face of the facts.
We know that “the New Fighter Program has made use of various expert panels, which have ultimately evaluated and ranked the candidates.”
Denmark says that “the participating experts have represented a broad range of competencies and experience related to the specific evaluation areas,” but the evaluation results cast some doubt on such a claim, in my view.
The summary tells us that “Quality assurance has been carried out by Danish experts from Deloitte in cooperation with international experts from RAND Europe assisted by QinetiQ and Vorderman Consulting.”
I note with interest that Vorderman Consultancy seems to be Major General Peter Vorderman Royal Netherlands Air Force retd., who seems to have been a helicopter pilot. On the basis of the summary, I’d suggest that a lack of fighter experience, and a lack of understanding of the fighter/attack roles is evident. The expert panels do not seem to have had the effect that you’d expect real subject matter experts to have on this process and its bizarre conclusions.
Did F-35 have to win this? Was there really a chance someone else could win?
At one time, it seemed as though the Danes were conducting a proper evaluation – going to Germany to fly a compelx Typhoon four-ship mission in the Luftwaffe’s synthetic devices, for example.
Source: Defencetalk/Eurofighter
Why is Typhoon always deemed expensive to maintain?
In short because people go to NAO reports and uncritically accept the numbers within those reports, failing to understand how those numbers are arrived at.
The Danish seemed worried by the Typhoon spares support – is this still an issue?
Different operators have had quite different experiences when it comes to Typhoon availability and support. If, like the RAF, you fail to order the right spares, in the right quantities, then it will bite you in the arse.
Boeing has raised a complaint about the assessment- what is this about and does it stand a chance?
Boeing is claiming that the Danes have used flawed data to determine costs. No shit, Sherlock! I would say that there is no chance whatever of a change of heart based on this objection.
Has Denmark made the right decision?
Probably, yes. It may not have selected the best aircraft to meet its military requirement, but for many small air forces, the single most important factor in selecting equipment will be to strengthen important alliances.
Also ranking higher than actual capabilities will be the need to ensure interoperability with neighbours and allies, and especially with the US. It is, after all, almost unthinkable that Denmark would ever go to war except as part of a US led coalition, and in such a coalition, Denmark’s participation (in presenting a united front and in burden-sharing) is likely to be more significant than the actual military capabilities that it can bring to the table. While the Gripen would represent a cost-effective, flexible and versatile solution to Denmark’s needs, and while Typhoon would provide unequalled air defence capability and formidable air-to-ground capabilities, neither aircraft would ‘buy’ Denmark the political advantages that F-35 will, and neither will be quite as seamlessly interoperable with USAF assets.
Moreover, though it is likely to be expensive to buy, expensive to operate, and lacking in particular capabilities, the F-35A pilot will enjoy unequalled survivability (thanks to the aircraft’s low observable characteristics) and unmatched situational awareness and net-enabled capabilities. In many circumstances, one can imagine that this will make the F-35A a better air-to-air aircraft than ‘type X’ which might have superior kinematics, a longer range AESA radar, a superior defensive aids sub systems and longer-range air-to-air missiles – all of which ought to make ‘brand x’ a superior air-defence aeroplane.
Why has Super Hornet done so badly in the export market?
That’s a massive question, which calls for an in-depth article to properly answer, which isn’t appropriate here. I am a big fan of both the original, ‘Heritage Hornet‘ and, to a lesser extent, of the Super Bug. Great multi-role and swing-role capabilities, a good cockpit and man-machine interface, relatively low operating costs, a decent, well-integrated AESA radar, formidable high Alpha handling and low speed agility…. what’s not to like? But at the same time you need to ask yourself some questions. What can a Super Hornet do that cheaper, single-engined fourth gen’ fighters can’t do better, or more cost-effectively? What can a Super Hornet do that a Rafale or Typhoon, or even a modernised ‘Advanced F-15’ can’t do better? What compromises have been made in order to provide the Super Hornet’s carrier capabilities? If you were a logistician would you rather operate a single-engined aircraft operated globally by the USAF and by countless allies, or a twin-engined aircraft operated by the US Navy and Australia? How many potential Super Hornet customers would actually have been allowed to buy the aircraft?
 What should I have asked you about the evaluation results?
“Why on earth did either Eurofighter or Boeing ever think that this was a genuinely open contest?”
Thanks to Bill Sweetman for introducing me to this remarkable song:
NO
don’t give me a P-38
the props, they counter-rotate
they’re scattered & sittin’
from Burma to Britain
don’t give me a P-38
NO
give me operations
way out on some lonely atoll
for I am too young to die
I just wanna grow old
& don’t give me a P-39
the engine is mounted behind
she’ll tumble & spin
& she’ll auger you in
don’t give me a P-39
NO
don’t give me a Peter 4-0
it’s a hell of an airplane, I know
she’s a ground looping bastard
& you’re sure to get plastered
don’t give me a Peter 4-0
NO
don’t give me an ’86-D
with rockets, radar & AB
she’s fast, I don’t care
she blows up in mid-air!
don’t give me an 86-D
NO
& don’t give me an F-84
she’s just a ground loving whore
she’ll whine & she’ll wheeze
& make straight for the trees
don’t give me an F-84
NO
 2. 
 5.
 12.
I have next to no knowledge in the field of aerodynamics- I stumble to explain the two competing theories of how a wing works, how coupled and uncoupled canard-deltas differ – even the simple equations of Energy Management have me stumped (not even sure this last one solely exists in aerodynamics). So I’m hoping that some bright aerodynamic engineer can help me with this one – ideally using simple language. Why does the F-35 produce such distinctive vortices from the wingtip/flap edge – and are they intentional, and positive in effect? Agile fighters – with strakes or canards – display visible vortices on the inner section of the wing- presumably where it’s wanted. I thought that wingtip vortices caused induced drag and were best avoided? Yet, the F-35 seems to stream them like a ’70s airliner. Educated comments in the reply section are VERY welcome. 
What advice would you give to new 787 pilots? Pretty much the same as a new Airbus – take the automatics out and its the same as any aeroplane where you can manually control the thrust and pitch and roll and it behaves as any aircraft should
Have a look at this lovely model here 
