In the mid-1970s, the British company Hawker Siddeley developed a concept for a medium-weight fighter for the Royal Air Force strongly influenced by the US’ F-16. This series of ‘P.1200’ concepts came from the company’s Kingston division. Though considerably larger than the F-16, most of the P.1200 designs featured a similar air intake, canopy, leading-edge root extensions, and general wing configuration. The vertical and horizontal tail surfaces on the other hand, were entirely different.
Strangely the P.1202 design was offered with either two RB.199s or a single RB.431. The RB.199 was then in development for the Tornado, but as experience would show with the ADV, it was not a suitable fighter engine; it was tailor-made for the low-level regime and was a poor performer at the medium and high altitudes that an air superiority fighter needs to operate in. The RB.431Â study was essentially a Pegasus with reheat and no vectored thrust nozzles, though powerful it again seems an odd choice for a supersonic fighter.Â
The initial design, from November 1975, featured a canard layout with square shoulder-mounted intakes, similar to the later Saab Gripen. Further designs utilized a conventional tail and dorsal intakes. Internal armament for the early P.1200 designs was two 27-mm Mauser cannon. Air-to-air armament was expected to be AIM-9 Sidewinders and SkyFlash medium-range missiles. In the secondary air-to-ground role it could have carried four bombs in a low-drag recess.
 By 1977 the aircraft had become even more strongly influenced by the F-16. Both single and twin vertical fin configurations were tested. The twin-tailed P.1202 pictured above, would have had superior high alpha performance to the F-16, and given a suitable engine, would have made a formidable dogfighter.
Keep this blog alive!
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.
The English Electric Lightning was the most exciting jet fighter ever created. When it entered service, in 1959, it was the most formidable fighter in the world. For twenty nine years it thundered over British skies as a brutish deterrent to would-be attackers. Ian Black flew this over-powered monster for the Royal Air Force in the final years of the Cold War. Here he shares the secrets of flying and fighting in Britain’s final jet fighter.Â
What were your first impressions of the Lightning?
Very big, it sat high off the ground unlike the Hawk. It seemed to have myriad switches. all randomly located in the cockpit. It was very cramped when wearing full exposure suit, which we did for 8-9 months of the year in the UK. It had an extremely eccentric starting system that was a bit like a Jules Verne Rocket; once the engine was turning it was like lighting a firework and you were off on a journey of a short, but exciting, duration.
Which Lightning marks did you fly?
I started on the T.Mk 5 trainer then flew the F.Mk 3 single-seater in training then flew the bigger heavy Mk.6 on the Squadron – then flew the F.Mk 6 and T.Mk 5 privately
 What were the Lightnings worst vices?
Lack of fuel was the obvious one. From a handling point of view it was gloriously over-powered, something few aircraft have. With its highly swept wing and lack of any manoeuvre /combat flaps or slats the aircraft was often flown in the ‘light- heavy buffet’ which masked any seat-of-the pants feeling of an impending stall. It actually had few of the traditional ‘vices’ but could be a handful on landing with its big fin and drag chute, which made the aircraft weathercock on a strong crosswind landing. Tyres were also by necessity very thin to fit into the wing and high pressure, so didn’t last long.
How good was the radar?
In 1960 it was probably state of the art, but by 1988 it was positively prehistoric ! It was hopeless at low level overland, difficult at low level over the sea. At height the targets would often be doing in excess of .9 Mach so the combined speed of fighter and target would be around 20 miles a minute – with a maximum pick-up range on an average target of 18-20 miles this gave you less than a minute from initial contact to engagement. It also had very limited electronic counter measures capability.
How good were the weapon systems?
Again the weapons system was state of the art in the 1960s, by 1988 it was prehistoric. The system had potential: a data-link where the ground controllers would perform the intercept with pilot flying to target hands-off. The weapons were fine against lumbering Soviet bombers up at altitude, but not great in a high G combat scenario.
How did Lightnings do against teen series fighters in BFM/DACT (dogfight training) exercises? What tips would you offer in these situations?
Lightnings fought F-14, F-15, F-16 and F-18s. At long ranges Lightnings would have been shot down with radar-guided missiles-Â with no RWR (radar warning receivers) the Lightning would not have stood a chance. Against the teen series the Lightning did OK in close-in combat, but the best version for air combat was the F.Mk 3 and that had so little fuel you could really only one last for one engagement. If you’re fighting a Phantom in a Lightning what is the best approach?
Use the vertical – keep the F-4 close and keep it high where it doesn’t perform as well – around 5000 feet a clean wing F-4 ( UK ) was a close match for a Lightning. If you were fighting an F-4 with AIM-9L it was a hard match, so keeping it tight and trying to be inside his minimum range was good… and use guns.
How would the Lightning have done against a MiG-23?
Easy. The MiG-23 was pretty awful at a turning fight, but would probably have out-run a Lightning at high-speed at low level.
How did the Lightning do against the Tornado F.Mk 3?
The ‘F2’ really only entered service in 1986Â and the F3 in 1987 (a year before the Lightning was retired). We did do some work against the Tornado, but mainly radar intercepts – we knew that although it had track while scan, it was easily confused so we would start at 40,000 feet then descend to 10,000 quickly whilst changing formation and then climb back up again. Normally, the early F3 Foxhunter radar was totally confused by this stage.
Which tactics should Lightning pilots use in air combat?
My own tactic was to come to the merge at high speed, say Mach 1.1- 1.2, then to come back to idle at the cross point to avoid getting shot in the face then start a low G climbing turn with full re heat hoping to top out around 40,000 feet (making sure you didn’t go into contrails and give your position away. If your opponent didn’t climb up with you it was an easy task to dive down on them ( they were often now blind to you ) and pick you moment What was your most notable flight and what happened?
Flying my father, taking a Lightning to Cyprus twice , flying low level in West Germany from Gütersloh where Lightnings had been based in the 1970s.
Flying my First Lightning solo was incredible. Imagine watching something you loved for 25 years and then actually getting a chance to do it — but in the process you have to learn to be a fighter pilot!
Flying a Lightning solo was pretty special, but taking one across the Med’ with a tanker was a unique experience – I flew a T.Mk 5 once to Cyprus (and back ) and an F.Mk 6 one way. The T.Mk 5 had to be refuelled 6 times to get there with the aid of tanker support.
As a child I had always assumed flying Lightnings at low level in Germany was as good as it got, (over the North sea wasn’t nearly as exciting) so given the chance to do a week of just that was too good to be true. Especially as we were working with the Harrier force engaging in air combat when the weather was too bad to fly at low altitude
Taking my dad flying was a bit nerve wracking – I had 50 hours on type, while he had nearly 2000. It was 15 years since he’d last flown Lightnings and he regarded as one of the best Lightning pilots there ever was. He pretty much flew it from start to finish – I’m not sure what was worse him teaching me to drive or me taking him in a Lightning !
Interview with EAP and Tornado test pilot Dave Eagles here
How well trained were Lightning pilots? Were you given sufficient flying time?
Lightning pilots, along with Harrier pilots, were the best — no contest. We got lots of flying, and we were always on top of our game from low-level intercepts to high-flying supersonic targets.
What tips would you offer for a Lightning landing?
I guess pick a point on the runway and keep a constant angle down to touch down. Keep the speed accurate and if it doesn’t look right then overshoot and do it again.
I understood that you recently flew a Lightning in South Africa, what was that like?
I’ve been flying the Lightning at Thunder City on and off for ten years and its very different from flying in the RAF but still great fun. It’s a challenge because there is no one to supervise you or help you, so you are very much on your own. The aircraft are lovingly cared for, so they are in great condition.
What projects are you working on that would interest our readers?
I’ve set up www.firestreakbooks.com which is to produce one book a year on various topics. So far we’ve done Lightning and F-4UK (British Phantoms) and next year the book planned Vol 3 is called “ZINC†a collection of all the types I flew but mostly Tornado, Mirage 2000 and other NATO types.
What should I have asked you about the Lightning?
What makes the Lightning unique. It’s the only jet fighter with a vertical twin-stack engine layout – It’s all British and did Mach 2.0 It’s probably the ultimate fighter in terms of man and machine working as one. It is a massively overpowered fighter with an incredibly high pilot work-load.
“If you have any interest in aviation, you’ll be surprised, entertained and fascinated by Hush-Kit – the world’s best aviation blogâ€. 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 righthere Â
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.
The wreckage of an abandoned Soviet Mig-21 Fishbed aircraft sits with rusted hardware in an open field near Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan, during Operation ENDURING FREEDOM. After over 20 years of war and civil unrest, the Afghan landscape is painted with pieces of old military hardware and unexploded ordnance.
Yesterday evening it was announced that the contract to create the next USAF bomber had been awarded to Northrop Grumman. We caught up with the Royal United Services Institute’s Justin Bronk for analysis of this enormous decision.
Did you expect Northrop Grumman to win?
I did expect Northrop to win since they have the obvious edge in terms of experience designing and manufacturing large stealth aircraft. The iconic B-2 Spirit remains the most formidable and technologically exquisite bomber ever developed and no competing foreign powers have yet shown even a capability to convincingly copy the broad outline of the design – an impressive pedigree. Northrop have also designed and built the extremely successful X-47B which proved their cranked-kite airframe layout was viable and stealthy, to a limited budget and roughly on schedule. In fact, the X-47B has surprised the US Navy by accomplishing far more in its test programme than was anticipated. Furthermore, the cranked-kite shape is reportedly the basis for America’s most stealthy aircraft in service – the top secret and fairly large RQ-180 – again developed and delivered by Northrop Grumman. With a recent pedigree in producing an aircraft significantly larger than a fighter, with the capability to penetrate heavily defended airspace unseen and reportedly carry out electronic attack functions as well as ISR, Northrop were always ideally placed for the Long Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B) win. Whilst the Lockheed Martin/Boeing consortium would have brought huge experience to the project, their collective expertise in stealth aircraft development is decidedly in tactical fighter-sized airframes. Furthermore, both have vast global production commitments which would have potentially competed with LRS-B for priority in terms of internal resources and talent.
Click here for: ‘Typhoon, Su-35 and the Peshmerga’
What can we expect from their design?Â
A large, cranked-kite layout with a significantly elongated wing and a central body as streamlined as weapon-carriage and fuel specifications will allow, with buried engines employing both intake and exhaust shrouding features. The question of optionally-manned appears to have gone quiet at the moment so we will see on that front but it will have to have a cockpit similar to the B-2 since the nuclear mission required crew capacity. To stay within cost boundaries, it is almost certain that the aircraft will be smaller than the B-2 and will complement, rather than replace the latter in the deep-penetration deterrence and power projection role. It will also most likely have highly sophisticated electronic attack capabilities.
Do you think the rival team will protest the decision?
I think Boeing/Lockheed Martin are bound to appeal the decision but probably not with the same desperation as Northrop would have if the competition had gone the other way. It is not a catastrophic loss for either Boeing or Lockheed Martin but would likely have been terminal for Northrop Grumman’s ability to sustain their military aircraft business long-term. I also don’t think the USAF will be willing to tolerate a long, drawn out appeal process, especially given the IOC date of 2025.
What is the top within-visual range fighter in 2015? Answer here
Is LRS-B the right concept?
Considering the increasing sophistication and reach of A2/AD systems such as China’s IADS and DF-21D combination, along with the vulnerability of large, super-bases in theatre such as Guam to surprise attacks; I think the LRS-B is an essential requirement if the USAF is to be able to provide credible, scalable conventional and nuclear deterrent capabilities against peer-opponents going forwards. The question is whether the tendency towards requirements-creep can be avoided as it appears to have been up until this point, in order to keep development on budget and on schedule. The integration of directed energy weapons and other exotic technologies are certainly something which should be given consideration in terms of building modularity into the design, but not if the power-generation, space and cooling requirements of such theoretically useful systems make the aircraft too expensive and large to procure in sufficient numbers, or compromise its core mission as a bomber. The other worrying issue is the ‘optionally manned’ requirement which the USAF discussed several times in relation to the programme. Optionally manned appears to me to be a way of having to pay for the downsides of both configurations in terms of software complexity, support mechanisms, crew life support, cyber vulnerability etc, whilst not gaining the design simplicities of either. In addition, the nuclear role requirement means that for its most dangerous missions, the LRS-B will have to be manned, so I think the provision of an unmanned operations capability is an unnecessary complication and cost-driver. There is no doubt, however, that whatever Northrop Grumman eventually delivers to the USAF will be one of the most interesting and awesome looking aircraft ever built – I await it with great anticipation!
I had not heard of the delightfully oddball Planet Satellite before reading about it on Hush-kit, but admit to now being something of a fan.
Despite being a postwar design it does have hints of the “aircraft of the future†generally found in the “Boy’s Books†of the late 1930’s. I also presume I am not the only one who sees parallels with certain aspects of the recently resurrected Bugatti racer? Of course, no matter what qualities the aircraft may have it is the human angle that draws us in. Something that the Satellite has in spades. The disingenuous nature of the claim regarding Heenan’s complete lack of aeronautical background is immediately apparent as soon as you look at the aircraft. It is unusual but the proportions and overall configuration look “rightâ€, or at least “highly plausible.†The obvious flaw retrospectively was not rigorously following a professional design and development process for the project. Given that the aircraft had the novel use of material and construction this can be seen as being highly naive at best. It smacks less of an engineer without aircraft experience and more of someone who has been around aircraft but having no formal engineering experience.
The governing bodies had obviously learnt their lesson by the time the Lear Fan turned up. Looking beyond the aircraft layout the striking similarity is the use of novel materials and construction, this time bonded composites. It just so happens that I have some experience in this field and I recall being told that the reason the Lear Fan had 3 wing spars was because the FAA was rather twitchy about the use of the new material. This way if there was a catastrophic failure of one spar there were at least 2 more to get you home on. The FAA also insisted on “chicken boltsâ€, secondary mechanical fasteners passing through the bonded joints. Sadly the best way to weaken a piece of composite is to put a hole through it – still, never mind. Perhaps the Satellite was failed by too little regulation and the Lear Fan by too much?
Actuarius is an artist and engineer who regularly contributes to Hagerty Classic Insurance and Rough UK
In days of old, when knights were bold, dozens of new types of aeroplane flew each year. By the 1990s one new type flew every five years if you were lucky, and was so well promoted, that you were bored of the damned thing before it even entered service. Like rare, commercially unsuccessful vinyl ’45s, these less than universal aeroplanes have a special appeal all of their own. This fine kedgeree of obscure ’40s aircraft share two things: obscurity (or just plain weirdness) and a long, awful or boring name. Speaking of which, my favourite uninspiring aircraft name is the Aviation Traders Accountant.
Let us enter the charity shop of history, ignore the smell of death and dust, and see what we can buy for £4.Â
10. Consolidated C-87 Liberator ExpressÂ
Why take the guns off a plane in a war, not to mention putting seats where the bombs are supposed to be?
9. North American P-82 Twin Mustang
Before Photoshop, aircraft manufacturers had to actually make insane ‘planes. A P-82 was produced when one P-51 egg was fertilized by two P-38 sperm.
“Will we see daddy again?” “Not a chance- just look at the fucking thing Jimmy”
8. Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.10
It’s kind of like a Swordfish only made in Norway.
Wasn’t this kite on here once before already? The original Tornado was also useless above 30,000 feet.
5. Lockheed XP-58 Chain Lightning
Chain Lightning is not, as one would expect, a BDSM journal. It was an abortive long range fighter project, and later a Humphrey Bogart film.Â
4. Armstrong Whitworth Albemarle
The war was practically over by the time anybody could master saying this aircraft’s name.
3. General Aircraft Fleet Shadower
I am a monster- please kill me master, it hurts to live!
2. Consolidated XP4Y Corregidor
We didn’t say it had to fight in the war, it just had to be from around that time. Corregidor is anislandinManilaBay,inthePhilippines where U.S.forces where defeatedbytheJapaneseinMay,1942- so great feelgood factor to the name. Looked like an obese man wearing size 4 high heels.
1. General Airborne Transport XCG-16
Proper ‘Popular Science’ cover looks, but there isn’t even an engine. Was later used as a microphone by Buddy Holly.
Get a lock-on to Hush-Kit on Twitter Stephen Caulfield cleans limousines around the corner from what was once the Avro Canada plant.  He appreciates writing, art, aeroplanes and the tragic nature of modernity in pretty much equal parts these days.  His blog is www.suburban-poverty.com
The bizarre story of Britain’s advanced cancelled Planet Satellite here.
