Qatar surprised many observers by ordering not just one fighter-bomber aircraft type, but three: the French Rafale, US F-15QA and the European Typhoon. This has been followed in recent weeks with a serious interest in the F-35. In a surprise move by Major General Salem bin Hamad al Nabet today he announced the Qatar Emiri Air Force plans to have every aircraft type ever made in service by 2026. 

In press conference held at a branch of Nando’s in Doha, the Major General announced the radical plan. Holding aloft a copy of The Observer’s Book Aircraft with one and bottle of Peri-Peri sauce in the other he announced he wanted “everything“.

“It would be so cool to have Spitfires, and like Concordes and those swing-wing ones! I like fast planes.” Critics of the regime have plan have noted the major general’s attic full of unmade Airfix models he got three birthdays ago. According to Tozz Feek from the Kol Khara news network, “He has a massive Hurricane model, it’s like 1/24 scale…he started it like two years ago and hasn’t even put the wings on yet”

Despite this, he unveiled the air force’s long term acquisition plan, which begin with the opening of the first Avro Qatar factory which is slated to begin production of 125 Vulcan bombers in 2024. Other large bombers to be built in-country will include the Avro Lincoln and Convair B-36 Peacemaker.

We sell fantastic high quality aviation-themed gifts here

Qatar will start with the letter A, procuring aircraft designed by Aachen Flugzeugbau working through to types from Azalea Aviation. According to Tammy Hopscotch from the aviation magazine Aerosemary’s Baby, “There are many rumours that Qatar is building a kind of ‘Noah’s ark’ of aeroplanes which once complete with every type will be launched into space.”

Representatives from Swedish fighter manufacturer Saab say they are playing it cool and though they admit going for an intimate dinner with the Head of acquisition, they will wait for him to call, “as they like him, but don’t want to look too easy.”

Former US Marine Corps Hornet pilot Louis Gundlach takes an in-depth look at the ultimate US twin-engine propeller night fighter, the formidable Grumman F7F-3N / 4N Tigercat.

            The Grumman F7F Tigercat, like the F4U Corsair before it, was an excellent fighter- bomber that found its way into Marine Corps squadrons due to a lack of carrier suitability.  The first Marine Corps Tigercats were introduced at the end of World War II and were single-seat day and night fighters, but the aircraft did not see action during the conflict.^[1]During the five year period between World War II and the Korean War, the F7F series continued to develop with day fighters remaining single-seat and night fighter versions adding an aft position for the Radar Operator (RO).^[2]  When the Korean War began the F7F-3N and F7F-4N were the night fighter versions of the Tigercat in use.  The standard F7F-3 day fighter was equipped with a single seat for the pilot and four .50 calibre machine-guns in the nose, along with four 20-mm cannon in the wing root.  The F7F-3N added an additional seat for the RO and removed the .50 calibre machine-guns to make room for the SCR-720 radar.  The main difference between the F7F-3N and the F7F-4N was the SCR-720 radar and controls were replaced by the APS-19 radar system. The F7F-4N also had strengthened wings and landing gear for improved carrier use.  The F7F-3N and 4N were eventually used by a limited number of U.S. Navy squadrons onboard Midway class carriers.^[3]  The Marine Corps did not deploy their Tigercats to Navy carriers operationally.  Along with the F4U-5N, the F7F-3N and F7F-4N were the primary night fighters utilized by the VMF(N) squadrons in the early part of the Korean War.  (VMF(N) stands for V-Fixed Wing, M-Marine, F-Fighter, (N)-Night).^[4]

            The F7F-3N and 4N were large aircraft for the time, weighing over 21,000 pounds gross weight without ordnance.  Their max take-off weight was over 25000 pounds.  The aircraft was equipped with a pair of Pratt and Whitney R2800-34W engines that each produced 2100 horsepower .^[5]  The 3N and 4N were slower than their day fighter counterparts due to the extra weight of the radar equipment and extra crewman.  The 4N’s max airspeed in level flight at sea level was 313 knots and it had a ceiling of 37,600 feet.  Compared to the performance figures of the F7F-2N, the reduction is easily noted.  The F7F-2N had a max speed of 402 knots at sea level and a ceiling of 42,000 feet.^[6]  The F7F series had lift limit of 6 positive Gs and 2.5 negative Gs.  The F7F aircraft had a wingspan of 57’6” and was almost 45 feet long.  The 3N and 4N models were over 15 feet tall at the tail.  The 3N and 4N also had a range exceeding 1000 miles.^[7]  F7F-3s, equipped with drop tanks flew non-stop from Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Cherry Point in North Carolina to MCAS Miramar in San Diego California on several occasions.  The 3Ns and 4Ns carried 80 pounds less fuel and weighed more than the day fighter version, but the advertised range of 1780 miles on internal fuel was still impressive on the night fighter versions.^[8]

Support Hush-Kit with our high quality aviation themed merchandise here

(Appendix 4 – Pictures of F7F-3N, RO station, Pilot Instrument panel, and RO radar panel.)

Ordnance

The F7F-3N and 4N carried the same ordnance as the F4U-5N.  It was equipped with four 20mm cannon and could also carry eight ATARS or HVAR rockets.  The Tigercat could carry 4,000 pounds of bombs with a 2000 pound bomb hung on the centreline and 1000 pound bombs or smaller being hung on the inboard wing bomb racks.^[9]  The centreline station and the wing stations could also carry the 11.75 inch “Tiny Tim” rocket, but this large rocket was not used operationally by the Marine Corps.^[10]  The normal combat load for the night-fighter Tigercat in Korea was a single external fuel tank hung on the centreline station, two 1000 pound general purpose bombs or two napalm bombs hung on inboard wing stations, and eight 5 inch HVAR rockets mounted on the outboard rocket stations.  This gave the Tigercat the best combination of performance, ordnance, and loiter time in order to perform the night fighter mission.^[11]

            Unlike the F4U-5N, the F7F-3N and 4N did not have a dedicated night gunsight.  The Tigercat carried the Mk-8 gunsight which was the standard for day fighters of the time.  It had gyro-scopic range controls which enabled the pilot to fire accurately at airborne targets, but it did not have any adjustable functionality for air to ground bombing.^[12]  Unlike the Mk-20, it did have a setting for rocket and gun air to ground attacks.  By setting the sight to “fixed”, selecting either gun or HVAR, and the dive angle switch to above 35 degree or below 35 degree, the pilot would get rudimentary symbology to aim the guns or rockets.^[13]  The Mk-8 was adjustable for night use, but it was not built for that purpose.  In order to use the sight at night the pilots would turn down the Mk-8 to a barely visible setting that would enable them to see airborne and ground targets through the gunsight.  If the setting was set too bright, the pilot would lose the target once it was brought into the gun-sight range rings.  For bombing attacks, the pilot had to rely on instinct, experience, and an interpretation of where the target was in relation to dive angle, airspeed, altitude, and ordnance selected on the gunsight.^[14]  

SCR-720 characteristics and operation

The SCR-720 was the most widely used airborne Intercept radar of World War II.  It outfitted the P-61 Black Widow, the British Beaufighter, and the Mosquito to name a few aircraft.  The SCR-720 was a pulse radar with parabolic dish that rotated 360 degrees around its vertical axis.  The aft 210 degrees was blanked off due to the radar scanning into the aircraft body.  The radar dish would also rotate slightly in the horizontal axis to provide altitude coverage.  The dish rotated at 360 revolutions per minute and the radar weighed 412 pounds.  The SCR-720’s azimuth accuracy was plus or minus 3 degrees and the elevation accuracy was plus or minus 2 degrees.  Its elevation limits were -10 degrees to + 65 degrees off the aircrafts attitude.^[15]

The RO was provided with two rectangle shaped scopes with the SCR-720.  A “B” scope which provided azimuth and range and a “C” scope which provided elevation and azimuth.^[16]  The “B” scope was selectable to 120nm for beacon and ground mapping operations, and 20 nm, 10 nm, and 5 nm ranges for airborne intercepts.  A “C” scope gave elevation difference compared to the attitude of the night fighter.  Unlike the APS-19, the RO had to adjust gain and radar tune functions which helped break out the radar contact and radar signals when compared to other radar returns.  The RO also controlled the tilt of the radar with SCR-720 which enabled it to search for and track targets above the aircraft.  The “B” and “C” scope setup was more intuitive that APS-19’s “H” scope setup, but the SCR-720 was much more user intensive and could not have been used without a dedicated RO.^[17]  

            The SCR-720 did provide rudimentary ground mapping but the small rectangle “B” scope would warp the picture.  F7F-3N RO’s claim the radar was only good for mapping significant terrain features, like a shoreline.^[18]  The beacon function worked similar to the APS-19 with beacon radar return being received out to the “B” scope limits of 120nm.  The RO would also have to interpret changes in azimuth and range in order to estimate the targets heading and velocity.  The SCR-720 had a maximum detection range of 18 miles on a large airborne target though 5 to 7 miles was the norm for a metal skinned fighter sized target. Though the SCR-720 was significantly older than the APS-19 when the Korean War started, many RO’s regarded the SCR-720 as the better radar.  This could be in no small part to the fact that the RO’s trained on the 720 after World War II and it did not have the automatic features of the APS-19.  Additionally, RO’s felt some professional job satisfaction at being able to operate the SCR-720 well and direct the pilot to a successful night intercept.^[19]

Here’s a new thing! An exclusive Hush-Kit newsletter delivered straight to your inbox. Hot aviation gossip, opinion, warplane technology updates, madcap history and other insights from the world of aviation by @Hush_Kit Sign up here

(Appendix 5 – SCR-720 airborne Intercept interpretation.)

F4U-5N and F7F-3N/4N tactics

The F4U-5N and the F7F-3N and 4N served in Korea during the same time period.  VMF(N)-513 flew F4U-5Ns and F7F-3Ns out of Japan during the early days of the conflict. While VMF(N)-542 brought F7F-3Ns from the United States a few months later.  Eventually VMF(N)-513 would relieve VMF(N)-542 on the Korean Peninsula operating out of Pusan East (K-9 airfield).  VMF(N)-513 became a large squadron operating F4U-5Ns, F4U-5NLs, F4U-5s, and F7F-3Ns.^[20]  The Marine Pilots were interchangeable, flying day and night Corsair and Tigercat missions.  Since the same pilots flew the Tigercat and the Corsair, and the aircraft’s weapons, capabilities, and radar performance were similar, the tactics, both air to air and air to ground were, for all intents and purposes, the same.

Airborne Intercept

The Corsair and Tigercat night fighters were heavily dependant on Ground Control Intercept (GCI) controllers located with the Tactical Air Direction Center (TADC).  The Night fighters would operate as single aircraft over a pre-determined combat air patrol (CAP) locations.^[21]  The pilots and the RO’s would brief with intelligence and operations before the flight.  They would receive mission information including flight and GCI callsigns, takeoff time, on-station time, CAP location, expected threats, and GCI radio frequencies.  The aircraft would takeoff at their appointed times and fly to their designated CAP positions.  The radars at the TADC would pick up airborne targets at ranges over 100nm depending on altitude of the target.  Using the identification features of their ground-based radar, GCI could determine if the contact was emitting friendly transponder codes.  If the radar site was able to track the contact from enemy territory and it did not have a friendly transponder code, the senior officers at the TADC could declare the contract as a “bandit”, which was a code word for a know enemy aircraft.  If a radar contact was not a known enemy or friendly aircraft, it would be declared a “bogey”.  (Bandit and Bogey are still used today.)^[22]   After the radar contact was declared “bogey”, or a “bandit”, the TADC would then determine the friendly CAP aircraft that was in the best position to intercept the contact.  The aircraft would be directed to contact a specific GCI controller on a specific frequency.  The GCI controller and the crew of the aircraft would then work as a team to make the intercept.  Since the SCR-720 and the APS-19 had short ranges and did not display heading accurately, the GCI controller would vector the fighter around in order for the fighter to intercept the radar contact from the rear hemisphere.  If the fighter came at the radar contact from the forward hemisphere, the short acquisition range of the night fighter radars would make a successful intercept by the fighter very difficult.  

(A fighter flying at 200 kts, outfitted with an SCR-720 or an APS-19 radar could theoretically offset 70 degrees at 5nm, maintain radar contact, and execute a stern conversion on a radar contact that was also flying at 200 kts.  This would take an exceptional radar operator and pilot.)^[23]   

 The GCI controller would vector the aircraft by giving it headings to turn to.  It would also give the fighter the position of the radar contact in relation to the fighter’s nose in order for the fighter’s radar to pick up the contact.  Once the fighter’s airborne radar picked up the radar contact, control would shift to the fighter aircrew to consummate the intercept.  The GCI controller would continue to monitor the intercept in case the fighter lost radar contact.^[24]

            The pilot of the F4U-5N or the RO of the Tigercat would gain a radar contact.  By monitoring the radar, the fighter would fly into a position in order to make a visual identification of a “bogey” contact or to shoot down a “bandit” contact.^[25]  The pilot or the RO would monitor closure and changes in azimuth in order to close on the target in a controlled fashion.  If the intercept was flown recklessly, the fighter could be flown outside of radar parameters or worse, the fighter could fly out in front of the enemy aircraft.  Intercepts could take several minutes from first radar contact to close to a visual identification.  Patience was important for the Korean Night fighter aircrew.  

            The RO of the Tigercat would direct the pilot by giving him a heading and altitude to fly to.  â€œTurn right to 320 and climb to angels 21” would be a call the RO would make and it would direct the pilot to turn to a heading of 320 degrees and climb to 21000 feet.^[26] The pilot of the Tigercat only had a small repeater of the “B” scope in the front cockpit and this did not offer enough information for the pilot to make an intercept.^[27]  It was a team effort in the Tigercat for an intercept to occur.  The RO would also call out azimuth and distance to the target in order for the pilot to make visual contact.  â€œ1 o’clock at 4000 feet”.  Once the pilot visually acquired the target he would call “tally” over the intercom and he would finish the intercept visually.  

Once the pilot visually acquired a “bogey” target, the pilot would close slowly on the target aircraft in order to visually identify it.  On dark nights the fighter might need to close to within a few feet of the aircraft to identify it.  Once the identification was made, he would relay the information back to GCI and that target would now be identified as an enemy (“bandit”).^[28]  The fighter would separate from the enemy aircraft by slowing or by using turns away to provide separation from the target.  The fighter would then try to gain a couple hundred yards of separation and then place the enemy aircraft in its gun sight.  The fighter could then open up on the aircraft.  

            If the radar contact was declared a “bandit” at the beginning of the intercept, the fighter could forego the hazardous identification portion of the intercept and close to 20 mm cannon parameters, 500 to 1,500 feet, and open fire. 

While it was possible for the F7F-3N and the F4U-5N to shoot down enemy contacts without visually acquiring them by using the gun aim function of the radar, they did not use this function during the Korean War.^[29]  The Marine Corps night fighters would have to wait for a more advanced radar fighter to be introduced to get a non-visual kill.  During the Korean War, Marine Corps F4U-5Ns and F7F-3Ns achieved two night air to air confirmed kills each. The first by an F7F occurred in June of 1951.

Sadly, we are again way behind our funding targets. This site is entirely funded by donations from people like you. We have no pay wall, adverts (any adverts you see on this page are not from us) or subscription and want to keep it that way– please donate here to keep this site going. You can really help. 

Thank you.

Late on the night of 30 June 1951, Capt. E.B. Long and Warrant Officer R.B. Buckingham lifted their F7F-3N Tigercat off for a night combat air patrol (NCAP). Throughout the month other VMF(N)-513 aircraft had registered fleeting radar contact with slow, low-flying aircraft, but these contacts had quickly faded. By 2240, the F7F-3N was on station and waiting word from the TADC (tactical air direction center) “DENTIST”. This was a ground radar installation located in southwestern Korea that searched the night sky for enemy aircraft. At 0100 “DENTIST” contacted Long and Buckingham with intercept vectors for an unidentified contact flying north of UN airfield K-14. Buckingham, in the backseat of the F7F-3N, established contact with the target at a range of 5,000 feet on the plane’s SCR-720 radar and directed Long toward the unknown plane. Long then recognized the aircraft as a PO-2 (NATO Code named “Mule”). The PO-2 was apparently on a night heckler mission and flying at an altitude of 3,500 feet at a airspeed of only 80 knots. Long positioned his aircraft behind the PO-2, but since the F7F-3N was flying at nearly 200 knots, Long quickly overtook the slower airplane. Maintaining visual contact with the PO-2, Long brought the Tigercat around for another pass and did everything he could to slow the big plane down. He dropped full flaps, the landing gear, and started steep “S” turns to bring his airspeed down to 95 knots, just over the F7F-3Ns stall speed.  At this slow speed, Long made three firing passes at the PO-2, one from directly behind the plane and two from the right. On each pass, Long fired roughly 50 rounds of 20mm ammunition at the ghostly biplane. The observer in the backseat fired his hand-held light machine gun in defense of his tiny aircraft. After the third pass, Long and Buckingham watched the PO-2 crash into the banks of the Han River near Seoul. “DENTIST” had reported that the bogie had disappeared from his scopes. Long reported an explosion and fire where the plane had hit the ground. The VMF(N)-513 had its first confirmed night kill.^[30]

The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes. Preorder your copy today here. 

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

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

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

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

FEATURING

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

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

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

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

APPENDIX 4

F7F-3N Tigercat                                            kalaniosullivan.com

F7F-3N Radar Operator station.                                        www.chinalakealumni.org

F7F-3N Pilot Instrument Panel.                              uscockpits.com

F7F-3N Radar Operator Panel.

APPENDIX 5

---

^[1] Miska, Kurt, Air Combat Special, “Tigercat”(Rockaway, N.J.: Eagle Aviation Enterprises, 1971) 6.

^[2] Doll, Thomas E., Night Wings, USMC Night Fighters, 1942-1953 (Carrollton, TX: Squadron/Signal Publications, INC. 2000) 49.

^[3] Bureau of Aeronautics, Pilot’s Handbook for Navy Model F7F-1N, F7F-2N, F7F-3, F7F-3N, F7F-4N Airplanes (Washington D.C. 1947) 1.

^[4] Condon, Corsairs to Panthers, 3.

^[5] Bureau of Aeronautics, Pilot’s Handbook for Navy Model F7F-3N, 1.

^[6] Scarborough, W.E., F7F Tigercat in Action (Carrollton, TX, Squadron/Signal Publications, Inc. 1986) 44.

^[7] Bureau of Aeronautics, Pilot’s Handbook for Navy Model F7F-3N, 1.

^[8] Scarborough, 19.

^[9] Bureau of Aeronautics, Pilot’s Handbook for Navy Model F7F-3N, 1.

^[10] Miska, 27.

^[11] Various Email interviews with former F7F-3N / 4N aircrew.

^[12] Email interview with Bob Dahlberg, Col, USMC (ret).  F4U-5N/F7F-3N pilot, VMF(N)-513, 29 May, 2008.

^[13] Bureau of Aeronautics, Pilot’s Handbook for Navy Model F7F-3N, 49.

^[14] Email Interview with Lynn Williams, Major USMC (ret) VMF(N)-513,1951, August 14, 2008.

^[15] AI MK-10 Aircraft Intercept Radar; available online: http://website.lineone.net/~norman.groom/AI_MKX.htm, accessed 16 May, 2008.

^[16] Stimson, George W., Introduction to Airborne Radar, 2^nd Ed. (Medlam, NJ: SciTech Publishing, Inc. 1998) 21.

^[17] Bureau of Aeronautics, Pilot’s Handbook for Navy Model F7F-3N, 49.

^[18] Interview with Eugene Holmberg, VMF(N)-513 RO 1951-1953, conducted 12 May,2008.

^[19] Various email interviews with F7F-3N aircrew.

^[20] Doll, 56.

^[21] â€œNight Hecklers over Korea” declassified Naval Aviation News article from August 1952.

^[22] Kunsan Airbase, VMF(N)-513 “Flying Nightmares” (1951-1954) , 19 June 2001, available from http://kalaniosullivan.com/KunsanAB/VMF513/Howitwasa1ac.html#Corsair; internet; accessed 22 August, 2008.

^[23] Intercepts performed via simulator by author with target airspeed ranging from 90 miles per hour to 220 miles per hour and fighter airspeeds ranging from 150 miles per hour to 250 miles per hour. Executed 70 degree offset at 5 nm and maintained offset until stern conversion completed. 

^[24] Kunsan Airbase, VMF(N)-513 “Flying Nightmares” (1951-1954) , 19 June 2001, available from http://kalaniosullivan.com/KunsanAB/VMF513/Howitwasa1ac.html#Corsair; internet; accessed 22 August, 2008.

^[25] Doll, 67.

^[26] White, J.G., “Cherry Point Corps’ AIO Training Center”, Cherry Point Windsock, July, 3, 1953, 5.

^[27] Miska, 14.

^[28] Email interview with Bob Dahlberg, Col, USMC (ret).  F4U-5N/F7F-3N pilot, VMF(N)-513, 29 May, 2008.

^[29] Bureau of Aeronautics, Operation Instructions Radar Set AN/APS-19B, 19.

^[30] Kunsan Airbase, VMF(N)-513 “Flying Nightmares” (1951-1954) , 19 June 2001, available from http://kalaniosullivan.com/KunsanAB/VMF513/Howitwasa1ac.html#Corsair; internet; accessed 22 August, 2008.

Throughout the Cold War there were people deciding they’d had enough of their side of the Iron Curtain and trying to go and look at the other side. Inevitably on occasion this saw aircraft being borrowed to make the trip. Sometimes this was actively encouraged: for instance when the USA offered financial incentives to anyone who’d bring them a MiG-15, going as far as leaflet dropping to advertise the deal. Or indeed any flight between China and Taiwan where both sides were handing over gold in exchange for aircraft, like a We Buy Any Car set-up but for warplanes.

This list was compiled based on a variety of factors, including number of times a type was used for a defection, practicality, style, chutzpah, and if the author burst out laughing when reading about it. Before the Tomcat fans complain about this article it only gets a runners up spot because the F-14 which was used to defect from Iran to Iraq got shot down, as the pilot went a day earlier than planned.

Bing Chandler & Hush-Kit’s book ‘Flying Traitors: A History of Aerial Defection’ will be published in 2022

10. Ilyushin Il-28

First flying in 1949 the Il-28 Beagle was a twin-engined bomber, powered by the ubiquitous Klimov VK-1 an unlicensed Rolls-Royce Nene knock off. With a crew of three the Beagle had the advantage for the would-be defector that each member sat in their own pressurised compartment, making the cooperation of the bombardier and rear gunner a nice to have rather than a pre-requisite. Sucks if you’re not the pilot though.

On the 11th of November 1965 Lee Xianban took advantage of this design feature during a routine sortie from Hangzhou on the coast of the East China Sea. Turning south towards Taiwan his navigator Li Caiwang and gunner Lian Baosheng tried to stop him, presumably with harsh language, but to no avail. [1] Flying at low level over the sea the aircraft avoided radar detection and made its landfall on the north of the island near the ROCAF base at Taoyuan. At this point Lee’s luck ran out and due to the weather and a lack of familiarity with the area the nose gear collapsed during the landing.

At this point accounts differ as to what actually happened. The official report claims Lian died in the crash and along with the other crew members was declared an Anti-Communist Martyr by the KMT government of Taiwan. Meanwhile Li decided to join Lee in defecting, and both were given substantial cash rewards and served in the ROCAF for many years. In non-flying roles, because there was a lot of paranoia going around and the KMT weren’t totally convinced the people they’d given ~$4 million to weren’t about to take a load of secrets back across the straits to China.
The award of Anti-Communist Martyr status was enough for the PRC authorities to persecute Lian’s family and send them to labour camps, because nothing says benign dictatorship like punishing people for crimes they weren’t involved with. However, both Lee and Li subsequently claimed Lian had committed suicide rather than defect to Taiwan, the PRC only becoming aware of this when Li emigrated to the USA in the late ‘70s and gave a press conference.

To add to the confusion, Li claimed he had also been forced to defect by Lee which led to the PRC revoking his treason charge and the Taiwanese deciding he was maybe less of a martyr than they’d thought. In 1983 Li finally returned to China re-declaring his loyalty to the CCP, although apparently keeping the money.
Lee meanwhile emigrated to Canada in 1990 and in December of the following year he and his wife visited his sick mother in China. Having been assured there was a 20-year statute of limitations for his crime by the Chinese embassy it must have been something of a disappointment when he was arrested on his way to the airport for his return flight. The embassy apparently having ‘forgotten’ about the clause allowing any crime punishable by death or life imprisonment to be prosecuted beyond the statute of limitations with the permission of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate. Lee was released on parole in 2002 due to poor health and tragically died of stomach cancer six months later in Shanghai.

A second Il-28 defected in August 1985 flown by Xiao Tianrun. In this case the navigator was killed in the emergency landing in South Korea, as well as a civilian on the ground. Xiao himself is reported as having suffered spinal injuries during the crash while the gunner refused to defect and was returned to China.

As an aircraft to defect in the Il-28 has the advantage you don’t need the whole crew to be in on the plot with you. On the downside it seems to have created a lot of collateral damage.

[1] Some sources translate the pilot’s name as Li Xianban, to avoid confusing him with the navigator Li Caiwang the alternative spelling of Lee has been used. Given the size of China’s population that’s probably only a few million people insulted…

9. An Air Force

At the time 1991 seemed like a hectic year: the Soviet Union was dissolved, Freddie Mercury died, and Operation Desert Storm liberated Kuwait. Obviously looking back from 2020 that looks like a quiet weekend’s news cycle but it’s important to remember people back then didn’t know any better. Famously despite warning the liberating armies to prepare for the Mother of all Battles Saddam Hussein’s forces provided relatively little opposition, indeed it’s likely more US personnel became pregnant than were killed during the operation.

It didn’t help Saddam that after only a week of being bombed a large part of the Iraqi Air Force decided it would be better to be somewhere else. Much to everyone’s surprise the somewhere else wasn’t Jordan, a country with generally cordial relations with Iraq, but Iran, the country Iraq had been at war with for most of the ‘80s. Consequently, when the first aircraft started fleeing there on the 25th of January coalition fighters were patrolling in the wrong place.

Presumably wanting to avoid any problems Iran immediately declared its neutrality which regrettably required it to impound the aircraft and their pilots. Think ‘Battle of the River Plate’ but with fewer ships. Over the following few weeks this led to them collecting a veritable smorgasbord of Cold War classics including Su-20, 22s, and 24s, MiG-23s, 25s, and 29s, Mirage F.1s, along with some Il-76 transports, airliners, and a couple of Adnan 1 AEW aircraft. In all some 115 aircraft are believed to have escaped to Iran, approximately the same as the number of serviceable aircraft left in the country after the hostilities were over.

Shockingly, when conflict had ceased Iran decided it would be keeping the aircraft until it had received reparations for damages suffered during the 8 years of the Iran-Iraq War, a Dr Evil-esque $1 trillion. [2] Presumably cash strapped after not winning its second war in under a decade Iraq refused to pay up. Rather than letting the aircraft rot the Iranians made use of them forming new squadrons and, to rub salt into the wound, using them to bomb Iraq. In fact, it was only in 2014 during the fight against ISIS that they started to return some of the aircraft to their original owner, probably with a note apologising for the dents and saying how they really must get together sometime soon.

This wasn’t the only time a large chunk of an air force has defected either, in fact it wasn’t even the only time it happened in 1991. In May of that year seven Hips, six Hinds, three Floggers, two Cubs, and an L-39 of the Ethiopian Air Force fled to Dijibouti after the fall of the short-lived communist government.

If you’re going to defect, strength in numbers is an obvious bonus, they can’t shoot all of you down, and they’ll probably be too confused figuring out who’s on which side to do anything before it’s too late.
[2] ~$2 trillion in 2020 dollars, or 2 copies of The Hush Kit Book of Warplanes in the post-COVID barter economy.

8 . Antonov An-2

Planning on defecting? You’re probably thinking of taking the fastest aircraft you can get your hands on to minimise the chance of being intercepted before stepping onto foreign soil. Shunning anything so obvious PLAAF pilots Shao Hsi-yen and Kao Yu-tsung instead opted for an An-2 biplane for their September 1961 escape from the People’s Republic of China.
First flying in 1947 the An-2 was designed as a utility and agricultural aircraft and conducts revenue earning flights to this day. Even in 1961 though its performance was sedate rather than sparkling. With a top speed of 139 knots its more usual cruise speed is only 100 while the rate of climb is around 700’/minute taking half an hour to get to its service ceiling of 14,000’. On the plus side the take-off run can be as short as 560’ thanks to a stall speed of only 35 knots with a similarly short landing distance. Something that’s likely to come in handy if you’re not totally sure where you’re going to land.

Launching from what is now part of Jiaozhou City in Shandong Province, on the west coast of the Yellow Sea, the Colt faced a 360 nautical mile journey to the island of Jeju off the southern tip of South Korea. Succeeding in this Shao and Kao were in Taipei by early October where they were rewarded with 25kg of gold each, both Chinas rewarding defectors from the other with generous payments until the 80s. The 25kg was worth around $30,000 in 1961, equivalent to a quarter of a million in 2020 dollars. More than enough to buy several An-2s. As with most defectors from the PLAAF they then served with the Republic of China Air Force for several years.
An An-2 was also used in a 1985 defection when a Nicaraguan Army pilot sought asylum in Honduras after completing a mission to deliver supplies to Sandinista troops fighting US backed Contra rebels. Because the Cold War was more complicated in Central America. Meanwhile Cubans taking advantage of the spacious cabin have made numerous defections to the USA, packing 13 passengers into the Antonov that lumbered into Homestead Airport on 15 August 1968 having managed to completely evade any radar surveillance.

Here’s a new thing! An exclusive Hush-Kit newsletter delivered straight to your inbox. Hot aviation gossip, opinion, warplane technology updates, madcap history and other insights from the world of aviation by @Hush_Kit Sign up here

It may not be the most glamorous aircraft to defect in but the An-2 has the twin advantages of flying slow enough it’s hard to get lost and being able to land on a football pitch. To be honest it’s surprising there aren’t more accounts of them being used.

7. Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15, 17, 19/J-5, J-6
Due to the general flow of defection traffic being from Communist countries to literally anywhere else, MiGs and their derivatives feature highly. The MiG-15 and its developments the MiG-17 and twin engined MiG-19 were responsible for a lot of this traffic.

One of the first defections of the Cold War took place in March of 1953 when Franciszek Jarecki a pilot in the Polish Air Force took off from SÅ‚upsk on the Baltic coast in a MiG-15 and flew the 80 or so miles to the Danish island of Bornholm. The aircraft was inspected by specialists from the USA and Jarecki would later be awarded $50,000 as a prize for being the first person to present a MiG-15 to the Americans although the aircraft itself was returned to the Polish authorities.

Only a few months later Lt Zdzisław Jaźwiński repeated the feat with an aircraft from the same regiment, this time making his landing in a field on Bornholm island breaking the MiG but leaving him free. Jaźwiński had been in Warsaw during the uprising when the Soviet army stayed behind the Vistula allowing the Germans to crush the Polish resistance, making it easier for them to subsequently install their own puppet regime.

This had instilled in him a deep dislike and mistrust of the Russians. What would happen next could only have confirmed these feelings. The regiment effectively ceased to exist, the other pilots were arrested and put on trial for betraying the homeland two being sentenced to 12 years in prison, while many of those who weren’t tried never flew again. Jaźwiński’s parents meanwhile were sentenced to two years in a labour camp. Ultimately, he would never see them again, not re-visiting Poland until 1997.

It doesn’t say a lot for the Communist authorities measures that in September of 1956 a Lim-2 (Polish built MiG-15) defected to the West from Poland, via Bornholm island. In this case Lieutenant Zygmunt Gościniak after years of planning took advantage of an air combat training sortie in northern Poland against his Russian commander. Rather than making the expected attacking run he dropped to low level and fled north over the Baltic. Arriving at Bornholm he was about to land when he discovered the runway was undergoing maintenance and instead made a wheels up landing in a nearby field. The aircraft remaining remarkably intact. Gościniak ultimately settled in England and is believed to have married in 1957.
Although Bornholm saw no further MiG-15s a further Polish example made it to Sweden, having missed the island, meanwhile in the Far East they were used to defect from North Korea to the South and from China across the straits to Taiwan.

The MiG-17 was an aerodynamic improvement on the MiG-15 and featured in defections from the USSR (while the pilot was stationed in East Germany), Mozambique, Somalia, and Cuba. In the latter case in 1969 pilot Lt Eduardo Jimenez managed to enter US air space undetected and land at Homestead Air Force Base. Which must have come as a bit of surprise to President Nixon whose Air Force One was waiting there to take him back to Washington. As is traditional with Communist regimes a purge was made of the Cuban Air Force leadership and those considered to be Jimenez’s friends. Who were presumably delighted when he decided to defect back to Cuba by hijacking Delta flight 1061 in June 1979. He inexplicably remains on the CIA’s most wanted list.

Sadly, we are again way behind our funding targets. This site is entirely funded by donations from people like you. We have no pay wall, adverts (any adverts you see on this page are not from us) or subscription and want to keep it that way– please donate here to keep this site going. You can really help. 

Thank you.

While the twin engined MiG-19 has been used in less defection attempts than its single engined predecessors, the J-6 Chinese copy has been used on numerous occasions. Twice direct to Taiwan, two times via South Korea, once unfortunately crashing in Vietnam, and once unusually to the USSR in 1990, the pilot being returned to the Chinese authorities who started beating him almost as soon as he was in their hands. The situation got so bad that the People’s Liberation Army Air Force started putting anti-defection systems in their J-6s from late 1987. If the aircraft strayed from its permitted routes a cockpit warning would go off followed by the fuel supply being cut if no attempt was made at returning. [3] This may explain the defection attempt to Russia as the airfield chosen could have been close enough to China that the system wasn’t triggered. This was the case in the 1989 defection to Taiwan that landed on Kinmen island less than ten miles off the coast of the mainland.
The early MiGs have provided a relatively reliable method of defecting for several decades, simple to operate and robust enough to land pretty much anywhere their only downsides are short-range and the vengeful fanaticism of the regime you have to borrow it from.
[3] https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Jiang_Wenhao

6. Northrop F-5
People have occasionally decided to defect to a communist dictatorship, rather than away from one. Presumably due to its export success as a low-cost fighter for US allies the Northrop F-5 has featured a lot in these rare events.

At least two Taiwanese pilots have defected to mainland China using Tiger IIs, in one case after letting a student leave the aircraft mid-flight, and in the other after the pilot did. So, room for improvement. On 8th August 1981 Maj Huang Zhicheng was scheduled to conduct an instrument flying check on Lt Hsu Chiu-Ling. Once the student had put his cockpit blinds up, used to prevent them cheating by looking at the outside world, Zhicheng dropped to 400’ and crossed the straits to the People’s Republic. In an unexpected display of competence Chiu-Ling noted from his instruments that they were in fact over the mainland and protested to his instructor that he didn’t want to land in China. Apparently, a Daily Mail reader Maj Huang complained to reporters that ‘People now all talk about human rights’ and that he’d had to fly back to Taiwan, despite being short of fuel. Lt Hsu parachuted down near the coast, presumably after ejecting although reports are unclear. Zhicheng then flew back to the mainland landing at Fuzhou. Chinese authorities showered the defector with praise, $360,000 and a position as deputy commandant of China’s Aviation Academy. Which is a consideration if you’ve been passed over for promotion.

By the end of the decade Lt Col Lin Xianshun decided to follow Maj Huang’s example and used his F-5E to defect to the mainland apparently after studying its history and geography and ‘developing a longing’ for it. Consequently, on 11 Feb 1989 Xianshun landed near Fengshun in Guangdong Province. His aircraft landing nearby after it had run short of fuel and he’d decided it was better to step out rather than attempting a forced landing. Considering Fengshun is less than 220 nautical miles from Taiwan’s West Coast this does raise questions about the good Lt Col’s flight planning skills. For those wondering if the Taiwanese government hold grudges, they said he’d receive the death penalty if he ever showed his face there again. Which is a bit East Enders.
Still if you think that’s holding a grudge Nguyen Thanh Trung of the South Vietnamese Air Force shows them up as amateurs. On 5th April 1975 Trung defected in his F-5E after executing a plan to avenge his father’s execution that was twelve years in the making. Nguyen senior had been shot for being a Viet Cong guerrilla by South Vietnamese forces, rather than extract immediate revenge the Viet Cong leadership encouraged him to join the Air Force and by 1969 he was in Texas for advanced flying training. Returning to Vietnam Trung would spend a further three years flying combat missions and working on his plan. On the fateful day he feigned electrical difficulties delaying his take-off long enough that the rest of his formation assumed he’d aborted. Instead he flew over Saigon and made two bombing runs on the Presidential Palace setting it on fire before making his way to a small strip in the North. Trung and his F-5 would see further action on behalf of the NVA, leading a flight of five aircraft that bombed Saigon airport during the American evacuation three weeks later that presaged the end of the war on April 30th.

Small and relatively simple to operate the F-5 is the ideal aircraft if you feel like moving to the kind of authoritarian regime that has an aesthetic featuring lots of red stars. Or leaving Iran which they’ve been used for on at least two occasions.

5. Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-23

Like mini-skirts, swing-wing designs were briefly popular in the Sixties before everyone moved on to fly-by-wire and stone-washed denim. Despite, or maybe because of, the added weight of hinges and hydraulics it’s hard to find a variable geometry aircraft that you wouldn’t want to be seen in. Which you can’t say about miniskirts.

In March of 1991 Major Orestes Lorenzo was so taken by the ‘Flogger’ that on his first flight in one he defected from Cuba to the USA. An experienced MiG-21 pilot who had fought in Angola, Orestes dropped to low level and crossed the Straits of Florida at high speed before arriving over Boca Chica Key. Here he slowed the aircraft, dropping the gear and flaps, and then unable to communicate with the tower at NAS Key West made three passes down the runway waggling the wings. At this point the most powerful military in the world did what exactly you’d expect if an unexpected aircraft from a hostile nation arrived over one of its bases. Absolutely nothing. Taking this as a good sign Orestes landed and then taxied clear of the runway where he waited. And waited. Just as he was starting to wonder if he was in the right place a ‘follow me’ van belatedly arrived to escort him to dispersal. Here he was finally able to communicate his desire to defect to a senior officer, via a translator.

So far so standard defection with Orestes moving to Virginia and enjoying life free from the shackles of communism while the head of the Cuban intelligence services went to Florida to get their aircraft back. His wife and children however were still in Cuba, unlike in some communist regimes though they were offered a house, car, and telephone, all considered luxuries in the glorious people’s republic. The only drawback being they’d have to denounce Orestes as a traitor, something his wife refused to do. This was clearly an untenable long-term solution. Taking matters into his own hands once more Major Lorenzo gained his PPL, acquired a Cessna 310 through a supporter and on the afternoon of 19 Dec 1992 flew back to Cuba at low level, landed on a road near El Mamey beach, collected his family and returned to the USA. Which really makes you question if either side were actually keeping a look out for airborne intruders.

We sell fantastic high quality aviation-themed gifts here

Aside from Orestes the MiG-23 has also been used in defections around the Middle East including one successful attempt from Syria to Israel, which had at least managed to track the aircraft on radar. Supersonic at sea level with decent range, and apparently invisible to the United States air defences, the Flogger is ideal for anyone planning on making a covert getaway.

4. Mil Mi-24

Proportionately there haven’t been that many defections using helicopters. But if you’re going to use one it should probably be the meanest, fastest one you can get your hands on. In mid-80s Afghanistan that meant the Mi-24 Hind. To be honest that probably still holds now.

In June of 1985 two Hinds defected from Afghanistan to Pakistan landing at Miran Shah on the border. The aircraft had flown low over the mountains to avoid being detected by radar, which to be fair to the pro-Soviet forces in Kabul is harder than tracking aircraft over the sea. Looking at you Florida. The defection had been organised by the Yunus Khalis guerrilla group, led by Mohammad Yunus Khalis and part of the wider Mujahideen.

The helicopters’ seven crew and passengers were granted asylum before joining the fight against the Soviets. Part of a spate of wider defections that had already led the Soviet and Afghan authorities to limit the amount of fuel that aircraft could take on missions it led to helicopter deliveries being suspended for two years by the Russians. Honestly, it’s a mystery how they failed to win a war against an insurgent force with those tactics.

Central America also saw a ‘Hind’ used in a defection attempt, this time from Nicaragua to Honduras. In something of a rarity, the Honduran Air Force detected the intruding aircraft and F-5s escorted it to Toncontin airport. Take that pretty much every other air force in this list.

Fast, for a helicopter, well-armed, and able to host eight in the spacious airy cabin the Mi-24 family are the ideal answer for anyone looking to skip the country with friends.

3. Douglas DC-3

Tales abound of pilots who having escaped their country mere steps ahead of the invading German Army made a perilous trek across Europe to join the remaining redoubt of resistance and fight in the RAF. It was presumably a bit disappointing five years later to return to your homeland and find anyone who’d had any exposure to the West was viewed with suspicion by the totally legitimate government that was in no way a puppet of the increasingly paranoid Soviet Union. In Czechoslovakia this came to a head in February 1948 when the Communist party realising it was never likely to command an absolute majority in free and fair elections staged a coup to seize power. Almost immediately defection attempts started with at least 11 taking place by air in 1948 alone, on occasion by the simple expedient of refusing to fly the return leg of an international flight. [4]

To avoid having aircraft abandoned across Europe with no one to operate the return leg, Československé Státní Aerolinie (Czechoslovak State Airlines (ČSA)), subsequently restricted former RAF pilots to operating within the Communist Bloc and removed their passports. Because obviously defecting without the correct documentation would be unthinkable. At the same time their family members were barred from travelling on the flights they crewed, on the rash assumption these weren’t the people they were trying to get away from in the first place. In what would prove to be a counter-productive move ČSA were also training up new politically trustworthy crews to replace the old guard, at which point they could be cast aside and interrogated by the state intelligence services.

These pressures drove a rather novel solution that would be familiar to anyone watching Hitchcock’s Strangers on a Train when it was released the following year. With enough aircrew to hijack three aircraft, and the help of a friendly booking clerk, our protagonists booked their families onto the aircraft operated by the other crews. The flights would leave from Brno at 0635, Ostrava at 0630, and at 0700 from Bratislava, all scheduled to arrive at Prague but secretly aiming for Erding in the American Sector of West Germany. The destination being chosen as one of the pilots, Oldřich Doležal, had previously visited when his Aero C-103 had been hijacked in 1948 by another group of ex-RAF defectors.

The first aircraft departed Brno with four of the six crew in on the plan, the Captain and Flight Engineer not being involved. Once established in the cruise the Air Hostess entered the cockpit and distracted the Captain while her fellow conspirators dealt with the Flight Engineer. The Co-Pilot then informed the Captain of their intention to fly to the West, much to his consternation as he was himself planning a defection with his family, which would be jeopardised if the authorities believed he was in any way involved with this attempt. In case stealing an aircraft full of passengers wasn’t exciting enough an extra frisson was added by the presence of one Leopold Thurner ČSA’s president who was known to routinely carry a gun. As you do. As an airline president Leopold does not appear to have been much of a navigator, failing to notice that his flight was taking much longer than it was supposed to and wasn’t really heading in the right direction. In the cockpit, where there was slightly more awareness of where they actually were, tension was high as the aircraft made its way over the Russian Zone of Germany. Once clear of danger and over the American Zone the Co-Pilot, Vit Angetter, contacted Erding air base requesting asylum. Landing at 0818 Angetter informed them that a further two aircraft were on their way, meanwhile Thurner suddenly aware that one of his aircraft had failed to arrive at its destination on time drew his gun and tried to break in to the now locked cockpit. Which is a more hands on approach to customer service than you get with Ryanair. Fortunately, at the same time a number of American MPs were boarding the rear of the DC-3 and disarmed him before anyone did anything they’d regret.

The second aircraft, departing from Ostrava only five minutes late, had a similarly mixed crew. This time it was the Co-Pilot who asked for it to be made clear he wasn’t in on the attempt due to his family, suggesting someone hit him on the head to make it more convincing. Rather than a gun crazed airline president this DC-3 was carrying a delegation of Communist Party officials, who also appear to have possessed no concept of the passage of time. Flying at around 10,000’ just above the clouds the airliner crossed the Russian Zone, like its predecessor maintaining radio silence, before descending into the American Zone and contacting Erding with the password ‘Way to Freedom’ that had been passed to the US Forces by the first aircraft. This time there was no armed assault on the cockpit, and everyone disembarked peacefully.

The final aircraft had possibly the most eventful journey with problems emerging before the attempt even started. Aware that they were leaving their homeland, potentially for ever, the defecting passengers ignored the instructions to bring minimal luggage. Consequently, the Pilot, Doležal, had to offload as much fuel as possible without drawing the authority’s attention. Even so the DC-3 would be around 300kg overweight on take-off.

Further complications arose when security noticed one of the defectors had the same last name as the figure skating champion Alena Vrzáňová who had fled to the West in 1950. Although to be fair that was because it was her mother and she hadn’t thought to use an alias.

Half an hour late the aircraft managed to commence its taxi to the runway, only to be called back to the terminal by air traffic control. Using a method popular in B movies the radio operator claimed there was interference on the radio and then turned it off. Doležal immediately opened the throttles to take-off and avoid any further attempts at preventing their departure. Wisely, they failed to make a scheduled stop at Brno, radioing to say they had undercarriage problems before proceeding to make the now traditional radio silent flight over the Russian Zone. Despite plenty of cause for suspicion on the part of the Communist and Soviet authorities no attempt seems to have been made to stop the final DC-3 and it landed at Erding at 0930. There was only the final hurdle of waiting for the American MPs to detain the armed member of the Secret Police who tried to storm the cockpit after the penny finally dropped as to why his flight to Prague had taken quite so long.

In all 27 of the 85 passengers and crew defected to the west, one additional defector taking advantage of his unplanned diversion along with the 26 who’d been involved from the start. Of those who returned to the Eastern Bloc at least two subsequently attempted to defect with one, the Pilot of the first aircraft, being successful in April 1951, while the other was unfortunately caught and sentenced to thirteen years in prison. Learning from their mistakes the Secret Police would in future place agents in the cockpit, while the remaining ex-RAF pilots were soon removed from active duty.

Although possibly the most complex, and impressive, defection attempt using the DC-3 the Czechoslovak three-way, unsurprisingly, wasn’t the only time they were used to escape an unfriendly regime. Other attempts include a 1950 flight from Prague that ended in Neubieberg near Munich rather than Bratislava with 20 of the 26 onboard deciding not to make the return journey, 6 making the decision after arriving in the West. The military C-47 variant has also been used, in one case making the unusual move of defecting to the Soviet Union in 1970 when the pilot wanted to escape the right-wing military junta then running Greece.

A rugged design classic the DC-3 is the aircraft to defect in if you’re thinking of taking your, or someone else’s family. Just make sure they don’t exceed their baggage allowance.
[4] https://fcafa.com/2011/02/13/they-flew-to-freedom-1948/

2. Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25

The MiG-25 was designed as a response to the increasingly rapid strategic bombers being developed by the USAF. The Mach 2 capable B-58 Hustler was due to be followed into service by the B-70 Valkyrie, which could basically carry the same as a B-52 as far, but at three times the speed of sound and with two less engines. Intercepting such aircraft was going to require something special as, as evidenced by the SR-71, Surface to Air Missiles were unlikely to cut it. The MiG-25 was it, and for longer than they would have liked its capabilities were a worrying mystery to the West. Or really anyone who wasn’t the Soviet Union. The best guesses of Western intelligence were that the huge engines and wing area gave it both speed and agility, driving the requirements of what would become the F-15. But without getting their hands on one there was no real way of knowing quite how much of a threat the Foxbat was. Until 6 September 1976 that is.

This was the day Viktor Belenko took off from Chuguyevka Air Base on a training mission and landed in Japan. Which probably got him marked down in the debrief. Increasingly disillusioned with conditions in the military and soon to be divorced from his wife defection had been some time in the planning. Launching unarmed but with copies of the technical manuals and full fuel tanks Belenko briefly took part in the planned mission before breaking formation and heading east. Flying the second fastest aircraft in the world he naturally egressed Soviet airspace sub-sonically at low level. Once close to Japan he climbed to high level hoping to be detected by radar and intercepted by JASDF Phantoms who could guide him to Chitose Air Base. Predictably despite being designed specifically to counter this sort of threat the JASDF didn’t intercept the Foxbat which left Belenko in a bit of a sticky situation as his 20-tonne fighter was running low on fuel. He was also navigating from memory, borrowing a map of Japan being the kind of red flag the squadron’s Political Officer probably would have picked up on.

Luckily, he found Hakodate airport, unfortunately its runway was only a mile long, which is marginal for a MiG-25. More so if you narrowly avoid a 727 on finals. His arrival in the free world was therefore marred by running off the runway and ending up parked amidst the ILS antenna. To regain points for style Belenko fired shots into the air to dissuade curious Japanese taking photos from a nearby road. Which is a more proactive approach to spotters than you get at Heathrow.

As recounted in a previous episode of Hush Kit the MiG-25 was thoroughly inspected by American technicians before being returned to the Soviet Union in boxes. Who then refused to pay the return postage as it definitely wasn’t in that condition when they’d dispatched it. The damage had anyway been done, the Foxbat’s secrets were laid clear, the huge wing was needed to get the mass of the mostly stainless-steel aircraft off the ground, turning being something of a secondary consideration. Belenko meanwhile moved to the USA, his citizenship being personally approved by President Carter. There he became a consultant to the USAF, and the aerospace industry, and went fishing with Chuck Yeager.

Fast and mysterious the Foxbat is the aircraft for the defector hoping to make an impression.

1. Boeing 747

As seen, most defections involve small and/or fast aircraft able to blunder past air defences (remarkably effectively considering how much the world’s militaries spend on radars and jet interceptors). Wang Xijue however is a man whose vision is to be admired, eschewing the road more travelled he claims the record for largest aircraft used in a defection by borrowing a Boeing 747-200F. A record that’s unlikely to be beaten unless a Korean Air pilot decides to move north with an A380.

On 3 May 1986 while returning to Taiwan from Bangkok via a stopover in Hong Kong, Wang took advantage of a trip to the toilet by the Flight Engineer to handcuff the Co-Pilot Tung Kung-shin after a short struggle. This involved a chain and an axe so was probably more one-sided than it sounds. On his return the engineer Chiu Ming-chih had little choice but to also comply with Wang. The Pilot then diverted the aircraft to Guangzhou, North West of Hong Kong, much to the consternation of Kai Tak ATC. A few days later Wang flew the 747 to Beijing, there apparently not being an easier way to get to the capital.

So far so broadly normal for a defection. The next few weeks would be slightly different, however. In 1986 the two Chinas had had no formal contact in the 37 years since the end of the civil war. But a 747 is a bit larger than your average defector’s aircraft and China Air Lines (CAL) were reticent to lose it. This led to negotiations between CAL and the Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC) both effectively parts of their respective country’s governments. Meeting in Hong Kong between 17th and 20th May, the two sides agreed release of the aircraft and the two non-defecting crew. On the 22nd the aircraft, flown by a five-man crew from the CAAC, arrived in Hong Kong, having collected the two CAL crew from Guangzhou en-route. Reportedly the original cargo was also onboard although as it consisted of fruit and tyres it’s questionable how well at least half of it had kept for three weeks in the sub-tropics.

As the first contact between officials of the two Chinas the aftermath of Wang Xijue’s defection has been marked as the point when relations between the two states started to if not normalise at least be more pragmatic. The following year Taiwanese families could cross the straits to visit relatives on the mainland and the Republic officially ended martial law. The following year postal exchange via Hong Kong was formalised. Wang then has a legitimate claim to altering international relations with his defection.

But what of Wang himself? Well it’s possible this wasn’t his first trip into mainland China’s airspace there being some evidence he’d flown U-2s as part of the ROCAF’s Black Cat squadron which conducted surveillance missions between 1961 and 1974. [5] It was probably the first time he’d landed though. His exact motives for defecting remain a little unclear however, during press conferences at the time he complained of the rampant corruption and traffic jams in Taiwan. Which suggests a misunderstanding of the levels of corruption in Communist single-party states, and why mid-80s China didn’t have any traffic to jam. Nor did he receive any money, which is a shame as a it would be nice to know the comparative value of a 747 vs an Il-28.

His employer meanwhile simultaneously claimed that he had a happy home life with no financial worries and that he was constantly arguing with his “nagging” wife about money. [6] Which doesn’t say a lot for CAL’s Human Resources department. The answer may lie in the somewhat extravagant use of a Jumbo Jet to go to Beijing where Wang’s father lived and who he’d not seen since the end of the civil war in 1949. Which puts not seeing your old man for six months because of lock-down into perspective.

[5] https://lujuba.cc/en/435604.html
[6] https://www.csmonitor.com/1986/0506/owang.html and https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1986/05/24/crewmen-say-defector-seized-747/e8cff3db-1f4c-4618-8895-22a1730cfc20/

Bing Chandler is a former Lynx Observer and current Wildcat Air Safety Officer. If you want a Sea Vixen t-shirt he can fix you up.

The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes. Preorder your copy today here. 

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

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

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

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

FEATURING

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

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

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

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

Hughes JB-3/M-X750 Tiamat (1945)

August 6 1945 is an infamous day in history, as it was the date that a USAAF B-29 dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima. The very same day marked another significant moment in the history of weapon technology, the first launch of a radar-guided air-to-air missile, the Hughes JB-3 Tiamat. This clumsy weapon, which weighed a whopping 625 pounds (today’s AMRAAM weighs half this and has a warhead of half the weight) was essentially a winged 100-Ib bomb with a FM radar homing guidance system. It had a top speed of 600 miles per hour, a ceiling of 50,000 feet and a range of five to nine miles. It was too much too soon and was cancelled after ten test launches. It was overly ambitious, and would have required technology that was beyond the state of the art in 1945.

We sell fantastic high quality aviation-themed gifts here

 Hawker Siddeley Dynamics SRAAM Mongoose/Taildog (1968)

Britain was working on an extremely advanced heat-seeking air-to-air missile from the late 1960s. The missile was conceptually similar to the later generation of missiles that entered service around the turn of the century, in its extreme manoeuvrability, ability to hit acquire and hit targets at extreme angles from the firing aircraft’s flightpath. It differed in two respects: its range and being tube launched. The very short range was a product of the requirement for a “dogfight missile” that filled the gap between the short-range Red Top and the gun. The extreme manoeuvrability was aided by thrust vectoring, a feature that would not be seen on an operational missile until the Soviet R-73 entered service in 1984 (it would not be seen on Western AAM until the MICA entered service in 1996). A missile is subject to a minimum range, before which it cannot manoeuvre effectively.  Thrust vectoring enables a missile to start turning before it has accelerated to sufficient speeds for its small aerodynamic surfaces to be useful and allows for dramatic course changes as it pursues a manoeuvring target. Today the IRIS-T, AAM-5B, AIM-9X and MICA use TVC control.

The missile was to engage targets at distances between 250 metres and two kilometres, leading to HSD describing it as “a gun that can fire around corners.” The missile was cancelled in a 1974 defence review but work was to continue for technology demonstration.

Following ground test launches, it was test fired from a Hawker Hunter F6 in 1977 and demonstrated that its uncanny agility was not matched by uncanny loyalty as it rather alarmingly turned directly into the launch aircraft’s flightpath. Work from the project would inform the ASRAAM, a weapon that did not enter service until 1998.

The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes. Preorder your copy today here. 

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

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

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

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

FEATURING

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

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

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

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

Is your favourite warplane neglected in books and magazines? Want to know more about a particular subject? The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes may be the most democratic of aviation books; you have the chance to choose a subject for one of our fascinating articles.

_{THERE’S LIMITED PLACES AND WE WILL BE SHORTLY FREEZING THE EDITORIAL PLAN , SO GET A MOVE ON!}

Go here and select Subject of your choice.

Subject of Your Choice. You choose a (military aircraft) subject you would like covered in the book, your name will appear next to it. Plus all three Top Trump packs, two signed books and the ebook. £250 + shipping

This piece has been prompted by reports that the USAF has already flown a demonstrator of the first stage of its Next Generation Air Dominance Fighter.

The US programme is a bold and innovative attempt to break the mould of increasingly long and complex development cycles for advanced military aircraft. This would include the approach of using virtual prototyping, modelling and assessment to evaluate systems before building physical hardware. This approach offers the potential to identify and correct issues before committing to physical prototyping, as well as the prospect of a more rapid iteration to an implementable design.

The intent is to develop and field new versions, and adaptations, of a family of systems, taking advantage of virtual prototyping, so that anticipated rapid advances in software-driven capability can be more rapidly accessed. It is also clearly anticipated that the NGAD capability will not simply reside in one super-platform, but will be delivered by a system of co-operating platforms and systems.

Two years ago, in a piece for Hush-Kit on Air Power in 2030, I suggested the following for the future direction of US Air superiority, then referred to as F-X:

US – future systems

As we have seen from the earlier discussion, there is an emerging capability gap around USAF air superiority systems, given the lack of a programme for a capability upgrade to the F-22. A replacement programme, F-X, is in existence, but little hard information is available. There is also a lack of clarity about future US Navy plans to replace the F/A-18 E/F/G under the F/A-XX programme.

USAF 6th Generation Fighter F-X

Role: Air Superiority (Penetrating Air Combat)
Configuration: Unknown
2018 Status: In development (?)
2030 Status: Entry to service

The limited information available suggests that the USAF is seeking a system-of-systems approach, where a range of sensor, communications, electronic, cyber, platform(s) and weapons would deliver its future capability. There is an indication that the platform element of this would have significantly greater range and payload than the current F-22, while retaining the ability to be both stealthy and supersonic.

One enabler for this is seen as the use of variable cycle propulsion systems, offering modes at higher bypass ratio for the cruise, and lower bypass ration for take-off, acceleration and dash. Adjunct systems are likely, and might include long-range ground-based air defence systems; stand-off, and possibly space-based, sensor systems; and, speculatively, some autonomous systems which might deliver targeting, communications relay or EW capabilities.

Given US conviction of its superiority in LO technologies, this aspect is likely to be emphasised. Consequently, I would not anticipate a J-20 style solution as the US believe canards too much of a compromise in this area. There has been substantial research in unconventional control devices for LO systems, and there is a US desire to avoid vertical tail surfaces if possible.

Based on all this – a large highly swept delta, with minimal tail surfaces, and active use of innovative control systems appears likely. To be effective, such a platform would need to carry highly effective and long-range AAMs, and would be supported by networked detection, tracking and targeting systems, as well as stand-off electronic warfare and cyber capabilities.

Prototyping, technology development and risk reduction activities are likely to be taking place, possibly as Black programmes.

I’d stand by all this, which seems to reflect closely what is known of the NGAD programme so far.

The mechanism for rapid development and evolution of the system, and presumably its other components too, is credible. It certainly resembles the aspirations of others in this field (BAE Systems were trialling an approach called GHOST, based on virtual prototyping, 20 years ago).

Because such a high proportion of the proposed capability will be software-enabled, it is likely that any NGAD platform, sensor or system will be dependent, not only on the robust development and validation of its initial code, but progressive development will require multiple further software developments and enhancements, not just on individual platforms and sensors, but also on other elements of the integrated system-of-systems.

This will place great emphasis on getting the initial architecture right, and ensuring that the entire system-of-systems is robust as additional capability is added. In my view software development, integration and validation has been the most under-rated risk in the JSF programme, and hence has been the area to which many delays can be traced. Perhaps this is the key technical challenge in the programme, and it is certainly critical if the pace of development is to be rapid.

Organisationally, however, real progress in shortening design cycles is also dependent on shortening the parallel Military, Defense Department, and Congressional decision-making cycles, which may actually pace such programmes. This is, perhaps, a second area where a real break-through is required.

Other elements to stress would be the intent to build a cyber-warfare (and cyber-resistant) networked capability, and the extensive use of off-board sensor, EW, communications and possibly weapons platforms. Extensive use is likely of data and information fusion, to allow targeting of, and by, third parties, and also (as outlined in another Hush_Kit article by myself and Dr Ron Smith link) to allow cooperative detection and targeting of stealthy combatants.

The Loyal Wingman, in development by Boeing in Australia, is but one of a number of emergent UAV projects which might provide adjuncts to the manned NGAD capability. While significant attention has been given to the potential use of LO UAVs as strike platforms, their use as air combat weapons carriers, and additional sensor platforms, is certainly not out of the question.

Here’s a new thing! An exclusive Hush-Kit newsletter delivered straight to your inbox. Hot aviation gossip, opinion, warplane technology updates, madcap history and other insights from the world of aviation by @Hush_Kit Sign up here

This area has been examined in the past – while no one bought into a fairly widely-touted Lockheed Martin proposal for an unmanned F-16 some decades ago, research efforts in the UK, and doubtless the US and others, have examined unmanned co-operating air-to-air combat UAVs in the past. With the technology capabilities for third-party targeting, data-linking, and co-operative use of sensors already fielded in the F-35 and other current platforms, it seems more than ever a plausible option. Indeed, the BAE Systems LANCA (Lightweight Affordable Novel Combat Aircraft) project, which is itself part of the Tempest programme, explicitly foreshadows the use of adjunct systems in air combat.

Support Hush-Kit with our high quality aviation themed merchandise here

Implementing armed air-combat UAV wingmen would require permissive rules of engagement, but with an explicit aspiration of Global Air Dominance, one can easily imagine the US going down this path.

It is likely that advantage will be taken of the inherently large usable internal volume of delta configurations to carry, not only fuel for long range, but also probably multiple weapons bays, enabling both an anti-air and a strike capability. It would not be surprising if the weapons bays were quite large, allowing the flexibility to accommodate future hypersonic weapons. Similarly, it may be expected that early iterations of the design would have additional internal bays set aside for future sensors, growth avionics and computing capability, to provide a sound basis for future evolution of the capability.

A second input to this discussion of the NGAD system comes from the slide below.

I find myself in pretty broad agreement with the suggestions in the slide, except the indication that the platform might be hypersonic. Hypersonic systems with warfighting capability still appear to be difficult in a number of areas including propulsion, sensors, weapons carriage and release, not to mention materials and structures.

From a cost and time point of view, the whole direction of the programme appears to be reliant on multiple incremental steps rather than large leaps of faith such as might be required to take on manned hypersonic air combat. Finally, any hope of Infra-Red stealth would disappear with the aerodynamic heating experienced in atmospheric hypersonic flight. This is not to say that a hypersonic boost-glide vehicle might not be part of the mix for a future USAF. I just can’t see such a system coming out of this type of programme.

^{This site needs a small donation from you to continue. If you’ve enjoyed an article please donate here.  It only takes a moment and we notice your love. Recommended donation £15.}

Pre-order your copy of the Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes here.

Similarly, I am sure that the NGAD system will have some laser capability, as laser dazzle systems are already widely available (although packaging for a stealthy fighter might still be a development area). I am less convinced that the technology for airborne weapons capability is available, but the incremental approach adopted is presumably intended to allow for future developments like this, should they become available.

Finally, I believe the US would seek to avoid the use of the canard surfaces shown, and would prefer other means of controlling the aircraft. The requirements for control are likely to be quite different from those of current air superiority fighters. Given the intent to operate as a system of systems, one might envisage a fully developed NGAD platform operating as the command and control node, using cooperating unmanned sensor, EW and weapons platforms to deliver both a permissive environment and, as far as possible, weapons effects. The principle role of the crewed NGAD platform would be to provide human-in-the-loop decision-making, enabling the whole system to respond to the mission situation and threat response.

The NGAD platform itself would be optimised for stealth rather than manouevrability, and, I suggest, would only seek to engage in BVR air combat, and perhaps strike using stand-off weapons. Consequently, control requirements are unlikely to include aggressive manoeuvring, dog-fighting, and high-g manoeuvres. Instead, the emphasis is likely to be on providing effortless and largely automated control, using stealthy effectors, and freeing up crew attention to manage the tactical system-of-systems.

These effectors might include thrust vectoring, vortex flaps, and a number of emerging technologies, possibly including air jets as in the BAE Systems MAGMA project, circulation control, or shape-changing structures.

Differential flap or airbrake deflections are another feasible approach, but would probably be avoided in the interest of maintaining low signature.

For completeness, I attach my thoughts on the US Navy F/A-XX program, also from 2018:

F/A-XX

Role: Multi-role (Air Defence, Strike, EW)
Configuration: Unknown
2018 Status: In development (?)
2030 Status: Entry to service

The F/A-XX program reflects a US Navy need to replace the F/A-18 E, F, and G in the mid-2020s as these platforms reach their service lives. Compared to the USAF requirement for a 6th gen fighter, the future F/A-XX is likely to constrained by carrier deck size and possible weight constraints, and also by the necessity to operate within the deployed environment of the carrier battle group.

The available material discussing the project expresses similar aspirations to F-X in terms of the system being networked and integrated with other components in order to achieve the required capability effects. That said, there are suggestions that the US Navy may seek a somewhat more agile system that that proposed for the USAF.

There are some interesting programmatic issues, not least the question as to why the Navy doesn’t simply acquire more F-35C to replace the Super Hornets. My guess is that the Navy will seek to have a program which draws on the technologies being developed for F-X, but will seek to acquire a Navy-specific solution rather than a common system.

On configuration, I think a Navy F/A-XX would be smaller and more agile than the Air Force F-X. It will also need compromises to be made to achieve the deck landing and take-off requirements, and these may result in a somewhat less stealthy solution than the F-X.

Prototyping, technology development and risk reduction activities are likely to be taking place, possibly as Black programs.

An interesting aspect of Blue-Water Navy operations is the likely need for an autonomous, and preferably stealthy, refuelling system to enable CAP patrols of worthwhile duration and stand-off, to assist in providing Air Defence for the Task Group. This requirement may be a driver for the early development of such a capability, with active programs being conducted by the US Navy, USAF, Airbus, and in China.

Jim Smith

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 also Britain’s technical liaison to the British Embassy in Washington, covering several projects including the Advanced Tactical Fighter contest. His latest book is available here.

Pre-order your copy of the Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes here.

Sadly, we are again way behind our funding targets. This site is entirely funded by donations from people like you. We have no pay wall, adverts (any adverts you see on this page are not from us) or subscription and want to keep it that way– please donate here to keep this site going. You can really help. 

Thank you.

Here’s a new thing! An exclusive Hush-Kit newsletter delivered straight to your inbox. Hot aviation gossip, opinion, warplane technology updates, madcap history and other insights from the world of aviation by @Hush_Kit Sign up here:

The US V-22 Osprey is a class of aircraft unto itself as it is the only manned tilt-rotor in service. Former Head of Future Projects at Westland Helicopters Ron Smith argues there’s a reason for that: it offers little and costs a king’s ransom.

The V-22 Osprey is a tilt rotor design that is used by the US Marine Corps and Air Force and 39 CMV-22 aircraft are being procured by the US Navy. The Japanese Self Defense Forces are acquiring five aircraft, Indonesia has ordered the type and Israel is very interested.

The V-22 has two large engines (6,150 hp), one mounted on each wing-tip, driving a 38 ft diameter three bladed propeller. The angle of the engine nacelles can be varied from in line with the wing up to ninety degrees to the wing to enable the aircraft to take-off and land vertically. In fact, the nacelles can tilt beyond the vertical by some 7.5 degrees to allow rearward flight or hovering in a tail wind.

So we have an aircraft that can operate like a conventional twin-engine turboprop aircraft in cruising flight and can hover like a helicopter and take-off and land vertically. That sounds like a great idea, doesn’t it?

Hover analysis

There are a couple of design issues, however. When hovering, the rotor diameters are smaller than one would expect for a helicopter in the same weight class. The V-22 has a maximum vertical take-off weight of 47,500 lb and can carry 24 seated troops.

The rotor diameter is restricted by the need for its tips to be clear of the fuselage when flying as a conventional aircraft in forward flight. This results in a higher disc loading (weight over rotor area) of around 21 lb/sq ft than would be expected for a helicopter in this weight class. This equates to reduced hover efficiency and a greater downwash (wake) velocity beneath the rotor.

The efficiency of the rotors in the hover is also suffers from the fact that the blade twist has to be a compromise between that required for an efficient hover and that required for efficient cruise flight. A second penalty arises because the wing blocks part of the airflow down from the rotor, creating a downward force that opposes the rotor lift.

My comparison helicopter is the relatively old Sikorsky CH-53D. This aircraft weighs 33,500 lb, has a rotor diameter of 72 ft 2.8 in and can carry 38 – 55 troops. The disc loading of the CH53D is around 9 lb/sq ft, under half that of the V-22. Now, the power required to hover depends on disc loading so that the V-22 will inevitably require significantly more power to hover at a given weight.

The installed power of the V-22 is (maximum) 2 X 6,150 hp or 12,300 hp total, the total maximum continuous power is 11,780 hp. By comparison, the installed power of the CH-53 is 2 x 3,925 hp, a total of 7,850 hp. The upshot is that the V-22 is 40% heavier than a CH-53, has 57% more installed power but carries around half the number of troops.

Forward Flight

I can hear voices shouting “but you’re missing the whole point!” The whole point being that the V-22 can fly like a fixed wing aircraft and land vertically when it arrives. The V-22 can cruise in airplane mode at 250 kt, which is 100 kt faster than the CH-53D’s 150 kt. The range of the V-22 is quoted as 879 nautical miles compared with a figure of 540 nautical miles for the CH-53D. Tactical mission profiles will be quite different, but there will still be a significant range advantage.

One big tactical benefit that accrues for expeditionary operations is that the assault can be mounted from further off-shore, allowing the fleet assets to be less vulnerable to any anti-ship missiles that the enemy may have. The speed and range of the V-22 allow the same tempo to be achieved from a greater stand-off range.

How does the V-22 compare with a medium STOL turboprop transport? My choice is the Alenia C-27J Spartan. The Spartan take-off weight is 67,200 lb, with 2 X 4,640 hp engines (9,280 hp total). It can carry 60 troops and cruise at 315 kt over a range of 950 nm. So, despite its higher weight, the Spartan is 65 kt faster than an Osprey on 75% of the power, while carrying 2.5 X the number of troops over a greater range. Roughly speaking, you could buy three C-27Js for the price of two V-22s.

Pre-order your copy of the Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes here.

But, But, But

Yes – the V-22 CAN take-off vertically and it CAN fly 100 kt faster than a transport helicopter and it CAN land vertically on arrival. However, as we have seen, it makes a pretty inefficient helicopter and a pretty modest transport aircraft.

So, when do you need its capabilities? There are two clear military missions that come to mind: Combat Search and Rescue (and the closely related casualty evacuation) is the first role, where high transit speeds, long range and vertical take-off and landing are likely to be of critical importance.

The other role is insertion and extraction of Special Forces. Having no tail rotor and no Chinook blade slap the V-22 can achieve higher transit speeds with lower audible signatures than conventional helicopters in this role.

In Marine assault operations, it is doing the same job as a helicopter (albeit with a somewhat less payload for its size), but its real benefit seems to be to reduce the vulnerability of the assault fleet.

It would also be useful for Coastguard and Maritime rescue operations, but the organisations that provide these services are often not funded to a level that would support the use of such a complex platform.

In my opinion, you could use the aircraft for ASW operations, provided you used air-dropped sonobuoys (passive or active), rather than requiring active dipping sonar. This suggests deep water operations, rather than shallow water and littoral operations (Atlantic and Pacific, rather than Mediterranean or North Sea operations).

Its relatively inefficient hover performance and the associated high downwash velocities suggest that the Osprey would not be the preferred choice for underslung load operations and ship to ship operations.

The US Navy are buying the CMV-22B for this role, however, with the justification that the aircraft can deliver cargo direct to smaller vessels, whereas the current C-2 Greyhound can only operate to and from aircraft carriers. The C-2 therefore requires helicopters to perform onward distribution to smaller vessels across the fleet.

We sell fantastic high quality aviation-themed gifts here

Other Considerations – Cost and Safety

One might say that the high development cost over a long period of time is a ‘sunk cost’ and is therefore not really relevant. Nevertheless, from a first flight date of 19 March 1989 it took until 13 June 2007 (18 years) before MV-22 Initial Operational Capability was achieved. The programme development cost is quoted as having been around $27 billion, with a fly-away cost (FY2015) of $72 million.

This fly-away cost is significantly higher than for a large helicopter. The larger Sikorsky CH-53E (greater than 70.000 lb take-off weight) has a quoted average unit cost of around $25 million. A civil AW101 is reputed to cost $28 million, a military example, rather more. Comparisons of published cost figures are notoriously difficult, but it is clear that the V-22 is likely to be significantly costly compared with a helicopter procurement.

The V-22 is a complex mechanism, with a high degree of automation and redundancy. As any reliability engineer knows, redundancy is a double-edged sword. The probability of a critical system continuing functioning after one or two system failures is greatly increased by having duplex, triplex or quadruplex redundancy, On the other hand, the probability of having a failure for a given inherent reliability is doubled, or tripled, or increased four-fold as a result. This means that a highly redundant system will have an increased failure rate.

^{This site needs a small donation from you to continue. If you’ve enjoyed an article please donate here.  It only takes a moment and we notice your love. Recommended donation £15.}

This can be mitigated by the use of intelligent health and usage monitoring systems that can provide early warning of incipient failures and can assist trouble shooting by flagging up the nature and location of the problem. So automation, redundancy and monitoring reduce crew workload, and increase safety, but add more black boxes to maintain and repair.

On the safety side, helicopters have a number of critical items, particularly in the dynamic system, where failure under static or fatigue loads is likely to be catastrophic. Examples would include loss of control to main or tail rotor; rotor head or rotor blade failure; and main gearbox failure.

In the V-22 (or other tilt rotor configurations) these issues, which drive inspection regimes and introduce life limited components are still valid concerns. A transmission cross shaft is provided to enable the good engine to power both rotors following a single engine failure. After such a failure, the aircraft would transition to airplane mode and ultimately make a rolling landing with the nacelles partially raised to keep the blade tips clear of the ground.

There were aircraft losses in development and a total of 12 V-22 aircraft have been destroyed in hull-loss accidents. In mature service, the aircraft seems to be performing as advertised, and safely, albeit with a significant maintenance overhead relating to the systems’ complexity.

Summary

The V-22 is in service and working well. In its own way, it is iconic. It’s a new configuration, it turns heads, it folds up on board ship. It passes my test that, every time I see one, I photograph it. Think of the Harrier, or Concorde, F-117, or B-2 – it’s just not every day that an entirely new configuration makes it to full operational service.

The V-22 is costly to procure and operate and its ‘stand out’ roles appear to be limited to CSAR, CASEVAC and support to Special Forces. Its speed and range in the Marine assault role primarily reduces the vulnerability of the assault fleet.

Where vertical take-off and landing is not essential, conventional medium STOL transports appear to offer a more efficient solution. Where high speed is not required, conventional helicopters may be more efficient at substantially lower costs.

Getting the aircraft from first flight to IOC required a substantial and sustained investment effort over some eighteen years. Now that it is established in operation there is some pressure for it to take on other roles.

It is hard for this author to believe that the V-22 will ever be efficient in ASW, COD or slung load operations. Its fuselage volume and cross-section also mitigate against the transport of larger troop units or heavy cargo.

^{This site needs a small donation from you to continue. If you’ve enjoyed an article please donate here.  It only takes a moment and we notice your love. Recommended donation £15.}

The money has been invested – use it for what it’s good for. It might be a comparatively niche solution, but it seems justified (at least for the United States armed forces) in its current roles (except, perhaps, COD).

It may be a triumph of money over common sense, but it is an undoubted triumph, nevertheless. (A bit like Concorde, really).

Pre-order your copy of the Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes here.