The best single-seat fighters of 1945: European Theatre World War II

Tempest 1
Technology was advancing rapidly towards the end of the war with the most powerful piston-engined types the world had ever seen fighting alongside or against the first jet aircraft. But how did they compare?

(The following is from Spitfires over Berlin by Dan Sharp)
There were around 20 high performance fighter types at least nominally in service in Europe* when the war there came to an end. Each had its strengths and weaknesses – a higher top speed, a better rate of climb or simply being quicker in a turn, but it is worth bearing in mind that even the best aircraft in the hands of a novice was usually a poor match for a lesser machine in the hands of an experienced ace.
The ‘official’ statistics available for each machine have been endlessly scrutinised in the decades since the war’s end and some of the figures, for example for top speed, were achieved only under special conditions – with particular equipment fitted and at a particular altitude. The fastest Messerschmitt Bf 109, the K-4, for example, has an ‘official’ top speed of 440mph, but this could only be managed with methanol-water injection (MW-50) to allow increased boost pressure in its DB 605 DB or DC engine, and then only for a maximum of 10 minutes. It also required a broad-bladed 3m diameter VDM 9-12159A propeller and even then the 440mph was only achievable at 24,600ft.
Without MW-50, the Bf 109 K-4’s best performance was 416mph, at 26,528ft. These figures also relate to well-built aircraft running high octane fuel in engines allowed to run at full power. De-rating engines had been a common practice in the Luftwaffe, to reduce maintenance time, since the beginning of 1944. Fuel shortages meant there was no opportunity to thoroughly test engines and aircraft before they were accepted into service either. And by the end of the war, many if not all of Germany’s aircraft manufacturers were relying on slave labour to produce components and assemble the finished product. Sabotage and shoddy workmanship were routine – a situation that worsened as the end of the war approached. Hans Knickrehm of I./JG 3 wrote about the new Bf 109 G-14/AS aircraft received by his group from the manufacturer in October 1944: “The engines proved prone to trouble after much too short a time because the factories had had to sharply curtail test runs for lack of fuel.
“The surface finish of the outer skin also left much to be desired. The sprayed-on camouflage finish was rough and uneven. The result was a further reduction in speed. We often discovered clear cases of sabotage during our acceptance checks. Cables or wires were not secured, were improperly attached, scratched or had even been visibly cut.” These issues were typical of many new aircraft being delivered to German front line units. The available statistics for the aircraft examined here, regardless of their origin, do not include measurements for some of the most important aspects of performance either – such as manoeuvrability, rate of turn, rate of roll or dive speed. For these, anecdotal evidence must suffice.
In addition, several of these aircraft were only available in tiny numbers and so were unable to make any real impact on the outcome of the war – such as the Heinkel He 162 and Focke-Wulf Ta 152. Some types, such as the Me 163 Komet, were of greater value for the fear they instilled in Allied bomber crews and Allied intelligence than for the pitifully small number of aircraft they were actually responsible for shooting down.
Had they been urgently needed, jets such as the Gloster Meteor F.3 and Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star could have been rushed to the front line and brought into action far sooner – hence their inclusion here. Similarly, the Bell P-63 Kingcobra was delivered to the French too late to see combat and was supposedly only used on the Western Front in small numbers by the Soviets. It was available in 1945, however, and did see combat against Luftwaffe types.

The ultimate piston-engined fighters here.

*Note: this article is about aircraft in the European Theatre of World War II in 1945
The aim here is simply to provide a statistical comparison between the most powerful and advanced aircraft available in Europe. Five British types have been chosen for inclusion – the Supermarine Spitfire LF.IX, the Spitfire Mk.XIV, the Hawker TyphoonMk.1b, the Hawker Tempest V and the Gloster Meteor F.3. The four American types are the North American P-51D Mustang, the Republic P-47D Thunderbolt, the Lockheed P-38L Lightning and the Lockheed P-80A Shooting Star.
The four Soviet types are the Lavochkin La-7, the Yakovlev Yak-3, the Yak-9U and the Bell P-63A Kingcobra – an American fighter but initially flown almost exclusively by the Russians. Finally, seven German machines are included: the Focke-Wulf Fw 190 A-9, the Ta 152 H-1, the Fw 190 D-9, the Messerschmitt Bf 109 K-4, the Me 262 A-1, the Me 163 B-1 and the Heinkel He 162 A-2.
Some contemporary types, such as the Bell Airacomet, are omitted because they were never considered for front line duties, and others, such as the Hawker Tempest II and de Havilland Vampire, have been left out because they were simply not yet ready for action.

Supermarine Spitfire LF.IX

Spitfire LF IX 2
Later production models of the Spitfire LF IX were fitted with the pointed tail fin that was also a feature of the Spitfire XVI. Production of the Mk.IX continued until the end of the war and it was the most numerous type of Spitfire built.

The Merlin 66-engined Spitfire LF.IX was the workhorse of the RAF’s fighter squadrons from its introduction in 1943 through to the end of the war. The original Mk.IX had been introduced as early as mid-1942.
Compared against a captured Bf 109 G-6/U2 with GM-1 nitrous oxide injection by the Central Fighter Establishment in late 1944, the LF.IX was found to be superior in every respect except acceleration in a dive. Manoeuvrability was found to be “greatly superior” and it was noted that the LF.IX “easily out-turns the Bf 109 in either direction at all speeds”. By 1945, the LF.IX was beginning to show its age. Figures given for its top speed vary but it was undoubtedly among the slowest of the 20 aircraft being assessed here in a straight line. It could out-climb and fly higher than most of its opponents, however, even out-performing many of the most advanced German types.

Spitfire LF IX 3
Flying Officer George Lents of 341 Squadron pictured in front of his Spitfire LF.IX in Sussex, June 1944. By 1945, the Spitfire IX had been completely outclassed in straight line speed by newer types, but it could still climb faster and manoeuvre better than many of its opponents.

There were few to rival it for manoeuvrability either, making it worthy of inclusion here, and explaining why it remained on the front line for so long even when more ‘advanced’ types were becoming available to replace it.

Spitfire LF IX 1
A line-up of Spitfire LF IXs at an advanced landing ground on the Continent in late 1944.

Supermarine Spitfire Mark XIV

Spitfire XIV 1
The Spitfire XIV sacrificed some manoeuvrability for raw speed but was still capable of out-turning and out-climbing almost any opponent.

Combining the Spitfire Mk.VIII airframe with a two-speed, two-stage supercharged 2220hp Rolls-Royce Griffon 65 engine resulted in the Mk.XIV. Introduced in 1943, in appearance it was similar to the Spitfire XII with normal wings but with a five-bladed propeller. The rudder was also enlarged and an extra internal fuel tank was fitted.
The huge increase in power meant the XIV was a match for most of its piston-engined contemporaries, the only exception being the Ta 152, and the two are believed never to have met in combat. Its range was short and its manoeuvrability was inferior to that of the Spitfire LF.IX, but nevertheless the XIV was one of the best fighters of the war’s final months.
Flight Lieutenant Ian Ponsford, who shot down seven enemy aircraft while flying a Spitfire Mk.XIV with 130 Squadron, remembered: “The Spitfire XIV was the most marvellous aeroplane at that time and I consider it to have been the best operational fighter of them all as it could out-climb virtually anything.”

“The earlier Merlin-Spitfire may have had a slight edge when it came to turning performance, but the Mark XIV was certainly better in this respect than the opposition we were faced with. The only thing it couldn’t do was keep up with the Fw 190 D in a dive.

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

“It could be a bit tricky on takeoff if one opened the throttle too quickly as you just couldn’t hold it straight because the torque was so great from the enormous power developed from the Griffon engine.
“One big advantage that we had over the Germans was that we ran our aircraft on advanced fuels which gave us more power. The 150 octane fuel that we used was strange looking stuff as it was bright green and had an awful smell – it had to be heavily leaded to cope with the extra compression of the engine.”
During the Arab-Israeli War in 1948, Israeli pilots flew both Mk. IX and Mk. XIV Spitfires bought from Czechoslovakia against Egyptian Spitfires and concluded that the IX was better due to its superior manoeuvrability.

Spitfire XIV 2
Sporting a large five-bladed propeller, the Spitfire XIV was tricky on takeoff due to the enormous torque produced by its Rolls-Royce Griffon 65 engine.

Hawker Typhoon Mk.1b

Typhoon 1
It was uncomfortable to fly but the Typhoon was agile at low level despite being a large aircraft and could carry a heavy weapons load, making it particularly useful as a fighter-bomber.

The history of the Typhoon is too long and troubled to detail in full here, suffice to say that it was a failure in the high-altitude interceptor role for which it was designed. Although it was the RAF’s first fighter capable of more than 400mph, climbing speed was regarded as inadequate and a series of structural failures in the fuselage caused significant delays in its production.
Having entered service in 1941, it is one of the oldest of the 20 aircraft examined here and was beginning to struggle against more advanced competition by 1945. Pilots had to wear an oxygen mask from the moment the engine was switched on due to heavy carbon monoxide contamination in the cockpit, and the level of noise and vibration made life at its controls doubly uncomfortable.
Nevertheless, as history shows, it proved to be a deadly fighter-bomber when armed with rockets or bombs, and many Fw 190 pilots were unpleasantly surprised to discover that despite its size and weight – being one of the largest and heaviest single-engined aircraft here – it had a very short radius of turn and rolled well.
It could also carry a heavy load with relative ease, which meant it could be fitted with four powerful 20mm Hispano Mk II cannon – a weapon originally designed as an anti-aircraft gun – in addition to its bombs/rockets.

Typhoon 2
Typhoon MN686 was one of Hawker’s development machines, photographed here in late 1944. The Typhoon was fast but poor in a climb.

Hawker Tempest V

Tempest 1.jpg
Hawker Tempest Vs from 501 Squadron pictured 1944. The Tempest V had a quartet of 20mm cannon, giving it a deadly punch, and at low level was capable of overmatching even the Luftwaffe’s finest fighters.

Big, heavy and fast, this thin-wing upgrade of the Typhoon design was undoubtedly one of the best fighters of the Second World War and at low altitudes could give either of the two Spitfires detailed here a run for its money.
It had the same Napier Sabre IIA engine as the Typhoon but range was extended by moving the engine forward 21in to make room for a 76 gallon fuel tank. Tail surfaces were enlarged and a four-bladed propeller was fitted. While the first 100 built had the Typhoon’s four Hispano Mk II cannon, the Series II Tempest V got the Hispano Mk V cannon – the weapon’s ultimate wartime development. The first Tempests reached squadrons in January 1944 and they were initially used to combat Fieseler Fi 103 V-1 flying bombs. When they were moved on to the Continent, it quickly became clear that below about 8000ft the Tempest dramatically outperformed the very best aircraft that the Luftwaffe could throw at it – such as the Fw 190 D-9 and the Bf 109 K-4. Tempest pilots were also responsible for shooting down a number of Me 262s.
According to Hubert Lange, a pilot who flew 15 missions in Me 262s with JG 51, the Hawker Tempest was the German jet’s most dangerous opponent, “extremely fast at low altitudes, highly manoeuvrable and heavily armed”.

Tempest 2.jpg
Similar to the Typhoon, the Tempest’s redesigned wing and enlarged tail were big improvements. These 486 Squadron Tempests are pictured at Lübeck shortly after the war’s end.

The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes will feature the finest cuts from Hush-Kit along with exclusive new articles, explosive photography and gorgeous bespoke illustrations. Order The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes here. Save the Hush-Kit blog. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here. Your donations keep this going. Thank you. Order The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes here

Gloster Meteor F.3

Meteor 1
The first Gloster Meteors on the Continent during 1945 were painted white to avoid ‘friendly’ fire. The jet’s handling was described as pleasant but it suffered from directional snaking, particularly in poor weather.

Powered by a pair of Rolls-Royce Derwent I jets with a static thrust of 2000lb each, the Meteor F.3 began to enter service in early 1945. Deliveries of its predecessor, the F.1, had begun in June 1944.
While the first Meteors were actually slower than the fastest piston-engined fighters then available, such as the Spitfire XIV, the F.3 offered much higher performance.
It was field tested from bases in Belgium with 616 and 504 Squadrons during the last weeks of the war primarily in the fighter reconnaissance and ground-attack roles. It never met the Me 262 in aerial combat but some were shot down by Allied flak due to their superficial resemblance to the German machine.
As a result, Meteors were given an all-white paint scheme to make them more easily recognisable to friendly units.
Like all in-service jets in 1945, the Meteor was at the cutting edge of performance, and in good weather handling was described as “pleasant”, but the F.3 suffered from ‘snaking’ – directional instability – which made it more difficult to target an aerial opponent effectively. A report from the Central Fighter Establishment noted: “The failure of the Meteor to come within an acceptable standard is due to the directional snaking which occurs in operational conditions of flight so far experienced and the heaviness and consequently slow operation of the ailerons to bring the sight back on to the target.
“This snaking tends to increase with increase of speed and once it has commenced it is impossible to correct it within the limits of time available during an attack.”
Whether this would have proved to be a fatal flaw in actual combat or merely an annoyance to the type’s pilots will never be known.
It says a lot about the fortunes of Britain in the war and the role of the Meteor that a large section of the CFE report is devoted to how difficult it would be to fly in formation. It is impossible to imagine the Germans, desperate to rush their jets into action, bothering to do the same for the Me 262.

Meteor 2
A Meteor in flight. The type was Britain’s first operational jet fighter and while its performance on paper was not dramatically dissimilar to that of the Me 262, the Meteor’s handling was probably inferior.

North American P-51D Mustang

Mustang 2.jpg
Beloved of its pilots, the P-51D was an excellent air superiority fighter, though it was poorly armoured and could be a handful at low level. This is serial number 44-14955 ‘Dopey Okie’ of the 487th Fighter Squadron, part of the 352nd Fighter Group.

Flown in huge numbers while escorting American bombers, the Mustang is widely accepted as having been the USAAF’s most successful air superiority and escort fighter.
In P-51D form its performance was excellent at high altitude. Powered by a Packard-built version of the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine and featuring a bubble canopy, it boasted a good though not sparkling rate of climb and exceptional visibility.
It retained a good measure of agility even above 400mph and was a very stable aircraft with few vices to punish the inattentive. At low altitude and in low speed encounters with enemy aircraft however, its large turn radius became a real disadvantage.
In addition, as a high performance long-range escort, it was lightly built and poorly armoured – rendering it vulnerable to even slight battle damage. Many American pilots using the Mustang for strafing ground targets found that even a light flak hit could be fatal.
In high speed, high altitude encounters, the Mustang was able to reach its full potential and there was little to match it in this, its own stomping ground – as Fw 190 and even Me 262 pilots discovered.

North American P-51 Mustang
North American P-51D-5-NA Mustang serial 44-13926 serving with the 375th Fighter Squadron. The famous ‘Cadillac of the sky’ was America’s best regarded fighter of the war. It was capable of flying huge distances and performed exceptionally well at high to medium altitude.

Republic P-47D Thunderbolt

Thunderbolt 1
P-47D-30 Thunderbolt 44-32760 ‘Shorty Miriam’ of the 354th Fighter Group. The Thunderbolt was a huge, powerful fighter and in the right circumstances could beat the Messerschmitt Me 262. It gave continual mechanical problems, however, and was less able than the P-51D.

Faster and higher flying than even a Mustang, the P-47D Thunderbolt was a big, heavy aircraft – the Tempest to the Mustang’s Spitfire. As such, it could also soak up more battle damage and could carry a heavier weapons load too.
On paper, the Thunderbolt seemed to have the edge over the Mustang, but pilots told a different story. The Mustang was simply more agile – it handled better and was easier to fly well. Against German fighters, the Thunderbolt seems to have been just as effective at all altitudes. In the end, the Thunderbolt lost out simply because fewer were used in situations where they were likely to enter aerial combat with German fighters.
One source gives the total number of enemy aircraft shot down by the P-47 as 3662 compared to the P-51’s 5944. General der Jagdflieger Adolf Galland’s Me 262 was shot down by a P-47 Thunderbolt though, not a P-51.
Against the Spitfire XIV, neither the P-47 nor the P-51 could be said to have had a clear advantage. Both were slower, less manoeuvrable at all altitudes and less able to climb at speed – but they had the capacity to keep up with high-flying B-17s and B-24s long after a Spitfire XIV would’ve had to turn for home.

Thunderbolt 2
Like the Hawker Typhoon, the P-47 achieved great success as a fighter-bomber, though it was also a superb fighter. Pictured here is P-47D-25 42-26641 ‘Hairless Joe’ of the 56th Fighter Group.

Lockheed P-38L Lightning

Lightning 2.jpg
The P-38L was used by fighter squadrons of the 1st Fighter Group in Europe. Pilot 2nd Lieutenant Jim Hunt of the 27th Fighter Squadron sits atop P-38L ‘Maloney’s Pony’. The aircraft was never flown by its namesake, 1st Lieutenant Thomas Maloney, because on August 19, 1944, his P-38 (a different one) was forced down on the French coast. While walking along the beach to find help, he trod on a landmine and was badly injured – spending the next three and a half years in and out of hospital.

The oldest of the three piston-engined American fighters featured here, the P-38, had matured by 1945 and had been available in its definitive P-38L form since June 1944.
Its twin engines made it heavy and gave it a very broad wingspan, but since these were set back from the cockpit they also allowed the pilot an excellent view in all directions.
It wasn’t astonishingly fast in a straight line but the Lightning had an exceptional rate of climb. And its counter-rotating propellers meant there was no torque effect in flight and enabled the Lightning to turn equally well to the left or the right. In addition, it had cutting edge features such as power boosted ailerons and electrically operated dive flaps.
However, the Lightning was complicated and pilots had to manage twice the number of engine controls while watching twice the number of gauges. Also it’s armament, while a good average for a late war fighter, was not exceptionally heavy.
It therefore must come last when compared against its American contemporaries.

Lightning 1
A Lockheed P-38L Lightning in flight. Thanks to its powerful twin engines, the ‘L’ could climb at an incredible rate and it boasted cutting edge technology – but it was behind the P-51 and P-47 in manoeuvrability.

Lockheed P-80A Shooting Star

Shooting Star 2.jpg
Lockheed P-80A-1-LO Shooting Star 44-85004 in flight. The production P-80A was fitted with wingtip fuel tanks which extended its range but resulted in performance-sapping drag.

Just two pre-production YP-80A Shooting Stars saw active service during the Second World War, operating briefly from Lesina airfield in Italy with the 1st Fighter Group. Another two were stationed at RAF Burtonwood in Cheshire for demonstration and test flying.
Powered by a single General Electric J-33-GE-9 jet engine mounted centrally in its fuselage, the Shooting Star was aerodynamically clean and was therefore able to reach an impressive 536mph in level flight at 5000ft – though only when fully painted and without wingtip fuel tanks. In natural metal finish and with those range extending tanks, performance tests carried out by the USAAF’s Flight Test Division showed top speed to be just over 500mph – placing it behind all of its jet-powered contemporaries. Many postwar comparisons of wartime jets have been overly favourable towards the P-80 and tend to take their figures from later, improved versions. The aircraft available during the last four months of the war was somewhat less impressive. Without wingtip tanks, its range was that expected of a short-distance high-speed interceptor – 540 miles – yet with them its range improved but its best rate of climb was down to just 3300ft/min. Armament was six .50 calibre machine guns – the same as that of a Mustang – but these were concentrated in the nose, giving it a more effective fire pattern.

Shooting Star 1
The faster of the two XP-80A Shooting Star prototypes, 44-83021 ‘Gray Ghost’. While this aircraft was given an all-over pearl grey paint job, the other XP-80A, ‘Silver Ghost’, was left in bare metal finish for comparative tests. These showed that just painting the Shooting Star had the effect of increasing its top speed. The P-80 was quicker than Gloster’s Meteor but still failed to beat the Me 262.

Lavochkin La-7

La-7 2.jpg
It boasted a powerful radial engine which gave it a performance advantage over older Luftwaffe types but the La-7 was falling behind as the war ended.

Based largely on the earlier La-5 fighter and powered by an air-cooled 1850hp ASh-82FN radial engine, the La-7 incorporated more alloys in place of the original wooden structure. The cockpit got a rollbar, the landing gear was improved and a better gunsight, the PB-1B(V), was installed along with a new VISh-105V-4 propeller and an enlarged spinner to improve streamlining. Unfortunately, the bigger spinner meant less air reached the engine for cooling so a fan was fitted behind it. Visibility was excellent and either a pair or trio of 20mm cannon gave good though not exceptional firepower.

la7_0111.jpg
The Soviets at the time honestly believed that the La-7 was the best fighter in the world for dogfighting and it was certainly faster and more manoeuvrable than the older marques of Fw 190 A that it typically faced on the Eastern Front.
In company such as that discussed here, however, it fails to make the grade. The latest and last Fw 190, the D-9, outperformed it in most areas when using MW-50. Small and lightweight, the La-7 had to be flown at low level because it simply couldn’t manage at high altitude.  It was available in big numbers though, and that the Germans were simply unable to match.

La-7 1.jpg

Yakovlev Yak-3

Yak-3 1
A Yak-3 pictured in Poland during 1945 beside the carcass of a Bf 109. Its high power to weight ratio meant that it handled extremely well with an expert pilot at the controls.

The Russians did their best to develop small lightweight fighters that could be produced in huge numbers and this design philosophy had its greatest success in the form of the Yak-3. Work on it commenced in 1941 but was seriously hampered by first a lack of aluminium and then the German invasion which resulted in design work actually being halted.
As the tide of battle turned, Yakovlev picked up where it had left off and produced the Yak-1M, a lighter, shorter-winged version of the Yak-1. This embodied many technological advances such as a mastless radio antenna, reflector gunsight and better armour. It was meant to have a 1600hp Klimov M-107 V12 engine but this was unavailable and the 1300hp M-105 had to be used instead.

Hush-Kit needs friends to carry on. Become a friend with a small monthly donation to keep us going. 

Even with this relatively small powerplant fitted, the redesignated Yak-3 was still 40mph faster than the Yak-9, which despite its name actually entered service first.
The fact that the Yak-3 can be found somewhere towards the bottom of every table associated with this comparison belies its greatest strength – its ability to out-turn both the Bf 109 and the Fw 190 below 20,000ft. Pilots who were new to the Yak-3 found it easy to fly but its true potential was only realised in the hands of an experienced flyer.
Against the best of the Luftwaffe’s machines, performing at their best, the Yak-3 would have been found sorely lacking but it was ideal for low-level skirmishing and could face standard German types on an footing.

Yak-3 2
The diminutive Yak-3 in flight. The aircraft was primitive in comparison to other nations’ fighters but could still skirmish effectively at low altitude.

Yakovlev Yak-9U

Yak-9U 2.jpg
Visibility from the Yak-9U’s cockpit was good and it manoeuvred well at low altitude but its performance was unremarkable compared to its more powerful peers.

The first Yak-9s off the production line were fitted with the same Klimov M-105 as the Yak-3 and being substantially heavier paid a big price in performance. Top speed was just 367mph – about the same as that of a Spitfire Mk.I in 1939.
However, when the Yak-9 was fitted with the Klimov M-107A, which delivered 1650hp, its performance dramatically improved. Like the Yak-3, it offered excellent all round visibility but armament was somewhat lacking – with just a single 20mm cannon firing through its propeller hub and a pair of .50 calibre machine guns mounted in its engine cowling.
Like the La-7 and the Yak-3, the Yak-9U did its best work at low altitude. It was heavy only when compared to the Yak-3 and even with the more powerful M-107A it could still be considered underpowered in this company. It was manoeuvrable and had better armour than the Yak-3 but it was still no match for the likes of a Fw 190 D-9 or a Bf 109 K-4 on a good day.

Yakovlev Yak-9U 1.jpg
A Yakovlev Yak-9U of the 151st Guard Air Fighter Regiment at Yambol in Bulgaria. The original Yak-9, fitted with a Klimov M-105, was a poor performer, but once it had the Klimov M-107A it joined the front rank of fighters available in 1945.

Bell P-63A Kingcobra

Bell P-63 Kingcobras at Bell factory.jpg
Row upon row of P-63 Kingcobras lined up at the Bell factory prior to delivery to the Soviet air force.

The Americans did not think too highly of Bell’s Kingcobra. They had thought even less highly of its predecessor, the Airacobra, largely because it had been designed to fly with a turbosupercharger but was put into production without one.
The Soviets, however, who received hundreds of Airacobras from the Americans on a lend-lease basis, rather liked it. Much has been written about the Airacobra’s strengths as a ground-attack aircraft, even though the Soviets themselves never regarded it as such and tended to use it for air-to-air interception missions instead.
The Kingcobra saw the turbosupercharger finally installed and the overall design modified to incorporate technological advancements – such as laminar flow wings, a redesigned tail and a four-blade propeller. The first XP-63, a converted XP-39E, was first flown on December 7, 1942.
From the outset, the Soviets were involved in the development process to the extent of supplying personnel to fly the prototypes at Bell’s factory.
Overall Kingcobra production ran to 3303 examples and 2397 of them were supplied to the Soviet Union. No Kingcobra ever saw combat with a USAAF squadron, which is not surprising since the P-63’s range was limited and its performance was poor at high altitude – making it useless as an escort fighter.

The ultimate piston-engined fighters here.

At low level, however, where the Soviet fighter pilots flew, it was effective. Like the other high performance fighter aircraft flown by the Soviets, its top speed and rate of climb were by no means sparkling but it was highly manoeuvrable below 8000ft.

Bell P-63 Kingcobras with Soviet air crew
Pilots of the Soviet 66th Fighter Wing take a break beside their Bell P-63s. More than two-thirds of all Kingcobras built went to the Russians.

Focke-Wulf Fw 190 A-9

Fw 190A-9 2The Fw 190A was the fastest production fighter aircraft in the world when it first appeared in 1941. Once overheating problems with its powerful BMW 801 engine were largely overcome, it joined the Bf 109 as one of the Luftwaffe’s two front line fighters.
In 1944, with the streamlining of German aircraft production, unprecedented numbers of Fw 190s were churned out, mostly in A-8 form. All the while, BMW had been attempting to improve its engine design with little success.
Unfortunately the company had succeeded in producing an engine that had very little development potential. The standard Fw 190 engine was the BMW 801 D-2 and the firm’s engineers were aiming for a model they called the 801 F. This, though, was taking years to perfect – years that Germany didn’t have.
Therefore some of its components were fitted to the standard engine as an interim measure. First these were used to create the 801 U, which had 1730hp at 2700rpm at sea level, compared to the standard D-2’s 1700hp. Then they managed to use more components, creating the 801 S or TS, with a much more impressive 2000hp.
It was this engine which was fitted to a largely unmodified Fw 190 A-8 airframe to create the type’s final form – the Fw 190 A-9. The first production model appeared in August 1944 and production continued until the end of the war.
BMW was heavily bombed towards the end of the war, reducing production of the 801 S to a snail’s pace so fewer than 1000 A-9s were built. In combat, the Fw 190 A-9 gave its pilots a greater edge over their Soviet adversaries but the Allies’ machines were still markedly superior.
Its performance at high altitude was poor, the Fw 190’s rate of turn was never a match for that of the Spitfire and even the aircraft’s exceptional roll rate and dive speed was being cancelled out by the raw power of types such as the Spitfire XIV.
Unlike the Spitfire IX, the Fw 190 A was largely obsolete by 1944 but the Germans had little choice but to keep on producing it since so many assembly lines had been geared up for it and every fighter was sorely needed.

Fw190A-9 1

The Fw 190 A-9’s BMW 801S (TS) engine was a compromise but still produced a respectable 2000hp. Note the bubble canopy and the broad paddle blades of the VDM-9 propeller on this example.
A Fw 190 A-9 leads a line-up of captured Focke-Wulf machines shortly after the war’s end. The A-9 might have been produced in greater numbers had BMW not been so heavily bombed. As it is a lack of production figures for 1945 means it will never be known precisely how many were made.
Focke-Wulf Fw 190 D-9

Fw 190D-9 1.jpg
The Fw 190 D-9 was regarded by those who flew it and those that flew against it as a development of the Fw 190 A. In fact, it was simply Focke-Wulf’s attempt to provide an alternative engine for the Fw 190 airframe in case the supply of BMW units was disrupted. This example, WNr. 210051, has just rolled off the production line at Bremen-Neuenlanderfeld. It was later delivered to III./JG 54

German pilots were largely thrilled by the performance of the Fw 190 D-9 – a stretched Fw 190 A powered by the Junkers Jumo 213 A-1 which could be boosted up to an output of 2000hp with MW-50 injection.
The ‘long nose’ D-9 lost some of the Fw 190 A’s handling and manoeuvrability as the trade-off for its increased speed however.
Focke-Wulf designer Kurt Tank never intended the D-9 to be the next step in the Fw 190’s evolution however – that was the Ta 152 – instead he was on record as saying that the existing airframe simply needed an alternative powerplant since BMW’s factories were being so heavily targeted by Allied bombing.
There has been some suggestion that without water-methanol injection, the D-9’s top speed was around 390mph. The Soviets who tested examples they captured intact but without MW-50 were certainly deeply unimpressed by the performance of its Jumo 213 A engine. The long nose restricted forward and downward visibility, which became a problem because the aircraft had a high wing loading – its wings were the same as those used on the A-8 – and it therefore needed a fast landing and stalled easily. Having to put the aircraft down fast and being unable to see where you were going was a bad combination. Even so, German pilots still considered the D-9 easier to land and take off in than any Bf 109 variant due to its wide-track landing gear.
Armament was a pair of wing-mounted 20mm cannon and two .50 calibre machine guns in the engine cowl – not outstanding but still sufficient, particularly against lightly armoured opponents such as the Soviet types.

Fw 190D-9 2.jpg
An early production Fw 190 D-9 stands out in the snow prior to delivery to III./JG 54, the first unit to operate the type, in September 1944. In combat, the D-9 was fast with MW-50, particularly in a dive. Its performance surpassed that of the Fw 190 A types but Allied types such as the Mustang still eclipsed it.

Focke-Wulf Ta 152 H

ta-152h-1.jpg
Focke-Wulf Ta 152 H W.Nr. 110003 of JG 301 as it appeared having been captured by the Allies and shipped to America with the Foreign Equipment number 112. The abilities of the Ta 152 H remain difficult to assess since so few were made. On paper it was, perhaps, the best piston-engined fighter of the war.

The Ta 152 was effectively brought into being on the same day that its predecessor the Ta 153 was cancelled – at meeting on August 13, 1943. Tank suggested at the meeting that the same benefits of the Ta 153, which was almost entirely a new machine, could be achieved by simply extending the wings and fuselage of the existing Fw 190 airframe with inserts. The Ta 152 would be only 10% new and as such was approved for development. The Fw 190 D-9 was an even simpler conversion.
Bringing the Ta 152 to production took longer than expected due to delays in the development of the engines that were to power it. In the end, the Ta 152 C standard fighter version only reached the prototype stage and just a handful of high-altitude Ta 152 Hs were built and saw combat.
Powered by the long-delayed but finally sorted supercharged Junkers Jumo 213 E-1 engine, the 152 H was the fastest piston-engined aircraft to see combat during the war by a considerable margin. It also had a decent rate of climb, the highest ceiling of any piston-engined fighter of the war and a remarkable wingspan of 47ft 4½in.
Even its armament was good – two 20mm cannon in the wings and a single 30mm cannon in the nose – though in practice problems were encountered with jamming. There was no chance of development work to resolve the issue since by this stage the factories that built the Ta 152 H had already been overrun by Soviet troops.
Precisely how manoeuvrable the production Ta 152 H-1 was is largely based on speculation. After the war its surviving pilots defended its reputation to the hilt – standing by their claim that it was better than almost anything else in the sky by the end of the war.

Top 10 fighters of World War II here.

However, there are no flying examples available today and even while the type was briefly in service it was prone to sudden and mysterious failures which on a couple of occasions resulted in the death of the pilot.
It seems to have enjoyed mixed fortunes in combat against the excellent Hawker Tempest V and somewhat more success against Yak-3s but it never faced a Mustang or Thunderbolt in their high altitude area of operations, as far as is known. If it had done, it might have faced them on at least an equal footing.

Messerschmitt Bf 109 K-4

Bf 109K-4 2.jpg
Messerschmitt Bf 109 K-4 WNr. 330130 at a Messerschmitt factory during the autumn of 1944. In all round performance the K-4 surpassed the final development of its great rival, the Fw 190 A-9, but still suffered from its antiquated narrow track undercarriage and small wings.

The final production version of the long-serving Bf 109 design was the K-4. The first production examples of the type, conceived in the mid-1930s as a lightweight highly manoeuvrable fighter, flew in 1937, making it easily the oldest type here.
The Bf 109 that saw a vast increase in production alongside the Fw 190 A-8 was the Bf 109 G-6 and later versions were produced in progressively smaller numbers. Shortly before the war’s end, Willy Messerschmitt had been preparing his company to wind up production of the 109 in preparation for a wholesale switch to the Me 262 and its projected successors.
The K-4 was an attempt to give the basic design a cleanup using all the available technological advances to produce something close to the ultimate Bf 109. It was also a move intended to remove the need for the bewildering variety of sub-variants spawned as part of the Bf 109 G series.
Further K series 109s were projected beyond the K-4 but none made it to production.
The K-4’s cockpit canopy was altered to the less-heavily framed Erla/Galland design to provide improved visibility and a powerful Daimler-Benz DB 605 DC engine was installed, producing 1800hp during takeoff, rising to an incredible 1973hp with MW-50. This in an aircraft that was lighter than any of the lightweight Soviet designs.
At its best, the Bf 109 K-4’s performance figures were nothing short of astounding. Its boosted top speed of 440mph put it in the same league as the Spitfire XIV and P-51 Mustang, and a climb rate of 4500ft/min was among the very best.
Armament was a problem, however. The K-4’s standard load was a 30mm MK 108 firing through the propeller hub and a pair of MG 131 .50 calibre machine guns mounted in the engine cowling. There were difficulties in getting the MK 108 to work properly in this configuration though which meant that the gun jammed easily if attempts were made to fire it while manoeuvring.
In practice, many Bf 109 K-4s reached the front line without their MW-50 kits fitted or with some other defect whether as a result of deliberate sabotage or simply poor craftsmanship on the part of the forced labourers who built many of their components. The type was therefore seldom able to reach its dazzling full potential in combat.

Bf 109K-4 1
The ultimate development of the Messerschmitt Bf 109 to actually reach front line service was the K-4. It was a remarkable upgrade of the type but was often let down by shoddy workmanship and sabotage. This one is WNr. 330230 ‘White 17’ of 9./JG 77 at Neuruppin in November 1944.

Messerschmitt Me 262 A-1

Me 262 2
The Me 262 took years to develop but the end result, when its engines had been freshly reconditioned and everything was working correctly, was spectacular. Pictured here is Me 262 A-1 ‘White 4’ of JG 7 at Achmer in Germany towards the end of 1944.

The Me 262 was the first operational jet fighter anywhere in the world when it equipped Erprobungskommando 262 and then KG 51 in May-June 1944 and began to enter combat against Allied aircraft.
Some American writers such as Robert F Dorr have attempted to advance the claim of the Bell P-59A Airacomet to being the first operational jet fighter – since it entered ‘service’ in late 1943, but in practice this was little more than part of the development process. The Me 262 was a high performance combat machine that could outrun anything short of a rocket-powered Me 163, was armed with four 30mm cannon and potentially R4M air-to-air rockets – making it the most heavily armed aircraft here – and could handle sufficiently well to make good use of its other virtues.
Its design was futuristic – those swept-back wings were revolutionary – and a lengthy period of development before it entered even service testing meant many, though by no means all, of its early foibles had been worked out and eliminated.
In combat it was by no means indestructible and its engines had only a very limited operational lifespan before they needed to be removed and overhauled. Its nosewheel was notoriously weak, acceleration was slow, landing speed was high and the aircraft was so fast in combat that pilots unfamiliar with jets – in other words most of its pilots – struggled to hit their targets.
But still, the Me 262 was a deadly opponent for any Allied fighter. It could be outmanoeuvred by a Spitfire but it was very difficult to catch. Even its cruising speed, 460mph, was above anything the Allies could match except in a dive.
It has been endlessly opined that had the Me 262 been built in much larger numbers – or fractionally sooner – the war might have had a different outcome, but in reality it was at the very edge of what was technologically possible for 1945 and its engines were the source of its worst problems. They simply could not be made good enough fast enough.

Messerschmitt Me 262
The first jet fighter to begin combat operations anywhere in the world, the Me 262, was an engineering masterpiece and remains a design icon. Not only that, it was also an excellent fighter. One of the best known Me 262s, the unpainted WNr. 111711, was surrendered to the Americans by Messerschmitt company pilot Hans Fay at Rhein-Main airfield on March 30, 1945.

Messerschmitt Me 163 B-1

Me 163 1.jpg
Filled with volatile explosive chemicals that provided enough thrust for only seven and a half minutes of powered flight and lacking even a proper undercarriage once it had been glided back to the airfield, the Me 163 was as much a danger to its pilots as it was to the enemy.

The first rocket-powered aircraft in the world was the tailless Ente or ‘duck’ – a glider designed by Alexander Lippisch powered by an engine produced by rocket pioneers Max Valier and Friedrich Sander at the behest of car company publicist Fritz von Opel.
After Opel left Germany in 1929 and Valier was killed in 1930, Lippisch went to work for the DFS – the German glider research organisation. Here he produced several revolutionary tailless designs and in 1940 these were fitted with a powerful liquid rocket engine designed by Hellmuth Walter, the HWK 109-509, and the Messerschmitt Me 163 was created.
The tiny lightweight interceptor had two ‘fuel’ tanks, one filled with a methanol, hydrazine hydrate and water mixture known as C-Stoff and the other with a high test peroxide known as T-Stoff. When combined, these volatile liquids produced a powerful jet or sometimes a catastrophic explosion.
This was enough for just seven and a half minutes of powered flight, although during that time the aircraft could reach a speed of nearly 600mph and an altitude of nearly 40,000ft. This performance put every other Second World War aircraft in the shade but it was also the Me 163’s undoing as a fighter.
It was armed with a pair of 30mm MK 108 cannon – sufficient to destroy any aerial target, bomber or fighter, with only a couple of hits – but the Komet closed so rapidly on its target that it was very difficult for the pilot to hit anything. There was usually only enough time and fuel for a couple of passes at enemy bombers before the Me 163 was forced to begin its unpowered glide back to base – often at the mercy of Allied fighters. For all its years in development, the deaths of several of its pilots and the huge efforts required to maintain it in service, the Me 163 is believed to have achieved only nine aerial victories.

Heinkel He 162 A-2

He 162 3.jpg
Most photographs fail to capture just how small and light the He 162 was – this image of a captured one taking off at Muroc Flight Test Base, California, shows the test pilot, Bob Hoover, looking surprising large in relation to the machine.

More so than the Me 163 – which had actually been in development when the Third Reich was at its peak – the Heinkel He 162 was a product of desperation.
Its overall layout was informed by experiences of the Me 262, with its single BMW 003 jet mounted above the fuselage so that when it crashed the precious engine had a better chance of survival. In addition, its major structural elements were made mostly out of wood.
An ejection seat was fitted but this was ineffective at low altitude. Design work was started by Heinkel as the P 1073 in July 1944 and submitted as the company’s attempt to meet an RLM requirement for a cheap jet that was easy to build and easy for a novice to fly, a people’s fighter, or Volksjäger, two months later. Once it was declared successful on September 23, 1944, the Heinkel design was modified and rushed into production. The first test flight took place on December 6, and efforts to bring it into front line service were being made as the war ended.
The He 162 had a hidden problem however. The design should have used Tego film plywood glue – which was in common use with other German aircraft types – but the factory that made it at Wuppertal was destroyed in an RAF bombing raid and an alternative was needed to ensure He 162 production could go ahead.
The replacement glue, unbeknownst to Heinkel, had a gradual corrosive effect on wood and the He 162s that were produced began to suffer from mysterious structural failures. It didn’t help that the BMW 003 wasn’t ready for service either and was prone to flameouts.
When the He 162 was working properly and not falling apart in the sky, pilots regarded it as an excellent aircraft with light controls that was stable at high speed. While its speed couldn’t match that of the Me 262, or even the Meteor F.3, it could out-climb either of them.
Its armament of two MG 151/20 autocannon was relatively light but the small aircraft simply wasn’t up to housing the twin MK 108s originally projected.
Given more time and better glue, the He 162 might conceivably have been a contender but in the event it was a non-starter.

He 162 1.jpg
The very first He 162 V1, W.Nr. 20001. When it remained in one piece, the He 162 was a fine fighter aircraft, yet it still matched the speed and hitting power of the Me 262.

 So which was the best?

From among the 20 aircraft examined here, there are some obvious dropouts when it comes to deciding which was best. The British Hawker Tempest V was a better fighter than the Typhoon, so the latter can be safely ruled out.

The same applies to the Focke-Wulf Ta 152 and both of the Fw 190 A types. The A-9 and the D-9 can be ditched. Similarly, the Me 262 would have been the better fighter even if the He 162 could have been made to work flawlessly so the notorious Volksjäger has got to go. The Me 163’s endurance was too brief to make it an effective fighter so it can also be taken out of contention.
The slowest of the American types was the P-38 Lightning. It climbed well but was surpassed as a dogfighter, therefore it too has to go. Though they were good at low-level fighting they were not superior to the most exceptional of their contemporaries so all four of the Soviet types can be excluded too.
This leaves a top 10 of the Tempest V, Spitfire IX and XIV, Meteor F.3, P-47 Thunderbolt, P-51 Mustang, P-80 Shooting Star, Me 262 A-1, Ta 152 and Bf 109 K.
The non-operational Meteor F.3 and P-80 can probably be ruled out due to ongoing development issues, the Bf 109 K could not be said to have surpassed the Ta 152 in performance, the P-47 Thunderbolt was less manoeuvrable than the P-51 and the Spitfire IX lacked the raw speed to keep up with the new German jets, so a reasonable top five would be the Tempest V, Spitfire XIV, P-51 Mustang, Me 262 A-1 and Ta 152.
Here the narrowing down gets more difficult. The Ta 152 was designed as a high altitude fighter and relied heavily on its complex engine to give it its amazing turn of speed. Its guns were prone to jamming and its reputation rests on only a handful of accounts by decidedly partisan witnesses. It ought therefore to be excluded.
The Tempest V was fast and deadly but it lacked performance at high altitude and straight line speed. Would it have been able to best a Spitfire XIV in a dogfight? Maybe, maybe not.
The choice really comes down to three machines – the Spitfire XIV, the P-51 Mustang and the Me 262 A-1. All three were potent dogfighters, loved by their pilots and feared by their enemies. The P-51 was the best aircraft in the world for its particular role – escorting bombers over long distances at high altitude – but was it the best fighter of the three finalists?
It lacked the speed of either the Spitfire or the Messerschmitt and its rate of climb was significantly below that of the other two. Its manoeuvrability was excellent but it did not surpass that of the Spitfire.
The Me 262 represented the future of air combat. It could outrun almost anything and its armament was second to none – yet it had serious problems in operational service.
Built by dedicated German engineers rather than slaves, flown in numbers from well-defended airfields and kept well supplied with fuel and fresh engines, it would undoubtedly have had the edge over the Spitfire, but in reality Germany’s war situation coupled with its own design flaws served to handicap the world’s first truly successful jet fighter.
In the final analysis, there have to be joint winners – the British Supermarine Spitfire XIV and the German Me 262. The Spitfire Mk.XIV was faster than any other piston engine aircraft bar the Ta 152, its manoeuvrability was outstanding, it could perform exceptionally at any altitude and its rate of climb was stupendous. Its short range made it unsuitable for escort missions but in a straight fight it was simply very hard to beat. Nevertheless, in one-on-one combat, a Spitfire Mk.XIV pilot would have found it very difficult to best a Me 262 – particularly with the latter able to fly 93mph faster. The Spitfire pilot would have enjoyed greater horizontal manoeuvrability and acceleration but would still have had to surprise the Me 262 or the Me 262 pilot would have had to make a fatal error.
After the war, former Luftwaffe General of Fighters and Me 262 pilot Adolf Galland said: “The best thing about the Spitfire XIV was that there were so few of them.”

Claimed top speed

1. Me 163 B-1 596mph
2. Me 262 A-1 540mph
3. P-80A Shooting Star 536mph
4. Meteor F.3 528mph
5. He 162 A-2 522mph
6. Ta 152 H-1 462mph
7. Spitfire Mk.XIV 447mph
8. P-47 Thunderbolt 443mph
9. Bf 109 K-4 440mph
10. P-51 Mustang 437mph
11. Tempest V 432mph
12. Fw 190 D-9 428mph
13. La-7 418mph
14. Yak-9U 417mph
15. P-38L Lightning 414mph
16. Typhoon 1b 412mph
17. P-63 Kingcobra 410mph
18. Spitfire LF.IX 409mph
19. Fw 190 A-9 404mph
20. Yak-3 398mph

Ceiling

1. Ta 152 H-1 49,540ft
2. Meteor F.3 46,000ft
3. P-80A Shooting Star 45,000ft
4. P-38L Lightning 44,000ft
5. Spitfire Mk.XIV 43,500ft
6. P-47D Thunderbolt 43,000ft
7. P-63A Kingcobra 43,000ft
8. Spitfire LF.IX 42,500ft
9. P-51D Mustang 41,900ft
10. Bf 109 K-4 41,000ft
11. Me 163 B-1 39,700ft
12. He 162 A-2 39,400ft
13. Fw 190 D-9 39,370ft
14. Me 262 A-1 37,565ft
15. Tempest V 36,500ft
16. Fw 190 A-9 35,443ft
17. Typhoon 1b 35,200ft
18. Yak-3 35,000ft
19. Yak-9U 35,000ft
20. La-7 34,285ft
Rate of climb

1. Me 163 B-1 31,000ft/min
2. Spitfire Mk.XIV 5100ft/min
3. Spitfire LF.IX 5080ft/min
4. La-7 4762ft/min
5. P-38L Lightning 4750ft/min
6. He 162 A-2 4615ft/min
7. Bf 109 K-4 4500ft/min
8. Tempest V 4380ft/min
9. Yak-3 4330ft/min
10. Fw 190 D-9 4232ft/min
11. P-80A Shooting Star 4100ft/min
12. Meteor F.3 3980ft/min
13. Ta 152 H-1 3937ft/min
14. Me 262 A-1 3900ft/min
15. Fw 190 A-9 3445ft/min
16. Yak-9U 3280ft/min
17. P-47D Thunderbolt 3260ft/min
18. P-51D Mustang 3200ft/min
19. Typhoon 1b 2740ft/min
20. P-63A Kingcobra 2500ft/min

Range (without external drop tanks)

1. P-51D Mustang 950 miles
2. P-47D Thunderbolt 800 miles
3. Ta 152 H-1 745 miles
4. Tempest V 740 miles
5. Me 262 A-1 646 miles
6. He 162 A-2 602 miles
7. Fw 190 A-9 569 miles
8. P-80A Shooting Star 540 miles
9. Fw 190 D-9 520 miles
10. Typhoon 1b 510 miles
11. Meteor F.3 504 miles
12. Spitfire Mk.XIV 460 miles
13. P-38L Lightning 450 miles
14. P-63A Kingcobra 450 miles
15. Spitfire LF.IX 434 miles
16. Yak-9U 420 miles
17. La-7 413 miles
18.Yak-3 405 miles
19. Bf 109 K-4 404 miles
20. Me 163 B-1 25 miles
BOXOUT 5>
Wingspan

1. P-38L Lightning 52ft
2. Ta 152 H-1 47ft 4½in
3. Meteor F.3 43ft
4. Typhoon 1b 41ft 7in
5. Me 262 A-1 41ft 6in
6. Tempest V 41ft
7. P-47D Thunderbolt 40ft 9in
8. P-80A Shooting Star 38ft 9in
9. P-63A Kingcobra 38ft 4in
10. P-51D Mustang 37ft
11. Spitfire Mk.XIV 36ft 10in
12. Spitfire LF.IX 36ft 8in
13. Fw 190 A-9 34ft 5in
14. Fw 190 D-9 34ft 5in
15. Bf 109 K-4 32ft 9½in
16. La-7 32ft 2in
17. Yak-9U 31ft 11in
18. Yak-3 30ft 2in
19. Me 163 B-1 30ft 7in
20. He 162 A-2 23ft 7in
BOXOUT 6>
Empty weight

1. P-38L Lightning 12,800lb
2. Meteor F.3 10,517lb
3. P-47D Thunderbolt 10,000lb
4. Tempest V 9250lb
5. Typhoon 1b 8840lb
6. Ta 152 H-1 8640lb
7. P-80A Shooting Star 8420lb
8. Me 262 A-1 8366lb
9. Fw 190 D-9 7694lb
10. P-51D Mustang 7635lb
11. Fw 190 A-9 7055lb
12. P-63A Kingcobra 6800lb
13. Spitfire Mk.XIV 6578lb
14. Spitfire LF.IX 6518lb
15. La-7 5743lb
16. Yak-9U 5526lb
17. Yak-3 4640lb
18. Bf 109 K-4 4343lb
19. Me 163 B-1 4200lb
20. He 162 A-2 3660lb

This article was an extract from Spitfires over Berlin, thanks to author Dan Sharp 

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

Bell P-63 Kingcobras at Bell factory

MiG-27 pilot says farewell to the Indian Flogger

mig 27 retirement-1577459700.jpg

Two years ago MiG-27 pilot Anshuman Mainkar gave us a thrilling interview about flying this Soviet hot-rod. With the news that the type has now retired from IAF service we asked Mainkur to reflect on this significant event. 

 

The MiG-27 has now retired from the IAF, how does that feel for you?
“Not only has the MiG-27 retired, but also the #Flogger saga in the IAF has drawn to a close. Inducted during the early 1980s, during a modernisation cycle that also included other platforms, these variants served with many units, delivering sterling service to the nation.

State of the art for their times in terms of BVR capability (even when the relative nascency of the MF is considered compared to the later MLD, et al variants) and nav/attack suite for the BN/ML (including the unique laser range-finder/designator), the aircraft in spite of legacy (under refinement since the early 60s, and giving way to next-gen platforms of the age – Su-27/MiG-29, et al) were taken through the paces well by pioneers who studied the package well and designed SOPs that became the gold standard for operations specifically suited to the IAF.

With this in context, I feel extremely privileged to have flown a remarkable platform, and having learnt from a great set of mentors and tutors who taught me the nuances of flying but also of life. And while it is with a tinge of sadness that I enjoyed the festivities of the winding down ceremony, I am happy that the culture, bonding and associations with the machines and the men and women who cared and nurtured it in the IAF will remain with me for eternity.

Speaking of the MiG 27 in particular, it was the last of the variants to be inducted and de-inducted, and it played.”

What was the aircraft’s greatest moments in IAF service?

“They were ample moments – technology/weapon integration, firing competitions, operations, etc. A few that people will relate to would definitely include its involvement in Kargil, when it (along with the BN), were tasked heavily, performing admirably given the nature of terrain and targets.

It must be mentioned that the pioneers had envisaged much in advance the requirement of a Kargil-like deployment/employment, and therefore the fleet was well-equipped and trained for the hostilities that were thrust upon them. That they were ready, raring and prepared was a product of the fleet stalwart vision and initiative.”
Now the aircraft has retired can you share anything you could not have shared before?

“A popular pilot quip was a wish to begin the syllabus on the fighter first – (even without dual trips, a testimony to the comfort and aesthetic of the jet), and then convert on to the trainer (which in many terms was a different aircraft).”

6868914bcbdb0693859091736901ca8a.jpg
How many active ’27 pilots were there at the point of retirement – what will they do now?

“A squadron worth, plus a few more – not current, but in various staff/piloting appointments across the Air Force. There isn’t a fleet for them to come back to, but they sure are a valuable asset for the Air Force. I’m sure they’ll get their due, and the Air Force will find them worthy appointments/responsibilities to pursue.”

 How did it compare to the Jaguar?

“As far as mud-sweepers go, the Jaguar took its role too seriously. It hesitated to take off, and as a popular saying goes, it only took off because of the Earth’s curvature. But that was on a lighter note, the Flogger fleet and Jaguar boys sure loved a good roast!

During it’s heyday, the MiG-27 avionics suite – autopilot/nav/attack/recovery systems were truly fantastic, better than the initial Jaguars. The Jaguar has matured well in Indian service, though. Being the only dedicated striker in IAF service, it has done well for itself, and its bag of tricks will stand it in good stead for some time to come.”

What will happen to the airframes? What would you like to happen?

“Gate guardians, mostly, adorning prominent locations across many cities, including its own bases. Ideal candidate too, takes up less space with max sweep :)”

Hush-Kit needs friends to carry on. Become a friend with a small monthly donation to keep us going. 

emt9fr8uuaifndf.jpg

 

 

Super Tejas — what’s the point? Opinion on twin-engine Tejas from Shiv Aroor

ENglU0AUEAACurl.jpg

We met up with leading Indian defence reporter Shiv Aroor to find out more about the mysterious ORCA artworks revealed by a Tejas test pilot. 

What is the point?
“Well to start off, these aren’t official renders by the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) that administers Tejas, but, as I understand it, from some folks at HAL which builds the Tejas. Now to the point. The ADA tells me it was ‘forced’ to propose a twin-engine Tejas design specifically because the Indian Navy has put a hard stop to ambiguity over whether it will operate the existing N-LCA. The sense I got directly from the top is that the team isn’t particularly pleased with the idea of ditching the N-LCA for the twin-engine configuration. So the point, if there is one, is to meet the Indian Navy’s requirement under existing commitments to supply a carrier-compatible fighter. That this will involve an air force variant is obvious. But it’s important to acknowledge that there would be no twin-engine Tejas design of any kind if there was no Indian Navy stipulation to the effect. So this springs from the Indian Navy, not the Air Force.”

Is it a good idea?
“Like a lot of things, this looks like robust on paper. I’ve seen reports that there’s a six-year development path to first flight and highly optimistic pathways to getting this project off the ground. If those timelines are even remotely realistic, it could be a good idea. ”

Will it happen?
“While I fully support indigenous aerospace design, I very much doubt this will be a reality for a variety of reasons. For one thing, I don’t think Indian Navy requirements have ever compelled major aircraft design decisions in the country — and they’re not about to start. Even the N-LCA was an afterthought. The Indian Air Force might be more inclined towards a lower-risk LCA Mk.II/MWF that was revealed in concept form a year ago. The IAF has only just begun warming to the Tejas Mk.1 and looks forward to the Mk.1A. I doubt it’ll be looking to see another development path towards a fourth-gen fighter. My sense is it would rather see design hours and resources dedicated to the stealthy AMCA. And I agree with that inclination. Finally, budgetary resources are already stretched thin between committed purchases and existing projects like the AMCA. Adding a new one will merely slow things down.”

Over 99.9% of our readers ignore our funding appeals. This site depends on your support. If you’ve enjoyed an article donate here. Recommended donation amount £12. Keep this site going.

ENglU0AUEAACurl.jpg

Giant Super Tejas revealed: Our analysis

orca-tejas.jpg

The Tejas effort to create an indigenous fighter for India took a dramatic turn with last week’s reveal of a plan for a twin-engined variant with twice the thrust and almost doubled weight. The new aircraft is a close-coupled canard delta in the same class as the Rafale. Jim Smith gives his analysis. 

Update here. 

“At the turn of the year, Harsh Vardhan Thakur, a test pilot with Hindustan Aerospace, released an image of a twin-engine version of Tejas, identified as ORCA – an acronym for Omni-Role Combat aircraft. Subsequently, comments on the ORCA rendering were made by defenceupdate.in, and by ndtv.com. Having provided a couple of quick comments to @Hush_Kit on the ORCA image, I have been asked to provide an item for the blog.

Firstly, it is apparent that, as is normal with Tejas, the story is not as simple as at appears at first sight. In addition to ORCA, a concept for a twin-engine deck-based fighter (TEDBF) also exists, and if such a project were to proceed, ORCA would essentially be an air force variant, with lower weight, as, among other changes, the deck-landing capable undercarriage could be replaced with lighter landing gear. Neither of these variants relate to the existing air force or navy procurement plans, or directly to the development of the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), a future Indian-developed stealthy fighter, although some technology developments for ORCA and TEDBF might provide risk reduction for AMCA.

Configuration Design

 The ORCA rendering shows a close-coupled canard using the Tejas wing planform with twin-engines. Dimensions, weights, engine-specifics are unstated, but the render shows a significant external weapons payload, and what appear to be conformal fuel tanks located on the upper shoulder of the fuselage, as in late-model F-16s.

Initial commentary by defenceupdate.in appears to assume the use of two GE F404 engines, rather than the more powerful F414 engines, and draws attention to the significant design changes that would be required to develop this configuration from the existing Tejas.

Subsequent commentary by ndtv.com provides significantly more detail, focussed primarily on the TEDBF variant. This indicates that TEDBF would be a significantly larger aircraft than Tejas, would feature wing fold and would use two GE F414 engines. These engines are stated (Janes All the Worlds Aircraft) to have a maximum take-off thrust of 22,000 lb (97.9 kN), compared to 18,000 lb (80 kN) for the GE F404 variant fitted to Tejas. The GE F414 is the engine for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, while the GE F404 is the powerplant of the F/A-18 ‘Classic’ Hornet.

ORCA3.jpg

The most startling aspect of the TEDBF discussion is the stated weight of the aircraft, which is quoted as 23 tonnes, compared to 13.5 tonnes for Tejas Mk1. As an indication, 23 tonnes is close to the max overload weight of the Typhoon, and similar to quoted maximum take-off weights for Rafale. So TEDBF is in no way the cheap and cheerful solution that might originally have been considered as an outcome of Tejas.

ORCA2.jpg

In addition, the TEDBF is expected to carry a significantly greater weapons payload than Tejas, stated to be 9 tonnes, and to have an integrated sensor and avionics suite including AESA radar, IRST, datalinks and sensor fusion.

 

Configuration comments

1.png

 On the whole, the illustrations available of TEDBF and ORCA appear credible as twin-engine evolutions of Tejas. However, there are some interesting differences between the designs, and some questionable features. Firstly, the ORCA rendering does not seem to allow sufficient fuselage width to accommodate two engines, noting that there will need to be a strong firewall between the two engines. For TEDBF, it would appear logical to use such a structure as the anchor point for the arrestor hook, but no hook is apparent in the illustrations.

The fuselage of TEDBF appears slightly longer than shown in the ORCA illustration, resulting in a slightly further forward position of the canard relative to the wing. Of course, this might result from the concept drawings representing as-yet unrefined designs, or perhaps related designs at different stages of concept definition. In my view, both ORCA and TEDBF would benefit from a fuselage plug to lengthen the aircraft and position the canards slightly further forward, so that they do not overlap the wing leading edge. I would expect this to improve the canard-wing aerodynamics and lift-dependent drag, as well as increasing fuselage fineness ratio, which should improve wave drag slightly, and provide additional volume for fuel or avionics.

 

Of course, the big unanswered question is whether the aircraft has GE F404 or F414 engines. I would assume the latter, given the quoted weights, and if so, the larger fan diameter, and airflow requirements for the engine are likely to require larger intake ducts than in the original Tejas.

Tejas: thoughts on an unusual wing here

 

 

Development Issues

 The ndtv.com commentary on the TEDBF quotes project sources as indicating a cheap and rapid development path exists, building on Tejas experience, and further suggests a development timescale of 6 years from go-ahead.

ORCA2.jpg

Let’s consider what would need to be done. Firstly, the propulsion system change will require substantial redesign of the fuselage, together with revision of the structure to accommodate the additional weight and size of the airframe. While some aspects (such as the wing) appear to re-use Tejas components, I suggest this is a superficial resemblance, since the use of a canard, rather than Leading-Edge Vortex Controllers (LEVCONs), will change the aircraft aerodynamics, stability and control and control laws. The significantly higher weight will result in increased loads and require redesign of the structure. Additionally, the landing gear will need to accommodate higher weights, and, presumably will be rearranged for the TEDBF so that the arrestor hook can take advantage of the engine-bay firewall as an attachment point.

1.png

To deliver the required operational flexibility and capability, a substantial weapons, sensors and avionics integration programme will be required. Much of this might piggyback on existing or planned integration work for Tejas and other platforms, but type-specific weapons integration, carriage and release programmes will also be required.

 

Should all this development work succeed, the operational TEDBF will emerge as an aircraft with the same size, weight, configuration and, perhaps, capability as the Rafale aircraft currently just being delivered to India. They would supplement the capability of that aircraft, and would have the imprimatur of being Indian designed and built. Could the ORCA variant then replace the SU-30 MKI? Perhaps, but this seems to be the intent for the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) programme.

ORCA.jpg

 

Where would ORCA sit compared to the AMCA? If that aircraft is to be stealthy, a further increment of technical difficulty is added in configuration design, manufacturing and propulsion and sensor integration. If the ultimate aim is for India to be able to design its own 5th or even 6th generation stealthy fighter, then the necessary confidence in aerodynamics, control system design, propulsion and system integration gained in a ORCA/TEDBF programme would de-risk at least some platform and system elements. But ORCA/TEDBF could at best be a reduced signature aircraft – more significant configuration changes would be needed to achieve a low signature outcome.

top-aviation-blog.png

Notwithstanding some risk reduction for AMCA from ORCA/TEDBF, the challenges of materials, build standard, internal weapon and, integrated sensors, stealth system maintenance and operations planning of a 5th or 6th generation system would still remain as the step up to AMCA.”

Update here. 

We spoke to Tejas test pilot Harsh Vardhan Thakur who noted – ” These are (one of) many concept drawings. There are many more. Canards will not overlap with the main planes.” So perhaps caution should be exercised in reading too much into the artwork.

Over 99.9% of our readers ignore our funding appeals. This site depends on your support. If you’ve enjoyed an article donate here. Recommended donation amount £12. Keep this site going.

orca-tejas.jpg

 

safe_image.jpg

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

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

 

I can do it with your help.

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

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

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

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

FEATURING

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

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

Rewards levels include these packs of specially produced trump cards.

I’ve selected the richest juiciest cuts of Hush-Kit, added a huge slab of new unpublished material, and with Unbound, I want to create a beautiful coffee-table book. Here’s the book link .  

 

I can do it with your help.

 

 

 

 

Hush-Kit to return to YouTube

When I discovered someone had pinched a Hush-Kit article and fed the text to a robot voice on YouTube I was initially annoyed. Then I looked at the viewing figures. If this chancer was doing so well with one of those infuriating robot voices maybe there was an appetite for ones with real voice-overs. Making the films was a steep learning curve. Finding an appropriate voiceover artist, learning how to record and edit the audio, learning how to source and edit appropriate footage — and then making the thing – all took a great deal of time. It was all a bit of a ball-ache, and took me away from what I enjoyed: researching and writing.  But I was gratified to find people were watching. Wading through the abusive comments you receive as a YouTuber, deleting the mad racist crap and replying to the hundreds of questions also takes a great deal of time. We then had some issues with YouTube, but touch wood these are now resolved and we hope to make more films. We will restart production when we get to 30K viewers. You can help by subscribing here.

 

Blackburn Shark

1434638310485.jpg

The Blackburn Shark torpedo bomber has a reputation for being, to put it gently, no Fairey Swordfish. Blackburn must have thought their luck had turned when they were finally allocated a half-decent name, following the less-than-scintillating Blackburn Ripon and Baffin and the frankly imagination-bypassing Blackburn Blackburn (so portly they named it twice). Their new aircraft beat the rival Swordfish into service with the Fleet Air Arm by a year – and yet within another year had been replaced by it, which must represent some kind of record. Its legacy is to be virtually unknown, save for muttered stories of piston-shedding Armstrong Siddeley Tiger engines and an annoying whistle in flight.

1434638310097.jpg

The truth is that the Shark was nowhere near as bad as all that. Indeed, it was regarded by some as better than the Swordfish. A close study of the aircraft’s development reveals that it was no lemon. Docile handling – it was virtually impossible to stall, good responses, prodigious load-carrying ability, and performance that was no worse, and even slightly better than the illustrious Fairey. It was quite a bit more modern too, with an immensely strong watertight monocoque fuselage, hydraulic wing locking, Warren-truss wing bracing that virtually eliminated wires, and, in the Mk.III version, an enclosed cockpit. The basic aircraft was good.

1434638310290.jpg
But as so often with Blackburn, after having got their design right, just about everything else went wrong. The Shark was a little heavier than the Swordfish and despite Blackburn’s protestations was allocated the Armstrong-Siddeley Tiger engine instead of the Bristol Pegasus, as in the mid-30s the Tiger was promising more power. As we now know, the Pegasus became one of the classic air-cooled engines of WW2, with endless reliability and power reaching 1,010hp in later versions. The Tiger, on the other hand, never got over its propensity to shake bits off itself, and certain features of its design limited development so power never exceeded 920hp. Moreover, the oil-cooler selected for production aircraft had a series of unfortunate characteristics that only became apparent when the Shark entered service – a whistling shriek at certain speeds that was severely uncomfortable to the crew and a tendency for pipes to shear under the vibration of the Tiger engine so the whole thing seized. In fact, the vibration of the Tiger turned out to be just at the right frequency to subject the engine mount to crippling metal fatigue.

The Shark did indeed make it into service before the Swordfish – at that time, the luck seemed to be against Fairey, as the first prototype of its TSR I had entered an irrecoverable spin and crashed, necessitating a significant redesign into the TSR II. However, the extra time allowed Fairey to get the aircraft right. The Shark, meanwhile, suffered problems with its engines which led to it sitting out fleet exercises, then the failure of engine mountings led to the entire Mk.I production being scrapped. The problems with the oil cooler led to the entire oil system being redesigned and replaced on all Mk.II and Mk.III aircraft at great expense. Ironically, just as the Shark’s problems were largely resolved, the Admiralty signalled that it had had enough. In 1937, just two years after entering front line service, the Fleet Air Arm retired all its Sharks from operational squadrons and relegated the type to second-line duties – training and target-towing.

Two other air-arms operated the Shark – Portugal bought a few but retired them almost as quickly as the Fleet Air Arm after a structural failure, and Canada. The RCAF got the ‘definitive’ Shark, with the Pegasus engine that Blackburn had wanted all along, and its aircraft served in reliable, if unspectacular, service well into WWII as coastal patrol aircraft.

1434638311267.jpg
Images: BAE Systems 

While the Swordfish’s combat achievements would take pages to list, the Shark met the enemy in combat just twice. A target-tug from an anti-aircraft co-operation unit in Singapore had bomb-carriers hastily attached to attack troop columns during the desperate attempt to stem the Japanese advance in December 1941, and a Canadian aircraft bombed a U-boat it surprised on the surface – both cases with uncertain results.
The Shark remains in the shadow of its illustrious rival, but if the Swordfish had not existed, the Blackburn type would have more than adequately filled its shoes. Its performance and handling were as good or better, and its problems were eminently solvable – it was just that with an alternative readily available, the Fleet Air Arm did not need to go to the effort of solving them. As was so often the case with Blackburn, the company was so close to producing an outstanding aircraft, but contrived to snatch failure from the jaws of success.

— Matthew Willis

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

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

1434638310485.jpg

Flying & fighting in the Indian Air Force Jaguar: IAF Jaguar pilot interview

 

IAF_Jaguar_strike_aircraft.jpg

At the core of the IAF’s dedicated ground attack force is the Jaguar, a tough Cold War fighter-bomber. Group Captain Harsh Vardhan Thakur gives us the lowdown on the ‘last Jags in town’. 

What were your first impressions of the Jaguar? “I was posted to Tuskers at Ambala, where I got my first experience of Jags. As things turned out, I also got married around the same time. So, in many ways, it was a double whammy of destiny. Shall we just say, I got the hang of the Jag eventually, while the other element of my life continues to baffle me ਐ਑਒ਓ.

‘Where the hell is the autopilot…?’ This was the first question I asked at the Jag squadron. I grew up hearing glorious tales of the Jag. To my horror, the start-up checklist was the most glamorous item at my welcome. My mentor (read tormentor) who had the same name as me took me for the pre-conversion phase. He embodied all virtues of what should have been on the aircraft, i.e. lethal, fearsome and unforgiving. I learnt the ropes slowly and eventually became the very reflection of my aircraft, as some would say.”

Which three words best describe it? “In four: not nimble, not agile”

What is the best thing about it? “Navigation. One navigates with the entire mission-play running alongside on the multi-functional display. You see the virtual positions of all participants just the same as you saw them during mission rehearsal. It instils a greater desire for accuracy in pilots and indeed, if you look through the virtual position, you invariably find the element member at exactly the same spot in the sky. The head-up display’s (HUD) highway in the sky is rather novel. It guides you through the route with sub-metric accuracy – something that you only otherwise see in NASA papers. I don’t know of any other fighter anywhere on the globe, which sports a Highway-In-The-Sky (HITS) on the HUD. IAF has inducted a number of twin seat Jags and the Rear cockpit HUD is another unique virtue, which is rare.”

“Four of us accelerated to 560 knots at low levels and then zoomed up to 30,000 feet as we struck the runway, without one missile tracking us.”

.. and the worst thing? “No radar, no BVRs (beyond visual range missiles). I’ve heard many say that engine thrust is less, or perhaps the weight/drag is too much. That can be handled tactically, by simply flying in lighter configurations. But no radar means no eyes and no missiles plummets your respect in an air battle. DARIN-III has thankfully addressed those shortcomings and is a game-changer for Jag ops.”

Screenshot 2020-01-02 at 14.07.14.png

How you rate the Jaguar in the following categories?

A. Instantaneous turn

B. Sustained turn

C. High alpha

D. Acceleration

E. Climb rate

 

If you see the evolution of Jags, it was intended to be an advanced jet trainer aircraft. But then an over-design of some aspects led it to becoming a worthy replacement for the Vulcan bomber, at a time when strategic bombers were making way for tactical fighters. Owing to its lineage, Jags retain the DNA of a fighter-bomber, with rather less emphasis on manoeuvrability.  The long and short of it – every fighter in the subcontinent, barring the Mir-III/V can leave the Jag behind in rate of turn, acceleration and climb rate. However, the Jag excels in handling, visibility and availability, which feed quite effectively into its daily tactic of saturation strikes. Jags fly in hoards at tree-top altitudes. Imagine a formation of very-very high-speed choppers. These birds are impossible to spot from the sky and difficult to track from the ground.”

As Group Captain Vinod noted- “I have flown against Jaguars. Once, into the sun, I lost an entire formation who were 200 metres in front of me they just melted in thin air.”

“Its legacy electronic warfare (EW) suite has always been ahead of its time. Indeed, it’s the choice of opponent in all EW-range training capsules. I’ve led many a mission when the planners requested Jags to step up, to make a worthy battle of the whole mission. We’ve had our share of fun, repeatedly slipping through defences and taking out surface targets with maximum impunity. There was a training mission led by me, when I refused the request for our formation to step up (gain altitude) just so ground radars could spot us and track us. So, all the sensors dipped their acquisition units to the surface when we were ingressing. Silly as it may sound, four of us accelerated to 560 knots at low levels and then zoomed up to 30,000 feet as we struck the runway, without one missile tracking us. The auto-bombing on Jag precludes the requirement of pilots to spot their DMPI. Pilots simply press the trigger and smoke a cigar, while the system does all the hard work of honing the sights on to the target and getting the bombs to ride to them accurately. Anyway, the two Jags at low levels penetrated the fringes of the missile envelope several times, then turned away. The CO at the missile unit went, ‘Gotcha!’. The debrief was a laugh riot. The poor CO is my course mate and curses me till date for his failed demo (to students) of the Jag formation take-down. ‘Pick on someone your own size’ I say.”

Interview with IAF Su-30 pilot here

Interview with IAF MiG-25 pilot here

Interview with IAF MiG-29 pilot here

Interview with IAF MiG-27 pilot here

Interview with IAF Mirage 2000 pilot here

Interview with PAF JF-17 pilot here

Interview with Marut pilot here

Photo5-779362.jpg

When did Indian procure the Jaguar and where were you trained? “The first set of Royal Air Force Jags ferried into Fighting Fourteens (Bulls) at Western Air Command in 1979. 40 NavWASS (Navigation & Weapon Aiming Sub-System) Jaguar International-built at BAe facility in Warton UK, were inducted into the IAF in 1981. RAF Jags ferried back to UK during this period. Subsequently, 80 DARIN (Digital Attack Ranging Inertial Navigation) Jags were built in HAL factory at Bangalore. Testimony that Make-in-India model of manufacturing has been around for decades. The indigenous Jags included upgraded engines, newer avionics, EW suite, recon pods, as well as 10 maritime variant Jags with their A-S radar and ASM. Indigenous Jags have been the mainstay of IAF’s strike fleet for a long time. By the way, there’s a back story behind the acronym DARIN, apparently suggested by SAGEM of France, who were involved in its development in support to the Indian Inertial Organisation (IIO). It was initially suggested to be called INDRA (Inertial Nav Digital Ranging & Attack). However, the name being very similar sounding to the stalwart PM of India, was shelved owing to some unspoken circumstances. Eventually, HAL also manufactured 37 more DARIN-II Jags which continued fresh induction into IAF till as late as 2010. For their time, DARIN-2s were highly modernised Jags with INGPS, LDP, LGB, autopilot, new displays, HOTAS, etc. The first set of NavWASS Jags were also upgraded to DARIN-II standard during this period. DARIN Jags have been upgraded to DARIN-III standard and are now being inducted into service. DARIN-III is a confluence of all the work done on Jags thus far in India. It variously includes AESA radar, new generation AAMs, ASMs, sensor fused armament, extended range LGBs… the list goes on. Its glass cockpit is modern, efficient and retains virtues of the traditional as well as contemporary.”

Screenshot 2020-01-02 at 14.05.02.png

safe_image.jpg

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

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

 

TO AVOID DISAPPOINTMENT PRE-ORDER YOUR COPY NOW

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

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

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

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

FEATURING

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

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

Rewards levels include these packs of specially produced trump cards.

Pre-order your copy now right here  

 

I can only do it with your support.

 

SB5_montage.jpg

 

 

Over 99.5% of our readers ignore our funding appeals. This site depends on your support. If you’ve enjoyed an article donate here. Recommended donation amount £12. Keep this site going.

 

The Blohm & Voss BV 155: The Luftwaffe interceptor that time forgot

hhh.png

Only two BV 155 B prototype high-altitude fighters were completed by Hamburg-based Blohm & Voss Flugzeugbau during the Second World War and today the last one sits largely forgotten in long-term storage at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum’s Paul E Garber Facility in Maryland. It is a fitting home for an aircraft developed because the Germans feared the introduction of American bombers against which they could offer no defence.

19600314000a.jpg

Given the level of secrecy that exists in American military contracting today it is hard to believe that during the summer of 1941 the ‘secret’ work of companies such as Boeing and Consolidated in designing high-altitude aircraft was openly discussed in popular American magazines such as Aviation and Model Airplane News.39650217 (1).jpg

German intelligence officers sent home reports about future US bombers with pressure cabins and operational ceilings above that of the Bf 109 and when America entered the war in December 1941 the German Air Ministry became deeply worried about attack from unassailable altitudes. The discovery of Spitfires with pressure cabins in 1942 and the increasing appearance of high-flying Mosquito reconnaissance aircraft suggested that the British were pursuing similar avenues of development.

In response, Messerschmitt was commissioned first in May 1942 to create a high-altitude version of the Bf 109 and then again a year later to create an ‘extreme’ high-altitude fighter capable of operating at 16km (52,493ft). Unfortunately, the firm was sorely lacking in manpower to fulfil its many burdensome responsibilities, including development of the Me 262 jet fighter, Me 163 interceptor, Me 209 fighter, Me 264 bomber and Me 328 light bomber, plus ongoing support for the Bf 109, Bf 110, Me 323 transport and Me 410 heavy fighter.

image.jpg

Blohm & Voss, meanwhile, had made its name building ships and submarines but had diversified into aviation when the Nazis started handing out lucrative aircraft manufacturing contracts during the 1930s. As might be expected, it specialised in seaplanes.

12adp.jpg

In order to help Messerschmitt, Generalfeldmarschall Erhard Milch, head of the German Air Ministry, simply cancelled all of Blohm & Voss’s seaplanes and handed the resulting free capacity over to Messerschmitt on condition that it was committed to a single project rather than dispersed across all of them. Messerschmitt gave Blohm & Voss the extreme high-altitude fighter.

Everything went well until the two companies fell out – ostensibly because Messerschmitt scheduled a meeting then changed the venue at the last minute without informing Blohm & Voss. The outrage which followed may in reality have been Blohm & Voss manoeuvring to take sole charge of the project, a gambit which quickly succeeded.

After largely throwing out most of Messerschmitt’s original design for the Me 155 B (there never was an ‘A’), the company came up with its own design using the Bf 109 rear fuselage and some wing components but was otherwise entirely new. The BV 155 B had a DB 603 engine in its nose linked to a Hirth TKL 15 supercharger and two intercoolers behind the pilot’s pressure cabin by tubes running down the exterior of the fuselage. High-altitude performance demanded an enormous 20.33m wingspan (compared to, say, the Ta 152 H’s not insubstantial 14.44m) and huge wing-mounted radiators.

image.jpg

Halfway through building the first of five BV 155 B prototypes, Blohm & Voss switched to a single chin-mounted radiator for the production model BV 155 C – 30 of which were ordered. The BV 155 B V1 was completed and test-flown a handful of times before Luftwaffe pilot Kurt Reuth wrecked it during a crash landing at Klein Kummerfeld airfield on April 23, 1945. The BV 155 B V2 was finished but never fully assembled and was captured by Allied forces at Blohm & Voss’s Finkenwärder facility in Hamburg.

The BV 155 had been an insurance policy against a disaster which never befell the Third Reich. Those high-altitude bombers failed to appear and the Allies ensured that they didn’t need to. But the BV 155 might – had the war continued – have been able to give those pesky Spitfires and Mosquitos a run for their money

— Dan Sharp, Author of  SECRET PROJECTS OF THE LUFTWAFFE: BLOHM & VOSS BV 155

15026.jpg

hhh.png

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

Top 10 Cancelled British Fighters

1500x500.jpg

From the dawn of the aeroplane until the 1960s, Britain produced world-class fighter aircraft. As well as the designs that actually felt the air beneath their wings, there is a tantalising treasury of designs that never made it. Here are ten of them. 

10. British Aerospace P.125 ‘Have Not Glass’ (1985)

P125

The long history of British expertise in stealth technology has not been discussed a great deal. Britain pioneered radar absorbent material for aircraft, worked on reduced radar observability for nuclear warheads in the early 1960s and was able to create a world class stealth testbed in the Replica model. Prior to Replica, in the 1980s, Britain was working on an aircraft concept so advanced it was classified until 2006.
The BAe P.125 study was for a stealthy supersonic attack aircraft to replace the Tornado. It was to be available in both a short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) and a conventional variant. The conventional variant would feature a central vectored nozzle, the STOVL version would have three vectoring nozzles. In some ways the P.125 was more ambitious than the F-35, the aircraft was to have no pilot transparencies, with the reclined pilot immersed in synthetic displays of the outside word.
It is likely that this formidable interdictor would have been even less visible to radar than the F-35 (though the absence of planform alignment is noteworthy). Despite its 1980s vintage many of its low observable features are reminiscent of today’s latest fighters – others such as its unorthodox wing design, are unique. The project was quietly dropped when Britain joined the JSF programme in the 1990s.

P195B

It is likely that the absence of a cockpit transparency on the P.125 was to protect the pilot from laser dazzle weapons (a weapon inaccurately feared to be in widespread use by the Soviet Union). Even now a synthetic cockpit is considered a daunting technological prospect, why BAe didn’t opt for an unmanned configuration remains something of a mystery.

 9. British Aerospace P.1214  ‘Bond’s X-wing’ (1980)

p121439dr.jpg

The Pegasus engine with its steerable thrust blesses the Harrier with the ability to take-off and land vertically — and even fly backwards. Unfortunately you can’t put conventional afterburners on a Pegasus engine; there are several reasons for this – the hot and cold air is separated, the inlets do not slow the airflow sufficiently for serious supersonic flight, and the jet-pipes would be too short- and it would also set fire to everything (it was tried from the 1960s and proved problematic). This is a shame as a Harrier is desperate for thrust on take-off and could do with the ability to perform a decent high-speed dash. Though conventional afterburners are out of the question, you could however use plenum chamber burning (PCB). This technology was developed for the Mach 2 Hawker Siddeley P.1154 (think the lovechild of a Harrier and a F-4, with the wingspan of a Messerschmitt Bf 109) – which never entered service. PCB chucks additional fuel into a turbofan’s cold bypass air only and ignites it (a conventional afterburner puts the burning fuel into the combined cold and hot gas flows). This is great, but how do you incorporate this into swivelling nozzles without destroying the rear fuselage with heat and vibration? BAe thought it found the answer – get ride of the rear fuselage altogether, and mount the tail onto two booms. Worried that this already eccentric idea might seem too conventional, BAe decided to add an ‘X-wing’ configuration with swept forward wings (which were in vogue in the early 1980s). This did produce the coolest fighter concept of the 1980s, even in the -3 variant shown which had conventional tails.

The P.1214 would have been extremely agile (and short-ranged), probably comparable to the Yak-41. The P.1214 lost its swept forward wings when further studies revealed them to be of no great value. It now became the P.1216, which was intended to satisfy the USMC and RN’s desire for a supersonic jump-jet (a need eventually met by the F-35B). A full-sized wooden P.1216 was built to distract Thatcher from stealing children’s milk, predictably (as it was British) the whole project was scrapped. This was arguably a good thing as British military hardware testing and development was at its lowest ebb in the 1980s (see the Nimrod AEW.3, SA80 battle rifle, Foxhunter radar, Harrier GR5 compared to the US AV-8B, etc for details).

tumblr_inline_nnbqtkAbv81t90ue7_1280.jpg
Supersonic aircraft have their jet exhausts at the back, and there is a simple reason for this: anything in the way of the jet efflux will be exposed to a destructive barrage of heat and vibration. This presents a problem to supersonic STOVL designs wishing to use vectored thrust — to have sufficient thrust and acceleration jet flow far hotter than the Harrier’s is required. One way to solve this is to have no rear fuselage.

8. Saunders-Roe SR.A/1 ‘The Squirt Queen’ (1947)

sra1_01.jpg

The aircraft was first proposed in mid-1943, the combination of jet engine speed and the flexible basing options of a flying-boat being regarded as advantageous in the Pacific theatre. Development lagged, and the aircraft did not fly until 16 July 1947. Three aircraft were built, two of which crashed. The simultaneous development of the Princess contributed to the slow development of the SR.A/1, and this was compounded by the decision of Metropolitan-Vickers to cease turbojet engine production.

bob78

SR.A/1: Although exhibiting quite sprightly performance, by the time it had flown, the Pacific war was over, and no requirement for the aircraft existed. In addition, the Fleet Air Arm was operating numerous aircraft carriers, and the development of capable jet-powered carrier-based aircraft allowed power projection without the need for airfield construction. Additionally, of course, the large number of airfields constructed during the war also provided many basing opportunities for conventional land-based aircraft.

C4YiX6tWcAExSWi

— Jim & Ron Smith, full article here

7.  Saunders Roe SR.53 (1957)

bob5
Fast…but outpaced by changes in the threat, and in government policy.

The Saunders Roe SR53 was proposed to meet a requirement for a point-defence interceptor capable of climbing to 60,000 ft in two minutes and 30 seconds. The driver for the requirement was concern about the threat posed by Soviet bombers armed with nuclear weapons.
The SR53 was a compact, delta-winged mixed power aircraft with 1,640 lbst Rolls-Royce Viper jet engine and 8,000 lbst de Havilland Spectre rocket. The armament was intended to be the Blue Jay infra-red air-to-air missile. The operational concept was to climb to altitude using the rocket motor, accelerate up to a maximum speed of Mach 2.2, complete a ground-guided interception, and then return to base using the jet engine.
The contract to develop the aircraft was signed on 8 May 1953. Although Saunders-Roe’s initial schedule called for a first flight in July 1954, development of the aircraft and its rocket motor took longer than expected, and first flight did not occur until 16 May 1957, with the second prototype following in December of the same year. The aircraft was reported as pleasant and easy to fly. The second aircraft was lost in a fatal aborted-take-off accident in June 1958, and the program was eventually cancelled in July 1960, after 56 test flights. The highest speed reached in the flight test program was Mach 1.33.

DKxB0XXXkAAGOVd.jpg
During the seven year development and flight programme, a great deal of change had occurred in aerospace capabilities: jet engine development had produced high power, reliable engines; radar had improved its ability to detect targets at long range; the Soviets had moved towards the development of stand-off weapons; and surface-based guided missiles had improved in capability. These technical advances had the effect of invalidating the operational concept for the aircraft. In future, it would be possible, and necessary, to defeat threats at a greater distance, before the release of nuclear stand-off weapons, and there was no way a short-range point-defence interceptor such as the SR53 could achieve this. Furthermore, the first flight of the aircraft occurred just two months after the Duncan Sandys 1957 Defence White Paper, which suggested new manned aircraft were no longer required for air defence, and that surface-based air-to-air missiles would in future fill this role. The first flight of the SR 53, just after this policy announcement, could not have been more badly timed, but the operational concept had already been superseded.

Top 10 cancelled French aircraft here

The programme left no direct legacy. Air defence has evolved through point defence interception, to barrier combat air patrols, and to beyond-visual-range engagements using air-to-air missiles, supported by distributed and networked sensors. Low signature capabilities and geo-political instabilities are pushing air defence in the direction of cooperating manned and unmanned aircraft, armed with long-range weapons, and supported by distributed and networked sensors.

— Jim & Ron Smith, full article here

6. Thin Wing Javelin ‘Terrific Tripe Triangle’ (1953)

Screenshot 2019-12-30 at 14.03.56.png

The much maligned Javelin got everything right apart from the aerodynamics — and it could easily be argued that if a major war had started in the early 1960s it might have given a better account of itself than the venerated Lightning. The Javelin had space for a large radar, a good range, powerful engines and twice the air-to-air weapon load of its English Electric successor. It also had twice the crew – an important consideration considering the difficulties in flying, navigating and operating the weapons systems of 1950s aircraft. The main flaw of the Javelin was a massively thick wing, something Gloster was quick – but not quick enough – to identify. Before the Javelin even entered service, in 1953, they had begun research on a thin wing design capable of Mach 2.Screenshot 2019-12-30 at 14.11.14.png

In 1955 this design was seriously considered, partly as a contingency in case the Lightning didn’t deliver on its promise. The Air Ministry were initially skeptical of Gloster’s performance claims but when they eventually studied it in depth they were very impressed. Though the design would sacrifice some of the Javelin’s excellent range, in other areas it could produce an aircraft competitive with the latest US designs. The aircraft’s panned dimensions grew longer and more powerful engines were considered, and soon it shared little with the original Javelin. The concept was starting to show great promise, however when the UK’s Ministry of Supply were shown classified papers detailing the fantastic capabilities of the nascent CF-105 Arrow being developed in Canada, this warmed over design started to seem pedestrian.  The supersonic Javelin seemed an expensive distraction that could only produce a mediocre design with limited development potential, and it was cancelled in 1956. A shame really, as if it had worked out it could have resulted in a versatile aircraft with better agility than the US F-4 Phantom II, itself a radical revamp of a disappointing design.

Screenshot 2019-12-30 at 14.05.54.png
Full size thin wing Javelin mock up with Red Dean missiles.

5 Fairey Delta 3 ‘The Delta Belter’ (1956)

Screenshot 2019-12-30 at 18.47.17.png

This Fairey Delta 2 experimental aircraft was the first aeroplane to exceed 1,000mph, and took the World Air Speed Record to 1,132 mph. It was a beautifully simple design with the delta wing’s inherent advantages of low supersonic drag and great structural strength. A year earlier the Air Ministry had issued requirement Specification F155T for a supersonic interceptor able to intercept Mach 1.3 bombers at 60,000ft. After initially proposing a modestly updated weaponised FD2, Fairey came forward with the mighty Fairey 3 — a vast super high-performance interceptor with state-of-the-art technology -—and won the contest.

Top 10 cancelled spyplanes here 

Mixed propulsion (jet and rocket) was necessary to meet the extremely demanding requirement which called for the fighter to reach 60,000 feet at a range of 70 nautical miles from base in six minutes at a speed of at least Mach 2. The maximum climb rate would been phenomenal, leaving even the Lightning for dust — and even rivalling today’s fastest climber, the Typhoon. The thrust levels were astonishing – according to some sources it was to have two Rolls-Royce RB-122 engines— each of which which had a dry thrust of 19,500lbf, and 27,800lbf with reheat – greater than the present day ‘Flanker’*. And that’s not taking into account the additional rocket engines! Not bad for an aircraft that had normal operating weight of just over 50,000Ibs. Top speed was estimated at between Mach 2.3 and 2.5.

To soak up the heat generated by high speed supersonic flight much of the fuselage was to be built from steel (a material used on the Bristol 188 and MiG-25 for the same reason). It was to be armed with two of the giant Red Dean missile, which despite being thirty years before AMRAAM and even ten before the AIM-54, was planned as an active radar-guided missile.

Top 10 cancelled Soviet fighter here

Heavy ultra high performance heavy interceptors did not prove popular in the West. The XF-108 Rapier, CF-105 Arrow, YF-12 and Mirage 4000 were all cancelled; they were too expensive and air forces instead opted for more modest interceptors backed up by surface-to-air missiles. The Fairey 3 may have suffered the same fate had it survived Duncan Sandys ill-conceived crusade against manned aircraft of 1957, which it did not.

Screenshot 2019-12-30 at 14.53.26.png
Fairey’s later F.155T  proposal dwarfed its original, the E.R. 103 entrant (though this silhouette seems to share more with the FD2).  One spin-off from the aborted E.R.103 was the AI23 radar which saw actual service on the English Electric Lightning.

*These thrust figures admittedly stretch credulity, so please let us know in the comments section if you have better info from a good citable source.

4. Hawker P1103/P1121 ‘Super Hunter’

p1121.png

Supermarine was not the only aircraft manufacturer that tried to adapt a transonic design into a supersonic fighter. Hawker tried the same with their own, already highly successful fighter, the Hunter. This was also offered in response to Operational Requirement F.155. 

The limitations of the Hunter were already apparent, in particular the lack of air-to-air missile capability, decent radar and the ability to reach supersonic speeds. The new fighter interceptor would include a completely redesigned fuselage and wing (changing more profoundly than Trigger’s Broom), a seat for the radar operator, a far more powerful engine and missile armament. To make room for the new radar, a chin intake was adopted. 

10 exotic cancelled fighter planes from countries you didn’t expect here

As with the Vickers 559, the original design included booster rockets for added climb speed, though in practice operational versions would have likely omitted them. 

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

The P1103 was quickly knocked out the contest. One reason for this being the Ministry’s contention that Hawker had not embraced, nor even fully understood, the idea of the aircraft as a ‘weapon system’. But Hawker had faith in the design, and continued it as the self financed P1121. Power was to come from a single de Havilland Gyron jet engine*, and it was to be armed with Red Top missiles, rockets and Aden 30-mm cannon.  Maximum speed was estimated at an astonishing Mach 1.35 at sea level — and a rather more believable Mach 2.35 at higher altitudes. The Air Staff still didn’t want it and reluctantly reconsidered the design before again turning their noses up at. The 1957 Defence White Paper put further nails in its coffin, though Hawker persisted with the idea for another year before giving up.

Ten incredible cancelled military aircraft here

The design would likely have inherited some of the fine handling characteristics Hawker had instilled in earlier aircraft such as the Hunter and Fury. The somewhat generous wing area and decent thrust-to-weight ratio (for the time) meant the ‘Super Hunter’ should have enjoyed good turn rates for its generation. A well balanced sensible design with impressive performance, the P.1121 could have enjoyed good export sales and offered the RAF a more versatile and combat effective fighter than the Lightning, and one that could have performed with excellence in both the air superiority and ground attack role. 

*Jim Smith has noted, in conversation with Hush-Kit, Hawker’s predilection for single-engined fighters.

Screenshot 2019-12-31 at 11.30.49.png
Despite looking somewhat like an F-16, this aircraft would have been more in the Su-9/11 and F-101 Voodoo class. 

3. Martin-Baker MB.3/MB.5 ‘Martin Baker Tie Fighter’

MB5Flight

I’m cheating a bit here, including two separate designs as one entry but Martin-Baker’s final two fighters were inextricably linked, one being a development of the other, both were outstanding and neither made it to production. Martin-Baker was (and indeed still is) an aviation component manufacture who produced, seemingly out of the blue, two of the best fighter aircraft ever flown anywhere.

martin-baker-mb3-denham-guns

The MB.3 appeared in 1942 and was the result of a prudent Air Ministry decision in 1939 to obtain a powerfully armed fighter as an alternative to the Hawker Typhoon in the event that aircraft programme ran into difficulties. The aircraft that emerged looked sensational, especially when the unprecedented armament of six 20-mm cannon was fitted. Despite looking insane, it was unusually sensible: a multitude of access panels made it far easier to maintain than its contemporaries, and its tough structure (a more advanced version of the load-bearing tubular box type favoured by Hawker) would have given it greater survivability. It was apparently easy to handle and extremely fast.

martin-baker-mb3-right-rear

Unfortunately we don’t know exactly how fast, because less than two weeks after the first flight the Napier Sabre that powered it did what Napier Sabres were doing in droves in 1942 and packed up. The MB.3 was destroyed in the subsequent forced landing which also killed test pilot Valentine Baker (the ‘Baker’ of Martin-Baker). This was a serious blow to the company and so affected designer James Martin (the ‘Martin’ of Martin-Baker) that he devoted the rest of his career to making aircraft safer by developing ejection seats which Martin-Baker produce to this day.

martin-baker-mb5-martin

Despite the crash it was apparent that the MB.3 was worthy of further development. Baker proposed a Rolls-Royce Griffon powered version, the MB.4 but a more thorough redesign was favoured by the Air Ministry and the MB.5 was the result. The best British piston-engined fighter ever flown, the MB.5 was well-armed (though with the less impressive total of four rather than six cannon), very fast, and as easy to maintain as its predecessor. Flight trials proved it be truly exceptional, with a top speed of 460mph, brisk acceleration and docile handling. Its cockpit layout set a gold standard that Boscombe Down recommended should be followed by all piston-engined fighters.

tumblr_MB5

The only thing the MB.5 lacked was good timing, it first flew two weeks before the Allied Invasion of Normandy. Appearing at the birth of the jet age, with readily available Spitfires and Tempests being produced in quantity, both of which were themselves excellent fighters, there was never a particularly compelling case for producing the slightly better MB.5. There is also a suggestion that the MB.5 never received a production order because on the occasion it was being demonstrated to assorted dignitaries, including Winston Churchill, the engine failed. If this is true, it must rank as the most pathetic reason for non-procurement of an outstanding aircraft in aviation history.

REASONS FOR CANCELLATION:

Inexplicable official indifference, 

Other aircraft perceived to be good enough already, 

Bad timing

Martin Baker MB5 at Chalgrove 4

2. Miles M.20 ‘The damned Captain Sensible’ (1940)

Miles_M_20

The M.20 was a thoroughly sensible design, cleverly engineered to be easy to produce with minimal delay at its nation’s time of greatest need, whilst still capable of excellent performance. As it turned out its nation’s need never turned out to be quite great enough for the M.20 to go into production. First flying a mere 65 days after being commissioned by the Air Ministry, the M.20’s structure was of wood throughout to minimise its use of potentially scarce aluminium and the whole nose, airscrew and Merlin engine were already being produced as an all-in-one ‘power egg’ unit for the Bristol Beaufighter II. To maintain simplicity the M.20 dispensed with a hydraulic system and as a result the landing gear was not retractable. The weight saved as a consequence allowed for a large internal fuel capacity and the unusually heavy armament of 12 machine guns with twice as much ammunition as either Hurricane or Spitfire. Tests revealed that the M.20 was slower than the Spitfire but faster than the Hurricane and its operating range was roughly double that of either. It also sported the first clear view bubble canopy to be fitted to a military aircraft. 

M20FAA

Because it was viewed as a ‘panic’ fighter, an emergency back-up if Hurricanes or Spitfires could not be produced in sufficient numbers, production of the M.20 was deemed unnecessary since no serious shortage occurred of either. However, given that much of the development of the Spitfire immediately after the Battle of Britain was concerned with extending its short range, as the RAF went onto the offensive over Europe, the cancellation of a quickly available, long-ranged fighter with decent performance looks like a serious error. Exactly the same thing happened with the Boulton Paul P.94, which was essentially a Defiant without the turret, offering performance in the Spitfire class but with heavier armament and a considerably longer range. The only difference being that this aircraft was even more available than the M.20 as it was a relatively simple modification to an aircraft already in production.

M20crash

The M.20 popped up again in 1941 as a contender for a Fleet Air Arm catapult fighter requirement, where its relative simplicity would have been valuable. Unfortunately for Miles, there were literally thousands of obsolete Hawker Hurricanes around by this time and with suitable modifications they did the job perfectly well.

REASONS FOR CANCELLATION:

Inexplicable official indifference, 

Other aircraft perceived to be good enough already

1. Hawker Siddeley P.1154 ‘The Hyper Harrier’

The dream of a supersonic STOVL (Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing) fighter has been striven toward for over half of the history of heavier-than-air flight. When the F-35B reached real operational readiness with the USMC, it was a very significant event. Lockheed Martin succeeded where dozens of the world’s greatest aircraft design houses have failed. The tortuous road which led, via the Harrier, to the F-35B started with NATO requirement NBMR-3 of 1961. This almost led to a British superfighter, the Hawker P.1154.

The author of Catch-22, Joseph Heller, fought with the 340th Bomb Group in Italy as a bombardier on B-25s. His commander was one Colonel Willis Chapman. Following the war, Chapman set up USAF’s first jet bomber force. In 1956, Chapman was sent to Paris as part of the Pentagon’s Mutual Weapons Development Plan (MWDP) field office. His mission was to source and help develop new military technologies from European sources and strengthen Europe’s contribution to NATO.

By the mid-1950s it was obvious to many western military planners that, in the event of war, Warsaw Pact forces would quickly obliterate NATO airbases. For NATO aircraft to mount counter- attacks (some with tactical nuclear weapons), they would need to operate from rough unprepared airstrips. This capability could turn air arms into survivable ‘guerrilla’ forces able to fight on after the apocalypse. VTOL was also tempting to many navies as it could eliminate the traditional hazards of carrier landing. If an aircraft could ‘stop’ before it landed, the task of landing on a tiny, pitching deck would be far easier. Likewise, it could liberate ships from the need to carry enormously heavy catapult launch systems, and could even allow small ships to carry their own, high performance, escort aircraft.

Here he encountered an idea from a French engineer Michael Wibault – steering jet thrust through steerable pipes to enable vertical take-off and landing.  Chapman was very impressed and brought the idea to the attention of Dr. Stanley Hooker, director of the British Bristol Aero Engine Company. At this time Bristol were at the forefront of jet technology.

Hooker was also impressed. The VTOL research aircraft then flying used a series of batty principles which either involved rotating the whole fuselage (the tail-sitters), the engine of the aircraft (sometimes with the whole wing) or carried a battery of auxiliary lift-jets which once in flight were dead weight. All were complex and involved very large design compromises. Contrary to this, Wibault’s principle was simplicity itself; it involved a single fixed-engine, and would allow for the precise control of the vectored thrust.

Hooker led a team to develop the BE.53, a vectored thrust engine based on the first two- stages of the Olympus engine. Hooker teamed up with the designer of the Hawker Hurricane, Sydney Camm, to develop a light fighter concept powered by the BE.53.

At the 1957 Farnborough air show Hooker and Camm met Chapman. They showed him the design for P.1127. By early 1958 the MWDP were funding the BE.53 engine. The P.1127 fighter was struggling to get funding, as Britain’s Ministry of Defence believed that there would be no future manned bombers or fighters. This belief was expressed in the 1957 White Paper on Defence (Cmnd. 124) by Duncan Sandys — the most hated document in British aviation history.

Duncan Sandys had been Chairman of a War Cabinet Committee for defence against German flying bombs and rockets during World War II, and during this tenure he had accidentally revealed information about where the V1s and V2s were landing. This was a shocking error, allowing the Germans to accurately calibrate their weapons trajectories and endangering British lives. It also threatened to uncover Agent Zig-Zag, the famed double-agent, who at the time was feeding German intelligence false reports of bomb damage in London. His wartime experiences may have informed his belief in the late 1950s that missiles could take over from manned aircraft.

His 1957 report was also ill-judged, as 58 years later the UK received a new manned fighter (the F-35B) which is expected to remain in service for the next forty years.

As there was little official support in the UK, Hawker decided to fund the building of two prototypes itself, with some research support from NASA (who noted that, unlike rival VTOL aircraft, the P.1127 would not need a complex auto-stabilisation system). By the time Hawker had started building the prototypes, the MoD was interested and funded four more. The P.1127 first flew on 19 November 1960 and proved very successful. It could take-off and land vertically with ease, something dozens of research aircraft around the world had failed to do. But, it shared a deficiency with its rivals; an aircraft with a high enough thrust-to-weight ratio to lift vertically could carry little in the way of fuel or payload. This is where the P.1127 really came into its own. It was discovered that by putting the exhaust nozzle into an interim position (45 degrees) the aircraft could take-off in very short distances at very low speeds (60 knots, around half the taking-off or ‘rotation’ speed of a Hawker Hunter). At this point VTOL gave way to V/STOL (Vertical/Short Take-Off and Landing).

The MoD was now warming to the idea of a P.1127-based type and the RAF prepared a draft requirement (OR345) for a new V/STOL fighter of modest capabilities.

In 1961 NATO Basic Military Requirement 3 (NBMR-3) was issued. This followed on from the 1953 NBMR-1 (for a light weight tactical strike fighter, which was won by the Fiat G.91 and the Breguet Taon – though the Taon never entered service). The NBMR-2 was for a maritime patrol aircraft, and was won by the Breguet Br.1150 Atlantic.

NBMR-3 specification called for a single-seat tactical close-support and reconnaissance V/STOL fighter. The requirement demanded a combat radius of 250 nautical miles at a minimum sea level speed of Mach 0.92, and 500 ft altitude, while carrying a 2,000 lb store. This was a doomsday fighter-bomber, able to launch a retaliatory tactical nuclear strike from whatever improvised airstrips were available – even including selected motorway sections, heavily cratered main runways or worse.

The prospect of providing NATO with a common fighter soon attracted most major Western aircraft companies. NBMR-3 became the biggest international design competition ever held. Two months later NBMR-3 was split into two; AC 169a would cover a F-104G replacement, and kept the original demands: AC 169b was to be a Fiat G.91 replacement. AC 169b differed to AC 169a in calling for a lower payload-range requirement of 180 nautical mile range with 1,000 lb store.

Enter P.1154

At this point OR345 was dropped in favour of NBMR-3. Hawker Siddeley’s bid was the monstrous P.1154 powered by the insanely powerful Bristol Siddeley BS.100 engine.

The BS.100 was designed to produce a mighty 33,000 lb of thrust in reheat, around twice the power of the most powerful fighter engine then in service. The only engine with more power at the time was the Pratt & Whitney J58, which had yet to fly. The J58 was being developed for the top-secret Lockheed A-12 spy plane, which evolved into the SR-71 Blackbird. However, unlike the BS.100, at the speeds the J58 produced its maximum thrust, it was effectively a ramjet. As another example of how powerful the BS.100 was, the first fighter engine with greater power did not enter service until 2005 (44 years later). The engine was the Pratt & Whitney F119 and the aircraft was the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor. The BS.100 also introduced a bold new technology, Plenum chamber burning. Whereas a traditional afterburner pumps and ignites fuel where the cold bypass air and hot jet core turbine airflow are blended, the PCB only acts in the turbofans cold bypass air.

3-s2.0-B9780124104617000080-f08-65-9780124104617.jpg

The potent BS.100 would have given the P.1154 a Mach 1.7 top speed, an unprecedented thrust-to-weight ratio and a scorching rate-of-climb. The aircraft was to be far more than just a brutish hot-rod, it was to be equipped with some very advanced avionics. Ferranti would provide the P.1154 with a radar which was at least a generation ahead of any other. The radar would feature both air-to-air and terrain-following modes. This was a true multi-mode radar, planned at a time when the world’s best fighters were carrying crude air interception radars with tiny ranges. The P.1154 would also have one of the world’s first Head-Up Displays (HUD). The HUD is a piece of glass in front of the pilot with vital flight information projected onto it, which allows the pilot to keep his eyes up and looking ‘out’ and not to be distracted by looking down at instruments in the cockpit. The aircraft would also be fitted with another piece of innovative equipment, Inertial Navigation System (INS), a technology first seen in the V2 rockets that Sandys’ had accidentally aided!

But Hawker Siddeley was not the only company to be lured in by the big bucks promised by NBMR-3. Italy had been fucked over by NBMR-1. The contest had declared Fiat’s G.91 the winner, but nationalism got in the way. National governments which had been more than happy to support their own bids to the contest grew shy when Italy won the contest, and the G.91 did not receive orders on the scale that could have been expected.

This time Fiat entered the handsome G.95. France, Germany, and even the Netherlands, submitted designs. The Netherlands’ Fokker D.24 Alliance, to be produced with help from US’ company Republic, was also powered by the BS.100. The very ambitious D.24 was also variable sweep (swing-wing).

Hawker and Bristol’s P.1154 was declared the winner, but history repeated itself. Though nobody was tied to buying the winners of NBMR contests, it still seems unfair that no country outside of Britain was forthcoming in wanting to invest in P.1154. Hawker had been stitched-up far worse than Fiat. Still, at least Hawker still had a generous MoD budget to work with, and the type was elected to replace RAF Hunters and RN Sea Vixens —what else could go wrong? Two things. The first was the differing needs of the Royal Navy and the RAF. The RAF wanted a single-engined, single-seater. The Navy wanted a two-seat, twin-engined aircraft. To some degree both the Navy’s wants may have been driven by safety regulations regarding nuclear-armed aircraft (though the single-seat Scimitar carried the Red Beard tactical nuclear bomb). The Royal Navy was also impressed by the McDonnell (later MD) F-4 Phantom II, and there were some within the Admiralty which considering this a safer option. Giving the P.1154 twin engines would involve a complex modification of the design. The BS.100 was too big, so Rolls-Royce Speys were selected. To stop a twin-engined P.1154 flipping over in the event of a single engine failure, a complicated twin-ducting concept was added (comparable to the V-22 Osprey’s transmission system). The Royal Navy also wanted a larger radar.

On top of this, P.1154 threatened the existence of the Navy’s big carriers, if these new machines could take-off in next to no distance, why did the navy need massive expensive carriers? It should be noted that the Navy intended to catapult-launch their P.1154s, using an US style of operation. The Navy’s self-preservation instinct was kicking in. While the RAF P.1154s could have been made to work (with limitations), many (even at Hawker) doubted the viability of the naval variant.A Royal Navy P.1154. It is likely the aircraft would have been very potent in the air-to-air arena.

Technical problems

If the first major problem facing the P.1154 was inter-service differences, the second set were technical. The P.1154 would be firing hot, after-burning exhaust from its front nozzles down onto runways or carrier decks. The temperature was great enough to melt asphalt or distort steel- this was a big problem (the Yak-141 would later encounter similar problems). It would also churn up a potentially dangerous cloud of any present dirt.

Added to this was hot gas re-ingestion (HGR). The aircraft would be ‘breathing in’ its own hot exhausts on landing. This re-circulating hot air would raise the temperature in the engine to more than it liked, a very serious problem.

On 2 February 1965, the incoming Labour government, led by Harold Wilson, cancelled the P.1154 on cost grounds. Was this to be the end of V/STOL fighters? Well, fortunately not. While the P.1154 was being designed, Hawker had been busy developing the P.1127 into the Kestrel, with the help of funds from Britain, West Germany and the USA (initially from the US Army). This of course led to the Harrier, the famous jump-jet which today remains in service with the United States, Spain and Italy.

Hush-Kit would like to thank: Chris Sandham-Bailey from inkworm.com for his wonderful profiles, and Nick Stroud for providing access to his photographic archive.

Save the Hush-Kit blog. This site is in peril, we are far behind our funding targets. If you enjoy our articles and want to see more please do help. You can donate using the buttons on the top and bottom this screen. Recommended donation £12. Many thanks for your help, it’s people like you that keep us going.

Want to see more stories like this: Follow my vapour trail on Twitter: @Hush_kit

Thank you for reading Hush-Kit. Our site is absolutely free and we have no advertisements. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here.

hhh.png
Extract from Combustion and Heat Transfer in Gas Turbine Systems by E.R. Norster

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

1500x500

Dassault Rafale M versus F/A-18E/F Super Hornet: carrier fighters compared

Screenshot 2019-12-20 at 12.06.44.png

Less than a thousand days separated the service entry of the French Rafale M and the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. These two extremely potent fighter-bombers are that rare breed, a fast jet able to operate in the punishing environment of the aircraft carrier. One represents the centrepiece of US naval air power build by the biggest aeronautical company in the world, the other a proudly independent France’s first true carrier fighter — let’s find out how they stack up. 

We asked Justin Bronk, Royal United Services Institute (RUSI)’s Research Fellow for Airpower and Technology, to compare the latest operational variants of the Rafale M and Super Hornet.

Rafale M versus Super Hornet

For this article, I will be comparing the latest variants of each type – so an F/A-18E Super Hornet Block II and an F3R-standard Rafale M.

Sensors

Both the Block II Super Hornet and the F3R-standard Rafale M are equipped with Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radars as their primary sensor. The Super Hornet Block II is equipped with the APG-79 while the F3R-standard Rafale M is equipped with the RBE2-AA. As AESA radars, they are both able to perform simultaneous scan and track functions of air, maritime and ground targets simultaneously. They are also able to track a large number of targets at once and at least theoretically perform more simultaneous engagements than pilot workload or missile carriage would allow in practice.

5175535.jpg

Interestingly, both the Rafale and the Super Hornet are limited by similarly small nose apertures. This restricts the number of transmit and receive (T/R) modules that can be mounted in a fixed radar array, as well as making options to increase scan width such as rotating mountings more complex compared to AESA-equipped fighters with larger noses such as the F-15 and F-22. However, both beat many competing types to the milestone of fielding an operational AESA radar.

Detailed performance figures for AESA radars are highly classified but there are some things we do know, such as the fact that the Rafale’s RBE2-AA can perform more simultaneous scan and track functions but at a slightly reduced maximum range compared to the Super Hornet’s APG-79. The APG-79 has also been notable for a litany of poor test and evaluation reports, from both the dedicated department of test and evaluation (DOT&E) and the US Navy’s own Operational Test and Evaluation Force. It has suffered from numerous reliability and operational suitability deficiencies since introduction in the late 2010s, and fixes and improvements such as built-in electronic attack options have been repeatedly deferred. Competitive evaluation and mission analysis in the early 2010s found that there was no significant difference in mission effectiveness between Super Hornets with the APG-79, and those with legacy mechanically scanned radars. Dassault has also proven capable of excellent mission system and sensor integration in the Rafale within the bounds of what the design is capable of mounting. Combat trials over Iraq and Syria with the land-based Rafale variants with the same radar and software fit produced very favourable results according to the Rafale pilots I have spoken with. Therefore, it is probably reasonable to conclude that the Rafale M in F3R configuration has the superior radar in most multirole scenarios compared to the Block II Super Hornet.

Rafale-M-015.jpg

The Rafale M also carries the OSF (optronique secteur frontal) electro-optical and infra-red search and track, and video imaging sensor suite in a permanent mount on the nose ahead of the canopy. This system comprises a pair of sensors. The first is an IRST* designed for BVR scan and tracking of air targets at medium ranges without emitting any detectable radiation, which also has a secondary capability to scan for land or maritime targets at much shorter ranges and can function as a FLIR for the pilot in low-visibility conditions. The second part is an electro-optical/IR video imaging sensor for use within around 35-40km, and which includes a laser range finding capability. The Damocles targeting pod is also regularly carried for multirole or strike missions, which includes full IR/EO imaging and laser designation and spot track capabilities, as well as datalink relay node for transferring ISR data to tanker and AWACS assets in flight. However, the Damocles lags behind the AN/ASQ-228 Advanced Targeting Forward-Looking Infrared (ATFLIR) pod carried by the Super Hornet in terms of resolution and multi-spectral imaging capabilities. On the other hand, the Rafale’s OSF is a core part of the aircraft’s sensor suite and has been since early development due to the fact that the Armée de l’Air and Aéronavale maintained a medium-range IR seeker missile in the form of the MICA-IR to allow fully passive BVR engagements. By contrast, the podded IRST and sensor pod options for Super Hornet are all external additions to date, and the aircraft as a whole does not have a flawless reputation for integrating new sensors with high mission availability and reliability.

Interview with a Super Hornet pilot here.

 

Rafale-refuels-from-Super-Hornet-hr.jpg

In all, I would assess the Rafale M F3R-standard as having a significantly more capable fused situational awareness picture against aerial, ground and maritime targets than a Super Hornet Block II, if operating alone. In reality, however, the Super Bug routinely draws on situational awareness from a range of other fleet assets – most notably the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye (which France has also purchased but not yet received), and AEGIS-equipped vessels in the battlegroup, and integrates them seamlessly into both its RWR and main radar displays for the pilot. 

*Editor note

IRST is probably not operational 

F3R standard does not include IRST, though it should be return on the future F4 standard. The removal of the IRST came with the upgrade of the OSF to OSF-IT standard. This improved the TV sensor, but deleted the IRST section. Any new F3R won’t have IRST capability, unless it is taken from older Rafales.

In 2013 standard F3-04T saw the removal of the IR channel in favour of an improved TV sensor the OSF-IT. There is currently a plastic placeholder in its position. 

 

Within visual range combat 

Rafale-M-009.jpg

Within visual range, the Rafale M would be in a very dominant position against a Super Hornet in almost all circumstances. The Super Hornet has pedestrian energy retention and acceleration capabilities, and its performance falls off dramatically with external loads and at altitudes above 25,000ft. The Rafale M itself is most at home at altitudes below 35,000ft and can best the Super Hornet in instantaneous and sustained turn rate at all comparable loadings at all altitudes. The Super Hornet has superior high-alpha ‘nose pointing’ capabilities in the initial merge, but if the pilot fails to kill the Rafale M during that one initial manoeuvre then they will find themselves with almost no energy and struggling to sustain manoeuvres or accelerate away, while the Rafale M generates massive lift and has much better thrust-to-weight at combat loadings and superior acceleration too. The Mica and AIM-9X are both lethal WVR weapons with significant off-boresight capabilities, including ‘Parthian shot’ capability in the case of the Mica. Mica also has greater kinematic energy compared to the AIM-9X, being faster off the rail and with a longer burn, and able to pull 50g. However, only the Super Hornet currently has an operational helmet mounted sight in the shape of the proven Joint Helmet-Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS), increasing the odds of a kill during the initial merge and ‘bug nose pointing magic’ turn.

Top WVR fighters of 2019 here

If in a guns-only situation, with both aircraft slicked off; the Rafale M will eat the Super Hornet at any altitude. A head-on would be the Bug’s only chance assuming a 1v1 with reasonably comparable pilot skill.

Over 99.5% of our readers ignore our funding appeals. This site depends on your support. If you’ve enjoyed an article donate here. Recommended donation amount £12. Keep this site going.

 

Beyond visual range combat 

With a slight advantage in general radar detection range for the APG-79 on the Super Hornet over the RBE but a significantly lower frontal radar cross section and better ECM capabilities on the Rafale, the Rafale will probably get the first look.

A F3R standard Rafale M brings the very-long ranged Meteor missile to the BVR arena, comfortably out-ranging the F/A-18E even from a similar launch speed and altitude with AIM-120D. Rafale is also capable of supercruising comfortably at around 30,000ft, with the option of going higher without issues, whilst the Super Hornet cannot supercruise and is more comfortable at lower altitudes, meaning its missiles start with significantly less energy at launch. Therefore, even though the APG-79 would probably detect the Rafale at longer ranges than the AIM-120D’s no-escape launch zone, the Rafale M would detect the Super Hornet in time to launch Meteor with a good Pk from significantly futher out. First shot and first kill are likely to go to the Rafale M.

Top BVR fighters 2019 here. 

Acceleration/ climb rate / top speed/ ceiling 

The Rafale M wins comfortably over the Super Hornet in all these categories, despite being considered somewhat underpowered compared to dedicated air superiority fighters like the F-15, Typhoon, Su-35 and F-22.F-15, Typhoon, Su-35 and F-22.

Instantaneous turn rate / sustained turn / High alpha / G loadings/ sustained G

Here again, the Rafale M wins on most counts, with the advantage in instantaneous turn, sustained turn and sustained G turning performance. The Rafale M is cleared to +9G whilst the Super Hornet is limited to +7.5G. However, if carrying a multirole load, both would likely be limited in terms of permissible G loading more by stores than airframe strength. The Super Hornet wins on high alpha but not by as much as when compared to many other aircraft.

Defensive aids and radar conspicuity 

Screenshot 2019-12-20 at 12.09.43.png

The latest version of the SPECTRA electronic warfare and countermeasures suite on the F3R standard of Rafale (both naval and land based variants) is widely considered one of the most capable self-defence suites in operational service today. Having chosen to forgo development of stealth aircraft, France has put significant resources into the SPECTRA suite – counting on it, coupled with the standoff range of the Air-Sol Moyenne Portée Amélioré (ASMPA) missile to allow penetration of the latest enemy air defence networks for the airborne nuclear delivery mission. In 2011, the Armée de l’Air showed that it was able to strike targets within Libya before the main US Air Force suppression of enemy air defences (SEAD) strikes had taken place by relying on the SPECTRA system for self-protection.  The Rafale M also benefits from a reduced frontal RCS compared to the Super Hornet, although given the AESA radars mounted by both types, this would be of limited usefulness in a 1v1 especially with external stores mounted. India’s Rafales will include a Rafael manufactured new X-Guard towed decoy but it is not clear whether the Aéronavale’s Rafale Ms include a similar system.

Typhoon versus Rafale here

The Super Hornet Block II has the improved AN/ALQ-214 Integrated Defensive Countermeasures (IDECM) system which includes a highly capable radar warning receiver, automatic chaff, flare and decoy programmes and various options for self-protection jamming. It also carries the combat-proven ALE-55 towed decoy, meaning that it stands a reasonable chance of absorbing at least one radar-guided missile which makes it to terminal homing without damage. However, in general, the electronic warfare and RCS reduction options potentially available to the Super Hornet have not been prioritised during Block II development, due to the standard presence within the air wing of dedicated EA-18G Growlers to support the Super Hornets in these areas.

Human machine interface/situational awareness

165897_Boeing_F-A-18E_Super_Hornet_VFA-137_Kestrels_Commander_Air_Group_CAG_22214010386.jpg

The Super Hornet has a relatively straightforward and ergonomic cockpit design with an emphasis on safe deck operations and multirole combat capability over specialisation. Its three large MFDs ensure that information from the various sensors and weapons systems being carried are easily displayed. However, there is little in the way of sensor fusion techniques, beyond the integration of off-board situational awareness data via Link 16, which is displayed on both the main attack radar display and RWR/EW pages. The use of the JHMCS adds an additional layer of situational awareness during stressful combat situations when heads-up time is at a premium. In all, the Block II Super Hornet is a fairly middle-of-the-road advanced fourth generation aircraft in HMI and SA terms.

The Rafale M, by contrast, has an ergonomically slightly cleaner design with minimal knobs and switches included in favour of five full colour MFDs and an electronic ‘knee-board’ tablet carried for additional flexibility and ease of access to information. In the F3R standard, there is a greater emphasis on post-sensor fusion than on the Super Hornet Block II – with tracks from the SPECTRA system, RBE2-AA and OSF all processed and shown on a single situational awareness display as standard, with the option to open separate windows for each if required. However, compared to something like the F-35, there is still a great deal of mental multi-tasking required for pilots processing information from multiple displays simultaneously in different sections of the cockpit.

Overall, however, the F3R-standard Rafale M beats the Super Hornet Block II on cockpit interface and general SA, but in a WVR or otherwise stressful ‘heads up’ situation, the lack of a helmet mounted display leaves it behind the Super Hornet in HMI.

Sortie rate/maintainability/spares cost/unit cost of aircraft/cost of operating

Rafale-M-013.jpg

The French Aéronavale has been pleased with the ability of the Rafale M to generate multiple sorties per day and be rapidly turned around when required. Readiness and spares availability is helped by the close synchronisation between the specialised Aéronavale Rafale M fleet and the refit/work up/deployment schedule of the sole French aircraft carrier, Charles de Gaulle. The latter provides a predictable basis for planning aircraft maintenance, upgrade work, stockpiling spares and getting personnel qualified and current when needed. When the carrier is at sea, the Rafale M’s are ready to deploy and operate with high efficiency. However, if viewed as a long-term multi-year enterprise, only periodic capability is generated in return for significant costs.

The Super Hornet has had more issues with spares and availability in recent years, but this has at least as much to do with the US Navy’s carrier groups and air wings operating far above long term planning assumptions for many years as it does anything to do with any inherent properties of the Super Hornet itself. Exceptions would be continued problems with the on-board oxygen generation system (OBOGS), and APG-79 radar issues. However, the sheer size of the Super Hornet fleet in US Navy service, as well as with overseas customers like the Royal Australian Air Force leads to significant economies of scale in terms of operating costs and spares costs compared to the small Rafale M fleet.

Landing/take-off handling? 

Sadly I wouldn’t know – not having deck landed either of them. Whichever of Dassault or Boeing gives me a backseat cat and trap ride first will win! 😉

Range/endurance 

Range is extremely subjective for combat aircraft since a huge amount depends on the weapons and other stores carried, the external fuel tanks carried, mission profile flown, time on station required at the destination, and reserve allocation for recovery to deck or diversion. Both Rafale M and Super Hornet are also capable of air to air refuelling using probe and drogue equipped tankers, or buddy buddy refuelling.

Rafale-M-081.jpg

However, with a significantly greater payload capacity, less draggy airframe and ability to fly higher and faster especially in dry power, it is safe to say that the Rafale M has a significantly greater overall combat radius for most missions than the F/A-18E.

Weapons options 

The Super Hornet is the winner on most counts on weapons options. Whilst the Rafale M can carry a significantly greater external payload, especially when also carrying three external fuel tanks, the Super Hornet benefits in terms of flexibility and cost of munitions from being cleared to carry and deliver practically every weapon in the vast US air-launched inventory. This gives it relatively affordable options for close air support, interdiction, long range strike, anti-shipping strikes and air superiority, as well as the ability to draw on forward position stocks all over the world during deployed operations.

By contrast, the Rafale M relies predominantly on the excellent but extremely expensive AASM-Hammer series of guided bombs. These include dual-mode laser and GPS/INS guided and IR guided variants, as well as extended range kits with a rocket booster motor. It is also, however, cleared for delivery of the Paveway II/III series of laser guided bombs too for a lower cost direct-attack option. In terms of standoff attack, the Rafale M can fire the SCALP (also known as Storm Shadow) low-RCS cruise missile, and the Exocet anti-ship missile. Both remain expensive compared to their US-made equivalents. The same is true of the MICA medium/close range missile which is extremely capable within around 20km but struggles to compete with AIM-120C, let alone AIM-120D in longer range BVR engagements. However, the MICA-IR does give a rare Western option for fully passive (i.e. non-radar dependent) medium range engagements in conjunction with the OSF system. Meteor – now integrated in F3R standard Rafale M aircraft – is undeniably expensive, but offers better range, terminal performance in long distance engagements, and reportedly better resistance to DRFM jammers than AIM-120C or AIM-120D. 

Rafale-M-03c (1).jpg

Interview with a Rafale M pilot here. 

 

Biggest plus and minus for each aircraft 

For Super Hornet

+ huge user community resulting in affordable spares and upgrades, as well as docile handling, excellent high-alpha performance in a merge, and access to the full suite of US air-delivered weaponry.

– Underpowered for its weight especially at high altitudes, and high-drag pylon arrangement means external stores drag penalties are increased. 

For Rafale M

+ advanced aerodynamic design and avionics fit at least half a generation ahead of the Super Hornet, with brutal WVR performance below 35,000ft

– relatedly small user community and French-specific weapons and systems mean operating costs are higher and global spare parts base is much more restricted. Also still not operating with a HMS.

sh.png

Over 99.5% of our readers ignore our funding appeals. This site depends on your support. If you’ve enjoyed an article donate here. Recommended donation amount £12. Keep this site going.