In 1971, Indian Air Force Gnats fought Pakistan’s Sabres in ferocious bloody dogfights. Despite only weighing the same as a a Dodge Durango, the tiny jet fighter proved a formidable machine. We spoke to IAF Wing Commander Sunith Francis Soares about flying and fighting in the Gnat.

The Gnat was conceived by the British designer, ‘Teddy’ Petter. One of the greatest aircraft designers was lived, his other creations included the Lysander, Lightning and Canberra. Countering the trend for ever larger, more costly, fighter aircraft the Gnat, which first flew in 1955, was a ‘pocket rocket’. Although relegated to training duties in Britain, Finland and India used the type in the fighter role. India received its first Gnat in 1958, and it went on to prove itself in the heat of battle.

“With slats out and full power he executed a motherless turn, but the Gnat not only kept up with him degree for degree but gained some distance in. After, we found that we had clocked more than 9G during this turn. Roy hit the right wing near the fuselage. I saw the wing catch fire, canopy fly off, before we overshot the flaming aircraft. Strike one Sabre.”

How long did you fly the Gnat and with which unit?

“I flew the Gnat from Mar 1969 to Nov 1972 with 22 Sqn based at Kalaikunda. I flew 500 Hrs Plus, including intensive flying in the Indo-Pak conflict of 1971”

Top 10 fighters of 1969 here 

What were you first impressions of the aircraft? 

“Diminutive beast.”

What was the best thing about the aircraft?

“Powerful and manoeuvrable.”

 What was the worst thing about the aircraft?

“Poor serviceability in the initial years due high rate of minor failures – brakes / hydraulics. Fleet was also grounded occasionally during modifications.”

2019 analysis: How good is the Block II Pakistan JF-17 fighter aircraft today compared to its peers and potential threats? Here

 

Which other types have you flown? 

“HF-24 Marut and MiG-21 variants.”

What was your most interesting mission? 

“It was a few days before the 1971 war with Pakistan actually began. We were based at Kalaikunda, near Kharagpur, and for many months had been maintaining a detachment at Calcutta for air defence duties. The ORP was a make-shift one, with sand bags to protect the aircraft and tents for the crew.

The Indian army was geared for battle and in the Boyra sector had moved adventurously into Pakistan territory setting up defensive positions in preparation for the coming battle. This sort of aggressive posturing must have been particularly provocative to the military authorities at Dacca and they decided to use some airpower to displace our troops.”

 

 

 

“The first strike by the PAF sabres was on 22 November 1971, at around 10.00h – just as the sun dispersed the morning fog. Four Gnats were scrambled but arrived too late to pose a threat. A second strike followed soon thereafter but once again the Gnats could not make contact and returned to base a trifle dejected. Wg Cdr BS Sikand, our CO, who had led the first two sorties, then decided to take the afternoon off for some beer and socialising and handed over the lead to Roy, and I was slotted in as number 2. Ganapathy and Don retained their positions at 3 and 4.

Interview with an IAF MiG-25 pilot here 

As I settled into the makeshift ORP, I silently prayed for another strike. Don and I were playing scrabble when the klaxon went off once again. One more formation had been picked up on the radar heading toward Boyra. Our controller this time was Fg Offr Bagchhi and the time was 14.40h, and soon we were hurtling through the skies at low level with the throttles against the stop. At low-levels and high speeds, the Gnat is not easy to fly as the noise level is atrociously high and the aircraft bucks like a rodeo horse. It became difficult to hear Bagchhi and after a slight reduction in speed and a modest gain in height we reached the border to be told that the enemy was at 2 o’clock 4 miles. Ganapathy and Don being on the right flank and therefore closer to the target should have been able to spot the aircraft but the afternoon haze made this difficult.

I then saw a glint of metal and by sharply focusing my vision saw one aircraft at about three kms, perched as if to commence a dive. I called out contact and commenced a crisp commentary on the flight path. Roy having spotted the aircraft, decided to pull over the flank pair to manoeuvre behind the aircraft. This positioned us at about 1.5 kms behind the Sabre. Someone by this time must have warned him about us, as he went into a classic steep turn with the intention of shaking us off. With slats out and full power he executed a motherless turn, but the Gnat not only kept up with him degree for degree but gained some distance in. After the incident, we found that we had clocked more than 9G during this turn. The Sabre now came out of the turn to gain some speed and this allowed us to close in, as the Gnat has a very good acceleration, and we were soon at firing range. Roy fired a small burst which missed but followed quickly with another which hit the right wing near the fuselage. I saw the wing catch fire, canopy fly off, and the start of the ejection process before we overshot the flaming aircraft. Strike one Sabre.

While we were in combat, I heard Ganapathy call out that he had spotted a Sabre and he manoeuvred behind the aircraft very quickly to fire his first burst which missed. In the mean-time, a third sabre came out of the blue- literally- between Ganapathy and Don, at a distance of 200 yards or so. With lightning quick reflexes Don swerved his aircraft and in a flash, fired his guns which struck the Sabre on the wing causing it to explode. The debris hit Don’s aircraft on the nose and drop tank. Yes, drop tank! In our enthusiasm, we had forgotten the cardinal principle of combat: jettison the tanks. Strike two Sabre. The pilot ejected. This pilot was taken PoW and later released. He went on to become the Chief of the Air Staff of the PAF.”

We can only bring your articles like this with your support. Our site is absolutely free and we have no advertisements (any you do see, are from WordPress). If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here. 

Meanwhile Ganapathy had fired a second burst which this time was better directed and hit the sabre on the right wing which also caught fire. Strike three Sabres. During our combat which I estimate did not last more than 3 minutes, I saw small puffs of incandescent lights which I later found to my dismay, was AA shells bursting all around. The Indian army air defence regiment was having a field firing practice at our expense. It’s a good thing their gunnery was not as good as ours.

Interview with IAF MiG-27 pilot here.

It was now Bagchhi’s turn to take over and he assembled us for our return to base. After our rendezvous we came in a finger four formation for a run in, but because of Don’s damaged aircraft did not intend to do any dramatics, but Ganapathy would not have any of it. After peeling off he came in for a victory roll to tell the world that we had shot down three Sabres without any loss.”

Interview with PAF Sabre pilot here

 How combat effective was the Gnat?

 “Quite. It had a good kill-to-loss ratio.”

Instantaneous turn rate

“Good to excellent”

Sustained turn rate

“Ditto”

Climb rate

“Good to excellent”

Acceleration

“Again, good to excellent”

What was your most memorable mission and why? 

“I would like to mention another memorable occasion. Our Stn Cdr in 1971 before and during the conflict was a tea drinker who took drastic action to curtail our alcohol consumption (to no avail).  He exhorted us to emulate the Israel pilots who in the 67 conflict flew 4 to 5 sorties, who drank only orange juice (which by the was was not available at the time except in rusty tins of doubtful quality). On 5 Dec six of us flew five sorties in a span of 9 hrs literally jumping from one aircraft to another with briefings and nibbling snacks in between. we gleefully sent our ‘autho’ book that evening to the Stn Cdr and requested him to join us for a drink.”

Indian-Pakistan 2019 air skirmish – what happened? Here

Which three words would you use to describe the aircraft? 

“Float like a….”

What were the threat aircraft it was facing and which was the most challenging and why?  “Sabre. That was the most potent threat in the sub-continent. Its turn performance was quite good.”

Interview with a PAF Sabre pilot here.

 Where were you based and what was life like on the base?

Kalaikunda. Due poor govt remuneration in that period, life was dictated by the letters ‘NM’….no money or next month. however life was not uncomfortable.

Interview with PAF MiG-19 pilot here

What was the social life like?

“Serendipitous, in that most of the married pilots had intercaste/creed marriages which made for excellent social action. parties were great fun with dancing and games. occasional interspersed picnics and overnight outings were happy events.”

How effective were the weapon systems and avionics? What additional equipment would you have liked? 

“Nothing to shout about. We made do with ‘Mk 1 eyeball’ and ‘moving thumb display.'”

Everything you always wanted to know about Indian air power, but were afraid to ask: In conversation with Shiv Aroor here

How good was your training?

“Highly indigenous with no exposure to international tactics

I’d like to dedicate this to the IAF Gnat Brotherhood and especially to the war veterans of 22 Sqn, IAF (Swifts) who did a splendid job!”

Special thanks to Anshuman Mainkar for making this interview possible. Excellent article on the this subject on his blog here. 

We can only bring your articles like this with your support. Our site is absolutely free and we have no advertisements (any you do see, are from WordPress). If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here. 

See also

• Aircraft design contest 2019 launched
• 10 exotic cancelled fighter planes from countries you didn’t expect
• An idiot’s guide to aircraft design, part 5: Stealth comes at a cost
• Interview with Soviet air force Su-15 ‘Flagon’ fighter pilot: Defending the USSRApril 26, 2019
• An idiot’s guide to aircraft design – Part 2: How to build an aircraft with great enduranceApril 24, 2019
• An idiot’s guide to aircraft design – Part 1: How to build the fastest-climbing fighterApril 22, 2019
• An idiot’s guide to aircraft design: IntroductionApril 20, 2019
• Vote on the Top 10 aircraft of the Royal NavyApril 19, 2019
• Flying & Fighting in the Saab Viggen: Cold War ThunderApril 15, 2019
• Flying & Fighting in the Gripen: Interview with a Swedish Air Force pilotApril 15, 2019
• Which fighter aircraft will Switzerland choose?April 13, 2019
• Music for jet air travel- Jazz for the Jet Set (1966) by Dave Pike
• 
• 

“George Washington knew the British were using Los Angeles International and O’Hare Airport to resupply their forces and facilitate their vacations. In August, the combined Franco-American army moved south to coordinate with de Grasse in occupying the airports. The British lacked sufficient airport security resources to effectively counter the French, but they dispatched a force of submachine gun armed police under Thomas Graves to assist Cornwallis and attempt recapture of the prepaid parking zone. On September 5, French special forces disguised as tourists captured the runways and shopping areas, giving the French control of the Wendy’s, McDonald’s and Yogurtland and cutting off Cornwallis from lunch and parking, and forcing him to miss his flight to Yorktown. Despite the continued urging of his subordinates, Cornwallis made no attempt to break out and engage the Franco-American army before it had established siege works at Einstein Bros Bagels, expecting that reinforcements would arrive from the toilets. The Franco-American army laid siege to the Walmart Supercenter on September 23. Cornwallis continued to think that relief was imminent from the baggage retrieval area, and he abandoned his outer defenses which were immediately occupied by American troops—serving to hasten his subsequent defeat. By September 24, both airports were captured signalling the end of the war and British tourism”

 

For many in Britain, a nation saved by air power in World War II, military aircraft are colossally symbolic. The wartime Spitfire and Lancaster were figureheads for British pride, and throughout the 1950s, the nation’s futuristic jets were much trumpeted. Here, in thundering rivetted aluminium, was a tangible reminder that this was a technologically advanced superpower. The future was fast and high-flying and we were making it, forging it in the deafening afterburners of the Lightning and the devastating invulnerability of the Vulcan. In 1965, Britain had a supersonic bomber superior to anything else in the world — the TSR-2 — but before entering service with the RAF, the project was axed. For some, this left a wound that over half a century later has not healed. The subject remains an emotive one and even today can provoke angry impassioned debate. However, the popular myth of TSR-2 may not be all it seems. We asked Jim Smith, who had significant technical roles in many of the UK’s leading military aviation programmes from ASRAAM to the Eurofighter Typhoon, to consider both the effectiveness of the aircraft and the real impact of its cancellation. 

“Recently, in conversation with Hush-Kit’s Joe Coles I provided a comment on the TSR-2 along the following lines:

1) An over-ambitious low-level supersonic range requirement drove up cost

2) Some development issues with undercarriage and cockpit vibration

3) Many system elements needing development – engine, avionics, sensors, all adding cost

4) Industry needed rationalising, but..

5) Airframe had great potential

Hush-Kit has asked me to expand on these views, knowing that the history of the TSR-2 always inspires lively debate.

I should add that I do not intend to duplicate the work of others, but rather to follow my normal practice of considering the requirement for the aircraft; the technical implications of that requirement; some analysis of the political, economic, technical and Industrial issues that may have led the incoming Labour Government to cancel the project in 1965; and some reflection on the Industry that emerged following the cancellation of the Project. So much has been written on this subject, by so many people, better-placed than I to tell the story, that I feel somewhat diffident in offering these views. Also, in order to keep this piece digestible, I will inevitably have to summarise some of the issues somewhat. Nevertheless, I can but hope that some interesting and stimulating debate will be provoked.

Requirements

The requirements for TSR.2 evolved during the course of the development programme, starting from a desire to replace the Canberra aircraft in its Tactical, Strike and Reconnaissance roles. Due mainly to the development of advanced ground-based anti-air missile systems, it had become increasingly clear that subsonic, medium-to-high altitude aircraft like the Canberra would not be able to survive against well-integrated air-defence systems.  Consequently, the requirement for the replacement aircraft was focussed on high-speed and low-altitude performance.

A few performance highlights include a requirement for nearly 3000 km range at Mach 0.9, low level; and, separately, the ability to cruise at Mach 2.0 for 1600 km. In both cases the distances were to be on internal fuel, with normal reserves and a 2000-lb weapon, carried throughout. Maximum speed at low level was intended to be Mach 1.2; at altitude the maximum speed was anticipated to be Mach 2.35.

In terms of mission roles, it is clear that the nuclear strike role, using either the 15 kiloton Red Beard, or the later WE177 weapon, was intended as a key role for the aircraft, although traditional tactical strike missions with 1000 lb bombs, and reconnaissance using the aircraft’s sideways looking radar were also envisaged.

To further increase the degree of difficulty beyond meeting extreme range and speed requirements at very low level, a requirement to operate from unimproved runways of only about 3000 ft length was also imposed.

While some of these requirements were subsequently relaxed, these initial requirements shaped the configuration that emerged from the design process.

Technical implications of the requirement

Although not yet covered in my Combat Aircraft Design series for Hush-Kit, the first place to start is payload-range. Payload-range sizes the aircraft, and carrying a 2000-lb weapon out and back 1000 or so miles at near-supersonic speeds and low level is going to require a lot of fuel. Couple this with a maximum speed requirement at altitude of greater than Mach 2, and a short take-off requirement, and it is clear that very powerful engines will be required. These factors alone are enough to ensure a large aircraft, and as Bill Gunston remarks in his Beyond the Frontiers article, the TSR.2 came out at 20 ft longer than a Lancaster and more than twice the weight.

Despite this, perhaps the most challenging requirement was to manage sustained high speed at low level, while getting this heavy aircraft airborne in 3000 ft or less. The high-speed, low-level requirement drives to the highest possible wing loading, to ensure good handling in low-level turbulence at high speed. This is also likely to be helpful in achieving the maximum Mach number requirement, which drives towards a slender configuration with a thin wing and low aspect ratio. How then to meet the take-off requirement, which demands a large wing area, and preferably low sweep and good high lift devices?

Well, one obvious possibility would be to use a variable sweep wing. This was, in fact the solution to somewhat similar requirements adopted by the General Dynamics F-111, of which more later. It’s not a bad idea, but does come with a significant penalty in terms of weight and complexity. The solution adopted for the TSR.2 was the bold and innovative step of using full span blown flaps to attain the maximum possible lift from a small, highly-loaded, near-delta wing. Coupled with very powerful engines (which were needed anyway to meet the speed requirements), a soft-field undercarriage with low-pressure tyres, and powerful all moving tail surfaces to control and trim the aircraft, there was at least a prospect of meeting all these conflicting requirements.

You love aeroplanes and we love aeroplanes. Hush-Kit is a team effort and we need you. If all our readers donated £3 we would have all the funding we need for this year. Please consider giving a donation here

What else? Well to get to the required maximum Mach number, both the intakes and the nozzles have to be variable geometry, and, of course, a new engine will be required – an afterburning version of the excellent Olympus, the powerplant of the mighty Vulcan, and of course, subsequently developed into the Olympus 593 for Concorde. Then reinforced cockpit enclosures to withstand possible bird-strikes at low level, and a host of newly-developed mission equipment.

Remarkably, given the challenging requirements, the selected airframe, engine and equipment solutions appear to have had the potential to rise at least towards the challenge, and possibly to meet it.

Industrial, Political, Economic, Technical and Other Considerations

So, what went wrong? Well, there are quite a number of strands to look at here, and much has already been written on the subject. All the various factors I’m going to discuss interplayed with each other. Past political decisions had resulted in an Industry badly placed to take on a complex project of this sort; technical glitches in development resulted in delays, increases in weight and cost, as such difficulties always do; delays and cost increases fed into the aspirations of those who favoured another solution, or no solution at all to the requirement. In the end, not only was the project cancelled, but the then-proposed replacement was also cancelled, resulting in a long interlude of interim part-solutions until a successful successor emerged, which has itself recently been retired after 40-years of service with the RAF.

The Industrial and Political landscape is so intimately inter-twined around TSR.2 that the two topics cannot be considered separately. On the Political front, there was a seminal moment when, in April 1957, Mr Duncan Sandys announced in his statement on Defence policy that (in view of developments in guided weapons technologies) it was unlikely that the RAF would in future require new fighters or bombers. Although the Lightning was too far advanced to stop, and the Buccaneer was already in development for the Royal Navy, this announcement appeared to pretty much spell the end of the British combat aircraft Industry.

Given this, it is somewhat surprising that a successful case was made leading to the announcement by the Government of the development of a new strike and reconnaissance aircraft to replace the Canberra, in December 1958, only 20 months after the Duncan Sandys announcement. It is perhaps less surprising, given the existential threat posed by the Sandys’ announcement, that no less than 11 Companies submitted proposals against this lifeline project: Armstrong Whitworth, Avro, Blackburn, Bristol, de Havilland, English Electric, Fairey, Handley-Page, Hawker, Short Brothers and Vickers-Armstrong.

It is also less than surprising, given the limited market for combat aircraft, and the stiff competition for both civil and military designs emerging from the US and France, that the Government perceived very clearly the need to reduce the number of aircraft manufacturers, and announced that future projects would only be available to partnering companies, in order to rationalise the Industry.

Accordingly, the initial development contract went to Vickers-Armstrong, co-operating with English Electric, while the engine development went to Bristol-Siddeley. Within about 2 years, English-Electric, Vickers-Armstrong, and Bristol Aircraft had bowed to the inevitable and merged into the British Aircraft Corporation (BAC). By 1963, the remaining companies, Folland, de Havilland, and Blackburn had joined the Hawker Siddeley Group (Armsrong-Whitworth, A. V. Roe, Gloster and Hawker). For details of these changes see British Built Aircraft by Ron Smith.

From a project perspective, this left the Buccaneer and the TSR.2 as the only game in town for the military aerospace Industry. The demanding specification of the TSR.2 aircraft, and the supporting elements to that capability, meant that just about every technical advance or innovation – in weapons, avionics, flight and utilities control systems, instrumentation and displays, was considered part of the TSR.2 development program. In the end, more than 1000 companies were contributing to the program.

Not unnaturally, this massive scale of activity all cost money – lots of it. Given the Procurement climate of the time the relevant Contracts were neither let as Prime Contracts, nor Fixed-Price. The total program cost appears to be lost in a mire of conflicting figures, but seems unlikely to be less than 500 million pounds. Gunston states that 14 different official figures have been given, varying from 100 to 1000 million pounds.

Technically, many aspects of the aircraft appear to have worked extraordinarily well, with the limited flight tests demonstrating solid handling performance, and the ability to fly supersonically in dry thrust. However, there were a number of technical issues, some of which were very public, which delayed the flight test program, and to some extent played into the hands of those who were sceptical about the programme.

A key concern was the engine – two of the development Olympus 320X engines exploded during the engine test program, the first of those incidents also destroying the dedicated Vulcan testbed aircraft, fortunately while ground running. The cause of the failure was diagnosed, and a fix developed, but the result was an 8-month delay, with the additional complication that the first flight of the aircraft was made with unmodified, and hence dangerous, engines. Fortunately, all went well, with a successful first flight on 27 Sept 1964.

Another very public issue concerned the undercarriage. Remarkably, it was not until the 10^th flight that the undercarriage was retracted and lowered successfully. Previous flights had experienced the port leg, and on a separate flight, the starboard leg failing to retract, and one landing with the main undercarriage bogies in a near-vertical, rather than a near-horizontal position. In addition, severe vibration after landing continued to be a problem for much of the flight test program, although a solution to this had been identified and implemented for the last couple of flights.

A number of other issues were encountered, including vibration on the second and third flights – cause identified and cured, a heavy landing on flight 12, and significant fuel leaks on flights 18 and 19. However, in general, the airframe delivered both impressive performance and handling. Much of course remained to be done to develop the weapons system capability, but this of course was not to be, with the cancellation of the program after just 24 flights.

In the end, the aircraft became a target of the incoming Labour Government, with the project not helped by some remarkably vague and unconvincing commentary from Government ministers, which included being unable, or unwilling, to detail the program costs, and considerable mixed-messaging on the aircraft’s intended role as a conventional or nuclear strike aircraft.

In the end, the Government cancelled the program, announcing that it would procure the General Dynamics F-111K instead. As the likely cost of this acquisition grew, there was a further change in plan, with the announcement that the UK would no longer participate in operations ‘East of Suez’. This was the death knell not only for the F-111K, but ultimately for the Fleet Air Arm’s big carriers as well. Consequently, the RAF ended up with the F-4M Phantom, and latterly the Buccaneer S2 and the Navy’s F-4K Phantoms instead.

Ultimately, of course, the replacement for the TSR.2 proved to be the Panavia Tornado GR variant, which has just been retired from the RAF, after 40 years of peerless service.

Impact on the Industry

When TSR.2 was cancelled, the Government also cancelled the P.1154 supersonic STOVL fighter and HS.681 STOL transport, with the result that both BAC and Hawker Siddeley needed to restructure and re-focus their businesses.

In practice, this meant a considerable focus on collaboration. BAC worked on the Jaguar as part of the SEPECAT Group, and on the Tornado fighter and strike aircraft as part of the Panavia consortium. BAC, of course, also had a substantial civil aircraft business, ultimately partnering with Aerospatiale to build the unmatched Concorde.

Hawker Siddeley military aircraft projects developed from the Harrier and the Hawk, ultimately leading to cooperation with McDonnell Douglas on the AV-8B and T-45 Goshawk. On the civil side, a variety of the aircraft inherited through the merger process ultimately reached the end of their development cycle. The HS146 evolved into the Avro RJ; the HS748 into the ATP; the Jetstream into the Jetstream 41; and the HS125 into the Hawker 1000. All of these products essentially reached the end of their development path or, in the case of the HS125, were sold off to others. However, a resounding success was the decision of the company to enter the Airbus consortium, and, in particular, to build on very fruitful partnered research effort with Government to provide unmatched wing design capability for a very lucrative line of medium to heavy commercial transport aircraft.

Eventually, with the formation of British Aerospace, collaboration in military aircraft has moved on to the Eurofighter Typhoon, and the contribution made, with Rolls-Royce, to the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II.

The Future

Where next? BAE Systems is seeking to develop the Tempest, with a number of European partners (notably Sweden), but without, as yet, a clearly stated requirement. It has continuing workshare in the Eurofighter Typhoon and Lightning II, and interests through the broader Tempest  in a number of possible future unmanned systems. But some have questioned whether the company is now in a position to deliver design leadership on complex future combat aircraft. On the civil side, the one remaining major programme is the Airbus enterprise – but Brexit remains an area of uncertainty, on which, from Australia, I will observe rather than attempt to comment.

Did TSR.2 kill the Industry? – No, but it thrust it into a world of partnership and collaboration.

Does Industry still have the design capability to lead, and to deliver the next generation of UK and European combat aircraft? – It’s an open question. In my view, I don’t think Europe can manage two competing 6^th generation combat aircraft projects.

Will the UK remain the principle wing-design and manufacture source for Airbus? – A big question, to which I suspect the answer may well be No for manufacture, and possibly No for design. As noted above, however, much depends on the outcome of the current Brexit brouhaha in the UK.”

I would like to add a comment by historian in David Edgerton from his 2017 Hush-kit interview —

“It is a very strange view for without the support of British governments there would essentially have been no aircraft industry at all. The argument amounts to saying that if the government had given even more support that it actually did then we would have a stronger aircraft industry today. To which the response might be, more Concordes or TSR2s would have done even more damage to the industry rather than strengthened it. Indeed that argument was made – the problem was indeed too many aircraft projects, all supported by government, stretching the technical resources of the industry. Too much innovation was supported, rather than not enough. I must admit I have not heard a convincing argument that supporting the V1000 or developing the P.1154 would have materially affected aeronautical history, though there is plenty of assertion to this effect.  In short, it is a very complex issue which is discussed in simplistic ways. One common assumption was that governments were pig-headedly stupid and short-sighted. But the policies of governments were not stupid. There was a strong case for concentrating on fewer companies in the 1950s, and of pushing for European collaboration in the 1960s, and for reducing investment in a sector which for very good reasons would find it difficult to compete with the USA. Nor should we downplay success – the aero-engine industry has been successful, a very rare example of large British manufacturing firm having a serious place in world markets.  Without decades of government support there would  be no Rolls-Royce today.”

 

You love aeroplanes and we love aeroplanes. Hush-Kit is a team effort and we need you. If all our readers donated £3 we would have all the funding we need for this year. Please consider giving a donation here

 

 

Principal Sources:

Testing Years, Roland Beamont: Ian Allen, 1980

Beyond the Frontiers BAC TSR.2, Bill Gunston: Wings of Fame, Volume 4, Aerospace Publishing Ltd., 1996

British Built Aircraft, Ron Smith;

Some Turning Point British Aircraft, Ron Smith: In Royal Aeronautical Society publication: British Aviation 1908-2008: Towards the Second Century of British Powered Flight. RAeS April 2008

From Spitfire to Eurofighter – 45 years of Combat Aircraft Design, Roy Boot; Airlife

Wikipedia

Observers Book of Aircraft 1964

Jim Smith’s comments that represent his personal views and observations, but, because he was neither involved in the project itself, nor part of the decision-making in Government circles (he was, in fact, still at school), these views are, of course, shaped by the comments of others. His principal sources are listed above, and I would recommend the reader to seek these out where possible.

In 2018 we asked you to design a fighter aircraft, your entries were brilliant. Now it’s 2019 and we have a new contest for you. Your concept will be judged by an expert panel on effectiveness, originality and aesthetics. 

Submission deadline: August 30th 2019.

Submission should take the form of no more than 4 illustrations or diagrams (one is fine) and a small amount of text to explain the type.

Choose one of the following design briefs:

Requirement 560

Design a fighter aircraft using only technology available in 1970. The aircraft must have a range of at least 400 nautical miles. It must have a minimum top speed over Mach 1.8. It should carry at least one cannon and four air-to-air missiles. The type should have a good dogfighting performance.

Requirement 570

Design a fighter-bomber aircraft using only technology available in 2019.  The aircraft must have a range of at least 400 nautical miles. It must have a minimum top speed over Mach 1.6. It should carry at least one cannon and four air-to-air missiles/and/or 7000kg of munitions.. The type should be relatively cheap to build, easy to maintain, and a short development period.

Requirement 680

Design a supersonic civil passenger aircraft using only technology available in 2019. Minimum top speed 1000mph. Range 2500 miles. 100 passengers plus reasonable baggage. Extra points awarded for economy of operation and lower noise levels.

Requirement 750

Design a close support aircraft using only technology available in 1985. Minimum top speed 400mph. Must capable of carrying at least 5000kg of munitions and carry internal gun. Must be low-cost, highly resistant to ground-fire and have minimal ground support requirements. STOL or rough-field capability a plus.

Requirement 760

Design a fighter aircraft using only technology available in 1938. The aircraft must be a capable dogfighter. Armament is to be four cannon. Aircraft must have a top speed higher than 380mph, be easy to repair and maintain and offer a high level of battle damage resistance.

Message via Twitter @hush_kit to enter.

 

If you wish to see more articles like this in the future please donate here. We are extremely grateful to all those who choose to donate.

Follow my vapour trail on Twitter: @Hush_kit

• Have a look at How to kill a Raptor, An Idiot’s Guide to Chinese Flankers, the 10 worst British military aircraft, The 10 worst French aircraft,  Su-35 versus Typhoon, 10 Best fighters of World War II , top WVR and BVR fighters of today, an interview with a Super Hornet pilot and a Pacifist’s Guide to Warplanes Want something more bizarre? The Top Ten fictional aircraft is a fascinating read, as is The Strange Story and The Planet Satellite. The Fashion Versus Aircraft Camo is also a real cracker. Those interested in the Cold Way should read A pilot’s guide to flying and fighting in the Lightning. Those feeling less belligerent may enjoy A pilot’s farewell to the Airbus A340. Looking for something more humorous? Have a look at this F-35 satire and ‘Werner Herzog’s Guide to pusher bi-planes or the Ten most boring aircraft. In the mood for something more offensive? Try the NSFW 10 best looking American airplanes, or the same but for Canadians. 

Pariah states and those seeking independence from the traditional plane-making nations have repeatedly attempted to go it alone and built their own fighter aircraft. All of the following projects, many tantalisingly close to being brilliant, failed. Some were crushed by spiralling project costs, some by bad timing and some by death threats! 

10. FMA Pulqui II (1950)

Kurt Tank, who developed the Fw 190 and other design masterpieces for Nazi Germany, fled his defeated homeland to work in Peron’s Argentina. Here he was involved in several bizarre projects (including a possibly fraudulent nuclear fusion-powered airliner which will be covered on hushkit.net soon), including the Pulqui II, an indigenous jet fighter based on the unflown Ta 183. Whereas the Pulqui I was a disappointing straight-wing fighter prototype designed by Émile Dewoitine, the II was far more ambitious: a swept-wing fighter powered by the British Nene II. With a top speed of 671 mph and an armament of four-20mm the aircraft had the potential to be one of the most capable fighters of its time, though the similarly Nene powered MiG-17 also flew in 1950 and was 40mph faster.  The Pulqui II was successfully deployed in combat trials in the Revolución Libertadora. The type was cancelled due to long-running programme failures and a failing national economy.

9. FMA SAIA 90

An extremely far-sighted and in many ways brilliant concept, the SAIA 90 had the misfortune of being born in the wrong country. A stealthy (with consideration being paid to both radar and infra-red conspicuity) agile fighter powered by two F404s is an idea so appealing it would still find buyers today. It was to have a Low Probability of Intercept radar, one 27-mm Mauser cannon and six air-to-air missiles (four medium ranged radar-guided and two short-range infra-red guided).

Design assistance for the Argentinian company Fabrica Militar de Aviones came from the West German company Dornier (whose experience with composites on the Do 228 and AlphaJet would be vital for the project). The project would have been ambitious for any nation, but for Argentina, which was in the grip of an economic meltdown, it was just too much — and it was cancelled.

Like this kind of thing? 10 incredible cancelled military aircraft here

8. Australian Commonwealth CA-15 ‘Kangaroo’

A strong contender for the title of the ultimate piston-engined fighter is the Australian Commonwealth CA-15 ‘Kangaroo’. The RAAF wanted a fighter superior to the highly respected P-51 Mustang, so accordingly issued an exceptionally demanding requirement. The specification called for a machine with a high rate of climb, excellent manoeuvrability including a high roll rate, and a generous range. The resultant Kangaroo delivered on all promises, and boasted a top speed of 458mph, and a range on internal fuel of 1,150 miles! The addition of drop tanks allowed for 2,540 mile flights. These remarkable figures were attained with the Griffon 61, even more impressive figures would have been achieved if the desired Double Wasp or three-speed Griffon had been fitted. Like the MB5 it was just too late to the party.

7. Helwan HA-300 (1964)

In the mid 1950s Egypt wanted a lightweight supersonic, single-seat fighter-intercepter. Depending on the now hostile Britain for military aircraft was impossible and President Nasser also wished for the prestige and independence of an indigenous solution.

Wilhelm Emil ‘Willy’ Messerschmitt, designer of the Bf 109, banned from designing military aircraft in Germany, came to their assistance. In collaboration with India and Spain, the sleek HA-300 was created. The aircraft attained Mach 2.1 with indigenous Brandner E-300 engines.

It is uncertain exactly why the project was cancelled but it was having financial and technical problems, and the German engineers were receiving death threats from Mossad.

 6. Qaher-313

Voted in the 2013 world fighter yearbook ‘least likely project to come to fruition and most dishonest PR‘, the Iranian Qaher-313 was something of a joke in international media. Extremely silly claims were made of this aircraft – and the subscale mock-up claiming to be an actual aircraft was widely derided. The project continues, though the public statement have become more modest. Far from being the F-35 killing superfighter described in 2013, it is now reported as a short range close air support aircraft. It is unclear whether it has yet flown.

We have big plans! We exist today thanks to our reader’s generous donations, it’s a team effort and you are a vital part. The next step is a regular podcast featuring interviews with famous pilots, histories of obscure aircraft types, aviation satire and the latest news. We want to entertain you at home or on your way to work. To do that we need more funds. Please donate here  and let’s make this happen! 

5. IML ADDAX

One free-thinking group of aircraft designers considered how to make a new multirole fighter. The result of the study was a design for an aircraft like nothing else before or since. Even more surprisingly, this exciting plan for a futuristic superfighter came not from the elite fighter houses of the USSR or the US, but an unknown company in New Zealand.

From the late 1970s, the IML Group in New Zealand studied existing combat aircraft to see if they could come up with a better solution. Their concept, the Addax, proved to be exceptionally bold. The Addax-1 was to be powered by two vectored thrust turbofans in the 10,000-Ib thrust class (obvious contenders would have included derivatives of the Rolls-Royce Spey or TF34).

A world where the British super-bomber wasn’t cancelled here

The aerodynamic configuration was unusual to say the least, consisting of a ‘self-stabilising aerofoil’ formed by the fuselage between the tailbooms, with upper surface blowing across all lifting surfaces providing the aircraft with extreme short take-off and landing capabilities.

Internal weapon bays could carry up to ten 1,000-Ib bombs and external pylons could carry an additional 3,000 Ibs. The gun armament would have been ferocious, comprising either four 30-mm Oerlikon cannon or two 20-mm M61A1 Vulcans. Maximum speed would have been 740mph, and it would had a lo-lo-lo tactical radius of 480 miles with maximum bombload.

The Addax-S was even more impressive. This was a supersonic air-superiority fighter based on the same configuration, with outstanding manoeuvrability.

Of course, The New Zealand Government was never really going to fund either Addax, but it was an intriguingly left-field glimpse of how fighters could have evolved. The designs were released in 1982, but even today they appear more futuristic than any known aircraft programme.

The Italian supersonic jump-jet that never was, here

4. PZL-230 Skorpion

A mid ’80s Polish requirement for a small, agile battlefield attack aircraft resulted in the PZL-230F. Looking like a Manga cartoon of a SR-71, it was actually a serious design with an emphasis on survivability, ease of use and economy of operation. Slow (around 400mph) and capable of forward basing it would have offered a flexible close air support capability. Armament would have consisted of a gun (possibly the GAU-12 rotary cannon) and a light load of guided and unguided munitions.

Initially a degree of stealth was desired, but later in the programme it was decided that this was a redundant quality in an aircraft operating so close to the frontline it would be visible with naked eyes. Its rivals were the IL Kobra 2000 and PZL Mielec M-97/M-99ch. Several configurations of the PZL-230  were offered with turbojet, turboprop and turbofan engines. The 230 won the contest and some development work was done, but it was unsustainable, as Poland faced the economic crisis of transitioning from communism to capitalism. It was terminated in 1994, never having reached a flyable prototype stage.

3. Atlas Carver

Thanks to its horrific apartheid system that enshrined racism and inequality into law, the outside world eventually refused to provide military aircraft to South Africa. In the 1980s, the pariah nation required a high performance lightweight fighter to counter threats that included Angola’s MiG-23s. The design resembled the Mirage 2000, but with splitter plates (some versions showed F-15-like ramps) rather than shock-cones, and LERX resembling those of the the F/A-18 Hornet.

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

It was to incorporate composite materials and be armed with indigenous weapons. Some design iterations showed single engines and some a twin arrangement. It is likely that it would have featured a helmet mounted sight, this being a technology South Africa led the world in. The nation did not have the know-how to build its own jet engines and instead unsuccessfully attempted to acquire French M53s and designs for the M88 by subterfuge, and it was stuck with the elderly Snecma Atar.

Meeting payload-range requirements with this old engine proved very hard and the project was also very expensive; with a diminished threat this could not be justified and the project was canned in 1991. As the political system changed, military imports became available and the SAAF chose the Swedish SAAB Gripen. 

Top 11 cancelled French aircraft here

2. ALR Piranha 6 ‘Swiss multi-roll’

Yet another ‘eurocanard‘ that never was, the Piranha was a Swiss mini-fighter project that started in 1977. The idea was to produce a fighter for nations on a tight budget, and it seemed a sensible enough idea.

It was very small and very light, to put it into context its planned max take-off weight of 6,900kg was around half that of the lightest true fighter in production, the Gripen (which is only marginally heavier than the KAI FA-50). There was several proposed variants of the Piranha. But an earlier concept of the Piranha was even lighter…powered by a single Adour!

Unlike today’s eurocanards the foreplanes featured full length flap à la Viggen, which would have aided short field performance. Whether it could have carried enough fuel to get to the promised Mach 2.2 top speed is a good question, as is why the RB199, with its lamentable performance above low altitude, was chosen over the Hornet’s F404. It was expected to be armed with one Oerlikon KCA 30-mm cannon and two Magic II or ASRAAM missiles. ALR was a well-run private company self-funding the project but they eventually gave up due to a lack of interest from the Swiss government.

10 Incredible Soviet Fighter Aircraft that never entered service here

1. Soko Nadzvučni Avion
   

Yugoslavia remained neutral throughout the Cold War, a complicated and remarkable position considering its location. By the 1980s, it had obtained production licences or self-designed all major weapon systems apart from a supersonic high-end fighter aircraft. For this it required international assistance and looked around for possible partners (one of the collaborators it considered was BAe with their abortive Gripen-like P.106).  Dassault and the French Government stepped into the project, resulting in the aircraft becoming essentially a mini Rafale. Engines under consideration were the PW1120, GE404, the Turbo Union RB199 and Snecma M88. Of these, the RB199 was probably the least likely — and the M88 the most. The Civil War, starting in 1991, put paid to the Avion.

If developed, the type would have likely replaced MiG-21s and complemented the MiG-29 force — it could have been a very potent aircraft comparable to the Saab Gripen as an advanced fourth generation lightweight fighter.

 

We have big plans! We exist today thanks to our reader’s generous donations, it’s a team effort and you are a vital part. The next step is a regular podcast featuring interviews with famous pilots, histories of obscure aircraft types, aviation satire and the latest news. We want to entertain you at home or on your way to work. To do that we need more funds. Please donate here and let’s make this happen! 

Hush-Kit would like to give a special thanks to Thomas Newdick for his kind assistance in creating this

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

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

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

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

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

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

FEATURING

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

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

Radar stealth, the use of shaping and materials to minimise an aircraft’s visibility to hostile radars comes at a cost. Jim Smith, a man with significant technical roles in the development of the UK’s leading military aviation programmes, explains. 
Much depends what you are trying to achieve, and how far you are willing to compromise performance and cost to minimise signature. As noted in my earlier Hush-Kit discussion on aircraft for BVR combat, there is a difference for offensive aircraft, designed to be sent ‘in harm’s way’ in penetrating and seeking to dominate defended airspace, and defensive aircraft, particularly if armed with long-range systems and supported by an integrated air defence system. For the latter, the fact that the opposition is aware of their presence may not be a bad thing, as they are there to deter and defend, rather than to penetrate and secure.

Striking heavily-defended targets deep in the opposition’s territory, or seeking to achieve air superiority by controlling and denying the opposition’s own airspace, is a high-stakes, dangerous game. And is likely to require the highest degree of signature minimisation, currently apparently delivered by the F-22 Raptor and the B-2 Spirit. Similar characteristics are claimed for the F-35 Lightning II, alongside supreme situational awareness, through the use of shared multi-platform sensor data.

What are the penalties and possible impacts of achieving the lowest possible signature, not just in the radar domain, but also in the infrared? A few potential challenges are listed below:
Cost – of design, of security, of special protective systems, and of materials. Cost of maintenance will also increase, due not only due to the requirements of specialist materials, but to the need to make good the signature every time the surface has been disturbed. There is also potentially additional cost, due to a larger and heavier airframe being needed than might otherwise be the case.
Size and weight – the necessity of carrying stores internally means that the fuselage volume has to be greater, increasing weight and drag. The propulsion system will need to be screened or shielded, probably reducing propulsive efficiency and increasing weight due to intake treatments. In some cases, the exhaust system will also require treatment, which will decrease efficiency and increase weight.
Wave drag – this is likely to be increased due to the increased fuselage volume, necessitating larger engines to meet performance requirements.
Control system – The US view is that European, Chinese and Russian aircraft equipped with canards are at a signature disadvantage compared to the F-22 and F-35. The alternative view is that canards offer significant aerodynamic advantages in lift-dependent and wave drag.
Weapons requirements – Low signature may result in highly successful ‘one shot, one-kill’ engagements, where the opposition is unaware of the low signature aircraft’s presence until it is engaged. In general, however, stealth aircraft weapons bays are relatively small, and may carry fewer weapons than opposing air defence fighters.
Through the use of tailored electromagnetic materials and coatings, it seems likely at present that low signature can be achieved without great compromise to the configuration, apart from the measures required to reduce signatures from the engine intake duct and exhaust system, and the need to provide internal weapons bays. The Chinese J-20 and Russian Su-57 are beginning to be operationally deployed, but the F-22 Raptor remains a stand-out as a capable manoeuvring fighter aircraft with low signature.

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

Thank you. 

 

Turkey is doing it’s own thing, spurning US fighters in favour of an indigenous fighter — and relying in the short term on Russian-made air defences. If TFX lives up to the hype it will be a formidable aircraft, but has Turkish aerospace bitten off more than it can chew? 

What is the current status of TFX? How much funding has been dedicated to the project?

The TFX program consists of four main phases: Conceptual Design, Design and Prototype Qualification, Initial Operation Capability and Full Operation Capability and Serial Production. The first phase, with the assistance by SAAB (under a contract) was started in 2011 and completed in 2013. A contract for the first stage of the second phase, namely Engineering Development and Preliminary Design was signed between the Presidency of Defence Industries (SSB – Savunma Sanayii Baskanligi) and Turkish Aerospace in August 2016. Following this Turkish Aerospace signed a contract with BAE Systems for consultancy and technical assistance in 2018. The project schedule officially started in September 2018.

The first stage of the second phase is planned to last four years, It will be followed by the second stage, Critical Design and Prototype Qualification, which is expected to take eight years.

There are various estimates about the total cost of the project but it will almost definitely cost double-digit billions of dollars. Turkish government announced an incentive program with a budget of around USD1 billion allocated to Turkish Aerospace last August for infrastructure and investment associated with the project.

Top fighters of the 2030s here.

Which companies are working on it?

Turkish Aerospace is the main contractor of the project. ASELSAN and TRMotor are the main subcontractors for mission systems and engines respectively. BAE Systems is providing consultancy and technical assistance to Turkish Aerospace. ROKETSAN is expected to provide weapon systems such as smart bombs, SOM air launched cruise missiles etc. TUBITAK SAGE is developing the Goktug family of air to air missiles, and ROKETSAN could be responsible of serial production and delivery of them also.

Does the team have all the experience necessary to make it?

This is a difficult question with no easy answer! It is a fact that Turkish aerospace industry has yet to complete the lifecycle of a modern military aircraft, i.e design, test, manufacture, serial production, upgrades and retirement.

 

Apart from early attempts like THK-5,  and the Ugur from the 1950’s, the very first Turkish military aircraft to be designed, tested and manufactured in Turkey is the Hurkus.

 

 

The Hurkus is a turboprop trainer and is in the same class as the  EMBRAER Super Tucano, the KAI KT-1 (which Turkish Air Force already operates) and so on. Turkish Air Force ordered an initial batch of 15 Hurkus B trainers and these are undergoing operational acceptance tests.

 

Turkish companies have some experience in providing subsystems and parts to major aircraft programs like F-35, A400M. Turkish has achieved significant self sufficiency in air launched weapon systems, some sensors and communications equipment. Furthermore, local avionics and structural upgrade programs are underway such as Ari avionics upgrade for the T-38 Talon trainer jets and Ozgur (local upgrade of F-16 with indigenous mission computer and avionics). But then again, these are all some parts of a very complex puzzle. The main deficiency is the lack of experienced engineers and infrastructure, especially for test, verification and qualification.

Compensation of these shortcomings is possibly, especially through international partnerships, but at no low cost.

Are you confident TFX will happen?

From the very first day the project was announced, I have been defending a low cost, low risk approach for the TFX program: I am a believer in the balance between affordability and effectiveness. A single engine, maybe a derivative of a proven design or a product of joint development would be a lower-risk approach, similar to what South Korea has been doing. The Hurjet should have been the TFX.

As a Turkish national, I would love to see the design presented at Paris Air Show flying. As an engineer and realist I am quite skeptical that I will see it, under this project model, schedule, infrastructure and economic conditions.

What is the current state of US/Turkish relations re. F-35/S400? What do think will happen?

Unless an unexpected or extraordinary development takes place, Turkey is going to take delivery of the S400 in July, as announced by the President Recep Tayyip Erdogan several times. I expect the US impose sanctions immediately, but their severity might be limited. Turkey’s withdrawal from the F-35 program, postponement of the delivery of aircraft will most likely take place, accompanied by CAATSA sanctions. The latter will possibly result in a domino effect for the Turkish defence industry in particular and Turkish economy in general.

What will TFX be armed with? Who will supply the weapons & sensors?

ASELSAN will be the contractor for the sensor suite and avionics of the aircraft. We know that ASELSAN is currently working on an AESA radar. For the TFX, an integrated communication and navigation suite is planned.

ROKETSAN is the main contractor in Turkey for rocket and missile systems. It already manufactures the SOM cruise missile (developed by TUBITAK SAGE) and working on a version of it suitable for F-35 together with Lockheed Martin, designated SOM-J. ROKETSAN is also manufacturing precision guided bombs, while ASELSAN produces guidance kits. As mentioned, TUBITAK SAGE is working on the Goktug family of air-to-air missiles. All in all, air-launched weapon systems are one of the most mature areas of the Turkish defence sector.

ASELSAN has been manufacturing ASELPOD targeting pods for Turkish and Pakistani fighters. They are also providing secure comms, IFF systems, multi function displays and mission computers. There are also numerous smaller subject-matter expert companies in the sector specialised in airborne software and mission systems.

Could more nations join TFX or TFX merge with another project for a future fighter? (NGF, Tempest, Japanese F-3 or South Korean fighter for example)?

Turkish officials previously mentioned negotiations with several countries from Asia, without giving names. Given the strong relations of Turkey with Pakistan and Malaysia, these two are the first ones that comes to mind. A general from Malaysian Air Force posed in front of the TFX mock up in Paris Air Show, an indication of negotiations between the countries or at least of an interest by this country.

Strong partnership between Turkish Aerospace and BAE Systems and the latter’s work on the Tempest programme suggests a possibility of a merger of some kind of the two programs. This possibility was also voiced by Turkish press as an alternative of F-35, in case Turkey is kicked out of the project. But the realisation of such partnership will depend on a number of quite complex factors, starting with requirements, priorities, schedules, budget and political issues.

It is known that at earlier stages of the TFX, there were some talks with South Korea to merge TFX with the KFX programs. Because of the technical requirements and priorities of the two countries, it was not realised. Lockheed Martin’s involvement of the programs and US – Turkish relations make is very unlikely for a partnership in the future.

Some sort of partnership with either Tempest or NGF is not a far fetched possibility, though being dependent on mainly political factors. I personally expect a lot of “fluctuation” in these projects in the coming years, in terms of teaming, project models and requirements. Turkey might benefit from these.

Did the mock-up at Paris reveal anything new? What was the point of the Paris public relations exercise?

Presentation of a full scale mock up is an important milestone in the development process: It shows that the project has achieved some progress and certain critical decision regarding the main design parameters have been finalised. It also represents an opportunity to keep the public interest and support alive. The Franco – German FCAS project mock up was also revealed at the very same show.

By judging the look of the two mock ups, we can say that the TFX project is at a more advanced stage than the FCAS, since it had landing gears! 😊

Joke aside, this move can also be interpreted as a message to US for the F-35 issue. From the very start, TFX was envisaged as an air superiority fighter to supplement F-35As. The design characteristics shown during the Paris Air Show reflect more emphasis on swing-role capability for the TFX, suggesting that it is being considered as an alternative solution in the absence of F-35’s.

What should I have asked you?

How urgent is the need for TFX?

Turkish Air Force currently has around 240 F-16C/D’s and 40 F-4E 2020’s. The F-4E’s are at the very end of their service lives. 30 of the F-16’s are of Block 50+ with CFT and they were received between 2011 and 2013. Around 35 of the F-16’s are of Block 30 and the remainder are Block 40 and 50 which received CCIP upgrade. The Block 30’s are receiving structural upgrades to extend their service lives by 4,000 hours.

All in all, Turkish Air Force will have a capability gap in early 2020’s with the retirement of F-4E’s and later Block 30’s. This gap will pose a significant challenge especially by developments in the region such as F-16V upgrade of Greece and their interest in F-35, Israel’s F-35’s and Egypt’s procurement of advanced fighters such as Rafale.

What is going on with the engine?

The engine issue is the Gordion’s knot for the whole project. Turkey has an engine manufacturer, named TEI, a joint venture between Turkish Aerospace and General Electric. This company manufactures many parts for GE engines and also works on indigenous powerplant projects such as TS1400 turboshaft and PD170 diesel engine for UAV’s. Turkey also has recently formed an engine company, TRMotor and this company was selected as the main contractor for the TFX.

Until now, Turkey has held talks with various engine manufacturer in the world for joint development or technical assistance of the power plant of TFX. Among these, Rolls Royce seems -or seemed- as the leading candidate: They formed a JV with Kale, one of the leading private defence companies in Turkey which developed a turbojet engine for the SOM cruise missile. But negotiations between SSB and Rolls Royce has not been fruitful.

There are some reports that GE F110 engine was selected to power the prototypes. This might be sufficient for flight tests but it will also create some challenges in terms of design and cost. The design will have to be modified for the final engine whereas first stages of testing will be done with another one. If the final engine will be different with F110 in terms of tooling, connections, subsystems and interfaces, then the cost and engineering work required to modify the aircraft design according to the indigenous engine will be significant.

TAI’s capability to mass produce high tech composite body parts?

Turkish Aerospace has invested a very large budget in advanced materials and structural parts manufacturing capabilities. This is the strongest part of the capability range of the company. I personally do not see any major challenge in this field.

As proposed will it be underpowered?

During the Paris Air Show, the aircraft is presented as being powered by two 27,000lb engines. The overall dimensions of the aircraft (21m length, 14m wingspan, more than 60,000lb MTOW). I am doubtful that 27,000lb engines will be sufficient to provide enough power for agility and especially supercruise capability.

Save the Hush-Kit blog! This site is entirely funded by donations – Donate here. 

 

Arda Mevlutoglu is an astronautical engineer. He is currently working as the VP of an international trading and consultancy company, focusing on defense and aerospace sector. He is currently working as the Vice President of Defense Programs at an international trading and consultancy company. His research focuses on defense industry technology, policies and geopolitical assessments, with a focus to the Eastern Mediterranean and the Black Sea region. His works have been published in various local and international journals such as Air Forces Monthly, Air International, Combat Aircraft, EurasiaCritic, ORSAM Middle East Analysis. He has been quoted by Financial Times, Reuters, BBC, Al Monitor, CNN Turk and TRT on issues covering Turkish defence industry and military developments.

Since the 1960s USAF aircraft have become progressively grayer, losing their bright markings and colourful schemes to become uniformly gray,  in the name of camouflage. Thanks to advances in ‘lo viz’ (low visibility) markings, the badges that inform friends and enemies of an aircraft’s nationality are now invisible beyond 50 metres. According to Gen. Fulsom Boutay of Semiotics Command this is only the beginning, “Despite the ubiquitous application of invisible signage on our aircraft, bases are still covered in signs that are highly visible from ground level. The most obvious is the signage of ground vehicles, for instance, signs to the car lot or showing the speed limit on-base. By reducing the contrast of the colors used in these signs – say using gray on gray – we can have signs that are completely unreadable by 2026. We will then move on to the bigger picture, a system of systems of symbols of symbols that are all invisible to both human eyes and on the infra-red spectrum. An example: internal emails still use black text on a white background, by simply changing the text color to white we should give them a true lo-viz capability without costing tax payers a cent. By 2070, we hope all airmen will have no distinguishing features – except during Mustache March, where they will all (male and female together) have 3mm long upper lip hair in FED-STD-595 Federal Standard 595 Color FS 36251. “ 

The greatest fighter pilot in the within-visual range combat arena was Red Baron Richthofen, popularly known as the ‘Schicker Psychopath’ (which translates as Red Baron). His victory was greatly aided by his use of camouflage – he painted his aeroplane red and then filled the sky with British airmen’s blood, rendering himself invisible. Similarly, British nuclear bombers were painted white to symbolise the horror beyond words of a nuclear holocaust. Today, the best US pilots, who are trapped within aggressor units to stop them from actually hurting anyone, are allowed the most vibrant camouflage schemes on their aircraft.

The leaders of several African air forces have been vocally critical of the lo-viz approach, Air Force Commander Abbas Al-Badboy of the Sudanese Air Force noting, “I’ve got a load of lovely bright green paint in my shed I got from B&Q and I am determined it will get used.” Similarly the Russian aircraft design bureau Sukhoi announced in last press conference/ barbecue party “We may not have the funds to run a full test programme of all our aircraft, but we can at least paint them in a different cool scheme every month – lo viz is (an) unwelcome distraction from this distraction. We offer discounts to Frogfoot operators who paint them like a survivalist’s Humvee.”

Article Spelling in NATO British-US English. 

At the Paris Air Show, Turkish Aerospace displayed a model of the TF–X fighter. Turkey has never designed an advanced combat aircraft before, and the aircraft is symbolic of the nation’s new confidence in breaking its dependence on the US. Looking every inch a Lockheed Martin model, could the TF-X become the air superiority ‘F-35’ that Turkey, and other air forces, are crying out for? 

The TF-X is at first sight a twin-engine F-35 look-alike. Turkey projects this aircraft as a replacement for the F-16, and might operate it alongside the F-35, although this currently looks a bit uncertain for Turkey due to the deterioration in its relationship with the Trump administration. Either Turkey is seeking a more agile, air-to-air aircraft to complement F-35, which might then be used mainly for air strike, or perhaps TF-X can be seen as a move to develop both Turkey’s Industrial capability and its Defence self-sufficiency.

I would expect the aircraft to focus on the Air Defence role, because this would provide an opportunity to supplement rather than simply duplicate F-35 capability. A secondary strike role for the aircraft is likely.

The TF-X has been the subject of a technical agreement with BAE Systems, and initially, two EJ200 engines were to be used. However, the technical dialogue with Rolls-Royce has apparently been broken off. The configuration recently shown at the Paris AirShow is unchanged from previous illustrations. Claimed characteristics include 2 x20,000 lb thrust engines, Max Take-Off Weight (MTOW) of 60,000 lb +, Max speed of Mach 2 and a ceiling of 55,000 ft+.

A stealthy Typhoon? 

Broadly, then, Turkey appears to be, seeking to build a stealthy Typhoon. Is this achievable? I think it is doubtful that Turkey could achieve such an outcome without significant design and manufacturing assistance.

From a configuration viewpoint, the quoted Maximum Take-Off Weight (MTOW) appears pretty high. It is about 10,000lb greater than the max overload Take-Off Weigh of the comprehensively equipped Typhoon. The claimed Mach 2 maximum speed and ceiling of 55,000 ft match those of Typhoon, but the MTOW seems high. I cannot comment with confidence onTurkey’s ability to design and build such an aircraft, and make it stealthy as well, but it does seem questionable.

Top fighters of the 2030s here

Otherwise, if the aircraft is to accommodate fuel and weapons internally, it is likely that wave drag will become an issue, although the additional internal fuel may increase combat persistence.. Similarly, the simple intakes shown lack the variable area and boundary layer management of the Typhoon to reduce signature. From these aspects, I would suggest that Mach 2.0 is an optimistic figure.

Musings on Project Tempest

All-in-all, the TF-X is much more like a twin-engined F-35 than a Typhoon. I doubt speeds greater than M 1.8 are achievable. From a manoeuvre perspective, I’d expect reasonable manoeuvrability in an air combat configuration, but I would be concerned that the relatively tall fins might be subject to significant buffet loads at high incidence.

Airbus/Dassault reveal full-size model of New Generation Fighter here. 

Could Turkey deliver the TF-X as an F-35-clone, but optimised for air defence? It’s a nice concept, but a huge step forward from their current Industrial capability.

— Jim Smith

Jim Smith had significant technical roles in the development of the UK’s leading military aviation programmes from ASRAAM and Nimrod, to the JSF and Eurofighter Typhoon.

We are currently well behind our donations target. This site can only survive with your donations. Click here to keep this site going.

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

Have a look at How to kill a Raptor, An Idiot’s Guide to Chinese Flankers, the 10 worst British military aircraft, The 10 worst French aircraft,  Su-35 versus Typhoon, 10 Best fighters of World War II , top WVR and BVR fighters of today, an interview with a Super Hornet pilot and a Pacifist’s Guide to Warplanes. Was the Spitfire overrated? Want something more bizarre? The Top Ten fictional aircraft is a fascinating read, as is The Strange Story and The Planet Satellite. The Fashion Versus Aircraft Camo is also a real cracker. Those interested in the Cold Way should read A pilot’s guide to flying and fighting in the Lightning. Those feeling less belligerent may enjoy A pilot’s farewell to the Airbus A340. Looking for something more humorous? Have a look at this F-35 satire and ‘Werner Herzog’s Guide to pusher bi-planes or the Ten most boring aircraft. In the mood for something more offensive? Try the NSFW 10 best looking American airplanes, or the same but for Canadians.