A few short years ago, it seemed as if the future of the European fighter industry had been all but quashed by the US — today is a different story. As the Eurocanards continue to generate orders, Europe looks ahead to the creation of a multi-role stealthy combat aircraft to serve from the 2030s. The  Next Generation Fighter is an ambitious project led by Dassault of France and Airbus Defence, two organisations with a wealth of experience. Jim Smith reports. 

The sleek mock-up revealed this week at the Paris Air Show demonstrated a confidence fortified by the signing of an accord by the defence ministers of Germany, France and Spain. But what does the mock-up reveal? 

“Airbus Defence and Space of Germany, and Dassault of France, have agreed to cooperate on the Next Generation Fighter, the manned air combat element of the Future Combat Air System (FCAS) project to develop a future European air combat capability. France and Germany have been joined in this effort by Spain, and a mock-up of the proposed aircraft has been shown at the Paris Air Show.

It is expected that the aircraft will be multi-role, with both air combat and strike capabilities. The platform will be stealthy, and is envisaged as operating as part of a networked system-of-systems, in conjunction with other manned and unmanned capabilities, which together will form the FCAS.

The mock-up shown at Paris is perhaps 15m long, and features a wing with a planform resembling a delta wing, but with swept outer panels. A feature drawing significant comment is the broad butterfly tail, resembling that of the Northrop YF-23, but with even greater cant angle from the vertical (earlier artworks showed a tailless configuration). 

To me, the configuration suggests significant trades have been made with an intent to minimise signature, at least in the forward and side-on aspects. The profile from the side is very low and flat, with the highly canted fins clearly intended to reduce signature in side-on aspects. I assume internal carriage of fuel and weapons, and bays intended for both air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons. The intakes are simple, and would probably limit the aircraft to about Mach 1.6.

The cranked wing configuration assists in providing internal volume for fuel and weapons, possibly at the expense of rear aspect signature. Such a planform would also ease the development of a naval variant, allowing lower approach speeds and/or a reduced nose-up attitude on the approach than a delta wing.

The platform does not seem to be designed with high manoeuvrability in mind, and looks to be likely to rely on its low signature, weapons system, and cooperative systems, rather than manoeuvrability or dash speed to survive in air combat.

Although, in a configuration sense, plausible, the mock-up shown at Paris somehow lacks the credibility of a fully developed design. It’s a little difficult to put one’s finger on why this should be the case, but the apparent lack of sensors, undercarriage, access panels, cockpit transparency, joint and panel lines with common angles to aid in managing signature, all contribute to this impression.”

The desired schedule demands a first flight of a demonstrator in 2025 and service entry in around 2040. Our full article on future fighters can be found here.

— Jim Smith

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. 

When we think of a fighter aircraft we think of its high manoeuvrability. Even today, this exciting and romantic trait is still highly desirable. We look at the best ‘turners and burners’ in service today and the science behind it. 

A missile needs to be placed into the right section of sky to kill its target, and a fighter aircraft must also have a decent chance of dodging enemy missiles. High manoeuvrability also gives the fighter a greater opportunity to evade enemy sensors or eyes. Even when missiles can be told the position of their target not just through their own limited ‘vision’ by via the direction the pilot is pointing her head, or sensors both on and off the launcher aircraft, manoeuvrability is still valuable. High manoeuvrability is expensive though both in terms of the g-force it generates, and the demands it will put on the design of the aeroplane. The g-force, is a measurement of the type of force that causes a perception of weight. On Earth normal gravity gives us 1G conditions, and that’s what the human body is best at dealing with. A hard manoeuvring fighter can reach 9G, though greater G is possible, 9G is the effective limit of what the body can withstand repeatedly while performing the tasks required of a fighter pilot. At 9G a 100kg pilot would feel and move as if he weighed 900kg.

Over to Jim Smith for more:  “For significant parts of the flight envelope, manoeuvre performance may be limited by the structural design of the aircraft, which is likely to be constrained to no more than 9g. This is due to the limitations of the human pilot, even supported by a ‘g-suit’. One key manoeuvre parameter is the instantaneous turn rate (the ability to suddenly pull a turn from level flight), which fundamentally depends on wing loading (how much weight each square of metre is supporting) and usable lift coefficient (in simple terms, how much lift is available to the aircraft). The significance is that this is a measure of how rapidly energy may be traded against turn rate to temporarily point the nose to the aircraft, for example to gain a firing opportunity, or to evade a threat such as a surface-to-air missile. Since supersonic combat aircraft have relatively low lift curve slopes*, due to sweep, and low aspect ratio wings, a number of the following may be used to provide a short-term increase in turn rate: Thrust-vectoring (the mechanical steering of the jet exhaust) provides a powerful way of nose-pointing, particularly at relatively low speeds; A delta wing with sharp leading edges will generate a leading edge vortex, which will increase both lift and drag; A leading-edge root extension (LERX) or strake may be added to a lower sweep wing to mimic the vortex flows generated by a delta and increase lift; Higher thrust-to-weight ratio may be required to overcome the drag at high incidence – particularly if the turn is to be sustained, rather than allowing energy to bleed off; Finally, unstable configurations are preferred, as these maximise the effect of controls. European and Chinese aircraft favour the use of a destabilising canard, while US aircraft generally do not, preferring closely-coupled tailed near-delta configurations.

*Lift curve slope is the amount of lift you get for a given angle between the wing and the airflow. Low lift curve slope means this is less than usual.

For instantaneous turn rate  the aircraft may be either structurally limited to 9g, or aerodynamically limited by the lift available, dependent on the maximum possible wing lift (known as CLmax), speed, density and wing loading. Except for that area of the flight envelope where the aircraft is capable of delivering a sustained turn at 9g, energy and speed will reduce, and the rate of reduction will depend on Thrust to Weight ratio (high T/W reduces decay rate), and lift dependent drag (high lift dependent drag increases decay rate). 

At altitude, at some point, an instantaneous turn rate of 9g will no longer be achievable because the wing will have reached maximum available lift, Clmax. Above this altitude, the turn rate available will depend on wing loading and Cl max, and the bleed off in energy will depend on T/W, and lift-dependent drag as indicated above. Thrust vectoring may assist in generating a rapid pitch response, as will an unstable configuration with an advanced flight control system.

At transonic and supersonic speeds, wave drag will become an additional factor, with high wave drag increasing the speed decay rate.

From all this, we can extract the following pointers for good instantaneous turn rate:

– Low wing loading (the ‘wing loading’ is how much weight each square metre of wing is supporting)

– High max lift coefficient

– Thrust Vectoring

– Unstable designs with advanced Flight Control Systems

And for lower bleed-off in energy

– Low lift-dependent drag

– High Thrust to Weight

– Low wave drag if transonic or supersonic

The close coupled Euro-canards, Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen are likely to be very good; F-22 is also good due to high T/W, thrust vectoring, and wing area; Su-35 likely to be pretty good too – big wing, reasonable aspect ratio, canards, and thrust vectoring. F-35 will perhaps have more energy bleed off due to its higher wave drag, lower T/W, and higher wing loading

Best current aircraft: Difficult to assess and likely to vary dependent on Mach number and altitude, but suggest Typhoon and Rafale, with perhaps Gripen, F-22 and Su-35 also very good.

 

Sustained turn rate for part of the flight envelope will be limited to the best that can be achieved with a ‘g-suit’ equipped human pilot. Reaching those levels may influence wing design, through wing loading, aspect ratio and sweep, unless these are constrained by other requirements. Thrust-to-weight ratio will possibly also be influenced by the turn rates required, as sustained turning flight is a high drag situation.

However, the area of the flight envelope in which the aircraft will be capable of sustaining 9g will be substantially less than the area in which it can generate an instantaneous 9g turn rate. To generate and sustain a high turn rate, the aircraft will be relying on the extra energy available – as we have seen ((T-D)/W) x V, but with the wing at high lift.

For good sustained turn rate, we need:

– Low lift-dependent drag, and hence a higher aspect ratio

– Low wave drag if transonic or supersonic – noting this is likely to drive to low aspect ratio and high sweep

– High Thrust to Weight

– Low wing loading

The highly-optimised close-coupled Euro-canards are likely to be the best current aircraft; the Su-35 has higher aspect ratio but potentially higher wing loading. I suspect F-22 will be competitive, but F-35 is likely to have lower sustained turn rate, as it has higher wing loading. In considering the F-22 and F-35, one should remember that the operating concept for both is likely to avoid the close-in turning fight typical of within-visual-range air combat. 

 

Flight at high-alpha seems to me to be a contentious requirement that, in general should not be a design driver. At high incidence, a combat aircraft is likely to be at low, or very low speed. While, given powerful control effectors, this may minimise turn radius and allow rapid change in nose pointing angle, the loss of energy may make surviving a missile engagement very unlikely, and re-joining combat difficult. 

However, given the convergence of structural limits, and the limitation of airshow performances to subsonic speeds, high-alpha performance remains one way of impressing the tax-payers. With unstable aircraft, thrust vectoring and a host of other aerodynamic gizmos, the Su-35 is probably champion at this. But many of today’s aircraft have at least equally high thrust to weight ratios, and similar aerodynamic and structural performance at low altitude and subsonic speeds. Personal experience of displays by the F-22, F-35, Typhoon, Rafale, Su-27, Su-35 and even the less capable Super Hornet show that all of these can put on a jolly good airshow performance.

On turning performance, and generally awesome airshow characteristics, the canard-equipped, thrust-vectoring Su-35 gets my vote for high alpha performance. On more general manoeuvre performance, all the other aircraft mentioned are very capable, with Typhoon, Rafale and F-22 all benefitting from high thrust to weight ratio, clean aerodynamic design and sophisticated flight control systems.

Click here for part one.

Take thirty supersonic seconds to donate a small amount 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. 

 

In an attempt to create an aviation article that will only be read by twelve people, we have paired notable aircraft with notable writers (or in one case, her character). Shared chronology, traits or nationality sees these titans of literature matched with their flying riveted twins. Whereas Roald Dahl, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry and Thomas Ruggles Pynchon have readily obvious links to aviation, our approach was a little more oblique. Confused? Keep reading. 

Hawker Hunter – Graham Greene ‘The future’s in the air’

These two great British characters are clear matches. The Hawker Hunter and Greene’s prose style were functional and simple, and both employ elegant uncluttered lines. Greene wrote his brilliant ‘End of the affair’ in 1951 and, perhaps in as celebration, the prototype Hunter flew. Both were occasional spies, but we know more about the Hunter’s reconnaissance duties.  Both were fascinated with decrepit corrupt regimes: the Hunter fighting for them and Greene documenting them. The ‘near idiot-proof’, Hunter was kind and undemanding to its pilots, similarly Greene is easy and accessible to read, spurning unnecessarily complicated tricks. Greene died in 1991, the Hunter in 1994. Though the Hunter, perhaps proving Catholic in belief, has enjoyed a long afterlife, returning to fight for the Lebanese Air Force in the 2010s and continuing in several support roles around the world. Both remain much-loved to the present day.

Antonov A-40/ MikhailBulgakov ‘The heart of a tank’

Antonovs are Russian right? Oh wait no, they’re Ukrainian, but Kiev was in the Soviet Union when the design bureau started in 1946.  Bulgakov was Russian right? Sort of, he was born in Kiev when it was in the Russian Empire. Bulgakov died in 1940 as work on a flying tank began. Whether he reincarnated himself as this flying tank is hard to say, but this absurd (yet at the time strangely ubiquitous) was as unlikely and thrilling as his classic works. In his most famous book,  The Master & Margarita, the titular character female learns to fly across the USSR. She then welcomes the dark celebrities of human history as they arrive from Hell – the A-40 was expected to send some of the darkest celebrities (the leaders of the nazi invasion) into hell, while aiding the extremely dark Stalin. Both Bulgakov and the A-40 endured a complicated relationship with the communist monster, and neither helped the Soviet Union.

AH-64 Apache – Bret Easton Ellis ‘Imperial Gunships’ 

In an ugly modern world of brutal psychopathy, the killiest military aircraft is certainly an American Psycho. Less than zero and the Apache become operational in the mid-1980s and both displayed a love of gadgets and a glee in dismembering people. The Apache fought in Desert Storm in 1991, the same year American Psycho hit the shelves.

Airbus A320 – Alain de Botton ‘The school of lift’

Ahh, these clever, helpful, Europeans are often scorned by snobs, but both are huge successes that make life easier. Alain, born in 1969, is a year older than Airbus. Airbus mastered the Architecture of Happiness with the A380, popular with passengers for its winding alleys and charming squares, but sadly a world full of beancounters killed it. He also made a brilliant diagram about the probability of falling in love on an airliner that I’ll add to this article when I find it.

F. Scott Fitzgerald – Lockheed Model 10 ‘Electra Ladyland’

Elegance, glamour and a touch of tragedy unite these two two American interwar heroes. The exquisite Electra carried Amelia Earhart to a fate unknown in 1937, the year Fitzgerald signed a contract with MGM. Though the aircraft had a rather later heyday than the author, these two poetic beings shared the excitement of an age with the same fresh energised beauty.

Raymond Queneau —SNECMA Coléoptère  ‘Doukipudonktan?’

Experimental, bizarre and extremely clever – it’s hard to understand what the hell either of this two French innovators was up to. The bonkers Coléoptère took to the sky in 1959, the  year Zazie dans le métro was published, both are surreal, and full of visual jokes.

Sue Townsend/ Nimrod AEW. 3 ‘Big nose strikes again’

Thatcher’s Britain wasn’t very good as military equipment. It gave birth to the hopeless SA80 rifle, the overpriced and limited Hawk 200, the seriously flawed Challenger I, the gunless Harrier GR5 (years behind its US equivalent), the radarless unagile Tornado ADV and the awkward Nimrod AEW.3. This wannabe AWACS soaked up a great deal of money only to be binned and to have the role filled by a US aircraft (see Nimrod MRA.4 for the more expensive reboot of the story). Like the BAe ‘Big Nose’, Townsend’s Adrian Mole is a deluded and awkward individual failing to live up to his delusions of grandeur.

(Special thanks to Thomas Lovegrove) 

 

 

Which are the easiest and hardest aircraft types to take-off and land? Over to Jim Smith to explain more.

“To minimise take-off distance, a slow take-off speed is desirable, aided by a rapid acceleration to reach that speed as quickly as possible, implying a low wing loading, high-lift wing, and high thrust-to-weight ratio, or some assistance, such as a catapult or some form of rocket assistance. Similarly, for landing, a low approach speed is desirable, enabled by low wing-loading, and a high-lift wing; after touch-down effective braking, thrust reversers, or (for carrier-based aircraft) the use of an arrester system, will all reduce stopping distance.

Alternatively, the VTOL or STOVL approach can be used, as in the Harrier or F-35B, but as indicated in my recent article on ASTOVL, this brings a whole world of additional complexity into the choice of propulsion and lift system, and how the packaging of this impacts on the configuration. One problem is that the desirable low wing loading, and extensive high lift devices, add weight and drag, and may not be compatible with the mission required. For example, the F-104 has high wing loading to achieve a high maximum speed and rapid acceleration in its role as an interceptor. Taming the landing speed requires the use of a blown flap system and brake chute. Some aircraft, which seek to combine high take-off (and possibly landing) weights with high dash speed capability, use variable geometry to get around the delivery of a good high-lift wing which is also compatible with high-speed flight.

Obvious examples here include the Rockwell B-1B, Tupolev Tu-160, General Dynamics F-111, and Panavia Tornado. The Tornado, in particular is interesting in the use of a thrust reverser system rather than a brake chute to shorten the landing roll. I assume this comes from a desire to minimise turn-around time while operating from short tactical runways. Inevitably, though, there is a trade-off due to the additional weight and space requirements for the wing pivot and wing sweep system.

One example of an aircraft which sacrificed take-off distance to the mission is the Republic F-105 Thunderchief, which is said to have depended on the curvature of the earth to achieve take off. In this case a combination of high weight, two crew, a single engine, and a high wing loading, driven by a desire for high speed at low level, will have contributed to the long take-off run.

From the landing perspective, the U-2/TR-1 has a reputation for being particularly difficult to settle on to the runway, due to its long-span, and pronounced ground-effect, which results in the aircraft floating on landing, and generally being talked down by a pursuing car.

Oddly enough, while the structure and undercarriage design of carrier-borne aircraft are heavily influenced by landing loads, take-off and landing do not seem to heavily constrain the configuration of such aircraft. This is largely because of the reliance on arrester gear to control the landing run, and catapult assistance on take-off. Weight penalties are incurred by the additional structure and landing gear weight, and (normally) provision for wing folding. One exception would be the
Crusader, which featured a variable incidence wing to manage the approach attitude of the aircraft and improve deck landing safety.

Nomination for best – I like the Tornado because of its variable sweep and high lift devices, but I’m going for the SAAB Viggen, for all round panache, a huge afterburner and thrust-reverser.

 

For worst, the U-2/TR-2 is clearly a contender. I suspect the Chance-Vought Cutlass may be the historic ‘reserve champion’, because of the draggy, low lift-curve slope configuration coupled with engines that would not spool up rapidly.

At a larger scale, the Tu-22 ‘Blinder’ looks simply terrifying.

The historic champion would be the Messerschmitt 163 Komet – no power, so no go around; tailless, with no high lift devices; and nasty hypergolic fuel mix, prone to exploding on landing. Compared to the Komet, almost anything modern is relatively tame, and significant effort will have gone into the control laws for the approach, so even plausible candidates like the Mirage 2000 are now much more tractable than their predecessor the Mirage III.

Worst- historic: Me 163, with Cutlass and Tu-22 close behind.

Worst – current: TR-1″

Donate to the Hush-Kit blog and keep this going here. Thanks for reading this. We need your donations to carry on. 

The European consortium that builds the Eurofighter Typhoon has announced a comprehensive upgrade package that could see the integration of a Betamax video player as soon as 2056. 

Work on an active electronic scanning radar for the RAF’s Eurofighter Typhoon combat aircraft began in 1923, but so far has failed to enter service. In 1923 they predicted an service date of 1927, but with the reduction of the Soviet threat in 1924 (following Lenin’s burial) work slowed. Attempts to get the radar operational during the Battle of Britain failed due to differences between two of the partner nations (Germany and the UK). The 1977 Eurovision Song Contest results was responsible for a further delay as was the three-day week, and the unpredicted success of Roland Rat.

In an attempt to assuage customers’ worries that the type contains obsolete equipment, Eurofighter announced on Wednesday a package of upgrades intended to put the aircraft at the technological forefront. Under Project Gladiator, Typhoon will receive the same weapons capabilities the aircraft it is replacing had twenty years ago.

According to a member of the Eurofighter sales team —

“We see this as a major step forward – OK, so it may not have the range of the Tornado, or the advantage of a second crew-member or a dedicated reconnaissance pod but it is definitely MUCH MUCH faster (at higher altitudes). Anyway, as I like the look of you I’m going to chuck in a laserdisc player, a carphone and a Betamax player. All free for you. All top of the range stuff. F-35 does not have any of that. And a Tamagotchi if you like.” On seeing a passing policeman, the company representative quickly packed his suitcase of electronic goods and sprinted away from his headquarters outside the Leicester Square branch of Beefeater Steakhouse.

If you decide to donate to the Hush-Kit blog (because you like this kind of thing and want to see more) you can donate here. Thanks for reading this.

Space travel belongs to the 20th Century (at least for the time being). Its myth only existed at full potency for thirty years, from the late 1940s to the 1980s. The true source of the myth, more than science fiction films or even the real thing, was the artist’s impressions released by aerospace companies. Unabashedly priapic machines trailed flames and explored space in a cosily dangerous, and utterly appealing, vision of the not too distant future. And space belonged to the two superpowers of the time, the US and the USSR. Despite the latter’s initial lead, NASA had branded space. We hear the ‘ 5-4-3-2-1’ and ‘we have lift-off’ in an American accent. But there were others working in the shadows.

Britain had world class aerospace know-how, but had neither the money, governmental inclination or political need to develop a successful space programme. It tried — and though the Black Arrow satellite carrier rocket was a technical success (launching the Prospero satellite into orbit) — it was cancelled in 1971. The programme was axed on economic grounds as NASA had offered to launch British payloads for free. Rather unsportingly, this offer was withdrawn following the Black Arrow’s cancellation. The United Kingdom is the only nation that had, and then lost, the ability to launch satellites. Far less publicised was Project MUSTARD, an absurdly British acronym for a secret effort to build what would later be known as a space shuttle.

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

Dan Sharp, judging by just how obsessively researched this book is, is a lunatic (something we should be grateful for). He has unearthed a litany of blueprints, design concepts and models that tell a remarkable story. The concepts are universally exciting to the eternal ten year old boy within all of us (not literally you weirdo). Many of the machines, are winged deltas that fly in conjoined triple clusters, a somewhat bizarre solution. The book also covers many related high speed schemes including the particularly thrilling English Electric P.42. Conceived as a replacement for the abortive TSR.2 recce-bomber, the P.42 was intended to cruise at Mach 4 at 85,000ft. Looking like an arrow-winged — and extremely belligerent — Concorde, the P.42 looks like an absolute winner. Its coverage is expansive, and includes other space shuttle and orbital vehicles from around the world. 

Winning artworks

As well as original diagrams, what really impresses is the digital work – the quality is outstanding throughout. The P.42 is shown in three-quarter and three-view in the same tactical scheme that adorned No. 31 Squadron Tornadoes in the 1980s. These superb speculative artworks really bring, what is a rather serious book, to life. The BAC EAG 4458 is a cranked delta that would look futuristic today, it again resembles Concorde a little, but this time a stealthy hypersonic manifestation.

This book is extremely dense, packed with extremely interesting material — the sheer amount of information is a little daunting. For anyone with an interest in either space systems or British aviation this tells a seldom told story that will offer revelations to even the most well-informed historian. Thoroughly recommended. 

Rating: Four out of five Reviews of Vickers Viscount, The Aviation Historian, Big Book of Flight, Ascent: The story of a Korean Mig ace

Thank you for reading Hush-Kit. This site is in peril as it is well below its funding targets. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here. Big thanks if you do!

Yesterday a Paris press conference intended to address an ongoing problem with a fighter aircraft’s name led to violence. The event presented by Eric Frappier, Head of Nomenclature & Onomastics for aero giant Dassault, ended in a brawl requiring the intervention of local police.  A spokesman for French aerospace giant Dassault Aviation SA announced his company’s confidence that online journalists, pundits and individuals will be able to correctly spell the name of France’s fighter aircraft, the Raphael, by 2045. According to the statement by Eric Frappier, “What’s so hard about writing Raphelle? It’s a simple word. It’s a simple word we all know — you know, it means like a breeze or a squall or a burst of machine-gun fire or something. We can all speak French everywhere so what’s the big problem? Eurofighter picked a word that’s not even spelt right for all its partner nations… and named it after an aircraft that was designed and used to kill Germans (one of the partner nations). At least we weren’t as bad at naming as those fuckers.” When asked by reporter Bim Squittle from Aviation Pervert Week why the aircraft hadn’t simply been named Mirage, a hugely successful brand that had spanned many decades, Frappier replied- “Because it was twin-engined, which makes it different.”  This was followed by a cough from the back of the room that sounded like ‘Mirage IV and 4000?‘ He then explained that they’d run out of numbers  — “We got to 2000 in the 70s, and no one wanted the 4000. Then Eurofighter stole the number 2000 and we want to seem different, 5000 is just ridiculous right?” At this point, a member of the Bombardier (producer of the Global 5000) media team threw a milkshake at Frappier. The milkshake missed its intended target and hit a MiG representative (who was trying to sell Flubber 3 DVDs from a suitcase) in the back of the head. In the ensuing melee three lanyards were snapped and a woman from HAL kicked a Collins Aerospace datalink specialist in the shin. Frappier attempted to calm the situation by changing his story, noting that no preceding naval fighter had been a Mirage so a new name was needed to keep the navy happy. “We called it Rafphaele because we could hardly name it after the navy’s last jets as they were American. And Super Super Etendard seemed demented – who even knows what an Enterdard is? Let alone able to spell it.”  As local police stepped in to quell the escalating violence, Smilla Strömberg (a barista for the Swedish Saab Grippen programme attending a conference in the next room on the effects of  high G on coffee flavour perception) escorted Frappier out of the building where he escaped in an unmarked Reno Kleo. Related articles: Donald Trump reveals radical plan for a more powerful Air Force, Sigmund Freud’s guide to spyplanes, Hipsters guide to aircraft

Thank you for reading Hush-Kit. This site is in peril as it is well below its funding targets. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here. Big thanks if you do!

Dassault confiant que l’internet sera capable d’épeler Rafael correctement d’ici 2045: Trois blessés lors d’un point presse Hier, une conférence de presse tenue à Paris et destinée à résoudre un problème persistant lié au nom d’un avion de combat, a terminé dans la violence. L’événement organisé par Eric Frappier, responsable de la nomenclature et de l’onomastique pour le géant de l’aéronautique Dassault, s’est terminé en bagarre et a nécessité l’intervention de la police locale.

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

Un porte-parole du géant français de l’aérospatiale, Dassault Aviation SA, a annoncé que l’entreprise demeurait convaincue que les journalistes, experts et le public en ligne seraient en mesure d’épeler correctement le nom de l’avion de combat français, le Raphael, d’ici 2045. Selon une déclaration d’Eric Frappier qui paraissait vraiment surpris par la difficulté rencontrée par le public et les medias: “Est-il vraiment si difficile d’écrire Raffaelle? C’est un mot si simple, un mot simple que nous connaissons tous… Comme vous le savez, il signifie une brise ou une bourrasque; ou une rafale de mitraillette ou quelque chose de ce genre. Et puis tout le monde parle français, alors ou est le problème? Eurofighter, eux, ont choisi un mot qui n’est même pas bien orthographié pour tous les pays partenaires… et l’ont baptisé du nom d’un avion conçu et utilisé pour tuer des Allemands (l’un des pays partenaires). Au moins, nous avons fait mieux qu’eux!” Bim Squittle, journaliste à l’hedomadaire Aviation Perverse, lui a alors demandé pourquoi l’avion ne s’appelait pas Mirage, tout simplement, une marque au succès retentissant sur plusieurs décennies. Frappier a répondu: “Parce que c’est un bimoteur, ce qui le rend différent.” Quelqu’un s’est presque étouffé au fond de la salle en lançant: “Et le Mirage IV?! Et Mirage 4000?!” Frappier a alors expliqué qu’ils n’avaient plus de chiffres à utiliser: ” Nous avions le 2000 dans les années 70, et personne ne voulait du 4000. Ensuite, Eurofighter nous a piqué l’extension 2000 et nous voulions nous presenter différemment; 5000 est tout simplement ridicule, non? ” À ce moment, un membre de l’équipe de comm’ Bombardier (constructeur du Global 5000) a lancé son milkshake à Frappier. Le milkshake a manqué sa cible mais a touché un représentant de MiG (qui essayait de vendre des DVD de Flubber 3 dont il avait une pleine valise). Dans la mêlée qui a suivi, trois lanières de badges d’identification ont été arrachées et une représentante de HAL a donné un coup de pied au tibia à un spécialiste de système de données de Collins Aerospace. Frappier a alors tenté de ramener le calme dans la salle en ajoutant qu’aucun chasseur de la Marine Nationale n’avait recu l’appélation de Mirage par le passé, et qu’en conséquence un nom différent était nécessaire pour satisfaire les marins: «Nous l’avons donc appelé Rafphaele, car nous ne pouvions pas le nommer après les derniers avions à réaction de la Marine Nationale, car ils étaient américains. Et Super Super Etendard etait un peu fort – et qui sait même ce qu’est un étendard? Encore moins est capable de l’épeler?! » Alors que la police locale intervenait pour contrôler la montée de violence dans la salle, Smilla Strömberg (barista du programme suédois Saab Grippen qui participait à une conférence sur les effets du niveau élevé de G sur la perception de la saveur du café dans la salle voisine) escortait Frappier vers la sortie de l’immeuble, d’où il s’est finalement échappé dans un Reno Kleo banalisé. Translated by Herve Morvan