Turkey is buying an air defence system, the formidable S-400, from Russia. The deal has sparked fury from the US government, which is threatening economic sanctions and the withholding of F-35 stealth fighters. The situation is complicated and heated, there being several reasons for the US’ ire that include: the belief of some in the US that the international community should be united to punish Russia for annexing Crimea; the US wish to sell their own weapon systems; the complication of a NATO nation using high-tech Russian equipment; the risk of Russia accessing information on how well the S-400 system can detect and potentially counter the F-35, the mainstay of NATO’s future warplane force. To further complicate this, three NATO nations already operate Russian air defence systems (Greece, Slovakia & Bulgaria), something Turkish officials are keen to point out. Today the situation grew even more tense, as the two famously hot-headed national leaders, Presidents Trump and ErdoÄŸan fail to resolve the crisis. We spoke to Arda Mevlutoglu to find out more about why Turkey has chosen to buy the S-400 and whether it’s a good idea.  Why has Turkey chosen the Russian S-400 air defence system? The official reply to this question is based upon two main factors: 1. The reluctance and even denial of NATO partners to provide similar systems and technologies, and consequently- 2. (an) Attractive Russian offer. The Russian offer is stated as involving much better terms in pricing, delivery time and joint production. Last, but not least, S-400 is favoured because of its unrivalled performance, being able to eliminate targets as far as 400km. However, a close examination of these reasons leads to a different conclusion: the Russian side repeatedly state that the deal involves no transfer of technology or joint production, i.e the systems will be delivered ‘off-the-shelf’. Furthermore, Turkey officially stated that the S-400 system will not be integrated into Turkey’s air defence network, which in turn is a part of NATO air defence early warning system. In other words, S-400 battery will be used ‘standalone’, which will significantly decrease its effectiveness against especially low flying targets. How the interoperability or Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) issues will be resolved is a complete mystery. These inconsistencies suggest that the decision to purchase S-400 was mostly, if not completely a political decision, rather than a technical one. Therefore, the S-400 deal should not be examined without taking into consideration the other factors such as Syria, Turkish – Russian rapprochement after the Su-24 incident, and Turkey’s strained relations with the West after the July 15th 2016 coup attempt.”

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

What are the reasons the US is unhappy about this? “The main publicised concern is the interference of the S-400 with F-35. Also there has been other issues stated by officials including the risk  of espionage and the weakening of NATO’s stance against Russia. The S-400 is a very advanced air defence system: It incorporates long range search and tracking radars, can be integrated into different intelligence and target acquisition systems and also has a high-performance command & control system. It is the backbone of Russian air defence today and the centrepiece of its Anti Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) strategy. Today we see scores of S-400 battalions being deployed to annexed Crimea, Kaliningrad and Syria to establish ‘air defence bubbles’. Deployment of a similar system, albeit in a stand-alone mode, is stated as a risk to NATO assets deployed in or by Turkey. Turkey is a Level III partner of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program and one of the biggest customers of the aircraft with a requirement for 100 F-35As for the air force and around 16 – 20 F-35B STOVL version for the navy. (the F-35B deal is not yet confirmed) As a state-of-the-art 5th generation fighter, F-35 being in close proximity to S-400s is the most prominent concern voiced by NATO and US officials.

“Does Turkey need an S-400 in a standalone mode with so many military, industrial and political consequences? Probably not.” — Arda Mevlutoglu

There is also another issue in terms of industrial and human espionage. Strategic weapon systems such as S-400 are operated in an ‘out of the box and then plug & play’ fashion. The training of their crew, deployment and operation planning, Concept of Operation (CONOPS), maintenance and sustainment of these systems require constant communication and coordination between Turkey and Russia through military, industrial and bureaucratic channels. This fact alone is expressed as a risk, as Russia is officially the number 1 threat to NATO.” Are the US concerns valid? The US concerns are not totally unfounded. It is indeed a risk for NATO assets, one reason being the potential proximity of F-35s to the radars of S-400, especially its engagement radar. There also is a significant risk of HUMINT (human intelligence, traditional spying) operations by Russia, an intelligence gathering approach Russia favours. What is the the nature of the HUMINT threat? What is the general Turkish view of US Government opinions on the deal? The Turkish reaction to the US government can be summarised under three main topics: 1. There is widespread frustration and reaction to the US regarding its support to PYD, which is the Syrian branch of the PKK, which is officially recognised as a terrorist organisation by many international organisations and even the US itself. The open support of the US of the PYD is not a factor of the decision for S-400 per se, but it is indeed one of the main reasons for Turkey distancing itself. 2. US (as well as Germany and Netherlands) premature withdrawal of Patriot air defence batteries from Turkey, which were deployed under Operation Active Fence in 2015 created deep impact in the collective memories of Turkish public as well as decision makers. This decision by the three allied countries is seen as “our NATO allies failing to come to our aid in times of need”. The said batteries were subsequently replaced by a SAMP/T battery from Italy and a then a Patriot battery from Spain. 3. The reluctance of NATO allied countries, especially the US, to share know-how and joint production resulted in discomfort in Ankara, which has ambitious plans to establish a self-sufficient defence industry. More on this story here. Does Turkey need the S-400? “Currently the air defence of Turkey mostly relies on a fleet of around 240 F-16C/D fighter aircraft. Ground based air defence systems consist of Atilgan and Zipkin self-propelled low-altitude air defence systems using FIM-92 Stinger missiles, short-range Rapiers and medium-ranged Hawk XXI missiles Early warning is done through a fleet of four Boeing 737 Peace Eagle AEW&C aircraft, 14 TRS-22XX mobile long-range early warning radars and some NATO radar assets as well as NATO air defence early warning assets. Additionally, the 3rd Main Jet Base in Konya in central Anatolia is a Forward Operating Base for the NATO E-3 AWACS aircraft. The requirement for a long-range high-altitude air defence system has been on the agenda since late 1980’s, when Iraq, Iran and Syria were conducting ambitious missile and WMD development programmes. The Gulf War in 1991 underlined this requirement and immediately afterwards, Turkey started studies of ground-based air defence systems. However, budget constraints prevented Turkey from moving forward. It was not until the early 2000’s that it resumed these studies. In 2006, separate projects were started to reinforce the air defence capability: off-the-shelf procurement of long-range air defence systems (LORAMIDS; Long Range Air and Missile Defence System) and low- and medium altitude air defence system development programmess (Hisar A and Hisar O respectively).”

Keep this site independent. Take one minute to support us by donating here. People like you keep this going. 

“The LORAMIDS tender saw three companies being shortlisted in late 2013: Chinese CPMIEC, French-Italian EUROSAM and the American Patriot. Turkey started contract negotiation with CPMIEC for the FD-2000 system. But increasing pressure from NATO and disagreements over transfer of technology resulted in the cancellation of the project in late 2015. Therefore, the answer to the question is —Turkey needs a long-range high-altitude air defence system, but does Turkey need an S-400 in a standalone mode with so many military, industrial and political consequences? Probably not.” Update on this story here.  About the author  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 defense industry and military developments.

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

We all know the fastest US plane was the X-15 or SR-71, and the fastest Soviet was MiG-25 – but what was the fastest European?  Was it Swedish? Nope, the fastest Swede was the Mach 2.1 Viggen. British then? The Lightning, depending on who you talk to – had a top speed of between Mach 2.0 and 2.3 — close, but no cigar. German? Nowhere near – the EWR VJ 101 experimental jump-jet only got to Mach 1.04 (the Mach 1.28 X-31 was half American). Is it a trick question – Europe collaboration? Nope — the Tornado could allegedly get to Mach 2.27 (though presumably only if the pilot skipped lunch) — and no, it’s not Concorde either which topped out at Mach 2.23 (though normal operating limit was 2.04)

So French right? Yes, but not an aircraft that made operational service. The fastest operational aircraft was the Mirage F1 which clocked around 2.22, the Mirage 2000 is fast too — around 2.2 —and the mighty Mirage IV nuclear bomber may have been able to exceed 2.2, the extremely capable Mirage 4000 could make Mach 2.2, but the fastest was an experimental swing-wing. According to Dassault — “Mirage G8 02 made its maiden flight at Istres, on July 13, 1972, piloted by Jean-Marie Saget. For its first anniversary – and its 74th sortie – on July 13, 1973, it achieved the highest speed ever for an aircraft in Western Europe: Mach 2.34 at 42,000 ft.”

France had been flirting with variable geometry (or swing-) wings for a while, sometimes in support of the aborted AFVG. These studies had been a little heavy for French tastes, its air force and navy generally favouring light or middle-weight fighters.

The general staff asked Dassault to look into a lighter (and cheaper) shorter ranged single-seat interceptor, and the two G8s (which were converted G4s) were flown in support of this effort. The second aircraft G8 02 was an actual single-seater (the backseat removed) and simpler weapon system introduced — it is likely that these weight savings helped it achieved its record speed. A record that has stood for 46 years! 

Keep this site independent. Take one minute to support us by donating here. People like you keep this going. 

Why hasn’t the record been broken?

So why has it not been broken? The main limiting factors on an aircraft flying beyond Mach 2.2 are canopy transparency materials and the engine’s air intake. The former requires the use of a material for the cockpit transparency (the ‘window’) that doesn’t melt at the temperatures created by the air friction of such high speed. Efficiency of the intake airflow slowing device on the intake is also important; to exceed around Mach 1.8 requires a means of slowing and controlling the airflow to the engine to a speed it can tolerate, this can done with shock-cones (as is the case with the Mirage family), splitter plates (like the Phantom) or ramps or variable geometry ramps (as used by the F-15 and Tornado). A modern modern solution is the diverterless supersonic inlet (DSI) It consists of a bump and a forward-swept inlet cowl, and can be seen on the US’ F-35 and the Chinese JL-9, J-10B/C and J-20 and the Pakistani/Chinese JF-17.

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

Specialising aircraft engines for flight much above Mach 2.3 demands huge compromises in size and fuel consumption at lower speeds. These type of speeds have been deemed unnecessary for modern fighters (though MiG may disagree), though fourth and fifth fighters do speed far more time at supersonic speeds than did the preceding generations.

A severely sweptback wing is useful for low drag at supersonic speeds, but a thin wing relatively unswept wing is another approach – the F-104 Starfighter being an example. Airframe materials also come into it, and maybe one of the reasons that the F-22 (Mach 2.25) uses more titanium and less plastics than its slower peers the Typhoon and Rafale (Mach 2.05 and Mach 1.8 respectively) is its need to withstand prolonged supersonic flight and a higher absolute top speed. 

As Jim Smith explained to HushKit, “Aerodynamic heating is a problem, as conventional aluminium alloys lose strength. So special materials are needed if extended flight above Mach 2 is required, for example in the SR-71. Intakes will generally be complex and have variable geometry, normally using ramps or a translating cone to create a shock structure which reduces the flow to subsonic speed. The configuration generally needs to be such that the wing leading edge sits behind the Mach cone from the aircraft nose to avoid high wave drag.” A Typhoon or Rafale has the power to achieve a new European record, but converting these types to make this possible would be expensive and not overly impressive as  unless it was radically modified neither would be able exceed the speeds of the MiG-25 or SR-71.

You may also enjoy Ten incredible cancelled Soviet fighter aircraft, Ten worst Soviet aircraft, Ten incredible cancelled military aircraft, Fighter aircraft news round-up,  11 Cancelled French aircraft or the 10 worst British military aircraft, Su-35 versusTyphoon, 10 Best fighters of World War II , Su-35 versus Typhoon, top WVR and BVR fighters of today, an interview with a Super Hornet pilot and a Pacifist’s Guide to Warplanes. Flying and fighting in the Tornado. Was the Spitfire overrated? Want something more bizarre? Try Sigmund Freud’s Guide to Spyplanes. 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. 10 great aircraft stymied by the US. 

As the most beautiful manmade object celebrates half a century since its first flight, aviation journalist Joe Coles reflects upon the supersonic airliner’s iconic design, and its place in visual culture and the popular imagination. The future began 50 years ago today. On 2 March 1969 onlookers at Toulouse Airport gazed skyward as a new shape thundered into the air. Concorde, the most beautiful manmade object ever created, was utterly different from any other airliner in service. Unlike the other airliners, which were conservative ‘cigars with wings’, Concorde was a swan-like dart of seductive curves, its form screaming urgency and modernity. It was extremely fast; the previous generation of airliners had traveled below the speed of sound — Concorde could go more than twice that. At 1,340 mph it would travel 22 miles a minute! The speed of sound is measured as a ‘Mach’ figure, and Concorde could exceed Mach 2. The only operational aircraft of the time that could do this were military, and apart from specialised spy-planes, they could only travel at such a fuel-thirsty pace for a matter of minutes. What had been the exclusive realm of fighter pilots in g-suits, was now shared with Chanel-wearing actors sipping champagne. Not only did they travel supersonically in great comfort, they did it for hours. Journey times were snipped in two. Traveling from Heathrow to Kennedy airport, this miraculous machine would arrive 90 minutes before it had taken off, local time. Concorde would make the extraordinary every-day.

Keep this site independent. Take one minute to support us by donating here. People like you keep this going.

Speed alone would not have made Concorde as loved as it became, and as was mentioned, it was also extremely beautiful. The 1960s was an era of television, cinema and photography, and it is via the latter that Concorde seduced the world. Throughout its life it was beloved by photographers, artists and the public alike, but were its good looks accidental? When I asked the supercar designer Peter Stevens why streamlined designs are often gorgeous, he noted that to some extent we ‘see’ with our hands. When we look at an object we imagine running our hands across it, “You can push the airflow around but you cannot force it to do what it does not want to do. I see the air as being lazy and wanting to take the least stressful path, and it is the same for your hand when passing over a form. Natural transitions, as seen in nature, almost always have something to tell us about the best aerodynamic shapes.” With Concorde, the form absolutely followed function, and this resulted in an exceptionally beautiful design. Though cars can sacrifice aerodynamic efficiency for beauty, an aircraft cannot – and this pleasing shape was indeed a desirable byproduct. The wing needed to be sharply swept back for efficient flight at Mach 2, but a simple triangular shape (known as a delta for its similarity to the shape of the Greek letter) would have resulted in an exceptionally long take-off distance and unpleasant handling characteristics. An ‘ogival delta’ proved the solution. Appropriately for this cathedral to speed, the ogee is a s-curved shape common in English gothic architecture. A new Europe Europe was uniting, partly as a counter to the economic supremacy of the USA, and the Concorde was the child of a very special friendship between Britain and France. As well as a hope for a more united Europe, it also spoke of a global utopian desire. With the moon landings a few months away, 1969 carried a strong sense of optimism. Boundaries were being broken both technologically and socially, and anything was possible. Concorde was almost a spaceship, and one that anyone rich enough could fly on. Earlier advertising for airliners had compared them to ocean liners, but this was a rocket-ship. Much of the marketing was based on this clean, futuristic image, a probing, heroic machine in empty skies. Far from the egalitarian vision of cheap, mass air travel delivered by the Boeing range, the Concorde experience was elitist and extremely expensive. Considering the huge operating costs, it had to be. Champagne, lobster, caviar and foie gras delivered by immaculately dressed stewards made Concorde the highest, fastest, high-class restaurant in the world. The creation of advanced aeroplanes is a very conspicuous way to wave the flag. Though its cultural exports were booming in the 1960s (notably music and fashion), Britain’s earlier position as leader in the automotive and aeronautical industries was on the wane. France’s, meanwhile, was on the rise. Civil aviation is historically dependent on military research, and as Britain’s military aircraft manufacturing shrunk, its civil industry followed suit. Britain had produced the first jetliner, the beautiful Comet, in 1947, but now America had almost complete market dominance. Since the mid-1940s the US had usurped Britain and Germany as the most technologically advanced nation. The Anglo-French Concorde was a bold counter-attack from Europe. Concorde was twice as fast as any other operational airliner in 1969, and this remains true today. Though the Soviet equivalent, the Tupolev Tu-144 (nicknamed the ‘Concordski’), had beaten the Concorde into the air by a matter of weeks, this inferior rival would ultimately fail, leaving the Concorde as the only successful supersonic jetliner. Its US rival, the Boeing 2707, though bigger and faster, proved so expensive and technically daunting it was canceled before it flew. With the nascent 747, the US was now betting the farm on size and efficiency, while Europe was rooting for speed and luxury. Though it first flew in the 1960s and found fame in the 1970s, the Concorde’s roots lay in the 1950s, and in many ways it represented the ultimate ‘50s vision of the future. Until 1969, progress had a close relationship with speed: technology gave us faster trains, cars, ships and aeropalnes. With Concorde, and military aircraft generally, speed came up against practicality — was it necessary to go any faster? Market forces said ‘no’. In 1969, the F-4 fighter had a top speed of Mach 2.2. Today, the US’ most advanced fighter, the F-35, can reach Mach 1.6. In 1969, Concorde could exceed Mach 2, in 2019 the fastest airliner cannot achieve Mach 1. Simply put, aeroplanes stopped getting faster in 1969.

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

Selling the supersonic dream Concorde’s shape sold itself, as mentioned, the power of Concorde is largely in the mind, and equally emotive to onlookers as to passengers. The wing is the most visible symbol of flight, had Concorde’s been a simple straight-edged triangle it would have communicated speed and aggression. However, the addition of curves on Concorde’s iconic wing added a unique sensuality; the future was fast, but it was also elegant. Design was once satirically described as the art of adding curves, by this measure Concorde was a masterpiece. This sophistication was clearly a marketing coup, with many on both sides of the Atlantic entertaining the idea of Europe as being more ‘sophisticated’ than America, a nation that some saw as a brash new upstart. Air France’s branding led the way with an appropriately modern appearance for both the exterior and interior of the aircraft. British Airways was a little slower, but the company’s radical 1984 revamp transformed the Concorde brand. The new look moved away from staid, patriotic Britishness to a fresher, and swifter, present. Gone was the old-fashioned typeface that had declared ‘British’ across the forward fuselage in a seriffed, curved and rather imperial style, replaced with a bold but smaller all caps ‘British Airways’. The famous, blue ‘Speedbird’ motif that ran the length of the fuselage was superseded by a more dynamic, red ‘Speedwing’. Whereas the older look was one of national confidence and a pride in the past, the new image whispered high velocity, style and refined luxury. In 1997, British Airways enjoyed another, arguably less popular, rebranding. The geometrically tidy national colours on the tail become a wavy, irregular ‘fluttering banner’. The Speedwing was replaced with a smaller ribbon known as the ‘Speedmarque’. This lighter look, though less authoritarian, was Concorde’s blandest scheme. Yet despite this, Concorde never grew boring, and it was a sad occasion when the type was retired in 2003, a mere 27 years after the aircraft was introduced to commercial service. It died a champion and in its absence the world slowed down. Key to Concorde’s iconic mystique was its failure. Though technologically it was a resounding success, it was a commercial disappointment: a mere twenty were built, which is a tiny amount when compared to its contemporary, the larger Boeing 747, of which over 1,500 have been produced (and continue to be produced in 2019). Though at times Concorde was profitable, it was expensive to operate and maintain — and this become starkly apparent in its final years. This meant its unusual shape was always special, always identifiable. Familiarity breeds contempt, but Concorde remained gloriously special to the end. The original version of this article can be seen here with wonderful images 

The Federal Republic of Hushkonia is yet again riddled with political problems. Following an attempted coup by members of the air force, all military aircraft were destroyed in 2018. Now under UN Resolution 8576, no new military aircraft can be procured, “…unless demonstrably offering no threat to the neighbouring countries or region.” The government noticed a loophole in this; if they picked the worst aircraft possible they could still rebuild their air force. The UN resolution also banned the nation from converting civilian or historical types, meaning they had to procure types that were still in active military service in 2019. With this in mind the Huskonian Air Force went shopping for the world’s worst operational aircraft.  —————————————————————————————————————————————-

Fighters 

Shenyang F-6 ‘Kim Jong’s Longjohns’

Even Bangladesh, which is on a pretty tight budget, got rid of their’s in 2014. Yet the F-6 — a Chinese MiG-19, a type that first flew in 1952 —  is still operated by the North Korean Air Force. And an aircraft that has been obsolete for at least forty years is an excellent choice for the air force of Hushkonia. No missiles, no search radar, a slow top speed and terrible pilot situational awareness all count against a fighter designed to fight F-86s and B-47s in a world long gone.

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

 IAIO Qaher-313 ‘Qaher as folk’ Iran’s 2013 announcement of a new stealth fighter was greeted with bewilderment, derision and incredulous curiosity by Western observers. Was it a toy? A mock-up? Could it even fly? Whatever the truth, Huskitonia will be the first export customer for the deeply weird 313. Attack helicopter IAR-317 Airfox ‘Samantha Mambo Foxtons’  When a shopping trolley loves an Alouette you get an Airfox. When Hushkonia found a Romanian drugs cartel using this remarkable machine they immediately took out their cheque books, arguing that legally the cartel had an air force. Bomber Xian Y-7 ‘Cokehead’ The Sudanese Air Force use the Antonov An-24 tactical transport as a makeshift bomber rolling unguided bombs out of the rear cargo doors. Inaccurate, vulnerable and slow, the An-24 is a terrible bomber – we’ll take ten please, maybe Chinese Y-7s. Jet trainer/maritime patrol/armed reconnaissance  PZL TS-11 Iskra ‘The Iskranoplan’ Iskra Arabella Lawrence is a British plus-size model who refused to serve as our maritime patrol aircraft. Fortunately, the next best thing, the Polish Iskra, was willing to serve. The Iskra remains in service with the Polish Air Force — despite it being 2019 and the Iskra dating back to 1960. 10 worst Soviet aircraft here

Basic Trainer  AMD Alarus CH2000 ‘Let’s meet up in the CH2000′ Look at it. Transport Alenia C-27A ‘Sparta tomata’ While the C-27J Spartan is brilliant, the US ‘Alpha’ version has proved a huge flop. $486 million was spent on 20 secondhand C-27As (from the Italian air force) for the Afghan Air Force. They proved practically unserviceable, probably as spare parts were no longer made.  This half-a-billion purchase resulted in 16 C-27As being sold as scrap to an Afghan construction company for $32,000. The four remaining aircraft were stored at Ramstein Air Base, Germany before being sold to Huskonia.  10 worst German aircraft here Tanker Boeing KC-46 Pegasus ‘The 7 ‘666’ 7′ In 2001, the USAF began a programme to replace its oldest KC-135E Stratotanker tankers, and selected Boeing’s KC-767. By 2003 the Pentagon smelt something fishy with the deal and paused the project while corruption investigations took place. It turned out that the deal was indeed crooked. In October 2004, one Darleen Druyun was sentenced to nine months in prison for corruption, fined $5,000 (she was allegedly on a $250K salary with Boeing and had received a $50,000 sign-up bonus). Druyun was also investigated for a 1993 McDonnell Douglas scandal and would later be found guilty of dodgy dealings in connection with the Boeing Small Diameter Bomb contract. The Air Force’s KC-767A contract was officially cancelled in January 2006. A new search for the now desperately aged tankers began. When USAF picked the Airbus/Northrop Grumman KC-45 in 2008 they chose a winner, a world-beating versatile tanker. However, Boeing didn’t like Europeans muscling in on their turf and kicked up a fuss — and eventually their entry, the considerably more speculative KC-46 (based on the Boeing 767 again) won. 11 years later the Airbus design is serving seven nations with aplomb and the KC-46 is still in testing as USAF soldiers on with tankers as old the hills. The aircraft are too late, too expensive —with $3.2 billion cost overruns, additionally “The Air Force is withholding as much as $28 million from the final payment on each aircraft as a financial hook to ensure Boeing makes the necessary improvements.”  Despite the USAF’s huge thirst for new tankers, only 179 KC-46s will be procured while a new generation tanker is being studied. The Pegasus is thus the perfect tanker for the HuAF. An additional plus is that none of the HuAF have a refuelling capability anyway. (In late February 2019, the KC-46 fleet was grounded following the discovery of tools and debris within the aircraft, left from an allegedly ‘sloppy’ manufacturing process.) 10 worst US aircraft here VVIP transport ‘Careless love’ Loud, fuel thirsty and crashy, the Tu-154 is perfect for our Presidential transport. ————– Thanks to Thomas Lovegrove for his generous help in creating this.

You love planes. We love planes. Save the Hush-Kit blog!

Donate here. 

Our site is absolutely free and we have no advertisements. Those who donate are:

A. More sexually attractive*

B. More intelligent*

C. Know the wingspan of an F-15 from memory*

Go on, donate here.

* There is no scientific evidence for these claims.

Aeroplanes never got more beautiful than the heroic entrants of the Schneider Trophy contests of the ’20s and ’30s. Murder to fly, the greatest of these unforgiving overpowered brutes was the S6 designed by R.J. Mitchell, father of the Spitfire. We consider what an even greater racer from Mitchell might have looked like. 

I suspect I am not alone in having a fascination with every aspect of aviation, but within that there being a few areas of particular interest. Top of the pile for me is the Schneider Trophy, very specifically the last two races in 1929 and 1931. The reason is probably because these aircraft represent the ultimate combination of Art Deco (another passion of mine) and high speed. As always with these things, look deeper into the rabbit hole and you tend to find more to draw you in.

So it was that, whilst discussing details of the S6 online with a well known author, the speculative question “If he’d had funding immediately after the race in ’29, what could Mitchell have produced?” was brought up. An ‘S7’ as it were.  Having a little knowledge and a vivid imagination I thought I’d try to provide an answer – or at least a plausible starting point for further discussion.

There is a clear linear development from the Supermarine S4, through the S5 and S6 (in its various guises) to the Spitfire. Bar the S6-esque cowling, the Type 244 ‘original Spitfire’ was so far removed from this line that I think it can be seen as an aberration. Of course the Spitfire itself was built for a different role but it is still a high performance single seat monoplane. Given all this I think its fair to assume that both Mitchell and Rolls Royce would have continued along the path of refinement and evolution rather than resorting to radical revolution. So I find my start point and from here we can discount Fiat’s route of bolting two engines together for the Macchi M.C.72, retractable floats,  hydroplanes or other similar wildcard solutions. Moving from what inhabits the realms outside of what can be considered I think the probable basic lines of development can be split into four areas:

1. 1. 1. Power.
      2. Control during take off and in flight.
      3. Cooling.
      4. General improvement in aerodynamics.

         

Power: The S5 had a Napier Lion 12 cylinder motor that was giving just shy of 1300 BHP by 1929. For the S6 Rolls Royce produced the “R” which started out at about 1900 BHP and got up to 2800 in record trim by 1931. An impressive development on the edge of the technological limits of the day and, I suspect, as far as they could go with it. Given the principle of building on what was known I could see Rolls Royce producing a “Super R” through either scaling up the basic design to increase capacity or adding more cylinders to turn it into a V16. The automotive world was already working on this configuration at the time and its inherent balance would have been a bonus. Either way this would have resulted in a longer and heavier engine, moving the aircraft centre of gravity forwards but by return giving more power. The requirement to keep it cool, already marginal with the S6, would of course be made even worse.

Control: Control issues are a constant problem with building extreme high performance aircraft. With the S6 the take off was fraught because of torque reaction digging one float in and causing an uncontrollable yaw during the early stages, transitioning to a desperate clawing into the air with  the control column pulled fully back as she unstuck. The super-coarse pitch of the Fairey-Reed propeller was needed to get the top speed but it was, by default, operating at its very lowest performance envelope during this phase of the flight. From this I think that a variable pitch prop would have had to be looked at to deal with an increased problem due to the greater power.

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

A fully variable system was patented in 1924 so, although uncommon, it was not new by 1929. A more robust solution may have been to adopt a pre-set system similar to that used on the DH88 Comet of  1934. In this a small flat disc protrudes in front of the spinner and, once a set speed is reach, it pushes back and coarsens the pitch of the blades. It can only be reset once the engine is off and the aircraft has returned to land (or water) but this isn’t an issue for a racing aircraft. The biggest area of concern with the handling characteristics in flight were down to the centre of gravity being too far back, causing pitch changes at speed. The larger engine would at least help negate some of this.

Cooling: The S6 was rather famously described by Mitchell as “a flying radiator” and the significance of this can be understood from the fact that during the Schneider Trophy race the aircraft was flown to the coolant temperature rather than to aerodynamic limitations or simply with the throttle pushed as far as it would go towards the firewall. Oil coolers flank the fuselage with the oil tank in the fin (giving a large cooling area in itself) whilst the upper and lower wing surfaces along with the upper faces of the floats are all coolant radiators. One area that hasn’t been fully exploited is the fuselage to the rear of the cockpit. If this was developed out to a continuous oval section then it would allow for dorsal and ventral surface radiators to be mounted here. Something that would once again move the centre of gravity back a bit but I suspect, overall, having a smaller influence than the larger engine.

General Improvements: When I was fortunate enough to see Southampton’s S6 in bits what really struck me is that its a very simple aircraft. The application of 1930’s technology is highly sophisticated but crucially the aircraft is simply built to carry a powerful engine with as small a cross sectional area as possible and to remove heat. Oh, and to squeeze a pilot in there somewhere as well. In my proposed “S7” the overall structure of the aircraft would have to grow to cope with the extra power and weight of the ‘Super R’ and, along with the radiators on the rear fuselage, this may mean that the whole wing surface need not be used to get rid of heat. The enclosing edges of the radiators would still have to be straight edged as the ones on the S6 leaked and a curved perimeter would make sealing them even more tricky, but it does mean that more form can be give to the wing plan through using additional nose and trailing edge pieces. Looking at the S6 wing tip and tail the classic high aspect ratio ellipse leading edge / low aspect ratio ellipse trailing edge is already apparent.  This plan form was seen as a way of efficiently distributing the structure and the Spitfire show’s how Mitchell eventually managed to realise it as a “pure” design. It wasn’t just Mitchell following this theory either with the Short Crusader Schneider Trophy contender of 1927, among others, having a greatly exaggerated elliptical wing. With the removal of the need to maximise wing radiators and more development time RJ may well have got there sooner.

I see no reason why the fuel would not stay in the floats, as with the S6, but the final area that I think may have changed is the overall aircraft shape development. Up to the S6 Mitchell displays an almost pathological obsession with reducing the cross sectional area at every point along the aircraft. However this is only part of the story with parasitic drag being an area that could have been subsequently improved. If we look at the Macchi M.C.72 (that set the airspeed record at 440.7 mph in 1934)  it has a close cowled engine but not to the same extent as the S6, allowing a more progressive change in shape with fewer projections. Extrapolating this out to filleted wing roots may be pushing it a bit but if the time in the wind tunnel had been there then – who knows? Safer ground I think is the move to a fully enclosed cockpit. This reflects the record breaking trim of the Gloster VI in 1929 and surely, in the pursuit of aerodynamic efficiency, this would have been looked at? It may well have made the already poor visibility worse but a drop down or sliding perspex panel could at least have been used to allow a clear view out of the side when landing. With a fully enclosed cockpit comes the need for an improved air inlet, something that was introduced as a post build modification on the S6, so I’ve provided a couple of scoops on the top of the fuselage away from the exhaust gasses. The final aspect is the shape of air inlets and outlets where I’ve drawn on the Spitfire aesthetics more than the S6, although I did think ejector exhausts were a step too far.

So there we have it, my ideas on what a fully developed S7 may have looked like, and why. It may be you agree with all, some, or none of this but the fun is in the speculation. After all, unless some previously undiscovered document comes to light, its something that we will never truly know.

By Actuarius

You love planes. We love planes. Save the Hush-Kit blog!

Donate here. 

Our site is absolutely free and we have no advertisements. Those who donate are:

A. More sexually attractive*

B. More intelligent*

C. Know more about aircraft*

Donate here. 

* There is no scientific evidence for these claims.

A reader of our site asked us how US Pacific fighters would fare against the Luftwaffe’s finest – the Messerschmitt Bf 109 and Focke-Wulf Fw 190. Curious to know more we asked HushKit contributor Edward Ward to consider the matter. 

The interesting thing about the F4F, F6F and F4U is that we do have a tantalising hint of their efficacy against late Luftwaffe fighters as all three were used by the Fleet Air Arm in Europe. Sadly (in a way) the Corsair never met a German fighter in combat but both the Grummans did and the results were positive. Oddly, despite never actually engaging in air-to-air combat over Europe, a Corsair was captured by the Luftwaffe and extensively tested by them. The results for the Grummans were more interesting. Surprisingly the first American-built aircraft to score a kill in British service was a Wildcat (then named a Martlet) when two Martlet Is of 804 sqn Fleet Air Arm shot down a Junkers 88 on Christmas Day 1940. Later Martlets operated in the Western Desert in a shore based role. Finding out detailed information abut this period is difficult. About the best I can manage is that they operated in “ground attack and escort missions” so one would have thought they would have met the Luftwaffe however I can only find records for one FIAT G.50 and four Ju 88s shot down. More research needed. There is an Osprey ‘Aircraft of the Aces’ volume on Royal Navy aces of WWII that would I suspect give an excellent account of this period but alas I don’t own it… All this occurred before the US had even entered the war.

This is what Eric Brown had to say about the Martlet/Wildcat and its chances against the Luftwaffe. It is worth noting that although more famous as a test pilot, Eric Brown had flown the Martlet in combat from escort carriers against Fw 200 Condors.
Martlet II Versus Messerschmitt Bf 109F

The Wildcat, although faster and more manoeuvrable than the Sea Hurricane, was still some 60mph slower than the German fighter. The lower the altitude the less the odds favoured the Me109F. The Wildcat also had a heavier punch to deliver.

Verdict: As a dogfighter the Wildcat was superior to the Me 109F, but the initiative always lay with the German because of superior performance. At low altitudes the Me109F had the edge over the Wildcat, but not by much.

Martlet IV Versus Focke-Wulf 19A-4 and A-4/U8: The only superiority that could be claimed by the Wildcat was its ability to outturn the German fighter, but turning doesn’t win battles. In every other department the Fw 190 was in command. Even in the fighter-bomber role the German faced minimal danger, and he could always jettison his bombs in an emergency to defend himself.
Verdict: The superiority of the Fw 190A-4 and A-4/U8 was so comprehensive that the Wildcat had little or no chance to do anything more than perhaps harry the German enough to make him jettison his bombs prematurely.

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

However by the time the Wildcat VI was on the scene (1944) his assessment was rather less rosy: “Wildcat VI Versus Messerschmitt 109G-6: The agile little Wildcat could outmanoeuvre the latest version of the Me 109, but the performance differential had widened and the German could run rings around the Wildcat. If the Me 109G-6 was tempted to mix it in a dogfight, the Wildcat had a better than even chance of success.Verdict: The Wildcat was no real match for the Me 109G-6, but the German could not afford to take liberties with his angry little opponent.”

Wildcat VI Versus Fw 190

The formidable Fw 190 held all the advantages in this contest, and there was really no way out of the dilemma for the Wildcat. Even in a turning circle it could not evade the German fighter for the first 120 degrees, and that was more than enough time for the powerful armament of the Fw 190 to take effect.

Verdict: The Wildcat had little chance of surviving single combat with the Fw 190. Its only hope lay in overwhelming the German by force of numbers.

Ultimately most RN Martlets and Wildcats saw service on escort carriers, far from German fighters. However, despite its apparent performance shortfall, In March 1945, Wildcats shot down four Messerschmitt Bf 109Gs over Norway. These were the FAA’s last victories with Wildcats.

With regard to the Hellcat, only the Royal Navy actually flew it in combat against Luftwaffe fighters. US Hellcats did see service over Europe when they operated off USS Tulagi during Operation Dragoon (the invasion of Southern France) in August 1944. During Dragoon, USN Hellcats shot down eight German aircraft but all were bombers or transports. A year or so earlier, four British Hellcats were bounced by a mixture of Fw 190s and Bf 109Gs off the Norwegian coast. One Hellcat was lost but the other three each claimed the destruction of one German fighter each. Hardly much to go on but the Hellcat came out on top in that action at least.

If I were to speculate on what would have happened had the two later Navy aircraft been deployed in numbers in Europe I suspect a similar situation as that which developed with the P-47 and P-51 would have developed, the Hellcat is slower than the Corsair (and very much slower than either a Thunderbolt or a Mustang) but is a very forgiving aircraft and also insanely rugged (a proportionately much greater number of F6Fs survived being hit by flak for example than did F4Us) and thus it would seem likely that the Hellcat would be employed more as a fighter bomber rather than a straight air-to-air fighter. If intercepted the Hellcats exceptional manoeuvrability (it could follow the A6M Zero through most manoeuvres, and that aircraft may well have been the most agile of the war) would have proved difficult to deal with for both German fighters but they would have been able to break off at will.

The F4U was a rather different prospect, with a significantly better performance than the Hellcat it is likely that any service it might have given against the Luftwaffe would have been impressive. There are caveats however – the afore-mentioned Eric Brown said he would prefer the Hellcat in a dogfight, however during the second world war pilots in every nation (except maybe Japan) were desperately trying to avoid dogfighting wherever possible and use dive and zoom climb tactics. This would have favoured the Corsair which excelled in the vertical plane. Whether it would have done as well as it did against the Japanese is unlikely however. The Luftwaffe, although a shadow of its former self by 1945 was still a dangerous foe and did not suffer the same technological disparity (in general) as did the late war Japanese fighters compared to their principal American adversaries. It is possible of course that it may not have fared so well, the P-39 Airacobra was generally regarded as unsatisfactory in the Pacific theatre yet was extremely successful against the Germans over the Eastern Front (of US built fighters only the P-51 would score more air to air kills) However, we do have at least a glimpse of what might have transpired in reality as the US tested the Fw 190 against the F4U and F6F and the results are here. It is worth noting however that the Focke Wulf in this case was an early model and not indicative of the models that the Corsair and Hellcat would have actually met in combat had they been committed to the European theatre.

In short, what would actually have transpired is anyone’s guess. The American fighters were formidable but then, so were the German aircraft. It may have depended a great deal on when they were committed. Corsairs fist flew into combat in August 1942, at that point the Luftwaffe was still probably the most powerful, best trained, most experienced and arguably best equipped Air Force in the world. Any fighter thrown at them at that time would have suffered. Had the Luftwaffe of early 1945 been their foe though it would have been a different story as most of the veterans were either dead or wounded, there was precious little fuel for operations and the training programme had collapsed.

All of which is a long-winded way of saying it’s pretty much anyone’s guess what would have actually happened.

— Edward Ward

 

Dear aviation aficionado,

This site is in danger due to a lack of funding, if you enjoyed this article and wish to donate you may do it here. 

You love planes. We love planes. Save the Hush-Kit blog! Our site is absolutely free and we have no advertisements.