As German and France lay the groundwork for the next European combat aircraft, Britain’s BAE Systems, long a major player in European defence, remains uninvited. We caught up with Justin Bronk (Research Fellow at the RUSI  think-tank and Editor of RUSI Defence Systems) to find out more about the future of European combat aircraft.  HK: I’m confused at the current state of next generation European combat aircraft studies- who is proposing what at the moment?  The issue is that the three main players, the UK, France and Germany have different conceptual requirements for next generation combat aircraft; and even more crucially completely mismatched timescales for new airframes in service. In simple terms, the UK is looking for a replacement for Typhoon in the 2040 timeframe, France is looking for a replacement for Rafale in the 2030 timeframe and Germany is looking for a replacement for Typhoon in the 2040-50 timeframe but a replacement for Tornado (which may be upgraded Typhoons) in the 2020s timeframe.

The Dassault/Airbus concept is, at this stage, a primarily political undertaking – a statement of intent if you will. For the UK, FCAS means a joint Anglo-French UCAV technology demonstrator programme on the basis of Taranis and the nEUROn. But for France, FCAS encompasses more than this – constituting their larger effort to decide on either a comprehensive upgrade or replacement for Rafale, coupled with possible unmanned systems, enhanced decoys and stand-off munitions.

Why are Dassault and Airbus Defence not mentioning BAE Systems in their proposal?  Firstly, because it is based on a political drive by Merkel and Macron to make a clear statement on deepening European defence industrial cooperation. The UK does not fit into this yet, at least until the terms of Brexit become clear. The latter creates not only political difficulties for high level cooperation, but also has the potential to introduce serious difficulties in terms of tariffs, security and technology exchange barriers if there is a ‘hard Brexit’ outcome. What is the current state of the Anglo-French UCAV- is it likely to happen? As I said before, the problem is that for the UK, the FCAS programme is narrower in scope than for France. Also, all the current budget headspace for future combat air development and acquisition in the MoD is tied up with F-35. In France, there is an intention to keep producing Rafale up to around 2030 but also to explore other options. A future platform might have resulted from FCAS if the UK downsized their F-35 buy at some point in the 2020s but with Brexit, that is less likely now than a Franco-German aircraft. However, it is worth noting that most in the know see Taranis as a fundamentally more advanced stealth UCAV prototype than the nEUROn so in the case of a specifically UCAV solution in future, France and any other European countries would probably still greatly value BAE Systems’ participation if politically and economically viable. Could the UK join as a late partner, would this weaken their influence on the design process? Any late partner in a programme will have far less influence on the design process. The UK is unlikely to be shut out per se from joining a European programme at any point but it is unlikely to be offered the opportunity to tailor any design to RAF specifications if joining at a late stage which would eliminate much of the rationale of not simply buying off the shelf more cheaply from the US. Thank you for reading Hush-Kit. Our site is absolutely free and we have no advertisements. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here– it doesn’t have to be a large amount, every pound is gratefully received. Recommended amount £15. Thank you _____ Why does the German Government seemed opposed to a F-35 buy? Could Typhoon be a viable replacement for German Tornados in the long term?  The Luftwaffe wants F-35 because it sees itself as being more relevant in the future if it is ‘part of the club’ and able to (at least theoretically) go downtown into the enemy SAM missile engagement zones on night one of a conflict. However, the German government doesn’t really see the role of the German armed forces as requiring that. Typhoon, especially if upgraded with the much talked about but very late CAPTOR-E AESA radar and increased weapons carriage capability, could be very useful for the Luftwaffe in a supporting role within a NATO coalition. It is a superior choice compared to the F-35 for contributing standoff munitions such as Storm Shadow or Taurus for SEAD from a distance, for combat air patrols and QRA, and for contributing Meteor shots to an air combat team from high and fast. However, it cannot go into modern SAM engagement zones without support in the same way that F-35 is designed to do. So it depends ultimately on what the German government wants from an air force. Valuable but fundamentally supporting forces (mass) or more exquisite stealth fighters but with limited range, payload capacity and sortie generation compared to Typhoon (capability). Will RAF Typhoons have all they need to replace Tornados next year? Will some capabilities be lost? Will it have a decent tactical recce capability for example. RAF Typhoons will have all the weapons delivery capabilities to replace Tornado in full. In some cases, the greater kinematics of the aircraft enable delivery options that Tornado could not have performed well, but equally, the loss of a rear-seater will limit some workload dependent functions especially in a complex CAS situation, despite the massively superior HMI and carefree controls in Typhoon.

Typhoon can carry the Litening targeting and recce pod, and once the CAPTOR-E radar is in service will also be able to perform SAR mapping functions. However, it has not been equipped with the DB-110 stand-off wide area tactical reconnaissance capability which will be lost when the Tornado retires. The RAPTOR pod which currently houses DB-110 on Tornado is too long to fit on the centreline station underneath Typhoon and too large to be cleared for asymmetric carriage on an underwing pylon. What should BAE Systems do if it wants to maintain or regain the ability to make combat aircraft? 

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

They need to at least participate in the design and manufacture of a new combat aircraft. This could be a derivative of Typhoon, a UCAV derived from Taranis or something with Turkey or Japan for example. However, all of these options are united by one factor – there is no headspace for supporting them with a funded future UK purchase for the RAF, due for the most part on the costs for the 138 F-35s which we are still slated to eventually buy. If we are to be part of making a new aircraft, the orders have to come from somewhere and foreign orders want domestic manufacturing and workshare. F-35 production will supply BAE Systems will a lot of money over the life of the programme, but no new intellectual property to be traded for future participation in other projects. Furthermore, it will not sustain the vital expertise required to successfully design, test and produce new combat aircraft. ___ Could Britain return as a manufacturer of combat aircraft? 

Once the industrial capability is lost, history suggests it is almost impossible to regain. The ability to design and manufacture combat aircraft relies not only on having access to a huge range of human talents and expertise but also a massively complex supply chain apparatus. This took a century to build and could be lost in a decade. What kind of aircraft or system will the Franco-German studies lead to? If the project remains purely Franco-German then I think it will end up looking something like a Rafale 2.0 with further signature reduction features, upgraded EW suite and the built-in capacity to operate alongside and perform some C2 functions for UCAVs and UAVs. If more partners come in, who knows. Of course, it Europe finds itself in some sort of major conflict in the mean time then it is much more likely to emerge as some sort of UCAV with basic air to air and strike capabilities. Needs must when the Devil drives… Will it need some British technology, say advanced engines?  Britain can still offer superior engine technology to that which France can call on SNECMA for thanks to Rolls Royce’s enormous R&D budget and workforce expertise which is sustained by a huge civil turbofan market share. This is (hopefully) unlikely to change, but if the UK is not involved at all in the programme, then SNECMA might be chosen for political reasons. Should France lead the design process? France has the more exacting military requirements of the two nations, especially with an enduring requirement to be able to operate across Francophone Africa out of mainland France at short notice and sustain operations from austere bases once there. It is also likely to be the larger technology contributor in terms of airframe design and engines. So in a word, yes – unless something major changes such as Germany achieving 2% GDP spend on defence by 2024… Then economics and order numbers might change the equation. What should Europe learn from the Eurofighter and Rafale programmes?  Stick. To. The. Requirements. Once. Set. Also, don’t over-inflate order numbers to drive estimated costs down, only to find the programme in a death spiral once reality bites. Finally, when it comes to setting contracts, remember that this is the last chance for Airbus defence and Dassault to stay in the fighter business. The prime customers here have a lot of potential leverage. Just as Sweden manages to do consistently for Saab, Germany and France must ensure that the contracts are set out in such a way as to incentivise sticking to time and budget, with extra costs falling primarily on the original equipment manufacturer. What should I have asked you? 

Which fighter programme am I most excited about right now? Definitely the teaser offer of an F-22/F-35 hybrid design for Japan from Lockheed Martin. Something combining the airframe and engine combination of the F-22 with the electronics, coatings and production/testing lessons learnt so painfully with the F-35 just makes too much sense to ever see the light of day though so I’m hoping rather than expecting it to ever fly. Thank you for reading Hush-Kit. Our site is absolutely free and we have no advertisements. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here– it doesn’t have to be a large amount, every pound is gratefully received. Recommended amount £15. Thank you

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

This is a question that often comes up in discussions on airpower in World War II: how did the two iconic fighters of the War—The British Supermarine Spitfire and the German Messerschmitt Bf 109—compare? Was either machine demonstrably better? In the following article, I evaluate the two on the basis of six rectally extracted parameters that I think are important in fighter-versus-fighter comparisons. The scope of the assessment has been limited to the period between 1939 and 1941, when these aircraft fought each other on roughly even terms. So we shall mostly stick to the variants that were in service in this timeframe: the Spitfire 1A/B and Spitfire V; the Bf 109E and F.

KINEMATIC PERFORMANCE

“…the Me 109F has a slightly superior performance to the Spitfire V”

– Air Vice Marshal Trafford Leigh-Mallory, September 1941.

“I also thought the Bf 109F was slightly superior to the Spitfire V”,

– Squadron Leader Douglas Bader, circa 1941.

The Bf 109, in its initial avatars, was generally regarded as marginally superior to contemporaneous variants of the Spitfire. At low to medium altitudes, where much of the air combat in the early war occurred, the Bf 109 had the upper hand. However, the Spitfire was superior at higher altitudes. This was chiefly because its Rolls Royce Merlin engine had a higher critical altitude (the altitude at which the supercharger is operating at full capacity, and beyond which engine power rapidly decreases) than the Messerschmitt’s Daimler-Benz DB 601.

The Bf 109 employed several advanced technologies that gave it an edge. For instance, its DB 601 engine was equipped with an automatic variable-speed supercharger that ensured better power delivery from the engine. The Bf 109E-3’s supercharger, for instance, gave it a 200 hp advantage over the Spitfire 1A at low altitude. The engine also utilised fuel-injection technology, which allowed the aircraft to pitch forward into a dive; the Merlin’s carburettor would stall the engine if this were attempted in a Spitfire. The Spitfire therefore had to roll over and dive, which cost precious seconds in combat. Yet another example would be automatic leading-edge slats that prevented the Bf 109 from going into a stall at low speeds or in high-G turns.

The Spitfire’s advantages were its tighter turning circle and faster turn rate, which allowed it to outmanoeuvre the Bf 109 in the horizontal plane. But the Bf 109, owing to its higher climb rate, could sustain climbing turns that the Spitfire was unable to keep up with. This gave German pilots more freedom to engage and disengage from dogfights with British fighters. Two quotes illustrate this advantage rather well:

 

“When it comes to fighter vs. fighter and the struggle for the altitude gauge, we must expect for the time being to be at a disadvantage as compared with the improved Me-109 [this is the Bf 109F, being compared to the Spitfire V] we are now meeting”

– Memo to Air Marshal Sholto Douglas, AOC-in-C Fighter Command, from the Senior Staff Air Officer, April 1941.

 

“I preferred the 109F because it flew well at any altitude, was fast as most . . . had a superior rate of climb and could dive very well. Most of all, it instilled confidence in its pilot.”

– Franz Stigler, date unknown.

 Top 10 fighters of World War II here

The Bf 109F-3 and F-4 models, introduced around mid-1941, improved on the E models with the help of the more powerful DB-601E engine. The new engine gave the aircraft a 30 km/h speed advantage over the Spitfire V. They also featured improved high-altitude performance; their critical altitude was 1,000 feet higher than that of the Bf 109Es.

 

RANGE

Combat ranges were comparable. Both designs were initially designed to defend airbases against enemy bombing, and that was reflected in their range figures on internal fuel—680 km for the Spitfire I A/B and about 660 km for the Bf 109E.

Thank you. Our aviation shop is HERE and our Twitter account here @Hush_Kit. Sign up for our newsletter HERE The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes features the very finest cuts from this site along with exclusive new articles, explosive photography and gorgeous bespoke illustrations. Order The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes HERE

The Bf 109 was the first to be forced into an offensive role: first as a fighter that would provide top cover to an advancing German Army, and later as an escort for Luftwaffe bombers attacking Britain. The lack of range proved to be a major constraint in the second instance. It is well known by now that a Bf 109 taking off from Northern France had about 10 minutes of flying time over London, not nearly enough to battle it out with RAF Spitfires and Hurricanes. What isn’t so well known is that this was when the planes undertook independent fighter sweeps. When tasked with as bomber escorts, the need to fly at sub-optimal altitudes and speeds often increased fuel consumption to the point where the 109s were forced to return to France before the bombers had reached their objectives.

 

Spitfires tasked to carry out offensive fighter sweeps and raids over Northern France in 1941 faced the same issue. The reason Fighter Command didn’t suffer very heavy losses was that the Luftwaffe was by then fighting over Russia. The few fighters left to defend the western front seldom rose up to meet the RAF’s challenges.

 

ARMAMENT

Armament-wise, neither aircraft ever had a clear advantage over the other. But it is still useful to study how the initial designs started off, and how the rapidly changing requirements of a modern air war forced changes to the weapon fit.

Both machines where primarily designed with aerodynamic performance in mind, with armament being a secondary consideration. They therefore made use of thin, tapering wings. These were excellent for speed and turning performance, but bad for firepower. There simply wasn’t any space to mount machine guns (leave alone cannon) in the wings.

The Supermarine Type-300 (an early prototype of what would become the Spitfire) was initially designed to be armed with only two machine guns. The Bf 109 wasn’t very different. The German the aviation ministry (RLM) specified two rifle-calibre (7.92 mm) machine-guns that the biplanes of the mid-30s carried. These were easy enough to concentrate in the nose. Willy Messerschmitt always wanted his fighter to be “a true application of light construction principles”. By mounting the guns in the nose and attaching the cantilever undercarriage to the fuselage rather than the wings, he could make use of a small, simple, low-drag wing that could be detached easily for maintenance and road transport.

Have a look at the fantastic models above here

However, this relevance on a mere two machine-guns was to change. The RAF’s requirements branch came to believe that two machine guns were inadequate to shoot down modern metal-skinned fighters, and in 1935, the RAF specified that it wanted eight machine guns on all new fighters. It was also asserted that this was an interim requirement. Follow-on designs would have to be armed with cannon. This was easy enough to accommodate in the Hurricane’s thick wings. But the Type-300’s thin, tapering wings had to be abandoned in favour of elliptical wings to house the increased armament. The Germans reached similar conclusions in combat over Spain. The Bf 109 would require cannon armament to damage metal airframes.

 

But this was easier said than done. The requirement for increased firepower led to persistent teething troubles with the armament of both aircraft well into their service lives. The Spitfire’s machine guns tended to freeze solid from the cold at high altitudes (this issue also affected Hurricanes). Initially, Fighter Command had Spitfires take off with adhesive tape covering the gunports in order to prevent the condensation from entering and icing the gun barrels. This did not always work. Later, a portion of the engine exhaust was ducted into the wing to heat the guns. This system proved to be mechanically complex and unreliable. It wasn’t until electric heating was introduced that the issue was fully resolved. Integrating 20mm cannon was also a great challenge. The belt that fed rounds to the weapon would frequently jam. The technical issues plaguing the Spitfire 1B proved so problematic that the type was withdrawn from service and replaced by the 1A.

 

Following feedback from pilots of the Condor Legion, Messerschmitt also modified the Bf 109 prototypes with a 20 mm cannon mounted between the engine cylinder banks, firing through the propeller hub. However, the vibration from the cannon was so severe that it proved to be unworkable. This problem was resolved much later in the war. In the meantime, several alternatives were trialled. The Bf 109B utilised an engine-mounted machine gun in place of the cannon. This, too, proved to be problematic. The Bf 109C featured a redesigned wing to accommodate two 7.92 mm machine guns, with ammunition boxes stored in the fuselage. The system worked in tests, but failed under the strain of air combat. The Bf 109D carried four guns – two in the nose and two under the wings. Bf 109E-1s carried the same armament. The E-3 models, though, were equipped with a 20 mm cannon under each wing, installed in two streamlined blisters along with a 60-round ammunition drum. Finally, the issues with the engine-mounted cannon were resolved in the F-4 model, which flew with a 20mm cannon that proved to be very accurate.

 

PILOT FRIENDLINESS AND HANDLING

In terms of ease of operation, there were advantages and shortcomings to both designs. The Spitfire’s bubble canopy and large mirrors offered excellent views and better situational awareness to the pilot. The Bf 109s angular canopy with its thick frame fell short. On the other hand, the Bf 109’s Revi gunsight was far ahead of the early Spitfire’s ring-and-bead type sight. It eliminated parallax errors and made deflection shots more accurate. The aircraft’s engine and propeller controls were also more automated, which reduced pilot workload.

On the flip side, the Bf 109’s small size made the cockpit very cramped. Not only was it uncomfortable, it also restricted the force that pilots could apply on the controls, with obvious effects on flight performance. Post-war testing by the RAF revealed that under certain conditions, the force that pilots could exert on the Bf 109’s control column was only 40% of what they could apply in the Spitfire. In an era when hydraulically boosted controls were not available, this was a serious deficiency. The Spitfire’s two-step rudder pedals also allowed the pilot to raise his feet high during high-G manoeuvring, delaying the onset of blackout. The Bf 109 had no such pedals.

The Bf 109 also suffered from handling challenges, both in the air as well as on the ground. The most critical one was the issue with its undercarriage. There were two major problems with the landing gear design that caused serious losses of Bf 109s on take-off and landing. One was the tendency to ground loop. The Bf 109’s canted undercarriage often caused aircraft on landing runs to suddenly spin around and suffer serious damage if one wheel lost traction. On rough airstrips that were cobbled together in the later stages of the war, this problem was particularly acute.

Secondly, Willy Messerschmitt wanted his aircraft structures to be as light as possible. That structure lacked the strength to endure hard landings. As the Bf 109’s received more powerful engines and armament, it got heavier, which led to increased wing loading and higher landing speeds. That put additional strains on the landing gear. The result was that quite often, even experienced pilots ended up collapsing the undercarriage. In 1939 alone, the Bf 109 fleet suffered 255 landing accidents that resulted in damage to the airframe. The Spitfire, Hurricane, and Fw-190, with their “vertical” landing gear and heavier structures, fared much better.

ABILITY TO UPGRADE

The changing nature of the air war over Europe drove a slew of upgrade programmes for both aircraft. But the Spitfire—with its larger airframe, stronger structure, and superior engine—was better able to support the installation of advanced engines, armour, and heavier armament.

The Spitfire IX, often seen as the ultimate evolution of the type, was able to outclass the Bf 109G as well as the newer Focke-Wulf Fw 190A in combat. Its superlative Merlin 61 engine (powered by 100-octane fuel of US origin) gave it a 110 hp advantage over the DB 605-powered Bf 109G at sea level. But it truly came into its own at high altitude: At 30,000 feet, its two-stage supercharger gave it a whopping 300 hp advantage over its German counterpart. Further, its armament of two 20mm cannon and four 0.303 inch machine guns packed a formidable punch against not just aircraft, but also ground targets.

The Bf 109’s simplicity and light weight, however, proved to be its Achilles heel. Accommodating a more powerful engine, increased armament, new radios, and armour plate within the Bf-109G’s tiny airframe was a major challenge. The aircraft’s small cowling was inadequate for heat dissipation, which made the DB 605 engine prone to overheating and catching fire. Its firepower was only about half of what the Spitfire IX carried: two nose-mounted 7.92mm machine guns in the G-1 variant (upgraded to 13mm guns in the G-5) and one 20mm cannon firing through the propeller hub.

With the steady increase in weight, the Bf-109G’s handling qualities suffered. As the wing loading increased, so did the demands on brute muscle power to actuate the controls. Capt. Eric Brown, a Royal Navy test pilot who evaluated a captured Bf-109G, commented that “in a dive at 400 mph, the controls felt as though they had seized!” The addition of a water-methanol tank—whose contents were injected into the engine to provide a short burst of additional power—adversely affected the centre-of-gravity and made handing unpredictable in some portions of the flight envelope. The uparmed BF-109G-6, often equipped with 20mm or 30mm underwing cannon to attack Allied bombers, proved so sluggish in combat, that its pilots nicknamed it the Kanonenboot (Gunboat).

The larger, structurally stronger Spitfire IX suffered no such problems. Indeed, the powerful Merlin 61 and four-bladed propeller allowed it to outrun, out-turn, and out-climb the Bf-109G. The ‘quantum leap’ in performance that the Spitfire IX achieved over the Bf-109G was never reversed.

Ease of manufacture

This is one area where the Bf 109 comes out the clear winner. The Spitfire’s complex design, coupled with Supermarine’s utter lack of experience with modern production line techniques made Spitfire production problematic. Its elliptical wing proved to be difficult to fabricate. Delays in transferring knowledge and drawings to various subcontractors slowed down production. And the fine tolerances demanded by the design team—not something that British industry was used to—led to quality issues. The company faced major schedule slippages in delivering the initial batch of 310 fighters, and the RAF at one point considered cancelling the order outright. The Bf 109’s transition to production, on the other hand, was very smooth. The RLM was able to have it mass-manufactured without much of a hassle.

This disparity is clearly visible when you look at the numbers. In January 1940, it took 15,000 man-hours to build a Spitfire 1A and 9,000 to build a Bf 109E. By 1942, that gap had only widened. The Bf 109F needed only 4,000 man-hours to build whereas the Spitfire Mk V required 13,000.

 

In a Wehrmacht that had increasingly begun to equip itself with poorly conceived, overly-complicated weapons whose paper performance was never quite realised in the field (*cough* Me-262 *cough*), the Bf 109 stood out as a rare example of German engineering that was cheap, reliable, maintainable, and easy to manufacture—all while delivering superb performance on the battlefield. There’s a reason that more than 34,000 were built despite the Germans’ severe mismanagement of production resources at the strategic level. It remains to this day the third most produced aircraft in the world.

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. 

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. Pre-order The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes here. Save the Hush-Kit blog. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here. Your donations keep this going. Thank you. Our shop is here and our Twitter account here @Hush_Kit. Sign up for our newsletter here:

VERDICT

In the final analysis, it is difficult to declare an overall victor without going into the details of each variant. For the most part, the Bf 109 and Spitfire were both well-matched, with own unique strengths and shortcomings. In the early part of the war, it could be argued that the Bf 109 (E and F variants) held the upper hand over the Spitfire Mk 1A/B and Mk V. But as the war wore on, the Spitfire’s inherently more advanced design, as well as the infusion of US technology (100-octane fuel, Browning machine guns, TR.5043 VHF radios, and so on) gave it a clear advantage over the simpler and lighter Bf 109 that persisted right up to the end.

Mihir Shah is a mechanical engineer and military aviation geek. He has written on Indian military aviation for LiveFist Defence, NewsLaundry, Swarajya Magazine, and others

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. 

          NOW AVAILABLE: The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes, a gorgeous heavily illustrated – and often irreverent- coffee-table book covering the history of aviation 1914 – the present.

          

          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.

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 asked him his opinions on the Chinese H-18/JH-XX bomber concept, a mysterious project with an ambiguous designation, and unknown role, size and status.  Here’s what the article in Popular Mechanics had to say about what they referred to as the:  “While it is no B-2-style flying wing, the JH-XX has plenty of stealth features. The airplane has a flattened appearance, with built-in angles that make the aircraft less susceptible to radar. The air intakes are jagged to reduce their radar signature and placed on top of the aircraft to keep them out of sight to radars operating below the bomber. This suggests the JH-XX is primarily designed as a high-altitude penetrator. The two engine nozzles are buried inside the tail of the aircraft, reducing its rearward radar aspect, and are shielded horizontally by the large horizontal stabilizers. This lowers the bomber’s odds of being detected by infrared search-and-track sensors and infrared-guided missiles. The question is, does the JH-XX’s appearance on the cover of Aviation Knowledge mean that the “less stealthy” philosophy has won? If so, why? The flying wing is pretty much the gold standard for stealth warplanes that don’t have to dogfight, providing maximum stealth for penetrating enemy airspace at the expense of maneuverability. It’s possible that despite China’s great strides in military aviation, it still lags behind the United States in so-called “fly by wire” technology, where planes that are, shall we say “less than aerodynamically ideal,” are flyable because of computers capable of making continuous adjustments to the airplane’s control systems. Another possibility is that China is less confident in stealth as a primary means of aircraft survival and is hedging its bets by picking a bomber with supersonic capability. In 2017, The South China Morning Post reported that Chinese scientists were working on detection systems that used quantum entanglement to locate and track stealthy aircraft, bypassing traditional radars.” And the pictures: So, what do I think?  My initial take on this aircraft was to view it as more of a regional strike aircraft rather than a strategic bomber. This was driven by the impression given by the relatively large size of the cockpit, which suggested something akin to the Su-34. However, that size of airframe is not really capable of delivering the payload-range expected of a strategic bomber. So, how large is the aircraft? And what is the requirement? Looking at strategic bombers these days, it’s worth observing that they are an odd bunch. The US has a splendid collection – the old-school B-52, with 8 engines and a signature the size of several barn doors; the variable-sweep supersonic B-1B; and the hugely expensive B-2 flying wing. This field is expected to continue with the B-21, supported by the venerable B-52, but with the retirement of the B-1B. From Russia we have the Tu-160 Blackjack, which looks like a scaled-up B-1B; the Tu-22M Backfire, which looks a bit like a smaller B-1B’s ugly sister; and (in the old school corner) the always imposing Tu-95. Also, and relevant to the discussion, the Chinese have the Xian H-6, developed from the Tu-16 Badger. It’s worth noting that that some Forces, notably the British and the French, have eschewed the strategic bomber in favour of submarine-based nuclear deterrence and a range of tactical systems.

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

Looking at what you want from a strategic bomber apart from range and payload, the two obvious (and expensive) other attributes might be stealth and high speed. Looking at the aircraft listed above, we can observe the disparity of view that has been taken so far: Aircraft    Subsonic     Supersonic    Stealthy B-52               X                                          Huge signature B-1B                                        X                 Some treatment B-2                 X                                          Very Tu-160                                   X                 Some treatment? Tu-22M                                  X                 No Tu-95            X                                           Huge signature H-6                X                                           No Looking at the list it is interesting to observe that the US approach has ‘one of each’. Its operating concept is presumably based on B-2 and other systems, such as cruise missiles, taking down most ground-based threats (and F-22 taking down air threats) before B-1B or B-52 would be used. The supersonic capability of the B-1B does offer a rapid response capability which has been used to tactical advantage in Afghanistan. The Tu-95 has very long range, but its slow speed and large signature mean that its strength has been the delivery of large and capable stand-off weapons, particularly in the maritime environment. Supersonic capability has been invested in for the B-1B, Tu-22M and B-1B, all of which are variable geometry. I am a little sceptical about the need for, and cost-effectiveness of, supersonic capability. Yes, it can be useful if the aircraft is being used tactically; but these are strategic systems. How effective is dash speed going to be in improving survivability against modern weapons systems? And what price would have to be paid in payload-range if the dash capability were to be used? Stealth is another issue. Once can see that the H-18 design is intended to be stealthy. But in order to be stealthy, weapons have to be carried internally, and this will inevitable increase the size of weapons bays, and the aircraft as a whole. However, there is some trade off because a really stealthy design should be able to operate closer to its targets than a non-stealthy one.

Taking all of the above into consideration, I am assuming the aircraft is essentially a broadly Badger or Tu22M-sized H-6 replacement; and is reasonably stealthy. It is interesting that (I understand) the aircraft lost out to the H-20, which has been stated to be a flying wing. This suggests that in the selection process, stealth characteristics have been emphasised, and that the H-20 may truly be intended as a stealthy penetrating system, capable of threatening the highest value, and most protected, targets, like the B-2. In which case, given the likely high cost, it may be that there is also a requirement for a tactical offensive strike system – perhaps delivered through the J-20. One thing is clear – I do not believe a B-2-like flying wing H-20 could be supersonic as it would not be possible to trim the aircraft. Taking the overall configuration first, it’s plausible for a supersonic tactical strike aircraft. But one should perhaps expect a strategic bomber to have a higher aspect ratio for more efficient cruise. It’s quite a well packaged shape, with plenty of volume in the fuselage for both fuel and internal weapons bays. The combination of the under-fuselage shaping and the shielding of the exhausts on the upper surface by canted tail fins is a powerful nod to minimising radar signature for at least ground-based radars. Is the H-18 supersonic or not? In general, I would expect a strategic aircraft to have a somewhat higher aspect-ratio wing, so the planform may be a compromise to deliver a supersonic dash capability. Additionally, the aircraft appears to have a relatively thin wing section, also suggesting, as indicated in the Popular Mechanics article, that it may have a supersonic capability. I do wonder about the utility of the forward fuselage chine and wing strakes, which seem to be aimed at more manoeuvre capability than would be required for a strategic platform. I am a bit ambivalent on whether the H-18 is supersonic, however. Firstly, I’m not sure that a supersonic speed is essential to deliver a strategic bombing capability. Secondly, the other supersonic bombers – the B-1B, Tu-22M and Tu-160, all use variable geometry to allow take-off at high weights with an unswept wing, and use wing sweep to reduce wave drag when supersonic. With sufficiently powerful engines, the design could be supersonic, but I wonder why this would be considered necessary, and what the impact would be on field performance, range and payload.. Will it be stealthy?  Reasonably so, assuming appropriate treatments are used, but not as stealthy as the state-of-the-art, because the design does not appear to have the same level of edge alignment and geometry management. Why is this design thought to have lost out to a flying wing? I guess the first consideration would be the view taken on technical risk. The H-18 may have been a lower risk concept that has lost out because Chinese fly-by-wire capability has matured. Also, the operational requirement may have been focussed on penetrating (stealthy) strategic capability and long range, both of which might favour a stealthier flying wing solution, incompatible with supersonic performance. On the engine installation and intakes – these are pretty unconventional at first sight. And yet, I can’t see anything to reject them out of hand, particularly for a subsonic strategic system. The engine installation looks similar to that of the YF-23, but with the intakes above, rather than below the wing. In normal flight, there’s no reason why they shouldn’t work OK, provided the diverter-less intake bumps ahead of the actual inlet have been well designed to shepherd the boundary layer away. Also, there appears to be adequate room for the inlet duct to be sinuous, dropping down within the fuselage before coming back up to the inlet face, thus screening the front face of the engine. So, with appropriate treatments, they should reduce head-on signature. What about manoeuvre? Well, in manoeuvring flight, the H-18 should be quite good, as the moderate wing sweep and the aspect ratio should give sustained manoeuvre capability. Looking at the location of the intakes relative to the change in sweep in the chine, strake and leading edge, I’d expect strong leading-edge vortices, but passing well outside the intakes. Mind you, the case for high manoeuvre capability is probably limited for a stealthy strike platform. What weapons would it carry? Whatever it needs to, I guess, as long as it can be carried internally. These days, precision strike is more what you are looking for than the nuclear solution. A hypersonic long-range ship killer? Conventional precision guided munitions? Stand-off strike capability by air-launched cruise missile? My guess would be all of the above. External weapons could still be carried, either in a permissive environment, or, perhaps, for maritime strike, where large weapons might be launched from below the radar horizon.

THE FOLLOWING IS AN APRIL FOOL’S HOAX AND IS NOT TRUE

Western observers stunned as Russian Ministry of Defence shares evidence that a US spyplane was shot down over the USSR during the Cold War. The shoot-down of the seemingly invulnerable jet, capable of flight at over 2,000mph, has not been acknowledged by either side until now.

Yesterday, at a press conference in Moscow, Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation spokesperson Alexei Obmanov shared images and documents that conclusively prove a US SR-71 Blackbird spyplane was downed close to a remote Siberian village in 1983. According to Obmanov, the aircraft was intercepted by a pair of Soviet Air Defence Forces (PVO) MiG-31 interceptors. The intruding US aircraft was tracked for 93 miles (150 km), and five radio warnings issued, before the Soviet aircraft opened fire. Three missiles were fired, with the second two hitting and destroying the American aircraft. The two aircrew successfully ejected from the aircraft. The wreckage, which was recovered from the Siberian village of Durakovo, was sent to the Gromov Flight Research Institute 25 miles (40 km) south-east of Moscow for analysis. 

Cover up

According to Obmanov, a frantic diplomatic effort following the crash saw both sides agree to not publicly acknowledge the incident, an agreement that lasted 35 years. It was feared by both sides that the incident, which occurred at the height of Cold War tensions, could be potentially inflammatory. According to Ben Shearer, from the ANOITO Defence Research Institute, the deal was mutually beneficial as it also cloaked the alleged ‘Submarine 545 incident’. ‘Submarine 545’ refers to a long-denied incident of a Soviet submarine exercise that went badly wrong, and may have inadvertently released radioactive material off the coast of New York in the early 1980s (though no firm proof of the submarine incident has come to light). 

The pilot and reconnaissance systems officer (who remain unnamed) of the downed SR-71 were returned to the United States in 1984 in exchange for two Soviet diplomats arrested for espionage in 1975.

According to one US source we spoke to, “This is stunning news… a Blackbird loss has never been acknowledged. As stunning as the loss itself is the mutual secrecy arrangements…I am now wondering what else is out there.” In a time of mutual distrust between Washington and Moscow it is clear that the revelation is intended to embarrass the US. The US Department of Defense has not commented on the revelation. 

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

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

TO AVOID DISAPPOINTMENT PRE-ORDER YOUR COPY NOW

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

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

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

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

FEATURING

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

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

Rewards levels include these packs of specially produced trump cards.

Pre-order your copy now right here  

I can only do it with your support.

Reading about some of the over-priced nonsense the military buys is maddening – but could you make better choices? In the third part of our series we burdened Thomas Newdick with the daunting task of re-equipping the air arms of a notionally oil-rich Ireland. Would his notional air force be combat effective? Good value for money? Most importantly, would it be stylish? 

You may support this blog by donating, we’ll then be able to give you much more. Recommended donation £15. 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. 

Air Force Procurement

Head of procurement: Thomas Newdick

Occupation: Editor of Air Forces Monthly

Nation to defend: Ireland

Year: 2018. In this thought experiment Ireland has found massive oil reserves. Oil rich and with a new government, Ireland massively expands their previously modest air force.

Training

Glider trainer: Not necessary 

Twin-engined prop trainer: Embraer Phenom (12)

Jet/Turboprop/LIFT trainer: Pilatus PC21 (100),  Yakovlev Yak-130 (60)

Tankers & Transport

Light tactical: Modernised Antonov An–2 Colt (40), Alenia C-27Js  Spartans (18)

Medium: Ilyushin Il-76MF (20) (re-engined with PS90)

Strategic transport: Boeing C-17 Globemaster III (12)

Tanker: Ilyushin Il-78 (re-engined with PS90) (12) – also used as Aer Lingus freighters 

Hack: Aforementioned An-2s

VVIP transport:  Convair 880 (1) (in emerald green scheme with silver shamrock on the top)

Presidential/Governmental Transport: Lockheed JetStar (5)

(with modern engines)

Other: None

Combat

(specify chosen munitions)

Fighter/Attack: Rafale M (140) with Meteor, Python 5, Hammer, Brimstone, ASMPA, SCALP, Kh-31ARM,

Attack, SEAD and long range interception: Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor (48), AIM-120, AIM-9X, SDB and JDAM

Close Air Support: Northrop Grumman B-1B Lancer (31) with all weapons integrated on USAF examples

Fixed-wing COIN and FAC: Super Tucano (24)

CSAR: Sikorsky HH-60G Pave Hawk (12)

Other: None

Rotorcraft

Trainer:Kazan Ansat (24)

Light transport: Mi-35 updated by ATK (36)

Medium transport: 24 Kamov Ka-29 

Heavy transport: Mil Mi-26s (12)

Attack: AH-64E Apache Guardian (48)

Search & rescue/ASW: Kamov Ka-27 (48)

Other: 

Intelligence & surveillance

AWACS/AEW:: Northrop Grumman E-2 Hawkeye (10) (Joint force Air Corps/Navy)

ASW: EADS CASA C-295 (12)

Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR): GlobalEye (12) (ON ORDER)

Maritime Patrol: MQ-4 Triton (4)

Reconnaissance: Rafale M force is equipped with TALIOS

Other: none

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

Display teams

Fixed-wing jet: Silver Swallows with Fouga CM.170 Magister (4), Rafale Trio (one green, one white, and one orange)

Rotorcraft: Alouette III

Historical flight: Supermarine Seafire

Carrier aircraft

Based on three carrier. Assets pooled with Air Corps.

Fighter/attack: Rafale M (fleet shared with Air Corps)

AEW: Northrop Grumman E-2D Hawkeye (10)

Tanker: Rafale are equipped with buddy-buddy tanks 

Helicopters: Pooled Helix fleet (see above)

Other: None

Misc Aircraft category

Air ambulance/police: Airbus Helicopters H135 (20)

Mountain rescue: Sikorsky H-60 Blackhawk (12)

Coastguard: Sikorsky S-92 (10)

Air defence systems  S-400 Triumf, 2K22 Tunguska

Air force defence regiment

Camouflage: East German rain

Standard weapon: SIG SG 550

Sidearm: Škorpion vz. 61 

Light support weapon: M249 light machine gun (LMG)

Heavy machine-gun: .50 cal Browning M2-HQCB

Sniper rifle: Sako TRG

Vehicles: Miscellaneous

Our verdict

Cost effectiveness & sense

The new Irish Air Corps/Navy Joint Force is the most powerful and best equipped air force in Europe. The vast prize tag is paid for by the new oil money. For Ireland’s current defence posture the procurement makes little sense, so it is likely this heralds the coming of a New Ireland, a powerful player on the world stage. It is extremely effective but very expensive, quite what the threat that merits this huge military investment is anyone’s guess — certainly a strong enough force to keep Iceland on its toes.

58/100

Political considerations

The Irish government have made some very surprising moves! Spurning British or British-involved aircraft was perhaps to be expected, but turning to Russia was a dramatic surprise. The Ilyushin transport and tanker fleet, combined with the large rotorcraft and trainer order show an unlikely new international relationship. The large US deals ties fit comfortably with Ireland’s long friendship with the United States. Becoming both an operator of intercontinental heavy bombers and ordering three supercarriers may alarm other countries in Europe.

38/100

Aesthetic appeal 

The luxury Convair 880 selection was brilliant as was the JetStar fleet, the return of the charismatic Magister simply divine. Scoring highly in this round.

83/100

Realism

The reopening of the F-22 production line for 48 aircraft? The Russian equipment? The B-1Bs? Utterly and wonderfully bananas. But not impossible

40/100

Imagination

A strong score here. Going from from a handful of PC-9s, the Irish Air Corps is now significantly more powerful than its neighbour Britain.

87/100

Total score: 306/500

Air Forces Monthly is the World’s No. 1 Military aviation Magazine You may support this blog by hitting the donating, we’ll then be able to give you much more. Recommended donation £15. 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.  Follow my vapour trail on Twitter: @Hush_kit Guide to surviving aviation forums here If this article interests you, support Hush-Kit.net with a donation (buttons above and below). If this goes well we’ll be able to give you much more! Recommended donation £15. Many thanks for helping to keep us impartial and independent.  You may also enjoy A B-52 pilot’s guide to modern fighters, Flying and fighting in the Lightning: a pilot’s guide, Interview with a Super Hornet pilot, Trump’s Air Force Plan, 11 Worst Soviet Aircraft, 10 worst US aircraft, and 10 worst British aircraft

Which aircraft do you fly and with which unit, how many do you hours do you have on type? I fly the Eurofighter Typhoon as the Executive Officer on II(AC) Sqn and have 860 hours on type. What were you first impressions of flying the Typhoon? The thrust that the Typhoon has is ferocious, something that I don’t personally think you ever get used to though the G Force is brutal. The fact that you can ‘back stick’ the controls and know that the aircraft will limit the G means that you can pull straight to 9 G and trust me – that hurts every single time!  Which three words best describe the Typhoon? Agile, Powerful, Lethal Do the canards obscure the view down? Only slightly, but if you need to see beneath them then you can just roll upside down!

How useful is the helmet and how often is it used? What is it used for? The Helmet Mounted Symbology System (HMSS) is exceptional and very useful for all sorts of war fighting. It can be used to see any target or friendly aircraft by using the same symbology that is in the HUD. It is effectively an extension of the HUD which means that you have all the information required wherever you are looking. For Air to Ground missions you have the ability to simply look outside at where a target is then cue the weapon system to look there with the Litening Designator Pod. Due to this capability it means that after identifying a target, you can drop a Paveway IV, 500-lb precision weapon on it in seconds. What was your most notable mission and why? Please see diary entry  Which new piece of equipment would you most like to see integrated on Typhoon? Soon we will have the Brimstone missile integrated onto the Typhoon which will provide a precision targeting capability with reduced collateral effects. Storm Shadow and Meteor are also just around the corner. What are the best and worst things about the Typhoon? The best thing about the Typhoon is it’s Specific Excess Power (SEP) and the worst would be how quickly you burn fuel when you are in reheat! Tell me something I don’t know about the aircraft?  Ha ha, no can’t do because that would most likely be classified! I have been told that nothing can out-climb the Typhoon, would you agree? Absolutely, the SEP of the Typhoon is unmatched. What’s the best way to defeat an F-16 in within visual range fight? How difficult is it as an opponent? The Typhoon is a superior fighter within visual range though we must always remember that we are not fighting the aircraft but the pilot. Which aircraft have you trained against, which was the hardest opponent and why? I fought a Top Gun instructor out of Nellis Air Force base and he was in an F-16. I was not very experienced at the time though managed to defeat him – he did, however, make it very difficult!

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

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. 

What’s your favourite piece of equipment on the Typhoon and why? The HMSS because it really makes you feel part of the aircraft. It is awesome when everything is working in harmony. It has been said that Typhoon is less proficient at High Alpha fighting than the Hornet and Flanker/Fulcrum series, is this true and, if so, is it an issue in the close-in fight? A consequence of high Alpha is low speed. Any fighter pilot worth their salt knows that speed is life in close combat. Typhoon’s excess power coupled with +9G ‘carefree handling’ gives us the advantage. On exercise, Typhoon has repeatedly demonstrated that it can exploit this advantage against the Hornet, ‘Fulcrum’ and ‘Flanker’. What is the greatest myth about the aircraft? Not sure of any myths to be honest ….. What should I have asked you? What is it like to fly a Performance Departure where you go straight up on take off? It is a bizarre feeling every time we carry out this departure from the airfield, though it always reminds me of the raw power of the aircraft.  How good is the Typhoon at super-cruising and how often does this occur? The Typhoon is very effective at super-cruising and it does often occur as the tactical situation dictates. Does Typhoon offer anything not provided by the teen series? In my opinion, we all have different things that we can bring to the fight and that is why we all work together as a team! Has the RAF enough Typhoons? (personal opinion) Our resources are very stretched due to commitments to Operations and engagements all over the world so, yes, I certainly think that we could do with more Typhoons to match these broad commitments.

If you wish to, you may read thousands of hushkit articles for free — you are most welcome. However, we are dangerously behind our funding targets. You can help this site to survive by donating any amout you like. Even the equivalent to the cost of a coffee a month can be tremondously helpful. 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.

Please tell me about your book  My mother committed suicide in April 2010 and ever since then I’ve made it my life’s mission to combat the stigma attached to mental health. People should always feel confident to speak to anyone about their own mental health and realise that their mental health should be regarded in exactly the same way as their physical health. I joined forces with a friend of mine, sports psychologist Don MacNaughton who I met after I broke my leg in a ski race and decided to write our book, “Speed of Sound, Sound of Mind” to help raise awareness of mental health by writing about our own experiences. I’ve included photos of the front and back cover of the book which includes a better description of the book. You can either buy the book from Amazon in a Kindle / electronic version at or if anybody would like a paperback then you can follow us on Facebook where you can message me and I will personally send you a copy.

Wing Commander Irfan Masum (Rtd) flew the Sabre in the Pakistan Air Force. In his second interview he shares his dramatic experiences of a low-level Sabre mission that went catastrophically wrong, and his rebellious response to an order to eject.

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. 

“The time I brought a badly damaged F-86F back to base happened during my fighter conversion course, but the details come rushing back, just as if it happened today. It was perhaps the most bizarre experience of my life. A three-ship formation with Flying Officer Tariq Awan in the lead for a low-level mission; No 2 on his wing was my instructor, Flt Lt Farooq Zaman, and I was detailed as No 3 to fly low-level battle formation with the lead. An uneventful take-off was accomplished with a righthand turn out of the traffic area. After 150 degrees, the course was set for the first leg, gradually descending to 250 feet AGL (distance from the ground). At the time of setting course, the instructor had already joined the lead in the wingman position on his right side (somewhat closer than 600 feet). Was I in the correct battle formation (element lead) position at the time? Of course not, I was lagging behind a little. Not wanting my instructor to fire a volley of verbal shots at me, I accelerated to 420 knots to catch up and get in to position. Our low level speed for the mission was 360 knots, so I was a good 60 knots faster to make up the lag.  Approaching the correct position I retarded the throttles to match my speed with the other formation members. Just as soon as I retarded the throttle there was a loud noise and shaking of the aircraft. The Sabre was rattling so badly that I could not read any instrument when I looked inside the cockpit to ascertain what had gone wrong. I didn’t know what had happened, but I knew instantly that I had to get out of the aircraft.

Reflex memory reminded me – ‘punch, pull and eject’ — the actions drilled into us every morning in the pre-flight Emergency Session. ‘Punch’ meant jettisoning the drop tanks – and the extra weight of their fuel. ‘Pull’ required pulling up to gain as much height as possible. And ‘Eject’ meant carrying out the ejection sequence.

The Sabre ejection sequence was far from ideal. The seat could not be fired through the canopy, as was the case with Martin Baker seats. Therefore, you had to fire the canopy first. This meant keeping your head down as the canopy would slide backwards to depart the airframe. After this, you had to sit straight with the head against the head rest and feet pulled back and then squeeze the trigger which would fire the rocket in the seat to throw the pilot up cleanly away from the aircraft.

Hence, I started my reflex actions of punch, pull and eject. I punched (ejected) the drop tanks, pulled the nose up to gain height and lowered my head and got hold of the canopy firing trigger – for which I had to leave the stick for that moment. But as soon as left the stick, the Sabre rolled rather rapidly to the left. Within no time I was past the 90 degrees bank and still rolling. This forced me to leave the trigger and grab the stick again. I had to fight the Sabre hard to bring it up-right again. Once upright and somewhat in control, I realized that the Sabre was not going to fall out of the sky as I had thought it would. Gosh!! I must get help from my instructor. So I radioed him, “Papa Leader, Papa 3”, there was no modulation in my transmitter as no voice came out from me. That pretty much summarises my condition, – completely chocked throat, scared to death and trembling. I tried again and this time a squeak came out which I am sure no one could have deciphered it. Taking a deep breath, I yelled into the mike – or almost. Leader heard me but could not locate me as I was already much higher than him. I told him that something is wrong the plane. He advised me to keep flying straight and level and stay calm – and that he will locate me and join up.

Next he asked me to survey the outside structure of my wings etc to see if there is any damage from a bird hit. I looked right and left and did not see any abnormality and told him so.

“He joined up on my right wing and told me that everything was fine on that side  After moving to the left, his first call was a far less reassuring, ‘Oh shit!’. That scared me even more and I most hesitantly looked left. I was completely horrified to see that the left wing was cut in half from the wing-root all the way to the tip!”

“He joined up on my right wing and told me that everything was fine on that side. After moving to the left, his first call was a far less reassuring, “Oh shit!”. That scared me even more and I most hesitantly looked left. I was completely horrified to see that the left wing was cut in half from the wing-root all the way to the tip! There was no leading edge  and no slats. The drop tank, which I thought I had successfully ‘punched’, was still hanging under the wing with fuel gushing out of it. How could such extensive damage have taken place? Now was not the time to answer this question. I was having difficulty keeping my wings level. I had deflected the stick fully to the right and shoved in the right rudder too to fly straight and level. My instructor made me climb to 18,000 feet to do a controllability check to test the minimum controllable speed. That speed would determine a return and a landing was possible.  

As we reduced the speed to 195 knots, the Sabre rolled out of control to the left. Recovering from that roll was extremely hard. Even with full right deflection of the stick and the rudder, it was slow to straighten out, and lost altitude rapidly during the recovery. If I remember correctly our flare out speeds was some 125 knots and so, my instructor decided that we could not land and must carry out a planned ejection.  F/L Farooq started explaining the planned ejection sequence to me, and it went something like this:

1. Irfan, on my command you will lower your head and fire the canopy.
2. You will then assume correct posture i.e. sit straight, head against the head rest and withdraw your feet and pull the ejection trigger. Never mind if the plane rolls to the left, we have plenty of height.
3. Since we are below 14,000 feet, rest of the sequence will be automatic till you will find yourself hanging by the parachute. Make sure you steer to clear area for touching down and make the fall correctly, falling off to your side (if ejection was done above 14,000 feet the seat would free fall till 14,000 feet and then the automatic sequence would start).

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

I was fine till this stage. But what was explained to me next completely discomposed me. Here is what my instructor explained:

Irfan, if you find yourself tumbling in the seat be sure that the automatic system of the ejection has not functioned. In that case you will have to do the following manually:

1. While you are tumbling you will have to open the seatbelt yourself.
2. Then kick the seat away with your feet to separate from it.
3. Find the ‘D’ ring of the parachute on your chest-strap and pull it.
4. You will have to pull it to its full extent or else it will not release the small chute, which will then pull the main shoot and deploy it.

While the instructor was briefing me the manual ejection procedure, I was mentally visualising it as a live event – you know, like a slow-motion video. I saw myself tumbling in the seat. I saw myself struggling to find the seat-belt buckle – while still tumbling and my arms and hands flying all over. I saw myself kicking free of the seat while my whole body is fluttering with the gushing air pressure all around me. I saw myself, desperately, getting hold of the ‘D’ ring and trying to pull it with all my might. I saw myself still tumbling and waiting for the chute to open and stabilise my fall. That this slow motion sequence of events was going to take place scared me no end. “Am I not safer inside the cockpit, than throwing myself into the empty space so far above the earth?” I asked myself.  The answer I got was a firm, ‘yes’. So, I decided, in my mind, that I would not eject and attempt to land instead. But I could not convey this decision to my instructor.

Papa 3, eject

The episode, till this point in time, was taking place while we were on the manual frequency allocated to my instructor. Now was the time to let the Base and ATC know of our intentions. So, I was asked to switch to Channel 1 — the radio frequency station of the Air Traffic Controller.  F/L Farooq calmly narrated, briefly, what damage had taken place to the ATC, and advised the controller that we were going to execute a planned ejection in such and such area. He did not fail to mention that he had gone over the ejection procedure with me and that I was ready to undertake the ejection. He also asked for the rescue helicopter to get airborne and head towards the area where the ejection was going to take place to recover me.

So, we are now on the ATC channel, which is recorded. The most dreaded call of my life came crackling through the radio: “Papa 3, Eject”. I was snuggly numb, seated in the cockpit, and did not respond. Second call came through, “Papa 3 start the ejection procedure”. My silence must have been eerie. The third call was stern to say the least, “Papa 3 go manual and check!”. I quickly changed to the manual frequency beyond the reach of the listening ATC.

Ejection rejection 

“What seems to be the problem?” was a hard question to answer, but I plucked up the courage to explain that I did not want to eject. “You know the aircraft and you can not stay in the air for the rest of your life” was the funny response from my instructor.  I was scared of the ejection – but I could not bring myself to say that. Instead, I shared my plan. It was a simple one. I will go for landing maintain speed of 210 knots – some 15 knots above the speed where the Sabre would get out of control. I will flare really close to the runway surface still at 210 knots, then retard the throttle to idle. When the speed will drop to 195 knots the left wing will fall and the left gear will immediately touch the runway, followed by the right gear. Later, if I can not stop the aircraft, I will engage the barrier. I thought it was good plan. However, it was shredded to pieces by F/L Farooq Zaman: gear lowering at that speed had never been tested and there is no knowing what how the change of the airflow with gears down will affect controllability; Flaps might get twisted if you try and lower them at that speed or might not extend at all; Both main tyres will burst on touch down because of excess speed on touch down. Thirdly, you will burn the brakes while trying to stop on the runway with that kind of touch down speed and cause a fire. Besides, he could not allow me to take a chance, especially on the approach, if the speed drops to 195 knots. I would have neither the time or the altitude to eject. Hence, you have to eject. I stood firm in carrying out my plan and conveyed to him that I am ready to take the chances, but I will not eject.

Back on the ATC frequency, F/L Farooq Zaman conveyed our plan to the ATC and was very specific in stating that Papa 3 does not want to eject in spite of having been explained the perils that lie in attempting to land.

A frightening approach 

As we started our descent for the approach I realised I was trembling. I was tired from holding the full deflection of the stick and the rudder to the rightside required to keep wings level. Also, I was mindful of the fact that I had very little margin available to turn right, so I must not allow myself to drift off the centreline on the approach and not have enough control input to correct it. My total focus was on the speed. I recall that I kept reminding myself aloud to keep speed 210 knots — 210 knots  — 210 knots. Time to lower the gears – speed 210 kts. My instructor, who was in close formation on my right wing during the chase down, confirmed that all three gears seemed down — and locked; I confirmed the same with three green indication lights. Phew, that went alright. My instructor was talking me down every step of the way. Papa 3 don’t lower flaps – can’t afford to disrupt the airflow or cause further damage.  That was fine with me.

Still 210 knots, good. Entering the threshold area, I got another reminder not to retard the throttles till I was instructed by him. Completing the flare, the call to retard throttles came after what seemed like an eternity after the flare. I really can’t recall when the touch down took place. All I knew was that I was on the runway and belting down towards the barrier. Breaking hard didn’t seem to be slowing me enough. The Sabre did not have a drag chute to slow the plane as other fighters did. With trembling legs and feet I did not let go of the brakes and managed to stop before engaging the barrier. Tyres did not burst. Brakes did not catch fire. I did not engage the barrier. Once the ATC spotted me stationary on the runway, it asked me to taxi forward and clear the runway at the end. No way I was going to do that. Didn’t have the energy. With a short call of ‘negative’ I switched off the engine. By this time all the crash tenders had surrounded me and the fire marshal was climbing up to the cockpit with an axe in hand.  Silly of me to think that he had fatal intensions with that axe. He actually had to rescue me in case the canopy wouldn’t open  Fortunately, he didn’t have to use it. While this ordeal left me completely sapped of energy to even get out of the cockpit on my own strength, what I feared most was disciplinary action against me with the thought of getting suspended from fighter flying was bothering me the most.

Off the hook? 

I was taken in the ambulance by the Flight Surgeon to the hospital, where they took my blood for testing.  While I was still there, my instructor arrived and took me in the crew van straight back to my room in the Officer’s Mess.

He told me to go to sleep and not to open the door for anyone or answer any phone calls. I knew there was trouble in store for me in the days to come.  However, the next day when I reported to the Squadron, all seemed well, though a technical investigation had been ordered. I wasn’t asked to give any statement. My instructor had already done that being the Formation Leader and Instructor. I saw my name on the flying schedule, which meant that I was off the hook. How F/L Farooq Zaman managed to shield me from any negative fall-out remains a mystery to this day.

Urgent request: If you wish to see more articles like this in the future, please donate here. Your donations, how ever big or small, keep this going. Thank you. 

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.