“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.” -as Mark Twain never said

Will the F-35 revolutionise warfare, or is there a fundamental flaw in the way this aircraft and its cutting edge technologies will be deployed? Henry Cobb believes that there is something very wrong at the heart of the F-35 concept that will severely limit the world’s biggest weapons programme. 

The United States’ military doesn’t want a fair fight. “Rather, we have to maintain a joint
force that has the capability and credibility to assure our allies and partners, deter aggression and overmatch any potential adversary.” Put simply, it wishes to scare its potential enemies and if need be, beat anyone.

Leaving aside the question of whether the US should try to maintain military supremacy, it’s interesting to notice a particular trend that has been going on US military thinking since its birth. During the American Civil War and World War II the United States achieved this ‘overmatch’ (an American word) largely through numerical superiority- but in both conflicts introduced new technologies that provided a temporary military advantage. The USS Monitor rendered all the wooden fleets of her day obsolete in one battle, and while the nuclear bomb has been considered the wonder weapon of the second World War, radar and computing played much bigger roles in the Allied victory.

Save the Hush-Kit blog. This site is in peril, we are far behind our funding targets. Our site is absolutely free and we have no advertisements. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here. 

The Allied powers’ advantage in radar provided a tactical advantage in air and anti-submarine combat, while their early computers broke Axis powers cryptography for strategic advantage.  Still, it was the American head-start in nuclear weapons that provided the ‘First Offset’ to the perceived Soviet battlefield numerical advantage. In this sense, the word ‘offset’ means a counter to diminish the opposing force.

As with iron-hulled warships, radar systems, and computers, potentially hostile powers noted these advantages and copied them. Though technologies are rarely the creation of one nation alone, the US has often been the first to develop technologies to the point of practicality. USS Monitor was not the first Ironclad (a ship using metal armour), the first was French – but it was the first to be used in combat.

Deputy Secretary of Defense Bob Work defined the Pentagon’s current ‘Second Offset’ strategy as attack with precision guided weapons that have the same effect on enemy forces as the First Offset’s potential use of nuclear weapons – without crossing the nuclear threshold. He acknowledges that the Second Offset is running out of time because hostile forces have copied and applied these techniques and counters to American advantages, but he hasn’t outlined a comprehensive plan to replace it.

Dan Gouré, Vice President of the Lexington Institute, noted that “second offset strategy relied on several key technologies – stealth, precision guidance for aircraft and weapons and information networks – and a new strategy of deep attack to counter the threat from massed Soviet mechanized forces”, but has called the Third Offset a smokescreen that lacks substance.

We gave a military analyst a trillion pounds and told him to have fun, here are the results

Too much faith in the Lightning

Bob Work has said that the ‘big idea’ for his Third Offset “is human-machine collaboration and combat teaming”, central to this is the F-35. But his faith in the F-35 to be a “war winner … because it is using the machine to help the human make better decisions” is sadly misplaced.

The F-35 Lightning II has “the most powerful and comprehensive integrated sensor package of any fighter aircraft in history“. These sensors gather far more information than the pilot could hope to grasp and therefore the 513th Electronic Warfare Squadron of the USAF hosts the United States Reprogramming Laboratory to update the lookup tables that drive the F-35’s sensor fusion, producing a simplified view of the battlefield
that the pilot can handle.

This automatic sensor fusion is intended to provide the situational awareness that has traditionally been provided by a backseater radar /electronic warfare operator. And so long as the Reprogramming Lab geeks faithfully anticipate and properly program the lookups into the computers this system will never tire or overlook any threat they’ve been programmed to detect. Even better, the F-35 is designed to fight in flights of up to four fighters which not only automatically share information but actually perform distributed sensor fusion to use all the sensors on all of the four aircraft together to detect threats too subtle for the sensors of any one of the aircraft to find on its own.

However this distributed sensor fusion doesn’t work.

The blind men and the elephant

The old Indian story of ‘the blind men and the elephant’ tells of a group of blind men who touch an elephant to learn what it is like. Each one feels a different individual part. They then compare notes and learn that they are in complete disagreement – the man who has felt its tail believes it to be like a snake, the man who felt the tusk believes it to be a long sharp bony animal and so on.

The flight of F-35s suffers from the ‘blind men and an elephant’ problem. Each fighter forms its own view of the target and they fail to reconcile these distinct views together.

This is assumed to be a minor software glitch that could be rectified if only a little more programming effort is thrown at the problem. The actual error lies in the flawed development model that assumes that the Reprogramming Lab can anticipate all battlefield situations and vacuum up the fog of war with a little more software effort and a block upgrade of the computers in the entire fleet every four years.

ALIS in wonderland 

“Well, in our country,” said Alice, still panting a little, “you’d generally get to somewhere else—if you run very fast for a long time, as we’ve been doing.”

“A slow sort of country!” said the Queen. “Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!”

-Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking-Glass

The science fiction writer Vernor Vinge in his novel ‘Rainbows End‘ used the ‘Red Queen’s Race’  as an analogy for the struggle between encouraging technological development and protecting the world from new weapons technologies. A race where if you run fast enough, you get nowhere.

But surely the United States can at least keep ahead of hostile nations that don’t have the resources to match us in a red queen’s race? Yes, the Russian and Chinese 5th generation fighters will never catch up to the constantly improving F-35, but outside of an ‘Invasion America’ scenario they don’t have to match the Americans plane to plane. The F-35 will more likely to be called to attack an integrated air defense network than act to defend one. When operating over enemy territory American stealth aircraft will be subject to detection by lower frequency radars whose longer wavelengths require radars too large to be carried by tactical aircraft.

Hiding in lightning

But at least the F-35 will alert its pilot when it is being tracked by a lower frequency radar so he can take evasive action? Perhaps not. As an example: consider the radio frequency signature of natural lightning, or sferics. The F-35 sensors surely include a lightning detector function, but the programmers must consider this as a weather, not weapon or hostile sensor, warning. Therefore, to counter the F-35-  build a bi-static  radar that uses fake sferic radar pulses. (A bistatic radar’s two transmitters are stationary relative to each other, so two radars in different aircraft flying steadily can be used to form a bistatic set).

The F-35 will robotically filter out every pulse and never bother to track down the transmitter. These low-frequency signals deliver target tracks insufficient for weapons targeting (but can put fighters in the right general part of the sky to use more accurate passive sensors using infra-red), but stealth aircraft are much less stealthy against lower frequencies.

These fake sferics will have encrypted codes as frequency and time band gaps in their signals to distinguish them (for the hostile forces at least) from natural events and to act as a data channel to guide silent running defending stealth fighters near enough to track the F-35s by infra-red.

(As as interesting aside, the very first practical application of radar goes back to 1895, when Alexander Popov, a physics instructor from a Imperial Russian Navy school, developed an apparatus using a coherer tube for detecting distant lightning. Britain’s 1920s radar effort also started with lightning detection)

If this article interests you, support Hush-Kit.net with a donation (buttons above and below).

Once such a system is fielded the Reprogramming Lab geeks will work feverishly to distinguish the artificiality of these signals from the natural phenomena and will eventually produce a working patch that will be ready just as the hostile forces ready their next trick. This innate weakness of the F-35 comes from it being trapped in a Second
Offset development model (a model upgrades happen slowly). 

How did the United States go from fielding the only IR air to air missile to merely being about tied with the best? The Europeans, Russians and Chinese have copied from the Sidewinder. This is why the Second Offset is no longer delivering an enduring offsetting advantage. And if the F-35 remains on the existing Second Offset path the United States will actually fall behind hostile forces.
Well, consider the Sidewinder missile. It started with a brilliant idea for how to construct an inexpensive and reliable infra-red seeker and tie this into a basic guidance system. While the initial version had major restrictions on its tactical deployment, the latest AIM-9X is one of the best infra-red air to air missiles in the world. The latest Sidewinder is so good that our top fighters like the F-22 have only just caught up with capabilities such as high off-boresight* shots, a capability long possessed by US Navy Super Hornets, and European fighters with their IRIS-T and ASRAAM.

* (the ability to launch  missiles at extreme angles to the side, or in some case even backwards)

The problem is the Second Offset Development model, which is:

* Designers have a concept for the hardware and software for a weapon system.
* Prototype hardware and software is produced and tested in laboratory conditions.
* Equipment is mass produced and fielded.
* Operational real world experience is sent back to the designers to create the next block upgrade.

This is why the Second Offset is no longer delivering an enduring advantage. And if the F-35 remains on the existing Second Offset path the United States will actually fall behind (potentially) hostile forces.

Won’t Work’s “human-machine collaboration and combat teaming” save the
F-35? Not if it continues to be used as a purely tactical collaboration. The labs develop the hardware and software, the sensors on the fighter detect (or not) hostile forces and the pilot responds. What the pilot learns in her sorties is then shared slowly through the unit and service levels before eventually making its way back to the Reprogramming Labs for the next block upgrade years later. This is really no different than the F-22, F-117, F-15, F-4, etc. We haven’t improved our procedures and so the rest of the world has had a chance to catch up.

The US hasn’t improved its model for fielding improvements and so the rest of the world has had a chance to catch up, by copying from our systems and on occasion downloading US specifications.

This one way flow of information in the Second Offset development model is a lot like the waterfall software development model, and is years too slow for this Third Offset world.

The F-35’s Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) already provides for a back channel to return operational information from the field back to the fleet, but this is currently only used for hardware maintenance.

The F-35 could switch from the last fighter of the Second Offset to the first fighter of the Third Offset by using ALIS to share what human and machine learn on each mission.

Applying this to the problem (mentioned above) of sensor fusion: the F-35 will apply its own best guess at what each sensor blob actually is. The pilot will then look as deeply as she likes into the data, calling for a rescan if she’s still unsure. Her own F-35 will then remember her selection for the remainder of the current flight and then share this update to its data model through ALIS. The sensor fusion puzzle is taken out of the hands of a few Reprogramming Lab geeks and crowd-sourced to every American and allied F-35 pilot. Each pilot then adds both her own contribution to the fight and a small exponential improvement for the entire fleet, which will then get better every day. When hostile forces tap into this network and download the latest data model they will find that it is finely tuned to the latest American sensor hardware and it will take them time to adapt this to their own equipment or use the insights to redesign their own gear to evade detection. And every minute while they are doing this the American network is learning and improving.

Non-democratic adversaries would be loathe to share data model building tasks with their own pilots, much less other countries. This distributed human-machine learning then becomes an enduring Third Offset advantage, because it is constantly adapting. The F-35 Lightning II will strike freely only after it escapes the waterfall.

Henry Cobb is a corporate Director of Special Projects,  You can reach him on Twitter
@henrycobb

-Henry Cobb 

Follow my vapour trail on Twitter: @Hush_kit

Guide to surviving aviation forums here

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

What’s not to like about the McDonnell 220? It even had a cabin pressure equivalent to the air in Mexico City. Unfortunately no one liked it and it never went into production.

To keep this blog going – we need donations. We’re trying to do something different with Hush-Kit: give aviation fans something that is both entertaining, surprising and well-informed. Please do help us and click on the donate button above – you can really make a difference (suggested donation £12). You will keep us impartial and without advertisers – and allow us to carry on being naughty. The donate buttons are on this page. Many thanks. 

You may also enjoy B-52 pilot chooses Top 10 Cold War bombers, Flying & Fighting in the Mirage 2000: a pilot interview, The World’s Worst Air Force, 10 most formidable dogfight missiles, The ten coolest cancelled airliners, 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. 

The Heinkel He 546 was a German aircraft designed by Siegfried & Roy at Heinkel Flugzeugwerke in 1941. It is believed by many historians that the design of the aircraft was an act of sabotage by two designers unsympathetic to the Nazi regime. It is likely that Siegfried & Roy deliberately set out to produce a dangerously flawed aircraft, the development of which would suck up vast resources, and deprive the Luftwaffe of the fast medium bomber they sought.

The first He 546 flew on 27 February 1942, piloted by chief test pilot Gerhard Nitschke, who was ordered not to wear anything ‘too flashy’ so as not to upstage the rather ungainly looking aeroplane (Nitschke said he would wear a simple Adidas hoody and Bermuda shorts for the test flight). But he ignored these orders and wore an exceptionally racy zoot suit in peacock green. Nitschke said that the He 546 performed well, except when it was in flight. Nitschke also praised its “sardonic flight and landing characteristics” and “whimsical performance, which is close to that of a diesel milk-float”. During the second test flight Nitschke revealed there was insufficient longitudinal stability during climb while eating a cheese sandwich.

Despite a concerted development the aircraft failed to prove effective and was dropped by the Luftwaffe. It said goodbye to the world of military aviation and was re-launched into the heady theatre scene of 1940s London.

The Heinkel He 546  is best known for performing a flight demo version of Joyce’s Ulysses (1922), a landmark air demonstration in which the episodes of Homer‘s Odyssey are paralleled in a series of barrel rolls and Cuban Eights. The ‘546 also produced its own writings include three books of poetry, a play, occasional journalism and a battle rap about destroying Spitfires. The work was described as ‘unhinged but readable’ in a review by The Aeroplane in 1944.

The He 546 continued to perform during most of the Second World War, appearing at the Prince of Wales’s Theatre in 1943 in The Reluctant Bomber and on tour with Amy Brandon Thomas‘s company in ‘The Coventry Air Waltz’. In 1945, it appeared in Death from the air, a comedy produced by Hawtrey. The 546 recalled in its memoirs, “My part was reasonably large and I was really quite good in it, owing to the kindness and care of Hawtrey’s direction, and the lack of coordinated ack-ack fire.” 

On 23 April 1976, the He 546 collapsed from catastrophic structural failure in front of millions of television viewers, midway through his act on the London Weekend Television variety show Luftwaffe Lovelies, transmitted live from Her Majesty’s Theatre. It was buried next to the cafe at IWM Duxford where it remains to this day.

General characteristics

• Crew: 36 (pilot, navigator/bombardier/nose gunner, ventral gunner, dorsal gunner/radio operator, side gunner, choirmaster, choir, Sous chef, hot yoga instructor)
• Length: variable
• Wingspan: disappointing
• Height: of fashion
• Wing area: smoking
• Empty weight of pilot: 14 stone 7 pounds
• Loaded weight: 14 stone 10 pounds
• Max. takeoff weight: No comment you cheeky mare
• Powerplant: 2 × Jumo 711F-1 or 211F-2 martini-cooled double binary inverted V-12, 5,300 hp  each

Performance

• Maximum speed: 34 km/h (downhill)
• Range: Good at playing villains, can cry on request
• Ceiling: Sistine Chapel pastiche, some dry rot
• Rate of climb: One step at a time
• Wing loading: sassy
• Power/mass: One squat thrust to one liturgy

The He 546 was created by Francis Bennett

You may also enjoy B-52 pilot chooses Top 10 Cold War bombers, Flying & Fighting in the Mirage 2000: a pilot interview, The World’s Worst Air Force, 10 most formidable dogfight missiles, The ten coolest cancelled airliners, 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. 

The unpredictability of President Elect Donald Trump is making a great deal of people around the world extremely nervous. He has previously expressed both his approval for ‘mad dog’ posturing on the international stage and reviewing traditional alliances. With this in mind, if the worst were to happen and the US and Europe were to go to war, would the armed forces of the old continent stand a chance? We spoke to Justin Bronk, a Research Fellow specialising in combat airpower and technology in the Military Sciences team at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) and Editor of the RUSI Defence Systems online journal to find out more. 

“To be honest there would be absolutely no contest – the US, even with a five year warning period – could take on all of Europe twice over without breaking much of a sweat in the military arena…” 

Despite politically-motivated complaints to the contrary, the US military remains supremely well funded and well equipped.

“Even without the nuclear option, Europe has no ability outside the UK (and at a pinch Germany) to deploy division scale ground forces – far less command them and support them, nor to move heavy equipment fast at scale. The US can deploy multiple divisions with heavy armour support and full combat enablers (e.g. dynamic targeting support, SATCOMs etc). Without the US, we in Europe have almost no access to SATCOM, GPS targeting, strategic mobility etc etc.”

Non-US NATO forces are also essentially ancillary parts of the US war machine, dependent on US support to fight large wars and tied to US-made and supported equipment to function.

“In air force terms, the US have a large advantage in relevant frontline types, whilst European fighter forces are chronically dependent on US tanker, AWACS, ELINT and EW support. What’s more, even the few top-tier European air forces have no answers to the F-22, B-2 or the high-end jamming that the US deploys with the Growler, B-52 etc.”

If the air offers Europe a chance, the sea does not. “In naval forces…. It’s around 15 nuclear attack submarines, mostly British and French capability, with a smattering of littoral-based but capable electric boats from Sweden and Germany vs 57 nuclear attack boats from the US. The surface combatant ratios are even worse and doesn’t even contain the 10 CVN’s with associated air wings.”

Even the US’ Navy’s army is the match for two of the most powerful European nations: “Then there’s the USMC which alone can field almost as much combat power as Britain or Germany…”

In summary, Bronk declares it- “No contest”

We must all hope that this subject remains firmly in the armchair.

You may also enjoy B-52 pilot chooses Top 10 Cold War bombers, Flying & Fighting in the Mirage 2000: a pilot interview, The World’s Worst Air Force, 10 most formidable dogfight missiles, The ten coolest cancelled airliners, 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. 

We’ve avoided a top 10 of bombers until now as it seemed too ghoulish. Two things made it palatable: setting it in the past, and finding an actual bomber pilot to create it. Keith Shiban  flew the B-52 in the nuclear deterrent role, and in combat missions over Iraq. Over to Keith: 

“To be included in this list the aircraft had to be first of all a bomber and it had to be operational between the years 1947 and 1991. That ruled out experimental aircraft and prototypes like the XB-70. That also ruled out fighter-bombers like the F-111 and Buccaneer. Even so a few of these blur the lines between bomber and fighter-bomber.

Any adverts you see on Hush-Kit are not from us, to stay impartial and to give you a better experience we avoid them. That means we can only carry on with donations, though we are currently well below our targets. If you enjoy the site and want to contribute then do please use the donate buttons. Many thanks to all who help. Cheers, HK. 

What makes a good bomber?

Range is important. The primary job of a bomber is to go into enemy territory and “hit ‘em where it hurts”.

If it’s going to fly all that way it should be able to actually do something when it gets there, so weapons load is important.

It needs to be able to survive enemy defences at least long enough to do its mission. This can be through speed, stealth, countermeasures, defensive armament, or simply staying out of range (standoff capability). Most bombers use a combination of these.

Versatility is nice. It costs a lot of money to design a bomber so it’s useful if it can be adapted to more than one mission. For the same reason longevity is a good thing. After spending all that money it’s nice to get more than a few years use out of these planes.

Finally, because this is Hush Kit, I’ll throw in the “cool factor”.

Admittedly my list is biased. Your mileage may vary. Depending on how much weight you give each factor you can easily change the winners.

I had a tough time with number ten. There were  many contenders but none of them exemplary.

B-36: Expensive, dismally slow, prone to fires, only around for ten years.

Victor: Short career as a bomber, spent most of its life as a tanker.

Valiant: Short career as a bomber.

B-58: Killed a lot of people (all of them on our side), high-maintenance.

B-47: Dangerous, relatively short career.

FB-111: High-maintenance. Never did much. Technically a fighter-bomber.

Myasishchev M-4: Never had enough range to do its primary mission.

Tu-22: Deadly – to everyone that flew on it.

B-66: Too small to be a true bomber.

Vatour: Same issue as the B-66.

After much indecision I decided to go with the B-47.

10. Boeing B-47 Stratojet

I went with the B-47 because it was such a ground-breaking aircraft when first introduced and it laid the groundwork for the B-52. While definitely flawed, it was the plane we needed in the early days of the Cold War.

The type proved fairly versatile, the reconnaissance and electronic warfare versions served well past its days as a bomber.

One thing I find odd is that the B-47 is one of the few USAF aircraft never to have a nickname, at least not one that I know of.

Range: Medium

Payload: Medium

Survivability: Medium-low (altitude, manoeuvrability, guns)

Versatility: Medium

Longevity: Medium

Cool factor: JATO takeoffs

9. English Electric Canberra

The Canberra might seem like an odd pick but it’s one of the more successful designs to come out of the Cold War. First introduced in 1951: it served 55 years with the RAF, was exported to several countries and was even produced in the US as the Martin B-57. While not particularly fast, it had an impressive service ceiling, exceeded only by the U-2.

Like the Tu-16, it’s just an honest, rugged design that proved highly adaptable.

Obviously these would be hopelessly obsolete today, but I give it a high rating for its day.

There are still three modified Canberras flying with NASA as high altitude research aircraft.

Range: Medium

Payload: Medium-low

Survivability: Medium-low (altitude, manoeuvrability)

Versatility: High

Longevity: Prehistoric

Cool factor: Engines in the wing.

8. Tupolev Tu-22M ‘Backfire’

I realise there are four Tupolevs on this list, but that’s just how it shook out.

First introduced in 1972 to replace the woefully inadequate Tu-22, the Tu-22M is almost a completely different aircraft from its predecessor.

It’s an odd sized aircraft: smaller than a B-1 but a good bit larger than an FB-111. It makes sense when you realise it was primarily intended for use in the European Theater and as a naval weapon.

In a hypothetical US/Soviet conflict these would have gone against our carrier battle groups in an attempt to saturate the defences with missiles.

With roughly 150 still in service, it’s a mainstay of the Russian bomber force and has seen service in every conflict since Afghanistan.

They lost one of these, probably to an SA-11, in the recent Russia/Georgia conflict. If they’re anything like us, their countermeasures are probably not optimized to go against their own systems.

Range: Medium

Payload: Medium

Survivability: Medium (speed, countermeasures, standoff capability, guns)

Versatility: Medium

Longevity: High

Cool factor: Variable Geometry

7. Mirage IV

Only four countries actually fielded a jet bomber during the Cold War, which is why the French Mirage IV makes the list. Plus I just like the looks of it.

With a top speed of Mach 2.2 the Mirage IV is part of the very exclusive supersonic bomber club. With upgrades it managed an impressive 42 year run as a strategic bomber. The recce version lived on for another decade.

Relatively small for a bomber, the Mirage IV suffered from short range. Had it been required to perform its Cold War mission, it likely would have been a one-way trip. But then, I think it would have been a one-way trip for most of us.

Range: Medium-low

Payload: Low

Survivability: Medium (speed, countermeasures, stand-off capability in later versions)

Versatility: Medium

Longevity: High

Cool factor: Delta wing. JATO takeoffs. It’s French.

6. Tupolev Tu-16/ Xian H-6 ‘Badger’

Here’s another Soviet blast from the past. The ‘Badger’ spent four decades in Russian service and the license-built H-6 is still the mainstay of the Chinese bomber force in 2016.

I think what’s special about the Tu-16/H-6 is that there’s nothing special about it. It’s just a solid, generic design that has been adapted to many roles over the years. Strategic bomber, missile carrier, naval aviation, electronic warfare, reconnaissance, there’s probably been a Tu-16 model for the job.

While the H-6 is nothing special it can carry a mix of twelve anti-ship missiles and land attack cruise missiles with a range of several hundred miles. This makes it a potential long-range threat to US naval forces in the region. Even an old bomber can still hurt you if it’s carrying good missiles.

Range: Medium

Payload: Medium

Survivability: Medium (standoff capability, countermeasures, guns)

Versatility: High

Longevity: Jurassic Era

Cool factor: Engines mounted in the wing roots. They don’t build ‘em that way any more (for good reason).

5. Avro Vulcan

If I was going by looks alone, the iconic Vulcan would be my #1 or #2 pick. It’s one of those all-time great designs that manages to look both retro and futuristic at the same time.

The Vulcan has a great mix of speed, manoeuvrability plus a relatively small radar signature for its day. It didn’t have the range or payload of a B-52, but it didn’t have nearly as far to go to reach targets in Russia from its bases in England.

Plus we all cheered when they used these in the Falklands.

Seriously though, who’s bright idea was it to only give ejection seats to the pilots?

Range: Medium

Payload: Medium

Survivability: Medium (speed, low observable, manoeuvrability)

Versatility: Medium

Longevity: High

Cool factor: Just look at it!

4. Tupolev Tu-160 ‘Blackjack’/’Beliy Lebed’

The Tu-160 looks a lot like a B-1, but it was designed to primarily be a missile carrier rather than a low-level penetrator. It beats the B-1 on speed and range but the B-1 has the edge on payload. The Tu-160 carries a relatively small load-out of 12 long-range cruise missiles or 24 short-range missiles.

I don’t know how capable the electronic countermeasures are on this aircraft. I have to assume they’re at least as good as other Russian ECM systems and therefore pretty good.

Before you start having nightmares about this thing, keep in mind that they only have 16 of them in service.

Range: High

Payload: Medium

Survivability: Medium-High (speed, low observable, standoff capability)

Versatility: Medium

Longevity: Medium

Cool factor: Variable Geometry

3. Rockwell B-1B Lancer

It’s a tough call between the B-1 and the Tu-160. I give the B-1 the edge mostly because I’m more familiar with it. While controversial when introduced, the B-1 has proven its worth in recent conflicts.

Every USAF aircraft has an official name that nobody ever uses and then the name that everybody actually calls it. I have never heard a B-1 referred to as a ‘Lancer’. It’s either just a ‘B-1’ or ‘the Bone’ (B-One).

I’m told it’s a great flying aircraft with impressive speed at low altitude and fighter-like handling. Not only is it fast, it carries enough gas to go fast for a long time.

What makes the B-1 great is that it can carry a massive amount of ordnance, loiter for a very long time, and then dash to where it’s needed in a hurry. In our recent conflicts we like to have these on call for that reason.

The only drawback is that it’s a complicated aircraft with the associated high maintenance costs.

Range: High

Payload: High

Survivability: Medium-High (speed, low observable, maneuverability, countermeasures)

Versatility: High

Longevity: Medium

Cool factor: Variable Geometry

This blog can only carry on with donations, please hit the donation button and share what you can. Every donation helps us- thank you. Donations buttons can be spotted by the eagle-eyed on this page.

2. Tupolev Tu-95 ‘Bear’

When the Russians build something that gets the job done, they stick with it. The TU-95 has been around almost as long as the B-52. Sure it’s propeller driven and so noisy that submarines can hear it, but the damn thing works. Continuous upgrades have kept the Bear relevant even today.

While turboprops may seem primitive, they’re very efficient engines. This pays off with impressive range and endurance without sacrificing that much in the way of speed.

The Tu-95 (or the B-52 for that matter) probably wouldn’t do well against modern air defences. That’s not the point of this aircraft, however. The Bear isn’t really the threat, it’s his skinny wingmen you need to worry about.

The Tu-95MS version can carry up to 16 advanced Kh-55 cruise missiles, meaning he can hit you from 1,300 miles away! He’s not really worried about your air defences because he doesn’t plan on getting that close.

Range: High

Payload: High

Survivability: Medium (standoff capability, countermeasures, guns)

Versatility: High

Longevity: Ancient

Cool factor: Contra-rotating props.

1. Boeing B-52 Stratofortress

Seriously folks, how could the B-52 not be my #1 pick? It’s tough to argue with 61 years of continuous operational service. These things were old when I flew them and that was 25 years ago!

I think what has kept the B-52 relevant is that it’s such a generic design. This has allowed it to adapt to new missions while more specialised aircraft have come and gone. High-level bomber, low-level penetrator, cruise-missile carrier, anti-shipping, close air support (yes really) the old BUFF just keeps on going.

Is the B-1 better? I say we won’t know until the year 2047.

The B-52 brings an impressive mix of range, payload and endurance to the fight. It will carry 50,000 pounds of whatever bombs or missiles you care to hang off it halfway around the world.

I wouldn’t expect it to go up against modern air defences, but that’s not how we’re using them these days.

Range: High

Payload: High

Survivability: Medium (countermeasures, standoff capability, guns prior to 1992)

Versatility: High

Longevity: Just shy of the Big Bang

Cool factor: Eight engines “ 

Modern heat-seeking missiles are particularly nasty weapons. Long-ranged, fast, accurate and hard to fool – facing them is a sobering prospect for the modern fighter pilot. As the age of stealth fast approaches (and digital radar jammers become more effective), radar-guided missiles will become less important – the greatest air-to-air hazard to the next generation of fighters will come from the following ten weapons. Actual weapon parameters are classified, information is from best available public sources.

No classified information has been included. Usual limitations of the top ten format apply so don’t get angry.

Save the Hush-Kit blog. Our site is absolutely free and we have no advertisements. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here. Your donations keep this going. Thank you. 

Terms used:

LOAL: Not to be confused with LOL (laugh out loud), LOAL means Lock On After Launch. Traditionally infra-red guided missiles would lock-on (the start of the automatic tracking of a target) before the weapon was launched. Modern missiles can be launched blind allowing them to take cues from other remote sensors via datalink- this can enable them to hit targets at extreme angles, such as behind the aircraft (firing a missile at target in the rear hemisphere is a ‘Parthian’ or ‘over-the-shoulder’ shot).

Imaging: The infra-red seeker heads that ‘see’ the heat of the target used to ‘see’ a blob of different temperatures. Today, thanks to imaging technology, they can interpret the different parts of a target aircraft- so imaging seekerheads are hard to fool with hot flares (a traditional countermeasure) and tend not to be distracted by the sun. All the following missiles have imaging seekerheads apart from the legacy R-73.

10. Denel Dynamics A-Darter ‘Boer constrictor‘

When this South African missile is truly operational it will deserve a place in the top five -as it is an exceptionally potent weapon. A unique feature is that it is virtually smokeless- a real boon as the trail of a missile is often what alerts pilots to a  missile’s presence. This is because, unlike most other air-to-air missiles, there is no aluminium used in its rocket propellant.The A-Darter is long-ranged compared to 4th generation weapons, with a powerful motor, and has an impressive 90-degree look angle. LOAL over-the-shoulder shots will be possible, and it is reported that some SAAF Gripen pilots believe it has advantages over the highly-respected IRIS-T. It is only a lack of maturity that loses the A-Darter a higher position- it remains to be seen whether it gains this maturity and true operational status.

9. Vympel R-73 ‘Peri-striker’

High off-foresight abilities and helmet-cued: The Soviet R-73 defined the modern air-to-air missile.  When the German Luftwaffe inherited a load of R-73s from the East German air force, the test results were mortifying. A MiG-29 with R-73s and the simple but effective Schmel helmet-cueing system were virtually unbeatable in within-visual range fights. Cueing a target by simply looking at was a huge advantage, and this was combined with the ability to fire the missile across a much wider cone (it could be fired to the side of the aircraft) than the then ubiquitous AIM-9L/M – this created a very effective weapon system. The missile is large with a powerful motor gifting the R-73 with superior kinematics. It was the first missile to include thrust vectoring, giving it astonishing manoeuvrability. Formidable in its time, it has now been eclipsed by a generation of weapons created to counter it, but retains a robust high-off boresight capability.

8. MBDA MICA IR ‘Jacques of all trades’

The French MICA is unique among Western missiles in being available in both infra-red- and radar-guided variants. MICA, which entered service in 1996, was the first Western air-to-air missile to use thrust vectoring (the infra-red variant was operational from 2000, three years ahead of the US’ AIM-9X). It has replaced both short-range (Magic) and medium-range (Super 530) weapons – in doing so it has anticipated the move of IR missiles into the beyond-visual range, but compromises have being made in making it a jack of trades: it is neither as manoeuvrable as the IRIS-T at short ranges, nor as fast (though it is very fast for some of its mission, peaking at a remarkable Mach 4) and lethal at medium ranges as a late AMRAAM. On the Rafale, the MICA IR can provide IR imagery to the central data processing system, thus acting as an extremely useful extra sensor.  The MICA IR was one of the more controversial entries discussed by our panel- some pointed to France’s historical track record of producing poor air-to-air missiles (a highly contentious point in itself), while some noted MBDA (and France’s)  current excellence in electronics as evidenced on many systems on Rafale; MBDA is considered by some to be the most experienced missile house in the world.  The MICA is a fast and manoeuvrable missile at short ranges with lock-on after launch capabilities, and in 2007 became the first operational missile to demonstrate a Parthian over-the-shoulder shot. It loses a higher placing as is not believed to have a mature integration with a helmet cueing system- when it does, it is likely to be with IAF Mirage 2000s.

7. China Air-to-Air Guided Missile Research Institute PL-10 ‘Iris stew’

The PL-10 uses the broad-chord narrow-span wing and TVC configuration that has become common for modern IR AAMs. The missile is fitted with an imaging infra-red seeker capable of +/-90 degree off boresight angles. Considering the missile’s timeline – the project started in 2004- it should be a very capable weapon. As it is intended for use with stealthy aircraft, notably the J-20, it is likely to have LOAL capabilities with datalink connectivity. Little is known about it at the moment. Intriguingly, J-20 appears to have a ‘dogfight mode’ where the missile is moves to an external position to give its seeker a view of the outside world, while doors close behind it to minimise radar returns from the weapon bay cavity.

6. Vympel R-74M ‘Robin Hoodski‘

Russia’s R-73 (NATO reporting name AA-11 ‘Archer’) is one of the best-known air-to-air missiles. It is in large-scale service, has seen combat, and its appearance in the early 1980s drove the development of an array of Western counterparts.

Less publicised is this missile’s intended successor, or RVV-MD (meaning short-range air-to-air missile), which entered service with the Russian Air Force in 2012 and is rumoured to have been deployed in Syria: since it’s almost identical to the R-73, this is hard to verify. On service entry, the missile designation switched from the developmental K-74M to the in-service R-74M.

Work on the R-74M actually began around the time the ‘Archer’ was entering service, and it was originally intended for rearwards launch to defend the hemisphere behind the launch aircraft. This mode was tested, but never properly refined, and was abandoned in the mid-1990s.

However, development of the missile continued for conventional launch. This yielded the R-74M, which allies the R-73 aerodynamics and motor with a new two-band infrared seeker that increases off-bore-sight angles to +/-60 and extends acquisition range to 15-20km. Russia also worked on an all-new short-range air-to-air missile, the K-30 project, but this fell by the wayside.

Since Russia’s relations with Ukraine broke down, a new source of seeker was required for the R-74M, and, after some delay, production was supposed to switch to Radiozavod this year. Meanwhile, the prime contractor for the missile is Vympel, who also built the R-73.

Work is now under way on an improved K-74M2, primarily to arm the PAK FA fighter. This is adapted for launch from internal weapons bays and has a new seeker and rocket motor. Adding a datalink means it will have a lock-on-after-launch mode (its lack of LOAL is one reason it is does not rank higher in this list). The new version is now reportedly undergoing flight test.

– Thomas Newdick, Deputy Editor, Combat Aircraft Magazine  – Follow  him on Twitter @CombatAir

5. Mitsubishi AAM-5B ‘Mitsubishi Pistachio-crusher’

Seldom discussed is the Japanese AAM-5B. Like most 5th generation AAMs it has broad chord wings, thrust-vectoring and an imaging seeker.  Entering service in 2004 the AAM-5 is one of the most modern weapons on this list, and considering Japan’s excellence in the electronics field it is likely that this is an extremely capable weapon. Due to a ban on the export of weapons, relatively few AAM-5s will be produced so, like the ASRAAM, it is likely to be extremely expensive. The small number also means it does not enjoy the benefits of mass testing. The B upgrade offers increased resistance to infra-red countermeasures and greater range.

Save the Hush-Kit blog. Our site is absolutely free and we have no advertisements. If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here. Your donations keep this going. Thank you. 

4. Raytheon AIM-9X Block II ‘X-ray Volvo’

Reliable and economical, the AIM-9X is the Volvo of modern air-to-air missiles. When choosing a new missile in the 1990s the US opted for the least ambitious option – combining a new seeker and thrust-vectoring to the existing Sidewinder motor. Benefiting from a massive production run, the largest number of test-firings and a long lineage, the AIM-9X is a dependable weapon. It also is very well integrated with the JHMCS helmet system, offering a huge advantage against opponents lacking an advanced helmet system. Raytheon’s AIM-9X Block II  is the latest version and brings the AIM-9X up to the technological standards of advanced rivals. Parthian shots are possible and unlike other AAMs it can be used reliably against ground targets. It is expected that the next variant AIM-9X may have a very long range.

3. Rafael Advanced Defence Systems Python 5 ‘Python’s meaning of lift’

The Python 5 is an exceptionally manoeuvrable missile that is hard to shake off. It can ‘see through’ infra-red countermeasures by the inclusion of a dual-band seeker head that sees both infra-red, and more unusually, ultra-violet light. Though its eighteen control surfaces imbue the missile with remarkable agility, they also create a great deal of drag and it is likely that weapon has less energy than others out at longer ranges. Though it does not have thrust vectoring, according to the manufacturer it is as agile as any missile that does. In July 2014 – the US State Department approved a possible Foreign Military Sale to Israel for AIM-9X Sidewinder missiles and associated equipment- it is not known what advantages the AIM-9X would offer over the Python 5. The 5 is based on the Python 4, and has a proven ability to take down low-IR signature drones.

2. MBDA AIM-132 ASRAAM ‘British hotrod’

ASRAAM, with its massively powerful motor uses acceleration and speed to its advantage. Though not as agile as other weapons at close ranges, its long range and massive No-Escape Zone give it a substantial beyond-visual range capability. In the 1980s it was decided that NATO needed new air-to-air missiles: the UK would develop the next generation infra-red guided missile and the US would develop the next radar-guided missiles.  When the West learnt of the astonishing capabilities of the Soviet R-73, the nascent ASRAAM’s capabilities (especially its manoeuvrability) were called into question. Citing this, and the economy of a Sidewinder upgrade, the US and the other partners, left the agreement. Now alone, the UK raised the specifications adding an exceptionally advanced imaging seeker head (the first missile to carry one in service, later to be used by the ‘9X).  ASRAAM has an extremely long range for its class and is very fast (around mach 3.3) – though other missiles in this list boast higher top speeds, it is believed that ASRAAM’s bigger motor allows it to better retain its speed. It is a very expensive missile and it is notable that none of the Eurofighter export customers have chosen the ASRAAM, opting instead for the IRIS-T. In 2019, it was revealed that the India Air Force is planning to replace the R-73 with the ASRAAM on their Su-30 force, following the integration of the weapon on the IAF Jaguar fleet.

1. Diehl BGT Defence IRIS-T ‘European acrobat’

Extremely agile and almost impossible to distract with decoy flares, the IRIS-T is a fighter pilot’s nightmare. At least eleven air arms have opted for the IRIS-T, spurning the Sidewinder for this masterpiece of European engineering. The design was German-led, fed by the Luftwaffe’s desire for a super agile weapon to counter the Archer threat. Entering service in 2005, it was the third Western AAM (following the MICA and 9X) to feature thrust vectoring. Several of the nations, notably Norway, that selected the IRIS-T did so after an in-depth comparison with the AIM-9X.

Save the Hush-Kit blog. Our site is absolutely free and we have no advertisements (any you see are from WordPress, not us). If you’ve enjoyed an article you can donate here. Your donations keep this going. Thank you. 

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. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

FEATURING

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

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