Sukhoi Su-35 versus Eurofighter Typhoon: Analysis from RUSI’s Justin Bronk

SU35-HD-Wallpaper-BAK8.jpg

Outside the Western world, Russia’s ultra-agile Su-35 is the most potent fighter in operational service. We asked Justin Bronk from the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) think-tank his thoughts on the Su-35’s combat effectiveness against the Typhoon, the backbone of NATO’s fighter force. We also look at how the Su-35 would fare against the US’ F-15, F-16 and F-22. 

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

HK: What is the current status of the Russian Su-35 fleet?

JB: Russia has 48 Su-35S in service with another 48 scheduled for production. They appear to offer a greater average serviceability rate than previous iterations of the Su-27/30 family, as well as the MiG-29, mainly due to the success of the new Saturn 117S thrust vectoring engines which have so far avoided many of the reliability issues of previous models. However, as with many other aspects of the Russian military, the fact that the production and service numbers of the Su-35 are quite low and exist within a huge mix of various MiG-29 and Su-27/30 derivations which do not share many key components means that running costs are high and logistics remain complex. This drives down serviceability to significantly below US, British and French fighter fleets, except in the case of small forward deployments such as Syria where the entire logistics chain can be concentrated on keeping a small portion of the force at high readines

How does it compare to Typhoon in terms of the following:

Detection/conspicuity to hostile sensors

The Su-35 has a significantly greater Radar Cross Section (RCS) than Typhoon due to its large intakes without effective fan-blade shielding, vertical dual stabilizers and thrust vectoring jet nozzles, as well as the latter’s greater use of radar absorbent materials and signature management for canards. The Su-35’s larger size and the canted position of the engines and greater thrust required also contribute to a heat signature that is significantly greater than Typhoon’s.

In terms of radars, the Su-35S’s Irbis-E PESA radar provides extremely high power levels allowing target detection beyond 300km (although without weapons which can engage at this range), as well as claimed advances in detecting low-observable threats such as stealth fighters at significantly beyond visual range. However, the downside to this is that the Irbis-E has to operate at extremely high power levels to achieve this performance and so is easily detectable and track-able at ranges beyond those at which it can track. All radars except AESAs with very low probabilities of intercept such as the F-22’s APG-77 suffer from this paradox but it is worse for the Su-35 because of the latter’s very large RCS and IR signature which means it must rely on out-ranging its opponents at BVR rather than trying to sneak up on them whilst relying on passive tracking.

successful-storm-shadow-trials-1663.JPG

Copyright Eurofighter-L. Caliaro

Typhoon’s CAPTOR-M is comparable with the Irbis-E in terms of long range tracking and detection in active scanning mode and may be inferior with regard to detecting low-observable threats, but Typhoon has a very significant advantage in terms of passive tracking through the DASS and the world-leading PIRATE IRST.

Performance (at various altitudes, speeds and in both WVR and BVR)

Both aircraft are capable of super-cruising although the Typhoon’s speed without afterburners at combat loading is significantly higher than the Su-35*. Top speeds at low and high altitudes are comparable, but again Typhoon has the slight edge. In terms of kinematic persistence, the Su-35 burns much more more fuel to sustain energy than Typhoon, but also carries twice as much fully loaded. In prolonged engagements, the Typhoon has better combat persistence during sustained afterburner-dependent manoeuvres and also retains energy better at during high-g turns. This would tend to put the Su-35 at an increasing energy disadvantage over time, even as its thrust-to-weight ratio improves towards parity with Typhoon as it burns off fuel.

During a BVR engagement at high altitudes, assuming both aircraft have detected each other, the Su-35 is likely to be at a significant energy disadvantage as Typhoon would be flying at its higher service ceiling at faster supercruise speeds.

Click for The ten worst British military aircraft

WVR, however, the Su-35 is extremely dangerous due to its phenomenal supermanoeuvrability due to its thrust vectoring engines and huge lifting body. Both in the horizontal and vertical planes, Typhoon would likely be outmatched by the Su-35 WVR, unless a Typhoon pilot could find space to accelerate vertically to gain an energy advantage without being shot down in the process. In reality, of course, whilst in a WVR dogfight situation the Su-35 does have a kinematic advantage, both aircraft are equipped with helmet-mounted sights to cue off-boresight missile shots and carry extremely manoeuvrable IR missiles with excellent countermeasure resistance. Neither is likely to survive a WVR ‘merge’ against the other.

*HK: The Typhoon’s maximum quoted supercruise speed has varied. EADS test pilot Chris Worning put it at M1.15-M1.2, the RAF have stated M1.1 and Typhoon pilots have suggested 1.2-3 with four conformal AMRAAMS, twin tanks and twin ASRAAMs, and 1.5 clean. The Su-35’s supercruise is marginal, probably no higher than M1.1 – it is a much draggier design than the Typhoon.

7_04_09_867.JPG

Maintenance/reliability/sortie rate

Su-35 is bigger, heavier and more mechanically temperamental than Typhoon. However, it does not have such a dependence on software and computers which can cause many issues of their own in the case of Typhoon. If deployed as part of a large unified fleet by a Western air force, Su-35 could probably approach Typhoon’s reliability rate and surpass it in terms of ease of maintenance. However, the fact that Su-35 exists within a patchily resourced Russian Air Force with a myriad of different fighter types means it comes substantially below Typhoon in terms of reliability.

Defensive aids/electronic warfare (EW) suite

Russian EW capabilities tend to be superb. However, their defensive aids suites often lag behind their Western competitors. In the case of Su-35 and Typhoon specifically, both have some of the best DAS and EW capabilities which their respective nations can mount in frontline jets, but the exact details are highly classified. It is probably fair to assume that Typhoon has the edge in terms of defensive aids and passive ELINT gathering, whilst Su-35 has the edge in offensive EW and jamming capabilities.

Man-machine interface/ ease of flying and fighting

This is an area where Russian jets have always struggled. Even with multifunction cockpit displays and digital flight instruments, the Su-35 lags behind Typhoon in terms of ease of flying and fighting with it as a weapons system.

Network connectivity

Lack of Russian Air Force standardisation means that Typhoon wins hands down with latest generation Link 16, MIDS and other connectivity advantages. However, Russian tactical doctrine may mean that this disadvantage is less of an issue for them than it would be for a Western Air Force.

Weapons

Su-35 benefits from superb Russian missile design expertise. The multiple seeker-head mix which Russian fighters would fire in missile salvos in combat with Western fighters makes defending against them a very complicated task. At long range, the Su-35 can fire a mix of semi-active radar homing, anti-radiation (home on jam) and IR homing missiles, whilst at short range the ‘Archer’ series remains as deadly as ever. Typhoon has the excellent ASRAAM and IRIS-T short range IR missiles which can equal or surpass their Russian counterparts, but at long range the AMRAAM is showing its age and against Digital Radio Frequency Memory (DRFM) jamming technology which the Su-35S employs, its Pk drops significantly to the point that multiple missiles would likely be required to kill each target.

Which set-ups would favour which aircraft?

High and fast in BVR combat and rules of engagement which allow long range missile shots would favour Typhoon, especially once Meteor is fully integrated next year. WVR combat, especially at lower altitudes and speeds favour the Su-35. During a sudden incident as part of, say Baltic Air Policing, where both aircraft would typically be at medium altitude and at close range during QRA intercepts, Su-35S would likely be a real handful for Typhoon.

Help us give you more by donating to Hush-Kit here – even £1 is appreciated and it takes 10 seconds 

Which aircraft, all things being equal, would have an advantage?

I would certainly still take a Typhoon going into a hypothetical ‘all things equal’ scenario, because of its superior kinematics at high altitudes and speeds which allow it to have control of an engagement except in specific scenarios.

Are there tactics which would enable a Su-35 force to take on a F-22 formation?

Simply put – no. Whilst the Su-35 does have the hypothetical capability to detect the F-22 at close ranges using its IRST and potentially the Irbis-E radar, both sensors would have to be cued to focus on exactly the right part of sky to have a chance of generating a target track. By contrast, the F-22 will know exactly where the Su-35 is at extremely long range and can position for complete control of the engagement from the outset with superior kinematics. The Su-35’s only chance would be to absorb the AMRAAM and AIM-9 shots from the F-22’s and hope that they had sufficient numbers left to attack the tankers and airbases which the F-22’s rely on post-engagement.

150731-F-BM568-906.JPG

How do the F-22 and Su-35 compare in terms of close-in agility/energy preservation/types of fighters (angles V energy)

The Su-35 can probably out-turn an F-22 in a horizontal fight at medium and low altitudes, but the need to carry missiles and tanks externally to be effective, as well as the brute size of the Sukhoi will ensure it remains at a distinct energy disadvantage to the Raptor in terms of energy retention and acceleration at all speeds. The F-22 also will not get into an angles fight with an Sukhoi – there is simply no need for it to do so.

How do they compare in terms of BVR engagements?

BVR engagements are all about situational awareness, positioning/energy advantage, and persistence in terms of fuel and missiles. In all but the latter category the Su-35 is hopelessly outclassed by the F-22 (as are all other operational fighter aircraft). Even in terms of missiles, the Su-35 can carry up to twelve to the F-22’s eight but combat practice, especially against stealthy targets, involves firing salvos of six missiles with mixed seekers so the Su-35 only really has two credible shots. By contrast the F-22 can get much closer without being threatened so even against the Su-35S DRFM jammers, it can fire smaller salvos with much better Pk.

Russian_SU-27_Flanker_with_RAF_Typhoon_MOD_45157730.jpg
Britain’s Typhoons have intercepted Russian Su-27 approaching British airspace (pictured), and performed multiple exercises with Indian’s Su-30s. Far less is known in the West about the Su-35’s capabilities.

How would USAF F-15Cs and F-16Cs fair against the Su-35?

The USAF’s classic F-15C is slightly outclassed by the Su-35, although with upgrades along the lines of the Saudi F-15SA configuration, with a very powerful AN/APG-63(V)3 AESA radar and double the missile loadout of the classic F-15C, they are approaching parity again – albeit with a much heavier focus on BVR capabilities than WVR manoeuvrability than the Sukhoi. The F-15C (modernised), teamed with the F-22 fleet, can certainly remain a match for the Su-35S.

By contrast, the F-16 Block 50/52 fleet is certainly not capable of meeting the Su-35S on anything like equal terms – losing out to the Russian fighter in kinematics, sensors, weapons loadout and EW capabilities.

And against the Saab Gripen and Dassault Rafale? 

Gripen is a bit of an unknown quantity against modern air superiority machines because it takes a fundamentally different approach to survivability. Whilst in traditional DACT exercises, Typhoon pilots have often referred to the Gripen as ‘cannon-fodder’ due to its inferior thrust-to-weight ratio, speed, agility and armament, in the few cases where the Gripen has ‘come to play’ with its full electronic warfare capabilities, it has given Typhoons very nasty shocks. Against the Su-35S, Gripen would rely on the cutting edge EW capabilities which Saab builds the Gripen (especially the new E/F) around to hide the aircraft from the sensors of the Russian jets in much the same way as the Raptor relies on x-band stealth. These EW capabilities are so highly classified that there is simply no way to assess their effectiveness in the public domain. Having said that, RAF pilots who I have talked to with experience of the Saab fighter’s EW teeth first hand say that the ability of the aircraft to get alarmingly close without detection thanks entirely to EW is very impressive.

Rafale is in a similar position as Typhoon relative to Su-35, but with less of a kinematic advantage over the Su-35 at high altitudes and BVR ranges, and being closer to parity on manoeuvrability at medium and low altitudes than Typhoon. Equally, the excellent SPECTRA system on Rafale would give it more offensive and defensive options in the EW space against Su-35 than Typhoon would have.

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

What do you expect the future holds for the Su-35, in terms of upgrades and production figures?

I expect that following the second order of 48 being delivered to the Russian Air Force by 2020, further orders will come in in dribs and drabs whilst the PAK FA/T-50 continues to be refined. Upgrades here and there will no doubt be added but I don’t anticipate any fundamental improvements – the Su-35S really is the pinnacle of the Flanker line.

What should I have asked you about the Su-35?

Haha, is it good value for money? Not withstanding what I’ve said about the various ways in which top-of-the-line and extremely expensive Western fighters such as the F-22, Typhoon (and Rafale which we haven’t really touched on) have answers to the Su-35, for its price tag of around $65M very little comes close!

Justin Bronk is a Research Fellow at the Military Sciences at Royal United Services Institute. He has written articles on the RAF’s role in Syria, and the Rafale versus Typhoon. 

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. If you can’t afford to donate anything then don’t worry.

At the moment our contributors do not receive any payment but we’re hoping to reward them for their fascinating stories in the future.

Follow him on Twitter: @Justin_Br0nk

Follow my vapour trail on Twitter: @Hush_kit

You may also enjoy 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 of The Planet Satellite. Fashion Versus Aircraft Camo is also a real cracker. 

SAVE HUSH-KIT. Hush-Kit needs donations to continue, sadly we’re well behind our targets, please donate using the buttons above or below. Many thanks. I really hope Hush-Kit can continue as it’s been a fascinating experience to research and write this ridiculously labour-intensive blog.

“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’

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.

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

Russian_SU-27_Flanker_with_RAF_Typhoon_MOD_45157730.jpg

The F-15 that never was: The North American NA-335

naa-f-15-b.jpg

The USAF 1960s programme that led to the F-15 was won by McDonnell Douglas, but other fighter design houses had offered rival concepts. The most exciting of these unsuccessful designs was offered by North American, and was designated NA-335. In many ways its configuration resembled the later Sukhoi T-10. The Sukhoi T-10, after much modification, became the now ubiquitous ‘Flanker’ series. The American design differed in two significant ways: it lacked the gap between the engine nacelles, and it had only a single vertical fin.

ETU5sMYWoAMBBXj.jpg

The ventral gully produces complicated airflows and can offer some separation issues for air-launched weapons, but it does allow the rear fuselage to add significantly to overall lifting area contributing to the fighter’s performance. The 335’s single-tail (backed up by large ventral fins) would have made the aircraft inferior to a twin-tailed aircraft like the F-15 in controllability at high alpha, but it would have been lighter and simpler. However, the ‘335s significant leading edge roots would have aided its ability to generate high alpha angles. Even with folding, it is harder to see how the large ventral fins would not necessitate a very tall stalky undercarriage.

post-2-1090795317

The sabre-shaped wings are particularly interesting – they feature similar wingtip curvature to the T-10, potentially causing issues at high transonic speeds and ruling out the use of tip-mounted missiles.

fxsmall

Keep this blog alive!

ETU5rtIWkAAOjfX.jpeg

To keep this blog going- allowing us to create new articles- 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 £10). You will keep us impartial and without advertisers – and allow us to carry on being naughty.

ETU5skKWAAADqZr.jpg

What was the most combat effective piston-engined fighter ever made? An analysis can be found here.

ETYt3jUXkAEbhbc.jpeg
North American proposed a similar design for the nascent F-14 requirement. 

The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes is incredible, come and check out its reviews here.

Aviation book reviews January 2023: Part 1 | Hush-Kit

Follow my vapour trail on Twitter: @Hush_kit

ETU5s4jX0AIn3GG.jpg

Aviation: Good reads

cockpitreadingmap.jpg

Here’s a very quick guide to some interesting books for aviation enthusiasts.

 

Ultimate Fighter: Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

Bill Sweetman (2004)

51icntjnW6L._SX489_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

Superbly well-researched and wonderfully readable, this book has also aged extremely well. Sweetman’s deep understanding of the subject and his clarity of thought makes this a must-have for those interested in modern military aviation.

Flight to Arras 

Antoine de Saint-Exupéry (1942)

411kB0yFjML._SX324_BO1,204,203,200_

 

Probably the only masterpiece of literature that tells the true story of a single Bloch MB.170 reconnaissance mission. This haunting book details the thoughts of a man who has watched the destruction of his nation, as he flies a pointless – and likely suicidal – mission.

 

A Passion for Wings: Aviation and the Western Imagination, 1908-1918

Robert Wohl (1996)

51KHHS1GY0L._SX367_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

This book looks at how the arrival of the aeroplane affected the Arts in the West. Though a trifle dry in places it is full of extremely interesting images and accounts. When originally released it was favourably reviewed by no less a figure than J.G. Ballard.

What was the most combat effective piston-engined fighter ever made? An analysis can be found here.

You may also enjoy top WVR and BVR fighters of today, an alternate history of the TSR.2, 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 The Strange Story and The Planet Satellite. The Fashion Versus Aircraft Camo is also a real cracker.

Follow my vapour trail on Twitter: @Hush_kit

 

 

The 11 worst X-planes

334914main_ECN-30043_3x4_1600-1200.jpg

When music is terrible the artist will often describe it as ‘experimental’ to avoid criticism, the same is often true of prototypes and experimental aircraft. Given the parade of ludicrous machinery that test pilots were required to fly, the long career of Captain Eric ‘Winkle’ Brown is all the more remarkable. Test pilots deserve everyone’s respect.

To keep this blog going- allowing us to create new articles- 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 £10). You will keep us impartial and without advertisers – and allow us to carry on being naughty.  A big thank you to all of our readers.

 

11. SNECMA C.450 Coléoptère

‘Roll out le barrel’

300px-SNECMA_Coléoptère_on_ramp_1959

The ‘Beetle’ was based on an idea that would be politely referred to as unorthodox, and never looked like actually working. It barely had any features that weren’t radical – a VTOL (vertical take-off and landing) jet designed to sit on its tail and transition to level flight courtesy of an annular wing, making Thunderbird 1 look conventional. It resembled an eel sticking its head out of a sunken galleon’s cannon.

A few vertical flights were made but on the first tentative attempt to transition to level flight, the Coléoptère became uncontrollable and the pilot, Auguste Morel, was forced to eject, sustaining serious injuries in so doing. The Coléoptère really put the mental into experimental.

(Top 10 jumpjet fighters here)

10. Supermarine 508/525

‘Unwheelistic’

Vickers 508
Enter a caption

After the Beetle, the Supermarine 508 appears almost conventional. In fact, in some respects, like its straight wing, it was old hat. Like its near contemporary it was the product of several evolutionary dead-ends, so much so that it is remarkable that it eventually spawned an operational aircraft. The 508 was designed as a response to the questionable idea that the undercarriage of naval aircraft should be dispensed with, and that they should instead be catapulted into the air and land on a giant mattress. The aircraft was also intended to be armed an enormous recoilless gun that fired massive shells – and threw out a weight of equal mass behind it to compensate for the kickback. It also required the aircraft containing it to be huge, and have a butterfly tail to avoid losing the tail the when the gun was fired. This straight-winged behemoth was expected to be supersonic, thanks to thin aerofoils. Even the Admiralty quickly realised that wheel-less aircraft firing artillery shells at Soviet bombers was not the way forward. Rather than doing the sensible thing and scrapping the 508, the design was pursued with retractable undercarriage- the extra bulk of which meant it was now definitely subsonic. Straight wings being so ‘40s, it was redesigned with swept surfaces and a cruciform tail, and redesignated the Type 525. The latter flew for less than a year before it crashed, killing test pilot Lieutenant Commander TA Rickell. It was developed into the Supermarine Scimitar, and probably shouldn’t have been.

Ten worst British aircraft here

9. Convair F2Y Sea Dart

‘Special porpoise fighter’

xNe7Rer.jpg

The Convair F2Y Sea Dart was one of a string of attempts to create a fighter aircraft that could operate directly from water. The Sea Dart was probably the most ambitious, attempting to create a supersonic fighter that could also land and take-off from water. Unlike conventional floatplanes and flying boats, however, the F2Y was intended to take off and land using ‘hydro-skis’ which extended from the underside of the aircraft to form a planing bottom. Various layouts were tried as the effects of ‘tramping’ (fierce bouncing on waves or water surfaces) almost broke the back of a test pilot. These problems solved, various aerodynamic problems were coming to light, but a demonstration flight was planned for dignitaries over San Diego Bay anyway. As the pilot, Charles E. Richbourg, lined up for a high-speed pass, he lit the afterburners, which triggered violent pitching, causing the airframe to break up in mid air. And that was the end of the aircraft, the concept and, sadly, the pilot.

8. Qaher F-313 

‘The Plastic Persian’

tyrsoydozswweiumyqo7

Everything about the Qaher F-313 is spectacularly incompetent, not least the very obviousness of the fact that it is not a real aeroplane. It is supposedly a stealthy fighter aircraft prototype developed by the Iranian state aviation organisation. It is in reality a mock-up of something that looks vaguely like a stealth fighter, presumably for ‘domestic propaganda’. “The advanced aircraft with an advanced appearance has a very small radar cross section and is capable of operating and flying in low-altitude,” said Iranian defence minister Brigadier-General Ahmad Vahidi. Which is presumably true, on the basis that radars would have difficulty picking up a chipboard model aircraft sitting on the ground, and it is pretty much only capable of operating a low altitude, on the basis that it doesn’t fly. If it could fly, according to a long queue of industry experts, its thick wing and odd fixed canards would light up radar scopes like Christmas trees, just before the nozzle-less jet engine melted the rear half of the aircraft – as long as it had not attempted any high-alpha manoeuvres, in which case the engine would already have flamed out. In any case, enemies would have plenty of time to prepare given the 260 knot maximum speed suggested by the ‘prototype’ aircraft’s airspeed indicator. The comic ineptitude continued with the Minister of Defence insisting a video released to the world’s press featured a flying demonstration of the prototype, while the designer admitted that the footage actually featured a small-scale model. Which was the only honest thing about the whole bizarre episode. At least no-one died (assuming the designer hasn’t suffered an ‘accident’).

7. Stipa-Caproni

‘Tigermoth in the the belly of a whale’

Stipa-Caproni

File under W, T and F. There are bad ideas that seem good at the time. The Stipa-Caproni ‘(Barely) Flying Barrel’ was one of the other kind. In the early 1930s, Luigi Stipa developed the idea that blowing an aircraft’s propeller through a duct running the length of the fuselage would increase the propeller’s efficiency. Caproni was compelled by the fascist government to build an aircraft to Stipa’s principles. The result was a bizarre fat tube with tiny wings that looked from the side like the ugliest cartoon aircraft ever, and from the front, like an accident involving a Miles Magister and a length of water main. To Stipa’s credit, it did fly, but very slowly, as any increase in propeller efficiency from the duct was more than offset by the drag of the huge fuselage. It was also found to be very stable – so much so that it could more or less only fly in a straight line. Stipa later complained that the jet engine was ripped off from his ideas. On the plus side, it wasn’t fatal – indeed, it would be pretty hard to injure yourself at the speeds the Stipa-Caproni flew.

6. Bristol 188

‘Filton Failure’

BRISTOL1883.JPG

The 1962 Bristol 188 is undoubtedly an attractive aircraft and was rather fast, briefly hitting an oddly appropriate top speed of Mach 1.88. A shame then that it fell completely and utterly short of what it had been designed to do, which was fly at speeds above Mach 2.6 for sustained periods. The Type 188 was conceived to research heat build-up in airframes at high supersonic speeds, as this was feared to be a limiting factor for some of the very fast military aircraft then on the drawing board. Three were built, at fabulous expense, from (very heavy) stainless steel, assembled with specially developed welding techniques, with an exotic cockpit refrigeration system and fused quartz canopy, all intended to resist the high skin temperatures the aircraft was expected to meet and never did. Unfortunately, Bristol forgot about fuel tankage. Even with de Havilland Gyron Junior engines that were less thirsty than the originally planned RR Avons, the 188 could barely stay in the air for 25 minutes, and could not get near its intended speed. Despite this, it was the most expensive British research project to date. An embarrassing dud, not redeemed by muttered excuses about providing data for Concorde’s development. At least everyone who flew it survived.

BRISTOL1884.JPG

5. Douglas X-3 Stiletto

‘Jetship dominatrix’

341291main_E-17348_full.jpg

Like the Bristol 188, the Stiletto was designed for fantastic speeds and was completely incapable of reaching them. Douglas had a proud history of high-speed research aircraft in the late 1940s, with the Mach 1 (just) D-558-1 and the superb Mach 2 D-558-2. The X-3, intended for an airframe-scorching 2,000mph, looked as if it was going that fast sitting on the ground. In fact, it could only just exceed Mach 1, and only then in a dive. Much of the blame can be laid at the door of the engines – Douglas realised during the design phase that the J46s they intended to fit had grown too large and too heavy during the powerplant’s development, and had little choice but to fit smaller J34s of lower power. By the time the X-3 flew, in 1953, it was obvious that it was useless for high speed research. A few flights by Air Force pilots were made, and a few more to test the stability of the aircraft’s layout, during which it was discovered that the aircraft suffered from ‘inertia coupling’ at supersonic speeds, a phenomenon that led to control inputs in one axis leading to violent, unintended movements in other axes. The X-3 would have been useful investigating this phenomenon, as the Air Force was starting to lose F-100 Super Sabres to the condition. Unfortunately, NACA pilot Joseph Walker was making a test flight when a particularly harsh pitching movement overstressed the airframe. Much is made these days of X-3 data helping the F-104 programme, but it’s hard to see how much could have been provided as only 51 flights were made, and those of necessarily short duration.

4. DFS 346

‘DFS Sale now on!’

f8a4bfe33cc2d8951b751fdc43cd7597729accdb832a8400bad0ca4c90c245c5_1.jpg

As the Second World War lumbered to a close, Germany’s aircraft designers realised that the main frontline fighters were based on 1930s designs and erupted into a frenzy of creativity, churning out new concepts and forms like there was no nazi tomorrow. One of these was the DFS 346, dreamed up before the company sensibly realised its limits and went into furniture sales. The 346 was intended to go supersonic before anyone was really sure what supersonic flight was all about. As such it had a highly swept wing and carried the pilot in a glass nose in a prone position, which it was thought would help him remain conscious at high speeds, or possibly pretend to be Superman. A partially complete example was taken back to the Soviet Union after the war, and wind-tunnel tests revealed dangerous aerodynamic flaws. The Soviets – with their characteristic lack of prissiness – decided to test it anyway. On the first, gliding, flight, test pilot Wolfgang Ziese barely retained control of the wayward 346, descended too fast and smashed his face on the canopy on landing. Unpowered research continued until 1951, some three years after a Russian-designed aircraft had gone supersonic. Finally, powered tests were carried out, whereupon all control was lost and Ziese bailed out. The 346 may at least have contributed to Soviet supersonic research, though probably not much, and its chief benefit was likely to have been in persuading the Soviets that flying face-first at high speeds was not a good idea (though Winkle Brown noted this position had some advantages). Its pilot survived, which is a point very much in its favour, though not unscathed.

Read ‘Dismantling the Spitfire myth‘ here

3. Bell X-5

‘Nazi swinger’

246809main_E-810_full.jpg

Taking an aircraft designed during the super-advanced ‘Luft ‘46’ phase of WW2 and adding ‘50s US high technology? What could possibly go wrong? In the late 1940s, Bell, builders of the first supersonic aircraft, came by a German prototype with some unusual features. The jet-powered research aircraft Messerschmitt P.1101 recovered from Oberammergau by advancing US troops had wings that could have their sweep angle adjusted on the ground. Bell decided to go one better and develop the P.1101 with wings that could vary their sweep in the air. The result was a machine with a stall so vicious that one false move would lead to a spin that could not be recovered from, perhaps unsurprising given the tiny tail surfaces. Nevertheless, it took two years and 200 flights before the apparently inevitable crash happened, tragically with the loss of pilot Captain Ray Popson. The US government quietly dropped plans to tart up the design and sell it as a low cost fighter to NATO countries, but was able to claim that research into variable geometry had been useful.

2. Christmas Bullet

‘Christmas whoppers’

Christmas-Bullet-Title

The designer of the 1919 Christmas Bullet, Dr William Whitney Christmas, was such a liar and fantasist that in some respects it’s a wonder that he actually went to the trouble of building an aeroplane at all, rather than just telling people he had. In fact, Christmas seemed to have persuaded his backers to finance him on the basis of two previous aircraft that there is no evidence ever existed. The Bullet, most definitely did, though most of the claims its owner made for it – that it was the world’s first cantilever-wing aeroplane, that it was the first with a plywood monococque construction, that it was in any way airworthy – proved false. ‘Bullet’ was, though, an apt name for a projectile that invariably harmed anyone it came into contact with. Christmas managed to find funding to build two ‘proof of concept’ aircraft to demonstrate his ‘ideas’ of a deliberately flexible wing inspired by those of birds, and tepid support from the US Army, which leant an engine for ground-testing and the services of a test-pilot, Cuthbert Mills. A flight was attempted in the first aircraft, whereupon the wings peeled off during take-off and the aircraft crashed, killing Mills. Christmas claimed that the aircraft had reached a speed of 197mph. A second aircraft was built, and a propeller issued by the Army, despite the loaned engine having been destroyed during the unauthorised flight as Christmas had kept this secret. The second aircraft also crashed, also fatally. Christmas was still trying to sue people for claiming the aircraft had killed its pilots as late as 1930, and insisted the aircraft had reached a speed of 222mph. Fraudulent and lethal, the Christmas Bullet only avoids the top spot on the basis that few people (still too many) took it particularly seriously at the time.

1. Republic XF-84H

‘Noisecorvette’

071015-F-1234S-019.JPG

The Republic XF-84H combined terrible (and bizarre) characteristics with a conceptual dead-end, and a shabbily run programme; it is clearly the winner. Jet engines of the time had poor acceleration and endurance,  so the earlier F-84 was redesigned around an Allison T40 twin linked turboprop driving a highly unorthodox propeller designed to revolve at supersonic speeds (conventional propellers lose efficiency as the speed of their blades approaches Mach 1), and an afterburner on its jet exhaust. As such, it was designed to be the fastest propeller driven aircraft in the world, at about 670mph, and the Guinness Book of Records gave the XF-84H some credibility by claiming this record for the aircraft in 1997. Guinness was wrong. The vibration of the propeller shaft and uncontrollable snaking in flight meant that the aircraft probably failed to exceed 450mph, and even piston-engined propeller aircraft have gone much faster than this. To add insult to injury, the supersonic propeller was so loud that it could be heard 25 miles away. Close up, the horrific howl caused headaches and nausea, and an engineer and a crew chief both experienced violent fits triggered by the sound. Edwards AFB made the test crews tow the aircraft a long distance out into Rogers dry lake before testing the engine. Twelve flights were made from 1955, all by Republic test pilots – eleven by Hank Beaird (ten of which were cut short due to some technical problem or other) and one by Lin Hendrix, who threatened to fight anyone who made him fly the aircraft again. The only flights made were the manufacturer’s proving programme, and it’s tempting to conclude that this was only completed to avoid financial penalties. No USAF pilot flew the ‘Thunderscreech’. It would probably have killed someone – possibly from the noise alone – if its pilots hadn’t refused to fly it, or the USAF not seen sense and belatedly cancelled the programme.

 

 

Dedicated to the memory of Eric ‘Winkle’ Brown

What was the most combat effective piston-engined fighter ever made? An analysis can be found here.

You may also enjoy top WVR and BVR fighters of today, an alternate history of the TSR.2, 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 The Strange Story and The Planet Satellite. The Fashion Versus Aircraft Camo is also a real cracker.

Follow my vapour trail on Twitter: @Hush_kit

Matthew Willis is a writer and journalist specialising in naval aviation. He is the biographer of A&AEE and Fairey test pilot Duncan Menzies. His book on the Fairey Barracuda will be out later this year.

The ten worst British military aircraft

 

15-4.jpg
The Supermarine Swift was a deeply flawed fighter, but was saved from this list by its more successful career in reconnaissance.

If you want something done slowly, expensively and possibly very well, you go to the British. While Britain created the immortal Spitfire, Lancaster and Edgley Optica, it also created a wealth of dangerous, disgraceful and diabolical designs. These are just ten plucked from a shortlist of thirty.  In defining ‘worst’- we’ve looked for one, or a combination, of the following: design flaws, conceptual mistakes, being extremely dangerous, being unpleasant to fly, or obsolete at the point of service entry (and the type must have entered service). Grab a cup of tea, and prepare for ire as you read about ten machines they wanted your dad, grandad or great grandad to fly to war.

Help Hush-Kit to remain independent by donating here. Donations enable us to carry on creating unusual and engaging articles.

10. Blackburn Beverley

‘The Beverly Hellbilly’
flying dukw
A Beverley gives birth to a cub. Initially born with six wheels, the wings only develop after sexual maturity.
A mere year separates the service entry of the Beverley (1955) and the US’ C-130 Hercules (1956), yet sixty years later one of these is still the best tactical transport – serving with many air forces around the world- and the other only exists in the form of a single lonely museum piece standing in the cold in a village near Hull. There’s a reason for this.
 The Beverley had four Bristol Centaurus capable of generating a total of 11,400 horsepower pulling a fully loaded Beverley weighing 135,000 lb; the C-130A had a maximum weight of 124,200 lb and had 15,000 of turboprop horsepower to move it. The Centaurus also powered the abysmal Firebrand, pitiful Buckingham and the technically brilliant (but conceptually wrong-headed) Brabazon- and, for the sake of fairness, the Sea Fury. Lockheed threw vast resources at getting the Hercules right (so much so that Kelly Johnson thought the project would sink the whole company), whereas Blackburn used warmed-up World War II technology and a dawdling development time to produce an aircraft that was at best mediocre and which did its own small part in teaching the world that America was better at making aeroplanes.
 
 
Bev
In defence of the Beverley it performed well in austere conditions and could be procured without spending foreign currency reserves. (Thanks to Jon Lake)

 

 

9. Supermarine Scimitar

‘Red Beard’s scabbard’
scimitar-f-mk-1.jpg
 

Take an aircraft so dangerous that is statistically more likely than not to crash over a twelve year period- and arm it with a nuclear bomb. Prior to this, ensure one example crashes and kills its first Commanding Officer, in front of the press. There you have the Scimitar. Extremely maintenance heavy, an inferior fighter to the Sea Vixen and a worse bomber than the Buccaneer; the Scimitar was certainly not Joe Smith’s finest moment. It was the last FAA aircraft designed with an obsolete requirement to be able to make an unaccelerated carrier take-off, and as a result had to have a thicker and larger wing than would otherwise be required. Only once did a Scimitar ever make an unassisted take-off, with a very light fuel load and no stores, and then just to prove that it could be done

Read The 11 Worst X-Planes here
 
8. Panavia Tornado F.Mk 2
‘The Timcat’
010101-A-0000A-006
“Don’t worry sir, I hear the Flankers are not too agile with full tanks”
The Tornado interceptor was a very British development of an international aircraft. In the 1970s the British Aircraft Corporation pushed heavily for an interceptor variant of the Tornado (a ground attack aircraft). The government and partner nations were sceptical that this project would be the low-cost, low-risk, high-performance fighter promised, so BAC massaged the facts a little, deliberately understating what a huge undertaking it would be. Essentially they took a heavy airframe optimised for low-level flight, with engines optimised for low-level flight, with a radar optimised for attacking ground targets from low-level flight, and attempted to turn it into an interceptor intended to attack bombers at medium and high altitudes. To add to the fun, it was decided to develop an extremely ambitious new radar, despite Britain not having created an advanced fighter radar since the Lightning’s 50s technology AI23 (the Sea Harrier’s Blue Fox was a low-performance set derived from a helicopter system). Despite its ‘F’ designation, and the euphemistic ‘interim’ description, the F.Mk 2 did not have a functioning radar and lacked several other vital components for a modern fighter. The centre of gravity issues caused by the absent radar were solved with a large chunk of concrete ballast satirically dubbed the ‘Blue Circle radar’ after a cement brand (the nature of this ballast was probably apocryphal – see comments section). Despite the Tornado’s terrible high altitude performance and poor agility, huge amounts of money and time led to the F.Mk 3 – which eventually matured into a capable weapon system. Quite how many F-15Cs could have been bought for the cost of the Tornado Air Defence Variant programme is a question many RAF crews moaned to themselves as they struggled to refuel at altitudes higher than the Post Office Tower.
 
 
 
Help us give you more by donating to Hush-Kit here – even £2 is appreciated and it takes 10 seconds 
 
7. Gloster Javelin
‘It’s not time for T’
4655949878_67c1a0255d_o.jpg
It takes a special kind of genius to make an aircraft with a delta wing and one of the highest thrust-to-weight ratios of its generation subsonic, but that’s what Gloster did. The Javelin entered service in 1956, the same year as the dreadful Convair F-102, but even the disappointing American fighter would have smashed the Javelin in a drag race. After a mere twelve years in service, the RAF dropped the type. Unsurprisingly no export orders were received for the ‘Tripe triangle’.
 
6. Blackburn Firebrand
‘Fleet evil’

Blackburn-B-37-Firebrand-3.jpgThe story of the Firebrand torpedo fighter is a rotten one. The specification for the type was issued in 1939, but it was not until the closing weeks of the war that it began to enter service. Despite a luxuriously long development, it was an utter pig, with stability issues in all axes and a tendency to lethal stalls. There was a litany of restrictions to try and reduce the risks, including the banning of external tanks, but it still remained ineffective and dangerous to fly. Worse still, instead of trying to rectify the problems the FAA started a witch hunt of those pilots who dared to speak the truth about the abysmal Firebrand. Only two Firebrand squadrons formed, of which the flying complement was heavily, if not entirely made up of qualified flying instructors, suggesting only the most experienced pilots could be trusted with this unforgiving monster.

 
 
10 worst German aircraft here
 
 
5. de Havilland Sea Vixen

‘Vixen vapour rub’

Vixen2
The observer sat below and to the right of the pilot in what London estate agents would refer to as a spacious luxury living area; he sat in a cramped space in virtual darkness in a ‘coal hole’ notoriously difficult to escape from.

The Royal Navy’s Sea Vixen fighters were death traps. 145 Sea Vixens were built, of these 37.93%.were lost over the type’s twelve-year operational life. More than half of the incidents were fatal. The Sea Vixen entered service in 1959 (despite a first flight eight years earlier), two years later than the US Navy’s Vought F-8 Crusader. The F-8 was more than twice as fast as the Sea Vixen, despite having 3,000Ibs less thrust. The development of the Sea Vixen had been glacial. The specification was issued in 1947, initially for an aircraft to serve both the FAA and the RAF. The DH.110 prototype first flew in 1951, and one crashed at the Farnborough the following year. This slowed down the project, which was then put on hold as the DH and the RN focused on the alternative DH.116 ‘Super Venom’. Once the project became prioritised again, it was substantially redesigned to fully navalise it. Then when the Royal Navy gave a firm commitment, it requested a radar with a bigger scanner and several other time-consuming modifications. All of which meant it arrived way too late- its peer, the F-8 remained in frontline service until 2000, its other contemporary, the F-4, remains in service today- the Sea Vixen retired in 1972. Fifty-one Royal Navy aircrew were killed flying the Sea Vixen.

Vixen_catapult

4. Saro Lerwick
‘Fat boy swim’
large
Despite possessing a decidedly cuddly aesthetic the Lerwick was a killer, difficult to handle in the air or on the water and a miserable combat aircraft. Recommended to be scrapped in 1939, the Lerwicks were pressed into service due to the lack of any alternative and of 21 built, 11 were lost, 10 in accidents and one simply disappeared. Its main problems were the old chestnuts of lack of power coupled with an inexplicable lack of stability. The Lerwick could not be flown hands-off, a serious flaw for a long range patrol aircraft nor could it maintain height on one engine. It was prone to porpoising on landing and take off and possessed a vicious stall. Added to this structural concerns (the floats regularly broke off) and a woefully unreliable hydraulic system and it is amazing that the diminishing number of Lerwicks managed to remain in use until the end of 1942.
 
 
 
 
3. Blackburn Botha
‘Botharation’
Blackburn_Botha_at_RAF_Silloth_WWII_IWM_CH_1907
 
Another great Blackburn design, the Botha was damned from a chronic lack of power. Its poor performance meant it was never to enter service in its primary role as a torpedo bomber. Had that been all it would have been nothing worse than an obscure mediocrity but Blackburn had cleverly made it extremely difficult to actually see out of the aircraft except dead ahead. This posed something of an issue for an aircraft now intended for reconnaissance and the Botha was supplanted by the Anson, which it had been supposed to replace. Passed to training units the Botha’s vicious handling traits conspired with its underpowered nature to produce a fantastic amount of accidents. Yet somehow it soldiered on until 1944 and a terrifying 580 were built.
 
 
2. Blackburn Roc
‘Death metal Roc’
Roc2
The Roc was a fairly innocuous flying machine, however as an example of the wrong concept applied to the wrong airframe to produce a useless combat aircraft it is hard to beat. The ‘turret fighter’ that was so inexplicably popular in Britain just before the war was most memorably realised in the Boulton Paul Defiant, an extremely well-designed machine (considering) that did surprisingly well given that it had to lug around a draggy, heavy turret to no good purpose. The Roc by contrast was lumbered with a massively over-engineered airframe – a legacy of its being derived from a dive bomber – had a less powerful engine and was over 100 mph slower. How an aircraft that could not attain 200mph was expected to survive, let alone fight, in 1940 is one of the enduring mysteries of the early war period, as is the fact that its only confirmed ‘kill’ was a Ju 88, one of the world’s fastest bombers.
 
 
 
1. Blackburn ‘Twin Blackburn’ or ‘TB’
‘The conjoined flip-flop’
BlackburnTB2
Apparently named after a disease, the TB was a bad aircraft that could not perform the one task it was designed for and thus set a precedent for many Blackburn designs to come. The Twin Blackburn nevertheless saw service for a year or so before it was finally put out of its misery and all nine examples were scrapped. Intended to destroy Zeppelins, the floatplane TB was supposed to climb above them and drop explosive Ranken darts on any insolent dirigibles foolish enough to approach its precious airspace. Unfortunately, the poor underpowered Twin Blackburn was unable to drag itself to airship operating altitude, even after its deadly cargo of explosive darts had been cut by two thirds. Furthermore the structure, which consisted of nothing more complicated than a couple of B.E.2 fuselages lashed together with a new set of wings and a vast amount of hope triumphing over experience, was not very rigid and the action of warping the wings flexed the poor TB so much it could end up turning in the opposite direction. The observer sat in one fuselage, the pilot in the other and communication was impossible except through waving, presumably to prevent either expressing to the other their true opinions of the designer of this radical machine. As if tumblr_inline_nj1wv8FNHO1t90ue7that were not enough, the wooden floats were mounted directly below the rotary engines. Rotaries drip out a lot of oil and as a result the TB’s floats would often catch fire. It would be nice to say that despite all this the TB inspired the fantastic Twin-Mustang but of course it didn’t.

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. Without donations we can’t carry on.

At the moment our contributors do not receive any payment but we’re hoping to reward them for their fascinating stories in the future.

 

10 worst German aircraft here

“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’

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.

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Plane adverts

b99356949bca8d1d21bfd08e13762edd

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

Most F-35 technologies will be added to existing fighters

Gripen-NG-Mockup-cockpit.jpg
Gripen the bull by the horn: Gripen NG’s 5th Gen cockpit.

The F-35 is at the forefront of avionics, but its slow gestation will mean others will harvest the research that led to this technology. Other than its claimed ‘stealth’, all of its key technologies will, if they prove effective, be integrated onto other aircraft. The technology race is an odd one, where neither pioneers or the military have an advantage. 

Never be the pioneer. The Eurofighter Typhoon pioneered voice control interface for fighter pilots and now, after spending millions achieving it, has a system way less advanced than the Siri on your iPhone. The large touch screen display which has cost a fortune to develop for the F-35 has also taken so long to develop that it is technologically behind the systems used by high-end graphic designers. The idea so beloved of Hollywood films that the military has secret technologies years ahead of consumers like you is not true. Military project contractors (at least in the US and Europe) make more money if their programmes run slowly, and they are also free to escalate the cost as they wish. Producers of high street merchandise still exist in a real state of free market capitalism and must produce things as quickly and economically as possible, and in many ways are light years ahead of the military.

Outside of this, there is also the situation regarding how pioneering technologies, despite what may be stated, are not tied to particular aircraft models. The F-35 is an interesting case in point, despite claims by Lockheed Martin that all rival fighters are obsolete – which of the F-35’s key technologies could not be added to conventional, and higher performance, airframes? Its innovative cockpit display? No, as the Gripen NG which is about to fly will have one as good. The situational awareness derived from its computing power? Moore’s law is seemingly unstoppable, so it seems unlikely that it would be difficult to equal or surpass this in a few years time (the fast jets with the greatest computing power are the latest iterations of the F-15) . Its radar stealth? This is its strongest card, but in most likely situations the carriage of cruise missiles by a conventional aircraft would create a similar level of survivability. The role of stealth in air-to-air combat remains a complete unknown, as no LO or stealth aircraft has ever fought in air-to-air combat. Working through the F-35’s shopping list of unique features reveals that the most of these aspects could be fitted to fourth generation platforms which have superior reliability, and therefore, sortie rates. The F-35’s much-vaunted lead in connectivity via datalinks will also be challenged rather soon by the Gripen NG.

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. If you can’t afford to donate anything then don’t worry.

Top Ten Most Boring Aircraft in History! Werner Herzog’s guide to pusher aircraft,
A thoroughly disrespectful guide to the 10 most attractive Canadian aircraft , A thoroughly disrespectful guide to the 10 most attractive US aircraft A thoroughly disrespectful guide to the 10 most attractive US aircraft , Review of the Eurofighter magazine , F-35 overexposure , Review of the Eurofighter promo film, Review of the F-35 website

Follow my vapour trail on Twitter: @Hush_kit

You may also enjoy 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 of The Planet Satellite. Fashion Versus Aircraft Camo is also a real cracker. 

Follow my vapour trail on Twitter: @Hush_kit