The disintegration of the Next Generation Fighter (NGF) element of Europe’s Future Combat Air System has left the global combat-aircraft industry looking rather like the morning after a disastrous speed-dating convention. Delegations that spent years discussing “shared visions” are suddenly back on the market, updating their relationship status. But who will date? And will it last? It’s time for the most expensive dating show in history…welcome to Fighter Island!

Modern fighters are so expensive that few nations can build one on their own. Unfortunately, international defence programmes often start as a strategic partnership and end as a toxic situationship. Everyone talks about love, then three years later, they’re arguing over intellectual property and workshare, and leaving in the morning with their underwear and books in a box. With NGF apparently joining the long list of aerospace relationships that consciously uncoupled faster than a canard delta in freak crosswinds, we ask: Who swipes right next?

France is already eyeing the single life, Germany is rather desperately flirting across the entire European industrial bar, and Spain is simply hoping someone texts back with a dickpic with an Airbus logo attached.

Our panel of entirely unqualified romantic aerospace matchmakers investigates. Sit back as we explain the whole complex situation in 4500 words that won’t feel like homework.

France and India

Wait, are France and India not married? They already run like an old, comfortable ‘monogamish’ relationship: India flies French fighters and wants more. They seem like such a nice couple. Sure, every so often, after a couple of glasses of Haywards 5000, India brings up that awkward night France halted Mirage 2000 production with a mildly resentful “remember when you left me on read for three months?” and France changes the subject, but they still end up back together.

For France, India is the ideal partner: serious money and scale. Enough to make a next-gen fighter programme feel viable rather than a vanity project that leaves the mortgage unpaid. They also (importantly) share France’s love of forcing planes to land on boats.

For India, France offers something equally tempting: advanced aerospace tech leading to eventual happy celibacy. Meanwhile, France worries that it could eventually become a subordinate partner to a nation with a greater appetite.

Though largely harmonious, they wonder if they really want the same thing after all. India wants tech transfer and local production (secretly, it wants to learn enough to eventually leave France and ‘go monk mode’).

Add in India’s lingering situationship with its mental ex, Russia, and the whole thing gets even more complicated and emotionally unresolved. The chemistry is obvious. The sex is still great. But did I see S-400s in her bedside drawer?

The only real question is who gets custody of the source code after the breakup… or the wedding… or whatever this is. Both claim to want independence, but could the attraction be too great to keep them apart? India just hopes France never finds the romantic video Israel sent them:

Compatibility Rating: 8/10

Odds of Getting It On: 4/1

Sweden and Brazil

These sassy underdogs from series 2 of Fighter Island were a huge hit with the public for their fresh approach to military aircraft. Who could forget the lovable cringy moment when Brazil named its transport aircraft Millennium as a tribute to its love of Robbie Williams? Or their classic trolling of the US in calling the Brazilian Gripen the F-39? Clearly a fun couple, yet sensible too.

Unlike many speculative partnerships, this one is built upon an existing relationship. Brazil’s Gripen programme has created real industrial cooperation, real trust and real experience working together. Engineers know each other. Managers know each other. Procurement officials have already survived meetings together. Brazilians have braved pickled herring, and Swedes have fallen for churrasco.

Both nations occupy a similar strategic niche. Neither possesses superpower resources. Neither can casually spend hundreds of billions pursuing technological perfection. Both, therefore, specialise in designing practical, efficient systems that deliver impressive capability without requiring the GDP of a medium-sized continent. There is also philosophical compatibility, even if Swedes are bad at emotional expression and samba.

Swedish aerospace engineering traditionally emphasises flexibility, affordability and intelligent design. Brazil’s aerospace industry has developed under similar pressures, producing sophisticated products while remaining acutely cost-conscious. Neither side suffers from a pathological belief that every aircraft must also be capable of solving climate change and making espresso.

A future joint fighter could occupy an attractive position in the market: advanced enough to compete, affordable enough to export and independent enough to appeal to nations seeking alternatives to American, Chinese or major European suppliers.

The obvious challenge is scale.

Even together, Sweden and Brazil remain smaller than the giant coalitions behind competing sixth-generation programmes. Additional partners might eventually be required, along with substantial export success.

Still, compared with many proposed partnerships, this one has something unusual.

Evidence. But in dating-show parlance, they’re already sharing a Netflix password. But (and I like big butts) neither has their own motor, and it is handy if at least one partner can drive.

Compatibility Rating: 9/10

Odds of Getting It On: 3/1

Germany and GCAP

This would be one of the most powerful aerospace partnerships imaginable (barring Sweden and France signing up too). It would also be the defence-industrial equivalent of somebody announcing they are embracing the single life before immediately downloading three dating apps and parking on the edge of the woods

Read more

At the outbreak of war in 1939, the fastest bombers in widespread frontline service were the Bristol Blenheim and Heinkel He 111P, both slower than 275mph. By 1945, speeds had dramatically increased, and the fastest bombers were capable of over 460mph. This astonishing increase was the result of new technologies and the brutally earned experience of bomber crews, who understood that speed was life. Here are the 10 Fastest Bombers of the Second World War.

10: Aichi B7A Ryusei (352 mph) ‘Grace under fire’

There’s bad luck, and then there’s arriving at the end of a war for the losing side and having your factory destroyed by an earthquake; such was the fate of the cursed Grace. The Aichi B7A Ryusei, known to the Allies as ‘Grace’, was a large and advanced carrier-borne torpedo-dive bomber designed for the Imperial Japanese Navy. It promised formidable performance but was built in small numbers and deprived of the carriers it was meant for.

Chief Engineer Toshio Ozaki adopted a mid-wing, inverted gull-wing layout to accommodate a large propeller, an internal bomb bay, and carrier stowage requirements. Powered by the beefy Nakajima Homare 12 radial engine, the Ryusei could carry either bombs internally or a single Type 91 torpedo externally. Its agility rivalled fighters, an unusual trait for an aircraft of its size.

The ‘Grace’ first flew in 1942, but persistent engine troubles and airframe refinements delayed production until 1944. By then, Japan’s strategic position had deteriorated. Aichi completed around 80 examples before a devastating earthquake destroyed its factory; a further 25 were built elsewhere. Its limited numbers and late arrival curtailed operational impact.

Only the carrier Taihō was suitable for the B7A, but she was sunk before embarking the type. Thereafter, Grace operated from land bases. The last carrier capable of hosting it, Shinano, was lost within ten days of commissioning. Thus, the Ryusei’s potential remained largely unfulfilled as Japan’s war ended, though on paper at least it appeared formidable.

9: Boeing B-29 Superfortress B-29 (357mph) ‘The destroyer of worlds’

The Boeing B-29 Superfortress was the joint fastest heavy bomber of the Second World War, posting a maximum speed of around 357mph at altitude. That figure mattered: speed shrank exposure to flak and fighters across the vast Pacific. It was a cathedral of aluminium, designed to cruise high, fast, and travel great distances; it was a generation ahead of other heavy bombers.

Speed came from altitude and power. Four Wright R-3350 Duplex-Cyclones, each delivering more than 2,200hp, fed General Electric turbo-superchargers that held manifold pressure as the air thinned. Fully pressurised crew compartments let the aircraft live where piston engines usually faded, turning thin air into safety and miles-per-hour into time saved.

The programme to develop the B-29 was astonishingly expensive, costing a third more than the then-$2 billion Manhattan Project and involving cutting-edge technologies. A high-aspect wing, smooth stressed-skin surfaces, flush riveting and tight-fitting cowlings cut drag; constant-speed propellers bit very efficiently. Remote, centralised gun turrets replaced draggy manned barbettes; Streamlining was doctrine, not garnish, and the stopwatch loved it.

Crucially, speed was sustained over range. With vast fuel stores, careful engine management and aerodynamic cleanliness, the B-29 could cruise at roughly 225 mph while climbing above much of the opposition. Its combination of speed, altitude and reach transformed the horrific city-incinerating science of strategic bombing. As well as firebombing, it ushered in the atomic era with its raids on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

8: Consolidated B-32 Dominator (357mph) ‘Curtain Call For the Dominatrix’

Ordered as a backup to the B-29 in case the Superfortress programme should run into problems, Consolidated’s B-32 ironically ran into far more developmental problems than the Boeing aircraft. Stability issues saw the original twin tail replaced with a truly massive single fin, and engine fires were commonplace.

Neither the pressurisation system nor the remote-controlled defensive armament worked properly, and both were abandoned, compelling the aircraft to operate at low or medium altitude and utilise five manned gun turrets. Despite the changes, the aircraft still delivered astounding performance by contemporary standards, and the B-32 entered combat in May 1945.

Possessing a colossal bombload and roughly the same range as the B-29, the Dominator also matched its 357mph maximum speed, making it the fastest heavy bomber of the war. Difficult but not quite impossible to intercept, the B-32’s curious place in history was ensured by one such interception.

Three days after VJ Day, B-32 ‘Hobo Queen’ was attacked by 17 Japanese fighters, killing a crewman before it used its superior speed to escape. Its gunners claimed two Zeroes destroyed, but, typical of wartime U.S. bomber crew kill claims, this was an exaggeration: no Zeroes were actually lost. This was, however, the last known aerial combat of the Second World War.

7: Douglas A-26 Invader (359mph) ‘Heinemann’s Hotrod’

Though a handful to fly, the Douglas A-26B Invader, after initial teething issues, became one of the most formidable warplanes of its era. Powered by twin Pratt & Whitney R-2800-27 Double Wasp engines, it enjoyed exceptional speed, agility and firepower.

Its firepower was formidable: six, later eight, 0.5-inch (12.7 mm) nose-mounted heavy machine guns, remotely controlled dorsal and ventral turrets with two each, plus optional underwing and fuselage packs for up to ten more guns. It had heavy armour and could deliver up to 6,000 lb (2,700 kg) of bombs or other munitions.

Douglas A-26B Invader

Not only was the A-26 the fastest U.S. bomber of the Second World War, but it also enjoyed surprisingly good manoeuvrability. In the Pacific theatre, its speed and agility allowed it to evade interception while delivering precise, punishing strikes against enemy targets.

The A-26 had a long career after the Second World War, and it is possible that it served in more wars than any other combat aircraft. Even in the 1960s, it remained in service with 21 nations, many in Latin America. That this Second World War type also fought in the Vietnam War is a remarkable thing that speaks much of the A-26’s excellence. It also enjoyed a peacetime role as a firefighting water bomber.

6: Saab 18 (370mph) ‘Snabbspinkarn’

In 1938, Sweden sought a new twin-engined combat aircraft, but as new requirements were added to the specification (including a new bomb installation, guns, armour and self-sealing fuel tanks), the Saab 18’s first flight was delayed until 1942. Tests found the Twin Wasp-powered aircraft underpowered, but it was produced due to an urgent need and entered service in June 1944. It was hoped that British Taurus would become available.

The prototype of the B 18B variant flew soon after; this was equipped with more powerful Swedish-built DB 605 engines, which gave it the grunt it needed. The B 18 radically improved Sweden’s bomber force, capable of carrying a 40 per cent heavier bombload than the B 3s it replaced, while being less vulnerable to fighters. Despite entering service in 1944 and looking dated, the B 18B had a top speed of 370mph (sometimes quoted as 354mph), making it one of the fastest bombers of the war. But ultimately, it was a war it did not fight in, as Sweden did not take part.

After the war, in 1949, the B 18 was subject to a highly unusual (probably unique) modification for a twin-engined piston-engined bomber, the fitment of ejection seats (two for each aircraft). Another unusual feature was the fearsome 57mm

Read more

Cryptoaeronautics is the speculative discussion of aircraft that may or may not be. It gave us the F-19 and Aurora, and I love the excitement, the varied theories, and the air of mystery they bring. And the new ‘Christmas Tree Video’ brings back the excitement.

For years, rumours and alleged sightings around Area 51 have fueled speculation about a secret Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) demonstrator (nicknamed Voodoo II). Witnesses have reported unusual aircraft shapes, sounds, and flight patterns. While no public evidence confirmed these claims for years, the secrecy surrounding advanced U.S. aerospace testing helped sustain persistent interest and debate.

This world of artists’ impressions and guesswork is thrilling, and a new mystery video purportedly from Area 51 is exactly the kind of shadowy story that gets me excited and reminds me of the big F-117 and B-2 reveals of the late 1980s. I loved UFO and ghost books as a child and felt rather miffed to later learn that <redacted as he is still alive>, a popular unsolved-mystery peddler, specialising in flying saucers and murders, was a baloney artist. But cryptoaeronautics gives you that same mystery kick, in a way that lets you flex your knowledge and curiosity while being (probably) rooted in reality.

A recent thermal video circulating online, often linked to speculation about a possible F-47/NGAD-related aircraft, has been discussed extensively by defence media and enthusiasts. One of the most detailed early analyses comes from The War Zone (TWZ), a defence journalism outlet written by contributors including Thomas ‘Mandrake’ Newdick, Tyler Rogoway, and Howard Altman. TWZ notes that the aircraft’s outline in the infrared footage “resembles a design by Darold Cummings,” referencing aerodynamic concepts associated with advanced stealth configuration studies and earlier experimental aircraft design lineages.*¹

Darold Cummings is a veteran aerospace designer who worked at North American Aviation, Rockwell, Northrop, and Boeing, contributed to major aircraft programs (including the YF-23 and Ranger 2000), advanced concepts, and later continued independent aerospace design work through his own company.

Cummings’ 1983 Northrop fighter study looked like three square pyramids, each larger than the next, with a bite taken out of the back by Pacman. It featured extreme cranked dihedral on the wings’ outer section and dorsal intakes. The back shape resembles the rear end of the B-21 (the Project Fear Christmas Tree has two pointy sections on the back rather than the one of the Northrop study). Another cool feature of the Northrop study is the fixed flapped canards.

The footage was reportedly captured by the “Project Fear” YouTube channel near Groom Lake (Area 51) using a consumer-grade thermal-imaging device. Its provenance is therefore indirect and unverified, relying on publicly recorded civilian footage rather than any official military release or telemetry data.*²

Project Fear can be interesting, but it should be treated with some caution. It’s mainly an entertainment-style YouTube channel, described as “Paranormal #explorers who travel to the most haunted locations in the world!” not a defence or aerospace analysis outlet- so it doesn’t usually provide detailed technical data or independent verification. Thermal footage is also easy to misread without context, leading to overinterpretation. So it’s best to remain a bit hesitant before drawing conclusions.

A key point raised in multiple analyses is the lack of a clear engine exhaust plume in the thermal signature. In conventional jet aircraft, turbine exhaust typically produces a strong infrared bloom. The absence of a clearly defined plume has led some observers to suggest the object could be a subscale demonstrator or test vehicle, potentially operating without full-scale turbofan propulsion or at very low power settings, though sensor saturation and processing effects can also obscure thermal detail.*³ C Schmitz’s analysis points more to a very efficient engine at a low power setting.

But shape ain’t the big deal

While the shape is pretty fascinating, the real voodoo of the next fighter will be in the black boxes. Its advantage may come less from a single “super radar” and more from a layered, distributed sensing ecosystem (the one ecosystem those climate-change-denying loons still care about) fused into one ‘mind’. Distributed passive RF sensing could allow the aircraft to avoid actively emitting radar altogether, instead detecting and triangulating enemy aircraft by the faint electronic signals they already produce, while sharing that picture with nearby drones and allied platforms. This could be paired with next-generation IRST systems capable of resolving subtle heat differences at long range, potentially tracking stealth aircraft from the side or rear, where signatures are weakest. The airframe itself may become part of the sensor suite through a conformal sensor skin, in which antennas, radar elements, and electronic warfare apertures are embedded throughout the structure, reducing drag and turning the aircraft into a continuous sensing surface. Navigation and resilience in contested environments could rely on quantum-inspired inertial systems, allowing precise positioning even under intense GPS jamming.

At longer range, ELINT arrays could map enemy radar networks and datalinks in real time, building a constantly updating electronic order of battle. Meanwhile, multi-static radar concepts would allow Collaborative Combat Aircraft (sometimes bitchily called Loyal Wingmen, suggesting real wingmen are not loyal) to act as distributed emitters and receivers, creating a shifting sensor web that is far harder to deceive than a single platform.

Sorry, I am going to say the other N-word

Taken together, the most radical idea is that the F-47 may not primarily “sense” at all in the traditional sense. Instead, it could function as a fused command node, integrating satellite feeds, drone data, off-board sensors, and its own passive collection into a single battlespace picture. In that role, it becomes less a dogfighting aircraft and more a flying decision engine, one element of a wider NGAD ecosystem rather than the centre of it. Or, in common terms, it will be a delayed, very expensive maintenance nightmare that can (on a good day) do amazing things. It may also suffer from the whims of a chaotic US leadership wishing to interfere with the project. Others may wonder whether there will also be some thought about what stops special forces or drones from attacking it at the airbase? Like the other new combat aircraft in development, it will likely emphasise range over agility and offer buckets of electricity and clever thermal management.

I hate saying node.

So what?

Overall, while the design resemblance noted by TWZ has fuelled speculation, there is no authoritative confirmation that the object is related to the F-47 (or F/A-XX) programme. As with any military secret question, the answer is always: we don’t know, and anybody who does know will not tell you. Still, it is fun to guess.

*¹ The War Zone (TWZ), “Is This A Glimpse Of The Aircraft That Gave Birth To The F-47?” https://www.twz.com/air/is-this-a-glimpse-of-the-aircraft-that-gave-birth-to-the-f-47
*² Defence Security Asia / Project Fear reporting compilation on Groom Lake thermal footage, June 2026 https://defencesecurityasia.com/en/boeing-f-47-ngad-area-51-thermal-footage-sixth-generation-fighter-spotted/
*³ Army Recognition analysis of Area 51 thermal footage, June 2026 https://www.armyrecognition.com/news/aerospace-news/2026/boeing-f-47-leak-area-51-thermal-video

Follow Joe Coles and his thrilling Hush-Kit aviation world on Substack, Twitter X or Blue Sky. His superb Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes is available here.

“You could over-boost it up to nearly 3,000 h.p. and 4,000 revs, and the speed went up to 460 m.p.h. In a dive, the Tempest was the only aircraft to reach, without interfering with its handling qualities to any marked extent, 550-600 m.p.h.”

- Pierre Clostermann, The Big Show

The Tempest fought for only 400 days, charging into the fray with a dizzying ferocity. After being thrown into fighter sweeps in France, it was switched to home defence, where it became the leading Doodlebug killer. By blasting 805 V-1 cruise missiles from the sky, the Hawker Tempest saved at least 2,000 lives (and that is an exceptionally conservative estimate). It then went on the offensive.

“It could punch any other fighter in the face and order itself a kebab before the other guy hit the pavement.."

Nothing in the 2nd Tactical Air Force hit harder per sortie than the Hawker Tempest. The Typhoon had aced rehab, given up the spice and taken up religion. The result was the Tempest, and the religion was clearly Satanism. The Tempest combined raw speed, low-level control, and mind-bending acceleration like nothing else. In 1944–45, Tempest squadrons served as a small, elite force yet delivered an outsized impact

Read more

When Aeralis stalled this week, there were bullshit headlines claiming the Red Arrows would be deprived of a British jet and possibly their future. The reality was that the ‘Go-Go Gadget’ trainer would never have worked. We consider exactly why that is.

In the 1980s cartoon Inspector Gadget, the Gadgetmobile could transform depending on the situation. It might be a compact family car, shift into a sports car for pursuit, or become an armoured utility vehicle with gadgets like hidden weapons and surveillance tools. That idea relates to Aeralis because both rely on the same fantasy: a single platform that rapidly changes roles. Cartoons can bend physics; real aircraft cannot without huge complexity.

Aeralis tried to build a modular jet trainer: a single-core fuselage with swappable wings, engines, and avionics, rather than multiple aircraft types. In theory, this promises lower costs and easier upgrades. In practice, it creates certification, cost, and reliability headaches that military aviation tends to avoid in favour of proven, fixed designs.

Aeralis has now entered administration after years of delays and funding struggles, unable to secure the long-term backing needed to move beyond development. The concept was commercially uncertain for a small training market, and its future now depends on whether a buyer or government interest rescues parts of the work.

With that in mind, here’s an earlier 2021 piece in which Jim Smith argued the idea was more trouble than it was worth and that the real problems hadn’t even been properly identified.

(I would also like to offer sympathy to the staff affected. So let’s go back to the 2021 article.

Jim Smith, who spent much of his career close to the world of military aircraft acquisition, reflects on the radical new Aeralis training system

Hush-Kit has asked me to look at the Aeralis modular training family of aircraft and systems, recently reported in the media following the Royal Air Force's award of a research contract. The intent is to provide a family of aircraft capable of addressing a range of requirements in the general area spanning basic trainers to light combat aircraft, through an innovative modular design approach. A common forward and centre fuselage module is used, and with alternative wings, propulsion systems, cockpits, and empennage modules, variants can be generated to meet this broad range of requirements.

While in all cases the aircraft are subsonic, a larger, less-swept wing distinguishes the elementary trainer from the advanced trainer and light combat variants. Three propulsion modules are envisaged – a lower and a higher-thrust single-engine configuration, and a twin-engine variant. Two-crew and single-seat versions would be available to meet the differing needs of training and air combat, but these would retain the same external lines for commonality of structure and aerodynamics, with the freed-up volume of the single-seater available for additional fuel.

Systems aspects are enabled by exploiting the flexibility and commonality of digital systems, providing not only the capability to vary the displays as required, but also the ability to synthesise targets for training; to integrate with different external sensors and stores; and a comprehensive ability to monitor and manage airframe, engine, and system usage and maintenance requirements.

Aspects to consider
Given the attractive-sounding capabilities described above, what issues should you look out for? I’ll try to group these under Technical, Marketing, and Decision-making, and I must state from the outset that my comments are based on a general analysis of the problem. My list is absolutely not intended to imply that these issues are not being addressed. It’s intended to indicate to the Hush-Kit readership those areas that are likely to be important for anyone proposing a modular aircraft solution to fit a range of roles, from training to combat. And, as usual, this represents my opinion, which has no connection with, or influence on, any serious decision-making about modular training platforms and systems.

Key technical issues:
Potential weight or other penalties in achieving commonality
To achieve the desired modularity, production breaks must be introduced into the airframe. These are the structural joints where, for example, the alternative outer wings are attached to the common centre fuselage. Other breaks in the structure will be required at the join between the rear fuselage and the centre fuselage, and at the junctions between the propulsion module, the centre fuselage and the rear fuselage.

In addition to these structural joints, some elements of the structure for the lower performance variants may have to be ‘over-engineered’, as they will have to sustain the higher loads generated by higher weight or higher performance variants. As an example, if the basic trainer were stressed to 6g, and the combat aircraft variant to either a higher weight or higher g limit, the centre fuselage wing carry-through structure used by the trainer would need to be stressed to the higher loads experienced in the combat variant

To accommodate alternative engines in different configurations, alternative propulsion modules are required. As a result, and to also allow alternative outer wing planforms, it is proposed to stow the undercarriage in external pods at the trailing edge of the common fuselage/inner wing structure. While this makes a lot of sense as an enabler of the modular design approach, there will be a drag penalty and possibly a weight penalty compared to a fuselage-mounted main undercarriage, such as that used for the Alpha Jet.

Ability to integrate diverse systems for the differing variants
This is an area where a well-thought-through and well-executed approach is central to much of the operational flexibility sought in this modular design. An advanced jet trainer should be able to replicate the look, feel and function of the operational systems to which the trainees will graduate. It would be desirable to configure the cockpit displays to represent different graduation options – for example, in the UK, future trainees might graduate to the Tempest or the F-35B. But if other nations adopt the trainer variant, their operational aircraft might be, for example, the Tejas and the TEDBF.

In addition to representing different cockpits, there are significant differences in equipment that may be required by different variants. While all variants will require flight and engine control systems, utility systems like undercarriage, oxygen, pressurisation, electrical and communications, and health and usage monitoring systems, some will require additional capabilities. For example, an advanced trainer or a dissimilar combat aggressor would require the ability to simulate radar and IRST systems and to inject simulated targets or cooperating manned or unmanned assets into those systems to stimulate required training responses. Air combat replay and recording facilities, such as ACMI or RAIDS pods, would be required, and there might also be a need to at least simulate some ground targeting and practice weapon capabilities

The architecture for these system capabilities is likely to become quite complex, given the differing requirements of potential customers and the diverse capabilities required for the various roles. Particular attention will be needed to ensure physical, electrical, network, software and hardware interfaces are well understood and specified for all the various systems.

Propulsion system matching
Three different engine configurations are proposed: a low-power and a high-power single-engine installation, and a twin-engine solution. Considering the twin-engine solution, it is evident that this will come with differing system requirements than a single-engine solution. For example, consideration will have to be given throughout to the implications of an engine failure, shutdown or fire. This sort of event will require a fuel system capable of supplying either engine separately or both together. Similar considerations will apply to the implications of single-engine failure on the electrical, system management, hydraulics and other aircraft systems.

The high-power variant appears to have a variable nozzle, suggesting use of an afterburner – while this seems unlikely in a subsonic aircraft, additional power, coupled with a slightly more swept wing, will result in different ability to accelerate and potentially different handling qualities, particularly at high subsonic speeds. Consequently, the philosophy for developing control laws will require careful thought. One option would be to minimise changes so that the trainee has to adapt to the greater system capability and performance of the advanced trainer and air combat variants. Alternatively, the control laws for each variant could be tweaked to minimise changes in feel and behaviour.

Certifiable?
The discussion above highlights the criticality of system integration across the proposed variants and provides some indication of the opportunities presented by such a software-enabled training system. A difficulty lurking in the wings behind all of these capabilities is certification. Given that the options include two wing configurations, three engine options, and two cockpit layouts, I think it is safe to say that the approach to certification will be a key area to manage.
Aspects will include the certification of the necessary software and the variations required for different versions or to optimise individual variants for different customers. Additionally, the differing wing planforms will have different aerodynamics and loads, and may require different control laws. The weights and, potentially, the centre of gravity of the variants will differ, and the impact on certification will be compounded should there be a desire or a requirement to offer different g-capability.

In addition, the twin-engine variant will need to demonstrate how engine-failure cases can be safely managed, and any variants capable of carrying and/or releasing weapons will need to show that this can be done safely. Similarly, variations in the fuel systems for the twin-engine and single-seat variants will need to be assessed and certified.

Possible marketing issues:
Differentiation from existing highly capable and competitively priced alternatives

Having once been dominated by the Hawk, the Aero 39 and its developments, and the Alpha Jet, the range of capable and effective jet trainers, light combat and strike aircraft has burgeoned in recent years. While this may seem like a harsh question, I think it is fair to ask what this family of aircraft could do that could not be done as well by the latest two-seat Hawk, working in tandem with a new-generation Hawk 200 single-seater. Or, indeed, single and two-seat variants of other recently produced designs, such as the Leonardo M346 Master.

There are answers to this question available in the advanced, integrated and flexible software-driven systems capabilities proposed, which are indeed a key feature enabling this modular approach. But these systems are also a key risk. They have to be right, timely, sustainable, and certified. And, of course, the digital-capable single-seat variants to operate as partners generally do not exist

Dealing with the related question – why not a supersonic version like the Boeing/Saab T-7A Red Hawk?

There is a distinct niche in the market, spanning advanced supersonic trainers, air combat trainers, and operational light combat aircraft. The Boeing/Saab T-7A sits in this general area as a T-38 replacement, but perhaps the Korean KAI T-50, TA-50 and FA-50 are better exemplars. In essence, this aircraft offers an alternative vision, where a relatively simple trainer can bring pilots up to the capability to take on the advanced T-50, and move up from there to an aircraft capable of handling substantial air combat and strike training, and indeed limited operational capability.

Such an approach offers the prospect of downloading more training hours from the really expensive and capable operational fast jets, albeit at the expense of itself being a much more complex and expensive offering than a modular aircraft covering the flying training, advanced training and initial combat capability spectrum.

Decision-making aspects:
• Convincing decision makers that 3 variants, optimised for Basic Training, Advanced Training, and Light Combat, is a more cost-effective solution than either a single fleet or a two-type solution
This is the nub of the issue in marketing to, for example, the UK Government. Delivery of the indicated capability through a number of modular variants based around the same common fuselage module will need very persuasive analysis. The basis of that analysis should be the demonstration that the proposed solution represents the best value for money, based on whole-of-life costs, discounted to net present value.
There are a lot of technical terms there, but really, what is being asked is how much it would cost to deliver (for example) 30 years of the capability, where the costs have to include development, manufacture, certification, introduction to service, operation, maintenance, and an upgrade cycle (probably). The costs would also cover ground equipment, simulation, training material and differences (positive or negative) in manpower costs to run the system. Net present value means ‘in today’s money’.

To answer my question, you would have to examine the costs, not only of the Aeralis system, but also the cost of, for example, rival systems based around my suggested Hawk plus new generation Hawk 200, and perhaps even consider the alternative of moving to a more capable Boeing/Saab T-7A or KAI T-50 approach, aimed at saving money by downloading more training from Tempest/F-35B.

• To achieve the required flexibility, the training/weapon system of the modular solutions will need to be heavily software-dependent, and developing an approach to convince acquisition agencies that the risks in developing, integrating and certifying the necessary software are being well managed will be vital.
This reflects the integration and certification issues I pointed to as key technical issues, but seen through the risk management lens likely to be used by the government.

If you think about the development program for JSF, you can see that it’s really difficult to design a supersonic stealthy fighter, capable (in different variants) of meeting the needs of the Marines for STOVL, the Navy for Carrier operations, and the Air Force for Strike ‘On the First Day of the War’.

Well, actually, no – most of that was at least partially demonstrated in the SDD phase. What’s really difficult is getting the systems integrated, every aspect of the software, the sensors, the displays, the EW and defensive aids – the whole weapon system, qualified, accepted and certified for operational use.

The more complex, flexible, software-driven, and capable your system is, the more difficult it will be to certify, even if your platform has all the attractive modular capabilities proposed by Aeralis. The opportunity exists to do this, and do it right, but the emphasis on integrating the digital system must be at least as great as, if not greater than, the attention paid to platform modularity.

Sorry, supplies of The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes are running very low, so do grab your copy now to avoid disappointment. Follow Joe Coles and his thrilling Hush-Kit aviation world on Substack, Twitter X or Blue Sky.

“The American Dream has run out of gas. The car has stopped. It no longer supplies the world with its images, its dreams, its fantasies. No more. It’s over. It supplies the world with its nightmares now: the Kennedy assassination, Watergate, Vietnam.”

– J. G. Ballard

The Vietnam War was a vast calamity that cost millions of lives. In the chaos of the air war, MiGs and Phantom fighters duelled for supremacy, while B-52 bombers and other types smashed vast areas to pieces; more bombs were dropped than in the entire Second World War. The dense jungle and mountains made air mobility vital, and helicopter transport, notably the ‘Huey’, came of age. Amid the napalm and jet noise, a new form of air warfare was born. The human cost was terrible. At least 100,000 civilians were killed by the US bombings. Around 10,000 U.S. and over 1,500 South Vietnamese aviation personnel, and perhaps 200 North Vietnamese aircrew were lost in the air war. Out of this aerial carnage emerged the defining aircraft of the conflict. In this thrilling 4,200-word deep-dive, we meet the 16 Most Significant Aircraft of the Vietnam War.

16: Douglas A-4 Skyhawk

The A-4 Skyhawk was designed by Ed Heinemann, a legendary aircraft designer at Douglas Aircraft Company. The plucky Douglas A-4 Skyhawk bucked the trend of ever larger combat aircraft and proved capable of punching far above its weight. The A-4 Skyhawk was a carrier-capable attack aircraft that became a core part of U.S. Navy and Marine Corps air operations in Vietnam.

Though lightweight, the A-4 could carry a relatively large payload of bombs, rockets, and guided missiles. It was used in a wide range of missions, including close air support, interdiction, and strike operations. It demonstrated exceptional versatility, reliability and toughness.

The Skyhawk was also used in dangerous suppression of enemy air defence (SEAD) missions, attacking radar and missile sites. Its compact design made it harder to detect and target. Pilots appreciated its excellent agility, especially when flying low or evading groundfire or fighters.

The A-4’s reputation for toughness, ease of maintenance, and flexibility made it one of the most valuable aircraft of the war. The Skyhawk’s performance proved that a simple, well-designed aircraft could make a huge impact.

15: Vought F-8 Crusader

The Vought F-8 Crusader was one of the most important American fighters of the Vietnam War. It served primarily with the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps, providing fleet air defence, fighter escort, reconnaissance, and ground-attack capabilities. Nicknamed “The Last Gunfighter”, it achieved the best kill-to-loss ratio of any American fighter in the conflict and helped counter the threat posed by North Vietnamese MiGs. Its combination of speed, agility, and missile armament made it a formidable opponent in air combat.

The Crusader excelled in the demanding environment of air-to-air combat. Although famous for its four 20 mm cannons, it achieved almost all of its victories in Vietnam with Sidewinder missiles. Navy pilots valued its manoeuvrability and acceleration, which enabled skilled crews to successfully engage MiG-17s and MiG-21s. At a time when many American fighters were optimised for missiles and radar interception, the Crusader retained the qualities of a true dogfighter.

It was far from perfect, though. Its guns were notoriously unreliable, its radar was weak, cockpit visibility was poor, and carrier operations could be hazardous. The aircraft demanded constant attention from pilots, particularly during landings. Even its greatest admirers admitted that it could be unforgiving, and later versions suffered from increased weight. Despite its reputation as a fine handling dogfighter, the Crusader was far from an easy aircraft to operate. These weaknesses help explain its losses. The Crusader fought in one of the world’s most dangerous air combat environments while also suffering from a normally high accident rate. During the Vietnam War, approximately 118 F-8s were lost, including 57 in combat. Many others were lost in operational accidents, reflecting both the intensity of carrier aviation and the aircraft’s rather nasty characteristics. Despite these losses, the Crusader remained one of the most effective and respected fighters of the war.

14: Grumman A-6 Intruder

The Grumman A-6 Intruder was one of the most important aircraft of the Vietnam War because it could do something few other strike aircraft could: attack accurately at night and in bad weather. While many aircraft were limited by cloud cover, rain, or darkness, the A-6’s advanced radar, navigation systems, and attack computer allowed it to find and hit targets regardless of conditions. This gave the U.S. Navy a genuine all-weather strike capability and made the Intruder indispensable during operations against North Vietnam.

The A-6 could carry a heavy bomb load over long distances from aircraft carriers in the Gulf of Tonkin. During the war, Intruders flew tens of thousands of combat sorties and delivered hundreds of thousands of tons of ordnance, attacking bridges, railways, supply depots, roads, airfields, and military installations. In many respects, it became the Navy’s equivalent of the Air Force’s F-105 Thunderchief: a hard-worked strike aircraft carrying much of the bombing burden.

Sorry, supplies of The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes are running very low, so do grab your copy now to avoid disappointment.

Its loss rate was high because it was routinely sent into some of the most heavily defended airspace on Earth. Unlike high-flying B-52s, A-6 crews often penetrated dense anti-aircraft defences at medium and low altitude, facing radar-guided guns, surface-to-air missiles, and MiG fighters. The Intruder’s all-weather capability also meant it was frequently tasked with missions in poor visibility and at night, increasing operational risks. As a result, 84 A-6 Intruders were lost during the Vietnam War, a reflection of the extraordinary danger and intensity of the missions they were asked to perform.

13: Boeing B-52 Stratofortress

The Boeing B-52 Stratofortress was (and remains) an eight-engine heavy bomber used by the United States Air Force. These bombers conducted massive carpet-bombing missions targeting North Vietnamese bases, supply lines, and troop concentrations, leveraging their long-range and heavy payload capacity.

The B-52’s massive bombload made them central to campaigns like Linebacker II and ARC LIGHT. Their high altitude and heavy armour allowed them to survive intense anti-aircraft fire, though 31 B-52s were still lost to surface-to-air missiles and accidents during the war.

The controversial B-52 bombings caused widespread devastation. Entire villages were destroyed, forests flattened, and civilian casualties were grimly high. The relentless bombing campaigns left deep scars across Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.

For effectiveness at destroying things and survivability, the B-52 might be expected to rank higher in this list, but that would be missing the bigger picture. The use of B-52s in Vietnam is often viewed as a moral failing, causing extensive civilian deaths and widespread destruction across South Vietnam. It damaged America’s global image, strengthening anti-war sentiment worldwide. It also unintentionally aided Viet Cong recruitment, as one study concluded it “drove neutral citizens into the arms of the Viet Cong,” highlighting how strategic bombing sometimes undermined U.S. political objectives rather than achieving lasting security gains overall. [1]

[1] Cornell University study on Vietnam War bombing effectiveness (summary)

12: Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-17 ‘Fresco’

The Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-17 was a Soviet fighter introduced in the early 1950s, further improving and correcting the excellent but flawed MiG-15. The MiG-17 featured an afterburner, refined aerodynamics, including a new wing with greater sweep, which enhanced speed and climb performance compared to its predecessor.

Though slower than U.S. aircraft like the F-4 and F-105, the MiG-17 enjoyed exceptional manoeuvrability and a high turn rate. This allowed it to outturn American fighters, making it very effective in close-range dogfights against faster but less agile opponents.

North Vietnamese losses

U.S. pilots claimed roughly 195 to 204 North Vietnamese aircraft destroyed in air combat, while Vietnamese records show about 146 to 159 MiG fighter losses from all causes, including air combat, surface-to-air missiles, anti-aircraft artillery and accidents. When isolating air-to-air combat alone, about 131 MiGs were lost, which broadly aligns with U.S. claims once over-claiming and confirmation errors are taken into account. North Vietnam operated only around 70 to 150 MiG fighters at any one time, so these losses represented a very large proportion of its air combat force. Several hundred non-MiG aircraft, including transports, trainers and liaison types, were also lost during the war. Precise total North Vietnamese aircrew casualties are unknown, though fighter pilot losses alone are generally estimated at more than 100 killed or missing.

The North Vietnamese Air Force was extremely small compared with its American and South Vietnamese counterparts, operating only a few dozen MiG fighters at any one time against an overwhelming coalition that fielded thousands of aircraft across the theatre.

The MiG-17’s armament typically included one powerful 37mm and two 23mm cannons, delivering astonishing firepower. North Vietnamese pilots used the MiG-17’s agility and heavy guns to ambush and engage larger U.S. aircraft, taking advantage of surprise and terrain for hit-and-run attacks.

During the Vietnam War, the MiG-17 scored about 87 confirmed kills (though this is much debated). Its success showed that agility and manoeuvrability could still take down newer, higher technology jets like the F-4 Phantom. Despite being older, the MiG-17 remained a persistent threat.

So why didn’t the MiG-17 score more kills?

The MiG-17 did not achieve a high kill total in Vietnam despite its excellent manoeuvrability and agility because its strengths only applied within a narrow type of engagement. It was subsonic, so its slower speed limited its ability to dictate when and how fights began or ended, especially against faster U.S. jets that could disengage or reposition more easily. However, this did not make it obsolete—in close-range turning fights, it was highly effective, and guns still accounted for many kills during the war. The problem was opportunity: improved U.S. tactics, better situational awareness, and coordinated formations reduced the number of favourable merge situations, limiting the MiG-17’s ability to consistently exploit its turning advantage.

11: North American F-100 Super Sabre

The North American F-100 Super Sabre was one of the most important yet often overlooked (not by people like you, though) aircraft of the Vietnam War. Nicknamed the “Hun”, it was the first operational fighter capable of supersonic flight in level flight, but in Vietnam, it earned its reputation not as an interceptor, but as a tireless fighter-bomber and close air support aircraft. Between 1964 and 1971, F-100s flew an astonishing 360,283 combat sorties, more than any other USAF fighter in the war and more combat missions than all 15,000-plus P-51 Mustangs flew during the Second World War.

The F-100 was the backbone of tactical air support during the early years of the conflict. It escorted strike aircraft, attacked ground targets, performed armed reconnaissance, and protected troops under fire. At its peak, around 490 F-100s were deployed in Southeast Asia.

The Super Sabre also pioneered two of the war’s most important missions. F-100Fs became the first “Wild Weasel” aircraft, hunting

Read more

Aircraft carrier operations with the most reliable aircraft, especially in the 20^th century, were dangerous. Violent take-offs and landings from a short runway that pitches with the sea, often in abysmal conditions, which can be easily lost in the vast sea, make it a pursuit only suited to the very best pilots. In addition to the strength and range to endure this, the carrier aircraft must also fight and survive. Carrier warfare in an underpowered or temperamental aircraft was a grim game of statistics. Despite this, the following 14 less-than-benign aeroplanes were assigned to the riskiest job in flying.

14: Douglas TBD Devastator ‘TBD: To Be Decimated’

Touted on its debut as the most advanced naval aircraft in the world, the Devastator was proof that manufacturers’ claims can often be taken with a Pacific-Ocean-sized grain of salt. Its chronic vulnerability has become infamous. It was required to fly straight and level at a stately 115 mph (185 km/h) to deliver its torpedo, a speed that meant it could be easily intercepted by an SE5a of 1917 vintage, which is somewhat unfortunate for an aircraft fighting in the Second World War, facing the 330mph+ Zero.

Furthermore, the poor old TBD had a woeful defensive armament and lacked manoeuvrability. Its problems didn’t stop there, as its main armament, the Mark 13 torpedo, was a dreadful weapon plagued with reliability issues and frequently observed to score a hit but then fail to explode.

Most Douglas TBD Devastator losses to enemy fighters occurred at Midway on 4 June 1942. They were shot down primarily by Mitsubishi A6M Zeros, flown by experienced Japanese naval pilots. Of 41 Devastators launched, 35 were destroyed, largely by fighters and anti-aircraft fire.

Dick Best, who flew a Douglas SBD dive-bomber at the Battle of Midway, remembered the Devastator as a ‘nice-flying aeroplane’, but, like the Fairey Battle, it was committed to combat in a world that had overtaken it. Only 130 were ever built, a pathetic amount for a US aircraft of this vintage, and, coincidentally, only six fewer than the equally dismal Blackburn Roc. A match made in mediocre naval aviation heaven.

13: BAe Sea Harrier ‘The Dukes of Fozard’

The British Sea Harrier was a solid naval fighter, especially in fleet air defence. Operated by the Royal Navy as the Sea Harrier FRS.1, it proved its combat value most famously during the Falklands War, where it achieved an exceptional kill ratio against Argentine aircraft despite being subsonic. Fitted with AMRAAM and Blue Vixen radar, it became an utter menace as the FA.2

However, it also had a reputation for being a demanding and hazardous aircraft to operate, reflected in a rather scary attrition rate. Across roughly 90–98 airframes built and converted (FRS.1 and FA.2 variants), about 25% were lost over its service life, with most losses occurring in peacetime rather than combat.

To put this into context, let’s compare it to the McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet (both are carrier fighters from 1978, after all). The F/A-18, operating in a similarly carrier-based environment but without V/STOL complexity, has a much lower long-term loss rate of roughly ~5–10% across decades of service. While still a naval aircraft exposed to carrier risks, the Hornet benefits from more automated flight controls, greater thrust margins, twin-engine redundancy, and more mature safety systems.

The Sea Harrier’s higher loss rate, around one in four airframes (~25%) versus roughly one in ten or less for the F/A-18, reflects the added operational risk of early V/STOL technology. Pilots had to manage highly demanding transitions between hover and forward flight with limited automation and tight performance margins, especially in harsh maritime conditions (they were also asked to fly in foul weather that would ground conventional carrier fighters). Carrier operations, corrosion, and intensive deck cycles further increased fatigue and accident exposure. The Sea Harrier was brilliant, but it was rocking 50s-level danger into the 1990s.

12: Brewster F2A Buffalo ‘Deep-Fried Buffalo Wings’

The Brewster F2A Buffalo was a flop. On paper, it was a modern monoplane fighter, offering improved speed and notable innovations, including an enclosed cockpit, and it was expected to be a generation better than the biplanes it replaced. However, operations from aircraft carriers exposed dangerous flaws.

It combined promising design ideas with poor real-world suitability for naval operations; efforts to rectify this only made it worse. As the design evolved and equipment was added, the Buffalo grew heavier, but its engine power did not keep pace. Starting mediocre, it got even worse, with the climb rate, agility, and low-speed handling all getting worse.

Pilots also reported that the aircraft felt unstable at approach speeds, which is exactly not what you want for precise carrier landings. Its narrow performance margins meant that small errors could quickly become accidents. In service, it was quickly outclassed by more capable naval fighters. Not only hard to operate from a carrier, but once in the air, it was also easy meat for Japanese fighters.

In British, Dutch, and USMC service, it had a terrible time. VMF-221 entered the Battle of Midway with about 19–20 Brewster F2A Buffaloes, lost 13 aircraft in combat, about 65% of its Buffalo force. In its defence, the land-based version proved excellent in Finnish service.

11: Vought F7U Cutlass ‘We’re Vought in a Trap’

The futuristic Vought F7U Cutlass developed one of the poorest safety reputations of the early jet age. Radical in appearance and highly advanced in concept, the aircraft entered service with serious shortcomings. Among its litany of flaws were underpowered engines, hydraulic failures, and tricksy carrier-handling characteristics. It earned itself the nickname ‘The Gutless Cutlass’.

The wheezy Cutlass frequently struggled during carrier operations at critical moments of take-off and landing. The aircraft’s engines lacked sufficient thrust, particularly at low speed, and were also prone to flame-outs. Carrier pilots faced a narrow safety margin during approaches and wave-offs.

Accident reports reveal repeated incidents of take-off and landing crashes and structural failures. One aircraft crashed into a building at NAS Memphis, killing the pilot and several people on the ground, while others were lost at sea during carrier operations. Such incidents became disturbingly common.

By 1957, Chance Vought’s own analysis recorded 78 accidents in approximately 55,000 flying hours (to put this into perspective, the modern F/A-18 Hornet averages around 1.2 Class A mishaps in 55K flight hours). With more than one-quarter of all aircraft, the type became associated with the deaths of four test pilots and twenty-one Navy aviators, contributing heavily to its withdrawal from service.

10: Vought F4U Corsair ‘How To be a Complete The Bent-Wing Bastard’

The Corsair is an odd inclusion, as it is simultaneously one of (perhaps the) best and worst carrier aircraft of the Second World War. As a fighter, it was brilliant, fast, agile, tough and formidably armed; but as a carrier aircraft, it was extremely dangerous, to the point that it was initially restricted from U.S. carrier operations until late 1944.

The British Fleet Air Arm didn’t have the luxury of ruling it out and took it to war from carriers from early 1943. Early versions suffered poor visibility for pilots during the critical approach stage, and other handling quirks included a tendency for the port wing to stall first and unpredictable ‘bouncy’ landings caused by the Corsair’s stiff landing gear oleo struts.

Early Vought F4U Corsair pilots feared vicious flat spins, violent snap rolls, and sudden low-altitude stalls that often proved unrecoverable. The unreliable tailhook frequently missed arrestor wires, causing crashes on crowded flight decks. Its safety record improved in later versions; it remained an unforgiving yet exceptionally capable machine.

It is likely that it was one of the most lethal non-Kamikaze aircraft (the vast majority of which were land-launched) to pilots, with 500-900 estimated to have lost their lives in Corsairs. The rather more ‘boring’ Grumman Hellcat proved that a high-performance fighter of the time could have relatively benign handling.

9: McDonnell F3H Demon ‘The Demon Headmasher’

The F3H was single-engined, with a terrible jet. The Westinghouse J40 engine was unreliable and failed to meet its promised performance. It suffered frequent compressor stalls, flameouts and inconsistent thrust, making the F3H Demon underpowered and unsafe for carrier operations. It often could not deliver enough power for take-off or combat, severely limiting the aircraft’s effectiveness in service.

The aptly named F3H Demon had been experiencing several unwanted quirks in flight, especially during carrier operations. Pilots reported heavy control forces at low speeds and a tendency to feel “mushy” on approach, making precise carrier landings difficult. It also had a relatively high landing speed and demanded extremely careful flying throughout the landing pattern.

The engine’s failures undermined confidence in early jet propulsion development and eventually led to its replacement with a more reliable powerplant, the Allison J71. To compound the danger, it originally used the McDonnell ejection seat, which proved unreliable during low-altitude carrier operations.

The Demon experienced a high lifetime loss rate. Using accident and write-off records, approximately 151 of 519 aircraft were lost, giving an estimated loss rate of about 29% (in a fully operational service life of only five years). Despite improvements in later variants, the Demon retains a morbid reputation as a pilot-killer. The Demon taught McDonnell what could go wrong with a carrier jet, lessons that were brilliantly applied to the later, phenomenal F-4 Phantom II.

8: Yakovlev Yak-38 ‘Forger’ ‘The Black Sea Harrier’

It is said that when the Indian Navy delegation visited the Soviet Union and asked which naval fighter to buy for their carriers, they were given a surprising, candid answer: Sea Harriers. This despite a Soviet equivalent, the Yak-38. It was the first vertical take-off and landing carrier fighter.

It entered service with the Soviet Navy in 1976 (USMC AV-8As had operated from assault craft but were not purpose-built for carrier operations). This was four years earlier than the British Sea Harrier, but this was no Sea Harrier. A combat evaluation in the Soviet-Afghanistan war revealed its severe limitations.

Whereas the Harrier had one engine that could steer its thrust to affect vertical take-off and landing, the ‘Forger’ had three engines. One for forward flight (with a swivelling rear nozzle to assist vertical flight) and two small lift jets. This meant it was lugging around ‘dead weight’, severely limiting its effective load. The loss of a lift engine could be lethal. The ‘Forger’ was so dangerous that it was given the world’s first automatic ejection system, which sent pilots packing if the aircraft exceeded certain parameters.

The Yak-38 had a pitiful range, a tiny weapons load, and a lamentable safety record. Around 231 were built, with roughly 48 lost in accidents. Losses were mainly due to engine failures, hover instability and early VTOL reliability issues, with around 11 to 13 crashes being fatal during Soviet naval service. These accidents occurred during its short service life, most of them linked to hover operations, lift-engine failures, and shipboard mishaps.

7: Curtiss Seamew ‘A Mew To A Kill’

Most of the best aircraft operated by the Royal Navy during the Second World War were of American origin, and types such as the Wildcat, Corsair and Avenger dominated Fleet Air Arm (FAA) flight decks for most of the conflict. There were, however, exceptions to this rule and chief amongst them was the appalling

Read more

Bill Gunston’s Warplanes of the Future blew my mind when I first opened it aged seven. Combining the narcotic thrill of warplanes with the techy futurism of the 1980s in all its afterburning AirWolf, leaping Knight Rider, clandestine Fire Fox sex appeal was too much for me. One aircraft artist’s impression particularly caught my attention. The British Aerospace P1214-3. A fantasy in shiny metal, somewhere between a Harrier, an X-29, an F-16 and an X-wing fighter, this was too much for a seven-year-old boy to take, and it stayed with me for years. The caption in Future Fighters and Combat Aircraft read: “..the British Aerospace P1214-3 could be the most manoeuvrable aircraft ever built.” Again, mind blown.

(of course, The Hush-Kit Book had to have new artworks of the 1214-3)

Christopher Budgen's excellent book, Hawker Secret Projects, explores the thrilling world of Hawker's Cold War-cancelled projects. From biz-jet Hunters through to exotic bisonic X-wing jump-jets, this is a fascinating and insightful book. I, of course, immediately turned to the chapter on the P1200 series of design concepts. We turn to Chris Budgens for the low-down.

Why the twin booms and short fuselage?

The layout of the P.1216 in terms of fuselage pod and tail booms was predicated upon the requirement to reduce or eliminate the impact of the jet exhaust on the airframe skin. On the Harrier, this had been a constant issue since the exhaust from the hot nozzles caused acoustic and thermal fatigue of the rear fuselage. By switching from the four-poster layout of the Harrier to a three-poster design

Read more

The seemingly immortal B-52 bomber is 74 years old, yet, quite incredibly, it ranks only eighth on our list of The Oldest Military Aircraft Still Serving in 2026, such is the refusal of these veteran machines to quit. Some of these bruised old warriors stay on because the operators cannot access or afford newer designs, some because they’re still good enough, and some because a good enough replacement is not available. We’re looking at aircraft that still serve in an actual military role, so no warbirds. Rankings are based on the first flight of the original aircraft design family, not on the later variants and derivatives. Astonishingly, the practically prehistoric KC-135 tanker and UH-1 ‘Huey’ helicopter are both too young to make this top eleven (you’ll see why there’s eleven). Here are the surprising answers.

10: Lockheed C-130 Hercules (1954) ‘Herk’s Law’

There are families in which the grandfather, son and grandson have all been ‘Herk’ pilots. This says it all, really, regarding the C-130’s longevity. And it flies on, in great numbers, around the world. ‘Fat Albert’, as it is also affectionately known, was the first successful, purpose-built turboprop tactical airlifter.

The Hercules was not the first turboprop tactical airlifter, but it was the first fully successful purpose-built example. The four Allison T56 turboprop engines gave it jet-like reliability and performance, but with far better fuel economy and low-speed handling than early jet transports. Pure jets of the era often needed long, paved runways—something the C-130 didn’t. It has short rough-field performance, rear ramp loading, and balanced payload-range efficiency. Importantly, it was, and remains, tough and reliable.

The C-130 has served in nearly every major conflict since the 1950s, carrying troops, supplies, and special forces into hostile areas worldwide. It became legendary during the 1976 Entebbe raid, when Israeli C-130s flew commandos to Uganda to rescue hostages. The aircraft also performed gunship, evacuation, and humanitarian missions globally (and pretty much every other conceivable role).

The Lockheed C-130 Hercules tactical airlifter first flew in 1954 and was reborn as the radically improved C-130J Super Hercules in 1996, but even legacy H-model aircraft remain in service in many places. Popular, with a great track record, the C-130 remains in production 72 years after its first flight and continues to serve in the air forces of many countries worldwide.

9: Tupolev Tu-95 ‘Bear’ (1952) ‘Bear Vibes’

A tiny number of military aircraft types that first flew in the early 1950s remain in action today; the B-52 bomber and C-130 transport spring to mind for the Americans, and for the Soviets and then Russians, the utterly distinctive and horrendously loud Tupolev Tu-95 ‘Bear’.

This large strategic bomber is known for its combination of sharply swept-back wings and four gargantuan NK-12 turboprop engines with contra-rotating propellers. The turboprop powerplant was chosen as, at the time of the aircraft’s conception, Soviet jet engines could not offer the fuel efficiency required for strategic range.

Tupolev Tu-95 ‘Bear’

Though it does not have pure jet engines, the Tu-95 is extremely fast; at 575 mph (925 km/h), it is the second fastest propeller-driven aircraft (after the Avanti biz-jet). Other family members included the Tu-142 maritime patrol aircraft, Tu-114 airliner and Tu-116 VIP transport aircraft.

Subscribe now

Developed primarily for the grim nuclear task, the Tu-95 delivered the most destructive bomb of the Cold War, the apocalyptic 50-megaton AN602 ‘Tsar’ bomb. Tested on 30 October 1961, this horrific device created a fire 8 kilometres wide and a mushroom cloud 7.8 times higher than Mount Everest.

The Bears flying today are not untouched Cold War relics but heavily modernised Tu-95MS/MSM missile carriers, rebuilt repeatedly since the 1980s with new weapons, avionics and sensors. Russian Tu-95s continue to launch long-range cruise missile strikes into Ukraine that have left cities in darkness, damaged homes and infrastructure, and killed citizens. Its ongoing service is a depressing reminder of an imperfect world.

8. Boeing B-52 Stratofortress (1952) ‘Metal Methuselah’

The Boeing B-52 Stratofortress was (and remains) an eight-engine heavy bomber used by the United States Air Force. Most famous for its use in the Vietnam War, these bombers conducted massive carpet-bombing missions, leveraging their long-range and heavy payload capacity. The immense destructive power of these raids left deep scars across Vietnam and contributed to the enormous human suffering of the war.

After Vietnam, the B-52 remained a cornerstone of American air power, serving in conflicts from the Gulf War to Afghanistan, operations against ISIS, and in the ongoing US–Israel–Iran war. Upgraded with modern avionics and precision weapons, it evolved from a Cold War nuclear bomber into a versatile long-range strike aircraft still serving in 2026.

There are several reasons for the B-52’s longevity. Being such a large aircraft with a huge internal volume, it has proved relatively easy to upgrade. The externally mounted engines are relatively easy to swap in cleanly, the structure is immensely strong, and the high wing and large bomb bays provide ample space for integrating new, bulky weapons.

It wasn’t designed to last 70+ years, but it was inadvertently designed in a way that made “stretching” its life unusually practical. The B-52 has outlived the Cold War entirely and remains central to US nuclear deterrence strategy. The next variant, the B-52J, will have new Rolls-Royce F130 engines and is expected to keep the aircraft flying into the 2050s.

7. Tupolev Tu-16 ‘Badger’ (Xian H-6) (1952) ‘The Ancient Badger of Doom’

Credit: Chinese government via wz.com

Today, the Xian H-6 is China’s strategic bomber. Though the latest variants, the H-6K/N/J, feature a wealth of modern equipment, the H-6’s story goes back a very long way, as it started life as a Soviet bomber that took its first flight when Joseph Stalin

Read more

Looking away from the warplanes of the major aircraft-producing nations in the Second World War reveals a bounty of intriguing alternative machines. The reason for going it alone and designing indigenous aircraft was simple: every nation was desperate for military aircraft, and they were in short supply. With the fortunes of war, supply and support from abroad could not be depended upon. Many nations, including neutral Switzerland and Sweden, went in-house, and there were even more surprising examples from nations you may not expect. The following 10, some of which are excellent designs, had to overcome great hurdles to be created. The operational service of some was extinguished by invasion, while others were cut short by their own mediocrity; each is a fascinating story.

10: Fokker G.I '‘Double Dutch’

The Fokker G.I stunned onlookers at the 1936 Paris Air Show with its bizarre, futuristic appearance. It was an odd-looking thing, with a podded fuselage, twin-booms and twin engines; it was quite unlike any other fighter of the time, though a similar configuration would later be adopted by the Lockheed P-38 Lightning.

It had not even flown at the time of its static display at the airshow, but it would soon after, in March 1937. Designed for the heavy fighter and ground attack role, it was armed, like emerging British fighters of the time, with eight rifle-calibre machine guns. This was complemented by one defensive machine gun in the rear of the fuselage and up to 400kg of bombs.

Soon export orders came in from Finland, Estonia and Sweden (Republican Spain was rejected). Fokker had begun construction of the Finnish order when Germany invaded the Netherlands in 1940. The G.Is were involved in a spirited defence, downing several Ju 52/3m transport aircraft. But by the fifth day, only one aircraft remained airworthy.

The Fokker factory was occupied, and it was demanded that, upon completion, the Finnish order be handed over for use as Luftwaffe trainers. Despite the presence of a German-flown G.1 escort, two brave Dutch pilots escaped during a test flight in a G.1B and flew to the UK.

9: IAR 80 „Liliacul Turbat”

Before and during the Second World War, Romania couldn’t reliably buy enough modern aircraft from abroad. Germany prioritised its own needs, while other potential suppliers were either politically unavailable or too slow to deliver, leaving Romania to pursue an indigenous fighter capable of meeting modern combat demands.

It thus set about making its own modern fighter, which would need to be an all-metal monoplane with a retractable undercarriage and capable of exceeding 300 mph. This was a significant jump for IAR, which had previously licensed foreign designs and produced more outdated biplane fighters.

The IAR 80 was powered by the IAR K14, a 14-cylinder radial based on the French Gnome-Rhône 14K, producing roughly 870–1,000 horsepower depending on variant. The IAR-80 first flew on April 12, 1939, and at the time was comparable to the Hawker Hurricane, though it had a faster roll rate and more responsive handling.

The IAR 80 entered service with the Royal Romanian Air Force in 1941 as a capable, mid-tier fighter. It performed well against older Soviet aircraft during Operation Barbarossa, later defending Romania from USAAF raids over Ploiești, but was increasingly outclassed by more advanced Allied and Soviet fighters as the war progressed.

8: Saab 18 ‘18 till I Die’

In 1938, Sweden sought a new twin-engined combat aircraft, but as new requirements were added to the specification (including a new bomb installation, guns, armour and self-sealing fuel tanks), the Saab 18’s first flight was delayed until 1942. Tests found the Twin Wasp-powered aircraft underpowered, but it was produced due to an urgent need and entered service in June 1944. It was hoped that British Taurus would become available.

The prototype of the B 18B variant flew soon after; this was equipped with more powerful Swedish-built DB 605 engines, which gave it the grunt it needed. The B 18 radically improved Sweden’s bomber force, capable of carrying a 40 per cent heavier bombload than the B 3s it replaced, while being less vulnerable to fighters. Despite entering service in 1944 and looking dated, the B 18B had a top speed of 370mph (sometimes quoted as 354mph), making it one of the fastest bombers of the war.

After the war, in 1949, the B 18 was subject to a highly unusual (probably unique) modification for a twin-engined piston-engined bomber, the fitment of ejection seats (two for each aircraft). Another unusual feature was the fearsome 57mm Bofors cannon carried by the T18B variant, the gun weighed 735kg and could fire two rounds per second (it was backed up two 20 mm cannon).

For a neutral nation, Sweden pushed limits. In 1945–46, it is believed that B 18s overflew Soviet ports on reconnaissance missions, dodging fighters thanks to their speed. Unlike later spyplanes, none were shot down. The Saab 18 served until 1959, with the last recon variants replaced by another sleek Saab creation—the Lansen.

7: Saab B 17 ‘No, not that B-17’

For a new aircraft industry, the B 17 was extremely ambitious. It was Sweden’s first indigenous all-metal, stressed-skin modern monoplane. Originally designed by the Swedish Railway Workshops’ Aeroplane Department, it joined a rare group of planes from locomotive makers. It was a solid, workmanlike design, comparable to other light bombers of its time.

American influence is evident; 46 U.S. engineers helped develop it, which explains its resemblance to American aircraft (though their stay was brief, as they were called back when war was declared in Europe in 1939). Built for dive-bombing, the wing wasn’t initially strong enough and needed reinforcement. Even after modifications, it was limited to shallow dives. Large undercarriage doors acted as dive brakes, and retractable skis allowed winter operations (there was also a floatplane version, the S 17BS)

Entering service in 1942, over 300 B 17s were produced, mostly bombers, with just over 20 reconnaissance variants. They served until 1950 in frontline roles and later as target tugs into the 1960s. During the Second World War, 15 were loaned to exiled Danish forces for a planned invasion, but they returned unused when the war ended.

As Sweden retired the B 17, 47 were sold to the Imperial Ethiopian Air Force. These were the only ones to fire weapons in combat, attacking Somali bandits who derailed a train. Ethiopia flew them until 1968, giving the B 17 its final chapter. Its ruggedness and reliability served it well in the extreme conditions of Ethiopia. One still flies at Sweden’s Air Force Museum.

6: PZL.37 Łoś (moose) ‘There’s a moose Łoś around this høóśe’

The PZL.37 Łoś was a Polish medium bomber that first flew on 13 December 1936. At the time, it was considered one of the most advanced bombers in Europe because of its all-metal construction, retractable landing gear, streamlined design, and high performance.

Its remarkable performance was aided by its innovative, aerofoil-shaped lift-generating fuselage. The aircraft was fast for its era, reaching about 412 km/h (256 mph), and could carry a very large bomb load for a medium bomber — up to roughly 2,500 kg on short-range missions. Around 120–125 aircraft were built before and during the opening stages of World War II.

The PZL.37 Łoś was closely comparable to the Heinkel He 111 but had a more compact design. Despite having 200–400 fewer total horsepower, it achieved similar speed and bomb load. The Łoś mainly fought during the Invasion of Poland in September 1939, attacking German troop columns, bridges, and transport routes.

However, its combat career was short because Poland was quickly defeated. Its weaknesses included weak defensive armament, limited armour protection, the absence of self-sealing fuel tanks, and engine reliability problems. Though excellent in many ways, too few were built to have a significant impact on the campaign.

5: FFVS J 22 ‘For Fuck’s Väsentlig Sake’

By 1940, Sweden’s Flygvapnet (air force) relied on outdated Gloster Gladiators (J 8s), while modern monoplane fighters dominated Europe. Attempts to modernise with U.S. Seversky P-35s and Vultee P-66s failed after

Read more

Next time you’re eating a lasagne on your holiday flight, pause to consider the aircraft type you are flying in may have well have gone to war, spied or tested deadly laser weapons or even hunted submarines! Here are 11 airliners that got ‘drafted’ into wild military roles

11. Short SC.7 Skyvan ‘Death Cab That’s a Cutie’

    

    OK, so the Short SC.7 Skyvan is not strictly speaking an airliner, nor the role strictly military, but this story is so bleak it must be included. The Skyvan is a small, twin-turboprop utility aircraft designed in the 1960s for short takeoff and landing operations. Cute and boxy, the Short Skyvan is the least sinister aeroplane you could imagine. Yet it became an unsettling symbol of state terror in South America during the 1970s and early 1980s. Under Argentina’s military dictatorship (1976–1983), Skyvans were used in what became known as the “death flights.”

    During the Dirty War, thousands of suspected dissidents were abducted, detained, and many were never seen again. In some documented cases, prisoners were sedated, loaded onto aircraft, and flown out over the Río de la Plata or the Atlantic Ocean, where they were thrown into the sea. The method was designed not only to kill but to eliminate evidence, deepening the anguish of families who were left without answers.

    

    These flights were carried out by Argentine state security forces operating under the dictatorship’s command structure, rather than the Air Force in a conventional sense. The Skyvans specifically are most closely linked to Prefectura Naval Argentina (the Argentine Coast Guard), abetted by other elements of the military and security apparatus.

    In 2023, one of the death-flight Skyvans was recovered and preserved as a historical artefact, and it is now linked to ongoing investigations and remembrance efforts. As El País reported, its return generated “mixed emotions for victims’ families,”.

10: Boeing 747 ‘Orange Aide’

The 747, popularly known as the “Jumbo Jet,” is an iconic wide-body commercial airliner that first flew in 1969. Designed by Boeing, it was the largest passenger aircraft for decades, revolutionising air travel with its massive capacity and long-range capabilities.

The 747 features a distinctive hump on its upper deck, housing the cockpit and premium seating. Powered by four jet engines, it can carry up to 660 passengers (though it carried over 1,070 in an emergency evacuation in 1991) and fly over 8,000 miles. When not taking passengers on holidays to distant locations, the 747 has some far darker roles, one being as the ‘Doomsday Plane’.

The “Doomsday Plane” is a nickname for the E-4B Advanced Airborne Command Post (AACP) designed to serve during catastrophic events like nuclear war or major disasters that threaten critical military and government infrastructure. These planes are militarised Boeing 747-200s operated by the US Air Force.

They enable leaders, such as the President and Secretary of Defense, to issue commands from the sky. Equipped with advanced communications, electromagnetic pulse resistance, and analogue instruments to counter cyberattacks, they ensure survivable command and control. Another role of the 747 is as VC-25, ‘Air Force One’, a presidential transport. As YAL-1, the 747 tested an airborne laser designed to destroy tactical ballistic missiles.

9: Focke-Wulf Fw 200 Condor ‘Three Lives of the Condor’

Germany produced three outstanding modern airliners in the interwar period: the Junkers Ju 52, the Junkers Ju 86, and the Focke-Wulf Fw 200. The Ju 52 was boxy, corrugated and lacked elegance. The Ju 86 (at least in airliner form, not military variants) was rather lovely, but the most aesthetically sublime was the Fw 200.

The Condor was designed to replace the Ju 52 and counter the commercial threat of US aircraft, especially the Douglas DC-3. The Fw 200 was an elegant low-wing aircraft with four engines and built entirely of metal. It first flew in 1937.

Its range was impressive. The prototype, dubbed ‘Brandenburg’, flew directly from Berlin to New York, a distance of 4000 miles (6437 kilometres). The journey took 55 minutes more than a day at an average speed of 164 mph (264km/h). This mastery of the Atlantic would later be used for far less civil reasons.

It would take a much darker role in the Second World War, being described by Churchill (perhaps apocryphally) as the ‘scourge of the Atlantic’; it did much to disrupt vital supplies to the Allies. In what was essentially a hastily converted airliner, the Germans sank over 300,000 tons of shipping in less than a year. This modern but fragile machine proved alarmingly effective thanks to its excellent range.

8: Douglas C-47/DC-3 ‘Puff the Magic Dragon’

The most successful and longest-lived tactical transport aircraft began as an airliner, the DC-3, developed in the mid-1930s. At the beginning of the Second World War, it was adapted (with minor modifications) into a military transport aircraft and (predominantly) designated the C-47. Over 95% of the airframes built were these military versions.

During the decade of C-47 production, several engine variants were used without significant changes to the type or size of the engine. The original DC-3 was powered by the 9-cylinder Wright R-1820 Cyclone 9, which produced 1,000 horsepower. The C-47 was primarily powered by the 14-cylinder Pratt & Whitney R-1830 Twin Wasp, which produced 1,200 horsepower.

Roughly one-third of the US-built aircraft were C-47B variants. This aircraft used Pratt & Whitney R-1830-90 engines with a high-altitude two-speed supercharger. This 1942 modification was critical for the China-Burma-India supply routes and allowed the aircraft to carry a full payload over the 15,000-foot mountain passes.

The AC-47 Spooky, a ferocious gunship born from the C-47, unleashed hellfire during the Vietnam War. Bristling with guns, this airborne beast roared through the night, raining thousands of rounds per minute on unlucky enemy positions. It struck fear into those facing its withering precision firepower.

7: Airbus A330 MRTT ‘Mr T’ or ‘Toulouse Yourself’

The European Airbus A330 is a dependable wide-bodied airliner that first flew in 1992. It’s a large twin-engine machine weighing up to 242,000 kg (534,000 lb). It proved a smash hit with airliners and has proved equally adept as a military transport and refuelling tanker.

Though often overlooked, the tanker or refuelling aircraft is vital to every major air force. Topping up fuel while on the wing massively increases the reach and effectiveness of an air force. The most capable of these 'flying gas stations’ is the European Airbus A330 MRTT.

Airbus A330 MRTT (Multi-Role Tanker Transport) lives up to its designation; it is probably the best air-to-air refuelling aircraft in the world, and so much more. It can refuel anything thanks to both drogue pods and a boom (the two systems used to refuel aircraft), can do it anywhere thanks to a robust defensive countermeasures suite, and can do it while carrying cargo and/or passengers.

The A330 MRTT can carry an impressive 111 tons of fuel in the tanker role. In the medevac role, it can carry 130 patients in stretchers. In the transport role, it can carry 300 soldiers. It is operated by the air forces of Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, the Netherlands, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, Italy, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Spain and South Korea.

6: Boeing 737 ‘Jack Steiner’s Jack of All Trades’

The Boeing 737 is a familiar sight to almost anyone who has travelled by air. The 737 first flew in 1967 and has since become the most successful jet airliner in history. It is the world’s best-selling commercial jetliner, with over 12,486 delivered, with nearly 450 aircraft delivered in 2025 alone

At any given time, there are an estimated 1,250 737s in the air, and a 737 takes off roughly every 5 seconds somewhere in the world. The fleet has accumulated over 119 billion miles and carried nearly 17 billion passengers. But despite its reputation for jolly air travel, it also performs several deadly roles, armed and kitted out for the fight.

The most potently armed member of the 737 family is the P-8 Poseidon. The Poseidon, named for the Greek god of the seas, is a maritime patrol and reconnaissance aircraft. It is used by the United States Navy, Indian Navy, Royal Norwegian Air Force, Royal Australian Air Force, Royal New Zealand Air Force, Republic of Korea Navy and Britain’s Royal Air Force.

It is equipped with special sensors, some of which can hunt down submarines. It can be armed with a bewildering array of weapons, including torpedoes, cruise missiles, mines and depth charges. Other military 737s include the Boeing E-7 Wedgetail, which carries a giant radar for the airborne early warning and control role.

6: de Havilland Comet/Nimrod ‘Kin-loss of Innocence’

The UK is largely surrounded by water: to the south by the English Channel, to the east by the North Sea, to the west by the Irish Sea and the Atlantic Ocean. Defending submarines, saving drowning sailors, reconnaissance, tracking hostile vessels, and protecting resources all require a maritime patrol aircraft, and the UK had one of the best, based on the world’s first

Read more

Books mentioned: The U-2 Over the Soviet Union, Secrets of the Spitfire, Sky Daddy, Beaufighter vs German Flak Ships, Junkers Ju 88C Day and Nightfighters, S.E. 210 Caravelle: A Legends of Flight Illustrated History, Lavotchkin La-5 Vol. I, Polish Military Aircraft 1918-1939, The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes.

The U-2 Over the Soviet Union (Hardback)

America’s Famous Cold War Spy Plane from a Soviet Perspective

When I spoke to SR-71 pilot BC Thomas, he noted that you should never refer to reconnaissance pilots as spies, as this classification puts them in far greater danger and offers fewer protections under international law if they are captured. The most famous reconnaissance pilot to be captured was Gary Powers. While flying for the CIA, he was a civilian, meaning he could be treated as a spy regardless of the terminology. When his CIA U-2 was shot down over the USSR in 1960, the event proved useful to the Soviet government. spun as evidence of the USA’s villainy, at a useful point during international conferences. As this book shows, the shootdown and the rather unbelievable cover story were both points of pride and mirth for the Soviet people.

“Small arms and edged weapons, money, precious metals…it is unlikely that the pilot needed it, as the US state department is trying to claim, to explore the upper atmosphere.”

Soviets found the cover story ridiculous. Powers’ belongings, notably including a silenced pistol with 200 rounds and ladies’ rings and watches, made it abundantly clear he was a spy. The book is full of fascinating details on the Soviet perspective. It quotes Pravda (back when official propaganda channels were called Truth), which published a cartoon with the following poem:

Winged predator full of arrogance

Circled in the Soviet sky

I had to calm him down! We knocked him down

In the future, do not climb into someone else’s sky!

This is a thrilling book, showing that not all is as popularly imagined in the West of Soviet-US relations of the time. With certain early aspects of the Cuban crisis far more incendiary than the U-2 shootdown. Essential reading for Cold War readers.

Order your copy here.

By Dmitry Degtev

Secrets of the Spitfire (Paperback)

The Story of Beverley Shenstone, The Man Who Perfected the Elliptical Wing

Forget the CF-105 Arrow; Canada’s greatest contribution to aviation was Beverley Shenstone’s design of the Spitfire’s elliptical wing. Lance Cole notes, “To Shenstone, the rate of turn advantage from a lower wing loading outweighed the quest for ultimate top speed, yet the ellipse provided both…” – the thin wing was handily decent for transonic flight and, along with the engine, a key contributor to the Spitfire’s success. Cole is bullish, verging on angry at two myths in particular: that the elliptical shape was copied or directly influenced by German designs (it is very different in concept, and Mitchell’s interest likely predates public awareness of the Heinkel) and that the wing form was chosen to cover the eight guns (it was already there when the concept had four guns, if I recall correctly). I like this anger, a welcome human touch in an engineering subject. Very enjoyable, insightful book.

Order here.

By Lance Cole
Imprint: Pen & Sword Aviation

Sky Daddy

Kate Folk

I noticed other reviews noting the book’s weirdness, but it was not weird. If this book were an aircraft, it would not be something insane from Convair or Republic; it would be something altogether more balanced, something of sound design, its structure understated and smoothly functional. It may have a provocative paint scheme, but don’t let me mislead; reviews that have described it as weird or insane are not right (though perhaps it’s weird because of the combination of Linda’s unusual desires, combined with the unpretentiousness of its prose). Though Crash, with its similar auto distraught machine lust, might be a comparison to reach for, this delivers more enjoyable titillation than shock. The universe of the book is sensible, if Linda’s isn’t. Lust is a driver, but friendship and finding a family in the world are at the core of a story that has much heart despite the seeming antisocial nature of her needs. This friendship-and-family element gives it an American feel, and it is an American novel. And Linda is not a psychopath; she is torn by her compassion and is often considerate, but her initial lack of ego and self-esteem deprives her of getting what she wants. She is a three-dimensional and likeable character. The monomania, or pathological obsession with a class of object, is typically seen as male or autistic, and the social shame Linda feels associated with her fixation (albeit one with a self-destructive erotic core) is comical to a real-life aeroplane obsessive. The origin story of her fetish is consistent with my existing understanding of this topic (I listened to one Savage Love podcast on the subject, so I’m no expert) - a formative sexual experience during heavy turbulence.

Aviation enthusiasts’ curse of bringing an aggressive (very literal) pedantic eye to any art form they encounter, I tried to avoid inflicting on my reading. The “I know a thing” thrill of noticing someone else’s alleged factual error is nothing to be proud of. Having said that, two things stood out when Linda, an airliner fan, said she loved the sound of turbojets. Was this a sophisticated love of vintage planes, or an ignorance of the character (which seems unlikely) or an error of the author? Likewise, was an airliner fan happy to use the designation A220 without noting its old name? In this case, I would say Linda’s largely respectful reverie for airliners may mean she was happy to accept the current name. Her love of some aircraft types over others is very satisfying, and she finds the Learjet 35 too small and pointy. There are precious few convincing arguments against the idea that everything has consciousness. With this in mind, perhaps her love is less mad than religion or soulless materialism. As a very slow, easily distracted reader, I was delighted by the almost complete lack of characters popping up after a 100-page absence, and my having no idea who they were. This didn’t happen. It was generous with its clarity, and I read and enjoyed many chapters in each session, far faster than with my normal books.

Were the crashes that obsessed her real? I will need to Google that.

The seeming one-way nature of Linda’s love seems like madness, but is it completely different to those who are not truly ‘seen’ by their partners? I would argue it’s not, and she at least at times entertains a more mundane explanation. A fun, well-written pervy book with planes, perfect as a holiday read.

Order Sky Daddy here.

Beaufighter vs German Flak Ships

North Sea and Mediterranean 1941–45

Matthew Willis (Author) , Jim Laurier (Illustrator)

Author Matthew Willis seems to have a good style-radar for what is en vogue in aviation history, or maybe he is a trendsetter in his own right. Last year, he tackled the Swordfish, which is certainly enjoying a well-deserved renaissance. This year, he takes on the Beaufighter, another wartime name enjoying a comeback (with the much-anticipated Edward Rippeth book on the subject out this year). This book describes the Beaufighters’ messy relationship with German flak ships. A tough bruiser of a plane, in the cold, rough North Sea, facing the ships tasked with protecting the German convoys from aircraft attack. One can only imagine the terror of a being on a flak ship facing fast, low-level attacks by Beaufighters, or being in a Beaufighter screaming towards the ship guns.

Well-researched, generously illustrated with tons of fascinating, brilliant diagrams, photographs, and other visuals, this is a worthy book well worth a read. This is number 151 in the excellent Osprey Duel series, which describes the action, tactics, and technologies of military machines facing their nemeses. I’m not totally in love with the use of drop-shadow on a three-view artwork (it is a fantastic three-view too), or it being put on a coloured background, but I also appreciate that you can be left with a lot of white hard-to-fill space with a nicely sized aircraft three-view, but this is a trifling point in what is an excellent guide and a must-have in your Beaufighter (or flak ship) collection. Strongly recommend. Speaking of bombers successfully turned into fighters…

Junkers Ju 88C Day and Nightfighters

Chris Goss (Author) , Gareth Hector (Illustrator) , Janusz Swiatlon (Illustrator)

‘We were quickly brought to our senses by the sound of shouting from the nearby village. A mob of screaming women and children were rushing towards us. Terror gave us the power to run towards a river some kilometres away, but the Russians closed the gap. Guth fell behind and was beaten to death by the mob…living on bark, berries and frogs, we slowly made our way west, but the strain became so great that Wirth began to go out of his mind, and on the seventh day tried to shoot me. Just as I wrestled the Luger from Wirth’s demented grip, a man emerged from a nearby wood.’

You can’t turn a bomber into a fighter. Well, apart from the Bristol Beaufighter. Oh, and the Douglas A-20 Havoc. The Osprey book dives into yet another fascinating exception to this rule: the Ju 88C. Author Chris Goss shows how the Junkers Ju 88C evolved from a speedy, adaptable bomber into a tough Zerstörer and nightfighter. Its large fuselage accommodated radar, plenty of guns and ammunition, and its 300+ mph speed kept it competitive. The book’s stories and pilot accounts really bring this transformation to life, as seen in the hair-raising extract above.

The Junkers Ju 88C night fighter was heavily armed and radar-equipped, carrying forward-firing cannon and, in later versions, upward-firing Schräge Musik guns. Its closest British rival in 1943 was the night-fighter version of the de Havilland Mosquito, the NF Mk XIII. The Ju 88C-6 was the larger and heavier aircraft. The Mosquito NF, by contrast, was lighter and significantly faster in service. Both fielded similar engine power, but the Mosquito’s lighter weight turned that power into speed and climb, while the Ju 88C prioritised equipment and endurance. In combat, those differences shaped tactics: Mosquito crews relied on speed and surprise, while Ju 88C crews operated more methodically in radar-led night defence over Germany.

The book is thoroughly researched and highly readable, with superb artworks throughout. Seen from 2026, when radicalised populist nationalism is again on the rise in many countries, this book is a sobering reminder—not just of the hell such regimes inflict on their enemies, but of the pointless pain and death they also bring to their ‘own’ people.

S.E. 210 Caravelle: A Legends of Flight Illustrated History by Wolfgang Borgmann

Schiffer Military Books

Lavishly illustrated with gorgeous memorabilia, this is a lovely hagiography of that most elegant of airliners, the French Caravelle. It may feature the ‘looks right, flies right’ cliche in the second paragraph, but we can forgive that, as this is a handsome book researched and made with great care. Marvel at gaudily colourful menu cards offering rich French fare, including Mignottes Caravelles and Brioche à la jet (I made neither up), sigh at period photos of this beautiful jet, and fall in love with Finnair art. The mind boggles at the work they must have done to source the images and then clear the photo rights. Clearly a labour of love, author Wolfgang Borgmann and designer Christopher Bower have done a superb job and reading this was a welcome break from my normal military reading. Here is a cool enough jet to even entice fighter fans. Sublime. Other aircraft covered in this excellent series include the P-39 and Black Widow.

Order here.

Lavotchkin La-5 Vol. I: Volume 1 (Monographs)

by Dariusz Paduch (Author)

We have been writing a series of articles presenting the case for aircraft X or Y being the greatest fighter of the Second World War. Of course, there is no real definitive answer, but each case presents different reasoning, a chance to explore a different angle. We have covered the Hellcat, Bf 109, Whirlwind, P-47, Corsair and Spitfire, among others. Each time I’ve done one, it’s been an opportunity to spend time immersing myself in the story of a particular aircraft and to pressure-test what I think I know and the common myths. Recently, I made the case for the La-5FN and quickly fell in love with this aircraft. As with most Soviet aircraft, research is a bloody nightmare of contradicting reports, information vacuums and terrible photos that look like they’ve been photocopied under the tracks of a T-34. I wish I had had this book during my research. Paduch has done a brilliant job of making sense of the story of this insanely agile fighter, the king of low-level air combat. Of course, many photos are grubby and grainy; this is par for the course with Soviet war stuff, but many of these grainy photos are gold dust, rare glimpses into the development, production and deployment of these amazing machines. Perhaps it’s apt that they are not monkeyed around with and coloured, and instead retain their flavour. A welcome splash of colour comes with the ten large, high-quality colour artwork profiles and many excellent line drawings. With technical depth and an intriguing development story in truly desperate times, this is a welcome book on an important aircraft that is often overlooked outside Russia.

Polish Military Aircraft 1918-1939

From Regaining Independence to Hitler’s Blitzkrieg

That Poland achieved anything in the 20th century, let alone designing brilliant, innovative aircraft, is remarkable given the tough times it had. As we noted in our article on the top 10 Polish aircraft, “The Independent nation of Poland is younger than the aeroplane itself, and spent its formative years in bloody wars with Ukraine and the Soviet Union, before invasion by Germany..”

Though, as the book notes, Poland may have been danned by geography, it could have stood a better chance, as it had the talent and infrastructure to make advanced fighters in numbers. The book notes that in the early 1930s, Polish fighters were among the best in the world, but despite excellent designers, some unfortunate decisions were made. But instead, P.24s were exported to Bulgaria, Greece, Romania, and Turkey, and the airliner production was prioritised over the PZL.50 Jastrzab fighter. If the programme had started earlier with the intended engine and greater refinement, it might have ended up with performance close to the Hurricane. Such an aircraft, in large numbers, flown by motivated pilots, could have proved a spirited challenge to the invading German forces, but this was not to be.

Another 1939 prototype was the PZL.38 II twin-engined heavy fighter-bomber, an aircraft hampered by the same engine issues. Had it matured, it could have been a worthy aircraft comparable to the Bf 110. The more ambitious PZL.48 Lampart might have been more like a Beaufighter. The dearth of English-language books on Polish subjects makes this all the more appealing. A very interesting subject and a book I strongly recommend.

Order your copy here.

(An aside comes to mind: after the heroic help of Polish airmen in the Battle of Britain, the Western abandonment of Polish independence in exchange for a chance of post-war stability was a heartbreaking outcome for many. Today, despite a healthy Polish population in the UK, there is a strange absence of Polish characters on British TV. All I can think of is Zosia March (Holby City) and the two cafe workers from a Harry Enfield sketch.)

Rowland White reviews The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes

I absolutely love this book. Seriously well-informed, seriously funny, authoritative and full of passion for its subject. The care lavished on aeroplanes that never even existed beyond the drawing board is worth the price of admission alone. Joe Coles always finds a fresh angle on a familiar subject, but he’s even better at bringing to life an unfamiliar one. Or just letting imagination run riot with unlikely flights of fancy that still somehow manage to ring true. Every word and every picture in The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes has been chosen with a knowledge, enthusiasm and attention to detail that’s irresistible. No one writes about aviation like Joe Coles. We’re lucky to have him. The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes is my aviation book of the year.

Order your copy here (if you wish it to be signed, please specify the name you wish it signed to in your order)

Two leading military historians (Al Murray and James Holland), a former Sea Harrier pilot (Paul Tremelling), a former Lynx Observer (Bing Chandler), and two of Hush-Kit’s drunkest writers (Joe Coles and Edward Ward) walk into a pub. Together, they vent their spleens (and hydraulic systems) about the Top 10 aircraft beloved by boring bastards. No punches are pulled.

Before we start, I must make it very clear: we are NOT saying the aeroplanes mentioned are boring. The aircraft are not the villains of this piece, nor is the appreciation of these machines. What we wish to attack is the boring way in which certain aircraft are loved. No aeroplanes were hurt in the making of this article.

“Whilst I do find the BRRRTTT-beige bunch teeth -extractingly painful, I do have a soft spot for the A-10 drivers. They have always been first-class and are actually what makes the aircraft cool. Them. Not the cannon or bathtub. Brave, brave boys and girls at the top of their game. And I can attest…that they throw one of the best beer calls you are ever likely to see. That schizz got completely out of hand!”

10: TSR-2

Dolorira
dolor (pain) + ira (anger)

Memory coloured equally by hurt and rage.

If you are reading this, you know the story: a wicked, penny-pinching Labour government killed a world-beating aircraft in 1964. This was part of the wider destruction of the British aircraft industry as a major global player and the winding down of the nation’s military might. Several books stoked the fire, notably Derek Wood’s Project Cancelled (1978). British children learned it in an Eagle annual in the 1980s, a message reiterated in the brilliant Take-Off magazines of the late ’80s. Then, more books and the internet brought an explosion in the story’s popularity.

Framing a nuclear strike aircraft—a machine designed for wholesale genocide—as a victim is weird. But declinists are weird: never quite sure whether their own country is great or weak, and a bit vague about why it is so deserving of a return to greater power. The TSR-2 Myth is the James Bond of plane myths; the success of the Bond films speaks to the insecurity of British men in a changing world, when Britain wasn’t quite so powerful (and, as the Irish comedian Hubert McIntyre observed, James Bond is also about how great it is to go on holiday and have a nice drink). The creation of a martyr of the TSR-2 is part of the same phenomenon.

It’s a bit unfair that aviation fans remember the Wilson government for cancelling the TSR-2 rather than for achieving Britain’s greatest military success of the entire Cold War: avoidance of the disastrous Vietnam War. While Britain’s non-involvement in Vietnam didn’t directly create the Beatles or Carnaby Street, it helped foster the environment in which this cultural explosion could thrive. Britain enjoyed a period of economic stability and cultural confidence. Pretty great result. Whereas spending billions on a bomber that would likely have taken years to become fully functional and then played only a small role in the Falklands (proving even harder to get there than the Vulcan) and Granby, probably not such a great result.

TSR-2 would likely have had some brilliant technology (eventually), but the timing was terrible; much of its pioneering electronics risked becoming obsolete almost immediately due to the microchip revolution. The TSR-2 would have been the last “pure analogue” advanced warplane. But the details do not really matter; what matters here is that you are likely to hear this same story (in the same words) repeated a gazillion times, and we’re all bored shitless. Change the record, mate.

If you want to get angry about a cancelled British engineering project that was capable of fucking shit up, how about the London Ringways? An ambitious but highly controversial 1960s plan to build a network of high-speed ring roads (motorways) encircling London. The dream was to drag the city into the modern, car-dominated age, cutting congestion in the centre and letting traffic flow smoothly around it, rather than choking its streets. In practice, it was a terrible idea. The scheme would have carved wide, often elevated motorways straight through established neighbourhoods, demolishing thousands of homes and splitting communities in two. I would be much more interested if someone started ranting in favour of that.

If it has to be atomic, a more interesting nuclear project to mourn might be the British fast breeder reactor programme? If we have to stay vehicular, then there’s the leaning Advanced Passenger Train (APT), though this may be the TSR-2 of train-people, which leaves us back at square one.

• Joe Coles

9: But, what about the Hurricane?

The world’s least-ignored ‘ignored’ aircraft was OK. It was available and OK (at least for the first couple of years of the war). By 1942, the RAF looked into what was in the fridge for a quick, improvised meal for unwanted guests and said that would do (while serving itself a delicious Spitfire steak for home defence).

They will tell you, “In the Battle of Britain, it scored the most kills,” though in their heart of hearts they know it's the ratios that matter, and there was a fuck ton more Hurricanes. They were tasked with the bombers as they weren’t able to scrap on even terms with the fighters. A back-of-the-envelope exchange rate shows a 1.8:1 loss rate in favour of the Bf 109 when Camm’s finest had the bad luck to have to be a fighter.

Hundreds of books, 20 million Google search results. Overshadowed, my arse.

8: Broken Arrowheads

The Overton Window has become so far skewed in recent years that it could be used on the Rutan Model 202 Boomerang—while also enabling straight-faced commentators to describe the former head of the Bank of England, turned Canadian Prime Minister, as a ‘woke communist.’ We love Canada right now, standing up to tyranny, speaking smack to Trump, and looking relatively decent in this piggish age, but that does not excuse Arrow fans. If you’ve managed to live so far free from the Arrow story: In the late 1950s, Canada designed a brilliant, top-of-the-range interceptor, the CF-105 Arrow. But the project was too costly, and it became apparent it wouldn’t be able to stop ICBMs. It was cancelled, which was a bummer for the Canadian aviation industry. But it was cancelled 67 years ago, and the USSR never did try to attack Canada. But the mourning goes on, and on, on. At least TSR-2 fans know the jig is over, whereas you still hear Arrow fans say, “Never mind the F-35, why not just replace and redesign every last rivet on the Arrow and make that instead—that would be better.” Because reality, that’s why.

(Are we hypocrites for selling lovely CF-105 Arrow merch? We are)

Joe Coles

7: Fragile favouritism

“You’re so vain you probably think this song is about you.”

This is not about you, OK. The fact that you think it is only proves my point. I have encountered this many times, so sit down; this is not about you and your sordid love of the Douglas B-23 Dragon.

An obsessive’s relationship with the object of his attention is intense, complex, and personal. His aircraft may exist in his dreams as an extension of himself. So when someone takes a quick online poke at his holy machine, his response can be febrile. But you don’t get to nastily gatekeep a subject even if you have read three (or three thousand) books on it (having said that, when my friend’s dad tried to incorrectly plane-splain to me in a pub quiz, I may have ‘accidentally’ kicked him in the shin). Someone who may normally have a sense of humour and perspective can totally lose his rag when someone suggests that the Avions Fairey Belfair didn’t single-handedly win the war. A plane (this is where a bore will respond with a comment about woodworking tools), especially a military aircraft, is built to kill and survive a war, and isn’t even sentient; it can take a couple of jibes about its high wing loading.

Getting nasty with someone because they’ve been critical about a plane you like is not cool.

6: Boring B-17

Is the Mustang or the Flying Fortress the most famous American aircraft of the Second World War? Both are adored by the dull and tedious. The B-17 is a particularly odd aircraft to love, though, as—unlike the P-51—it was a failure: it could not perform the mission for which it was explicitly designed.

Like many aircraft that are liked in a boring way by boring people—such as the Tomcat and the Spitfire—the B-17’s fame is due in no small part to film and television. This process began early and at the expense of the superior B-24 Liberator, which was sidelined by the Fortress in the popular imagination both at the time and ever since. William Wyler’s “The Memphis Belle: A Story of a Flying Fortress” was released in 1944 and supposedly depicts the first US bomber in Europe to complete 25 missions and return home. In reality, of course, it doesn’t: a B-24 named ‘Hot Stuff’ completed 25 missions three months earlier, but no one had realised the propaganda value of the achievement at that time, so it remained unpublicised.

“The Memphis Belle” is, to be fair, an incredible film. Shot in colour on genuine missions over Europe in 1943, it depicts actual combat with German fighters and is an astonishing, occasionally shocking, record of early USAAF strategic raids. Curiously, however, it explicitly depicts two of the B-17’s major failings: namely that it wasn’t very accurate and it was appallingly vulnerable to fighters. The aircraft’s very name implied its supposed invulnerability and the Eighth Air Force’s bombing doctrine was one of surgical precision bombing: this was the whole justification for undertaking missions by day, which was necessarily more dangerous than flying by night. But the bombs shown exploding in the film have clearly missed their target (most fall in the sea, others on farmland).

Remarkably, given its origin as a propaganda piece, the film does not baulk at showing US aircraft being destroyed as well as appallingly damaged aircraft returning from the mission with dead and wounded aircrew. Only the Memphis Belle itself and one other B-17 are shown as remaining undamaged on their return from bombing (and missing) the docks at Wilhelmshaven. In one particularly arresting sequence, a spinning B-17 is shown in a fatal plunge as a few of its crew escape by parachute. Unknown to the 1944 cinemagoer, one of the film’s cinematographers, Harold J. Tannenbaum, was killed whilst shooting the film when the B-17 he was aboard was shot down over France.

To be fair, the B-24 was also far less accurate than had been touted (due to the grossly overrated Norden bombsight, which both aircraft shared) and was equally vulnerable to fighter attack, but that aircraft at least could carry more bombs for greater distances and was more amenable to adaptation to other roles.

But it was the American bombers’ vulnerability that ultimately led to their failure. Losses gradually increased until the absolute shitshow of the second raid on Schweinfurt, or Black Thursday as it came to be known, in October 1943. Sixty bombers (21% of the attacking force) were shot down and another seventeen so badly damaged that they were scrapped. More shockingly, perhaps, this single raid resulted in the loss of 650 men. This very decisively proved that, despite expectations, the Flying Fortress could not fly into defended airspace—the defining purpose for its very existence—and the Eighth Air Force was forced to cease flying raids into Germany. It was essentially luck that a long-range escort fighter in the form of the P-51 Mustang was available by February 1944 and raids against German targets could restart. Meanwhile, B-17s began area bombing, the supposed “precision” capability quietly sidelined, leading to the indiscriminate attacks on Berlin and Dresden. This process had begun as early as September 1943, when the Eighth Air Force dropped 506 tons of bombs onto a target officially specified, in defiance of its own doctrine, not as a marshalling yard or a munitions factory but simply as “the city of Emden”.

Even if one ignores the precision element, the B-17 wasn’t that good a bomber: you could fly a long way in it, or carry a lot of bombs—but not both. The bombload a Fortress could carry to Berlin, for example, was 4,000 lb: the same payload that could be carried to the same target by the de Havilland Mosquito, yet the latter (smaller) aircraft could do so with only 20% of the crew of the Fortress, at greater speed and in far greater safety.

And yet today the B-17 is seen as a historic war-winner and bizarrely attracts less attention for its role in the killing of thousands upon thousands of civilians both in Germany and the occupied nations, as for its defensive armament. Countless bores endlessly remind us that it carried the supposedly far more effective .50 calibre machine guns than the RAF’s weedy .303 weapons, although this, as it turned out, didn’t help hugely without escort fighters to protect it. Furthermore, its role in the morally problematic practice of bombing civilian targets seems to attract less attention from historians questioning the Allied strategic bombing campaign in Europe than the RAF’s nearly as famous Avro Lancaster.

Why does it get so much boring fandom then? The answer is,

Read more

We shared with you the top 10 fighters at low altitude, but now we shove the throttle wide open, pull back firmly on the stick, and feel the aircraft surge upward as we tackle combat at high altitude. Fighting at high altitude is tough. First, there’s the cold, threatening pilots with hypothermia or worse, and freezing guns. Then there is the ‘thin air’. The air is less dense, leaving both pilots and engines gasping for oxygen. The thin air also makes wings less efficient, but fitting a massive wing would create more drag, impairing almost every other performance metric. These fighters overcame this seemingly impossible balancing act of compromises. We have ranked these by a combination of effectiveness and combat impact. When specially designed enemy bombers and recce aircraft were overflying with impunity, these challenges (and more) had to be overcome, resulting in the following 10 brilliant fighters, machines that could not just survive in this hostile environment, but fight and win.

10: de Havilland Mosquito ‘Douglas Fir Banks’

In the summer of 1942, the Junkers Ju 86P high-altitude reconnaissance bomber flew several sorties over Britain. Although its bomb load was small, they overflew some sensitive areas, and an attempt to intercept it with a Spitfire was not successful. The Royal Air Force urgently needed to counter this new threat.

In response, de Havilland took the prototype Mosquito and converted it into a high-altitude fighter. The span was increased from 54ft 2in to 59ft. From the start of the conversion to the first flight was 7 days. A low-pressure cabin was used, and some armour plating and fuel tanks were removed, making the HA Mk XV 2,300lb lighter than a standard Mk II.

On 15 Sep, an altitude of 43,000ft was attained, some 5,000ft above the already high-achieving B Mk XVI. This was further evidence of the superb design of the Mosquito (the most versatile British combat aircraft of the war) and its astonishing capacity for improvement.

It is worth noting that Vickers-Supermarine and Westland both produced specialist high-altitude interceptors: the Type 432 and the Welkin (an article on this coming soon), respectively. The former had a service ceiling of 38,000 ft. The latter had a ceiling of 44,000ft, and only 77 complete airframes were built. Arguably, the time and effort expended on these types could have been better expended on improvements to the Spitfire’s range and the Whirlwind overall. The Mosquito is ranked so low not due to any lack of capability, but a failure to fully exploit it in this role.

- Paul Stoddart

For those who messaged me about missing out last time, here’s one more chance, but do get a shift on! It will be gone tomorrow, with limited coupons:

9: Lockheed P-38 Lightning ‘Muroc & roll’

The rather beautiful Lockheed P-38 Lightning retained performance well at high altitudes largely due to its twin turbo-supercharged engines. These maintained power in thin air where other engines struggled. The P-38 wasn’t originally designed as a pure high-altitude specialist, but it could operate effectively up high when escorting bombers, chasing reconnaissance aircraft, and covering long-range missions over the Pacific and Europe.

However, despite having a decent amount of power at height, it was not perfect. Compressibility effects in high-speed dives (where airflow began to behave unpredictably as aircraft approached near-sonic speeds) created serious handling difficulties, and pilots often reported increasingly heavy controls as altitude rose and air density decreased. While turbocharging preserved engine output, aerodynamic development lagged behind later wartime designs, limiting sustained combat agility in comparison with more refined single-engined high-altitude fighters.

Despite its strengths, the P-38 was eventually surpassed as a dedicated high-altitude fighter. The P-51 Mustang offered superior range and manoeuvrability. With half as many engines, the P-51 was far cheaper to maintain and operate, while late-war German jets entirely surpassed piston-engined performance. The P-38 was also inferior to the P-51 in roll rate, with higher high-speed control forces, and less responsive handling in dives and tight manoeuvres.

In operational terms, the P-38 excelled where endurance, range, and altitude were critical, particularly across the vast distances of the Pacific theatre. Its complexity and limitations in compressibility, however, prevented it from achieving clear supremacy over later designs. It was feared by Japanese pilots and is mentioned in at least one Japanese pilot memoir as a formidable aircraft.

8: Mitsubishi J2M Raiden ‘High Jack’

Known by the Allies as ‘Jack’, its actual name, Raiden, translates as ‘Thunderbolt’. The Mitsubishi J2M Raiden was a point-defence interceptor designed to counter the threat posed by high-flying B-29 bombers, which could bomb the Japanese main islands at will.

The Americans were not noted for acknowledging the capability of their enemies, but the American Tactical Air Intelligence Unit (ATAIU) noted its strong climbing performance and controllability, qualities that made it a potentially effective counter to the B-29. With a maximum speed of 417 mph at 16,600 ft, a service ceiling of around 38,000 ft, and a maximum climb rate of around 4,000 ft/min, the J2M3 was certainly a high-altitude fighter to be reckoned with.

The first production version was the J2M2 (Model 11) with a 1,820 hp Kasei 23a engine, which entered production in late 1942. The J2M3 was the most important version, with a four-cannon armament, and production began in late 1943. The final production version was the J2M5, armed with four 20 mm cannons and powered by the 1,820 hp Kasei 26a engine.

Deployed largely in the defence of Japan itself, the Mitsubishi J2M Raiden was arguably the Imperial Japanese Navy’s most effective high-altitude interceptor by the end of the war, combining strong climb performance with heavy armament ideally suited to tackling B-29s. However, its impact was blunted by persistent reliability issues, limited pilot familiarity, and production disruption from bombing, with only 621 aircraft (all variants) completed.

-Dr Ron Smith

7: Mitsubishi Ki-84 Hayate ‘The Hayate Kid’

Although much time and effort were expended by many nations on the development of high-altitude fighters, only one nation, Japan, defended itself against a sustained, large-scale high-altitude assault. In its fight against the Superfortresses at 30,000ft or more, its finest weapon was likely the Ki-84 (known as ‘Frank’ to the Allies).

Nakajima’s own Homare 18-cylinder engine, which delivered 2040hp when it was working properly (which was far from guaranteed in 1944-45), conferred a 38,000ft service ceiling upon the Ki-84, well above B-29 operating altitude. The Ki-84 possessed excellent manoeuvrability and climb rate, and was well-armed with two 20mm cannon and two 12.7mm machine guns.

On 20 August 1944, the Ki-84 achieved its first success against the Superfortresses when two were shot down over Yawata. Top Ki-84 exponent against B-29s was 38-kill ace Isamu “Skilled” Sasaki who shot down six Superfortresses, including three in one night when he attacked bombers silhouetted against the burning city.

Unfortunately for Japan, its radar was short-ranged, and B-29s were able to approach in a shallow dive at very high speed, allowing for a brief interception window. This, combined with poor quality fuel supplies and inadequately trained aircrew resulted in the Ki-84 never achieving its true potential.

(Also worthy of mention is the twin-engined Ki-83, which was even more impressive, but arrived too late)

-Edward Ward

6: Messerschmitt Bf 109 ‘Mr. & Mrs. Schmitt’

By 1944–45, Germany faced massive bombing raids at higher altitudes than before. The Messerschmitt Bf 109 K-4 entered service in late 1944, and its speed (up to ~440 mph / 710 km/h in ideal conditions) made it one of the fastest German piston interceptors available. It was intended to counter Allied bombers and P-51 Mustang escorts. The K-4 had a powerful DB 605D engine, improved aerodynamics, and heavy armament, including a 30 mm MK 108 cannon.

A key factor in its high-altitude performance was MW 50 and GM-1 boost systems. MW 50 improved low-to-medium altitude power by charge cooling, while GM-1 injected nitrous oxide to restore oxygen at height. GM-1-equipped G and K variants were important for true high-altitude interception, though supplies were limited and not always fitted in practice.

Messerschmitt Bf 109

The Bf 109K refined the G airframe with smoother surfaces, reduced protrusions, and tighter engine installation, lowering parasitic drag. Combined with high wing loading, this favoured speed and climb at altitude over low-speed handling. Its climb rate was among the best of late-war piston fighters, aiding rapid interception.

The G-6/AS through K-4 represented the peak of Bf 109 high-altitude interception capability, but production was limited, and relatively few K-4s were built compared to earlier G-series variants. As a result, they were increasingly overwhelmed by Allied numbers and escort coverage.

5: Republic P-47 Thunderbolt ‘Tropopause Hotdog Night’

The Republic P-47 Thunderbolt is big in all ways: Big fuselage, big engine, big propeller, big wing, and enough ducting to air condition a 4-bedroom house. But also, big in numbers – 15,682 aircraft were delivered between March 1942 and VJ Day. The design of the aircraft was informed by air combat experience in Europe, leading to a decision to use a turbo-supercharger to deliver high power, sustained to high altitudes. This, in turn, led to a large, heavy aircraft with a fuselage packaging dominated by the enormous powerplant and supercharger system.

The aircraft was powered by the Pratt and Whitney R2800 18-cylinder radial engine, with, in the P-47N, a turbo-supercharger delivering a war emergency rating of 2800 hp at 32,500 ft. The turbocharger was located more than 22 ft aft of the engine, connected by ducts carrying exhaust air to drive it, an inlet duct providing air for supercharging, and an intercooler to cool the charge on its way back to the engine. The resulting performance included (P-47N) a max speed at 30,000 ft 426 mph and climb to 30,000 ft in 11 minutes. Experience in Europe showed the P-47 to be formidable at higher altitudes. This was ably demonstrated during the escort of B-29 bombers attacking Japan, where it proved extremely effective. In absolute performance, if not significance in the war, the P-47N was likely the ultimate

Read more

The F/A-XX is the US Navy’s next-generation carrier fighter to replace the Super Hornet. It aims for stealth, long range, and optional uncrewed teaming, but has faced repeated delays driven by industrial limits and shifting priorities. A recent Northrop Grumman teaser shows a tailless stealth design with dorsal intakes, something we need to talk about. It’s time for us to don our sou'wester and poke the F/A-XX with a harpoon to see if it’s still alive.

The F/A-XX feels vague, lost in a sea mist with even a noncommittal name. There are many reasons why it is the vaguest US programme. It moves in secrecy, in slow stages. It is highly classified, so updates are limited by design. At the same time, the Navy continues to refine requirements, especially regarding crewed versus uncrewed roles. Then there is the truth that the Navy has long known and the Air Force has just learned: a fully stealthy force is often too much of a pain in the arse to work and needs to be bolstered by old-school fighters. Funding arrives in small steps rather than a full commitment, which slows visible progress. Big unanswered funding questions remain despite recent bombastic statements. Industry is also stretched by other major programmes, so work moves carefully rather than quickly (and unsteadily).

“Massive, with a hearty roar, long-legged, and fond of talking to robots, this could just as easily describe Chewbacca as it could so-called sixth-generation fighters.”

Tensions between the Navy, Pentagon leadership, and the White House have repeatedly affected funding and timing. At times, higher-level decision-makers prioritised the Air Force NGAD and the F-47 programme, arguing that the defence industry could not support two sixth-generation fighters at once. This led to reduced or delayed funding for F/A-XX and uncertainty over timelines. The Navy has pushed to preserve the programme, while Pentagon leadership has questioned affordability and industrial capacity. These shifting priorities created repeated pauses and ambiguity, even as technical work continued behind the scenes.

Wild military adventurism, a US trend in 2026, can suck funding away from future aircraft programmes, and sustained (or expanding) theatres of conflict tend to reshape priorities. Bad news for projects that take decades to brew.

F/A-XX is also affected by the same bloody thing everyone is banging on about in the 2020s: industrial capacity and delivery timing. This is now clearly visible in the F/A-XX sixth-generation carrier fighter programme, which has been lurking in the background for a while, feeding speculation that it may be canned. The programme has not collapsed, but it has repeatedly shifted milestones, including delays in the expected downselect and uncertainty over when a firm development contract will be awarded. Parallel programmes and supply chain pressures have all contributed. Recent reporting suggests that at least one of the competing contractors (presumably Boeing) has struggled to align with the Navy’s preferred timeline, which has added to earlier delays. Even so, the official position has stabilised more recently, with the Navy now indicating a targeted decision point around August 2026. The competition remains primarily between Boeing and Northrop Grumman.

Cool cats?

Northrop Grumman has been notably confident in its F/A-XX positioning, supported by its recent performance on the B-21 Raider (though it has still experienced cost ‘adjustments’ and inefficiencies). Northrop is highly technically capable, but some see red flags around cost predictability and production scaling at high tempo.

Boeing the distance?

Boeing is more of a wild card. Its recent defence aircraft history includes the calamitous

Read more

The Polednice appears at midday on scorching summer days - a thin, ragged witch with a twisted face who preys on misbehaving children caught outside, bringing heatstroke, madness, even death. Then there’s the Vodník, who drowns victims and traps their souls in tiny jars. These malevolent entities are from what was once Czechoslovakia, and they were not its only monsters. It also unleashed the Avia S-199: a nightmarish aircraft that was slow, outdated, hideously ugly, and dangerous to fly. Amazingly, this horrid ghoul was an adaptation of the most successful and widely produced fighter in history. Perhaps even more amazingly, it racked up Spitfire kills.

Ondřej Dvořák (an aero engineer from Prague) tracks down a monster.

“Several Czechoslovak and Israeli fighter pilots managed to shoot off their own propeller.”

The worst fighter of the Cold War was not from the Soviet Union, nor from Britain, France, or the USA. It came from Prague, then in Czechoslovakia. It is May 1953, and a fine, crisp day in the pretty baroque town of Prostějov. Good weather for a flight. A fighter aircraft rolls onto the runway, and its engine splutters into life. What is it? At first glance, it’s a Messerschmitt Bf 109. But something’s off, like it’s survived a malicious plastic surgeon’s botched nose job. It sounds wrong, too; it doesn’t have the urgent, rather sharp whine of a 109, but a deeper, steadier growl. The little aeroplane begins its take-off roll, accelerates, but as the tailwheel lifts off, it veers violently to the left. With absolute calm, the pilot attempts a rapid take-off to save the aircraft and himself, but the aircraft is too slow to lift off. The plane transforms into a pile of scrap aluminium.

Somewhat miraculously, no one is hurt. The same scene would repeat in the exact same fashion on the same airfield four days later, and another Avia S-199 (for this is the designation of this unfortunate contraption) was off to aircraft hell. It was the worst of the Cold War fighters. Quite how bad it was is all the more amazing as it is essentially a re-engined version of the most common (and mechanically understood) fighter in history, the Messerschmitt Bf 109.

“At the end of the day of instruction, he would be so shook up he’d head straight for the bar, and couldn’t even talk until he had a drink.”

The S-199 was a Czechoslovak Bf 109 version, first flown in 1947, but it was most certainly not an improved one. It was slower than the far earlier Bf 109Es of Battle of Britain fame (the first E-1 flew around nine years earlier than the S-199, and even the E-1 could outpace it). The S-199 was downright dangerous to its own pilot in any phase of the flight, and it completely lacked the predatory waspish aura of the German original. Nevertheless, it somehow managed to shoot down seven enemy aircraft, including three Spitfires.

The S-199 project was a poisonous goulash of constraints, urgency, incompetence, and misguided priorities. After the war, Czechoslovakia really needed better fighters than the pitiful mix of war-weary Lavochkins and Spitfires with limited airframe life, which were the only such aircraft at its disposal. And it needed them quickly. The tensions between the East and the West were rising fast, and Czechoslovakia was right in the middle of the mess, while the USSR was slowly consolidating its power over the country. But Moscow was surprisingly reluctant to provide replacement fighters. Western aircraft were seen as politically undesirable, and either not worth the scarce foreign currency reserves, such as the Spitfire, or completely unaffordable, such as the Meteor. Another way had to be found, and ideally one that would keep the local aircraft factories busy. Ideas like reviving the 1930s Avia B-135 project were floated (indeed, the Yugoslavs did exactly that with their Ikarus S-49 fighter based on the Rogožarski IK-3, so it was perhaps feasible). The plentiful ex-Luftwaffe Bf 109G/K airframes scattered across the country seemed like the most realistic temporary solution to the fighter problem until a jet plane could be sourced. Unfortunately, the only coherent supply of the original DB-605 engines in Czechoslovakia was part of an ammunition dump that quite literally exploded in the summer of 1945 for unknown reasons. This event prompted the local Czech population to commit extremely shameful crimes* against their neighbours of German origin. The Ústí nad Labem explosion also thwarted the idea of the vanilla Bf 109G/K as the backbone of the Czechoslovak air arm.

Crankenstein’s monster

The only replacement engine available in numbers was the Jumo 211F, used on the He 111 and Ju 88 bombers. Things were bad from the get-go, offering less than 80 per cent of the power of the DB-605. The Jumo 211F was a heavy, relatively low-power inverted V-12 optimised for steady bomber duty rather than the high power-to-weight ratio and rapid throttle response a nimble fighter demands. It was already doomed. But Avia in Prague, in a move straight out of some aviation horror film, compounded this flaw; it was coupled with a clipped bomber propeller featuring enormous paddles while also not making any changes to the original propeller gearbox optimised for a far different setup. And that is how the S-199 was born. The pressure to secure available, cheap aircraft was so strong that this unholy machine entered mass production. In the end, there were 500 of them, and there was a time, before the MiG-15, when they were the only fighters in the Czechoslovak Air Force.

As mentioned, the Czechoslovaks were not the only ones to suffer the S-199. When the state of Israel was founded in 1948, there were very few countries willing to bypass the various embargoes on weapons sales to the Jewish state, but Czechoslovakia was keen to help. This gave it the leverage to offer the worst deal in history. Israel bought 25 S-199s at $190,000 USD ($2.5 million in 2026 dollars) each. For comparison, Sweden, Switzerland, and other customers were buying surplus P-51s for around $4,000 USD each in the immediate post-war era. Around that time, a brand-new F-84C cost about $150,000, and an F-86A (the best fighter in the world) was closer to $180,000. Both were cheaper than the 280mph fighters sold to Israel. But this was academic; there was no real choice, so the S-199 became the first combat aircraft of the Israeli Air Force. Ultimately, the skilled veteran pilots, who flew the Avias from a small strip on the Mediterranean shore, achieved quite a lot during the War of Independence.

Flying the S-199 was bad, but the worst part was the takeoff, which could easily turn into sheer terror. The main culprit was the

Read more

The following ten fighter aircraft were thrown into the most intense air combat in history, the Second World War. At their controls, young men (and women in the USSR) flew into danger, their survival dependent on their luck, skill and their aeroplane. We look at which fighter aircraft types were most common among the aerial victories of the top fighter pilots, the aces. This fascinating list does not rank aircraft by individual potency (hence no Corsair or Hellcat) but instead paints a revealing portrait of the scale of air warfare and the predicaments these superb aircraft were thrown into. Here are the Top 10 Fighter Aircraft of the Second World War Aces.

10: Lockheed P-38 Lightning ‘Hits from the Bong’

Something of an outlier, as the only twin-engined aircraft on this list, the P-38 was a radical, unconventional design with no traditional fuselage or rear fuselage; instead, pilot and weapons were contained in a central nacelle attached to a twin-boom tail and wings. Two engines offered increased redundancy and used advanced turbo-superchargers, enabling strong performance at high altitudes where many fighters struggled. At service entry in 1941, it was among the fastest aircraft in the world and had an impressive climb rate.

The clean lines of the P-38 meant it enjoyed the benefits of low drag and high power, and the resultant performance was combined with heavy armament: a 20 mm cannon and four .50-calibre machine guns. The armament was centrally mounted in the nose, giving concentrated, accurate fire. Its long range proved extremely valuable in the Pacific and in the European bomber escort role.

The Lockheed P-38 Lightning was flown by some of the war’s most accomplished fighter aces. Richard Bong, America’s top ace, scored 40 aerial victories, all while flying the P-38 in the Pacific Theatre, mainly over the Solomon Islands between 1942 and 1944.

Thomas McGuire achieved 38 kills, all in P-38s, fighting over New Guinea and the Philippines before his death in 1945. In the European and Mediterranean theatres, Charles H. MacDonald earned 27 victories, with 22 of these in P-38s, flying missions over Italy and surrounding areas from 1943 to 1945. Francis “Gabby” Gabreski, primarily known for flying P-47s, scored 28 kills in total (12 of these in P-38s during his European missions in 1943–1944).

9: Focke-Wulf Fw 190 ‘Tank’s girl’

When the RAF first encountered the Fw 190 in 1941, they were alarmed by its high speed and unbelievable roll rate. Later, the Fw 190 proved formidable against Soviet forces on the Eastern Front, battled Allied fighters over Western Europe, defended the Reich from bomber raids, and saw fighting in North Africa and during the Normandy invasion.

The Fw 190 was flown by several of the Luftwaffe’s top aces, though many scored victories in multiple aircraft types. Josef Priller was a key Western Front pilot, known for aggressive interception work and achieving most of his 101 victories in the Fw 190 during intense air battles over Europe.

Erich Rudorffer scored 224 victories, with a large portion, likely over half, achieved in the Fw 190. His career spanned the Eastern Front and Mediterranean, with time on the Bf 109 and 262, marking him as a versatile mixed platform ace rather than a pure Fw 190 specialist.

Otto Kittel scored 267 victories, nearly all on the Eastern Front, mostly in the Fw 190. Walter Nowotny claimed around 258 victories, many in the Fw 190 (but also in the Bf 109). Erich Rudorffer achieved many in the Fw 190, including thirteen in a single mission. Despite the Fw 190’s brilliance, the more numerous Bf 109’s presence, particularly in the bloody and one-sided early stages of the Eastern Front, as well as the 190’s more diverse taskings, meant the Focke-Wulf achieved far fewer kills overall.

8: Mitsubishi A6M Reisen “Zero” ‘Let that Reisen be love’

At its debut, the A6M Zero was the world’s leading carrier fighter, extremely agile with exceptional range. It saw combat over China before Pearl Harbor and then dominated early Pacific battles. Allied underestimation and propaganda myths persisted until losses mounted, revealing its true capabilities against American and British aircraft forces.

The key to survival against the Zero was to avoid a turning fight whenever possible, but not all situations allowed this, nor did all pilots know to do this, and the Zero racked up a great many kills. Its dominance gave urgency to the US to develop new fighters, but even with the arrival of the excellent Hellcat and Corsair, it took time to effectively master tactics to counter the manoeuvrable Zero.

Top Zero ace Saburo Sakai scored around 64 victories over China, the Solomons and Guadalcanal, surviving severe wounds. Hiroyoshi Nishizawa claimed around 87 kills flying over New Guinea and the Solomon Islands, while Tetsuzo Iwamoto achieved over 80 claimed victories across China and the Pacific theatres, making them Japan’s leading naval fighter pilots.

These pilots fought across the Pacific War’s fiercest theatres, including Rabaul, the Solomon Islands, New Guinea and China. Operating from carriers and island airfields, they exploited the Zero’s range and manoeuvrability. Despite mounting Allied air power, their early-war dominance left a lasting reputation for Japanese naval fighter skill worldwide.

7: Bell P-39 Airacobra ‘Bell Epoque’

The Bell P-39 Airacobra first flew with a turbo-supercharger, promising strong high-altitude performance. The US Army Air Corps removed it, prioritising low-level combat. Relegated to Soviet use, it arrived in huge numbers and found its ideal theatre on the Eastern Front, where most combat occurred at low-altitude operations.

The Airacobra proved fast, rugged and manoeuvrable at low level, with heavy cannon armament. In Soviet service, it excelled under Lend-Lease, contributing to thousands of German losses. Its tricycle gear greatly aided rough field use, and it became one of the most successful Allied fighters on the Eastern Front.

Top P-39 ace Aleksandr Pokryshkin scored 59 victories, the majority achieved flying the P-39, mainly over Kuban, Crimea, Romania and Germany, becoming one of the Soviet Union’s greatest pilots. Nikolai Gulaev achieved 57 kills, the vast majority on the P-39, over Kursk, Ukraine and Belarus. Grigori Rechkalov scored 56 victories, most of them flying the P-39, in the Kuban and Central European campaigns during intense air battles.

These pilots dominated the skies over the Eastern Front, particularly during the Battle of Kursk and subsequent offensives into Eastern Europe. Flying P-39s, they exploited low-altitude combat conditions, achieving overwhelming success against Luftwaffe formations and securing Soviet air superiority from 1943 to 1945 across Ukraine, Poland, Germany and surrounding theatres of operation.

6: Republic P-47 Thunderbolt ‘The Massive Jugs of Destiny’

The massive ‘Jug’ weighed around one and a half times the

Read more

Not all aircraft leave the drawing board, and even those that reach the prototype stage are not necessarily destined for operational service. A truly staggering amount of cash has gone into cancelled aircraft projects, among them some of the most exciting, beautiful and even daftest aircraft ever proposed. Picking just eleven was tough, but we’ve handpicked an intriguing bunch that best tells the story. The rough ballpark figures (for any projects of this size, the total will be an educated guess rather than a definite) for what was spent on the projects in the titles are inflation-adjusted to 2026 dollars. Prepare to meet 11 Mind-Bogglingly Expensive Aircraft That Were Scrapped Before They Saw Service.

11: ⁠Saunders-Roe SR.45 Princess ($450–520 million)

The Saunders-Roe SR.45 Princess was a magnificent machine of epic proportions.

Weighing 156½ metric tons, the same as forty-three Spitfires, and with a greater wingspan than a Boeing 747, blessed with an endurance of 15 hours and a range of almost 6,000 miles, the Princess was utterly impressive.

The Princess was planned as a luxurious airliner to serve the transatlantic route. To carry 100 passengers over such a long route in style, the Princess needed to be big and heavy and required a massive amount of power. Eight massive Proteus turboprop engines were mounted in four ‘coupled’ pairs, along with two regular uncoupled Proteus.

The Princess first flew in 1952, unfortunately coinciding with the dawn of the land-based jet airliner age. Large airports and runways, able to accommodate the far more efficient land planes, were becoming increasingly common. The Princess, though impressive, was the last and grandest example of a dying concept no longer required.

Remarkably, despite the myriad compromises a flying boat must endure, the Princess was capable of a racy 380 mph, a mere 69mph slower than the jet-powered land-based de Havilland Comet I. Saunders-Roe were nothing if not persistent and considered even larger (jet-powered) flying boats before finally accepting defeat, and moving to another technological cul-de-sac: mixed propulsion fighters. The Saunders-Roe SR.45 Princess programme cost around £10–11 million in 1952, equivalent to roughly £350–400 million or $450–520 million in 2026 dollars, which seems pretty good value, if only for its beauty. The rather beautiful and similarly ill-fated Bristol Brabazon cost even more (but we can’t miss an opportunity to include the stunning

10: Rockwell XFV-12 ($1 billion+)

The Rockwell XFV-12 was a testbed for a supersonic, carrier-capable vertical-takeoff-and-landing fighter. It was intended to provide the planned Sea Control Ship concept (a small, aircraft-carrying escort) with a supersonic V/STOL fighter that could give it credible air capability. The XFV-12’s requirements exceeded the limits of existing propulsion and aerodynamics, dooming it from the outset.

But combining vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) capabilities with supersonic performance was extremely challenging. The XFV-12 proved incapable of untethered vertical takeoff and therefore did not progress to free-flight testing. The XFV-12’s inability to achieve VTOL highlighted the fundamental limitations of its thrust-augmented design, underscoring the gulf between concept and reality.

It used an unusual thrust-augmented wing system that ducted engine exhaust into vents on the wings and forward canards to generate lift, which produced far less thrust than expected. Weight and complexity added challenges, but the central failure was the system’s inability to generate enough vertical lift.

Progress stalled, confidence collapsed, and it was cancelled in 1981 without a single free flight. The XFV-12 endures as one of the worst aircraft conceived, a cautionary tale of unproven technology and ambitious engineering. It is estimated to have burned through the equivalent of close to $1 billion. The world would have to wait until the F-35B entered service in 2015 to see an operational supersonic VTOL (more accurately STOVL) aircraft. Other cancelled ‘jump-jets’, which cost even more than the XFV-12, include the British P.1154 and the Soviet Yak-141.

9: Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow ($2 billion+)

It may surprise some to learn that Canada once built what was probably the world’s most advanced fighter-interceptor at the time. The large twin-engined, delta-winged Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow was designed in the 1950s as an interceptor to defend Canada from Soviet bombers. It boasted high performance, an internal bay housing an air-to-air missile, and a host of state-of-the-art features.

The Arrow first flew in 1958, and tests revealed its enormous potential. Five prototypes were built. The prototype, powered by the American-built Pratt & Whitney J75, reached Mach 1.98. Later models were intended to use the more powerful Canadian Orenda Iroquois engine. The Arrow III studied by Avro Canada would have had variable-geometry inlets and was expected to reach Mach 2.5.

The CF-105 was to carry a highly advanced radar and weapons system. It had the potential to outshine the most advanced aircraft then in development, such as the US-built McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II and Convair F-106 Delta Dart, with superior range and sensors.

However, all this innovation came at a considerable price. Overwhelmed by the cost, and concerned the Canadian government cancelled the programme in 1959, on a day known as ‘Black Friday’. More than 250 million Canadian dollars was spent on the Arrow, roughly equivalent to 2 billion US dollars today. The cancellation was a bitter blow to the Canadian aviation industry and remains an emotive subject nearly 70 years later.

8: BAC TSR-2 (4.8 billion, 2026 USD)

The English Electric Canberra, the first British jet bomber, was a fabulous success, but it was clear in the 1950s that Soviet air defences were now so potent that a new aircraft of more than double the speed was needed.

The Canberra was limited to around 0.86 times the speed of sound (Mach 0.86), and now the RAF desired an aircraft capable of Mach 2. This alone was difficult to achieve, but it was also to have a long range, the ability to operate from short and imperfect runways, reach a high sustained speed and carry a serious internal weapon load that could include nuclear weapons. Not forgetting state-of-the-art systems, most of which would be developed along with the aircraft.

Against the odds, the aircraft flew in 1964, and its raw performance was awe-inspiring. In a decision that can still cause a fiery or teary argument over sixty years later, TSR-2 was cancelled in 1965, largely on cost grounds. For some, the TSR-2 is seen as a great lost opportunity; to others, an expensive liability that was smartly avoided.

It will never be known what this aircraft would have achieved in reality; certainly, it had the potential for excellence. The cancellation was heartbreaking to those who had worked so hard on this impressive project. The planned replacement of U.S. F-111s never happened, and the RAF had to wait for the Panavia Tornado in the 1980s for similar capabilities.

7: Martin P6M SeaMaster ($5billion)

Two 1950s quad-jet bombers were designed for high speed at low level: one was the British Valiant B2, and the other was the far more exotic American Martin P6M SeaMaster. This was planned as a strategic bomber and minelayer for the U.S. Navy, able to fly just above the waves at near supersonic speeds and destroy enemy submarines in their home ports.

This high performance ‘on the deck’ was excellent for any aircraft that first flew in 1955, even more so for an 86-ton machine that could take off from water. Intended as part of a new Seaplane Strike Force, the SeaMaster was a bold design that inherited the t-tail (or tee tail) and rotating weapons bay from the failed Martin XB-51 bomber.

The SeaMaster was late, over budget, riddled with technical challenges, and was cancelled. The new Polaris Submarine-launched ballistic missile offered a cheaper and less risky alternative. The project cost a staggering $400 million, equivalent to almost $5 billion in 2026.

Only sixteen SeaMasters were built. The project’s failure drove the Glenn L. Martin Company, established in 1917, out of the aeroplane business, despite attempts to market an extremely exciting (and unbuilt) civil version, the SeaMistress.

6: Lockheed Martin VH-71 Kestrel ($6.5 billion)

Originally envisioned as a state-of-the-art replacement for the ageing Marine One fleet, the VH-71 Kestrel was an ambitious military adaptation of

Read more

As the most malevolent empire in history staggered toward its chaotic end, barely ten years after it appeared, desperation drove Nazi Germany to embrace radical and often bizarre technological experiments in a frantic attempt to reverse the tide of war. The empire that caused so much pain to the world bowed out with high-tech weapons, often made with slave labour. Nowhere was the embrace of wild technology more evident than in military aviation, where no concept was too extreme and no configuration too unorthodox to be tried.

Here are 23 Last-Ditch Luftwaffe Planes of the Second World War.

Featuring the artwork of Andy Godfrey

23: Arado E.381

The Kleinstjäger, literally ‘Smallest fighter’, was a proposition to maximise the survivability of fighters attacking Allied bombing raids by minimising their size, offering a tiny target to gunners. The frontal cross-section of the E.381 was just a quarter of that of a Messerschmitt 109, and the aircraft was heavily armoured.

Pilot comfort was not paramount in the Kleinstjäger’s design. The unlucky airman was to be housed in a lying flat position within an armoured tube with no windows, save for a circular armoured windscreen. A 30mm cannon was mounted above him, and tanks of highly toxic fuel were placed on either side of his legs.

Arado E.381

Air-launched from a four-engined Ar 234C, the E.381 would ignite its rocket motor and make a maximum of two attacks on enemy bombers before using its speed to escape. A braking parachute would slow it sufficiently to allow it to land on a skid.

Although some glider prototypes were built for testing, the E.381 proved too much even for the dying gasps of the Third Reich, for although the Kleinstjäger itself might be largely immune to interception, its Arado mothership was not. Furthermore, the fuel required for the Ar234 to carry the fighter to altitude was prohibitive for oil-starved Germany, and the project was abandoned.

22: Bachem Ba 349 Natter

It’s never a great comfort to a pilot if your aircraft is not intended to (entirely) survive being used. The pilot of the Natter (‘grass snake’) was intended, at least, to be safely parachuted back to earth, along with its precious rocket engine. The rest of the wooden aircraft was disposable.

An SS project, Erich Bachem’s wonder weapon, is perhaps better viewed as a human-guided surface-to-air missile. The Natter was to be launched and flown automatically to the altitude of attacking bombers, then the pilot would aim the aircraft and fire its armament of 33 R4M rockets.

Following the engagement, the pilot jettisoned the nose, released his seatbelt, and deployed a rear-braking parachute, ejecting him forward to make a conventional parachute descent. In tests, the Natter proved to be an excellent glider, and the whole system had functioned as planned with a dummy pilot.

The only manned powered flight was a disaster: after becoming the first human ever to be vertically launched by a rocket-powered vehicle, Lothar Sieber was killed when his Natter crashed 32 seconds after launch. Designer Erich Bachem survived the war, however, and produced a range of successful ‘Eriba’ caravans.

21: A: Blohm and Voss BV 40

Blohm & Voss proposed a small armoured glider could effectively destroy Allied bombers by diving at high speed and ramming the aircrafts’ tails. A 30mm cannon was added to the design to neutralise the rear gunner; the ramming idea was then dropped entirely, replaced by conventional gun attack.

The tiny BV 40, with a prone pilot, was to be towed to release altitude, then dive at 560mph, shoot down a bomber and escape. Although concerns were raised about the vulnerability of both glider and tug whilst climbing to altitude, 21 BV 40s were ordered and six built. Ironically, all were destroyed in a bombing raid on 6 October 1944.

20: Blohm & Voss BV 246

Blohm & Voss continued with the glider theme with the BV 246 Hagelkorn (Hailstone). This was a glide bomb, designed to be released up to 130 miles from its target and glide towards it in a high-speed dive. The most remarkable aspect of this design was that the slender wings of the Hagelkorn were made of cement.

Testing proved the weapon was woefully inaccurate, but in 1945, its accuracy was revolutionised by the Radieschen passive seeker, which homed in on Allied radar transmitters, making it the world’s first anti-radiation weapon. Around 1000 were built, but none were ever used in combat.

19: Me 263

The rocket-powered Me 163 Komet was notable for being, by far, the conflict’s fastest aircraft. It was also one of the least practical, a horrible cocktail of dangerous features. As far as the Luftwaffe was concerned, though, its eight-minute endurance was by far its worst failing.

The Komet’s successor, therefore, inherited the horrifically volatile fuel of the Me 163 and its questionable tailless layout - due to an aerodynamic quirk, the aircraft was prone to entering an unrecoverable ‘graveyard dive’ if speed exceeded Mach 0.84 - but featured a new engine that allowed a twelve-minute endurance.

Although still brief, the aircraft's absurdly high rate of climb meant that this 50% increase in powered flight time made a meaningful difference in intercepting Allied bombers. A retractable undercarriage was also fitted, a welcome improvement on the skid fitted to the 163, the cause of many landing accidents.

Unfortunately for the new rocket plane, it was not part of the Emergency Fighter Programme, and resources were difficult to acquire. Nonetheless, a prototype was completed and flown as a glider, but no powered flight was made before the end of the war. The design was subsequently developed by the Soviet Union into the postwar MiG I-270.

18: Mistel

Although late-war Germany was short on fuel, aircrew, and raw materials, two things it possessed in abundance were obsolete aircraft and crazy ideas. The remarkable Mistel project was an intriguing scheme to utilise unwanted obsolete bombers as flying bombs.

Comprising a Bf 109 or Fw 190 mounted on the back of an explosive-laden Ju 88, the Mistel composite would fly directly at the target before the fighter detached to escape, leaving the unmanned bomber to continue directly into, and hopefully destroy, the target.

Operational Mistels replaced the Ju 88’s cockpit with a shaped explosive charge of nearly two tonnes and a prominent detonator. Mistels attacked the D-Day invasion fleet in 1944 and struck bridges in an attempt to halt the advance of Soviet armies into Germany. The effects, however, were

Read more

There’s always someone hogging the limelight, and in the world of aviation history, this often means that superb aircraft are forced to play second fiddle to more famous designs. Here are 10 overshadowed aircraft; most are (arguably) unfairly overshadowed, but in one case, it was entirely justified. Judge for yourself…

10: Consolidated B-24 Liberator (Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress)

Despite being the most-produced American combat aircraft of all time and vital to victory in the Second World War, the Liberator has never escaped the shadow of the limelight-hogging Flying Fortress. This is strange, as it was more important than its celebrated Boeing compatriot and achieved considerably more.

The B-24 could carry a greater bomb load than the Fortress and had a much better range. As well as shouldering half the burden of the USAAF’s daylight bombing campaign in Europe, the Liberator was the most important heavy bomber fighting the Japanese until the B-29 appeared towards the end of the conflict.

But the Liberator was also unparalleled as an anti-submarine aircraft, using its exceptional endurance to close the ‘Mid Atlantic Gap’ beyond the range of any other aircraft. This meant that U-boats were vulnerable to attack at any point between the UK and the U.S. Liberators sank more submarines than any other aircraft.

The main reason why history has sidelined the B-24 is likely its invisibility after the conflict. The B-17 is easier to fly and has a stronger airframe than the Liberator, leading to its long career as a firefighting aircraft and to the survival of several airworthy examples that appear in films and at airshows.

9: Republic P-47 Thunderbolt (Overshadowed by the North American P-51 Mustang)

The P-47 is an odd case, as it was initially favoured over the upstart Mustang, was more versatile, and was built in greater numbers. An excellent fighter, the Thunderbolt’s only real flaw was its range, which was not great enough to escort U.S. bombers attacking targets deep in Germany.

Meanwhile, the P-51, with its advanced aerodynamics and less thirsty Merlin engine, could escort bombers all the way to Berlin and back, making daylight attacks on the German capital viable for the first time. Despite its foreign origin and engine, the P-51 became the favoured USAAF escort fighter.

The robust P-47 proved an outstanding fighter-bomber and was eventually developed into the P-47N variant, which was faster and longer-ranged than the P-51D, and likely the finest piston-engined fighter of the Second World War. However, the perception had already taken hold that the Mustang won the air war in Europe, relegating the Thunderbolt to ground-attack roles.

It didn’t help the P-47’s reputation that the svelte P-51 proved more attractive postwar as a private aircraft, largely due to being much cheaper to run; a fact that made it popular with many other air forces and as a racing aircraft, leading to a high survival rate and countless public appearances.

7: Pfalz D.XII (overshadowed by Fokker D.VII)

As early as the Great War, seemingly promising aircraft were being sidelined and none more so than those produced by the Pfalz company. Their early monoplane fighters proved inferior to the Fokker Eindecker, and the later D.III was never ordered in the numbers of contemporary Albatros fighters despite its sound design.

Developed from the D.III, the D.XII retained its great structural strength (in marked contrast to many of its rivals) whilst featuring a new high-speed thin wing, inspired by French SPAD designs. The Pfalz boasted excellent performance, and the future looked bright for D.XII.

Unfortunately for Pfalz, Fokker had concurrently developed its utterly superlative D.VII. Entered into the same fighter contest, the D.VII was favoured by all but two of the evaluating pilots, and there was suspicion that the dissenting pair had been bribed. Nonetheless, the D.XII received a production order.

On paper, the two aircraft’s performance was essentially the same, but the D.XII’s handling was inferior to the famously docile Fokker. Come the Armistice, all examples of the Fokker D.VII were ordered to be handed to the victorious Allies, but the approximately 800 production Pfalz D.XIIs were totally ignored.

6: Curtiss P-40 Warhawk (North American P-51 Mustang et al)

Since 1919, Curtiss had been dominant in U.S. fighter design, but the P-40 would be its last production design, and it was utterly overshadowed by the P-51. Its service with the Flying Tigers was famous, but even at its combat debut (with the RAF), the P-40 was inferior to many other fighters.

The P-51, meanwhile, was designed specifically to be a better aircraft than the P-40 whilst using the same engine, and it must have been particularly galling to Curtiss that they had sold the wind-tunnel test data and detailed drawings of the P-40 to North American.

Had the P-40 been a better aircraft, this would have been irrelevant, but the Curtiss, though strong, nice to fly, and reliable, was underwhelming in performance. Kept in production primarily because it was cheap, the P-40 established an important service record in spite of, rather than because of, any inherent excellence in the design.

Like a U.S. version of the Hurricane, the P-40 inspires a dogged group of enthusiasts to stick up for it despite its inferiority to both the P-51 and a whole swathe of other Allied fighters. To be scrupulously fair to the P-40, however, it does look sensational adorned with a shark’s mouth.

5: Grumman A-6 Intruder (Overshadowed by the Grumman F-14 Tomcat)

CREDIT: US NAVY/PUBLIC DOMAIN

Yes, their roles were originally very different (though there would eventually be an overlap), but it is still worth mentioning how the F-14 Tomcat utterly

Read more