We can sort of compair F-15 vs SH = EF vs MKI.

Ofcourse the MKI being faster than SH, but they both have exellent slower speed handeling and better E M Charts at lower airspeed.

The EF haveing amazing Climb rate, zoom speed, accelleration. But the EF also bleed tremendous energy, when staying in high Alpha for a prolonged time(Delta wings design).

So we have the MKI turning on the inside of EF, but the EF have higher KIAS which it can utilize, just like the F-15 in many respect.

Both pilots of each jet have to play on own strenght and other jet weakness.

Yes. Very good. Suffice to say for example that the EF can spiral climb forcing the MKI to pass the post stall edges where time of maneuvering is counted.

I have always assumed that the Sh would pleased the IAF for its high Alpha potential.

Always impressive and UFO like.

Sad that i want to puke every minute watching this shaky video

Boeing has patented a flying drone that turns into a submarine (BA)

Since we have already discussed it earlier (see previous page), I think they made the error to impact the water with the wings still on. This increase the impact force and alter the choice of suitable configuration.
The patent illustration show clearly a design tuned to penetrate water without putting too much stress on vehicle body by placing the wing far back.
Impact force (deceleration) is a function, of the wetted surface. By discarding the wings just priro to entering water, the more slender config will penetrate the water surface with way less strain on the structure, relaxing some structural parameters way more useful to improve the range and speed of the system (useful).
The only constraint of this config is on the separation mechanism. You don’t want pyrotechnic items or double the complexity of achieving such result by discarding each set of wing separately. Also, making the wing attachment able to sustain water impact force you to beef it up adding, again, unsuitable weight.

The obvious and logical meaning is via a cantilever wing discarded just prior impact with a simple attachment either atop or bellow the fuselage. Wing on top arrangement lead to a more stable dive (hence less trim drag -> more range or Speed).

One variant would be the VGW, such as the one employed by some clever UAS design, tube launched ;). it will bring a level of capability to be airborne again at the end of the mission (relocate/rejoin/or whatever is needed).

Aaahhh, the great difficulty of setting early a design that will prove to be the good one… :very_drunk:

Spacing elements doesn’t mean going with your butts exposed. In fact Fusion and DL translates to superior SA that allow you to widen the gap distance and hence further increase even more your SA and defensive potential (room to maneuver at increased speed).
It does not mean that elements have to be separated by half an hour distance. 😉
As you are referring to WWII, see it as an evo comparable to going from tight finger four to loose deuce.

Even modern 4th Gen fighters are increasing separation b/w elements thanks to DL (box).

And don’t forget that in a F35 your field of view is fully spherical, un-obstructed with an automatic threat recognition. If you won’t need anymore a wingman just for visual check6, IMOHO, you’ve just doubled your sortie rate…

And btw, PakFa is all about wide spacing too… And as a wild guess, the Su35 defensive system is not really compatible with tight formation flying… Just a supposition.

F18C damaged by fire while on deck – Pilot ejected

A single-seat F/A-18C Hornet from Strike Fighter Squadron 106 ignited during refueling off the Virginia coast. The pilot was injured during ejection from the aircraft, Lt. Cmdr. Candice Tresch, the carrier’s spokeswoman, told Navy Times. The pilot landed on the flight deck, where a sailor also sustained non-life threatening injuries during the onset of the fire. […] Firefighters provided initial fire suppressing agents from the mobile fire truck. More than 100 flight deck personnel with four aqueous film forming foam, or AFFF, hoses attacked the fire within 30 seconds of ignition.

Souce:
NavyTimes.com

Northrop demonstrates multi-user control for the Globalhawk

During a series of high-altitude, long-endurance RQ-4 Global Hawk demonstrations, the UAS seamlessly responded to external requests to dynamically alter its route of flight and sensor functionality, thereby breaking the one-user to one-vehicle paradigm,”

Source:
C4ISRnet

(not that this is the fault of the contractors).

Really?
I am not sure if any service has been genuinely interested in the EuroMale… This has been a push by the industry without even a serious commitment to deliver a credible system. Nothing was done to invest in Aero and propulsion efficiency that make US drone what they are today. On the contrary, conformism and corposratism were rewarded with direct cash flows.

As an indirect result, only Taranis got a credible R&D advantage when it comes to airframe. What, for example, set apart* EuroMale to the Turkish, Chinese or Israeli design… Nothing. How can someone imagine that it would be much different with the next gen UCAV? UCAV are products that would be bought as such in the future. Cost effectiveness is the main variable there.

BAe has always** invested to keep a step ahead when it comes to aero performances among its Eu partners . It would be an error to gamble such results by stepping backward.

*in term of tech, not perfs
**grossly put in words, obviously