Syria’s chemical stock being disposed either by private companies* or at sea on US warships.

Technology for disposing chemicals is part of a DOD program for a mobile hydrolysis unit.

*The OPCW made there a rather chocking request with 30+ companies offering their helps. The ultimate goal being an absolute denial of CW dissemination, I don’t see what the heck private companies are doing here!

Yes. If they don’t stretch it, they lost it.

Hagel: US deeply concerned with the new rules being imposed by China for aircraft identification over eastern china sea *

New imposed regulation can be read here

Extract of the statement from Hagel:
The United States reaffirms its longstanding policy that Article V of the U.S.-Japan Mutual Defense Treaty applies to the Senkaku Islands

To get a clear picture of what it means, here is an interesting quote (source CNN)
Stephanie Kleine-Ahlbrandt, director of Asia-Pacific programs at the U.S. Institute of Peace:
“It makes it more likely that jets will be scrambled,” she said. “An aerial encounter carries a much higher risk because of the faster timings involved” than in a maritime encounter.

sources:
Defense.gov
GlobalSecurity.org
CNN

*We shld open a dedicated thread.

Supersonic jets are designed to a fineness ratio which typically exceeds a numerical value of 3.5. Bigger numbers are better. Fineness ratio is area in the X/Z plane divided by area in the Y/Z plane. But there are other factors which must be considered such as wing sweep, wing thickness and propulsion performance.

Fineness ratio, yes. That’s where aircraft gains there nasty pointy shapes. But, do you remember the X3 Stiletto, the absolute king of the Pointy? That one was a hog to pass Mach 1.

So slenderness, yes. But all abt Whitecomb experimental works and Hayes theory is abt the according variation of plane section relative to the mach wave. The transition btw one section to another are linked by a governing equation in sinus of the mach number.

But what’s about the coca bottle neck so famously shown in 70’s, 80’s fighters?

See it like this:
– Imagine a slice of air traveling around the body shape of the airplane. When it reaches the section containing the wings, there is a sudden increase in the value of the section. To compensate for that increase and stay in the limits defined by the area rules (a sinus something increase), the fuselage shape have to be narrowed to balance for the section increase (ex. the F106).
– On the contrary, when the slice passes trough the rear of plane (beyond the wing trailing edge), there is a brutal overall section decrease that must be balanced by a bump (see the Buccaneer) or by the positioning of a vertical stabilizer.

The most interesting and vivid description of the area rules is by looking at pictures of the F102 and Buccaneer (both were adapted to the newly discovered theory). On the Dagger, you can trace its design along the years and be able to see the work of Whitecomb, just like an archaeologist (what Engineering sciences needs urgently in our troubled times).

I encourage you to read the according theory in a book of aerodynamics (didn’t hve mine with me at the time writtng this here and that comment would hve been much better if I did). Many are of easy access and way better than extracts hooked randomly on the internet. But as this is an internet Thread, here is my try:

http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/1956/naca-report-1284.pdf

Hve a good read!

EDIT:

Forgot the main question (wing on top)!

Basically, wing placed at the middle of the fuselage are the most aero efficient. However, for structural issues the wing might hve to be put bellow the fuselage in order to benefits from a carry-trough spars (the cantilever beam). This lead generally to a Von Karman shaped being added at the wing root to smooth the shape transition at the trailing edge of the wing and prevent the creation of a vortex street. On today airplanes with trapezoidal/Delta, this can be achieved by the use of an angled trailing edge (M2K <> Mig21) and chines (F16).

Wing mounted on top, on fighter aircraft, usually results more of a trade off with structural concerns. A fighter is a small aircraft that needs to be turned around quickly without expensive heavy and cumbersome ladders and handling equipment for the maintainers while still be able to carry external loads under its wings. Hence it has to have a low landing gear that does not makes it seat like a crane out of reach of the ground personnel and limits the weight of the aircraft (landing gears are heavy parts and necessitate strengthened attachment points). There is also the take off and landing distances that factor in. The more AoA you are able to generate during the take-off roll for example, the more lift you can generate, hence shortening your take-off distance (and similary your landing distance).
So, to resume the above digression, you need a tall landing gear, but don’t want your plane to seat on the tarmac like a crane out of maintainers hands reach or see its performances crawl under its undercarriage weight .
One simple solution to deal with that is to place the landing gear on the lower portion (and most rearward as structurally possible) of your aircraft and put the wing on the top of the fuselage (or shoulder mounted). It has some dynamics drawbacks (less kinematics agility) but that can be outpaced with structural and aero benefits (the staggered wing concept and the carry trough spars)) etc…

So, as you can see, wing on top, bellow or in the middle hve mostly nothing linked with area ruling (yes there is a frontal effect for wings on top but see it as a second round effect (something tailored to smooth choice alrdy made).

And why would the inlet design have a negative impact on the use of 3D flat nozzles? It is clear that the 117 engines already fully meet the mods kinematic performance requirements & the lighter/more powerful type 30 engines will allow flat nozzles without a Kinematic performance drop compared to the 117 engines.

Where did you get that from, even the much older design F22 stealth air superiority fighter has 2D thrust vectoring flat nozzles and after all this time the Russians should be able to go one better.

Flat nozzles would require enlarged vertical fins*. And we haven’t seen that yet.

*obviously unless I’am missing something here