I understand but this a long and risky road.

The engine needs also a lot of specific excess power.

That made little sense. More than likely it’s a shield for some equipment.

I didn’t say that it is a structural struts, I am just commenting the fact that there is rivets or bolts with no connections to the eng saying that you can use them that way.

Don’t makes me say what I didn’t. Thx.

?!?

Its not a wing or something that is remotely loaded aerodynamically.

It’s a strutt loaded by airstream with an elongated profile (elasticity), a variable chord and two attaching point. You hve to add weights to makes the vibrating mode uniform along the span or rigidify the section along the span (machining).

Adding rivets, bolts or whatever cheap you hve at reach usually fullfil the need.

What was the endurance of the Hunter, with internal fuel alone ?
I imagine that if they were doing dog-fight practice, it would have upped the consumption somewhat.

Regarding the above incident (and yes I know, it’s easy to be wise after the event) wouldn’t it have been down to the pilots
to know their fuel state ?
Allowing for for diversions if demanded by the weather.
Although possibly for many of them, it may have been their first experience of having to divert due to the weather.

C’mon the bad weather over england has claimed so much airplanes until the advent of modern assisted landing systems that it can be easily qualified as one of the finest Experteen of WWII’s 😉

One example: http://raf-pathfinders.com/black-thursday-raf-and-pff-losses/
(Edited)

Hi Tomcat, glad to see your response. I do believe they can be cheap,outside the US industry perhaps. Check post 32, I have written two papers where I noted why and how they can be cheap… I do understand why that sounds counterintuitive…

Hi PLA-MKII,

No it’s not. I understand your point of view.

Regarding mtbf you won’t need to hve such performances fleetwide. Use of that kind of UCAV is only for large scale conflict not to gain air dominance in most of operation as we see today. Hence you’d need only one training fleet with tailored quality and one live firing fleet that can be built (and then stored) more cheaply. Live firing exercices might feel the needs of quality assesment.

But a turbojet powerfull enough to propell the airframe in that scenario does not exist and is still costly to design.

May I introduce you to the BAE Systems Suter. It eats software for lunch, as the Syrians found out a while ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suter_%28computer_program%29

Interesting but the overall capability is not new. It’s juts a modern version of some antiques and more heavier hardware that hve been used before.

Regarding the first A-A kill from an UAV, I think the first that was credited was a Ryan Firebee recon UAV that rammed an MiG17(?) in Vietnam low above an airfield.

The launch vehicle (or recovery vehicle -130/HH3) did sport a kill marking for some time if I do remind well.

Anyhow there is a (corporate) book abt Ryan story and its UAV legacy that worth the read (much better than claiming helplessly that we were the first to do this or that and blablabla…).

Regarding the first mothership uses of an UCAV, I think the SAC B52 air launch programmable decoys might run for the great title of being the first ever operational use of integrated manned/un-manned platform*.

In the same trend, the first high supersonic/low hypersonic UCAV might fell in the G26/X10 family (already a canard’ed config – hehe like the double meaning of this expression in both French/English)) .

My 2 cents only

*depending how you see the concept of the M21/D21 that one might fill the case too

Just off the top of my head, the multi-mode pulse doppler Elta 2032 radar developed for the Lavi is found, in different variants, on the upgraded Chilean F-5, the Turkish upgraded F-4, Indian upgraded Jaguar maritime strike variants, Mig-21 Lancer upgrade as used by Romania, Kfir C10 for Ecuador and Columbia, Cheetah C now operated by Ecuador….. and I’m not sure if I missed anybody out.

It has been integrated with and is planned to equip the KAI FA-50 and HAL Tejas until further notice.

A little known fact is that 90% of the Lavi programme was paid for by the US.

A very interesting in-depth behind-the-scenes article on the Lavi by the Federation of American Scientists:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/3fal90.htm

Very intersting article indeed. Thx for posting.

On anther point, the loss of the Tigershark if seen as a consequence of the Lavi program, might be seen in regard to the crying lack of T38 substitute today.