Not sure whether they would be that specific but it is a possibility that one (if there are more than 1) would exhibit that feature. Lockheed still has the tail on their version released to the public while Boeing does not, and Northrop claims that it intends to do away with it as well.

I wonder if they could test the tailless delta by modifying an existing plane. For instance the F-16XL that had not been modified by NASA.

Once they have have done that breakthrough in aerodynamics, it can be used on 2 new aircraft, one dual engine fighter to replace the F-22, and one single engine medium weight fighter to replace the F-35. Although I am not too convinced on the idea of a heavy fighter, as it tends to end up being super expensive.

Have helicopters ever been used in air to air combat?
Do military planners ever expect them to be?

If not, it’s a rather pointless question.

Threads like this are usually answered on nationalism and looks rather than facts.

One of the primary role of the tiger HAP is air to air combat:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocopter_Tiger#Tiger_HAP

http://www.defense.gouv.fr/actualites/dossiers/douze-helicopteres-au-banc-d-essai/tigre-hap

It is not because they have never been used in air to air combat that they never will.

Apache has been tested with the Starstreak missile in the AA role as well – don’t know what’s become of that project, though.

Nice but it is still on the wingtip, and the wingtip is now used on the E model to carry sensors.

This being said I wonder how the radar could be used to detect airborne target.

They can carry the AIM-9 and stinger, but I don’t think they usually do. I also believe that the AH-64E has sensors or DIRCM on the wingtips so in can’t carry AAMs there.

Ah, ok then.

Since they have to empty the tanks after each flight, I guess that a significant amount of gas is ingested in the fuel truck.

They have to empty the tanks after each flight? What about hot refueling?

The idea is to use existing systems as much as possible to lower the cost.

All the sensors, cockpit, software etc of the F-35 probably won’t cost more than 25-30 million after 2020. Whatever engine the LRS-B gets, it will be mass produced, so probably won’t cost more the 15 million each. The landing gear will also be mass produced probably. And they will probably use an already existing rotary launcher design.

With all that it would already be quite good, it would have good defensive systems and also the ability to launch air-to-air missiles to protect itself. 550 million doesn’t seem impossible if they don’t overshoot on the cost of the airframe.

Variable geometry wings would be useful for a really fast plane, like mach 2.2 or so. Using the afterburner would be suicidal in terms of signature. The best I think would be the ability to supercruise slighly above the transonic regime, and the top speed doesn’t matter. Could this be had for 550 million I kind of doubt it. I still think a flying wing would be cheaper and have less drag, which is paramount for the kind of range they’re looking for .

I see it as weighing like 65% of the B-2 with 75% of the wingspan with a thinner wing. And one bay with one rotary launcher, capable of carrying any weapon that the B-2 carries, plus the ability to carry quite a lot of SDBs. And 2 engines.