Went to war in Vietnam in 1966! M22 armament system with six AGM-22 missiles ( Nord SS.11 ). Like the British with Milan in the Falklands, the US Army primarily used it for bunker-busting and anti-sniping.

On a similar scale, here’s a Bofors Bantam launch from SAAB Supporter.

AS.30, interesting shot. Only served with the Marineflieger until the late 1970s short time before being replaced by Kormoran ( which itself was derived from another Nord project, AS.34 ).

UK indigneous designs, throughout much of the Cold War the casing shapes were developed and cast by Hunting Engineering though I think the bangy stuff inside was courtesy of Royal Ordnance.

Certainly the 1000lb and the tiny 28lb practice bombs originated from Hunting, who later became Insys ( 1990s? ) and now appear to have been consumed by Lockheed-Martin.

Hunting also did more sophisticated types of nastiness such as BL.755, JP.233 and most or all of the UK’s nuclear casings.

They started at Luton airport, where their aircraft office was based, but in the 1960s moved the ordnance department out into the countryside.

FSW has no prospects for the aircraft at cruising supersonic speed.

The X-29 achieved Mach 1.6, well past the transonic range. FSW isn’t an inhibition for supersonic flight if sufficient attention is paid to tailoring the aeroelastic response of the wing. That has been known since at least 1975 ( courtesy of Colonel Krone, USAF ).

In fact, although not demonstrated in the X-29 program, tailored composite-wing FSW are calculated to suffer from *less* flutter when carrying underwing stores than their aft-swept equivalents.

Whatever happens to XH558 now, I would like to give a big thank you to all those involved in giving me and others, so much enjoyment over the years.

Unfortunately those primarily responsible, at Marshall Aerospace, seldom receive any thanks for their hard work and for the vast sums of money they poured into the project without hope of repayment.

In 2015 they wrote-off £1.292 million owed to them by VTTS. That puts volunteer contributions into perspective.

Rockoon!

http://www.jpaerospace.com/rockoons.html

“why the hell isnt the USAF or Navy fitting winglets to their aircraft in 2016”

The P-8 has extended raked tips, which perform the same functions as winglets: increase the effective span and create one or two vortices to prevent spanwise migration.

The raked tips have the advantage of lower weight and lower bending moments in turbulent air, which is significant at low-level, at a cost of increased ground area which apparently is less significant to the US Navy.

Yes it was VERY MUCH A CONCEPT even if it was trained for some time

I think you’ve conflated the Mixed Fighter Force concept and RAF point defence.

Armed-trainer point-defence *was* implemented by the RAF and actually preceded the Hawks, your much-mentioned TWU Hunters were also equipped and trained for point-defence. Furthermore the RAF Hawks were not originally intended to carry AIM-9, which was not part of the TWU syllabus, but were rewired and firing trials conducted *specifically* for this use.

The procedures didn’t require a Phantom or Tornado to be dedicated to the light-fighters, they were primarily directed by a Fighter Controller based on ground-based radar input and, later, AWACS. It continued until the very late 1980s.