Noyhauser

Is this 1/144 or 1/100? (I'm assuming MG)

First off, what proof besides your own views on composites do you have that the Eurofighter will have greatly increased life-cycle costs due to composites like you claim? You haven't brought any beyond your conjecture about the subject. Its been used with growing frequency over the past thirty years and failures of the type you describe (de-lamination, brittleness ect.) are rare from what I've seen. Moreover the technology has been constantly improving; look at the tests they did on the 787 wing where they bent it at a ridiculous angle, which were linked earlier in this thread. While Carbon fiber is used extensively on the Eurofighter, approximately 40% of weight, in key damaged prone areas (leading wing edge and flaperons) titanium is used. Yet other aircraft, like the F-18E and F-22 also has significant application of carbon fiber in the same places as well, to a lesser extent. The F/A-18's wings (except at the root wingbox) are made completely of carbon epoxy, even the leading edge. So the Eurofighter is by NO means unique in its use of non-metallics and other airframes would face the same vulnerabilities, if such a vulnerability exists at all. Second, F-15Cs WERE falling out of the sky just in precisely the manner you described. It took the crash of a F-15C in Missouri in November 2007 for the Air Force to discover that the longerons were deteriorating and leading to catastrophic failures. Same thing happened in 2002 when a vertical stabilizer flew off a F-15 over the Gulf of Mexico, leading to the replacement of all A-C model's stabilizers in the fleet. So no it wasn't your precious NDT that helped figure out the problem, but catastrophic failures. They couldn't anyway; think about ALL the aircraft in the US inventory and all the parts that required to be tested. Its ridiculous to think they could test for every possible contingency. Oh and there are a growing number of testing methods available for composites which can test for fatigue and damage. Finally, again its not "politiking" that is holding up the Tranche 3, at least not in the way you're suggesting. Defence budgets in Europe have seen moderate increases in the past decade, particularly after the signing of the European Capabilities Action Plan. Between 1999 and 2001 the main concern was based on prosecuting another Kosovo type operation; In the parlance of the Petersberg goals (which set out the types of operation that the EU would be involved in). Had the security environment remained the same, its almost certain that Tranche 3 would have been produced. However since 9/11 the threat assessment completely changed, with the focus shifting to counter insurgency or stability operations in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan/Chad, and Lebanon. In reality Defence spending hasn't gone down in European countries since 9/11, its remained roughly constant. However funding has been transferred, either to operations or to capital projects relevant to current operations. These decisions aren't really political; they are administrative in nature, made by senior defence officials allocating budgets based on the outlays made by finance departments and politicians. Why would the UK or Netherlands need a Tranche 3, when the main need is stability operations not A2G, the present capabilities are sufficient, and a replacement is on the horizon with the F-35. Thats the nature of Defence administration, adjudicating between the requests of the various service requests, the threat environment and the broad political aims. So, any other untruths you'd like to trot out as facts?

Well, the challenge is not that great as you might think. Since 1998, NASA has actively searched for Near-Earth Objects larger than one kilometer that pass into the inner solar system. In the past few years, Congress has already asked NASA to find 90% of all Near Earth Objects larger than 140 meters (in diameter), in the same region. Presently, its Spaceguard program will only reach 14% by 2020 and in pipeline efforts will probably push that to 30%. One study I read, recommended that an infrared satellite be placed into a Venus like orbit, as this would help NASA reach the 90% mark. The limited requirements can be covered by NASA grants, given the relatively moderate costs to launch such a program.

True, but what is the likelihood of that? Damage for an air superiority fighter is rare; either its hit by a missile and takes catastrophic damage (ie airframe lost or limps home and is unrecoverable) or it misses. Its really not something that one expects to take a few hits here and there like a CAS aircraft. Thats not to say stuff like this won't happen:

I don't know why the use of composites is "going to bite them in the ass." Composites have alot of advantages over conventional airplanes, including increased corruption resistance and greater durability. Its why something like 90% of the new Boeing Dreamliner is constructed out of composites. If you want to see all these great improvements on the capability of the Eurofighter I have a really easy answer for you; money. Where is the money for further development of the Eurofighter? If it was there you'd see Tranche 3, and all those capabilities you want to see. Its not the politics thats the problem here, its that no one has the money to purchase the new fighters.

Better question, who would actually buy it? 1/60 is a toy scale, not a model one. I would surmise that toy collectors aren't the best modelmakers and probably wouldn't spring for a resin project that requires advanced modeling skills. You might get a few here or there, maybe some model makers interested in it purely for its size, but I suspect you wouldn't get many takers for such a model, particularly when there is an comparable competitor, in 1/72 scale, which doesn't have a ridiculous shipping cost attached to it.

Yeah and you should also take statistics on Russian missiles, as well as their reliability, with a grain of salt. Simply put, Russian missiles are still a generation behind the United States. The K-100 has never even flown operationally... partly because it could not secure funding until recently. That should be a pretty clear indication as to the level of funding for AAMs that presently exists Russia. The record of the R-27 during the 1998 to 2000 Ethiopian/Eritrean War (Which the Russians used as a testing ground for new AAMs,) was dismal; of twenty four missiles launched only one hit. Moreover few countries would ever possess such advanced weapons. Prior to September 11th the USAF had a serious aversion to air casualties due to political considerations. Thats really no longer true. If we ever went up against a state possessing such advanced airframes like Flankers, the USAF/USN would likely deploy overwhelming force. India (which we're highly unlikely ever to face a confrontation with) with forty eight SU-27s, can't hold out against a sustained air campaign. The same goes for China, though the margins are a slimmer. Still, war with either of these states will almost certainly result in a U.S. victory with its present capability for the foreseeable future, the only question is the margin. Much of the histrionics involved is based on defence manufacturers and armchair strategists trying to claim a gap exists to drum up support for more sales. Thats not to say that buying more F-22s is a bad idea, but some of the arguments being brought up to support it don't hold up to scrutiny.

Hey guys... I know 007 has already gone with a more conventional design, but I found this design pertinent to our earlier discussion, which I wanted to share for people's interest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloster_Meteo...2Prone_Pilot%22

Point taken, but the F-35's "current" costs should be taken with a grain of salt.... We could always bring up the projected per-unit costs of F-22s from 2001 and look at them now. When the JSF starts rolling out fighters (and firming up foreign orders) that will drop significantly.

Seriously people, get your facts straight... Its the Boeing Mosquito made from good american steel and ingenuity; it was the reason why Hitler decided to back down over putting missiles in Cuba.

I'd go for a Dornier-335 in a snap, or a De Havilland Hornet.

Although you're right its supposed to look like some sort of "evil nazi secret weapon" likely inspired by the Horten flying wings, from the looks of it, they probably copied more from the Northrop N9M flying. The nacelles design and placement look exactly like the ones mounted on that aircraft. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_N-9M

In a word, no. The F-22 doesn't have any "problems." All that remains is the actual cost of the airframes. A new F-15 variant requires development costs and completely new airframes, since all of the F-15A~D stocks have serious structural problems that will force them to retire early. Refurbishing them will just add to expenses. Moreover there is a cultural aversion towards going back to a 1970s technology when the Air Force has the F-22 and the F-35 coming out. Moreover the risks of technology proliferation is exceptionally low if you consider the countries which want the F-22. Australia, Japan and Israel are probably the only three countries that want the fighter, they have pretty strong safeguards on technology transfer. This will also decrease the fly-away cost of airframes the Air Force choses to buy. Given the advantages, (particularly keeping allies close) I'd say it is likely that you'll see export sales of the F-22 occur.

Although they are not fictional, I always thought that the early British Cold War Fleet Air Arm aircraft were uniformly unique designs, which never got much press. They served in a lot of theaters; Korea, Malay, Suez, and nearly war with Communist China over Hong Kong (1948~50). It might be hard to find completed models of them (there are a lot of good Czech-made models of them), but they are nice to look at nonetheless. (Images courtesy of wikipedia) Supermarine Spiteful Hawker Sea Hawk Fairey Gannet De Havilland Sea Vixen/Vampire De Havilland Sea Hornet and my favorite: Westland Wyvern

Say what you will about the show and the valks but I too really like these kits, so I've got a few of them and I'm trying to collect more of them. Hahahaha I HAVE those wave sets and I never noticed that... thanks for pointing that out. What we really need is some more Tect mod kits; Kinda like these unfinished ones taken with a bad camera in bad lighting. *drum roll*

Klam: Thats just gorgeous... the fighter in VFX-2 was amazing to play, and you've done it justice. Did you use a topcoat to seal the decals?

Thats not really a fair comparison, given the A-400 is a military procurement project while the other two are completely commercial ventures. As you well know, the dynamics of managing such a project (particularly a multinational one like the A400), are completely different. There is little or no consultation between the manufacturer and airlines on a commercial design after the initial market studies are complete. Thats completely different from military procurement, when consultations are ongoing throughout the design process and where the specifications change over this time. For example, there was clear political pressure on the engine choice, which has been a source of troubles for EADS. The PW-Canada engine was perfect for the A-400, and had Canada participated in the procurement it would have been chosen. Canada however dragged its feet, which allowed the French and others to push for the unproven TP400-D6 turboprop. This is a large source of the trouble today. The weight problems are serious, but its really no different than the JSF's Naval variant's weight problem, or any other military procurement programme. Even if the A400 is two to three years overdue thats really not that bad compared to other major military procurement programs. And whats the alternative... rush the program out the door? Remember when Lockheed pushed the C-130J out the door when it wasn't ready and nearly lost the program altogether? The other big problem with A400 was its original contract, which was the European Union's first attempt at a modern procurement program. Its likely to get better in the future, especially with the creation of the permanent European Defence Agency after the Thessaloniki conference a couple years ago. Two to three years from now I doubt we'll be talking about this, just like we don't talk about the C-130j's failings or the F-22's failing computer architecture.

HDM usually refers to "high detailed manipulators," no? Its about the right price for that, (a b-club resin would run for 100+dollars at least)

Thanks for your opinion, but I disagree. There's a scattering of posts about compressors, some helpful, but nobody has ever really asked what various people used. That would give me some sense of what I should be looking at, given my particular needs. Instead of your reply, why don't you be helpful and just say what you have and if you like it?

So I'm planning to buy an compressor for a Paache VL, but I'm really unsure what's best. Soo... I'd like to see what you all use. Personally I'd like to get the Senco P1010, but its not readily available in Canada. I'm not looking to break the bank, but I'm not looking for the cheapest possible either.

I hate you David... you forced me to spend five hours poking around a few databases to dig up the answer I was sure of the answer because I had read it in an article about the USS United States, upon which the modern U.S. Supercarrier (Forrestal, Kitty Hawk, Big E and Nimitz are all based.) However I don't have the book anymore, so I couldn't verify it. The size of the US Carrier fleet has been remarkably stable for the past 60 years due to a number of reasons, one of which is limitations on dock size, the Suez Standard and a design envelope whereby its present size gives the Navy the best balance of speed, size and capability. The original USS United States was limited in its length due to shipway limitations. Thats partly because countries didn't build ships above the Suezmax standard at the time... that was unthinkable until the 1960s with the introduction of the first oil supertankers designed to disregard these sizes. So from the start it was implicitly based on the standards. However the standards haven't changed in the years since, partly because the Navy (Specifically Newport News) has never upgraded their dock sizes. Since then the Navy has found that the present size of its carriers, approximately 310m x 40m x 11m gives the best balance of capabilities. Its possible one could get a couple of extra meters if they did upgrade, but there were/are compelling reasons not to. One would also desire some redundancy in the Suezmax standards particularly for a military ship. What happens if the carrier is torpedoed and shipping water, increasing her draught by two meters and you only had two meters to spare? You really don't want to force the carrier to travel all the way back around the cape of Good Hope, where she could be buffeted by treacherous waters or open to further attack while it limps back home. This isn't the only reason either. Apparently (you might be able to tell us more about this David) the US Navy has problems filling its air wings since the 1990s. Making ships accommodate more airwings actually decreases the navy's capabilities as the present number of 11 carriers allows it to keep its readiness high. So its present size is based on a number of factors. Anyway, thats why the standards have remained the same for so many years.

Well everything is linked; you can't just increase the length of the ship, without altering its performance, layout or size. If you increase its length and expect the same speed you're going to give it larger engines, likely meaning either the draught and beam will require an increase, thus preventing it from using the suez.

Just a note on why George H.W. Bush got a carrier named after him. In addition to his war service and irrespective of your politics, George H.W. Bush is considered by most professionals as likely one of the finest foreign policy presidents since Nixon, Eisenhower or Truman. He managed the transformation of the Cold War to the new era and prosecuted the Gulf War successfully. He definitely had the best relationship with the military since Eisenhower, experiencing no major crises during his presidency despite making massive budget cutbacks. There are few individuals who were so uniformly respected as him, which is why he had a carrier named after him.

The HW Bush and her predecessors are limited by the "Suezmax" standard, which means the maximum limitations of the Suez Canal. Carriers prior to Forrestal class could fit in the Panama Canal, but since then the only limitation has been the Suez. The ability to rapidly move ships to and from the Indian Ocean was seen as critical during the Cold War. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suezmax

Do you have a Hase YF-19 hanging around? Its gunpod looks gorgeous (at least in my eyes)