David Hingtgen

>>>But it's cheap, and we're already replacing the F-15 with the F-22. We sure as heck aren't replacing F-15E's with F-22's. Strike Eagle will be around for a LONG time. >>>If they continued to build only the F-22 we'd end up with a significantly smaller force in the air, not to mention the only branch of service benefitting from the increased F-22 production would be the Air Force. Gotta disagree there. USAF F-15's pretty much single-handedly cleared the air in Desert Storm, to allow Navy and Marine strike planes to do their job. Bunch of F-22's would do the same. It was easier just to add in my reply to the quote above.

Yes, the F-35 is mainly a BVR fighter. That's my primary argument as to why it's pointless. We've got LOTS of those, and the Raptor's coming, and will be way better at it. F-35 is supposed to be (nowadays) some sort of F-117/F-16/Harrier replacement. So how is a BVR AMRAAM-launcher a replacement for those? They don't do that, thus the F-35 isn't replacing them very well. And on day 2 and later (99% of the time) when it's not stealthy and out bombing, it's not really any better than conventional aircraft. F-15E's can carry a heck of a lot more stuff, and we've already got "bought and paid for" tons of Falcons and Hornets. Also, most F-35's are not STOVL. Our STOVL capabilities won't be increased much overall. Yes, if the USAF bought 1,000 with lift-fans things would be different, but they haven't. USAF ones aren't stovl. USN ones on a carrier are no different than a Hornet on a carrier except for the first day. USMC order is small. Finally, the military has X amount of money. Instead of using a lot of it on F-35's, we could have just tripled the F/A-22 order, and have an ungodly powerful air superiority force. Then we could send in everything we ever wanted, after the first hour. Day 2? F/A-22's inherently carry more stuff, being bigger. And stay stealthy with an almost-decent internal bombload. Or, if you lose the stealth---they can carry more than the F-35. Bigger planes carry more stuff. Why spend billions developing what is basically a mini-F22, when you could just buy more F-22's? As for the delta-winged F/A-22---the FB-22, and yes it's very similar to the X-44. But the X-44 is mainly a tailless manueverability experiment which looks like an FB-22. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/sys...craft/fb-22.htm FB-22's lose vectoring (kinda pointless on a bomber, less stealthy and greater IR signature---better to remove it if not necessary), X-44's keep it.

Don't forget the "E"--- www.dixieart.com Lots of people buy airbrushes and supplies from there.

I myself went the "Tamiya clear yellow over silver" for my PG W0C, though that's pretty "goopy" stuff too. Thin the heck out of it IMHO, and spray thinly and evenly. It will be VERY apparent if the amount of paint over an area is uneven. Don't try brushing it unless you're felling lucky. Honestly I didn't like the final color very much (their yellow is too green and too orange, simultaneously). I'd try the foil route, or look for craft paint golds, they make some quite finely-ground ones. Finally, the cheap, generic, tiny-bottle Testor's gold actually is a quite nice paint to work with, and very finely ground. Not quite "chrome silver" smooth, but among the smoothest I know of, for any paint anywhere. Color's rather coppery, but it is about the "smoothest" non-silvery paint you can get, if you don't want to try to foil the curved shoulder pieces. I wonder why Bandai didn't do like they did with SO many of their 1/100 Wing kits---gold-plate the parts. It's exactly the look most people are going for. And they could do like their MG Hyaku-Shiki and arrange the parts so the "scars" are on the back-side of the parts. Only 3 gold parts in the whole kit, but very important, and should have been plated. (Ironically, Bandai's gold is actually clear yellow over chrome, but it looks nicer than most people can do, since they vacuum-plate the chrome)

Want a truly kick-a$$ and cheap to design multi-role plane? F-15E/ACTIVE. Hyper-agile high-speed strike fighter. No stealth, but rocks in all other categories. Or, taking advantage of their overall lower weight, F-15C/ACTIVE's fpr dedicated air-to-air. We're not getting enough F-22's to replace the -15, might as well upgrade the -15 fleet. The great thing about ACTIVE nozzles, is that you can retrofit it to any plane with F100, or F110 engines. Which is most fighters. And there's certainly no lack of F-18 stabs to convert to F-15 canards. Harrier replacement? F-35 WITH A GUN. A big one. And maybe a bubble canopy. (C'mon, it can't be that hard to retrofit--the Sea Harrier had its seat raised a few inches and a bubble canopy added, to give much improved visibility over the first attack Harriers) It was subsequently adopted for the AV-8B, too. Anything else, that delta-winged F/A-22 poposal. The F-16XL rocked, even if it wasn't chosen. Now imagine an F/A-22XL. Could even surpass a Strike Eagle.

I don't really have any experience with their forums, but these are the best sites I know, I'd presume the forums would be as good as the site: http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/ http://www.hyperscale.com/ http://www.modelingmadness.com/

Heck no, F-32 was inferior in most all aspects. It would have been faster, since Boeing wanted to change it to a delta-winged design for the actual in-service model. (A "minor" change according to Boeing--yeah, and changing a 747 to a delta-wing would be another "minor" change for Boeing) And had it been selected, the Navy would have asked for a Super-Duper Stealth Hornet the next day. No way they'd allow that sailor-sucker on board. Anyways---I'm betting (like 99% confident) F-117's are much stealthier than F-35's. Certainly has higher IR, and rear and frontal RCS. F-117's were designed for PURE stealth. It's payload is tiny, but it's very very good at what it does. Ok, here's the scenario as I see it: F-35's flat-out aren't designed nor intended for a dogfight, ever. No rear vision, no gun, no Sidewinders. So it's for BVR AMRAAM launching on day 1 of the war. Well, F-22's can do that a heck of a lot better. If we need air superiority, F-35's are not going to be the plane of choice. F-15/16/22 will do that. So now we're on day two, where we load them up with external stuff and toss their stealth. Well, now they're like an F-16, but less agile and less able to defend themselves. Some more range and payload, if stuffed to the gills, but nothing worth writing home about compared the 1,000 F-16's we've already bought and paid for. But hey, we can launch them from carriers! Well, now we've got more Super Hornets than we know what to do with, with a pretty darn big payload, 2 engines, and notably more stealthy than any other fighter but the "stealth" fighters. So what's the point of having them? They're multi-role, but they're not so great at either one. The F-15E works, because it's an AWESOME fighter, and an AWESOME bomber. The F-16 and F-18's are smaller, but equally good fighters with the latest electronics, and top-of-the-line fighters. They could be used as a NEW role for a STOVL plane, to COMPLEMENT the Harrier. But it's not really good enough to replace anything in any role, and certainly not everything in every role. While the Super Hornet isn't the best choice for fleet defense or an interceptor, you can't deny that it's a very good strike fighter and dogfighter (though the range still sucks). But the F-35's got nothing notable.

What to add, what to add... Um, let's see. Oooh! YF-23's have a very low IR signature. And not just the engines, everything. Fewer edges=less friction. And the whole thing's sleek as hell. Low drag, thus low friction thus low heat. YF-23 is very stealthy, both radar AND IR. Sidewinders (and all its cousins) still account for most missile kills, not radar-guided. (And that would imply most kills are made at shorter ranges, too, not 20 miles out) Having a very cool exhaust, and little leading edge friction, makes it hard for even the most advanced IR missile to lock on and track. Cannons--such a basic, reliable, simple thing to add. Little reason not to. ESPECIALLY CAS. Bombs and missiles have a blast radius, guns do not. Anecdote time: F-14 pilot (maybe the RIO) shotdown in Iraq. Iraqi's literally chasing him down in a truck, but an A-10 comes in and nigh-vaporizes the truck from behind with its cannon, yards away from the pilot, saving him so he could be rescued soon thereafter. Couldn't do that with a bomb, blast radius would have likely killed the F-14 pilot. Guns==real fast, real accurate. CAS is about operating CLOSE to friendlies. You can use a 4,000lb LGB when you're in the middle of nowhere, or hundreds of yards away from "the good guys". But not when you're talking about second-by-second changes in the situation. Only a gun can be aimed that fast, without having to worry about collateral damage, etc.

I'd just like to bring up that Russia did a little "exercise" last week involving ICBM's and cruise missiles, including Tu-160 supersonic runs across the Atlantic, and simulated attacks against carrier battle groups. (it's AMAZING what's not reported on TV--good thing I use the net for news, especially military news). They didn't say they were practicing on how to attack *US* carrier battle groups specifically, but I don't believe anyone else has any. They said it was "anti-terrorism" practice. Uh huh. ICBM's and CVN runs. "But we don't need F-14's, there's no more threat". Yeah, well, tell that to Russia. NOTHING is ever eliminated as a threat. We will always need close-in dogfighters, high-speed low-alt bombers, and high-speed dedicated interceptors, "multi-role" planes, air superiority, strategic bombers, etc. No plane can do it all, few can do 2.

I'd like to reiterate Coota0's reply to imode. They've been saying that for 50+ years, and everytime we "eliminate" the dogfight with all our technology, we get our asses kicked by someone who didn't. And the existence of airplanes dropping bombs meant no more wars would be fought with troops on the ground... Angel's Fury: F-35's carry AMRAAM's. That's it. 2 of them, usually. So much for air superiority.

Shin Densetsu: F-35's don't carry Sidewinders either. No AIM-9's, and no gun=NO dogfighting. So it's superior agility compared to the Harrier is worthless there. Anubis---F-16 Block 60's will likely have CFT's. Plus a lot of little things like the dorsal spine for more electronics (mainly ECM I think, probably some data-link stuff, etc). More powerful engine of course, GE and PW come out with new versions all the time. 32,500lbs on the latest GE. Possibly an integrated FLIR/LANTIRN combined with upgraded radar, to eliminate all the pods hanging off the intake like the 40's and 50's have. Greece already has block 50's with CFT's, being the last 50's built. UAE has block 60's without CFT's, but all the electronic upgrades. There likely won't be any USAF Block 60's, but if there are, you can bet on CFT's. F-16 CFT's hold 450 gallons. It's more to replace the underwing tanks rather than add range, so you can use more pylons for weapons. Finally--where's Nied?

Another "completely forgotten" basic lesson of air combat design: Go look at a F-35's cockpit (especially a STOVL variant), and tell me how much rearward vision the pilot has. Stealth is nothing if someone can fly right up behind you with 30mm cannons and shoot you full of holes.

It's all about the G's. Herc's tend not to hit 9G's very often. And that's why airliners last the longest of all, they rarely hit 2. Early Hornets can use up their airframe in 4,000 hrs.

F-35 will be "overall" better than the Harrier, mainly due to range. Harrier has sh*t for range, and sh*t for payload, though payload has gone up as the plane's evolved. While the F-35 doesn't have much payload, it's more than a Harrier's. Mainly due to engine power. F-35's got twice the power of a Harrier--and it's all for fuel and weapons, the plane itself isn't *that* much larger. The thing is---the F-35 will be best at replacing what the Harrier does least well. It's like replacing the Harrier with an F-16--much more useful for most things overall, but not all that great at doing what the Harrier does best. Harrier is REALLY in it's element for CAS. Slow, accurate, AGM-65E's, gunpods. It is NOT supposed to go after tanks, troops, and most everything else. It's a purely USMC plane, pretty much purely for USMC troop support. F-35 isn't that. Everyone says "it'll be stealthy and fast and manueverable and have auto-laser-smart everything". Yeah well, that's what F/A-22's are for. Harriers are for forward STOVL bases about right behind the front lines, ready to take out whatever the Marines need taken out within 5 mins. They are, honestly, designed to maul and decimate moving enemy troops up close and personal. A-10's and Harrier's rock at it. (Which is why everybody says the A-10's should go to the Marines) Slow, with powerful guns and Mavericks. F-35's are none of the above. Harriers do of course "blow stuff up" but that's not really their element, more of a "if they're in the right place at the right time, they can do it as well as anything else". However--they want the F-35 to replace just about every plane in the world except other stealths and strategic bombers. And it can't. Sigh---the F-111 fiasco (aka McNamara's folly) comes to mind in an instant to all aviation people when talking about commonality, ESPECIALLY across services. But politicians never remember, they only hear "1 plane to do everything costs less than 2 specialized". I'd laugh my a** off if the F-35 totally sucked at everything and we had to make F-16 Block 60's instead. Beltane70---8,000 hours is HIGH for a fighter. Attack planes are exposed to less severe G's, but still I doubt they'd hit 10,000hrs. It's hours FLYING, not simply hours of existence. Most commercial airliners won't hit 80,000 hrs before scrapping, even 25 year old ones flying for UAL 24/7.

Opus---sure it's 8,000 hours, not 80,000? 80,000 is beyond insanely high for anything like a strike aircraft. Lots of military planes "get old" at 5-10 thousand. Anyways----they've pretty much accepted that the F-35 will need a gunpod to make it useful in many situations, using up one of its weapon bays. Harrier legacy, but at least the current Harrier has a good gun, though it's no Avenger. Sigh---Marines are #1 for CAS, yet they're always last to be consulted/least imput into the planes used for it! Yeesh. At this point, most of the Harrier's smart weapons are USMC-exclusive variations of USN and USAF weapons, specially designed for CAS from a STOVL jet. Yet approximately ZERO will work with the F-35. See a problem? JDAM's about the only weapon that'll work, and JDAM is NOT what you want for Marine CAS. Not accurate enough, not able to be quickly updated/targeted. You need the AGM-65E, the lesser-known but awesome variant of your standard Maverick. Which won't fit in an F-35, AFAIK. (Seeing as how its big and bulky) As for A-10 self defense---they rely mainly on MASSIVE amounts of chaff and flares. Plus being just plain hard to kill. They have little IR signature, but their radar return I bet is huge. A-10's are much more likely to "dogfight" with a helicopter than a fighter. THAT is the environment they would use their Sidewinders in. Or a light attack plane, A-4 category. A-10's have awesome rates and radii of turn, but that's for avoiding ground fire quickly, not a prolonged dogfight. They have zilch in the energy category.

The general effect of wing clipping is to increase the roll rate, but decrease the sustained turn rate. Instantaneous rate of turn is also affected, but I honestly don't know enough to comment on that. Energy loss through a turn is increased, but there is less drag. I'll bring up the Spitfire again. You could either have full wings, or clipped wings. Either good rate of turn, or good rate of roll. Pick one, not both. Fighting BF-109's? You want turn. Fighting FW-190's? You want roll. (And of course, there were also extended wings, for high-altitude optimization)

Sure you can get plutonium from a watch? I'm 90% sure it's called INDIglo because of INDIum. Radioactive, but not plutonium. Plutonium (asides from radioactivity) is one of the nastiest most toxic substances known. One of those "breathe in one molelcule and you're dead in a minute". It's like arsenic and mercury combined into one more concentrated deadlier element.

Yeah, but nearly all the -19 and -21/22 action we've ever seen took place in the atmosphere. Druna Skass---all the Varuta ones have 55K kg engines. -19/22 still well above that.

Absolute engine power is pointless, it's the power/weight ratio as I said. A 747-400 has more sheer power than just about any other plane on Earth, but it rates about a 2 on the agility scale... (747's are actually fairly agile for an airplane that big, which is why it's not a 1) VF-19's have more power, AND less inherent weight. But a -22 has much larger wings. (relative wing size is a huge, huge factor in agility, especially relating to energy management in turns, though it's countered by an increased requirement in thrust) My vote: -19 can climb faster, and probably roll faster, but a -22 is sleeker (accelerate faster), and maintain a faster turn with more energy. All in all, pretty darn close to Spitfire vs Bf-109, or most any other "one plane vs its close rival". Some things never change, no plane can be the best at everything. Getting close to a -19 vs -22 argument here.

I went by the stats in the compendium, and of all the -19/21/22 variants, the -19S had the most powerful engines. A better measure (the one that really means something) is thrust/weight ratio. And at combat weight. Don't know if the compendium has those listed (I'll check, or maybe I can calculate it out myself, though I would need weight of the missiles). PS--actually I don't think I've used this particular avatar before. If I have, it wasn't for long. My standard one is this:

That sounds like the infamous Watanabe style. But you CAN'T do it with spray cans. It needs to be airbrushed. And airbrushed well. It's way up there in difficulty, AFAIK. Looks great, if you can do it.

Aircraft power generally refers simply to engines, so that'd be the VF-19S.

Well, he had the whole howling thing going on, so that says canine. But his overall appearance was rather lion-esque, thus feline. (I'm going through FF7 again). So he's whatever.

Interesting, painting them all the same. For ships, the rule is to always paint them differently, not the same. The idea being that if lighting conditions are right so that a particular camo scheme becomes rather visible, the other ships in different schemes won't be visible. If they're all the same---if you can see one, you can see them all. (Almost all camo designs work incredibly well under a particular lighting condition--none work well in all, most schemes go for "decently well under most conditions" but are always inferior to a scheme designed for a specific set of conditions---but when they're out of their element, they'll be VERY visible, better than no camo at all) Best example: the best anti-sub camo is the very worst for general anti-surface.

Yup, for resin, scrub the h*** out of it. There's many people who literally soak the parts in acetone, rubbing alcohol, even brake fluid. It depends on the kit. Some are as easy to work with as styrene, some are h***. IMHO, the more the part looks like plastic, the better it is. White/grey resin=good. Tan, not as good. Yellow=bad. Just a general rule, plenty of exceptions. And there's always big chunks which have never fully cured, and won't for another 30 years... Nothing glues resin well, I usually go for a heavy bit of superglue, for I am one of those people who use it as a filler/putty as well, and it saves a step. (Since the superglue will ooze out of the seam already, I just sand it then--and I have a glued, seamless joint after that).