Jump to content

SchizophrenicMC

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    3787

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by SchizophrenicMC

  1. SchizophrenicMC
    Boeing claims the F-15SE is the maximum level of stealthiness allowed for export. The F-35 is also the maximum level of stealthiness allowed for export. It's hard to get raw numbers on something like that, but if you were a military, you'd probably have access to that kind of data, so Boeing isn't likely to market something they can't stand behind. As for compromises, the F-22 is a twin-engine aircraft with plenty of room along the bottom of the aiframe for weapons storage, and carries a sharper profile with less lost to cost-savings. The single-engine F-35 has a rounder profile and less room for internal weapons bays, meaning it has to carry unstealthy external weapons to achieve anything approaching the same payload capacity. There's even less space in the F-35B's airframe, what with the lift fan and stabilizer jets. The F-22 is designed to reduce signature at all aspects, such to the point where certain aspects are described as having the radar signature "of a steel marble." The F-35, by comparison, is not an all-aspect stealth aircraft, but a multi-aspect craft, where some aspects present nearly the full radar signature. As well, while the F-22's design makes it stealthy across nearly all bands of radar tracking in practical use, critics say the F-35's design and materials are aimed specifically at the bands of radar that are used by Russian fighter and SAM sites, but it neglects other bands, as would be used for commercial flight tracking. I recall hearing one person say the F-35 can be seen on weather radar, though I don't know the veracity of that statement. The F-22 is a very, very expensive bird. Because of that, there's a lot more flexibility in what it can achieve. The F-35 is not as expensive, and has to make a profit from a smaller price. There must be compromises. It'll do many of the same things, but not as well. And then there are the F-35 competitors, which are based on airframes that have already recouped their initial development costs, and so can be sold for even cheaper, with similar levels of compromise, according to claims from the manufacturers. Boeing claims the F-15SE is as stealthy as the F-35 when properly equipped, and that the F/A-18F Block III has the same level of avionics and greater multirole capability, for a lower price. Moreover, both are available today, whereas the F-35 hasn't entered full production yet, and is still having bugs worked out. Ultimately we can dance around this topic just short of calling each other stupid all we want, but the fact is, militaries are beginning to consider alternatives to the beleaguered JSF program, and some have already made purchases.
  2. SchizophrenicMC
    Two words: Gallardo Spyder.
  3. SchizophrenicMC
    Except I'm not convinced the PAK-FA or J20 are as good as anybody says, and they're even further from being viable airfleets than our own 5th-gen fighters. And can we stop using "adversaries" to describe Russia and China? We get it, you're still afraid of communism and Putin (though to be fair, the latter does have some Hitler-istic qualities about him) but come on. If you're going to address them as potential enemies, at least have the balls as a military commander to do it by name. Because we all know who you're talking about. I'm also not convinced that the fifth generation is a revolutionary step up like the fourth generation was. The jump from the F-4 to the F-14 and F-15 was pretty big. Every single aspect of the fighter was improved. Range, maneuverability, payload capacity, top speed, radar, avionics. The F-16 and F-18 aren't fifth-gen fighters, even though they added fly-by-wire, advanced composites, more payload, and even more range, because those improvements were incremental upgrades that could be applied to the current generation of fighters. So why is the F-35 a G5 fighter? Considering that its only airframe-specific quality (passive stealth) is roughly in-line with a tarted up F-15, and that it actually underperforms a lot of current aircraft, and everything else it brings to the table is a set of incremental upgrades that could be performed to pretty much anything on the market today, I'm not convinced. And the whole STOVL thing is basically dead in the water, let's agree there. Basically all of the orders are for the A and C models, which are CTOL and naval variants, with a few for the B variant, because it should have better ground attack capabilities because 0 is a low stall speed indeed. The F-22 adds a lot of stuff you couldn't rig up to an F-15 or F/A-18 and call it done. Its multi-aspect stealth is more complete, thanks to fewer design compromises in the much more expensive airframe. It uses thrust vectoring and internal weapons bays to much greater effect. The aircraft has a highly aerodynamically unstable design that can only be made flyable through the use of FBW, and has maneuverability great enough to necessitate the use of control limiters, to prevent over-G. Its range is phenomenal due to advancements in engine technology, and it has highly advanced tracking ability. A few of these could be implemented in earlier aircraft, but a lot of it is just radical and separates the plane into G5. The F-35 doesn't really do any of that. It just kind of plays second fiddle to its big brother. I think a lot of what's hurt the F-35 is it was designed to fit too many roles, and in an obligatory way. It's supposed to be every plane you need, and they had to make it look like a baby F-22. All of that has caused complications, because what makes a fighter good doesn't necessarily improve an attacker or a light bomber, and trying to cram the F-22's brand of stealth into a single-engine airframe that's trying to be the F-15, F-16, F/A-18, and Gripen C isn't really conducive to a working airplane.
  4. SchizophrenicMC
    Exactly my point.
  5. SchizophrenicMC
    Given that much of the improvements added in the fifth-gen fighters thus far have been electronics, I'd say this is an evolutionary period, rather than a revolutionary one. The F-22 and PAK-FA are fairly revolutionary, but they're also exclusive to their home nations. The F-35 offers multi-aspect stealth on top of its electronics, but then so does the F-15SE, through clever use of the CT mounts and a change in the v-stab cant. The Block III F/A-18F has much of the same HMD capabilities that the F-35 is promising, in an aircraft that's more aerodynamically capable, and cheaper. The fact is, the JSF only fits into the G5 fighter program because of when it entered development. The modern versions of "last century's fighters" are all upgrades designed firmly in the 21st century, and often used on new-build airframes. The F-18C/D and F/A-18E/F are very dissimilar aircraft. And are we going to say that a brand-new F-15SE is last-century's aircraft, when the "21st Century" F-22 entered development in the early 1990s?
  6. SchizophrenicMC
    With the F-16 and F/A-18 still in production and receiving updates, is a 5th-gen fighter strictly necessary? Especially considering who the actual intended buyers are. We keep talking about an "aging fleet" but really, what does it matter?
  7. SchizophrenicMC
    By the same token, a lot of the foreign powers who pledged to buy it are having second thoughts.
  8. SchizophrenicMC
    So has anyone seen the pregnancy test meme? Here's a few I made:
  9. SchizophrenicMC
    The F-35 is in production in the same way that the highways around D/FW are under construction. Technically, yes, but we still don't really have anything to show for it.
  10. SchizophrenicMC
    With all that being said, is there any reason any of that would be inherently unique to the F-35 anyway? It's not something radical to the airframe- you could put that in any plane. And you'd probably actually reach production in another aircraft.
  11. SchizophrenicMC
    Which is why I hate corporate takeovers. Renault ruined Nissan, GM ruined Isuzu, and VW AG is ruining Lamborghini.
  12. SchizophrenicMC
    Automobili Lamborghini was established by one Ferrucio Lamborghini, who didn't like Enzo Ferrari as a man, and wanted to show his road cars up, but as a tractor-builder originally, he didn't care for racing. Lamborghini's whole history is one of making fast cars and no race cars. Have some pride in your pedigree dammit.
  13. SchizophrenicMC
    It gives target tracking and vital information that is typically on the HUD, superimposed over the pilot's vision. It's not the sort of COFFIN system like this guy was describing. You couldn't get that good a panoramic view around the whole plane with only 6 cameras anyway. The amount of wide-angle distortion you'd get is ridiculous. Not to mention places where the airframe interferes with the view.
  14. SchizophrenicMC
    I saw the moving post, and the same general order of kits, figured "no way it can be another gaijin named Syd". I do like the guy, seems cool. Probably because he's Canadian. I'm starting to get frustrated because I want to build some of the kits in my closet, but my airbrush has gone to hell, my friend stole my X-acto knife, and I can't even afford paint, let alone all the supplies I need. That makes me a sad panda.
  15. SchizophrenicMC
    So this guy got into an argument with me about how the F-35 was superior to every other plane because of its HMD system. At one point he said "it's so advanced, the pilot looks down and all he sees is sky instead of his knees, because there's 6 cameras on the bottom that make up a panorama!" This guy has been playing too much Ace Combat.
  16. SchizophrenicMC
    That was a thought that came to mind. Grafting the buster rifle into the beam magnum is still under consideration. The only things I've got figured out for-sure are the hip skirts and beam pistols. I'm still working out how I plan on attaching the wings to the back (probably a middle piece that plugs into the slot on the Unicorn, and has a matching slot for the backpack) and the wings may not even be a satisfactory scale- I don't actually have a Wing Gundam to put next to a Unicorn, and the Wing MS were all on the small side, while Unicorn is one of the biggest Gundams. Right now, what with funding being the way it is, I'm still in conceptual stages. Man it'd be nice to be the son of a hobby store owner.
  17. SchizophrenicMC
    Is that the same Syd from GunplaTV?
  18. SchizophrenicMC
    Maybe the triangle is a reference to CGI polygons
  19. SchizophrenicMC
    I agree, TS-21 is far better for something like Strike Freedom, but TS-84's brassy color looks more like the metallic yellow I wanted to paint my MG X's yellow parts. Of course, there are 3 in the whole kit, so probably not worth buying a whole can. I'm saving that picture. It'll be good reference for later.
  20. SchizophrenicMC
    I suppose it's worth mentioning that I clean my airbrush with isopropyl alcohol, since I use acrylics exclusively. It wicks in and evaporates faster than it can build up in a rag or napkin during cleaning and isn't particularly prone to catching fire unless it's really wet. With that said, I'm not terribly concerned with solvent fires from my rags. The solvents I use in daily life are all rather volatile and evaporate in short enough order that they're more a fire risk during use or storage, than when being absorbed into a rag. Now, my shop rags in the garage, those are a different story.
  21. SchizophrenicMC
    Depends on the plastic. Different plastics react differently to different solvents. Polyethylenes, for example, will hardly react to anything. Polystyrene is notable for being one of a very few substances that doesn't react with hydrofluoric acid, even though it reacts readily with a number of other chemicals (like lacquer solvents). ABS doesn't react very much with chemicals, but is highly prone to UV oxidation. Without knowing what kind of plastic you have there, I can't give you too much advice. What I will say is, I just use an old rag for catching my cleaning fluids. No fancy jars or anything. Hell, sometimes I'll just spray it into my paint booth and let the fan do its thing. I'm not terribly concerned with such issues.
  22. SchizophrenicMC
    It's an amalgamation of many planes. The F-14D influences are obviously there, the delta wings are inspired by the F-16XL, the canards are right off of the F-15S/MTD, the canted tails and wing tips look like a parked F/A-18. It's a bunch of jets. It's not just one.
  23. SchizophrenicMC
    I was really shooting for Wing Gundam's wings, so I don't think I could do the Hi-Nu thing, but I was thinking of mounting 2 or 4 fin funnels on the wings somehow.
  24. SchizophrenicMC
    I really like mobile suits that are just bristling with weapons. Powered GM Cardigan has shoulder cannons, wrist gatlings, a beam rifle, at least two beam sabers, and head vulcans. One thing that I think is underused in Gundam is the concept that mobile suits don't have to use only handheld weapons. One of my favorite things about Unicorn Gundam is that it can use two of its beam sabers without its hands, and I love the Ground Gundam and Ez8's extensive use of mounted weaponry. No reason not to have tons of guns. Which was one of the driving factors in the Unicorn kitbash I've been trying to throw together. It came to me in a dream one night about midway through the run of GBF, after the debut of Qubeley Papillon's invisible funnels. The major concept being "Yeah? How's THAT for OP?!" I still haven't worked out how to implement fin funnels, just that 3D printing was going to be inevitable. I also want to put together a variation on the beam magnum with a longer barrel and a large fixed e-cap for loading all 5 magazines in, for satellite-cannon-esque firing. Yeah. How's that for OP?
  25. SchizophrenicMC
    I saw a meme floating around facebook and it gave me an idea: It counts, right?
×
×
  • Create New...