Aircraft Vs Thread 4

[kalvasflam]

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/...force-f-15.html

Hmmm, interesting, wonder if there is precedent for other fighters in the US inventory in terms of structural problems.

Regarding the ridiculous abolish the air force article above. The writer makes a fundamental assumption: that the current situation in the world will remain the status quo for all time. That alone makes this article kind of a joke to anyone who is seriously considering the implications of air power.

Edited November 5, 2007 by kalvasflam

[David Hingtgen]

If the C/D's are having issues, what about the A/B's still in service? There's been a lot of swapping/upgrading since the F-22 came into service, but there's still some squadrons that have the early models.

As for structure:

Go look at any F-16 block 40/42. You'll see retrofitted reinforcement plates to stop the cracking on them. The increased weight was too much for them. (block 25 and 30 also have some, but far fewer)

[David Hingtgen]

<<<<<

The Royal Australian Air Force is facing a six- to 18-month gap in the availability of operational in-flight refuelling aircraft, as a result of plans to withdraw its final Boeing 707 tanker from service in July 2008.

The service is not expecting to achieve initial operational capability with its new Airbus A330-based KC-30B multi-role tanker transports until late 2009, with this milestone set for the availability of two of its five aircraft.

Australia's Department of Defence announced that only one 707 tanker will be in service for the next eight months, following the 31 October retirement of the RAAF's only other available example from an originally five-strong fleet. The retired aircraft are being cannibalised to provide operational spares for the sole remaining platform.

The first converted KC-30B made its debut flight last June, but phase one flight testing is only just starting. "The test readiness review is expected to occur by the end of October 2007 in support of commencement of Phase 2 test activities in early 2008," the DoD says. "The in-service date - for two aircraft, qualification tested and issued with military airworthiness certificates - remains as planned for late 2009."

>>>

How about waiting until you have the replacement before retiring the old one? Though the RAF already got rid of its Sea Harriers, and they still don't have any JSF's... (nor will for quite a while)

[buddhafabio]

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/...force-f-15.html

Hmmm, interesting, wonder if there is precedent for other fighters in the US inventory in terms of structural problems.

Regarding the ridiculous abolish the air force article above. The writer makes a fundamental assumption: that the current situation in the world will remain the status quo for all time. That alone makes this article kind of a joke to anyone who is seriously considering the implications of air power.

it was a air national guard plane, and we all KNOW they get the cream of the crop when it comes to airframes. for now it kinda still early for a cause just yet.

Edited November 6, 2007 by buddhafabio

[Nied]

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articl...h_the_air_force

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articl...h_the_air_force

Defencetech has been flogging this article for a while. The funny thing is that it's very shortsighted. While it hasn't been of much use in Iraq it was downright pivotal in the rest of the most recent conflicts we've been in. Hell in Kosovo airpower was easily the deciding factor (with the barest hint of the use of ground forces finally tipping things over).

[Nied]

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/...force-f-15.html

Hmmm, interesting, wonder if there is precedent for other fighters in the US inventory in terms of structural problems.

Recapitalization!! See! Those F-15's flat out need replacing, and we can either replace them with $100 million Strike Eagle variants or we can replace them with $120 million Raptors.

[David Hingtgen]

Nice point---people keep talking about how much the F-22 is, but don't seem to realize that due to inflation, the F-15 costs just as much. (Makes me wonder---so was the F-15 back in the 70's seen as "horrendously expensive" as the -22 is now?) The F-15 was in response to the "MiG-25 threat", and they tried to get as many built as soon as possible. Yet now we have Super Flankers, which unlike the MiG-25 really are amazing planes that are a serious threat to our air dominance, yet they say we don't need -22's...

[Nied]

Nice point---people keep talking about how much the F-22 is, but don't seem to realize that due to inflation, the F-15 costs just as much. (Makes me wonder---so was the F-15 back in the 70's seen as "horrendously expensive" as the -22 is now?) The F-15 was in response to the "MiG-25 threat", and they tried to get as many built as soon as possible. Yet now we have Super Flankers, which unlike the MiG-25 really are amazing planes that are a serious threat to our air dominance, yet they say we don't need -22's...

Ah but the only country who owns true "Super" Flankers in any significant number is India, who's such an intractable enemy that they regularly fly exercises with us, and are looking to buy several hundred fighters from us. Everyone else have either an easily overwhelmed handful of Su-30s or a larger number of vanilla Su-27s. China has Su-30s but not many and without nearly as good an avionics fit.

Like I said earlier if all you talk about is the scary bogeymen of Flankers and Terrorism and China (oh my!) we're not going to get many F-22s, because well none of them really warrant Raptors. People will just say "well we can just upgrade our F-15s to deal with those easily and fly 'em for a hundred years like a B-52." If on the other hand you point out how we can't just keep flying our current F-15 fleet, and how much new F-15s cost, all of the sudden buying much more useful Raptors for a little more makes more sense.

[kalvasflam]

Ah but the only country who owns true "Super" Flankers in any significant number is India, who's such an intractable enemy that they regularly fly exercises with us, and are looking to buy several hundred fighters from us. Everyone else have either an easily overwhelmed handful of Su-30s or a larger number of vanilla Su-27s. China has Su-30s but not many and without nearly as good an avionics fit.

Like I said earlier if all you talk about is the scary bogeymen of Flankers and Terrorism and China (oh my!) we're not going to get many F-22s, because well none of them really warrant Raptors. People will just say "well we can just upgrade our F-15s to deal with those easily and fly 'em for a hundred years like a B-52." If on the other hand you point out how we can't just keep flying our current F-15 fleet, and how much new F-15s cost, all of the sudden buying much more useful Raptors for a little more makes more sense.

That's a good argument Nied... based not on politics (which can be just as important) but purely on economics. Unfortunately, I bet it's the political argument that carries the day. Pure economics like you just proposed is far beyond what most of the dolts in office would ever understand.

[Noyhauser]

Ummm the dolts in office? How many do you know personally? Here's an article from the Washington Times by House Representative Jim Saxton on tankers. Yes there are bad decisions made, but the defence reductions in the mid 1990s were required and difficult to carry out.

Part of my research was on the defence drawdowns in the western world after 1990. In speaking with an Assistant Secretary level official he confessed that on one side he didn't like implementing budget cutbacks, as whole capabilities would be cut. But he also realized that the deficit would need to be cut or our collective economies would suffer economic stress later. So he went and did it. It wasn't pretty and maybe the cuts went too deep, but there was a clear logic behind it. In the early 1990s there was little clue on what sort of future they would face. We're able to incur the major defence spending increases that we see after 9/11 because of the savings of the early 1990s.

And this brings us to why the military should not be directing this progress as Nied mentioned. They start claiming they need every capability and don't cut anything. Militaries are very conservative in their outlook, they don't change their perspectives easily, and tend to retain everything even when its clear that a capability is useless. If we'd blithley listen to the military we'd be saddled with capabilities from the 1980s that focused on heavy conventional warfare. We'd probably have the A-12 (Flying Dorito) which would have been oh so useful against all the high tech threats like the taliban (thats me being sarcastic), or the 60+ ton Crusader SP Artillery... which would have been useless against the insurgents. This is why you DON'T want the military deciding on defence spending decisions, or even general defence decisions. If you're interested, There is a fantastic book about this by Amy Zegart called Flawed by Design: the Evolution of the JCS, CIA and NSC It chonicles how during the 1947 National Security Act, which Truman attempted to create a more efficient effective Department of Defence after the trouble faced during the Second World War, was watered down because of the Navy's Politicing, just so it could ensure it would keep its ability to control its budget. The failure of the Unification effort cost the U.S. government dearly, in terms of massive waste and service men and womens lives because of poor decision making.

I don't know why I continue on with this stuff, I mean this is an message board on an site for a 20 year old anime, but its important, I urge you to read my words carefully Kalvasflam. Also don't take this as an anti military comment, it isn't by any strech of the imagination. I'm just trying to give an explaination of why having the military deciding on funding priorities isn't the best system.

Edited November 6, 2007 by Noyhauser

[RFT]

How about waiting until you have the replacement before retiring the old one? Though the RAF already got rid of its Sea Harriers, and they still don't have any JSF's... (nor will for quite a while)

Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm, not RAF* and it's not quite the same thing- the replacement for the Sea Harrier (in the eyes of the MoD) isn;t the JSF, but the type 45 Destroyer. JSF is intended to replace the GR-variant Harriers. Sea Harrier was a pretty poor air-ground platform as it's very much a first-generation harrier with small wings, an old pegasus variant (and no capblity to take the the latest engines)- it was pretty much an air-to-air machine and the MoD thinks the SAMs on the type 45 can do the job - Sea Harrier's been replaced, just not with an aircraft.

(*to be more accurate, the Harrier force was re-organised into a sort of RN/RAF joint operation, with Navy pilots now flying RAF harrier types (GR.7 and GR.9).

[Phyrox]

Ummm the dolts in office? How many do you know personally? Here's an article from the Washington Times by House Representative Jim Saxton on tankers. Yes there are bad decisions made, but the defence reductions in the mid 1990s were required and difficult to carry out.

Part of my research was on the defence drawdowns in the western world after 1990. In speaking with an Assistant Secretary level official he confessed that on one side he didn't like implementing budget cutbacks, as whole capabilities would be cut. But he also realized that the deficit would need to be cut or our collective economies would suffer economic stress later. So he went and did it. It wasn't pretty and maybe the cuts went too deep, but there was a clear logic behind it. In the early 1990s there was little clue on what sort of future they would face. We're able to incur the major defence spending increases that we see after 9/11 because of the savings of the early 1990s.

And this brings us to why the military should not be directing this progress as Nied mentioned. They start claiming they need every capability and don't cut anything. Militaries are very conservative in their outlook, they don't change their perspectives easily, and tend to retain everything even when its clear that a capability is useless. If we'd blithley listen to the military we'd be saddled with capabilities from the 1980s that focused on heavy conventional warfare. We'd probably have the A-12 (Flying Dorito) which would have been oh so useful against all the high tech threats like the taliban (thats me being sarcastic), or the 60+ ton Crusader SP Artillery... which would have been useless against the insurgents. This is why you DON'T want the military deciding on defence spending decisions, or even general defence decisions. If you're interested, There is a fantastic book about this by Amy Zegart called Flawed by Design: the Evolution of the JCS, CIA and NSC It chonicles how during the 1947 National Security Act, which Truman attempted to create a more efficient effective Department of Defence after the trouble faced during the Second World War, was watered down because of the Navy's Politicing, just so it could ensure it would keep its ability to control its budget. The failure of the Unification effort cost the U.S. government dearly, in terms of massive waste and service men and womens lives because of poor decision making.

I don't know why I continue on with this stuff, I mean this is an message board on an site for a 20 year old anime, but its important, I urge you to read my words carefully Kalvasflam. Also don't take this as an anti military comment, it isn't by any strech of the imagination. I'm just trying to give an explaination of why having the military deciding on funding priorities isn't the best system.

^ what he said.

[F-ZeroOne]

Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm, not RAF*

Dash it all, you beat me to it. This used to cause problems for the great Fleet Air Arm test pilot Eric "Winkle" Brown, who would often find himself landing some never-before-seen prototype at a RAF base and then have to explain why he was wearing a Naval uniform...

[kalvasflam]

Ummm the dolts in office? How many do you know personally? Here's an article from the Washington Times by House Representative Jim Saxton on tankers. Yes there are bad decisions made, but the defence reductions in the mid 1990s were required and difficult to carry out.

Part of my research was on the defence drawdowns in the western world after 1990. In speaking with an Assistant Secretary level official he confessed that on one side he didn't like implementing budget cutbacks, as whole capabilities would be cut. But he also realized that the deficit would need to be cut or our collective economies would suffer economic stress later. So he went and did it. It wasn't pretty and maybe the cuts went too deep, but there was a clear logic behind it. In the early 1990s there was little clue on what sort of future they would face. We're able to incur the major defence spending increases that we see after 9/11 because of the savings of the early 1990s.

And this brings us to why the military should not be directing this progress as Nied mentioned. They start claiming they need every capability and don't cut anything. Militaries are very conservative in their outlook, they don't change their perspectives easily, and tend to retain everything even when its clear that a capability is useless. If we'd blithley listen to the military we'd be saddled with capabilities from the 1980s that focused on heavy conventional warfare. We'd probably have the A-12 (Flying Dorito) which would have been oh so useful against all the high tech threats like the taliban (thats me being sarcastic), or the 60+ ton Crusader SP Artillery... which would have been useless against the insurgents. This is why you DON'T want the military deciding on defence spending decisions, or even general defence decisions. If you're interested, There is a fantastic book about this by Amy Zegart called Flawed by Design: the Evolution of the JCS, CIA and NSC It chonicles how during the 1947 National Security Act, which Truman attempted to create a more efficient effective Department of Defence after the trouble faced during the Second World War, was watered down because of the Navy's Politicing, just so it could ensure it would keep its ability to control its budget. The failure of the Unification effort cost the U.S. government dearly, in terms of massive waste and service men and womens lives because of poor decision making.

I don't know why I continue on with this stuff, I mean this is an message board on an site for a 20 year old anime, but its important, I urge you to read my words carefully Kalvasflam. Also don't take this as an anti military comment, it isn't by any strech of the imagination. I'm just trying to give an explaination of why having the military deciding on funding priorities isn't the best system.

Alternatively, we could go through the argument of Rumsfeld transformation of the military and look at how effective that has been. Specifically in Iraq and to a lesser extent in Afghanistan. You can argue that his policies were exactly right, to use local proxies and shock tactics to win war, but simultaneously, you can make the argument that it's a miserable failure because the US armed forces is doing a horrible job (if you believe CNN et al) at garrisoning duties.

I do understand your particular point. But on the balance, when talking about economics, I don't think it's at all clear that the civilian arm of the government has a better understanding what would be best going forward. The more logical thing to have done perhaps is to fix a budget, and then let the service arms negotiate a solution based on their requirements. Instead of having every local congressman push for their piece of the military spending pie, that I think is where more of the waste comes from.

[Noyhauser]

Alternatively, we could go through the argument of Rumsfeld transformation of the military and look at how effective that has been. Specifically in Iraq and to a lesser extent in Afghanistan. You can argue that his policies were exactly right, to use local proxies and shock tactics to win war, but simultaneously, you can make the argument that it's a miserable failure because the US armed forces is doing a horrible job (if you believe CNN et al) at garrisoning duties.

Well first off I don't think its CNN et al who thought the U.S. military wasn't very good at stability campaigns (garrion duty is an incorrect term.) I think the U.S. military itself understands that it wasn't prepared for it which is why you have General Petraeus. Its not clear if Shinseki's recommendation for 300,000 would have made things that much better because the force was not in the mindset at the time to carry out such a mission.

But thats not exactly what we're talking about here. We're talking about budgets, and the civil control of a military as a general issue. Rummy was not brought in to lead the war on terror. He cames to conduct a defence transformation, to successfully implement the Revolution in Military Affairs: lighter, faster more lethal military formations. He wanted to bring the military into the 21st century, and away from Cold War force structures. Unfortunately 9/11 came along and Rumsfeld came in and attempted to enforce his ideas about RMA into operational matters. That was a mistake.

I do understand your particular point. But on the balance, when talking about economics, I don't think it's at all clear that the civilian arm of the government has a better understanding what would be best going forward. The more logical thing to have done perhaps is to fix a budget, and then let the service arms negotiate a solution based on their requirements. Instead of having every local congressman push for their piece of the military spending pie, that I think is where more of the waste comes from.

See militaries have had this power in the past, and it doesn't work. First, various service arms always want more and are never satisfied. Remember the military is not one service, its 3 and 1/2, each screaming for a larger part of the pie, complaining when one gets more or less than another. They do not, nor ever have been responsible about money. If you want to talk about politics, ask someone who has viewed an intraservice budgetary battle.

Its the reason why we have a Secretary of Defence and civillian control over the armed forces. He's supposed to oversee the Administration of the armed forces and help adjudicate what is reasonable. Last Fall the Bush administration broke from this system, at their peril. They allowed Army Chief of Staff Peter Schoomaker to talk to the Office of Management and Budget AND congress to plead for more funding. This wasn't done before because they didn't want to upset intraservice rivalries. So after Schoomaker made his pitch, guess what happened? Thats Right the Airforce and Navy started complaining that they needed representation and that they should not be raided for the Army's capital budget.

Second the military is hesitent to invest in capabilities and technologies that they might need, instead they stay with proven and reliable modes of thought, even when that capability type is outmoded. I gave you two examples: the A-12 Avenger II and the Crusader SPA. The military fought hard to retain these capabilities, even when it was clear that they were of limited value. What use was the 55 ton Crusader? It was utterly undeployable and designed for a nuclear conventional battlefield. This is pretty common stuff in militaries. It reminds me of a British officer's desire to retain horse drawn artillery during the interwar period, "because thereby you will keep up the high standard of intelligence in the man from his association with the horse." Moreover its not congress that is to blame for most cost overruns and production delays; its usually the military's fault for gold plating requirements during the procurement process or the manufacturors.

In order to understand what the military needs, and how much it costs, you need to have an involved process involving civillian national security officials to accurately judge what is actually in the country's interest, how much will it cost, and what to do. Again, I'm not saying that the civillian side is perfect. Congress frequently makes some bad decisions. But the Military can be said to be far far worse in many regards on budgetary and capital matters.

Edited November 6, 2007 by Noyhauser

[David Hingtgen]

::mod hat on:: You know, we DO have a "warfare" thread that is generally allowed to be a bit more political (but this forum is still supposed to be "no political discussions"----we've come very close the last couple posts).

http://macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?showtopic=22252

[Ratchet]

Here's the SF Chronicle story on the F-15 grounding:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...001&sc=1000

[Nied]

::mod hat on:: You know, we DO have a "warfare" thread that is generally allowed to be a bit more political (but this forum is still supposed to be "no political discussions"----we've come very close the last couple posts).

http://macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?showtopic=22252

Yokai!

[Nied]

JASDF grounds thier F-15Js as a precautionary measure.

[Noyhauser]

Hey David (or anyone for that matter) do you have photos of a F/A-18E's area where the second cockpit should be, the main cockpit area, and its landing gear? Didn't you also say that the landing gears are usually clean? Ah one last question... what would the typical warload for a flight over Afghanistan would be?

As you guessed it, I'm in the final cleaning of a Hase version of it and I wanted some reference stuff.

Thanks.

[Apollo Leader]

I've been following the F-15 situation for the last few days. Is there any more word on what they think is the issue with some of these F-15's?

I know part of the reason why the F-16 Fighting Falcon's are manufactured with a mix of either GE or P&W engines is so that if the GE engined F-16's are grounded it doesn't neccessarily mean the P&W F-16's have to be grounded or vice versa.

[Nied]

I've been following the F-15 situation for the last few days. Is there any more word on what they think is the issue with some of these F-15's?

I know part of the reason why the F-16 Fighting Falcon's are manufactured with a mix of either GE or P&W engines is so that if the GE engined F-16's are grounded it doesn't neccessarily mean the P&W F-16's have to be grounded or vice versa.

Everything I've heard is structural fatigue, not engine trouble. I know there have been wories about the tail section for a long time and it's actually led to a some flight restrictions (limited to 7.5Gs as opposed to 9). David, being the F-15 fan that he is, might be able to elaborate.

[David Hingtgen]

As they age, every plane gets flight restrictions. F-14's were down to 5.5G's at the end, maybe 5G's. F-14 speed restriction was M 1.88 I think, F-15's are currently at M 1.91.

They really should comment on that when talking about old fighter planes needing replacement. Again---a B-52 has a "calm" life for an airframe----they don't pull G's or go fast in the first place, and are still 100% as good as new in that regard. And due to low cycles despite their hours, they have no load restrictions AFAIK. (C-130's now, have such high cycles the older ones have severe load restrictions, as do many KC-135's).

But fighters age much faster, and lose sheer flying capability. There is no F-15A/B/C/D out there that can pull 9G's or go Mach 2.5 anymore. They are 7G, Mach 1.9 fighters now. New F-15's could help, but as they now cost almost as much as F-22's---we should just buy F-22's.

[F-ZeroOne]

Interesting little tidbit resulting from the F-15 grounding - because the JASDF has recently had to ground its F-2 fighters due to a crash and now its F-15s, the air defence of Japan currently rests in the hands of a young, hotheaded, emotionally charged but skilled orphan and his giant, blue and white robo -

- oh, hang on, thats Gundam. No, the air defence of Japan currently rests on F-4 Phantom IIs...!

[kalvasflam]

As they age, every plane gets flight restrictions. F-14's were down to 5.5G's at the end, maybe 5G's. F-14 speed restriction was M 1.88 I think, F-15's are currently at M 1.91.

They really should comment on that when talking about old fighter planes needing replacement. Again---a B-52 has a "calm" life for an airframe----they don't pull G's or go fast in the first place, and are still 100% as good as new in that regard. And due to low cycles despite their hours, they have no load restrictions AFAIK. (C-130's now, have such high cycles the older ones have severe load restrictions, as do many KC-135's).

But fighters age much faster, and lose sheer flying capability. There is no F-15A/B/C/D out there that can pull 9G's or go Mach 2.5 anymore. They are 7G, Mach 1.9 fighters now. New F-15's could help, but as they now cost almost as much as F-22's---we should just buy F-22's.

Interesting information on the speed restrictions. I had no idea these existed,, I wonder if the current generation of F-22s will have strain sensors embedded in the superstructure that'll show the integrity of the planes over time. The fiber strain sensors are cheap these days. I am also curious to find out about speed restrictions placed on non-US fighters, it could be very interesting.

[David Hingtgen]

Noyhauser----F-18E? I really don't have that many pics of the E model. (I've never seen one--just F's---I keep trying to see an E) Try here: http://www.s205409446.onlinehome.us/AWA1/6...aub/walk606.htm

(there's a lot more cockpit pics for F models, as their rear cockpits vary and there's much interest in the differences, and there are more F's than E's in the world). I think any early F's front panel should be the same as any E's.

Afghanistan load? I can probably get you exact for early operations---what squadron?

PS---look at this photo, trust me. http://www.s205409446.onlinehome.us/AWA1/0...es/18ftoprr.jpg That's how that area is---part bare metal, part vents, part "black gaping opening", part metallic grey heat-absorbing blankets...

If you want, there's a very good fairly cheap book out there with lots of useful modeling pics: http://store.spruebrothers.com/shared/Stor...et=products.asp

[F-ZeroOne]

A thought has just occurred to me. If I was in charge of BAE Systems, I'd be paradropping salespeople into Tokyo right the heck now...

Edited November 7, 2007 by F-ZeroOne

[Noyhauser]

Noyhauser----F-18E? I really don't have that many pics of the E model... *snip*

Wow, thats wicked wicked stuff... and just so much more work for me... the aft cockpit area is so much more complex than I expected... I was going to have the canopy up, but given the detail required in that section, its too much to scratchbuild for my interest. I've got to undo alot of work I did on the wing root of the leading edge... Apparently there is a gap there that I thought was a model error.

As for a weapons load, the Hase box has options for VF-14 or VFA-115 So lets go with that.

[Mislovrit]

or the 60+ ton Crusader SP Artillery... which would have been useless against the insurgents.

Revised version was 40 tons before the program was canceled, and would have been the most advanced SPG in service in the world. Artillery is deadly effective against the insurgents.

[Mislovrit]

You know, with the zillion F-4/14/15/16's in the boneyard--couldn't we win just about any aerial situation through sheer numbers of reactivated planes? It seems the F-22 etc are always needed for some "ultimate showdown with a large, advanced enemy"---but frankly nobody has the sheer numbers we have available. I'd gladly send a thousand old F-4's against the largest Flanker fleet in the world, and expect to win.

David in an "ultimate showdown with a large, advanced enemy" those planes just as well don't exist as time, industrial capability to get them up to nuff, and warm bodies to fly them just isn't there.

[David Hingtgen]

You mean ID4's depiction of drunken crop-dusters flying F-18's wasn't quite right?

[Noyhauser]

Oh David, any more things you'd like to point out about the F/A-18E and or photos, would be really appreciated... like what are those vents in the rear? What is that bulge right in front of the canopy? Oh Does the red on the landing gear doors just go along the edge, or do they creep in a bit at points where a part isn't as deep (if that make sense... its hard to explain without a picture).

I've gained an appreciation for the aircraft while building it, and I'd like to know more. I was actually considering converting it into a UNSPACY bird ala the F-14 Kai with decals, but I think I'll keep it as the a normal fighter.

[Beltane70]

The bulge just in front of the F-18's canopy is its gun.

Other than that, I don't know the answers.

[Nied]

The bulge just in front of the F-18's canopy is its gun.

Other than that, I don't know the answers.

I think he's referring to the boxy structure just behind the gun. Pilots and maintainers call it "the pizza box" because it's where they store their pizzas.

Or it's a stealthy housing for the IFF "Bird slicer" antennas, whichever sounds more plausible.

[Noyhauser]

Hey Anybody got a decal option for dominos pizza boxes in 1/72?

I'm trying to accuratize a F/A-18E, and I want to get it right.