Pat S Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 Cool pics of the first operational F/A-22. Also, if you keep reading, some of the guys here work in the intelligence industry. Lots of arguing about the F-15. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthrea...hreadid=1559921
hellohikaru Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 What Super "Sluf" stands for? Short Little Ugly Fella(or some other more colorful versions)
Mislovrit Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 What Super "Sluf" stands for? Short Little Ugly Fella(or some other more colorful versions) Thought so, though the most common version I've is SLUFF Short Little Ugly Fat F***er.
Coota0 Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 Check out these pictures not all are aircraft and not all are military but some of the pictures are simply amazing and others are funny as long as you're not responsible.
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted May 19, 2005 Author Posted May 19, 2005 Gentlemen prepare to be PISSED!! The new Dragon VF-103 F-14...is NOT an F-14B as previously advertised..but an F-14A!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Those TF-30s along with the incorrect chin sensors and of course liveries scream it out for all of us in pure in your face visual agony. Check hlj.com's shizouka coverage.
Vespaeda Posted May 20, 2005 Posted May 20, 2005 Good day all, I've been sooo busy that I've not checked out MW, let alone this, one of my top favorite threads, in about 2wks. Been given a little "On-the-Job" vacation by my LPO; working at my duty station's(NAS Lemoore,CA) branch clinic(much lighter work load & more relaxed coworkers!). Driving home along the 5 mi. road btwn our Ops Side(airfield) and Admin Side(main hospital), I've got a clear view of planes coming & going on the main runway, mostly touch-n-goes for the SHornet squads. Last Tuesday I saw 2 planes coming in roughly side by side. One was small & white, w/red trim tail & wingtips. The other was a black, almost bulbous arrowhead, very pugnacious looking. Every so often, I see F-117s and F-15s coming in, but this was obviously different. By the time I was driving past them at their touchdown I could clearly see some sort of NASA/Dryden research-looking F-16 as chaser and an F-22 in all its glory! Made my day! I was meaning to post this sighting earlier but real life got in the way. It is really a mean-lookin plane in the air from some angles. I wonder who will be the first to tangle w/one in the flesh in the months & years ahead. sucks for them!
Skull Leader Posted May 20, 2005 Posted May 20, 2005 (edited) Gentlemen prepare to be PISSED!!The new Dragon VF-103 F-14...is NOT an F-14B as previously advertised..but an F-14A!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Those TF-30s along with the incorrect chin sensors and of course liveries scream it out for all of us in pure in your face visual agony. Check hlj.com's shizouka coverage. It's not surprising... HIGHLY dissapointing, but not surprising... (damnit, and I WAS going to buy one... forget it now) *edit: I went and looked* VF-103 markings on a Block 70 tomcat!?!?! VF-84 didn't even have their tomcats when these things were in use! (VF-84 had block 95 tomcats) Edited May 20, 2005 by Skull Leader
David Hingtgen Posted May 20, 2005 Posted May 20, 2005 Dragon finds new ways to screw up all the time. I have actually seen them have a 100% accurate mold for something already, then come out with a new, modified mold just for one paint scheme---and that new mold is totally wrong! It'd be like if they came out with a new, accurate, F-15E mold--and painted it up in 1FW colors, when they have a nice F-15C already they should have used.
areaseven Posted June 2, 2005 Posted June 2, 2005 I mentioned at the Aircraft Graveyard thread that I was taking pictures today. And now, I'm here to deliver. Here's the F-104 Starfighter "Spirit of Burbank" on display at George Izay Park in Burbank, CA.
David Hingtgen Posted June 2, 2005 Posted June 2, 2005 Man, 2-seaters are harder to tell apart, since they all have the larger fin, not just later ones. I don't think I can tell F-104B's from F-104D's.
hellohikaru Posted June 5, 2005 Posted June 5, 2005 Some of you might love this http://www12.plala.or.jp/carimerodr/su-37.html
VF-19 Posted June 6, 2005 Posted June 6, 2005 Some of you might love thishttp://www12.plala.or.jp/carimerodr/su-37.html Sweetness. Any idea where the kit came from, because I'd like to get one myself. Speaking of models, does anybody have any idea of the "best" A-10 in 1:72nd scale. I've got this Hasegawa (dubbed the Mil killer on the box), and it has raised panel lines (not a problem for me), but is there something out there that's more accurate?
David Hingtgen Posted June 6, 2005 Posted June 6, 2005 1/72 A-10? Try the new Revell *Germany* (not Revell-Monogram) kit, or the new Italeri kit. There is no good modern/current A-10 BTW, even getting one up to Desert Storm specs takes work, Iraqi Freedom takes a lot of work. They get more lumps and bumps added on in a year then most planes get in a decade.
Pat S Posted June 6, 2005 Posted June 6, 2005 Cool pics of the first operational F/A-22. Also, if you keep reading, some of the guys here work in the intelligence industry. Lots of arguing about the F-15.http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthrea...hreadid=1559921 From this thread on SA in case someone missed it. quote: zwaps came out of the closet to say: Well, the AA12 is a serious threat to a F15 or F16 with AMRAAMS. The new Migs aren't that bad: Most of the time, when you are in a Viper, you will actually be at a disadvantage because the Migs will have a lock before you do. They can also track X targets at the same time and all that. How do you measure the stealth factor of the Raptor? How much do we know about new Russian, possibly Chinese radars? Also, I am pretty sure that an Eurofighter could beat an F22 in WVR, or it would be at least even. However since the European technicians are morons and do not manage to build the EF half as good as it was planned, the F22 will most likely shoot the EF down in BVR. Of course, the F22 is also the best looking plane ever. 1) All airborne missiles are a threat. If you look at things from the standpoint of.. "This isn't a threat, it's not as capable as X" then you're wrong. I'm guilty of using the phrase "It's not a threat. Period. Dot." However what I usually mean when I say something like that is this: The threat itself is not great. Something that has a 10% chance of killing us in ideal conditions if our pilots had already ejected and the plane was flying on Auto-Pilot fall into this category. With that said, even the AA-2 is a "threat". However, it is not a un-godly deadly threat. The F-15C is not, and will not be for sometime, contested in the BVR arena. I obviously won't fill in details, but I don't stay awake at night worrying about the ADDER. What I do worry about is the political climate that might lead to our aircraft becoming at-risk again if we're not funded a lot more in the years to come. I'll address this more in a bit. As for the stealth aspects of the F/A-22, you won't know, don't need to know, and if you're smart, you'll never ask someone who does know. What do we know about Chinese and Russian RADAR's? Anything the Russians or Chinese know about their own RADAR systems is classified. From there you can infer what we would know would be as well. Again, you're creeping over into the "Hey can you slip me some classified information over the internet on an open message forum..?" realm. Which I've seen happen. Here in fact. For the safety of our fighting men and women, I urge individuals who don't have clearences or whatever to stop asking, and those of us who do to quit hinting around the rules. I know a lot of information is over-classified supposedly and the urge exsists to say "Ah hell, everyone already knows.." but the truth of it is, that if we confirm it, we're the real source. Not the FAS.org article. Fun fact- Big brother is watching. As far as the EF2000 beating the F/A-22 in WVR- No. Nothing in the sky will pull that act, not for a long time to come. BFM in the WVR arena is a 4 week long course here, just to understand where we support it from the intel perspective, so it aggrivates me to see generalizations like this. There are X number of factors that play into every engagement scenario, and the F/A-22 has an advantage in every single one of them. They should make a law where someone can't use the terms BVR or WVR or BFM without providing a footnote stating they're not educated on those subjects. I'm educated on those subjects. That said- the EF2000 is an incredible airframe, and I respect it very much so. quote: jediguy came out of the closet to say: Does the giggle mean what I think it means? I think it means it goes 1.8+ Mach quote: Deraj came out of the closet to say: I'm pretty sure the thing's actual top speed is classified. Last time I heard, it was listed as Mach 1.8+ (note the plus) It might still be slower for the reasons you mentioned, but I thought I'd mention what I'd heard. Edit: Thanks for the cool pics Actually its top speed is not at all classified. We had the engineers telling us the specs over beers. However, for OPSEC purposes it's just not a good idea to spout it off on a forum frequented by foreign nationals. quote: Daedalus0101 came out of the closet to say: This plane is so incredibly badass, I watched a show a while back that boasted the F/A-22 could target, and shoot down 2 MIG-29s before the MIGS ever saw it on their radar. Understatement of the century. This thing is going to turn MiG's and their pilots into hair teeth and eyeballs with the odd sprinkling of metal and cockpit with such speed, accuracy, and minimal risk to the aircrew it isn't even funny. quote: Allah's Jet came out of the closet to say: How much better is the Raptor at close air-to-air combat than the Viper? I've always thought the lightweight Viper was the most lethal air combat fighter. I know the Eagle has better radar systems, but that's why they put AWACS into the sky. I assume the Raptor is similarly weighed down since it's replaceing the Eagle, and I bet those fancy thrust vectoring flaps work some magic. You're right and wrong at the same time, but you're on the right path. We use the Eagle for air superiority becuase it is faster, better at what I'll call dog fighting (We use the terms BFM basic fighter manuvers and WVR within visual range) than the F-16. The F-16 is no slouch, but it's our workhorse. It can do an Air to Ground role, SEAD, DEAD, and still have a potent air superiority capability. It's not eagle however. The eagle was designed, and has performed flawlessly at air superiority. The score wouldn't be 104-0 if we only used F-16's unfortunatley. And we don't play to win, we play to dominate. Which is why the Eagle fills this role. This seems backwards to how many percieve the military, where we send soldiers into a country and know we're going to lose some no matter what. When we send a plane into a country, the plan is to not lose a single aircrew member to combat, and we plan accordingly. Our acceptable losses are 0. A little different than how the Army might make a plan. Does this mean we don't plan for aircraft losses? No. And at the staff level they figure on lossing some, but we war plan to lose none. If that statement doesn't make sense I'll clarify for you. Kudos for getting the gist of the F-15 though. Better avionics, better airframe, etc. AWACS works with all of our aircraft, and as such since they're a force multiplier for our F-16's, they're also a force multiplier for our F-15's. And don't forget the USAF's Air Control Squadrons (ACS's). They're AWACS on the ground, on steroids, and the closest thing to bad ass military hooah the USAF gets with non-flyers/non-spec ops/non-security forces people we have. I'm going to be going to an ACS soon, and look forward to it quote: Korensky came out of the closet to say: Looks awesome - but I'm eagerly awaiting those F-15 intellos (Shimazu and co?) to jump in this thread and tell everyone how wrong they are about F-15's being obsolete and the shitfest that will follow Obsolete - No. Do we need a follow on? Yes. They're getting old. Every airframe I support was built before I was born, by quiete some time. Most of the commanders of our fighter wings that have F-15's are older than the airframes they command. They're becoming a maintnence nightmare, and are draining money from our budget like dracula at a bloodbank. The F/A-22 will never beat the raptors undefeated record, but it will match it. The Eagle is a powerful bird, but she needs to step down. And those of us in the air to air community realize this. However, until the last one is retired, we'll still be better than anything flying against us. quote: .ardon came out of the closet to say: I find it interesting that US intel can be so secure of itself after 9/11 and Iraq. I'm secure of myself. I'm a highly trained, very educated member of the worls greatest airforce. I'm a member of the worlds greatest airforce's greatest wing, which fly's the worlds greatest airforce's airframe. I'm expected to be better than good, and I deliver. When I'm not gonkulating a billion and one numbers and doing technical geekery, I'm delving into Geo-Political intel, which I also excel at. And I'm expected to do so. I've predicted half of what you see on CNN long before it happens. And intelligence professionals just like myself predicted an attack on the United States long before it happened. Don't fault the community for it's leadership, scream for the heads of those who didn't listen. There is also a new "directive" if you will in the community. No dissenting oppinon on a matter will be ignored and discarded. Only one guy in the CIA's military analysis section predicted their push into Kuwait. He was a former USAF Intel weenie who retired from my unit. For a few years after that, he was the reason that "directive" came about. There was a change around 1999-2000 in the community that led to dissenting oppinons being ignored, and analysis and predictions were presented not based on merit, but on acceptability, and political wrangling. Not the case today. And hopefully won't be for a while. I'm a professional member of the worlds greatest intelligence community, you are? quote: mind_raper came out of the closet to say: The AA-12 may be comparable to the AMRAAM, but it sure as hell won't be able to get a lock at the Raptor (possibly only at a VERY short range). Hypothetical scenario: What about the situation with say, 2 pairs of mig-31s (they also have datalinks), with awacs support, flying with DVB (PPS) radar modes head on? Also, the raptors are without AWACS (which is unlikely) Remember: the mig-31 has a pretty strong radar, and currently has the world's longest range air-air in-service missile, the semi-active radar R-33 or the longer range active-radar R-37, if the plane has been upgraded (Mig-31BM) How big a chance do the mig-31s have? How much would there be a difference if the raptors had AWACS, and if they were supported by other fighters? Guys, I'm not trying to start a flame war or a pissing contest, please intelligent answers! Not RAPTER RULEZZ FLANKOR DROOLZ!!! Nothing will defeat the raptor, as I've said before. And I don't want to know where you heard that the best a-a missile in the world is sitting on the underbody of some russian built piece of poo FOXHOUND. quote: Mopp came out of the closet to say: Although, a F18 looks fun to ride. http://sjokan.com/sa/f18ride.wmv While comparing planes, could the JAS Gripen compare to the F22, in any way? http://sjokan.com/sa/jas.jpg It doesn't unfortunatley. What a pretty plane too . quote: .ardon came out of the closet to say: Or perhaps I ws just trying to make a parallel that would make it obvious that no matter how much you think you know then you don't necessarily know anything? You never did, literally, say "I. KNOW. EVERYTHING.", that would be silly. On the other hand, your posts usually go "where did you read that, FAS? lolz" which leaves a bit of an "I know everything, you know nothing" gist to it. A bit annoying when chances are that nobody really knows everything on the subject. By no means, I'm not trying to poo on the F22 parade here. At least not by saying anything bad about the supposed performance. That would be irrelevant since chances are that the F22 will never do any real air to air combat, and almost certainly nothing that an eighties era F16 couldn't handle. Mopp, Gripen is more of an F16 than an F22. Rev may not know everything there is to know about air to air stuff. But I'm either really damn close, or there is a book sitting in the vault under the presidents desk that I've not been clued in on. A 9 month mission qualification training regimen, followed by over a hundred hours in the simulators, with tons of flight time in the back seat of our eagles, couples with a 2 week intense daily test training class at tyndall, with over a year of OJT, and a burning desire to know anything and everything make me sure. Oh and my boss is an Eagle driver. And I work for a flying weapons officer.. and I do this everyday..And it's kind of my (as well as his) job to know everything (Hey, intel doesn't exsist to lick its own a-hole right? We're paid to know.) that we possibly can.. Yea, we're as close as you're gonna get bud. I'm going to address the "Raptor won't do any real air to air combat" bit later on. Also, that is a very appropriate parallel you draw between the Viper and the Gripen. Well done. quote: pugnus mentim came out of the closet to say: Damn, that's one sexy plane. A question, though. Why do modern planes still mount cannons? I would figure that the AMRAAM would have all but replaced the need for something as short-range as a 20mm cannon. What happens if you're too close to use an AMRAAM or a AIM-9? Or lets say you're out. How're you going to kill someone? You're going to shoot their ass. With a gun. WW-II style. quote: Kaiser Bill came out of the closet to say: That's pretty badass. But what is it, um, going to be used for? It's going to be used to turn any foreign airborne threat pilot into hair teeth and eyeballs. In that goddamn order to. It's going to allow our ground forces to fight a 2 dimensional war without having to worry about that third airborne dimension. It's going to keep you safely tucked in bed at night, sleeping peacefully without fear of being attacked. Just like the Eagle before it, and the Phantom before that. Maybe it won't be your comfort to sleep well, but I know I'll sleep easier knowing we've got them patrolling the skies, keeping our men and women alive. quote: mind_raper came out of the closet to say: Heheheh, communists. But seriously, how big a chance does a flight of 2 raptors stand against 4 foxhounds? http://forums.somethingawful.com/sh...7#post299407397 Hair. Teeth. Eyeballs. ------------
VF-19 Posted June 6, 2005 Posted June 6, 2005 1/72 A-10? Try the new Revell *Germany* (not Revell-Monogram) kit, or the new Italeri kit. There is no good modern/current A-10 BTW, even getting one up to Desert Storm specs takes work, Iraqi Freedom takes a lot of work. They get more lumps and bumps added on in a year then most planes get in a decade. Yah, the A-10 is rather bumpy compaired to many other planes. First glance to the Hase kit, is that it's missing the GPS dome behind the cockpit... Hmm... I have this "curse" with A-10s. It's litterally the third A-10 I've bought. The first was the Italiari, and that's in pieces (and I mean sawed pieces). The second was an Academy A-10, which was the recipient of a kitbashing experiment (smush the Italiari cockpit into the Academy) that didn't go well at all... I think I'll play it safe and just build the Hase A-10 so that I can HAVE an A-10 on my shelf. I might mish mash weapons from the previous 2 kits but that's about it.
Skull Leader Posted June 6, 2005 Posted June 6, 2005 I hear to tell that if you wanna build a good A-10 in 48 scale, Monogram is the way to go..... but then I've never built an A-10, so I wouldn't know for sure.
VF-19 Posted June 6, 2005 Posted June 6, 2005 I hear to tell that if you wanna build a good A-10 in 48 scale, Monogram is the way to go..... but then I've never built an A-10, so I wouldn't know for sure. I wouldn't mind a 1:48th scale A-10 except one tiny problem: It's a little too big. I'd rather stick to 1:72nd, and avoid Monogram products for the time being. I've haven't had a good experience with them yet...
Skull Leader Posted June 6, 2005 Posted June 6, 2005 You haven't? Build their 1/48 F-15E kit... all will be forgiven I'm building their F-4J kit right now (trying to decide if I wanna do it in VF-84 or VF-114 markings...)
Noyhauser Posted June 6, 2005 Posted June 6, 2005 (edited) Cool pics of the first operational F/A-22. Also, if you keep reading, some of the guys here work in the intelligence industry. Lots of arguing about the F-15.http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthrea...hreadid=1559921 To be honest, this sounds like one of those guys who knows a little about something and then prattles on how he knows more than anybody else. I don't think he has credentials either. Statements like this: Again, you're creeping over into the "Hey can you slip me some classified information over the internet on an open message forum..?" realm. Which I've seen happen. Here in fact. For the safety of our fighting men and women, I urge individuals who don't have clearences or whatever to stop asking, and those of us who do to quit hinting around the rules. I know a lot of information is over-classified supposedly and the urge exsists to say "Ah hell, everyone already knows.." but the truth of it is, that if we confirm it, we're the real source. Are just ridiculous. It doesn't sound right. Most intel guys are pretty quiet and self assured. They have a lot of training and are fairly academic in their outlook. They don't go sprouting off long posts on webpages about what they know and how they are better than everybody else. This statement is an immediate tip off: m a highly trained, very educated member of the worls greatest airforce. I'm a member of the worlds greatest airforce's greatest wing, which fly's the worlds greatest airforce's airframe I've met a lot of intel guys as I do research in defence for academics and partly a bit of work, and yes this is a bit of a generalization, but they never act like this. In many ways they could get in more trouble by saying something like that than actually giving some tidbit about the fighter. I find it highly implausable that they would even claim to know the knowledge and publically broadcast it, saying "I can't tell you." A good comparision was brought up earlier. There was a guy who was an airforce pilot on a board Dave linked to, who discussed the F-15 and the like. I believed that guy because he was very measured, gave pretty precise information and was careful to what he discussed. He is in stark contrast to this guy who after one question went into immediate defensive mode claiming he was a AF guy. Secondly, they don't go around saying what they are studying is shxt or that the US will rule the skies ect. Most of them are long time professionals, who have studied their opponents and their field meticulously. Many have Masters or PhDs, from universities like Georgetown or John Hopkins ect, and don't go making grandiose claims that their fighter will rule the skies completely or is better than any other fighter on online forums. Rather they speak in terms of probabilities and the like, and have a measured tone. Really I'd take this guy with a grain of salt. Edited June 6, 2005 by Noyhauser
David Hingtgen Posted June 6, 2005 Posted June 6, 2005 Which is why I go to the boards I do. We've even got an F-22 pilot there.
Skull Leader Posted June 6, 2005 Posted June 6, 2005 (edited) 2 of them, don't we? Or is one still riding F-15s? Edited June 6, 2005 by Skull Leader
David Hingtgen Posted June 7, 2005 Posted June 7, 2005 (edited) Aircraftresourcecenter.com is THE place for planes. It is at its core a site dedicated to building model airplane kits, but the boards are as good as you'll find. I learn more from knowledgable kit reviews than magazines... Aircraft Resource Center (ARC): http://s96920072.onlinehome.us/ (recent domain change) ARC Forums: http://www.arcforums.com/forums/index.php Edited June 7, 2005 by David Hingtgen
Skull Leader Posted June 7, 2005 Posted June 7, 2005 I think he's referring to aircraftresourcecenter.com. He, myself, and a couple of other MW members are also members there. It's a site dedicated to aircraft model builders.
VF-19 Posted June 7, 2005 Posted June 7, 2005 You haven't? Build their 1/48 F-15E kit... all will be forgiven I'm building their F-4J kit right now (trying to decide if I wanna do it in VF-84 or VF-114 markings...) Hmm... I'd rather not forgive Monogram at the moment. Besides, a 1:48th F-15 E would be rather... big. However, Revell of Germany, I have had nothing but good experiences with them,with exception of the really cheap instruction manual. Works but needs improvement.
David Hingtgen Posted June 10, 2005 Posted June 10, 2005 Pukin Dogs got their CAG Super Hornet. Paint scheme works much better than I expected, even with the tailcodes "shoved in" off the rudders. http://www.alert5.com/gallery/VFA-143Punki...NavalAirStation Yes, this is an E model, 143 is one of the very few F-14 squadrons to get E's. Finally---those are the darkest dark blue markings ever. (But the Pukin Dog itself is black)
Skull Leader Posted June 10, 2005 Posted June 10, 2005 I wonder when they'll be declared boat-safe? They've been there since march. I bet they get cleared for action just in time to go out in the fall.
Nied Posted June 10, 2005 Posted June 10, 2005 I just can not understand why squadrons keep running the vagabond stripe right behind the roundel. It just looks wrong going through the LERX, it looks wrong on the Jolly Rodgers and it looks wrong on the Pukin Dogs, the Bounty Hunters and the Diamondbacks got that, why can't they?
Recommended Posts