Welcome to Britmodeller.com

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

  • Announcements

    • Mike

      PhotoBucket are no longer permitting 3rd party hosting   01/07/17

      As most of you are now painfully aware, Photobucket (PB) are stopping/have stopped allowing their members to link their accumulated years of photos into forums and the like, which they call 3rd party linking.  You can give them a non-refundable $399 a year to allow links, but I doubt that many will be rushing to take them up on that offer.  If you've previously paid them for the Pro account, it looks like you've got until your renewal to find another place to host your files, but you too will be subject to this ban unless you fork over a lot of cash.   PB seem to be making a concerted move to another type of customer, having been the butt of much displeasure over the years of a constantly worsening user interface, sloth and advertising pop-ups, with the result that they clearly don't give a hoot about the free members anymore.  If you don't have web space included in your internet package, you need to start looking for another photo host, but choose carefully, as some may follow suit and ditch their "free" members at some point.  The lesson there is keep local backups on your hard drive of everything you upload, so you can walk away if the same thing happens.   There's a thread on the subject here, so please use that to curse them, look for solutions or generall grouse about their mental capacity.   Not a nice situation for the forum users that hosted all their photos there, and there will now be a host of useless threads that relied heavily on photos from PB, but as there's not much we can do other than petition for a more equitable solution, I suggest we make the best of what we have and move on.  One thing is for certain.  It won't win them any friends, but they may not care at this point.    Mike.

GMK

Gold Member
  • Content count

    396
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

179 Excellent

1 Follower

About GMK

  • Rank
    Established Member
  • Birthday

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,342 profile views
  1. Seems like the builder's trials have served their purpose, then. Hopefully, a reasonably simple remediation. No doubt this will be viewed as a setback by the anti-carrier crowd and fashioned into a crude weapon to beat UK carrier aviation over the head with.
  2. Maybe tie the Jag acquisition to the Rafale negotiation debacle?
  3. In Australian service, the driver's hatch is generally open when being ground guided. Something about the driver's hatch, when opening, having an interlock that prevents the turret traversing. The liader's hatch, on the other hand.....
  4. From what I can recall, aren't the boneyard F-16s being consumed as full-scale targets (QF-16), replacing the almost-expended QF-4? I wonder whether the A-4 under contract will stop flying now? Considering the USAF/USN kills of Iraqi Mirage F1, maybe this could be considered a nostalgia/recapturing the magic trip! 😂
  5. https://videos.lesechos.fr/lesechos/sujet-actus/la-france-vend-63-mirages-doccasion-aux-etats-unis/ruz8uv' 63 ex-French Air Force Mirage F1?
  6. A bit disappointed, tbh. The Flyhawk 1/72 offering looks more detailed, especially around the exhaust, crew hatches, & tracks. The layout of the kit doesn't suggest other (non-A2) variants, nor does the hull support SEP variants. The boxtop is 100% accurate - this is a plain vanilla M1A2 - it's just that this is one of the least-produced variants of this vehicle.
  7. From the looks of it, there's an OOB US Navy variant: https://www.perthmilitarymodelling.com/newkitnews/tigermodel.html As I'm led to understand it, the boats operate in support of SEALS, but not by SEALS.
  8. I saw these pre-delivery: suffice it to say that they're closer in configuration to the Dutch (RNLA) configuration Bushmasters, both inside (gunner seat on the driver's side, aft of him), & out (appliqué armour). The RWS I saw was a variant of the Protector RWS (close to the M151, albeit with British smoke dischargers), with the 40mm GMG fitted. Colour was UK Stone (except the inside of the bins were in Australian tan). I have omitted mentioning any of the "special" stuff.
  9. The prototype JLTV contenders were available in right hand drive variants when Australia was part of the program - wonder if that'll get dusted off?
  10. The first line of the article provides the clue: "France and Germany agreed to study building together a new fighter jet..." I'm certain the study will occur 😊
  11. Wonder whether it'll come with a RWS option? It's going to be huge!
  12. Or 1/48 C-17?
  13. Glad I didn't grab the Gasoline resin kit!
  14. Maybe one squadron number plate per jet?
  15. Hasn't the RN settled on rolling landings for the F-35B as the primary means of recovery? That would make recoveries far more efficient than what was previously possible. Also, aren't those spots are sized to support six Chinooks, simultaneously?