gary1701

Thanks everybody. Little update. Army Air 444 recovering to Wattisham earlier this evening. After speaking to another one of the locals who has the inside track on what happens at Wattisham, this appears to be the very first flight by 4 Regiment on the new AH-64E. Looks like the end of the WAH-64D is drawing ever closer! Gary

Gents, I posted some shots up last year of the early operations of the AH-64E in UK service. I didn't get much of a chance later in the year to follow up but after a very slow start this year, in the last couple of weeks there's been a few opportunities. These are all at Wattisham in 2023, most in the last week or so . Finally, the first of the old WAH-64s that I've seen this year. Unfortunately, the grass had been cut! Hope they're of interest. Gary

Gents, I think the general opinion that I've seen is that this is just the usual political tactic of repeating already planned changes. I suppose it depends on your interpretation of the what was said but it could easily mean a temporary rotation of existing F-35 units whilst the 493rd and 495th spin up at Lakenheath. There is no way Lakenheath can handle 2 more fast jet squadrons on top of the 2 remaining F-15 units and 2 already planned F-35 sqns once they're up to full strength unless a large number of the existing residents are deployed away already. The USAF infrastructure at Lakenheath sometimes struggled with just the three F-15 units at times - ATC certainly did although Lakenheath/Mildenhall ATC has always had a terrible reputation, even amongst the USAF itself. Also, the USAF doesn't exactly have a large number of F-35A outfits already operational. At the moment it's the three squadron wing at Hill AFB and the two sqns at Eielson in Alaska, as well as the Vermont ANG who are currently providing the detachment in Eastern Europe. I've seen Woodbridge mentioned a few times here - don't forget it's now also a army barracks for a engineering unit. The airfield hasn't been kept in any decent condition although the Wattisham Apaches and sometimes the Mildenhall Ospreys use the open space for training. It was loaned to Hollywood for a Il-76 to fly from a few years ago on one of the Jurassic Park films, although on screen it had mountains CGI'd into the background so you'd never know it was Suffolk! Gary

Hi again gents, Few more from a couple of evenings last week. I got one of the Echos at a better angle with the sun and they're still flying a few of the AH1s. Still seems rather slow with only a couple flying each day. Another three turned up at Mildenhall in a C-5 during the week and some more are due soon apparently, which considering there has only been one delivery in 2022 so far suggests they're probably got a few at Mesa to bring over. Already getting the oil stains! AH1s still flying. Gary

Hi gents, I just had a close look at the forward fuselage on that four ship of F-15Cs coming off towards the camera on climb out. Three of the four are lacking codes and crew names but using the original images I can see the star and bar behind the intakes on all four ships, it's just very faint with little contrast. Gary

Gents, Hope I'm not going into Lakenheath overload on the forum, but for a while I'd had some log in issues with the forum and only got around to sorting them out yesterday. Like many people, I haven't been able to get out much with the camera in recent times so there hasn't been a lot to add. Partly to get some of the 493rd prior to disbandment, and also to get some early shot of the new F-35s, not that I'm a massive fan of the type, but if it's the future locally, then I'll photograph it. These are a combination of a single Friday in February, and two days in March. Unfortunately, 86-0172, the marked jet, was broken during that time so never flew. Gary

Hi gents, I've had similar when on Lakenheath base visits in the past. You can normally photograph the one aircraft that has been allocated to the visiting group, which has usually been sanitized and I do remember on one visit not being allowed to shoot directly up the exhaust cans. That is normally it, no pics of any other aircraft are allowed, and when that has been flouted a tour group will be thrown off the base. It doesn't really make any sense, given that if you're outside the fence anything is fair game, but as a guest, those are the rules. It's the same at Mildenhall, you can photograph the one KC-135 that you've been allocated, and that's it, even if there's one on a neighbouring stand, it's out of bounds. On base visits are interesting and informative, but the photography is generally better from the fence! Gary

Thanks guys and hi Mark. external differences that I know of are the 'egg whisk' antenna as noted above, another large bladed aerial on the upper fuselage, in between the engine nacelles that seems to match the one carried over from the AH1 at the same position on the underside and different HIDAS aerials and placements. Not visible on my images is a large raised panel on the right hand side of the EFAB that is behind the stub pylons. Marking changes include, the two vertical black lines on the engine nacelles and the serial on the fin is in a slightly larger font - which will make quite a few people happy. Most importantly, these ones are actually clean, for now! No towel rail HF aerial on the rear right hand side fuselage and no upward turned engine exhausts, don't know why the later as US and other operators have had that for years. Others also reckon they sound slightly different, less 'growly' but can't say I've noticed that, maybe I'm just deaf! On the tracking sites they do now appear to be showing with the ZM serials, although not necessarily the correct ones! That said, on Thursday ZM712/714 were showing correctly. The remaining old AH1's rarely show the correct aircraft serial nowadays. Photographing Apaches is a bit of a art. I never do it unless the suns out and I can get it behind me, which means early evenings up at Wattisham during April to August, pointless most other times! Gary

Gents, Thought these that I shot on a quick hour or so trip up to the fence at Wattisham on Thursday evening would be of interest. Decent pics of the new AH-64E's have been extremely rare, but I managed to get a couple of them within a hour of my first visit for 2022. Okay, I cheated a bit as the Echo flights have been mostly around the early evening for the last couple of weeks and it's only now that it's worth going up for some photography, given the geography of Wattisham. It's taken them a long time to get these working and I'm still not sure why the delays. The first pair arrived at Wattisham in December 2020, although test flying had already been conducted in the US, but it took a full year before any flew in the UK, with the first UK flight in December, with a dozen or so delivered by then and currently sixteen from fifty delivered to the UK but only 6/7 have flown so far over here. My contacts on the base tell me that they're gone really OTT on the paranoia about security and access to the Echo model, and much of the AAC seem to think that outside the US, they're the only one's who have got the Echo model, which suggests they need to get out a bit! So although I normally don't get any problems when on the Wattisham fence with camera and radio I thought that I might be having some grief from now on, but security just waved as they went past on Thursday, even with a couple of Echo's spinning up so hopefully a good summer ahead! Anyway, here's 'Ugly 1/2' ZM712/714 climbing out on a local sortie Thursday evening. Note the rocket pods don't have the rounded caps. I don't know if we're ditching the CRV-7 from the AH1 and going with the US 2.75 rocket as these are meant to be standard US spec Echo models, or just they haven't bothered to put the caps on yet! ...and one of a ever shrinking number of AH1's still operating. Gary

Hi, Look forward to seeing it if you do have luck. It takes a lot of patience though. I made my first trip up to Coningsby from Suffolk with a digital camera in July 2006, yet I didn't get my first sunset shot until November 2013. In all that time I knew what I was looking for it was just I never had the right opportunity and combination of factors to get anything in that style. So it may be a long wait! Each airfield has it's own geography so some are easier than others. Coningsby is generally okay with the sun setting roughly in line with the runway around November and March time. Gary

Hi Gents, Sorry a bit late coming back. The equipment used on the recent Lakenheath shots a few weeks ago were a Canon Eos 7D Mk II and a Canon 100-400L IS zoom lens, that's the older Mk I lens, not the new Mk II version. That lens is now 14 years old having been bought back in 2006. The Coningsby Typhoon shots were taken in 2016 for the first with the runway and the second silhouette was in 2013. Same lens but with the older Mk I Canon Eos 7D. Both were shot on manual mode as detailed above. Obviously you've got to recognize the opportunity for the shot and position yourself accordingly. The actual camera set up is relativity straight forward. You need some time to set the exposure up, and you set a manual exposure (aperture/shutter speed/ISO) using the sun as a guide, forgetting the aircraft as you know that's going to be a silhouette. Take test shots, looking at the back of the camera and adjust the above settings until you have the light level and exposure that looks right with the sun in the viewfinder. The images will be completely black without the sun in the viewfinder and will only work when you pan with the subject as it passes through or near the sun. You have to predict your positioning very carefully in advance and hope that you've got it right as the sun moves quickly at dusk when you're zoomed in. The runway and Typhoon overshoot was set at aperture F8, shutter 1/800 and ISO 125 and was shot at 115mm on the 100-400 lens. The close silhouette was F11, 1/8000 and ISO 100 and was shot at 200mm. Note how fast the shutter speed was. As it was zoomed in I needed to reduce the light in the exposure as much as possible when the Typhoon passed through the sun. Here's a couple more. This time Mildenhall looking North to South back in November 2006. Same kind of approach to the shot and even using the same lens but shot on a old Eos 350D Also Mildenhall but in May 2011 and from the open ground down by the landing lights at the 29 end. The eagle eyed will see this actually a AC-130U, not a Mildenhall resident. This shot was requested by the 4th SOS crew on this aircraft when they saw it online. Mildenhall MC-130 inbound on runway 11. Bit more recent, and January 2019, again at the 11 end as a three ship of SOG MC-130s conducted short interval landings and departures. A misty evening at Coningsby in March 2014 allowed this shot at dusk in a dusty sky. Wattisham Apache sitting at Woodbridge during 3 Regiments first Apache exercise in 2007. The usual combination then of Eos 350D and my long serving 100-400L. Another of the Coningsby overshoots. That's a few from the collection. It's not something I specifically go and get, but I'm always aware of the opportunities for some dusk photography when out and about. Most of it is seeing it in advance, getting too the right spot in time rather than any real creative efforts with the camera. Gary

Thank you for the kind words. Going fully manual has come about because of seeing such variable results when shooting in the semi-auto modes. I always tended to shoot my airborne aviation images in shutter priority as I was mostly happy for the camera to set the aperture, but I wanted control over the shutter. I've never trusted myself to get sharp pictures with a slow shutter speed, unless shooting helicopters or props where the option is kind of taken away from you if you want some prop or rotor blur. So I used to shoot shutter priority but increasingly found that the aperture settings that the cameras were metering was all over the place, resulting in bright and over exposed to dark and under exposed from one frame to the next. The metering on the modern DSLRs seems to be so sensitive if I catch some glare or even a dark or bright patch where the camera is metering it throws the whole exposure off. I can track a F-15 at Lakenheath for example and find that a couple of frames will be fine, then the exposure is way off, adjusts back to normal and then throws itself off again. Some of it depends on the background and if the sky is variable as well. You can be sure that the sharp ones are the ones where the exposure is wrong as well! The solution was too find a exposure by taking test shots and then dialing in a manual exposure that was appropriate for the conditions. That way I know that the exposure will stay the same as I pan through the sky and aircraft. Off course, you have to take great care in setting that up as if you get it wrong then you've messed up the whole sequence. As I'm only using the rear screen and my eye I am constantly taking test shots and adjusting appropriately. Those shots above were all taken at aperture F6.3 with the shutter starting at 1/1000 and going down to 1/800 as the light level lowered. ISO started at 200 but also went out too 320 as time went. By doing that I am keeping the images more sensitive too light as the levels go down in the evening. The other advantage to shooting manual and setting a shot up yourself is that this kind of shot cannot be done on a auto or semi-auto exposure. Gary

Thank you. Those F-16 airframes are block 40s and are 88/89 builds. When the AFRES unit at Homestead came over last year they brought even older block 30s! Gary

All, I know there's already been a few posts from the 31st FW deployment to Lakenheath but here's my efforts from one early evening a week or so ago. This was during the 'late' surge so most of the 48th sorties and all the F-16s were launching late afternoon with the arrivals being after the sun has moved around to the North. This made shooting viable from the Northside as opposed to the normal practice of photographing from the South. I noticded the comments on the other threads concerning exposures and settings. My own pattern in recent years is to set up my own exposure and settings to purely manual as I find that any form of auto or even semi-auto settings result in the cameras own exposures varying widely. All these shots were taken in one hour but because the light level was constantly changing as the sun moved lower late in the day, I was always checking and changing the settings. First pair had left with what looked like GBU-12s loaded and the lead ship brought one back. The No 2 was the only airframe on the deployment that was in the dark 'Have Glass' scheme. Now that is a swine to photograph. First time I've seen 493rd FS jets carrying SNIPER pods on the centreline. Single D model was cycling quickly, no doubt flying incentive rides. Hope I haven't gone over the top. Gary

Thanks gents, thinking about it a bit more the Puma shots may be slightly darker than they should have been. They were the first pics I took when I got there and I was still quickly trying to reconfigure the camera from Comet photography (see my Comet Neowise pics!) to aviation and didn't get it completely set up in time. The aperture setting is a lot higher than it should have been and the higher the F number the darker the picture. I've pulled it back as much in processing as I dare without making the images look false but given the time they probably would have looked better. Gary