-Neu-

Hasegawa is probably the closest to reality with its ram based on what I've seen up close on the aircraft - using decals is probably the right solution, or you can mask them on. Frankly I actually think the Hasegawa kit is the most realistic one in 1/72 all things considered - Tamiya has more "bells and whistles" but a lot of them aren't that commonly seen on the aircraft and their implementation of the aircraft as a fair few issues too with some inaccurately sized/shape details. I feel like its too much in the vein of the Italeri kits, its like a much more detailed version of that kit, but has a few of the same flaws. Hasegawa has the shapes right, it has the most representative surface detail of all the kits and feels right. The only real strike with the hasegawa kit is the lack of a bomb bay, but I can live with that weighing everything else.

C-75 (SA-2 Guideline) Soviet Union PVO ~early 1960s Gran, 1/72

Well, finished it up. I threw duraluminum onto the missile, which was darker than I'd like, and painted a few details. Then flat coated the launcher, which I didn't shake the alclad well enough, so its closer to its semi-flat. ah well. Then I attached the missile and voila - a SA-2 So... not my best model by any stretch of the imagination, but its done and gets it out of my stash. Kinda happy I did this actually. The kit itself was alright, another day of prep on the missile would have made it that much better, but its all good. Thanks to Enzo for hosting this, back onto my regularly scheduled GBs tomorrow.

I know its late (and obviously won't make it in time) but I have a bunch of hasegawa canopies - I replaced them for a build with Rob Taurus' vacuformed ones to display the aircraft open. You're free to have one if you're still looking.

fantastic - the clean look is perfect for it.

Hey Y'all Nice to see others builds' progress. Took a quick break during lunch and thought I'd address some of the issues with the missile. To save on time I used Gunze' Mr Surfacer 2000 black rattle can, and did a quick coat. It doesn't come out too glossy, but in this case is fine because I plan to use dull aluminum alclad for the missile and the semi-gloss undercoat works well. I sanded down the places where I the previous sanding was too rough and showed through the primer coat. Then just hit it with the gunze. And thats that for now. It now needs the alclad for the missile, and a flat coat for the launcher, final assembly. I don't think I'll make it under the 24h timeframe - I wouldn't get to start until 7pm tonight - but I'll have it done at like 30h, so NBD either way.

It is! I don't think its the first "effective" SAM - Nike, or Hawk may have word about that, but thats neither here nor there - but it certainly had an massive impact on air warfare. It basically changed everything. Prior to Dvinia, high altitude was seen as the safe domain as just had to avoid fighters So there became an arms race of sorts for faster and higher flying bombers and aircraft. The shootdown of Francis Gary Powers's U-2 in May 1960 dispelled the safety of high altitude, followed by Anderson's death two years later. Then there was the vietnam - where over a 1000 American aircraft were shot down. It pushed many aircraft to go lower, which was an error - AAA was actually more lethal than the SA-2 and accounted for even more kills. It wasn't until the late 1970s and the development of the rollback strategy that the scourge of surface to air missiles was finally effectively dealt with. Sooo, continuing on, I could have possibly finished tonight if I pushed it, but I'm started to get bagged and I should wait for the black undercoat on the SA-2 to cure fully. Here's the launcher on the tree - I added some greebles, like hand rails to give it some more detail. , After its done - I picked the simplest, boring scheme - I think a 1960s Soviet one. Got her all assembled, there's an ugly seam line down the centre, but I can get it in the morning. I gave it a bit of weathering using the walkaround photos and tamiya panel liner to give it a bit of weathering. and this is after. It didn't go great, which might be my fatigue, so I'll try again tomorrow. That's that for tonight. We'll see- I might get this done in 24h

*A new Challenger appears* (image courtesy of the wakaround forum) Last night I was considering doing something for the GB (its not a bank holiday here but its the one relatively quiet weekend for me). I couldn't find anything that I could do relatively easily - lots of 1/72 hasegawa planes, but I discounted anything with a camo. so I worked on some of my existing stuff. But going through my stash looking for some parts I found the C-75, and I got inspired. Looking at the parts breakdown - its a pretty straightforward build. I was worried about flash and misalignment on the cylinder but it looks workable Biggest issue will be to get the glue to harden quick enough so I can prime it. I'll have to use CA instead of regular putty for gap filler, but that's alright. Originally I was unsure whether I'd use the 2x 12h or the 24h format, but I've realized that the former is realistic given the time I'm writing this. On that note - this is the start time So, took it out of the wrap and its not as bad as I feared - its definitely short run, but the plastic has that non-oily flat sorta feel to it that makes it easier to work with. Its sorta like evergreen polystyrene, which I is good. Using lots of glue to give the seams overflow that are easier to remove and prevent gaps from flowing. I've also got an old bottle of CA that doesn't have much adhesive qualities but works just fine as quick gap filler. The missile is a bit of work. I also realized that the raised panel lines are indeed accurate based on the walkaround photos in the forum - I actually scribed them, then readded them During the Vietnam War US pilots described them as flying telephone poles - now I understand why they said that. Alright, next I'm going to do the preliminary painting, and assembly. Wish me luck.

I built this kit a few years ago and gained a new appreciation of its design. From the top and the bottom its has some very nice lines. Some of it is super impractical - the bomb bay would have been hell to reload. I spoke to some people on their project, and I think they knew that they could only win if LM failed, which it did not. That being said, the X-35 was by no means a safe design - the liftfan + 3 bearing swivel joint was an high risk/high reward approach - which paid off in the end. The X-32 was a very safe design, basically using an updated version of the Harrier's concept buried within a larger, low observable airframe.

There's been a bit of a retrenchment worldwide of hasegawa products. I think their change of focus towards sci-fi, figures and vehicles has made importers less interested in their products. Online sales have also made it less attractive to bring their products in for bricks and mortar stores, as people can just get it cheaper online so the kits tend to sit on the shelves for longer. The F-4B is a white box, so its extremely common - I'm actually somewhat surprised that they announced it on twitter. You can go into most major Japanese hobby store and generally find it on the shelves. The F-22 I suspect hasn't been repopped for two reasons. First its not *that* hard to find in some Japanese stores - older ones or second hand ones. It does make me wonder about its potential sales. Also I seem to recall it does have some accuracy issues around the rear fuselage - its nowhere near as bad as the F-15E (which I bought one purely for the novelty value a few years ago of having a ghost kit), but I do wonder if that plays into their calculation.

No, both of them are unique in what they include. Actually I was going to talk about various aspects of AF-02, the Flight Sciences program, and other facts in detail for future posts to give them a bit more colour. The misalignment stems from either the miliput, or me misinstalling the intakes... not sure. I don't recall having the same issue on the B version. I'm leaning towards the former - joining the two halves on the rear end was a bit of a PITA, as it didn't fit like when I did the test fit, so my guess is forcing it together with clamps pushed everything else slightly out of alignment. no matter. I was going to do a post on chines as I get these ones sharp again. Stands are my preferred way to do aircraft. They give them motion and framing in a way that just having it gears down doesn't. AF-02 was the F-35 that was used in the infamous "dogfight" with an F-16 that lots of the press used to claim the fighter was no good. That makes me want to mount it as if the aircraft is undertaking a 9G turn.

I'm a bit late to the party, but I do have a few 1946 aircraft I want to build, starting with a Ryan Dark Shark. Got a bit of room?

Sorry for the late post, shouldn't be that long an interval in the future. (from F-16.net) AF-02 is likely the most heavily used F-35 ever built, and arguably the most important airframe in the entire program. She was instrumental in testing and opening up key parts of the F-35A's flight envelope, and remains operational today (though probably should be replaced by a new aircraft.) Originally delivered in May 2010, to the integrated test force, it was assigned to the Flight Sciences program (the other being Mission systems) that was focused on expanding the envelope of the aircraft. AF-02 hit a lot of "firsts" milestones for the airframe - the first to hit 1000 hours, +9G, -3G, ect. Its work was critical for getting the F-35As into IOC in the next five years. When Hasegawa released the boxing, I immediately snapped it up. I used the AF-01 (known as Show horse) scheme on an Italeri F-35A - mostly just to get it out of my incomplete bin: I don't love the kit and I sorta rushed it at the end. I've built the F-35B boxing from the Hasegawa - I selected BF-85, which had a splash of colour on its tail. I'm a bit out of practice for taking photos for a GB, and this is a pretty easy kit, so don't expect too many updates and posts: I'm hoping to have this one done in a few weeks. I had started the pilots a few years ago, but somehow I managed to put the arms on one of each, and I seemed to have misplaced the fret with a remaining set of arms. I just took one off and made a single complete pilot. I intend to build this one in flight so I milliputed the inside and drilled a hole for the stand. This is what it will look like on a stand I have half a mind to make it look a bit more dynamic, like at high alpha or maybe pulling a hard turn to give the feeling of a challenging mission profile for the test aircraft Assembled the two sides - needed a few clips to make sure its snig. and there wa a slight misassembly - I'll have to sand it out. A few other gaps as well, which will take some work. Still a few gaps and a bit of tamiya thin got over the mode, but hopefully I'll be able to clear them up next time. Thanks for watching.

I'll be building AF-2 in all her glory from the start - I have another Hasegawa A model in the stash, we'll see if I get to it: I'll make it the 388th FS, the first F-35 squadron. I have some swag to go with the display. I'll probably do my usual approach with paints, black primer, a very light coat of Alclad, then the appropriate greys on the frame. Up close I don't find the metallic hue noticeable at all - a friend of mine who spent a lot of time up close to one says its more the diffuse reflection that gives it the metallic tint - he compares it to a dolphin skin. AF-02 does have a bit of weathering, I'll try to replicate that as best as I can.

Yes, though they are getting long in the tooth and probably need replacement. CF-3 has had a particularly rough life during cat testing, but AF-2 has gone through a lot of hard flight hours.

Well, I don't really post that much on BM anymore, but some people may know I have some links with the program. So if I can remember this GB exists at the appointed time, I'll join with a Hasegawa 1/72 F-35A Prototype boxing - I've already used its decal set to build AF-01, but I really want to build AF-02 - the "Work Horse", which was a pretty critical airframe for the entire project. If I can get the Italeri -C kit soon enough I might build CF-03 - another critical test bird for the program. Here's oneof the BFs I build that was part of first deployment of several aircraft for Amphib testing on the USS America

It clears a lot of procedural issues that will likely decrease the cost of the aircraft per unit - the biggest one is opening up the Multi-year buy pathway that may drop it from 2 to 15%.

Honestly? there aren't many. Running a 50 year old plane is tough for so many reasons - they've either been superseded in doctrine or technology (or both). For the former, stuff like the F-111 was designed with the 1960s nuclear battlefield in mind, where very low level penetration was the only way to survive an ingress with a new generation of Soviet SAMs - you're paying a lot of money for a capability (low level supersonic dash) that is no longer valuable. Furthermore platforms from that era (1960) is just so far behind the cutting edge of technology - they're economically prohibitive and much less capable than modern platforms. Think about civil airliners - I suspect that the per seat cost for an passenger for a flight by a 737-200 vs a MAX is conservatively 50% less, if not significantly more. The only one in my mind that does not fit this criteria is the S-3 - the need for a carrier-capable long range ASW aircraft (that can double up doing tanker gas), would still be valuable today.

If I remember correctly the A model was the most accurate of all of the ones Fujimi made - just the panels/features and the like most fit an A-model, then it went down in accuracy from there for each version (A+/B, D). They make into nice kits however - they had a lot of bells and whistles as someone noted above - a full engine with display trolly, pilots, a landing gear at full compression and at normal, droppable flaps. Obviously FM and then Hasegawa made superior kits for details, but Fujimi sorta hit the sweet spot in terms of accuracy, details, and fun. (sorry for the old photos, I don't have the kit here with me..) - This is the Hasegawa kit by comparison: They're all fun kits, but if you aren't looking for the most hyper accurate/detailed version, I'd actually go with fujimil, especially if you can find someone trying to offload it at a discount.

Ejecting cuts the engine fuel (apparently).

So to start, while I haven't seen the report in question, I can kinda guess the tack they're taking on their reporting by the facts you're presenting here. These sorts of reports are somewhat common in countries that just acquired the F-35 are trying to make a story out of something they don't fully grasp. That's not meant to be dismissive of the F-35's issues, but I sorta doubt the journalists who put together this piece have been watching the F-35's development for the past three decades and understand the context of what they're saying. We had the same thing happen in Canada years ago, and it was one of the factors behind the acquisition being cancelled in 2010 and 2014. The F-35 does have technical issues, but like someone posted above, most of them are fairly minor, and these are common among all major fighter programs. The numbers they cite are from the spring 2021 GAO report - the total number is around 800 now, but just under 200 are actually capability enhancements - ie the system works as required but the services want something changed to improve its function. The six "serious" ones (known as Category 1), were never ones that should "Ground" the fleet, which would make them Category 1A - they were all category 1B, and all but one I believe are resolved or close to it. A bunch of them related to gun vibration issues on the A, an overpressure situation during some maneuvers, and the lightning strike issue. The acquisition cost of the aircraft is basically in line with what was predicted when the aircraft entered its development phase - about $85M USD a copy - Germany is not a partner nation of the JSF program, so it has to pay for whats known as the Foreign military Sales fees (and non-recurring research fees) - so that increases the aircraft cost - I believe the non-recurring flyaway+FMS for the Luftwaffe is around 100M USD. At that cost its around what a Eurofighter costs. The F-35 is more costly to operate than was expected - perhaps 20% more than what was predicted in 2010. That's been a major area that the US government has tried to improve, and its been falling. ITs still less costly to operate than the Eurofighter, and is much more capable - you need fewer aircraft to do the same job. That's sorta been the trend since the first world war - fewer aircraft that cost more but can do the same job more effectively.

I've been ordering as much stuff through Ukrainian stores as possible, including Reskit stuff (UM, ACE, ect). Every little bit helps.

Yes, but if there's excessive maintenence requirements, or parts don't arrive on time (A perennial issue for the RAAF with European procurements), the cost goes up because people aren't flying, and they're sitting around doing nothing, while other platforms have to take up the gap. The 295 is not even close to comparable aircraft, they are significantly slower, have much less range and carrying capacity. Passable for light work, but totally inadequate for the roles that the RAAF will use them for. Exhibit A is the disaster that is the RCAF's Fixed Wing SAR program: there's a very high likelihood that he entire $2B CAD purchase will be scrapped because the C-295 is totally insufficient for the AF's needs, and its forced to used C-130Hs to fill the gap. Its a glorified ATR, not a tactical lifter.

There isn't a program of record at the moment for an aircraft to replace the C-130J and the J model is a modern aircraft as any other: they'll be operating it for 20~30 years with no problems or regrets. It also fits their force structure better, with eight C-17s and a dozen J models basically sharing the strategic and tactical workloads. Also the RAAF has zero confidence in European programs after the Tiger and Attack debacles, so the Atlas isn't really in the cards at all.

Intercept speed doesn't really matter that much - there's usually enough forewarning to get aircraft ready to go. The RCAF's squadrons are deployed well south, but have to transit several hours to a northern FOL and stage out of there if they do an intercept. Its really range and endurance that matters in these intercepts, so having tankers is a must.