LopEaredGaloot

It's rude to drink alone in good company. Pour me some of that. The important thing to note here is that the aircraft is wearing the older white over grey scheme and has the upper deck gondola but not the ventral canoe or hemispherical bulge (things tend to pixellate when scaled up so I'm willing to cut them some slack here). Yet it also has a full length MAD boom. i.e. It's not an EP-3E and most likely isn't USN. Over the SCS, the question will be range performance away from an AB. Not only for the J-10 but for the ferret and any escorts. Over the Yellow Sea, the question would be catching the beast before counter intercept. If it was a JASDF Orion (they still retain the older scheme AFAIK) it wouldn't be in an area where the Chinese could legitimately swat it. If it were a USN Orion (all of which are now ghost grey) it wouldn't be allowed to bait the dragon from Japanese bases unless the situation were very dire indeed. One potential justification being an emergency containment effort to halt deployment of PLAN boomers and attack boats in response to a Taiwanese flare up or as part of a COEA around the Korean Peninsula. Of course, last I checked the new Chinese boomer barn is at Yalong Bay, also on Hainan... Under these conditions, you can bloody well bet that the Chinese would have to hurry to catch the Orion before a screening CAP flight started to seriously mess with them. Mind you, the ultimate decision here would be whether the tanks are supersonic rated or not. If the J-10 is doing more than about 500 knots, it's also going to be hard pressed to make that particular conversion geometry work, no matter what it's carrying. A better choice would have been a lookup condition against a P-8 MMA or RQ-4 BAMSE, even an MQ-9C. All of which could flat out-height most fighters which were not using burner. In such a for-grins instance, dropping tanks to gain back wingloading makes some sense because you need a lot of control authority to stay latched with a USN truck driver determined to see how slow he can go before he starts swinging the tail back and forth to deny you formup rights. Imagine trying to pass an 18 wheeler being driven by a drunken chimp on a two lane country blacktop in Eastern Kansas with results similar to 'The Duel' and you're there. LEG

Hey Academy! F-111C kit. 40 bucks. F-111B conversion. 78 bucks. F-111A Inlet Trunking. 40 bucks (Cutting Edge, EBay). F-111B Phoenix Missiles & Pylons. 48 bucks (24X2, mostly for the decals). F-111A Weapons Bay 100 bucks. (HBoss) F-111 Nozzles. 17 bucks. F-111 Gear Well 100 bucks. F-111 Flaps and Slats 80 bucks. FB-111 Tires. 17 bucks. F-111F Cockpit Set. 25 bucks F-111B boattail. 11 bucks. Escapac Seats. 4 bucks. Grand Total: 560 bucks. And that's not even including the production nose which is the one that looks the best because _nobody makes one of those_. No 1/48 kit is worth half a thousand dollars. None. With the Chinese having gone stark raving loony for pricing now that they control 90% of the world's brand-X tooling capabilities, you guys could make a killing by adding perhaps two sprues of noses and dangly bits to make a simple F-111B conversion. I'd even forgive the continuing lack of a weapons bay. The production B is the prettiest of the F-111s and superior to the F-14 Tomcat as a Fleet Defender. The F-111C is only getting this treatment because it's 'done it's last airshow'. LEG P.S. I also don't get these rinky dink 1/144th kits. They look about as much like the real deal as a Hot Wheels car does. And Trumpeter + Pit Road have both covered the F-22 and F-35 anyway. If you want to compete, compete with a decent ONE FORTY EIGHTH F-35 which Hasegawa has ignored. Or at least do the A and C models in 72nd so that Hasegawa can do the B and we can bash whoever's best with the other airframe.

Daktari, Going with Model Master, I would start out with F.S. 36270 and then lighten it with about 20-30% scale white. Though I admit the planview with the Harriers is closer to 36320 to my eye. The big question you have to answer here is whether you are building it as it looks in photos or as the paint chip says it should be. With the exception of Polyscale and a few others, I find that 99.999% of jets look like crap when airbrushed 'as they should be' with color matched modeling paints. Simply because the huge surface area of 1:1 anything reflects such a surplus of light that it raises the spectral values quite a bit. I have had similar problems finishing a grey Kfir. The Compass Ghost colors recommended were absolute rubbish, ended by using Floquil Reefer Grey, Reefer White and SP Lettering Grey I think it was. Best match ever. One hint to go with: start small. Pick something like the radome color which is generally considered a good match to FS36314 Flint Grey. Then, if you like it, contrast match to that. LEG

D2, Shawn Hull http://www.shull24.com/ Good guy. Also does ECM pods, BRU-55/57 and various other bits. Temporarily offline but should be up by the time you're back from your classes. LEG

BK, Hi back. There are four basic options here: Academy MH-60G or K. Italeri MH-60G or K. The first are older but still good kits which tend to fall together a little more easily but with less detail. They are a lot cheaper than the 30+ dollar Italeri over here, dunno about Europe. Both G and K have been used for special operations work at one time or another (the dedicated ARRS now being a thing of history) and both presently have the same basic setup of FLIR and T/A radar though the Gs started out with only a teardrop weather avoidance system. What happened was that the USAF spec'd an HH-60D in the early 80s to act as a replacement medium SAR bird for the aged out HH-3F, only to find that their equipment fit wish list was too expensive and the right engines for it were not available for all the weight it added. So a hi-lo approach was taken with a cheap G being adopted from the basic H-60 while the proper special mission airframe with integrated avionics was delayed for the arrival of the 701C engines. Once available, the Gs were then largely handed off to Guard/Res units for CONUS peacetime work and their primary mission set filled by the dedicated model. As a result, the G does not carry the ESSS pylons very often and is still generally considered a SAR bird. Most of the Ks are best known for their 160th SOAR 'Nightstalkers' association but other units have a few as well. The Gs got all the cool (Euro-1, Tan and Sand, Gunship Grey) camouflage while, until recently, the Ks all came in basic Helo Drab, so dark as to nearly be black. It can now be seen in a variation of Compass Ghost countershade with a Gunship upper fuselage stripe and ghost grey lowers. Both the Academy and the Italeri Ks come with a four pylon ESSS but I think only the Italeri has all four tanks in the kit. We don't fly them that way on penetration missions and don't need to self-deploy. The payload margin gets really marginal with wall to wall gas. The Academy also has the early, small, radome versus the full diameter dome in the Italeri. The Italeri has most of the MAWS/LWR/RWR greeblies on it whereas the Academy really needs help from the Cobra Company upgrade set and gets it via a cut-and-replace nose and some dedicated antennas. http://www.cobracompany.com/48002.htm The G kits are noteworthy for coming with window Miniguns and .50 cals for the doorway, though this is actually inaccurate for most of their missions. The Ks come with M60Ds for the window mounts which are also inaccurate (most are now M134 Minis or M240C IIRR). Flip the two and leave off the deuce and you are closer to correct for a typical specops airframe. None of these are entirely shake and bake kits, helicopter models in general just don't lend themselves to easy builds but in this case, the prepainting and floor trap requires careful fitting to get a correct level and proper fit and the more detail you add to the interior, the more you need to make sure it looks right before you close the fuselage. Both kits will benefit from Chris Miller's* avionics, cockpit panels, seats and tires as the interior of the cabin is really rather bland. The transparencies 'inserts' on the Italeri are particularly difficult to work with because they are undersized. If you want to do a DAP, make sure you also pick up his weapons set. AFAIK, the armed version was a test airframe to see what could be done beyond the range of little bird escorts in the SOAR and the Hawks don't currently fly as gunships, they are too valuable to risk. http://www.cobracompany.com/DAPWPNSlg.gif LEG *Just a satisfied customer

Albe60, It looks like the aft end of the nose gear well has been left open. It could be for differential pressure relief (something to do with the main intake ducts passing so close overhead or perhaps as a function of providing an emergency gas bottle shunt if they have to blow the gear down) but I'm going to go with it being simply an easy way to give maintenance crews access to the NLG well when doing gear checks with the airframe up on jacks. It could be as simple a solution as finding that the airframe flexes at the point during the normal stresses of flight and avoiding a stuck NLG door meant cutting back the panel. Here's another view of roughly the same area on an RAF machine- http://www.fast-air.co.uk/images/080705-RA...splay-Photo.jpg LEG

Mike, Got tired of Great Models telling me it would be here in late February or early March so mine's currently winging it's way across from Blightey. The mailman has started giving me suspicious looks when I meet him every afternoon. That said, does the kit wing come with holes for the inboard pylon? If not, what's the best resource (book or site) which shows the distances from the fuselage to said pylon? And is there a good photo reference for the pylon itself (Orthagonal or nearly so)? Finally, has anyone heard anything more about what the Revell 'accessory set' will have in it? Thanks- LEG

Harvs73, Your buildup sure looks nice. Since it looks like Italeri is taking their own sweet time, other than the AAR probe and the FLIR/TA radar sensor fit, can you make an MH-47E from a CH-47D or HC.1 kit? In particular, I keep reading things like 'more fuel tankage in the sponsons' and am left wondering if this makes them bigger. If so, given the way the fuselage is set up, are we ever likely to see a 48th SOAR aircraft? Thanks- LEG

Gary, 1. Tornado/Typhoon/JSF Brimstone http://www.aviation-news.co.uk/media/gr4-d4.jpg 2. Rafale/Typhoon/Mirage AASM + TER In many ways superior to the U.S. JDAM, this expensive weapon is 'uniquely gallic' with it's double canard configuration throwback to the Magic AAM and it's onboard options for laser/TV/IIR seekers as well as glide wings and rocket boost. As Europe continues it's trend towards a closed shop military market, I expect to see both Luftwaffe and French airframes fully kitted out with this new standard of IAM. Worldwide sales will follow with the debut of the Euro-GPS constellation. http://www.safran-group.com/IMG/png/aasm-3.png http://www.astrosurf.com/astrocdf67/dossie...s%20leurres.jpg http://www.zacharz.com/lebourget/Rafale/003.jpg http://img25.imageshack.us/i/rafalef3.jpg/ 3. Tornado VER-2 X4 and BL.755 or Mk.13/.18 X8 Hard to find an image of this early Tornado loadout but it remains, by far, the coolest looking with X8 weapons all dropped on a parachute from this mini-111 moving at well over 550 knots being just awesome to watch. http://harcirepulo.hu/Tornado/Tornado_cut_GR.1.gif The Germans were also testing at one point a 'vortegelager' (sp.) setup of preloaded weapons frames that were basically rolled under and mated across all three stub pylons on their Tornado's as a single unit to facilitate ultra rapid combat turns. Dunno if there are pics of this in service or not. 4. M117R, Mk.83R, Mk.82/Mk.15, Mk.82/BSU-49, Mk.84/BSU-50 Basically, anything retarded that can be airdropped from a U.S. aircraft from the 60's to the 80s is poorly served because people have this obsession with smart weapons. Before the LGB the Mk.82 was generally designed and reserved for high angle work (hence the improved aerodynamics) where lighter weight meant greater numbers, necessary to overcome ballistic scatter before CCIP capable HUDWACs were routinely available. This meant a lot of other munitions (which could be dropped more accurately and/or parent loaded to improve airframe speed at low level) were used as retarded weapons with the common MAU-91 mechanical retarder kit. Many of these also being the basis of period 'Destructor' naval mines. Such are the weapons you will see on a Vietnam A-6 or F-111. I include the Snakeye itself only because the Hasegawa kit has but six of them. And it would be more normal to see at least 12 and often 20 or so on the heavy attack aircraft especially. Again, NONE of the Mk.83/M117 retarded weapons are available and that's a shame. http://www.hill.af.mil/library/factsheets/...eet.asp?id=5766 http://www.ordnance.org/_borders/gpb.ht12.gif http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/mk84_22.jpg The nice thing here being that the MAU-91 was much simpler in shape, with thicker vanes meaning it didn't need the reinforcing stiffeners and the larger overall munition mass:length ratio did not require the convolutes (of the Mk.15 kit on the Mk.82) to keep the munition from tumbling. i.e. It should be simple to master. The Air Inflateable Retard tails are simply thicker, more cylindrical, tail fin kits for the standard front warhead. There are a grand total of FOUR BSU-49s in the new Tornado while the Mk.84 versions in particular are not available in any scale or accessory range that I know of. 5. JAS-39: X2 400 gallon tanks, X2 Meteor, X2 IRIS-T, IR-OTIS, X4 VER-2 and X8 Mk.83 (or X2 GBU-16) + LITENING. An easy to copy (Revell Typhoon, Kinetic F-16, Skyraider Resins AUF-2, Hasegawa Mk.83) weapons fit option for improving the look of the existing JAS-39A-D, including those used by the Hungarian and South African AFs, both of which employ the jet in a multirole environment. http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/asian-sk...th%20Africa.jpg http://www.airforcetimes.com/xml/news/2008...redflag_800.JPG http://www.gripen.com/NR/rdonlyres/F79A4D1...ed_Flag_454.jpg http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images...pt_Water_lg.jpg http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=259h5k8&s=4 6. AGM-114K/L + M299 The Hellfire as kitted in just about every AH-64 kit is the old A model with the short, tapering, SALH nose. The weapon as used today comes with a dual shaped charge warhead and improved SALH or MMW seeker, resulting in an airframe both thicker and much longer. The quadrail adaptor is also different from that initially deployed. And what's worse, now that the weapon is starting to show up on airframes like the Predator, HH-60H and the AH-1Z, there is no quick and easy source to improve their anemic weapons either. http://kwat.gooside.com/airshow/ja2008/lm_hellfire.jpg http://img.blog.yahoo.co.kr/ybi/1/24/56/sh...?1212154486.jpg http://www.deagel.com/library/M299-missile...8062000162.aspx 7. Tu-95MS Bear H with AS-15 Kent (KH-55) Boy does this ever irritate me. You pay 60 odd bucks for a _1/144th_ scale kit and it doesn't have either the ordnance or even the pylons for the role which makes the airplane what it is as a strategic missile carrier. You pay 120 bucks for the 1/72nd version and it has opening bomb bay but NOTHING IN IT. http://red-stars.org/IMG/jpg/Tu-95MS_inter...007_UK_MoD_.jpg http://www.ausairpower.net/000-Kh-55-bay-1S.jpg http://img510.imageshack.us/i/1012jn8.jpg/ http://www.internetmodeler.com/2006/march/.../amodel_x55.php As the first photo shows, The Big Bad Bear has not gone away from Europe. And the Trumpeter kits need a minimum of a 30 dollar Zvezda Tu-160. And a maximum of FOURTEEN A-Model Kh-55 kits. At ten bucks each. Someone willing to cast some Resin Duplicates of the Zvezda gear to mount on scratchbuilt pylons could help out the common modeler quite a lot. 8. AH-6 Mods. If you cannot afford or house the 1/35th MH-60 and you want a complete SOAR collection, including the MH-47E, then it almost becomes a given that you will build the Academy 1/48th AH-6 'Silent Fox' or whatever it's called now. But this is basically just a TOW Defender based on the old Hasegawa IDF model, not configured as the Little Bird is actually used in places like Somalia. Since the overall size is so small (in 48th, an MD-500 will rest in the palm of your hand, a 1/72nd Italeri sits, well balanced, on two extended fingers), this is an opportunity for someone looking to take some UH-1N miniguns and some AH-1W or A-10 rocket pods as well as a little bit of scratchbuilding and create the gunship. What is harder is the Planked transport version. Particularly if you want 1/48th modern infantry to go with. Obviously, a new FLIR turret would be welcome. As would a new main transparency that didn't include the fuzzy area for mounting the TOW MTS sight. Throw in the antenna farm and you're there! :-] http://www.hobbylinc.com/gr/acy/acy1691.jpg http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images..._Display_lg.jpg http://hsfeatures.com/images/ah6jd_2.jpg 9. Modern DIRCM http://www.airforceworld.com/attacker/gfx/...130_lantirn.jpg http://sistemadearmas.sites.uol.com.br/ca/macx04ac.html The C-130 has them. The C-17 has them. The MH-53 has them. They are turreted lasers using the BAe proprietary 'Nemesis' design to dazzle EO homing MANPADS. Along with a better FLIR and the new Mk.44 30mm guns, such would be a tremendous improvement to the existing AMT AC-130U kits which I understand are about to be rereleased again. 10. N/AW A-10 AAR-42 and WX-50 Under the 'what were they thinking for the second time in a row?' category. The WX-50 was a simplistic weather radar that was modified to include some mapping, terrain avoidance and an X-Band ELS capability. The AAR-42 was an admixture of a cheap Texas Instruments FLIR and a Ferranti LRMTS ala Harrier. The latter allowed the Pave Penny sensor to be removed (the pod stayed) and a gimballed LLLTV pilot navigation sensor to replace it. Without these, the Hobby Boss (and Trumpeter) kits are nothing but an A-10B dual-stick trainer which was proposed as a means to give checkrides and save money on section flights. But never even produced. http://scahms.kitmaker.net/modules.php?op=...8025&page=1 http://photos.kitmaker.net/data/500/thumbs...sion_Pods_1.jpg http://photos.kitmaker.net/data/500/thumbs...sion_Pods_2.jpg For a production aircraft, any modset would also need a single piece windscreen and conventional clamshell canopy as well as tails with only a 10" extension. 11. AGM-158A/B The U.S. equivalent to Storm Shadow and the likeliest replacement for hte AGM-86C on both strategic (i.e. B-52) and tactical (anything down to the F-16) aircraft. It looks a lot different from the existing cruise missiles. http://www.knowfar.org.cn/html/news/upload...61500324687.jpg http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images..._Loading_lg.jpg http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/jassm.htm It looks a lot different from the existing CMs. And is something that is not yet kitted to the extent that it is seen on every F-15E or B-1B model (the likeliest carrier airframes) out there. 12. NSM Naval Strike Missile Originally sea launched, this is the likely replacement for a whole range of light AShM weapons from the Sea Skua to the AS-15TT, Penguin and probably some forms of helicopter Exocet. It is also the sole powered standoff weapon likely to fit into the shrunken F-35 weapons bays. Basically a stealthified (and scaled down) version of the AGM-84H SLAM-ER in configuration. It nonetheless looks super and would be especially nice, quaded up, under a Merlin HMA. http://www.mdc.idv.tw/mdc/navy/euronavy/nsm.jpg http://www.defpro.com/data/gfx/news/74ed4e...8e353c2_big.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...SM_PICT0001.JPG 13. ALQ-131 Deep The modernized, Blk.II pod. Not the Blk.1 in the Hasegawa set. Not the shallow pods in the Verlinden and Trumpeter/HB kits. This is only THE MOST proliferated pod in the USAF and probably the world. Is it such a wonder than nobody offers a simple _all resin_ (no Flightpath PE thanks!) solution? http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/elect...ures/alq131.jpg http://www.vipersinthestorm.com/assets/ima...LQ-131_Podt.JPG http://www.primeportal.net/hangar/bill_spidle3/alq-131v/ ADDENDUM I realize a lot of these come under the heading of 'but that's all U.S. stuff!' but I would ask that you understand: our resin industry is still pretty much in an infancy of rebirth after having lost a lot of the bigger makers like KMC, Cutting Edge and Black Box to various and sundry mergers and personal dilemmas. The bad economy isn't helping and companies like MAW and Two Mikes cannot do it all. I would also like to add to what others have said in that it's a lot easier for us to buy online than to order via phone or check. Hannant's and AMS' have their own issues with in-stock, shipping rate and minimum order sizes however so I would personally like to see you stick with the on-website ordering. LEG

Derek, I recently looked into a Revell Global Challenger with the idea of making a 1/144th Sentinel R1 and found it to be way too small to be adequate, even given the relatively low, (3X$11.98) prices necessary to start hacking the fuselages and reshaping the wings. That's typically what I find to be wrong with the scale, in that I don't build fighters as if they were teacup poodles but if I do an intermediate sized item (a bizjet is usually around 100ft long) I still like to have some sense of size in a price range that is affordable. As a function of this, I think you need to look at companies like Anigrand and see what they are asking for some fairly basic kits and then translate that to pounds to figure out if that is something that you think your market can support. Anigrand has gotten seriously gimmicky in their kits to keep them attractive (smaller scale fighters from the same company/country) yet they have not been able to control their prices and so what used to be acceptable (for the media) at 50-70 bucks is not outrageous at 100. Beyond which: 1. Resin is heavy and often demands white metal to support it. Especially in bigger airframes like the Vulcan. 2. Resin is brittle and subject to breakage if not packaged properly so that pieces cannot bang each other. 3. Resin is notoriously hard to separate as small parts from casting blocks, virtually requiring a Dremel and a sealed environment grinding box and/or respirator mask to make work. 4. Resin is prone to warpage in larger castings and hard to glue if you don't know how to mix, apply and securely tape 5 minute epoxy. 5. Resin tends bubble and often be shortshot while masters wear quickly and lead to faded detail. At the same time, it doesn't take putty or other conventional repairs well, often showing obvious 'patch' areas and thus requires a lot more cleanup. 6. Finally, though it can also capture significant details that injection cannot, resin has a very high failure rate, coming out of the molds and is often expensive on the scrap end of manufacturing. I would imagine, for a serious industrial level casting effort, there are also some environmental stipulations you must meet. These facts immediately take out 70% of the modeling populace who are already less than 1% of the entertainment field. Leaving you with a very small minority that are often the elite and thus able to afford something bigger/better or even roll their own. You have to offer that kind of person something -unique- that they can afford more cheaply than scratch or bash building on their own. And hopefully with enough scale commonality that it looks appropriate sitting next to another item in the same class. Which is where things go pear shaped. Because I would prefer a series of either 'box scale' or a bigger-than-1/144th that had the equivalent of a 1/48th F-14 for display footprint and included sufficient details (weapons loads and high lifts plus AGE and figures on a base and/or a stand plus 'flying effect' props). If you make a 1/144th scale Tu-95 it looks tiny. If you make a Bear that occupies the same spotting area as a 1/48th jet fighter, it greatly improves it's sense of mass as purpose. Yet if you make a 1/72nd, 'common scale', Bear; you have basically got a Monogram B-36 for display area and nobody will build it or buy it. It was a real disappointment to pay nearly 60 dollars (with shipping) for a Trumpeter 1/144th Tu-95MS Bear H only to find that it includes neither a weapons bay nor wing pylons for it's _PRIMARY ROLE_ as a strategic cruise missile carrier platform. Something that it copies it's 1/72nd parent in massively overinflated price for cheap details in. I guess all I can really say at this point is: if you do it, make it good. LEG

Pierre, Very nicely done. Care to share your painting colors? Thanks- LEG

Andy, In terms of paint colors, I am going to break with Matt's advice and tell you to pick up Pollyscale 'Israeli Gray' 505346. It FS specs out at around 36300 and it is a lot darker shade than Light Ghost. Need to be careful in thinning it or it will go chunky-spatter on you through an airbrush but it looks better for contrast, IMO. I also advise a white top coat under the tan and a lot of rubdown time as the plastic is micro pebble-textured and this shows up, badly, under light colors, as a cast iron type effect. Just make sure, if you are doing any preshading, that you don't gum up the fine fastener and panel details. Lucky Model shoots themselves in the foot here as there is a lot of very fine detail that a sludge wash doesn't treat properly. As far as loadouts, I can only recommend the Sufa book- http://www.squadron.com/ItemDetails.asp?item=ID2015 Be sure you get the latest '2009' edition as there are two and the original doesn't include the 2006 border war (the original book on the .30/.40 Baraks is long out of print, I've searched all over Europe and the U.S. for one...). In terms of IDFAF specific ordnance; it should be remembered that Israel is in the armaments _business_ to export weapons for cash. Thus a lot of their stuff doesn't actually make it aboard their own airframes until (if ever) long after it has been sent abroad. Derby and Pyramid for example. That said, you really need to think about two things: weight and mission. The Israeli's have always led the pack in terms of allowable gross weights on their Vipers, ever since the F-16As that went to Osiraq were so heavy that they had to be fueled on the runway because their sidewalls would've split trying to make the taxi turn onto the active. As such, at a time when our early C's were doing 37K, their's were rated to 42. When ours when to 42, they were at 44+. They are now rated to about 50K absolute in the Sufa. Something to keep in mind for the earlier Baraks. While they don't have the CFT weight issue they are also shy about a 1,000lbs of gas for the second seat penalty and so you will be more likely see 600 gallon tanks on them, particularly if they are carrying a datalink pod on the centerline and/or have to go aways north (cough, Syria) to reach their targets. OTOH, while it is not impossible to see a three jug Barak, it is unusual because the residual payload will be small. The Delilah is roughly the same class as the GBU-12 and in the Skunk Works version, represents the EO model, derived from the original lethal SEAD armed decoy. With a range of at least 80nm, it would be used on critical point targets deep in collaterals areas where manned aircraft dare not be seen randomly blowing up civilians. The attack on that Syrian terrorist leader's house on the outskirts of Damascus was likely done with one of these. I would imagine several of the attacks on PLO MRL trucks hiding under houses would also be applicable, simply because a UAV can see the target and the enemy will never see the missile itself coming. The Popeye (what we call AGM-142 Have Nap) is in fact only appropriate for the F-16 in it's 'short' version (available through Isracast, not Paragon or Skunk Works) and with 370 gallon tanks. It has a 750lb class penetrator warhead and would be considered appropriate for heavy targets behind concrete. While also possessed of considerable standoff with a similar EO + D/L seeker group, it is the least commonly seen Israeli PGM but could well have been used on the Al Kibar reactor hall, if only to ensure the core area with the fuel rod containment was cracked beyond economic repair. Spice is the Israeli answer to JDAM with the AASM like option of a terminal seeker kit to further tighten up the final CEP. I'm told it's seeker is auto-recognitive (i.e. no datalink required) and it is available in both 1,000 and 2,000lb classes matched to Mk.83/.84 munitions. With it's gliding wings, it will likely have sufficient range to replace the GBU-15 in it's medium altitude standoff mission of around 25-35nm but only to the extent that you knew _precisely_ where the targets were and were fairly sure your GPS wasn't spoofed. Modern VSHORADs can likely shoot these down and any aircraft which zoom climbed to perch would be vulnerable to area SAMs like the S-300/400 series as well. Having said the above, the Israeli's do appear to have a predilection for using U.S. smart ordnance as opposed to their own, with both GBU-31, 38 and 39 IAMs now being in operational inventory as well as Paveway II and indigenous Lizzard LGBs. It is not clear whether the Israeli's use the IMI VER-2 for the 'baby JDAM' but we do (IMI builds the things)- http://public.blu.livefilestore.com/y1pVo0...?PARTNER=WRITER http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_...rporation#VER-2 2,000lb class weapons are parent mounted and the GBU-39 has to be released from the BRU-61 SMER. The most common IDFAF peacetime loadouts I've seen have been AAQ-14 (and as often as not, 13) plus twin 370s and midwing GBU-10s with a single CATM AIM-9L on the wingtip. Which is perfectly acceptable for maintaining tactical competence with the primitive Paveway II but is a very short step up from dive toss in a modern threat environment. Wartime, I would expect the centerline to be loaded with a tank and/or datalink (which is itself a form of radius extension) and 600 gallon wing tanks to be mounted to support a longer radius, at least as much as the widespan standoff PGMs would allow. If I were going to redo Operations Ofra or Litani I would make sure that at least one section carried Delilah on the midwings with X4 GBU-39 on the centerline, if they will fit as they do on this F-15E- http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm.../752px-SDB3.jpg Fired ahead of the inbound strike package, this gives you a loitering ARM capability to suppress radar based weapons that could threaten PGM shooters during the designation phase and the option of hitting independent AAA/MANPADS sites considered too low value or low-signature for conventional SEAD. Something like this- http://img194.imageshack.us/i/f16delilah22454433rj2.jpg/ I would add Derbys to the wingtips just for the heck of it- http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/air...-16_derby_2.jpg http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/air...-16_derby_3.jpg And probably put either SUU-25 or Python underwing. http://attach.high-g.net/attachments/python4_2_929.gif http://media.photobucket.com/image/F-16%20...ipen/172AVM.jpg Originally, the F-15Is were to get the existing F-16 EO sensor suite (to save on costs) so that the latter could upgrade with the extended range LITENING but this appears not to have happened or at least not very quickly. Finally, though it is not often seen or discussed, another IMI product is a 500lb outboard pylon which is suitable for both A2G weapons carriage and for expanded EXCM in SUU-25s. The Israelis are a real believer in expendables and consider a jet without at least 400 rounds onboard to be half naked (there are potentially 6+2 buckets on the Barak and thus 18 X8 for chaff or 12 X 8 for flares, internally). After 2006, the IDFAF were eager to receive U.S. replacement smart ordnance under the FMS = For Free subsidy and nearly all of this was ballistic IAM and LGB ordnance. Given they are not facing the first team in their immediate neighbors, this might be taken to indicate that they prefer investing in smart pilots and lots of EW to take the mission down their enemies' throats 'except as politics demands' on an unacknowledged attack basis across certain borders. At least this is the public image portrayed through photos and news articles. In terms of modifications, I would start with a new cockpit or, if you are not willing to lay down 40+ bucks for a chunk of Aires resin, the $9.99 KIN K5000 color PE set, plus some new ACES II. The kit parts are severely underscale according to Mike V and though the Kinetic PE says it's for the SUFA, I see no real indications that it wouldn't work for a Barak (i.e. it's not an ACES pit). I would also consider new tires from Royal Resins (10 bucks with shipping) or the Wolfpack full conversion set for the Hasegawa D or the single seater C model update (again, 40 vs. 20 bucks). The two seater mod gives you a new nose from the cockpit forward and the single seater includes corrected radar bay side panels while both cover antenna fits and the like. Note that the Hasegawa and Kinetic fuselages are NOT the same for width and so if you should choose to attempt a fix of the nose, you will need some real bashing skills to bring the two together. LEG

Mentalguru, Dunno whether that's better or worse. You're eating your CFT fuel while putting your basket by the canopy which means that if the thing swings wild, you're gonna eat it (and yes, I know how tough canopy polycarbonate is). And it may not be easy (at least not without AAR technology) to make it work by tilting your head to track it in. At the same time, you should also not have to be turning your head back to watch the probe in from a tank and I always cringed at the thought of seating a drogue hard against what amounts to a jettisonable store. There is also the question of the assymetric load state and the vulnerability of the tank fuel supply system and seals none of which were designed for constant transfer rates like that. Add to this AOA states for airspeed (further complicating actual vs. perceptual hookup issues with pitch angle) and whatever vortex is spilling off the nose and it really did't make a lot of sense to be putting yet more gas into a jet already capable of carrying 600 gallon tanks and a centerline 310. Hunting SCUDs in Iraq or nukes in Iran, I would go for a diamond or scissor wing, U-2 type, endurance platform with LO and 40hr cruise pluse the ability to pull the pilot at need before I would dork around with making a fast jet go farther than 500nm, unrefueled. Sooner or later (longer radii), the latter starts to get into negative returns territory as you can't drop the gas and still make it back. And you can't maneuver with the gas and still fight other 3-4Gen threats because you're too heavy. OTOH, nobody gives a flying farfugnuegen about the +75K regime and the French are currently working on a cheap, dual-cycle, engine which will let their 'fast-slow' tactical drone transit in at Mach 2+ and then sit atop the target at 200 knots for 10+ hours. Ask any Eagle driver how hard it -really- is to take down a Foxbat tooling about at a mere Mach 2.4 and 60K feet and you have the basis for getting over intermediate territory before conventional AD responses can snap up and then vulching the enemy as you build an intelligence profile once you get there. Which is important in Iran because we don't have a really good idea which ayatollah's basement they have dispersed their development into. Anyway, we pay way too much penalty for the 9G, 25 year lifespan, airshow option. If you want an F-111, buy a cruise missile and a submarine. LEG

John, Thanks for the info. Pete's Hangar sells a 111B conversion for 69 AUD (Sprue Bros sold out within days). I will compare the two when they arrive. The problem being that both are still the prototype styling. Given I don't want to detail out the forward avionics bays, is there a reason why I shouldn't just cut away from the panel lines in a single vertical and horizontal section and then do a topdown replacement all the way to the radome? That would let me build each fuselage separately and then confine the sprue spacers and rescribe to areas that were not a glued seam as on the escape module insert. I realize it's Hobby Bosses' separation of the unit that drives your choice here but I don't see why anyone would willingly want to fill in and fair down the astronav tracker right there in front of the canopy to do an A model either when the side seam woudl be less visible and was just wondering if it had something to do with the gear bays/weapons bay or...??? LEG

James V, Depends on the date. During 1991, it could go either way but for an East CONUS or USAFE unit would likely still be Ghost Greys. After ODS, Mod Eagle increasingly took over the force, having originated out Kadena way with PACAF. It is a very hard yellow or brownish grey with a blue-slate looking counter shade when freshly applied. Compass Ghost (36375 Light and 36320 Dark) are more pastel shades and tend to get both paler and dirtier, quicker, over time. Check your unit codes and dates as you can really mess up the finish if you apply Ghost appropriate decals over a Mod Eagle airframe or vice versa. LEG

Atdb27, Man by the name of Bobski who shows up on ARC (Aircraft Resource Center.com if you're new) has made a few comments. His opinion being that the kit is an upscale of the Italeri 48th without the excuse of being based on a 1994 72nd molding and with resulting major shape and detail issues. As I recall- Radome:fuselage joint is off. Rear fuselage around engines is too boxy and the EJ-200 nozzles too plain. Plethora of 'rivets' is inaccurate (though the real deal is heavily fastenered). There is something wrong with the wing twist outboard which effects the ailerons. The DASS pods are wrong, specifically the TRD unit is too narrow IIRR. Another reviewer- Michael Benolkin on Cybermodeler, mentioned that you only get a pair of MRMs for the Trumpeter fuselage missile bays, though I don't recall if that was AMRAAM or Meteor (supposedly the 2-seater has 'the other ones'). http://www.cybermodeler.com/hobby/kits/tru..._tru_2278.shtml I think the primary hack is that, for the price, the Chinese didn't do a lot of work beyond pantographing somebody else' flawed kit and as we all know, 'that's just wrong!'. Like clubbing baby seals with baby orangutuans or something (you damn SPCA'rs stay away from me!). I know that sales of the Chinese kit have suffered in a major way since release based on the hope of the coming Revell being twice as nice at half the price. The one thing the Trumpeter gets brownie points for is the intakes which is where Revell fell down completely (it wasn't acceptable in a 2006ish 48th kit, it sure as heck isn't now in a 32'er). Revell's cockpit is also considered to be weak which isn't too surprising since modern jets are basically all controlled via the HOTAS and DVI without a lot of side panel stuff. Scale relief is low however and likely always will be in comparison to the resin we're all used to. Mention has been made of getting Eduard color PE (for the Trumpeter) to fit the Revell kit but nobody has reported back how readily they match up. Finally, much to everyone's chagrin, there are no A2G stores. Which is okay for an FMk.2 (early tranche 2, whatever) but not an FGR.4 which the decals supposedly represent. The Trumpeter kit does come with air to mud ordnance and my thought was that if you only need AMRAAM -or- Meteor (both of which are supplied, to full count, in the Revell kit), it might behoove someone to set up a barter business. 32nd ordnance is both rare and very expensive in resin so it's kind've knocks neeks if you want a better looking airframe that is non multirole loaded or at least some options for a ground attack loadout in an airframe that is a little off dead-accurate for shape. My own conclusion is that if I wanted a cruise missile carrier, I'd buy a B-52 kit and for LITENING and AASM or GBU-16 and Brimstone with maybe ALARM/Armiger as a suppression tool, both kits are woefully short of options. Shape followed by Pricepoint then become the driving factors. LEG

Coronado, I'd guess that'd be uhhh, wait one (digging up Urban's color charts...), here we go! Hu-123. What we Yanks call FS36118 Gunship Grey and you all call Extra Dark Sea Grey (which I have other issues with because the color on a La Muerta Negra SHAR down Falklands way was closer to 36081 to me...). The problem as I see it is that the aircraft itself looks more like Dk. Ghost Grey with some Medium Grey mixed in. Even accounting for 'scale area' on total reflectance values, there is no way that aircraft is the same color as an F-16's back or an F-15E overall. Because it's not the same color as the SS itself. Missile, yes. Airframe no. I might go for Hu-164 (with some scale white) Dark Sea Grey for the airframe color. That's basically AMC grey like you'd see on a tanker or an AC-130. But it's not just the tone, it's the hue that's off for gunship. http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/colorcharts/s...orcharts_uk.htm LEG

Mike, So how bad is it? Are we talking 'fix-X and we're good to go' or 'wait for the Academy F-15I and pay 50 bucks for 5 dollars worth of plastic'? I can fill lines and rescribe them. Keeping in mind that they will end up inside an F-22. LEG

John, As the resident 111 expert, what would you say would make the best radome on this aircraft? http://www.chinalakealumni.org/IMAGES/2002...20B-Lockett.jpg http://www.f-111.net/museums/B152714b.jpg http://www.f-111.net/museums/F111B152714-b.jpg http://www.f-111.net/museums/F111B152714-a.jpg ??? Also, from this fuselage diameter alone- http://www.chinalakealumni.org/IMAGES/1995...%20J-Cupido.jpg Can you tell the station number where the production naval radome was cut into the airframe? To me, it looks like a giant F/A-18 nose. But the taper on the front end is wrong. The F-14 has more or less the right base but tapers too rapidly. Perhaps an F-4J? Is it possible to reach a B from an FB-111A radome? Thank You, LEG

Matt, Nice catch. Unfortunately, it seems a very strange combination of ordnance, most of it being 20+ years old in design and the key new pieces being somewhat poorly done. GBU-39 For Real http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SDB3.jpg http://www.ausairpower.net/GBU-39-SDB-8.jpg Skunk Works GBU-39 http://www.luckymodel.com/img/hi-PI000000119270.jpg The first things that strike me are that- 1. The nose fuze/avionics conduit is missing. 2. The nose has an ogive shape when it should be more akin to a dull pencil. 3. It's frankly kinda chunky. Could just be that it needs the tails added, but there is something about the placement of the glide wing hinge mechanism that is off. Proper length to diameter ratio is about 70.8 X 7.5" or 9.44:1. The BRU-61 looks nice. If I was going to make a weapons set, I would first make sure it included GBU-39/40, AASM (with correct racks and pylons!), and GBU-16. While not all new generation, they have similar mission sets for the given airforces in which they are used and will likely continue to be popular export items as well. I would include the Brimstone and the Armiger as exotics and I would then look towards AAMs with R-77 and R77PD as well as K-30 and a decent R-73 represented. AIM-120C/D would be major players (8 each) along with LAU-115/127 for the Hornet. And so would Meteor. AIM-132 and AIM-9X would each get a pair with proper rails and if I was feeling squirrelly, I would put in a Derby pair. I would probably round out with 2-3 pods. Sorbitsaya, ALQ-131 Deep and ASQ-228 ATFLIR as well as AAQ-33 Sniper along with whatever the (AAQ-28C?) LITENING AT is now designated. Damocles too now that I think about it. Rafale needs AASM and Damocles. The Luftwaffe will likely pick it up for their Eurofighters (inner wing pylon!). Litening, GBU-16 and Brimstone are all appropriate Typhoon and Tornado ordnance. GBU-40 is the CAS version (seekered) of the GBU-39 and will likely take over the roles of JCM and Maverick as well as -some- heavy weight JDAM missions. If they ever get around to building it in numbers, Armiger will make the Europeans the top SEAD player. And ALQ-131 Blk.2 deep is what hangs under every F-16 and A-10 in USAFE. Adder and K-30 are the difference between a MiG-29SMT or Su-27SMK which make their users still effective players in the air to air game and 'A/B' model relics of the 1980s with Alamo and Archer that you can't hardly give away. The LDPs basically cover every USAF, USN, NATO and IDFAF need. Derby is the new AA-2-2, suitable for upgrade on a variety of legacy platforms from the MiG-21 Bison to the Chilean F-5E and F-16. AMRAAM D looks proportionally longer and Meteor will hang under the Rafale and JAS-39 before it's over. IMO, you've gotta do what Airfix/Testors did with their 72nd 'NATO Weapons' set. Give a lot of variety of ordnance that is applicable to customers and platforms the world over. And sufficiently new fangled and/or no-where-else equivalents that you corner the market in new generation ordie. Three kinds of Harpoons and JSOW makes this effectively a USN weapons set which is a shame because the USN doesn't do blue water sea control from the big decks anymore, the AGM-84E is retired and as usual, I'm not seeing a single sign of a datalink pod to make either of the EO versions workable (though the H/K can be fired in terminal target recognition mode). Skyshadow can be sourced from anyone that has an Italeri Tornado. They come with two. I'd rather see someone like Dr. Pepper or Shawn Hull (or their British equivalents) tackle a paired set of RAF EW systems because those are the kind of things that can ONLY be applied to Tornado (or the Viggen I suppose for the Box-10). Small packets buy and ship cheap, even in resin. Big boxes of styrene don't. Merry Christmas everybody, stay safe and have a happy one. LEG

Joel, You're welcome. The data I was able to come up with for the Mk.82 AIR- https://dsp.dla.mil/APP_UIL/content/newslet.../DSPJ-02-02.pdf Suggests about 700KCAS at sea level which is about Mach 1.06. This is not a complete proof of course because there are a lot of rack/pylon/airframe combinations out there which can't take that speed and/or release cleanly. You haven't lived until you have seen Snakes swing their tails back and forth hard enough to tear out the arming wires and start banging the rack because the MER is vibrating at a particular aeroacoustic frequency that is flexing the center beam. Those cotters are what hold the retarder fins in place so the weapon is useless even if it releases cleanly. That said, the BRU-3 is designed for this kind of abuse and so the issue becomes one of 'do you really want a 200ft long blow torch out the back?' as a AAA laying or MANPADS point and click aid- http://www.aero-web.org/database/aircraft/...age.htm?id=2588 I mean it's bad enough when they start velcroing fuzz busters (pelengators) on their helmets, no need to help them out... For this and other reasons, nobody goes in in full blower because there is simply too little control and stability margin (your roll rate and total G factor goes way way down towards 30dps and 3.5G) especially on VG aircraft where you start to lose spoiler authority and your CG gets sensitive. This is why, even on the most dangerous tactical missions like runway cratering or nuclear delivery, you will rarely see the wings all the way back on any switchblade (toss on the 111 is around 47`)with weapons aboard as you are really pressing what the avionics and the crews can do to stay ahead of the offsets and release point updates in the coupled autopilot steering modes that truly high speed flight requires. If you just gotta have the knots (usually because the particular loadout is playing hob with the baseline drag and throwing off your waypoint/BOTOT numbers), you will tap the burner behind a terrain mask, make your IP turn in a little wider/earlier around it and then coast over target. I believe I read that this is what the Fins did in '91. The problem here being that you are taking away 10nm from the absolute radius (in and out) that you can hold any penetration speed, every time you make even a minimum zone AB call. JP-233 dumps the empty dispenser containers so this isn't as much of a problem coming out for Tornado but the 111 was a conventional racked weapon airframe- http://www.aero-web.org/database/aircraft/...age.htm?id=7046 And so ended up paying a mindboggling fuel penalty for bringing those empty BRUs back. What the 'Vark will do, full load (X12 weapons) in the P100 engined F, is a 435nm lo-lo-lo radius with the last 50nm in and out at well over 550 knots, here the limit would be Mach Point driven for wingsweep (54` IIRR) and stores clearance on release. An F-4, especially post-slat, couldn't match that if you put three jugs on it and limited Mk.82 carriage to 6 on inboard TERs. Just way too much drag for the thrust to sustain and some serious limits on the centerline as well. A Tonka could (and might even be slightly quicker because it's intermediate-aft wingsweep is around 60`) but only with 4 bombs and a tanker waiting in friendly airspace. Price you pay for having a reasonably priced airframe. Bombs off, with the possible exception of the Foxhound, nothing tactical outruns the 111 at low level, they just don't have the gas. LEG

Never liked cast turrets and rounded shapes on a tank. Makes them look pinheaded and yet somehow reduces the brutality while reminding you more of a steam locomotive than a modern vehicle. That said, the T-55 is the Centurion of the East. Simple, hardy, adaptable in ways that the T-72 series just never matched. And so I would like to nominate these two as possible runners up- http://warandgame.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/t55s1.jpg http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/t-55-iraq.jpg Because I really like the way the slope effect sharpens the lines. Ironically then, A#1 in the pulchritude department for the modern era, though it's probably a doorstop technically (massive shot trap deflecting rounds down into the fighting compartment?! Can we say Panther?!), has to be this tank- http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/1138/fmcccvl2rd1.jpg http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/9501/fmcccvl1fg8.jpg http://svsm.org/gallery/ccv-l I just really like the smoothly rounded hull sides and the massive gun with the exotic looking muzzle brake. Gives it that impossible-curves 'composites in use' look that screams after-1990. For some reason, I can see this vehicle paired with the CV-90 in Swedish camo a lot easier than I can the Leo2A6. The big unknown of the future will be APS vs. hypervelocity (CKEM, Kornet etc.) rounds so it's likely that, especially in the U.S. where cost of inventory replacement and airportability are also becoming important factors, we will see a much different view of what a traditional, LOS-heavy, platform is supposed to achieve. There is supposedly a video that circulated through the Pentagon once upon a neverwhen which showed a LOSAT bisecting an Abrams 'in the front glacis, out the back grille' with the missile virtually intact. Shinseki used it to bend the heavy mech generals over a barrel on accepting Wheeled vs. Tracked. That kind of AT power off an HMMWV with the ability to salvo launch in multiples (i.e. 1 shooter theoretically takes out 8 tanks using a remote terminal link for the launch crew before being obliterated by it's first APFSDS hit) is a guaranteed Ontos-that-works paradigm shifter, as much if not more than any RPG-on-overpass type Iraqi MOUT scenario. If frontal slope is unimportant, then horizonline and highest-eye targeting to do top attack over it starts to change how you think of vehicle survivability issues. Even as handlase and GPS plus digital maps gives some serious weight to short-loft firesupport without sending the tank any further than the FOB gates. http://img515.imageshack.us/i/m70cvltr2dx3.png/ These concepts should change a lot of 'whose got the look' of future armored warfare. LEG

Folks, I know the whole Top Gun 'look at my HUD tape!' thing is really cool and all that but you now have a jet which is at least as good as the F-15C with APG-63V1 in the BVR game and a fairly decent BVR missile to go with. You're about to get an outstanding followon ramAAM and if you can ever get AESA onboard, you will have something really worthwhile in an arena where the thinking pilot can defeat ALL his opponents rather than just the one off his nose. It is thus a mistake to come into a WVR fight with long lance still onboard and given the small numeric size of today's fights, highly unlikely that there will be 'spare' targets requiring a gunsnake to finish. It's that transition from missiles to cannon that kills you and currently, coming into a WVR fight is like playing Russian Roulette with 3 chambers loaded. AIMVAL showed that big F-15s could only win by energizing the fight up to around 550 knots entry and then daring the lightweight Tigers to try and turn with them after the first shot. Unfortunately (and this was with 'Concept C' emulation of a fixed boresight Lima, not the R-73), steaming in at full IRT, they didn't take into consideration what they were doing to their heat signature and ended up taking face shots from very long ranges. And whenever they got below 350 knots, the instructor flown Tigers either outrolled them and spit them out front or dogpiled until the Eagles had no angles out. The only way to win fights was thus determined to be a boost-coast burner sprint and throttleback from offsets well outside the nominal detection cone limits of the F-5's APQ-159. Or (an alternative which the Eagles liked but the Tomcats didn't accept as being tactically viable) a vertical roll in from high perch so that they couldn't be seen. All of which tactics being essentially reliant on ambush to keep the F-5Es from pointing and clicking at all and to get even this much, they had to have a pilot sit in the TACTS booth to keep the pseudo GCI operators 'honest'. This was back in like 1976-77, before imaging seekers on 6" motorpipes. When the enemy was allowed to emulate Concept D2 (which is basically what Archer came to be) they wiped the floor with the 14/15 on sheer numbers of shots taken. WVR is for idiots. It will remain that way until such time as tactical aircraft DIRCM are available and effective in a manner that doesn't pose a canopy hazard (like the MiG-29 IRST/LR combo). Just watch any Airshow Video of these jets cutting a pretty circle in the sky- And compare it to this- Mz. Daisy vs. The Flash are really the only terms that seem applicable. While I guarantee you it hurts like hell, all the G-con in the world doesn't make up for having a brain to avoid having to shed it because the guy who's gonna kill you using split section double attack or loose deuce tactics is the free fighter wingman, not the engaged lead. Not to mention what flat plating to the world does to invite the outside shooter to hawk the fight. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJaF8t7GQ2A...feature=related 'Strike 3' is only playing against SA-2/3/6 level 60s technology. If he was ditzing about vs. a teen or twenty series SAM as the second video shows, he wouldn't be able to generate enough G to defeat the first shot, let alone the fifth. In this, -every- nation that doesn't have an ARM-onboard ability to fast suppress is just asking for trouble because Fighters typically only meet Fighters when the OCA sweep catches the DCA defenders trying to clear the baselane. And that means you are out front of your jamming support and weasels in the middle of the enemy's protective SAM belt. Look In, Shoot In, doesn't have this problem. Keep your poles long and your exposure short. That's what boosted/glide A2G munitions, missile datalinks and intraflight MIDS are all for. Someone close shoots. Someone far lights off to midcourse. Everybody knows who everybody is. And so, if need be, everybody can reset to do it again. Rafale can't do this becuase the MICA is a glorified SRM. Eurofighter can because Meteor especially is going to change the way we think about BVR. Rafale has no ARM. Typhoon does. Rafale does have a potentially excellent AASM lobshot. But the RAF has the USAF and stealthy strike with the SDB (aka 'let the other guy bomb up his tub). So long as the Russians keep insisting on Flanker type, 5m2 frontal signature airframes, you shouldn't worry too much about WVR. As goes the intercept, so goes the fight... LEG

Very Nice. I must admit I've never built an AFV kit that could climb any higher than a four foot obstacle before but if it's up to their vehicle standards, the Tiger should be something worth building. One thing I would state is that normally the auxilliary intakes and LEF are only opened/drooped when power comes on the airframe and you are ready to taxi. This would mean that the nose strut is going to extend too and that there should be a pilot onboard. It also implies that the canopy opener details are present and proper. Here is a kit which has really got A/M potential too. Aside from the LERX-VI and TShark nose mod, you've got about a dozen different antenna fits and four different missile rail combinations that I know of (Iranian with Su-27 style launchers and R.550 Magic comes to mind. So does Chilean P3 and P4). Then you can start thinking about new instrument panels and bang seats and and and... Not to mention that the F-5 series are one of those few aircraft types that is truly global in a sense that hasn't been true since the days of the Hunter and F-86. I can think of six different deals WITHOUT going Aggressor/Adversary. http://www.saorbats.com.ar/fotos/F5-3.JPG http://media.photobucket.com/image/F-5E%20...n-3-e-maa-1.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3...F-5andF-15.JPEG http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/gg171/p...lol/1503410.jpg http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/1964/rtaff5701sqn4qe7.jpg http://img284.imageshack.us/img284/2585/cabina18vz.jpg http://img284.imageshack.us/img284/7305/semttulo0dz.jpg http://bp3.blogger.com/_6jUmhUYDLTY/SJLY0b...SAF+F5+-+01.jpg GOOD NEWS FOR A NEW YEAR! java script:add_smilie("","smid_92") LEG

Dahut, Enjoy it for what it's worth to you. As the late much lamented Al Superczynski once said: "Build what YOU want, the way YOU want to....and the critics will flame you every time!" Which is kind've a neat way to say different strokes I guess, Al was pretty laid back even though he knew a thing or three. Should you ever decide to 'take your 'Varks seriously', drop me a line with the model variant and what mission you want it to be representatively loaded to fly and I'll try and come up with a not every day loadout solution and some pictures to support it. Mike V and Habu over on Zone 5 can probably help out too. Jim Rotramel and Bondo Phil on Hyperscale or ARC are actual ex crewdogs so they are probably the best source of all. We certainly need more 'it's just a hobby' type folks. They fill out the ranks and build more kits. That said- The Snakeye = Mk.82 500# bomb with Mk.15 retarding fin kit. These are folding petal airbrakes that allow ground attack aircraft to do low level laydowns under the radar without ripping their bellies out with their own frag. They aren't as good as the Brit or later American ballute versions because they tend to pitch due to pyrocartridge impulse moment and flex in the MERs on release which leads to very few shacks and a lot more ROE limits for CAS especially. They also have a high end speed limit of around 500-520 knots which is well below what even the F-111A can wind itself up to, on the deck. But they look all 'cluttery' and cool with all those crenellated fin units on the rack and the arming wires all plugged in. http://www.ordnance.org/gpb.htm Rockwell was a large ordnance and space manufacturer, famous for the 2,000lb GBU-15 Pave Strike Cruciform Winged Weapon and AGM-114 Hellfire among others. The irony here being that the initial GBU-15 was found to be wanting in USAF tests down at Eglin and the Israelis took the first production lots because they weren't picky about a couple adverse flyout conditions in the overall profile. Depending on who you believe, they did or did not use these to crack the roof of the Osiraq reactor dome from about 15nm out and 4 minutes before the Mk.84 (ballistic 2,000lb) bombers transited the IP and started to zoom for their own low angle dive attacks. The idea being that, even with homegrown EW on both the F-16s themselves and a pair of standoff F-15 jammer aircraft, an 8,000ft popup and a 3,000ft pullout was deemed suicidal, based on Yom Kippur experience with the SA-6 and 7. But if you put a massive hole in the reactor containment dome, all the subsequent weapons go-boom inside the facility. Lo and behold, once the Opera mission tapes were reviewed, the Liberty wing 111Fs got a new EOGB after all. Though Hughes was rapidly put on the case for an IIR seeker. http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-112.html Sometimes knowing the history, or even a 'what if' can help you to gain some appreciation for just how important it is to have the right club in your golf bag for a given mission scenario or when representing the airframe that flew it. That is why weaponeering 'just a model' accurately is still important. LEG