Jump to content

Herb

Members
  • Posts

    165
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Herb

  1. You and Exdraken have already pointed out a lot of factors that are germane. Another significant one is the technical capability of the pods under discussion. Just like aircraft, they're designed for a particular set of tasks, and therefore have limits on their capabilities. No ECM pod magically protects any aircraft from all threats. Earlier generation pods in particular were usually designed to address very specific threats. Some level of programmability to adapt to different threats was eventually developed as the technology improved. Later generation pods are truly flexible, but again will never cover every threat out there. Chaff and flares seem simpler, but when/how/where they're deployed can be as complex as ECM pod use. Old tactics and systems will generally dump a lot out when you hit the button, new ones will sequence them out at a specific rate under specific circumstances. Equipment standardization between allied air forces of course only goes so far. National "variety" in EW gear (just like aircraft types) will occur. It may reflect a different tactical philosophy (stand-off at high altitude vs low level), or a host of other factors. ECM isn't total protection, it really just buys time. So a fast low level striker may need just a little time. Of course there are other threats at low level, so it's a choice. You're correct to intuit that ECM always incurs a penalty (weight, complexity, pylon station), so it's best to only include enough on board to do the job. Off board assets available (EA-6B, EF-111, EA-18G) will also contribute to survivability. And stealth of course reduces the overall need for ECM, and also improves the effectiveness of ECM available. TLDR: different pods do different (classified) things, and it's a compromise!
  2. Gorgeous. And for a 1/72 model to look so good in close up photography, this is something special...
  3. Herb

    Hoops, I saw an old post of yours and was curious if you ever pulled the trigger on a Tu-214R conversion? I'm also looking at that as a project, and wondered if you had any advice?

     

    thanks

    Herb

    1. Hoops

      Hoops

      I never did, it was one of those "this would be really cool" ideas, but then I open the closet and look at the unbuilt stash and decide "I'm never going to even finish the aircraft that I already have."

       

      I would love to build one, but it's so far down the list, I don't think it will ever happen.

       

      Cheers,

      Hoops

    2. Herb

      Herb

      I know the feeling! Thanks for responding anyway....

       

      Cheers

      Herb

  4. “Quantity has a quality all its own.” ― Joseph Stalin ....including quantity of putty, I guess...
  5. Outstanding! Thank you for 'freshening up' your Elephant and supplying its most interesting history!
  6. Herb

    BE12

    I've done both a B.E.12a and B.E.12b. The 12a was done years ago, and used a vacuformed fuselage with modified R.E.8 wings, as described by Pheonix above. Much easier now to use an Airfix B.E.2c kit as a base. The 12b was mostly that kit with a resin nose from the HR Models kit and new tailplanes. Still intend to do a standard B.E.12 and round out this trio someday. Not sure which variant was used by 17 Sqn, but I would say all are quite doable as conversions from that new Airfix kit... Cheers Herb
  7. Excellent work! And the quote by M. Lewis says it all about this early 'kite'....
  8. Excellent! Simply excellent! Don't deprive us of any future accomplishments!
  9. How is the existing Tempest Mk.II from Special Hobby? Does it badly need replacement?
×
×
  • Create New...