Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums

-Neu-

Members
  • Content count

    1,124
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About -Neu-

  • Rank
    Full Blown Model Geek

Recent Profile Visitors

12,698 profile views
  1. Hi there In a dumb moment I basically wrecked the F-35 program decal that sits right behind AF-1's cockpit (its below). The kit has been sitting on my desk for about a month and its starting to annoy me. As far as I know there are only two sources: The Hasegawa F-35 "Prototype" boxing which I took the decal from... or Fujimi's F-35B STOVL boxing. I'd take either, or even buy the Fujimi kit in its entirety... unless someone wants to take a stab to make the decal, which I'd pay for as well. Many thanks in Advance
  2. Where oh where is our Hornet replacement?

    No you articulated that point... its still not really defensible. We got out of the fighter market because it was immensely costly and we didn't produce an aircraft that was really unique. It was the RCAF that was footing the development bill, which sucked up money it could use to purchase and operate a fighter. It wasn't just the Arrow that left a bad taste in their mouth, the CF-100 was a near disaster as well. Within a year of its entry into service, it was already overshadowed by an American interceptor (the F-102). And if we look to the 1960s and the 70s, you see governments that have no appetite for defense spending whatsoever. Instead of purchasing the F-4, like what the RCAF wanted, we got the F-5,... then waited fifteen years until we got a proper replacement, the CF-18. The reality is that unless you are willing to invest tens of billions of dollars into fighter development or willing to accept that your aircraft are qualitatively poorer than everybody else, you're not going to be in the fighter market, nor does it make sense to be in it. Its much better to be in the second and third tier, where we can (and have) developed niche interests and make a real industry out of that. That's what we did.
  3. Where oh where is our Hornet replacement?

    No, that sort of view has been allowed to propagate, and its to the detriment of us actually understanding what's going on today. First off, our aviation industry is the Fifth largest in the world. We are a world leader in landing gear assemblies (heroux devtek), carbon fibre structures (Magellan), turboprop engines (P&W Canada) and top line aircraft simulators (CAE).So the claim that "we'll never catch up" is complete BS. Most of the "books" written on the Avro arrow are done by enthusasts. Instead, read Dr. Randall Wakelam's Cold War Fighters. He gives a very clear view of the nature of Canada's defence industry from 1945 to 1955. People seem to forget that Canada had two major defence contractors. the first was Avro, which was a poorly run defence contractor, bloated on federal money, delivered things over budget and highly delayed. People today think the CF-100 was some sort of marvel. Back in 1955, the RCAF felt they were getting substandard equipment. Then there was the real success of Canadian Industry: Canadair. That company delivered almost everything on time, on budget. It produced 1800 Sabres, nearly half of which they exported. However they were just producing a licensed production of an american fighter. The CF-105 was an abject disaster, no matter what the CBC's heritage moment claims. The reality is that precious Canadian dollars was supporting an aircraft that was for a mission that was significantly lower in the priorities list than when it was designed, had serious technical issues, was actually outclassed by existing aircraft (F-4 phantom), and was insanely costly. It had to be cancelled, despite the unfortunate reality that many people would lose their jobs. Furthermore it became fairly apparent that trying to indigenously develop aircraft was a fools errand: incredibly costly and unlikely to produce something that was better than what the Americans had. But what people don't realize was that Diefenbaker's government didn't just leave the aviation industry to rot. Rather it negotiated a major agreement with the United States that allowed Canadian firms to bid for US military sub contracts. The Defence Production Sharing Agreement, to this day has done vastly more to improve the prospects of the Canadian aviation industry than what the Arrow's cancellation could have wrought. Overnight our industry basically went from supporting an unsustainable military development structure in Canada, to supporting the world's largest aviation industry. All over the country we started building major sub assemblies for american companies. Many of those companies I listed above worked for AV Roe: and they prospered under the agreement with the United States. So no, far from the abject disaster, the Avro cancellation laid the foundation for the immense success that our industry enjoys today. While there was certainly some sharp short term pain, it resulted in untold long term gain.
  4. Canadian F/A-18s

    No, its more expensive to purchase, and to operate: right now the F-35 is the lowest cost tactical fighter on the market...
  5. For a group build, has anyone ever....

    Living history was a really enjoyable GB... we had some great stories and modelling. Wouldn't mind hosting/moding whatever a II, if people are up for it.
  6. F-35 news roundup

    No, its significantly longer. A F/A-18F with four mk83/GBU-32s (2000lbs) has a rough combat radius of 400NM: the F-35C's with 4000lbs of internal ordnance is 610NM... with 2000 its probably around 650~700nm region.
  7. Canadian Suppliers

    I don't want to contradict others, but I don't like many online retailers due to inflexible shipping policies. I kinda hate paying for excess shipping... so I try to make the most of what I spend. Since I live in your province, here's my purchasing locations... Again, these are particular to my own purchase behaviour. Probably the best way to put it is that I buy it from the source. First off, I know a lot of guys in the Okanagan make a trip to Vancouver every few months to pick up supplies, or organize amongst themselves. The three most commonly visited are Imperial Hobbies, Burnaby Hobbies and Magicbox. For Airfix, Revell, and other "mass market" kits I'll go to one of the LHS I list above. if its OOP, then I'll look on ebay (or hannants) For Czech kits I'll order from WestCoastHobbys in Powell River. Canada post is a bit high, but the prices are very good and the selection great. Japanese Kits: HLJ. easiest way to get it done. They have a private warehouse option that allows you to store away kits for two months while you slowly buy more. That alone makes it a lot better than most other online retailers. Also Japanese retailers usually have a 20~30% discount on domestic kits list price. Asian kits: Lucky Model - usually has the best prices and if you aren't too picky about having things within a month, SAL is very economical for shipping. One thing I've discovered is Ukranian companies are actually really compeditive in pricing these days, and they have some great kits. I order from Hobby.dn.ua, but I'm sure there are other good ones. Aftermarket There are a few go-to sellers on Ebay: they typically have very competitive costs and far more flexible shipping rates than Hannants. Hope that helps.
  8. F-35 news roundup

    Now, does that include pensions, tricare ect. Because if you add those in I suspect that that puts the Army over the top. The separation for the engine is an vestige of when there were two competing engine designs for the JSF. Thus DoD would have separate columns in the SAR for the F136 and the F135 (but it was cancelled before that happened). That's why the Super Hornet's SARs have the engines included.
  9. Actually, Fujimi and Aoshima has seen somewhat of a resurgence over the past decade: they have been producing a lot of ship, airplane and vehicle kits. Far from dead...
  10. What's in the hasegawa 1/72 F-14 sets? is that aluminium?
  11. Airforce gives up on A-10 retirement

    I come up with this stuff because its part of my profession. Statements like "none of its expensive replacements can fill its shoes" are abjectly false: I'm surprised that you would make such a blanket statement and defend it so vehemently. Does the A-10 have some areas that its superior to other aircraft? undoubtedly: nobody here is claiming otherwise. Are they so unique that without them we would be seriously deficient in defending our/your national security? I think most here would say no. And perhaps the bigger question (at least for me since it relates to my work), is the cost of keeping it worth delaying a long delayed modernization that would introduce new capabilities that would perhaps provide revolutionary improvements into CAS (not to mention a whole bunch of other aspects of airpower)? I don't think so. But that's my perspective, and I know parts of that may be contested. You have displayed none of that nuance, or deeper understanding. Rather you come off as shrill and trollish, especially when you claim you listen to people who know what they talk about, yet dismiss many of those people out of hand: its blatantly hypocritical . You've somehow manage to tick off almost everybody here. I enjoy arc because people like Nspreitler Waco, Murph, Fulcrum, MarkW, come and add their perspectives. I might not agree with how they may portray an issue/analysis, but their input based on their first hand knowledge is valuable to inform my own perspective. What I don't want to see or know is someone who has none of that information basically crow about how everything is wrong and selectively cite information in order to show their viewpoint. Its not why I come here at all.
  12. Airforce gives up on A-10 retirement

    And here you go again, basically you're telling a serving USAF pilot, who actually has carried out the precise mission you describe, that he knows nothing. You don't want to hear facts, or at least you don't want to hear the ones that contradict your deeply held views. You've made that abundantly clear over the past howevermany months you've been going on about this. I'm sure that individuals like Waco, Nsprietler, Murph, Fulcrum among others could sit down and actually hash out an position that they could all agree on: we're talking a real-world event that they are all involved in. While there will likely always be areas of substantive disagreement, I suspect that many of our differing views are based on the limitations of a forum based communication method. However you clearly don't have the knowledge or temperament to engage in this discussion. You're basically the issue here, and as I said before, and frankly most of the people here who actually have experience have already dismissed anything that comes out of your mouth out of hand. You're bringing nothing new to the table in terms of actual information, rather you're just guilty of spin. I'm surprised that this thread has continued as long as it has, for no other reason than you've polluted it, yet again, with your subjective screed. Please, just leave the discussion to the adults, because you've done nothing to advance it, and more to derail it with your "truth."
  13. Oh General.....about those A-10's

    I'm sorry, but I feel compelled to post this...
  14. Aircraft Survivability

    Yes you can have it both ways. Frankly, the way you're framing the debate makes it seem like you're talking about a situation from the late 1970s, not 2016. So many of the people who discuss this area and criticize decisions really are talking about issue that we conclusively resolved 30 years ago. In Vietnam, AAA was the number one source of combat aircraft loss 1,433 of 1,543 aircraft were lost to AAA, only 110 to SAMs. Low level penetration was the culprit, in part due to an overriding fear of SAMs in the 1960s. The Air force realized this in the late 1970s and started a transformation, led primarily by General Wilbur Creech. In addition to SEAD and the F-117, He pushed hard for the development of Precision guided munitions, and long range targeting pods: LANTIRN being the first iteration. Weapons deliveries would be accomplished at medium to high altitudes, using sensors that gave unparalleled vision of targets on the ground. Getting up and close to the target was what the AF wanted to avoid: that's how they lost a lot of planes very quickly in Vietnam. In the thirty years since that's the way the USAF has fought. We're talking about hundreds of thousands of sorties when bombs has been dropped: the vast majority of them at medium altitude, hitting the target with success. There was one huge anachronism to that: the A-10. It didn't get a lot of the upgrades, partly because it was slated for replacement. It should be noted that in the Gulf War, its most effective weapon was the AGM-65 Maverick: basically a stand-off weapon. The Precision engagement capability upgrades that were implemented in the late 2000s basically make it operate at medium altitude and improved the cockpit ergonomics to facilitate the employment of standoff weaponry so that it wouldn't need to soak up 30mms or (the greater danger), MANPADS, like the SA-24. In Alf's case we bought our CF-18s before this revolution. DND officials realized its benefits during the gulf war, but had no money to upgrade the CF-18 until about 1996, with the WPGM program. We barely train for low level delivery, if at all: it puts too much strain on our aging aircraft fleet and we don't employ those weapons anymore. About your comment on reliability. The Phoenix was designed and built in 1960s, using the first generation of solid state electronics. Back then, the government was one of the largest developer of electronics technologies. That's the complete opposite of today... where there are are over a billion smart phones made a year. You could today give a group of 4th year engineering students to make an AIM-54 missile using a modern Android phone, and (if they have any level of ability), would probably give you a missile that would vastly outstrip the accuracy and reliability of the original Phoenix. We have literally hundreds of thousands of data points that the reliability of this system. And its GPS guidance is not the only system we have: a large proportion of our systems have dual mode seekers, or two guidance systems. So we're have a pretty deep level of redundancy on these systems. I think its really important to understand that we're now starting a new era in how we prosecute wars. We're really looking at distributed sensor systems and massive battlefield networks. DoD is developing a number of different systems that collect massive volumes of data and process them to make decisions. One of the best examples is Gorgon Stare: its a camera system mounted to a MQ-9 that basically covers a 10X10km area and records all of the video in that area, basically two terabytes every minute, that can be reviewed to make decisions. AFAIK, part of the challenge, is how to sift through all of this data to get to the relevant bits in a timely fashion in order to assist in timely decisionmaking. One example of this is the F-35's avionics, which are designed to help analyze data from sensors on the aircraft and others around it and present it to the pilot in a useable form. So to reiterate: This survivability debate is one that has completely changed. If you're going to get hit by a 30mm, "your doing it wrong".
  15. Eastern Front Group Build

    I'd like to join, as 2016 is shaping up to be the year of the Eastern Front for me. I splurged this christmas and purchased a half-dozen books on the topic (Evan Mawdsley's Thunder in the East, Glantz's When Titans Clashed, and a number of his other books).. which has spurred me to purchase more models. Unfortunately, I'm also committed to BM's Eastern Front GB which runs from May till September. If this starts in March, I'm in. If its in July, I can't really do both.
×