-Neu-
-
Content Count
1,147 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by -Neu-
-
-
So I found the chin pods and they don't come with the double one.... however looking at my Hasegawa D and what I have in parts, would it be just easier to combine three parts together to create the double chin? I think I can scratchbuild it if you want.
-
50 minutes ago, MarkW said:
In the US, what Lockheed, Boeing and Northrop do is far more insidious and harder to overcome though. They don't sell to the public at large. You never saw that Boeing commercial with the two little kids talking about the f-35 and the f-18 on American TV.
What they do is hire a bunch of ex-military guys, who come with a degree of built-in gravitas. Then they sell their program with all of its faster-than-light technology to some major who more likely than not may not even have an engineering degree. The next thing you know that major is all lathered up, and has sold the program to his Colonel and his general. all of a sudden, the glossy brochure becomes a valid verified military absolute must have need. and while the warfighters are getting themselves in a frenzy about how many Americans will die if we don't have this glossy brochure technology, no one with an actual science degree has actually looked at or verified that any of the bull crap is even feasible. So when the system is delivered with the equivalent of dozens of engines missing in terms of cost of capability, no one notices because the airplane flies around makes lots of noise and drops bombs. But it sure as heck ain't what anyone was expecting at the beginning of the process.
And with all due respect, Nue, Lockheed isn't lying as much now as they did in the early days because there is such a substantive body of work, both good and bad to support or deny any ridiculous claims that they make. And they were put under tremendous pressure during the Bogdan days to get their house in order.
To me, it's just a matter of Saab being markedly worse at lying than the other companies. So they forgot to include an engine is part of the FlyAway cost? Kids stuff compared to the amount of capability that was whittled out of the f-35 program between 2008 and 2016. The other point is a lot of that capability that disappeared from the program while costs increased--no one will ever know about it because it was all Green door stuff in the first place. So yeah, forgetting to include something as obvious as an engine is pretty boneheaded. But certainly dollar-wise no worse than any of the shenanigans Lockheed, or Boeing, or Northrop have pulled on their various programs through the years. Nobody knew that the f-35 was supposed to have a banana trash powered flux capacitor, so when it dropped out of the program, only a few people even cared, and they were the program office people who are most vested in the success of the program at that point.
Have we also already forgotten that the super hornet was supposed to be a miner upgrade compared to a whole new aircraft development?
So again, one company may be worse at the fine art of lying, but their lies are certainly no better or worse than the others.
Again, I've seen on the other side of the sales pitch (as have you), not only for this project but others. Seeing former uniformed personnel idolize new technology is par for the course, as is everything you've listed. Many of them are former colleagues of mine. Yes its often like snake oil salesmen, and frankly the only thing these discussions are good for is as one source of many what might be possible in the future, for when someone's crafting a SoR and RFP. But that requires further research, pulling in from multiple sources ect.
I think the thing that it all comes down to strong project management skills, having a good RFP that results in a strong, actionable contract, good oversight, as well as consistent funding thats commensurate to what is required, (not the required funding -15% because "budget reasons.") Then you need the army of lawyers. That to me is just the struggle of defence procurement today and that may not always achieve the a satisfactory outcome.
I think what Saab irks me is the blatant lies to the public who have no clue but it seems reasonable to them. In Canada they are part of the reason why we're in this mess (along with Boeing).
-
4 hours ago, dustiepal said:
Remember that that $65 million did not include the engines and the press never mentioned that. Then again the press is controlled by the Canadian gov't.
Dave
$65 CND million in 2010 Canadian dollars did account for the engines: you take inflation into account you get the present $80~85m flyaway costs. You want to point fingers at not understanding the issues? It was the public at large and the media full of people who barely has a clue about them yet look for outrage everywhere. The estimates prepared by DND in 2010 and 2014 are as valid today as when they were made. That isn't reported in the press, who still take the 2011 PBO and 2012 Auditor General report as a shibboleth when they were exceptionally flawed reports.
-
13 minutes ago, MarkW said:
Before anyone gets to holier-than-thou, I don't find Saab's claims to be any more or less outrageous than Boeing's, Airbus, Lockheed, Northrop, Hindustan, Dassault Mirage, Sukhoi, etc.
this is a business where the moral imperative is selling units, not being remotely honest. and please, please don't hold up Lockheed as a paragon of honesty.
I've interacted with the biz dev people for all of the major manufacturers in the Canadian program. Perhaps because of the JSF program membership, LM is the least egregious in their claims... perhaps tied with Eurofighter. I'd argue the Eurofighter people were more respectful, and do more listening than talking. LM people are fairly careful with their language.
I had a Boeing person say that there was nothing special about the F-35 except its radar... I mean okay sure. In general they're less interested in fighting on the technical merits, but better at exploiting some of the canadian myths on fighter aircraft (gotta have two engines, way cheaper ect.) The marketing they put forward was entirely the basis upon which political leadership decided to do an interim buy of Super Hornets, without bothering to check if it was accurate enough.
Saab however is the worst, by a county mile... to the point where I almost questioned someone as to whether they thought I was stupid because there was no way they could achieve that. The fact their VP would go and say the CPFH was $5,000 per hour to a person who know to a granular detail what goes into operational costs is illustrative of the crap they try to pull.
Again this is only about this specific case, I have no doubt that in others their positions would change, though I think LM has generally acted perceptibly more Chaste as part of their corporate culture due to the bribery scandals of the 1970.
-
hmmm, I couldn't find it today but I'll take another look on saturday. I found some of the sprues but not that specific one.
-
I might have a fujimi one, which shouldn't make a difference... can you send me a photo of what you need?
-
5 minutes ago, pauly boy said:
I've done some initial research and have not found anything bad said or implied about the Gripen. It's all been very positive and this is from several sources. As for cost I would assume the Gripen is approx 1/2 the cost of an F35.
Let not fall into the "senior citizen trap" and make purchases on what the man at the door told us we needed. Big and flash is nice, but is it what we need or want to pay for???
My 2 cents worth.
Thanks Paul
There isn't much criticism out there for two reasons. One: the aircraft is barely into its development cycle and has only two customers, neither a major power. First flight was last year. Second its basically got a legion of people out there who are willing to parrot every ridiculous claim that SAAB makes.
Want to see an instance where Saab gets caught out? scroll down to the where Col. Laurie Hawn (ret) rips the Saab representative a new one about their cost per flying hour claim.
http://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/40-3/NDDN/meeting-38/evidence
"Big and flash is nice, but is it what we need or want to pay for???"
Personally? I Think we should let the subject matter experts, and the military buy what they want. They want F-35s. I want our servicemembers to have the tools they need to do the job. The argument you raise is illustrates the utter disconnect between he Canadian public and what our military is doing today. I'll take you to be someone who is more than superficially interested in fighter aircraft, for no other reason than you're on ARC and you said youve done some readings. Yet then you're making the implicit claim that we don't need the top of the line capabilities... as if we're not going to send our aircraft against top of the line air defence systems. Yet our last three deployments have been to the Baltic Air Policing Mission, Romania and Syria, where our pilots ARE facing top of the line Russian Air Defence systems. This article pretty well sums up what we're facing
https://www.cgai.ca/rcafs_pilot_shortage_being_felt_in_romania
Key line:
QuoteWood flew one of two CF-18s that scrambled to intercept a pair of formidable Russian SU-27 Flankers over the Black Sea in October. The Flankers had approached Romanian air space after launching from a base in Russian-occupied Crimea. The highly maneuverable Russian air superiority fighters turned back after the Canadian Hornets came within 500 metres of them.
While the RCAF has often intercepted Russian long-range bombers flying near the margins of Canadian air space in the high Arctic and along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, it very seldom interacts with Russian fighter jets because they are based in Europe and have a much shorter range.
“Their two airplanes were armed to the teeth. I could see the air-to-air missiles,” Woods said during an interview conducted late last month. “They waved to us. We waved to them. He gave the thumbs-up. I gave the thumbs-up. I gave him a salute and left.
Yes, this seems like a good place as any to cheap out on capabilities. Oh wait, its not even that cheap. A Gripen NG is about the equivalent price of an F-35, 75~85 million. Why? Production scale. I think Linkoping will put out one or two aircraft a month after 2020. Fort Worth Pumps out 14 per month in 2020. There's massive economies of scale and learning curve effects going on with the F-35, not so much with the Gripen.
-
2 hours ago, pauly boy said:
I've thought that the F-35 would be the obvious choice for Canada. It new and modern, easily adaptable to our US ally, parts, maintenance, even airbases would be easily applied across borders. But I've had a change of heart. Whats everybody's opinion on the SAAB J39 Gripen E. I think this could be the winner if given a chance.
Paul
Gripen? 100% hype, not even close to what Canada needs in any respect. Quite literally a public relations campaign based on lies and misrepresentations of what they offer, followed by a pretty mediocre capability at not a reasonable price whatsoever.
-
7 minutes ago, 11bee said:
Any reason the F-15 hasn't come up in the Canuck's discussion about their next fighter? If they can do without bleeding edge technology and stealth, it still seems like a pretty solid contender. Not sure what advantage any of the other jets would have over a current spec F-15. The latest versions seem pretty sophisticated and for patrolling the great white north, it has longer range than any of the jets (and two engines to placate all those Nervous Nellies who don't feel comfortable with single engine jets).
Higher acquisition and service costs, no appreciable difference in range to the F-35 for where we need it, significantly inferior industrial benefits to any other option.
-
have you tried messaging through the contact us page, rather than sending an email?
-
^ well I also think that Brits are introduced to it at an earlier age and casual drinking is a bit more ingrained in their culture than in the U.S. When your introduction into drinking is a few years of getting blackout drunk furtively in high school parties... it might not be the best marker to lay down. (its a bit of a stereotype, but its generally accurate).
Also consider that drinking age would prevent a significant portion of the military population from even joining in.
-
On 8/28/2018 at 12:37 PM, B2Blain said:
Here you go. First pic of an F-35C in a line squadron - VFA-147. Maybe the CAG jet has some color but I kind of doubt it. Decals????
Its coloured... same as VMFA 121's bird.
-
*hides his free chalet pass he's not going to use*
-
7 hours ago, fulcrum1 said:
Yodobashi Camera/Electronic Store:
They had these in a few places. I went to several although not exactly a hobby shop they had a large section of hobby related stuff. The Yokohama, Shinjuku, and Akihabara stores had some of the larger scale model selections. Mastuda was smaller. Their prices seem to be the best and if you had a tourist passport you could save on tax as well. They also had an electronic section that was best I had ever seen. I ended up buying some Nintendo stuff for my boys and auditioned the Sennheiser HD800s headphones that I am now convinced I need.
Random hobby stores and 2nd hand toy stores:
I went into several all over and these were fun, naturally they had the best prices. Mostly toys and figurines, but some had some quality kits.
Very nice haul~
These two I'd like to highlight however. Yodobashi Camera, and a lot of other sort of electronic department stores (Joshin comes to mind) are probably the best places to get up to date stuff, or "Deals" for lets say stuff thats been released in the past three years. I bought an Hasegawa SDF-1 for like 4000 yen at one.
Random hobby stores, are the real gold, especially in towns outside of the major city centres. They will have kits from years past, at original MSRP... so what it was in like 1990.
I think I paid 1200 for that. You can't get a fujimi F-86 basic boxing anymore for that price. Anyways, these sorts of shops are around and definitely worth a visit if you can find them.
Anyways, hope that helps!
-
There are really three major ones. The largest is Imperial Hobbies down on Sea Island (located by the airport, but not easily accessible via transit). It has the largest collection of kits, a decent selection of Aftermarket and books. Also there's a more general aviation store a few doors down thats worth a look. Its the number one place to go.
Second is Magic Box which is on Arbutus. Its got a decent selection of kits but more aftermarket. I feel however they tend to focus more heavily on 48 and 35 scale stuff.
Finally there's Burnaby hobbies which is in... Burnaby. They are smaller but have a more eclectic collection, and good staff. Its worth a drive. Depending on what you're interested in, I'd go to either it or Magic Box.
Hope that help.
-
On 8/15/2018 at 2:39 PM, Steve N said:
Haseagawa's release policy has always baffled me. For many years their Beufighters have almost impossible to find. Same with their 1/72 Avengers. Fortunately I snagged one each of the Hasegawa B-26B and B-26G when they first hit the shelves. I'm thinking of building up the B as "Flak Bait" with full invasion stripes, since next year's IPMS Nationals will have a D-Day theme in honor of the 75th anniversary.
SN
Very simple: the vast majority of their market is in Japan, and their decisions are based on Japanese store availability. For years people were complaining about not being able to find Hase Beaufighters on the market. Go into any Japanese shop and this is a common sight you're confronted with:
There are three right there, and there was another RAAF one in the stack beside it. Here's all of the F-4s...
So yeah. Unless these move, Hasegawa is really going to be reluctant to pop out new kits of aircraft that aren't selling in Japan.
-
Thanks Gator... I contacted them, but they are too busy at this time.
-
Hey y'all
A few months ago I wrecked a decal on an F-35 I was about to finish, and have been struggling to find a way replace it. Its rare enough that only two kits have the decal in question, and nobody has released a decal sheet for it. Its the little JSF program decal behind the cockpit (see below). So I've resigned myself to pay the money to get someone to print it for me... but having trouble finding someone who can.
Does anybody have a suggestion for who to ask to do such work? I've asked several people, but only one responded, and the deal fell through. If you don't want to advertise on the forum, I'm happy to discuss on PMs.
-
Yes, that's happened in the past, and I've got my order of nearly 100$ of stuff a few months later. They've had email issues in the past few months as any of their recent customers know: I didn't have any of my emails received and had to contact them through other methods. So long as you sent it through the web store and got an automatic confirmation, its going to come: and its worth the wait. They're the best on the market, I basically use it for any of my in-flight displays.
-
I'm shying away from Imgur... partly because I can't see how their business model is any better than PB's was three years ago, and I fear that you'll see the precise same thing happen in a few years time (perhaps more deftly handled). In general I WANT to pay money, but I'm having a hard choice. Given most of my photos are on PB, I'd pay them, except this reeks of desperation and I don't feel they will be around in a year's time. I'm considering setting up my own FTP as Dmanton has done or a smaller outfit.
-
On 2018-02-14 at 10:44 AM, 11bee said:
The B-52 has better availability numbers and lower O&M costs than the B-1? Even if it does today, would that still be the case in 15 years? With regard to nuke capability, I assume that can easily be retrofitted back, since the B-1 originally worked for SAC. Unless of course, we are bound by a treaty.
Yes, and it will probably get worse. First the AF will finally re-engine with B-52 which will vastly reduce maintenence requirements (4x modern jet engines vs 8 1960s era engines) and fuel costs. You can't really do that with the B-1. Second, the design of the B-1 is for high speed penetration with limited low observability features, which means it has less tolerances and higher costs. Finally there are 76 B-52s that was backed up by a massive production run. While most of the aircraft were dismantled, parts are plentiful. There are only 66 B-1s, and no more to pull from a parts pool, meaning greater difficulty to keep then flying.
-
Funny... the hyperbolic article that makes ridiculous claims gets all the attention, when the article that actually outlines the problems surrounding the RCAF and brings new information to the fore gets barely a whisper.
Perhaps that's part of the problem?
-
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
-
6 hours ago, Don said:
Sorry Neu, I have to disagree in regards the affect the Arrow cancellation had on Canadian indigenous fighter designs (which was my point). It's cancellation was devastating to Canada because it has never since designed, built, and actually implemented its own fighter AC (building other peoples designed fighter AC is just that... building other peoples designed AC like the F-104). Sure Canada has had some successful civilian AC designs, but not since the Arrow program has Canada been in the frontline fighter business. Did the brain drain (my uncle being one of them) have anything to do with this or did the Arrow program leave a bad taste in higher up's mouths making them gun-shy to attempt a Canadian designed and built fighter AC? Who knows. I agree the Arrow program was flawed, over budget, and bungled from the start. But there is no denying that Canada hasn't done anything since to create its own fighter AC industry. That was my point that I may not have articulated clearly.
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.
F-35 news roundup
in General Discussion
Posted
That would make sense if they eliminated the Super Hornet, which they did not.
The real reason? They need an ECR replacement to keep the rest of their Eurofighter fleet viable and provide a broader EW capability, which the F-35 is not really designed for.