Jump to content

Noyhauser

Members
  • Content Count

    1,580
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

15 Good

About Noyhauser

  • Rank
    Pineapple Eater

Recent Profile Visitors

8,161 profile views
  1. First off, I (and many of us here) know a guy who has over 75 kits completed. He posts here and is worth a look: As for me, I've got a small collection all in 1/72 (except where noted): Hasegawa seven VF-1s (two battroids), two VF-21s (one with a resin battroid conversion kit), Moon Shooters VF-22, VF-11. 1/4000 SDF-1 storm attacker mode. Bandai Spartan. And a few resin things: VF-11 Full armor, 2 VF-4 recasts. Edit: oh yeah I built a bunch of tect 1/144 kits back in the day: 3 VF-19s and a VF-11 Full armor. I'm hoping to start the moon shooters pretty soon, but I
  2. You're right, forgive me for thinking that you actually wanted to have an informed discussion on this topic: please, return to your regularly scheduled ranting and posting of uninformed opinions. .
  3. Yes, and such issues and restrictions will always exist. We can't guarantee that they won't, so we need to prepare for them. I believe that the Su-25 is actually the most shot down aircraft of the past 15 years: six were lost in Georgia during the 2008 war and I think 7 in Ukraine. The thing is a flying pin cushion. Well the F-35 has the same range as the F-22, but that's not going to be good enough. There was some discussion for a medium sized bomber around 2006, but that was shelved. For now it will be the F-15E, perhaps until 2030. I think you'll see the F-35 carrying long r
  4. First off, I think your argument is flawed because you're conflating tactical and strategic levels of employment. Nobody claimed that airpower was a panacea for what ails us in Afghanistan or Iraq. That requires a political solution, which entails a whole other set of considerations, such as economic development, governance, popular support, ect. Airpower only plays a tangental part of it. Rather, the USAF and NAVAIR are focused on a different threats and theatres, like providing security in Asia. That requires a technical response, as our potential adversaries are engaged in developing what
  5. I think I understand the dynamics of this problem quite well. FAC is carried out in a very different way than you suggest. Support aircraft don't fly low and slow to undertake this mission anymore. They generally fly medium to high altitudes, utilizing LANTIRN, LITENING, as well as their eyes, to identify or correlate target data. The last part is important: its now critical that units carrying out air support can integrate into existing battlefield networks to receive and share data. Boots on the grounds can designate targets, often by looking at real time aerial feeds and orienting themselve
  6. Yes, but as you very well know, airframe isn't what's the cost driver on aircraft: its the avionics. Comms, sensors ect. That stuff hasn't been developed, because its what's going to cost Textron the real money to develop. That means adding at very least Link 16, ROVER Compatibility, among systems, plus some level of sensor integration. I did overstate the potential cost, but its not going to be cheap to make it conform to the USAF's needs. Otherwise it makes more sense for the USAF to either buy more Reapers, or continue with its current force structure. The reason why the A-10 is being remov
  7. Is Jager an essential part of the building process? Praytell, how do you use it?
  8. Which is a capability no aircraft in the world today save for the F-22 has: the F-35 can do raw data correlation between two aircraft currently, up to four or more in the coming months. It also has Link-16 for communications, which is the basic system used by all other aircraft. Nevertheless, the Radar, Electro Optical and IR systems are far beyond anything currently in service. I don't know what "maximum on-target damage" means, to you or anyone else. SDB is designed to have very low collateral damage and (in block II, just now coming into service) moving target hit to kill capabilities.
  9. Yeah, dropping guided weapons, the most advanced radar and sensor package currently installed on any fighter in the world: not worth mentioning at all.
  10. Looks really well done for an early test shot. Are their kits easy to find?
  11. So I think one of the cool things that has changed in the eight years since Area 88 created this thread is that many, if not most of these videos are now available on youtube. Last night I watched and really enjoyed Urban Square... which was awesome. It had the classic hard boiled detective.... AWESOME. I see its like 50/50 on which OAVs are on the tube, but its still far more than before. Maybe we should post them here?
  12. Sweet! I'm probably going to go in October for some family/work stuff, so I'm going to try to catch this (and that book looks fantastic).
  13. I don't know exactly what you looking for, but I've worked closely on this file. My area of expertise is comparative procurement policy, but I also studied military strategy for a masters and worked in the field, so I try to understand the nexus between technology, policy and strategy. I don't have a lot of time (because I'm working on some stuff F-35 related as we speak) but I'll try to answer any question you have. No, I don't think that's fair... if we look at historical antecedents, they are far far worse... we just don't really have the context to see that, which is in part due to
  14. I don't know why you think that, but its completely not true. No aircraft, save for the F-22, has the sensor fusion system on the F-35, none of them have DAS, or the APG-81's sensor and jamming capabilities. None of them have data sharing capability of the F-35. That package is unique, and is really what 40% of the F-35's cost relates to. In short, claiming that every, or even some, avionics features on the F-35 has found its way onto other aircraft is just plain ignorant. But hey, don't take my opinion on it... lets listen to a USMC commander with thousands of hours on the F/A-18, F-16, F-2
  15. He wrote that article before seeing the document itself, so its a bit dated but it provides a lot of good context. The critical aspect of the study is that it refers to high AoA testing: it wasn't a "dogfight test" as people have claimed. The F-35's strongest asset is its instantaneous turn rate: it is as good as the F/A-18's which is that aircraft's strongest asset. Nose pointing is perhaps one of the most valuable traits an aircraft can have: it allows for quicker repositioning and setting up direct missile launches. Its sustained turn fairly good, but it cannot match the F-16's ability, w
×
×
  • Create New...