Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Noyhauser

  1. A single large engine is almost always quieter than several smaller ones. Especially if they have a larger fan. The F135 being so loud is an aberration. The GE90 is one of the quietest engines around, and it's THE most powerful.

    Again, Its the afterburner that is the cause. Without the can lit, its pretty comparable to other engines of its ilk.


  2. No... the lift fan is really just a fan that pushes air through... there is no combustion component. So its not going to make that much sound... think a helicopter's blade spinning around.

    Really the sound increase comes when the 135's afterburner is lit. Basically this is one of the most powerful power plants ever installed: alone it puts out more thrust than both the F/A-18E's 404s combined. So its going to be loud.

  3. It looks great!! Good job!! I have a Club-M VF-11 too, but it's a special edition without any pack or option parts. :(

    I might have an extra pair of packs, as I constructed one years ago without any.... would you like them?



    (Can't resist using the extra caps because your build is THAT awesome!)

  4. I couldn't tell from the question if you have built any Real Grades already. If you haven't, oh my god, do it. The detail, the articulation - they are simply amazing.

    I haven't, but the current hasn't really interested me all that much... save for the good ole' gundam and zaku. I might just get a green one to start.

    Thanks guys.

  5. Hey Ghost... I was just looking at the K-9 Kit. Looks pretty cool!

    So, I'm kinda in the market for a new 1/144 kit... I might get a Real grade Gundam or Zaku... but I'd be interested in another 1/144 GM.




    Or maybe the Nu gundam or hi-nu

    Any thoughts or recommendations?

  6. Hey everyone!

    I've been really busy of late, but was able to take a day off and go to the Abingdon Air & Country show here in the UK two weeks ago. The link below leads to the "best" photos I took of the event (using a new telezoom lens, so... I was still getting a feel for it).

    Please forgive the overly simplistic descriptions, as they were written for an audience that is not nearly as knowledgeable as you guys!


    Nice to see you Drew... and awesome photos, particularly of the Canberra... I love that aircraft. The offset cockpit was for several reasons. One, the "fishbowl" cockpit of the previous version wasn't that effective, so they went with a fighter type canopy. Offsetting it also made for more space for crew (and later) avionics. It made for better vision during landing, and apparently for oblique cameras as well (when they were installed).

    I built a couple in 1/72 over the years... they are pretty cool aircraft IMO.



  7. Thanks, I see the A-10 has the minimum number of parts added possible. Boo. They also didn't show what their future upcoming stuff might be.

    Thanks for the info!

    Is C3 the other big show? Other than wonderfest.

    I require more announcements...

    The other big one is actually seems to be the Nuremburg Toy show: Tamiya announced their 1/72 F-16, Hasegawa the upcoming A-10 and Su-33.

  8. So based on inflation, one would have to convert the F-35 price to an estimated 2020 levels, using http://oregonstate.edu/cla/polisci/sites/default/files/faculty-research/sahr/inflation-conversion/pdf/cv2010.pdf, normalized to 2010. which yields 72.65 for the AF buy, 80.45 for the Navy Buy, 75.77 for all. Using the same methods the 2012 F-18 (a reduced lot due to the Gs) would be 65.67, that's still quite a price difference(1.10 for the AF buy,1.22 for the Navy, and 1.15 for all)

    Sorry, I did not see your reply until today.

    No, you don't have to "convert F-35's price to 2020 levels" because the SAR's figures are a base year of 2012. To get a 2012 price for a 2020 F-35 you simply divide $3681 million by 60 and you get, 60.8 million. Your number for the F/A-18E is also correct, however the cost has been fairly consistent over the years, though rising in more recent years (after 2012) due to what is called diminishing manufacturing sources (Basically sub-component producers discontinue production and new sources must be found and re-qualified.) Also note the "Navy buy" is an amalgamation of the C and B version buys.

    One other thing you need to remember is that you actually need less F-35s to do the same job as a F/A-18E. That's even ignoring the operational effectiveness, but you don't need a twin seat version to train pilots, and the higher quality simulators means that pilots can do more training on the ground than before.

  9. I am not up to snuff on finance and accounting lingo, can someone explain the difference between BY and TY. Using TY, I get 81.7 mil(60 Jets) for 2020 (pg 35 Total Flyaway) for the AF and 91.9(40 jets) for the navy(pg 41 Total Flyaway). when you add those total costs together and divide by 100 you get the 85 mil number. In comparison I took 2012 TY F-18 cost(pg 18 Total Flyaway) and divided by 28 and got 68.8 which I believe does not include the G models cost or numbers. While not the 1.5 number (1.33 compared to the Navy buy and 1.18 to AF and 1.23 for total), its still hard to say they are the same price. This is also assuming they actually go to FRP by then.

    I personally don't believe the hype of the opposition but have heard it as used as a justification to keep funding the F-35.

    BY= Base year (for the F/A-18E/F that's 2000, F-35 is 2012)

    TY = Then Year (that line is the cost in that particular year's dollars),

    That is entirely the discrepancy you're citing. Base years are used in order to keep cost estimates all in line on a constant dollar amount, so you don't need to figure out the inflation for every line (as you do with TY). There are specific DoD indices for their goods, but using the Department of Labour's CPI calculator will do fine in this particular situation.


    Guess what the difference is between 2000 and 2012? 1.33,

    Its also best not to use total flyaway, as there are specific costs that don't scale well (ground equipment for a squadron for example.) Recurring flyaway is the best measure, more because you can do a lot of interesting calculations based on that data.

  10. Assuming all goes perfectly and there is not testing issues or budget issues(cutbacks on airframes). LM has not shown a great track record with cost or schedule on this program. 85 mil is the quoted airframe price with none of the GFE parts (e.g engine). It is still about 1.5x the price of the upgraded SH in the best case, both with all the GFE parts.

    No, that's incorrect. First off, LM has been over the cost targets by about 5%, going down from a high of 15% in LRIP lot 3 (or something like that.) The aircraft is now on a firm fixed contract, meaning that any cost overruns are their problem alone.

    The F-35's cost is also comparable to the F/A-18E, not 1.5X more. Look at the 2012 Selected Acquisition Report on page 39: Take the 2020 line ($3681.2 million) and divide by unit amount (60) and that equals $61.35 million, in 2012 dollars. Reccurring flyaway is the total of engines, avionics and structure (all the GFE you're talking about)

    Now the F/A-18E/F's Selected acquisition report (page 20) shows in 2012 a Recurring cost of 49.27 million in 2000 dollars. You need to inflate that into 2012 baseline to make an apples to apples comparison with the F-35. When you do that you get $65.69 million

    Why is the F/A-18E a little bit more? Production volume. The F-35 will be produced at approximately 130 units per year; the Super hornet at best reached 42 or so. Also, total F/A-18E production never broached 600, a magical number for learning curves start hitting their most efficient point.

    All the fancy gizmos (EODS, Helmet) have yet to demonstrate that they fully work as intended. As for the opponents, the same skepticism can be applied to them too, but if you take their capabilities at face value, the F-35 will be slaughtered also.

    Sure, but the program is reaching most of its milestones. The helmet I'm less worried about compared to the ALIS system, which is absolutely essential for making the aircraft worth it in the long run. Most of the US's opponents aren't investing hundreds of billions into fighter development. Russia's aviation industry is smaller than Canada's and suffers from significant graft... that should tell you about how advanced it is. Also remember that most other aircraft (save from the Eurofighter) does not have the rigorous scrutiny of the DoD oversight bodies. Every single issue with the aircraft is documented and reported on, when you barely hear a peep about other aircraft. Other countries will basically distort facts in order to claim a moral victory of sorts. Saab is about the worst in this regards, little better than the Russians.

  11. 1.) Is the F-35 really that flawed or do people give it a hard time cos it is not a good looker and replaces many old favourites? Plus it doesn't have nice paper stats on top speed and cant carry 10 AA missiles.

    2.) The development issues it is facing, are they unreasonable for a 21st century fighter program? Stuff like the Rafale, EF2000, J-10 (all arguably less ambitious) took decades too but no one gave em a hard time for that. And their problems just got less internet air-time I suppose.

    I think its got a lot of negative press, much of it is not really accurate. The F-35 doesn't fit peoples preconceptions about fighters. Critics like to claim that it has pig like maneuverability.... it doesn't. Its got maneuverability similar to the F-16 or F/A-18C. However its real advantages are in its sensor systems and low-observable nature.

    Then there are the price issues. The press loves to throw around 1.5 trillion (now around 1.1 trillion), but they fail to say thats everything adding up, including a nearly 40 years life cycle.

    The usual story about the F-16 is that it was originally designed as a "pure" dogfight machine; simple radar, WVR missiles, a gun, high agility etc. It was supposed to "make up the numbers" compared to the high-end F-15s and F-14s.

    Obviously, however, they wanted foreign sales and started shopping it around Europe, and the trouble in Europe is that it rains about 75% of the year... :) So the various European customers, who were also looking to replace various aging aircraft, demanded a better all-weather capability, which is sort of how the F-16 wound up being used more as a bomb truck (this is probably a great simplification, but like I say its how the story is usually told).

    Ahh, close... but there are some important details to add. The USAF had already decided to add the A2G capability before the June 1975 decision by the European Multinational Steering Group. In reality, it had always wanted the aircraft to posses that capability, but had been denied to do so until late 1974... so the AF got the aircraft it wanted.

    Regards the F-35, I would also like to know if other countries aircraft programmes have similar problems. The PAK-FA and J-20 can't work perfectly straight out the box, surely, not given that pretty much every new aircraft programme has hiccups somewhere along the way? I do wonder if part of the issue is just that the F-35 is a product of the information age, and is just getting much more attention than any other previous development programme because of it...

    Yes: Rafale and Eurofighter had similarly long gestations. However newer generations of aircraft (whether they be fighters, or civilian airliners) are taking longer to develop and field. For example the 737 was conceived, developed and introduced in just over 3 years (August 1964 to February 1968). The 787 took approximately 8 years and you could argue that it was an incomplete product. Same goes for fighter aircraft... but its much worse for a number of reasons.

    My concern with the F-35 is that in most combat scenarios where it would be called into action, it may likely have to carry external stores.

    Actually, I think it will be a rare to see F-35s with external ordinance. It can carry 4500 Lbs in its internal bays. In OIF and OEF the most common load carried by fighters was around 2000lbs of ordnance (1000lbs JDAM or LGB X2, or some combination thereof). F-117 often carried 4000 Lbs (2000 lbs GBU-27 X2) during Operation Desert Storm, but that was for the most defended of targets. That sort of payload is seen as being extremely large and not altogether useful. It causes ALOT of collateral damage, which is a problem.

    In reality there is a new generation of smaller weapons entering service like JAGM and SDB, which are nearly as effective as their larger brethren but can be carried in greater quantities.

    What really intrigues me though, is the concept of stealthy weapons pods. I've seen some concept designs for a centerline pod for the superhornet, carrying something like 4 AMRAAMs in a blocky belly pod. Seriously, Kawamori has been ahead of his time for years.. they look really similar to the missile pods you see the VF-0 carry.

    You're talking about the Boeing low observable pod. Problem with it is that they haven't really solved how to load it effectively... its very low to the ground. The Navy has since taken a pass on the entire concept, especially in the current budget climate.

    Anyway, the F-35 is going to be a mixed bag any way you slice it. Will it do the job of all those other planes it's replacing? Potentially, yes. Will it do them as well? No. Air combat is just changing, and people are obsessed with multi-role aircraft, even if they aren't quite as exceptional.

    Except that everybody, including the Chinese and Russians only produce multi-role now.

    The other thing that's dragging the F-35 through the mud really.. it's essentially a technology demonstrator that someone got the bright idea to put into production.

    Low Rate Initial Production actually is a pretty common approach in the acquisitions world. Few development programs do not have an LRIP component would be rare. Otherwise you'd be waiting even more years for production to catch up to the technology.

    Now, was the amount of concurrency appropriate in this case? probably not... but that's a difficult call to make. For every bad LRIP decision, there are several good ones. Its tough to assess.

    Additional issue with the F-35 is that it is trying to replace most of TACAir and is stupidly expensive. The Pentagon is so invested in the idea of "5th Gen", really just a marketing term, that they are forgoing all other options to make the F-35 work. If it fails to pan out there is no fall back option.

    Its actually cheaper than most options. by 2020, production volumes will drive the unit price down to approximately $85 million U.S., which is pretty close to what it pays for other, less advanced aircraft like the F/A-18E. And given the age of the Tac-air fleet's (most sitting around 25~30 years of age), they desperately require a replacement. Also consider that our opponents are buying ever more complex and expensive pieces of equipment, so the disparity in combat capability between the US and them isn't getting any worse (it might be getting better.)

    Well, the latest on the Gripen-E (Super Gripen) has that it basically gets an all-new fuselage---similar yet mostly retooled, to increase fuel capacity and give it better trans-sonic drag characteristics for an improved supercruise. (M1.25 sustained)

    AND it's going to cost less to own/operate than anything else out there that's at all comparable, even the baseline Gripen which was already dirt-cheap and simple. The maintenance and fuel consumption is that much better. And it'll have Meteor capability out-of-the-box as the primary air-to-air weapon, with Iris and ASRAAM for short-range.

    And then, the US is making the F-35...

    Ugh... the Gripen NG. Probably the most overhyped aircraft ever, for something that delivers so little actual capability. Frankly, Saab has done a great job of making false or misleading claims about the Gripen's capability, and having people believe them. So, for supercruise, the only way that's possible is if the fighter carries no armament or fuel tanks... which is kinda useful if you actually are going into combat.

    The aircraft costs the same or more than a F-35 (around the $85 million dollar range), and frankly, the claims of $5000 dollar CPFH is just not credible (Fuel alone should be around $7000+).

    Its sensor capability is barely better than currently updated Hornet (legacy, like the CF-18, not even the Superhornet). Its nowhere close to the F-35's AN/APG-81, or the EODS/DAS system. In some areas the F-35 has superior maneuverability (AoA, thrust to weight with an realistic combat load, among others.)

    Weapons-wise the F-35 has the AIM-120D, with Meteor and AIM-9X coming online later. Then there is the Universal Armaments Interface that will basically enable the easy integration of any new weapon. Saab basically has to custom integrate any new weapon that comes online.

  12. Other than having speed to its advantage, how is an F-16 more survivable than an A-10? The air defenses that threaten the A-10 can be just as dangerous if not more so to the F-16. I wouldn't expect any strike aircraft to be sent into an area where radar-guided SAMs like the SA-2,3 and 6 were still a big threat though.

    I'd like to see a slow draw down in the A-10 but only as the problems with F-35 are finally sorted out. The other interesting option would be an extended range F-16 for the US like the Block 60.

    Speed is a huge one. A-10s really don't go much above 250KCAS (287mph/463kph), maybe 400 (350mph 600kph)in a pinch. The F-16 cruises around 300~400, and can ingress and egress at much higher speeds 600KCAS (700mph/1,200kph, or about mach .9). Instead of being stuck over a battlefield, F-16s can stay high, and enter only when required. The low speed of the A-10 also creates problems if you're trying to build an effective strike package. Escorts and jammers can't effectively fly as slow as the A-10, therefore you actually need more aircraft to protect it. The F-16/F-15/F-22/F-35 all cruise around in the upper subsonic realm, so its much easier to operate together rather than one aircraft operating at a much slower speed.

    Furthermore, the F-16's maneuverability is much better at those speed (it was designed to operate in the transonic realm) which is more valuable in air to air and surface to air scenarios. An A-10 in a air combat scenario is at an extreme disadvantage.

    Outside of flight performance, The F-16's avionics are much more advanced. You have an radar, and a versatile avionics suite with good RWR and ECM pods that are all tied altogether. While a lot of that might exist in the A-10 in different parts, the pilot really has to manage it all, which is an issue. F-16s (specifically block 50s) are also able to operate with effective SEAD loadouts like the AGM-88/ and HARM Targeting Pod... which can help with self protection.

    All in all, its also not just about the the aircraft's survivability in CAS. The A-10 is largely a single mission platform that can be replaced by other aircraft (it really already has been.) The F-16 can do far more missions (CAS, interdiction, SEAD, air superiority), that make it more valuable, even if it costs a bit more. Reducing the overhead of having to support one aircraft type makes a lot of sense. There are a few areas where the capability might suffer (CSAR being one), but given what the AF sees ahead with the F-35, they want to spend as much money there as possible.

    The best way to put it is that a relatively small capability reduction in the near term, will help pay for a massive increase in the mid to long term. What the F-35 offers going forward is nothing short of revolutionary for the armed forces, and thats where they want to spend their money.

  13. Sad to see the A-10 go and what sounds like for good this time. Besides F-16's & Blackhawks, we get a lot of Warthogs flying over here too, love that engine sound it never gets boring!!

    Whats even sadder is that the Airforce/Government has been trying to do away with this aircraft for a long ass time, The Gulf War proved how valuable it is, then they wanted to scrap it again with the promises of the F-35. Back again with Iraq & Afghanistan, All these years later the A-10 in terms of maintenance & upgrades costs shes one of the cheapest birds flying.

    So getting rid of this plane for budget cuts is BS, its just bad politics. For every modern technological advance the F-35 offers, the A-10 can withstand massive AA fire and damage and still land, the same will never be said for the Lightning II. Just my 2 cents.

    The reality is that close air support has changed significantly over the past 20 years, and especially in the past 10. The concept of low altitude bombing and strafing runs has largely disappeared from the the USAF's doctrine. Rather the A-10C basically is being used in the same fashion as the F-16, F-15E and other aircraft, which is mid altitude flight profiles dropping precision guided munitions. It shouldn't escape notice that flying low altitude operations during the Persian Gulf War resulted in the aircraft suffering the highest casualty rates of any aircraft during that conflict.

    However, better ground to air coordination through the JTACS (forward air controller) new comms systems (like ROVER), improved sensors (like LANTIRN and LITENING), as well as new generation of smart tailored smart weapons (SDB, Viper strike, among others), basically has reduced the requirement for undertaking low level approaches. Undertaking CAS can be done just as effectively at medium altitude: over 80% sorties in Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom were undertaken by aircraft other than the A-10. In reality most of the recent updates to the Warthog enabled functions already present on the rest of the fighter fleet.

    The A-10C isn't all that much cheaper than other aircraft. Its about $18,000 per flying hour, with the F-16 at 22,000. However the F-16 can undertake more roles, and is far more survivable than the A-10 in a less permissive environment. The A-10's survivability in a theatre that has anything more than the SA-2, 3 or 7 is really in question. That's why its up on the chopping block.

  14. Oh, well, in that case... all is good. Sorry about the rant. Your first post seemed to suggest that I needed to post stuff in anime and scifi. I understand that non-macross stuff threads should not be in unique threads... I always assumed that was the rules!

    My bad.

  15. Hi Exo

    In general I can understand most of your changes. I do think that having the workbench thread in workshop makes much more sense. However I disagree heavily with your change to exclude non-macross stuff from the workbench thread. Actually I think its a very bad decision, that will make me and others post less here.

    That thread, (and its earlier iterations) has been there for maybe a decade. Thus, I don't think one can argue that its somehow taken away from this forum's focus. If anything its added to the skills of the people involved. Frankly, there isn't that much macross model building; I would suspect ALL of us build macross stuff as a secondary passion along side aircraft, sci-fi or military kits. However to make the best macross kits possible a lot of basic model-skills are required which are drawn from all manner of

    I'll give you one concrete example from recent memory. WM Cheng recently had a problem with his Space Battleship Yamato Cosmo build, specifically his alclad primer. He didn't know what was wrong. I've had similar issues with that product (its formulation itself is bad), so I explained what to do to resolve it. That's information that he and other users can apply to other models, including macross ones. I've taken tips from people on their gundam kits, or HWR's chipping on military vehicles, that I will use on my macross battroids... I think for that reason alone it makes a lot of sense to allow posters to post whatever they want in that thread. If we look at other modellers, especially in Japan, most of them have multiple areas of interest, which are evident on their blogs and the like.

    Furthermore I feel that shunting all of that work over to the anime and sci-fi is a poor substitute. The thread will get quickly buried in a bunch of inanity. It would divide the amount of builds as a whole so that neither thread will get much attention at all... leading to less interest in total.

    The modelling community as a whole is a fairly tight-nit group. I'm pretty certain that once this policy becomes known among others, or you start actively moderating that thread, you're going to face a backlash... not just from random people, but the ones who do post quite a bit of content on this forum. Bertt's post is really indicative of how we feel inside..Does creating such a backlash really help promote macross modelling? I personally don't think so.

    Truthfully, the old thread did not elicit much attention or any confusion among people: rather it helped promote to macross modelbuilding, and fostered a good community spirit here. Please don't take that away from us, because of some desire to enforce a notion of consistency that really does not apply well to this area of macross fandom.

  16. I'm guessing they moved to electric ones to save weight, like the 787 does. Hydraulic lines, pumps, and the gallons of fluid itself, all add up, weight-wise.

    Its also to do with maintenence. Hydraulics are large, multi-system assembles that inevitably have issues. Electrohydrostatic components generally are one piece, self contained affairs: they are easy to check, fix, and replace. That saves a lot of time on the flightline.

  17. Hasegawa hands down. It builds like a "traditional" model, with extremely nice recessed panel lines and details, realistic proportions for an aircraft, ect. Its pretty well lineart accurate: they followed the fighter mode lineart pretty closely, and since it does not need to transform, its faithful to them. It has more details on it than is seen in lineart (fasteners on panels, extra panels ect, but that's generally seen to be a big plus. If you're that' upset by them you can always fill them in. If you built F-16s, Mustangs, Zeros, Corsair models as a teen, then that's what you're getting.

    Bandai is different. Its not a "traditional model," rather its a Gunpla that transforms into fighter mode. As WMcheng points out its pretty well been panned by everybody, their mothers, grandmothers, great grandmothers, great aunts, and their great aunt's dog walker. That's how harsh the criticism is. Its not very lineart accurate, but apparently its closest in fighter. However if you built gundams as a teen, it might be the kit for you. It doesn't require glue (well a bit), and has self adhesives as an option of if you want.

    There are also old reboxed Arii (I think or Imai) 1/72 kits by Bandai that are simpler than the HAsegawa VF-1s. They can be found for very cheap (like 1000 yen).

    Other things to consider:

    Hasegawa is a cheaper kit. MSRP of a fighter without Fastpacks is like 2000yen (24 bucks) versus 4000+ for Bandai. However people do sell hasegawa ones cheaply; getting one for 15 dollars isn't uncommon on Ebay or here. Hasegawa is actually not the easiest of 1/72 models. I think its actually one of the hardest to do well. Its a real mark of skill to build . I'd suggest you buy a practice model, maybe a jet, like an F-16, or F-15. The other option are the reboxed arii or imai kits which might be a good start before you get to hasegawa.

  • Create New...