David Hingtgen

Which one's that? Nimitz class, but can't tell past that. (Other than it's not the Reagan). The one I just posted is the Stennis, you can just see the numbers on the flightdeck.

Hey, I said ask Knight26 like 6 posts ago... PS--small update from Navy: http://news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=14451 PPS--you can never have too many pics of aircraft carriers:

I've not seen the "Abraham Lincoln" version of that legend. And "2nd largest ship in the Atlantic" is certainly a new line, never heard that added in. (Asides from the fact that there's nothing bigger than a Nimitz class, and that the Lincoln is a PACIFIC ship)

AFAIK, the are anti-air only. They can take down planes in addition to missiles. I would imagine the replacement RAM has the same limitation (air only), though Knight26 is certainly THE person to ask about that.

Well, the unwritten rule is that no matter what you are or what condition your engine's in, you stay the heck out of the way of a Kitty Hawk class carrier... (especially when the Jolly Rogers are aboard) PS--while carriers can turn MUCH harder than most people would ever believe, (it's really cool to see test footage on TV) they tend not to unless they're being flat-out attacked due to how steep the deck angle becomes--they'd dump overboard every plane that's not tied down and probably a few hundreds sailors in the process. PPS---Actually, I bet it could stop pretty quickly, in a crash stop. Which is probably even worse for the ship than making a tight turn. And probably result in MANY injured sailors. Anyone know if most US carriers can "close the rudders" to help stop? (Turning them in opposite directions towards each other to "close off" the area between the skegs---massive rudder damage, but will greatly improve stopping distance)

After the Cole incident, every US warship had a bunch of M60's added around the perimeter, and good old-fashioned "guys with binoculars" looking around, anytime they're near land. How they missed a ship (regardless of size or weather conditions) doesn't look good for whoever was on look-out duty. However, the JFK is rather known for hitting things. Current JFK "stuff it's hit" tally: 1x cruiser (USS Belknap) 1x destroyer (USS Bordelon) 1x dhow And one close call (USS Leroy Grumman--yes, THAT Grumman)

Dragon's Warbirds are the best diecast military jets you can buy IMHO. But for a nit-picker like me, nothing but building it yourself is good enough, accuracy-wise. I think their F-18 is better than their F-16. Their F-15E has *serious* accuracy issues, the C/D has few to none. (gotta see "real" ones, not prototype/samples---heat exchanger vents and ECM antenna config are iffy) Haven't seen Super Hornet WELL, just a few pics from trade shows. Looked good.

Actually, I love MDC, my fave plane builder. I'm just not fond of one particular product when it's replacing another much-beloved plane. (I actually like regular Hornets, it's the SUPER Hornet I'm not too fond of)

Regardless of what its role was, the F-14 was and is a better dogfighter than the F-4 which was the Navy's best fighter at the time. At gun range, the F-14 will easily take down even a slatted F-4 via sheer manuevers. If a new plane can out-dogfight the then current best dogfighter, it's a good dogfighter, even if it's a "Fleet Defense" plane officially. Which makes me wonder: F-8 vs F-14 in a close-range fight. Both are better than the F-4. F-8 is the F-8 and is smaller, but the F-14 has so much more power and a better power ratio. As for YF-17: The F-18L should still have existed, but MDC killed it. Wouldn't be as good as the F-17 for intercepting, but sure would beat the F/A-18A.

Going a bit OT but: If they made models with all the parts pre-removed from the sprue with no marks/scars, I'd buy them. Pre-painted ACCURATELY? I'd buy them. Pre-assembled pre-painted pre-decaled? I'd buy those too, if they were accurate. I honestly don't really ENJOY any aspect of modeling at all. But I demand accuracy, so I am forced to build and paint them myself. If something says it's an F/A-18C, it darn well better be a C, not an A or A+ with new paint, etc. Which is why I buy diecast airliners, but not diecast military planes (any more). All 767-200's are utterly identical asides from engines. However, F-16C Block 30's vs Block 40s are instantly identifiable to me. A generic "F-16C" mold will not do. Surprisingly, having built a Bandai Ent-E, I found the fit far below modern Bandai standards, even emplyoing the pliers technique. The thing fits together so STRONGLY it'll never come apart without damage, it just doesn't fit TOGETHER. The parts may have a death-grip on each other, but they still have a gap between them. And like all Bandai "electronics" I've seen, the connection is poor/fiddly, much better to just solder the thing rather than rely on springs and pressure to make the connections. I really wish Tamiya would have expanded upon their 1/32 "seamless one-piece fuselage" idea they used for their F-4. Life's a lot easier when the biggest most visible seam is non-existant.

We just had a thread about these: http://www.macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?showtopic=9442

I'll bring it up again: 500-unit runs of $20 model planes from companies run by 3 or 4 guys can have 8-color tampo-printing. I doubt Yamato couldn't afford it for larger runs of costlier planes with only like 2 colors needed... And there's always the $4 model train boxcars with multi-color tampo printing... All we ask is the logo and the numbers and "UN SPACY" really for about 99% of valks. Nora's would be an exception and I'd gladly pay a few bucks extra to avoid decals.

Room? That's the last concern when buying a model. I've got 2 1/350 battleships, 2 1/32 Hornets, and a 1/72 XB-70 in my stash...

At 1/350, should be a bit under 3 feet long. And a matching Excelsior would be a bit over 4 feet. At least bigger's easier to light up. Nothing like 2 days with a pin-vise and file opening up the planetary sensor array in Ertl's Excelsior.

Anubis--mine's almost identical to yours, except I have a 2.8Ghz P4 processor.

1/32 would be great (and HUUUUUUGE). Would go well with my Academy F-18's. (If I ever get around to building them, I don't knnow where I'd put them once they're together---wings will be folded due to space reasons! )

Well, the first thing they were going to do for the original was to stretch the forward fuselage for a Sidewinder bay in front of the AMRAAM bay. Would also make it sleeker/faster. Don't know if they'd still do that, nowadays AMRAAM is considered a self-defense weapon too, as it's better for a bomber to snipe from afar rather than dogfight! But a bigger fuselage would allow more bombs/fuel of course. Back end: it was always too big due to thrust-reverser removal, that'd be made smaller. Would probably keep original design/shape, as it was very stealthy, both RCS and IR. Maybe use all that space for massive chaff/flare capacity. Hmmn, internal gun. THAT's debatable. (of course, a large part of it is "will the FB-23 eventually be redesigned 'back' to the F-23A?") Might be put in for no other reason than CAS capability. Even as it was, it should have been as agile as the F-16 but with better climbing and sustained turns due to raw power and wing size. It'd take a lot to take it "down" substantially.

Well, the late-model F-111's like in Desert Storm are still damn fast at all altitudes (they WILL outrun F-14's and can match the F-15) and very agile for a bomber. No matter how much it may have sucked as a fighter, it is still the F-14's immediate predecessor, and as such is as agile as a plane that big can be. And it has swing-wings, so it performs better than sheer wing/body size would indicate. The F-111 is a very good plane, just absolutely not a good carrier plane nor can it be the F-14 or F-15. The main argument for F-15 and F-23 over the F-111 is self-defense, not really performance. AFAIK quite a few F-15E pilots are ex-F-111 pilots. The F-15E is a much rougher ride and doesn't have the payload/range of the F-111, but they sure do like the fact that they can defend themselves with the best of them with the newer plane. Though the F-111's best defense has always been raw speed, and it outran MiG-29's all the time in Desert Storm.

If you want BIG laser-guided bombs, F-111 rules all. The absolute highest-priority targets in Desert Storm went to F-111's. Also I don't think the F-15 can carry the largest Paveways. Even F-111's had to carry them outboard for sheer clearance reasons.

This might be the pic Nied was talking about, note the A-6 style seating.

Basically, Northrop lost the rights to their own design, and MDC got all rights/licenses/contracts to it, even though they only modified it from the YF-17 to the F-18. Northrop was supposed to have all rights to non-carrier versions, as it was presumed the lower-weight high-performance version would be what Australia, Spain, Canada etc would buy. However, MDC finagled around with the govt and managed to get everyone to buy the carrier-capable MDC version. (There was supposed to be two planes: The Northrop F-18L and the McDonnellDouglas F-18A). Eventually, Northrop was reduced from "main designer/owner" of the plane, to "primary contractor of the forward fuselage". FYI: You know the LEX strake added around 1990? Northrop's idea. However, MDC didn't want "Northrop parts on OUR plane" and so if you look close, you will see that the LEX strake is attached via 4 bolts--two up front, and two just ahead of the middle, right infront of the panel line that it covers. The rear 3/5 is unsecured. Why? Because that's where the separation line between Northrop-built and MDC-built parts of the F-18 is. The LEX is only attached to the Northrop-built forward fuselage, it merely "floats above, very close to" the mid-fuselage. You'll see the attachment points are right ahead of the panel line, which is a structural break line.

The YF-23's main gear is nothing more than modified F-18 gear. (it's not "bent", nor is the giant shock strut installed--dead weight on a land-based plane) Add the shock-absorber strut back in, and you've got carrier-ready gear. Though a -23 weighs much more than even a Super Hornet, may need more mods. Would need a totally new nose gear, it's almost 100% stock F-15 parts. Could be problems, seeing as how the YF-23 is Northrop-McDonnellDouglas, and uses many F-15 and F-18 parts in it. But now MDC is owned by Boeing, and they're not going to want to help the Lockheed-Boeing FB-22's competitor... But of course, since the Hornet is really Northrop's F-17 in the first place... PS--there's some serious bad blood between MDC and Northrop because of the Hornet, kind of surprised they worked together on the -23. Basically, the YF-23 is a Northrop airframe "shell" with MDC gear/systems/avionics inside. Though MDC did the all-important v-tail. I wouldn't be surprised if the cockpit panel has F-20 parts though, the F-20 is supposed to have an amazingly "pilot-friendly" design, better than anything else even today--and the -23 was supposed to be similar. ::sarcasm:: Man, making a plane that the PILOTS like, that's not important at all, let's just make more Super Hornets ::end sarcasm:: PPS--remember, force is mass times velocity squared. Landing speed is more important than landing weight. And due to its humongous wing area (more than a -22 or Flanker), the F-23 would have a quite slow approach to the carrier. Same reason F-15's have such simple flaps and no leading edge devices--the wing is so huge, it doesn't need them. The YF-23 has a much larger wing, and leading edge flaps.

Yup, my guess is F-15E replacement. Same concept--take a large fighter, and make a bomber that is capable of defending itself out of it. And I too think FB-22 is more likely due to F-22 already existing and the massive Lockheed/Boeing lobby. Heh heh--now Northrop needs to get the F-20 off the Cali. Science Center's ceiling and prep THAT for flight! A lot easier to get spares for, just a mix of F-5, F-16, and F-18 parts. Could probably steal X-29 parts too.

Uh, yeah, because Project Supernova was based on the first -22 vs -23 competition. I think part of the reason for the B-2 winning was Northrop's flying wing experience. Both the Lockheed and Northrop designs were similar, but Northrop had done several flying wings, whereas Lockheed had zilch experience AFAIK. And probably most importantly, Lockheed's designed was faceted, Northrop's was curved. Curves are inherently stealthier, but Lockheed flat-out didn't have the capability to design a curved stealth at the time. As for a new B-1: No way. Would require total redesign. Current B-1's are flat-out unreliable, with a horrendous mission rate. 9 hours to reload, on a good day. 24 hours to re-arrange the bays to change weapons type. If you MUST you can reload one in 3 hours, by sacrificing the reloading of 2 other planes. I love the design and everything, there's few planes cooler IMHO, and it'd probably rock as a doomsday 1-way-trip suicide supersonic semi-stealth bomber, which is what it was designed for. (That's why it's so hard to reload JDAM's etc---B-1's weren't expected to come back, and certainly not reload and RE-NUKE somebody). But as a modern day conventional bomber--it's frankly hard to justify its existence.

My comments: Ok, let's just toss all the unmanned stuff out, first of all. So, FB-22 vs YF-23. FB-22 has the advantage of all the -22 stuff that's already been done, but re-winging and un-tailling the -22 is a LOT of work. Note that the Air Force didn't go for the F-16XL. However, the -23 is still only a "proof of concept" plane at the moment, and not even a true prototype. But, it is really fast and really stealthy, and any slight advantage the -22 has in agility is pointless for a STEALTH BOMBER. Also, I think the -23 could probably have a larger bombload, due to having a deeper weapons bay. F-22 has a shallow, wide bay for AMRAAMs only, or just 2 small JDAM's. F-23 has a narrower, deeper bay, and can stack weapons. Could easily carry the larger JDAMs, etc. So the question is: how stealthy do they want it? Enough to justify bringing the -23 to full production, or do they go with a "good enough" FB-22?