NZEOD

Different pill packs have different patterns too...

RC Airplane builders have a ton of info on their sites on making them. I made one when I was 16 for making canopies on P51 and BF109 Slope Soarers MANY MANY MANY years ago. Frame to hold the plastic sheet, Clean over to heat it in until is JUST begins to sag, a Form to stretch it over, a sheet of peg board (holes all over it already) as a base and a simple box underneath with a nozzle to hook up the Home Vacuum too. Job done and same results. Just takes a few minutes instead of 20 secs like theirs.

Super Hornets would be the logical choice for Strike fighters given the available knowledge base and logistics in place. Commonality of systems is a major advantage to joint service operability. Rafales and Typhoons for Interceptors to back up your proven F-22. They are current, effective and cheaper to buy and maintain. Rethink the CAS role with money spent on developing newer counter measures to assist the a New Version A10 to better survive loitering over a battlefield and look at the Tornado program for a high speed CAS option which as been proven time and again. Perhaps its necessary to forget the VTOL option for Amphib ships, or develop Combined Helo and Fixed wing Ski jump light carriers like the Brits for the Marine forces.

Yep. Cancel it or slow it down and look to reworking what they have now that works right now for the battlefield of right now in order to save the lives of personal fighting right now. Best bet is to shitcan it and paint it up as yet another lesson learnt about overreaching and not listening to the personal ACTUALLY on the ground when they have an opinion on what they need and what works. Have the battle is the fact an officer Posting is 2 yrs then the move on so very few lessons are learnt and historical mistakes are repeated again and again and new procurement officers arrive to replace the outgoing ones. Forget the money and remember the cost in lives. Civvis always forget that one paramount factor. Dragging feet in development and over dreaming a project DOES cost us soldiers on the ground our lives. Nothing should justify that. End of the day, its really a case of wounded pride that this debacle is even continuing.

It does when it becomes Uneconomical to sustain or even acquire. Money has to come from somewhere and its a finite resource. Someone somewhere misses out to cover the astronomical cost overruns with this project. And they are undeniably astronomical! You really should read this again and add up ALL the issues in bullet point on a note pad and then decide it this is still a value for money vs performance project. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#Program_cost_overruns_and_delays With all the Ammunition aquisition projects I've been involved in thats the one thing the Officers in IM Branch seem to lose sight of. The fact that eventually the project will cross the red line to be practical if it keeps having delays, failures and cost increases. The red list below is just WAY too big for a plane thats meant to have been delivered already. A 2014 Pentagon report found these issues: First two mission data sets available November 2015, after USMC IOC. Overall operational suitability relies heavily on contractor support and unacceptable workarounds. Aircraft availability reached 51% but short of 60% goal. Fuel Tanks don't retain inerting for required 12 hours after landing. High dynamic loads on the rudder at lower altitudes in 20-26 AoA preventing testing. 82 pounds added to F-35B in last 38 months, 337 pounds below limit. Transonic Roll-Off (TRO) and airframe buffet continue to be program concerns. 572 deficiencies remain affecting Block 2B capability, 151 of which are critical. VSim would likely not support planned Block 2B operational testing in 2015. Maintainability hours still an issue. ALIS requires many manual workarounds.[152] A 2015 Pentagon report found these issues:[200] The Joint Program Office is re-categorizing or failing to count aircraft failures to try to boost maintainability and reliability statistics; Testing is continuing to reveal the need for more tests, but the majority of the fixes and for capability deficiencies being discovered are being deferred to later blocks rather than being resolved; The F-35 has a significant risk of fire due to extensive fuel tank vulnerability, lightning vulnerability and an OBIGGS system unable to sufficiently reduce fire-sustaining oxygen, despite redesigns; Wing drop concerns are still not resolved after six years, and may only be mitigated or solved at the expense of combat maneuverability and stealth; The June engine problems are seriously impeding or preventing the completion of key test points, including ensuring that the F-35B delivered to the Marine Corps for IOC meets critical safety requirements; no redesign, schedule, or cost estimate for a long-term fix has been defined yet, thereby further impeding g testing; Even in its third iteration, the F-35’s helmet continues to show high false-alarm rates and computer stability concerns, seriously reducing pilots’ situational awareness and endangering their lives in combat; The number of Block 2B’s already limited combat capabilities being deferred to later blocks means that the Marine Corps’ FY2015 IOC squadron will be even less combat capable than originally planned; ALIS software failures continue to impede operation, mission planning, and maintenance of the F-35, forcing the Services to be overly reliant on contractors and "unacceptable workarounds"; Deficiencies in Block 2B software, and deferring those capabilities to later blocks, is undermining combat suitability for all three variants of the F-35; The program’s attempts to save money now by reducing test points and deferring crucial combat capabilities will result in costly retrofits and fixes later down the line, creating a future unaffordable bow wave that, based on F-22 experience, will add at least an additional $67 billion in acquisition costs; and Low availability and reliability of the F-35 is driven by inherent design problems that are only becoming more obvious and difficult to fix. Its a great concept but soldiers need a tangible asset now, not a concept. If it drags too long and they are forced to reinstate the Old fleet of F-16s and A10s they will have major logistical issues as they are tailing off supplies of parts and training of new maintainers. Once they are gone they are very difficult to reinstate. Personal leave between 10yrs and 15yrs (in my country) and even more rapidly at the lower ranks after a deployment or 3 (we lost 33% of all personal within 2 yrs of our INTERFET/UNTAET mission from both the Airforce and the Army and most of that were the middle ranks that were headhunted by Contractors - Middle ranks are your trade trainers. Lose them, you lose the skills and knowledge. You fill the vacant ranks with those that aren't ready yet. A10s arent going to be able to fill the role in 5yrs-10yrs if they have told the crews they were being phased out, they left the services, then the DoD keeps the aircraft on and the crews are long gone and bitter. NO soldier will wait 20yrs for a project to stand up, they will look to their future and jump ship around 30yrs old so they can retrain and settle into a new role. My country did it to US in the Bombsquad with the EOD Squadron standing up only after being dragged out for 10yrs and they did it again when the disbanded our Combat Airwing. All the crews bailed to OZ and Canada and the Armament techs got partially disbanded and either retrained, changed services or left the forces. Those skills are now gone. So the F-35 project is creating major issues in costs of development, consuming money for other projects, consuming budgets for current units, halting personel carrier development which will effect retention and the fact its NOT USEABLE yet in theatre.

nice... now to deploy it!

Given its over runs in costs, time and lack of progress on all the next gen features, it has failed. Its meant to have been in service by now and for a 1/4 the cost. So its failed both those criteria, which are pretty damn important. Case in point is the example of the Brits needing a new Medium APC. They started up funding the GTx Boxer then bailed after they kept changing the goal posts. 14 yers later they have burnt 1.4 Billion GBP, pulled the old vehicles from service, replaced them with soft skin landrovers and open frame offroaders on operations and cost lives because of it, still havent even designed a vehicle yet, asked BAE (one of the companies shafted over the Brits pulling out of the Boxer) to retool their Scimitar and Warrior lines to make new hulls to keep them in service, all the while the Germans and the Dutch have had their Boxers on Operations with Zero casualties and a brilliant track record. That joke of a Bradley is another good example. I'm a solider, not having the gear promised when the boots hit the ground IS a failure. The moment it costs lives its a crime. All the claims that the F-35 will be better in a CAS high threat environment and all the other smoke and bullshite thats being claimed doesnt match the reality RIGHT NOW on the ground. That being, its low tech threats, minimal enemy air and a requirement for long loiter, heavy loads. A stealth CAS isnt needed right now and its right now that soldiers are dying. The F-35 needs to be parked, the A10 needs to be retooled and the rest of the money needs to go to the F/A-18E/F and the E/A-18G projects. They are the ones doing the actually workloads on Ops right now. The other buyers outside the US need to do what they know they should has already (Canada is) and go trial the Rafale, Grippen, Eurofighter and Super Hornet and buy one that's actually made and proven and that the budget can afford to maintain without taking money away from the rest of the forces.

Currently the Main gun doesnt fire, correct? I played a game in close contact to the Zentran flagship and its Main gun rips apart my lil ARMD carriers so had to circle them and the SDF around it at arms reach to stay out of line of sight of it. Eventually the SDF-1 will have its own Main gun?

"H" number conversion chart http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/colorcharts/stuff_eng_colorcharts_gunze.htm Hope that all helps.

Will they have small Post-It notes with IOU - To be delivered and fitted at a later time on each of the sub systems that haven't quite worked out yet? Or disclaimers - "Please don't load this aircraft to maximum payload as the operational range suffers" "Please don't expect stealth results to match the brochure as that was a typo, please dont use S/VTOL as fires may ensue" "Due to a lack of internal ordnance carriage capacity non stealthy wing and fuselage mounted stores will compromise airframe stealth" "Due to a lack of stores and range, loiter time on target in CAS roles is limited" "Ground attack ordnance must be delivered at sub sonic speeds. Be aware this will compromise the claimed maneuverability of the aircraft" "Radar rebooting maybe required during combat, please follow the restart procedures as laid out in your handy guidebook located in the Trouble shooting manual Vol 1 though 16 located under and behind your ejection seat and pretty much anywhere else we could fit them - Also note the Volumes are flammable and lingering in the cockpit after an unsuccessful ejection initiation is not recommended" "Please ensure your airframe is operating the latest version of Kaspersky's Systems Protection to maximize resistence to Gameboy level and above hacking attempts" "It is recommended that engaging in WVR dogfights with any aircraft built since 1968 be avoided and that the RUN AWAY option be employed where ever possible. This includes adversaries such as Fighters, Bombers, Heavy Transport, Maritime Patrol, Cessnas, Paragliders and seagulls."

Gunze Sangyo/Mr Colour

They need to hurry the hell up with the live action Macross or Yukikaze movies... As side note... think I found where the Macross Gun pod sound came from... The cheeseball movie The Final Countdown has an F14 putting a burst of M61 rounds into a WW2 Zero - funny scene watching the F14s with wings fully extended trying to wallow slow enough to "dogfight" the zeros - and its probably the first movie sound effect of the Gatling gun. Sounds EXACTLY like the Macross ones.

1/72 Missile sets?

I've bought 28 Hasegawa Macross 1/72s off Amazon in the last 6months so... its addictive. They have some rare ones too, VF-11D Thunderseekers, Minmay 2009 Specials and SVF-41 Black Aces

Stumbled upon a cheap trick last night while assembling 4 VF-1 kits. I only had one photoetch piece for the filler between the wings on the rear fuselage and had a mad idea looking for an alternative. Pill Packets... Slice a strip off to use as the filler panel, its stiff enough to stand upright with some superglue behind it, it folds easy for the shapes needed and its textured so better than a flat peiece of styrene! Pictures of it in place after work tonight.

T-Rex had teeth... the VT series seem to be more trainer. Less fighter.

In the Master Files there is a VF-22D Two Seater Sturmvogel. Aside from the two seats it has a stretched body as well The YF-19 has a back seat but thats it, what it needs a long cockpit for a more functional back seater with dual controls Radome idea is good too! Try Amazon for your Macross kits too, I have all the VF-0 series and got them from there. With the VF-0B and the Ghost A/S turning up this week

but..... why? The VF-0B is already the same airframe as the VF-0A and S with a two seater cockpit. So doing it your way will come out exactly the same. The challenge is to do a VF-19D and a VF-22D The VT-19 would be the Moa as its a big bird and the VT-22 the Kiwi as its so small

Mine, the last of the 1/72s, showed up in NZ today. Thanks Jason. Did you make your own Decals? If so, any chance I can have a copy of the graphic file? Assuming its a Vector format. I have a way of making them even more detailed so will reprint my own.

Minmay 2009 Special VF-1A arrived today...

It wont have. An electric motor is in the space the compressor should be. Its working as an RC Ducted Fan style system

thats pretty crabtastic

Between painting the SV-51 and wrecking things in Warthunder tonight I messed round with decal options for my Marine VF-1 unit. Ended up with SVMFA-69 The Seal Clubbers - ARMD-06 Enterprise or ARMD-00 Constitution Unit Logo the Ace Of Clubs and a Seal with variations on that theme. Basically ripping one of the Decal packs from the Warthunder CDK and converted it tonight to EPS vector format to make actual 1/72 scale super pack and tail fin decals out of. They are a Marine Attack Fighter unit usually mounting either a pair of SUPER PACKS or a pair of Twin Beam Cannon STRIKE PACKS (dubbed the MJOLNIR PACK - for when the hammer needs to be brought down) with Reaction Missile loadouts for Capital ship hunting, Counter Recon and Command Neutralization missions. Also berthed on the same carriers are: SVMAQ-2 The Death Jesters And SVMF-122 The Werewolves I'll put up the results of the decal printing tomorrow night

Khyron/Kamjin is still way too big to fold into that Glaug... Split your Ailerons and Flaps up... have the flaps at 45 down and the ailerons at 30... looks cool

Bigger engines come at a cost... wing loading, fuel loads vs consumption, handling at subsonic speeds in WVR dogfights. Who ever can point the nose and so the weapons at the other guy the easiest wins. Bigger engines slow that down except in the case of the Russians who have some amazing Stalinium/Putiniun alloy magic built into their monsters that negates physics. Having bigger engines makes a need for more fuel to keep the same range, conformal tanks are difficult to design without altering performance. External tanks drastically alter performance and reduce Ordnance loads by taking up hardpoint space. Pretty sure, given the wargames results the Rafale has been scoring against other Nato aircraft the French are happy with were its at.