View allAll Photos Tagged Computerized
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
Seeking a domestic aircraft manufacturer, the Brazilian government made several investments in this area during the 1940s and '50s, but it was not until 1969 that Empresa Brasileira de Aeronáutica (EMBRAER) was created as a government-owned corporation. Born from a Brazilian government plan and having been state-run from the beginning, EMBRAER began a privatization process alongside many other state-controlled companies during the government of Fernando Henrique Cardoso. This privatization effort saw EMBRAER sold on December 7, 1994, and helped it avoid a looming bankruptcy.
The company's first product was a turboprop transport, the EMBRAER EMB 110 Bandeirante. In the course of years, both civil and military aircraft were developed, the focus shifted more and more to airliners, but the military work was never abandoned. The company continued to win government contracts, which included the EMB 314/T-27 Tucano trainer or the EMB 324/A-29 ground attack aircraft.
The EMB 320 was a bigger aircraft, though, and conceived in the early 2000s, when, with renewed economic stability, the Brazilian Air Force (Força Aérea Brasileira, FAB) underwent an extensive renewal of its inventory through several acquisition programs. The most ambitious of which was the acquisition of 36 new front-line interceptor aircraft to replace its aging Mirage III, known as the “F-X Project”.
In parallel, a supplement to the relatively new AMX fighter bomber (designated A-1 in Brazil) was needed, too, and this program ran under the handle “A-X Project”. While the F-X program was postponed several times until 2005, the A-X program made, thanks to its smaller budget needs, quick progress and resulted in the EMB 320 'Libélula' (Hornet), a dedicated ground attack, COIN and observation/FAC aircraft which would fill the gap between the AMX jets and various helicopters, e. g. the Mi-35M4 attack helicopter.
The EMB 320 was a straightforward design: a mid-wing two-turboprop-engined all-metal monoplane with retractable landing gear. Conceptually it was very similar to the Argentinian FMA IA-58 Pucara, but more sophisticated and with more compact dimensions. The aircraft was designed to operate from forward bases, in high temperature and humidity conditions in extremely rugged terrain. Repairs could be made with ordinary tools, and no ground equipment was required to start the engines.
The EMB 320 had a tandem cockpit arrangement; the crew of two were seated under an extensively glazed canopy on Martin-Baker Mk 6AP6A zero/zero ejection seats and were provided with dual controls. The pilot sat in front, while the rear seat would, if the mission called for it, be occupied by an observer, WSO or a flight teacher for training purposes. Armor plating was fitted to protect the crew and engines from hostile ground fire.
The retractable tricycle landing gear, with a double nose wheel and twin main wheels retracting into the engine nacelles, was fitted with low pressure tires to suit operations on rough ground and unprepared air strips, while the undercarriage legs were tall to give good clearance for underslung weapon loads. The undercarriage, flaps and brakes are operated hydraulically, with no pneumatic systems.
Through powerful high lift devices the EMB 320 could perform short takeoffs and landings, even on aircraft carriers and large deck amphibious assault ships without using catapults or arresting wires. Additionally, three JATO rockets could be fitted under the fuselage to allow extra-short take-off.
The aircraft was powered by a pair of Garrett T76-G turboprops, 1,040 hp (775.5 kW) each, driving sets of contra-rotating, three-bladed Hamilton-Standard propellers which were also capable of being used as air brakes. The engines were modified for operating on soy-derived bio-jet fuel. Alternatively the engines would operate on high-octane automobile fuel with only a slight loss of power, too.
Fuel was fed from two fuselage tanks of combined capacity of 800 l (180 imp gal; 210 US gal) and two self-sealing tanks of 460 l (100 imp gal; 120 US gal) in the wings.
The “Libélula”, quickly christened this way due to its slender fuselage, straight wings and the large cockpit glazing, was highly maneuverable at low altitude, had a low heat signature and incorporated 4th generation avionics and weapons system to deliver precision guided munitions at all weather conditions, day and night.
Armament consisted of two fixed 30 mm (1.181 in) Bernardini Mk-164 cannons in the wing roots and a total of nine external weapon hardpoints; these included a pair of launch rails at the wingtips for AIM-9 Sidewinder AAMs (or ECM pods), four underwing pylons outside of the propeller radius and three underfuselage hardpoints. Chaff/flare dispensers in the tail section provided passive safety. The EMB 320 could carry more than 3.5 tons of external munitions, and loiter for three or more hours.
Avionics included:
● MIL-STD-1553 standards
● NVG ANVIS-9 (Night Vision)
● CCIP / CCRP / CCIL / DTOS / LCOS / SSLC (Computerized Attack Modes)
● R&S{RT} M3AR VHF/UHF airborne transceiver (two-way encrypted Data Link provision)
● HUD / HOTAS
● HMD with UFCP(Up Front Control Panel)
● Laser INS with GPS Navigational System
● CMFD (Colored Multi-Function Display) liquid crystal active matrix
● Integrated Radio Communication and Navigation
● Video Camera/Recorder
● Automatic Pilot with embedded mission planning capability
● Stormscope WX-1000E (Airborne weather mapping system)
● Laser Range Finder
● WiPak Support – (Wi-Fi integration for Paveway bombs)
● Training and Operation Support System (TOSS)
The prototype made its maiden flight on 2nd of April 2000. In August 2001, the Brazilian Air Force awarded EMBRAER a contract for 52 A-27 Libélula aircraft with options for a further 23, acquired from a contract estimated to be worth around $320 USD millions. The first aircraft was delivered in December 2003. By September 2007, 50 aircraft had entered service. The 75th, and last, aircraft was delivered to the FAB in June 2012.
While the Libélula has not been used in foreign conflicts the aircraft already fired in anger: One of the main missions of the aircraft was and is border patrol under the SIVAM program, and this resulted in several incidents in which weapons were fired.
On 3 June 2009, two BAF A-27A Libélulas, guided by an EMBRAER E-99, intercepted a Cessna U206G engaged in drug trafficking activities. Inbound from Bolivia, the Cessna was intercepted in the region of Alta Floresta d'Oeste and, after exhausting all procedures, one of the Moscarsos fired a warning shot from its 30mm cannons, after which the aircraft followed the Libélulas to Cacoal airport.
This incident was the first use of powers granted under the Shoot-Down Act, which was enacted in October 2004 in order to legislate for the downing of illegal flights. A total of 176 kg of pure cocaine base paste, enough to produce almost a ton of cocaine, was discovered on board the Cessna; the aircraft's two occupants attempted a ground escape before being arrested by Federal Police in Pimenta Bueno.
On 5 August 2011, Brazil started “Operation Ágata”, part of a major "Frontiers Strategic Plan" launched by President Dilma Rousseff in June, with almost 30 continuous days of rigorous military activity in the region of Brazil’s border with Colombia. It mobilized 35 aircraft and more than 3,000 military personnel of the Brazilian Army, Brazilian Navy and Brazilian Air Force surveillance against drug trafficking, illegal mining and logging, and trafficking of wild animals.
A-29s of 1°/3º Aviation Group (GAv), Squadron Scorpion, as well as six A-27A’s from 4°/3° GAv launched a strike upon an illicit airstrip, deploying eight 230 kg (500 lb) computer-guided Mk 82 bombs to render the airstrip unusable.
Multiple EMB 320 were assigned for night operations, locating remote jungle airstrips used by drug smuggling gangs along the border, and were typically guarded by several E-99 aircraft. The Libélulas also located targets for the A-29 Super Tucanos, allowing them to bomb the airstrips with an extremely high level of accuracy, making use of night-vision systems and computer systems calculating the impact points of munitions.
General characteristics
Crew: 2
Length (w/o pitot): 41 ft 10 in (12.76 m)
Wingspan: 40 ft 9 1/2 in (12.45 m)
Height: 13 ft 6 2/3 in (4.14 m)
Wing area: 203.4 ft² (18.9 m²)
Empty weight: 8.920 lb (4.050 kg)
Max. take-off weight: 16.630 lb (7.550 kg)
Powerplant:
2× Garrett T76-G410/411 turboprops, 1,040 hp (775.5 kW) each
Performance:
Maximum speed: 307 mph (267 kn, 495 km/h)
Range: 1.860 mi (1.620 nmi, 3.000 km)
Service ceiling: 30.160 ft (9.150 m)
Rate of climb: 2.966 ft/min (15 m/s)
Armament:
2× fixed 30 mm (1.181 in) Bernardini Mk-164 cannons in the wing roots with 200 RPG
9× external hardpoints for an ordnance load of 8.000 lb (3.630 kg), including smart weapons (e. g. Paveway GBUs, AGM-65B,C or D Maverick, AGM-114 Hellfire), iron bombs, cluster bombs, napalm tanks, unguided rocket pods and AIM-9 Sidewinder AAMs as well as drop tanks.
The kit and its assembly:
This whif model is a remake of an idea I had/did many years ago from the remains of an Airfix OV-10D Bronco: converting it into a "normal" aircraft. While one could argue that this is not really exciting, I found this project pretty challenging as I wanted to make the result as plausible as possible, not just glue some leftover parts together (what I did years ago). And doing so turned a simple idea into major surgery and sculpting – or, how flickr fellow user Franclab called it, “it makes the Bronco look like the whif and the Libélula the real aircraft”.
The basis was a NiB OV-10A Bronco from Academy, a very good kit with a nice cockpit and lots or ordnance. Great value for the money. Design benchmark for what I had in mind was the FMA IA-58 Pucara, as it was designed for the exact same job as my EMB 320 - but details would differ.
The rear of the Bronco's central cabin was cut off and mated with the rear fuselage of a Matchbox Bf 110, which has a similar diameter - but the intersection between the square front of the Bronco and the oval Bf 110 fuselage was tricky (= requiring lots of putty work).
When these basic elements were fitted together, I finally decided to raise the spine. The mated fuselage parts would have had worked, but since the original high wings were missing, the EMB 320 would have had a distinctive and pointless hunchback - actually, with a rotor added, it could have become a helicopter, too!
Well, I went for the big solution, also in order to make the fuselage seam less obvious, and the whole upper rear fuselage was sculpted from 2C and NC putty. In the same process the tail was integrated into the fuselage. As a drawback, this shifted the kit's CG so far back that the lead load in the nose could not keep the front wheel down. Well, it's the price to pay for a better overall look.
The twin fins come from a 1:100 A-10, leftover from a Revell SnapFit kit, while the horizontal stabilizers were taken from the OV-10A, but had to be re-engraved in order to make the flap geometry plausible.
The wings were taken OOB and, relative to the Bronco, placed in a lower position, their original attachment point on top of the fuselage was faired over. The original plan had been to place them completely low, right where the OV-10's wing stubs would be located. But due to the engine nacelles under the wings I finally set them at mid height - otherwise, ground clearance and/or landing gear length had become a big issue - and the thing still looks stalky!
Moving the nacelles into a different (higher) wing position would have been an option, too, but that was IMHO too complicated. Since the EMD 320 would not have storage space behind the cockpit, a wing spar right through the fuselage would not be implausible. As a side effect I had to close the complete belly gap under the Bronco fuselage, again with 2C putty.
The Bronco’s tail booms were cut off and pointed end covers added, so that classic engine nacelles which also carry the main landing gear were created. The engine exhausts were relocated towards the nacelle’s end, and the propeller attachment modified, so that the propeller could turn freely on a metal axis and the overall look would be changed.
The cockpit tub was taken OOB, but armored seats from an Italeri AH-1 were used (with added headrests), as well as two crew figures, which come IIRC from a Hasegawa RA-5C Vigilante.
A new nose section with a sensor turret was built from scratch. It consists of parts from an AH-64 attack helicopter, mated with some styrene sheets for appropriate length. The shape was sculpted from massive material, and the result looks mean and menacing. The pitots were made from scratch, as well as the radar warning sensors on the hull.
The landing gear was improvised. The front strut actually belongs to a 1:200 Concorde(!) from Revell, the respective front wheels belong to an ESCI Ka-34 helicopter. For the main landing gear I used the struts from the Bronco kit, but the twin wheels are donations from the scrap box: these come from two Italeri Hawker Hawk kits.
The ordnance was puzzled together from the scrap box, too, as well as from Hasegawa Weapon sets. As the aircraft was supposed to have taken part in the real world “Operation Ágata”, I decided to add four light Paveway gliding bombs. Two Sidewinders and a pair of M260 rocket launchers (for seven 2.75"/70mm target marking missiles with phosphorous warheads) complete the full load.
The wing pylons come from two Italeri Tornados, those under the fuselage belong to a Matchbox Viggen and an Italeri Kfir.
As a final note: originally I wanted to call the aircraft “Moscardo” (= Hornet), but when it took shape its overall lines and potential agility made the dragonfly (Libélula in Portuguese) a much more appropriate namesake. So it goes... ^^
Painting and markings:
The reason why this turned out to be a Brazilian aircraft is the fact that I have been wanting to use the current FAB paint scheme for some time - it's basically made up from only two colors, FS 34092 (Dark Green) and FS 36176 (“F-15 Gray”, used on USAF F-15Es), paired with low-viz markings. Looks strange at first glance, like a poor man's Europe One/Lizard scheme, but over a typical rain forest scenery, low altitude and with hazy clouds around it is VERY effective, check the beauty pics which are based on BAF press releases. And it simply looks cool.
The pattern is based on current BAF F-5E fighters, the markings come from an FCM decal sheet and actually belong to a BAF Mirage 2000. 4º/3º GAv of the Brazilian Air Force is fictional, though, and some warning stencils were taken from the Academy kit.
The cockpit interior was painted in Dark Gull Gray (Humbrol 140), the landing gear wells in a yellow zinc chromate primer (Humbrol 225, Mid Stone) while the landing gear struts remained blank Aluminum, The outer wheel disks are white, while the inside is red - a detail I incorporated from some USN aircraft.
Painting was not spectacular - since the cockpit has a lot of glass to offer, I painted the windscreen with translucent light blue, and the observer on the rear seat received a similar sun blocker in deep blue. Translucent paint (yellow and black) was also used on the optical sensors at the nose turret as well as for position lights, all on a silver base.
The model was only slightly weathered thorough a black ink wash and some dry-brushing with Humbrol 140 and Testors 2076 (RLM 62) in order to emphasize panels - some panel lines were also painted onto the fuselage with thinned black ink, as the "new" rear body is devoid of any detail and difficult to engrave.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
Seeking a domestic aircraft manufacturer, the Brazilian government made several investments in this area during the 1940s and '50s, but it was not until 1969 that Empresa Brasileira de Aeronáutica (EMBRAER) was created as a government-owned corporation. Born from a Brazilian government plan and having been state-run from the beginning, EMBRAER began a privatization process alongside many other state-controlled companies during the government of Fernando Henrique Cardoso. This privatization effort saw EMBRAER sold on December 7, 1994, and helped it avoid a looming bankruptcy.
The company's first product was a turboprop transport, the EMBRAER EMB 110 Bandeirante. In the course of years, both civil and military aircraft were developed, the focus shifted more and more to airliners, but the military work was never abandoned. The company continued to win government contracts, which included the EMB 314/T-27 Tucano trainer or the EMB 324/A-29 ground attack aircraft.
The EMB 320 was a bigger aircraft, though, and conceived in the early 2000s, when, with renewed economic stability, the Brazilian Air Force (Força Aérea Brasileira, FAB) underwent an extensive renewal of its inventory through several acquisition programs. The most ambitious of which was the acquisition of 36 new front-line interceptor aircraft to replace its aging Mirage III, known as the “F-X Project”.
In parallel, a supplement to the relatively new AMX fighter bomber (designated A-1 in Brazil) was needed, too, and this program ran under the handle “A-X Project”. While the F-X program was postponed several times until 2005, the A-X program made, thanks to its smaller budget needs, quick progress and resulted in the EMB 320 'Libélula' (Hornet), a dedicated ground attack, COIN and observation/FAC aircraft which would fill the gap between the AMX jets and various helicopters, e. g. the Mi-35M4 attack helicopter.
The EMB 320 was a straightforward design: a mid-wing two-turboprop-engined all-metal monoplane with retractable landing gear. Conceptually it was very similar to the Argentinian FMA IA-58 Pucara, but more sophisticated and with more compact dimensions. The aircraft was designed to operate from forward bases, in high temperature and humidity conditions in extremely rugged terrain. Repairs could be made with ordinary tools, and no ground equipment was required to start the engines.
The EMB 320 had a tandem cockpit arrangement; the crew of two were seated under an extensively glazed canopy on Martin-Baker Mk 6AP6A zero/zero ejection seats and were provided with dual controls. The pilot sat in front, while the rear seat would, if the mission called for it, be occupied by an observer, WSO or a flight teacher for training purposes. Armor plating was fitted to protect the crew and engines from hostile ground fire.
The retractable tricycle landing gear, with a double nose wheel and twin main wheels retracting into the engine nacelles, was fitted with low pressure tires to suit operations on rough ground and unprepared air strips, while the undercarriage legs were tall to give good clearance for underslung weapon loads. The undercarriage, flaps and brakes are operated hydraulically, with no pneumatic systems.
Through powerful high lift devices the EMB 320 could perform short takeoffs and landings, even on aircraft carriers and large deck amphibious assault ships without using catapults or arresting wires. Additionally, three JATO rockets could be fitted under the fuselage to allow extra-short take-off.
The aircraft was powered by a pair of Garrett T76-G turboprops, 1,040 hp (775.5 kW) each, driving sets of contra-rotating, three-bladed Hamilton-Standard propellers which were also capable of being used as air brakes. The engines were modified for operating on soy-derived bio-jet fuel. Alternatively the engines would operate on high-octane automobile fuel with only a slight loss of power, too.
Fuel was fed from two fuselage tanks of combined capacity of 800 l (180 imp gal; 210 US gal) and two self-sealing tanks of 460 l (100 imp gal; 120 US gal) in the wings.
The “Libélula”, quickly christened this way due to its slender fuselage, straight wings and the large cockpit glazing, was highly maneuverable at low altitude, had a low heat signature and incorporated 4th generation avionics and weapons system to deliver precision guided munitions at all weather conditions, day and night.
Armament consisted of two fixed 30 mm (1.181 in) Bernardini Mk-164 cannons in the wing roots and a total of nine external weapon hardpoints; these included a pair of launch rails at the wingtips for AIM-9 Sidewinder AAMs (or ECM pods), four underwing pylons outside of the propeller radius and three underfuselage hardpoints. Chaff/flare dispensers in the tail section provided passive safety. The EMB 320 could carry more than 3.5 tons of external munitions, and loiter for three or more hours.
Avionics included:
● MIL-STD-1553 standards
● NVG ANVIS-9 (Night Vision)
● CCIP / CCRP / CCIL / DTOS / LCOS / SSLC (Computerized Attack Modes)
● R&S{RT} M3AR VHF/UHF airborne transceiver (two-way encrypted Data Link provision)
● HUD / HOTAS
● HMD with UFCP(Up Front Control Panel)
● Laser INS with GPS Navigational System
● CMFD (Colored Multi-Function Display) liquid crystal active matrix
● Integrated Radio Communication and Navigation
● Video Camera/Recorder
● Automatic Pilot with embedded mission planning capability
● Stormscope WX-1000E (Airborne weather mapping system)
● Laser Range Finder
● WiPak Support – (Wi-Fi integration for Paveway bombs)
● Training and Operation Support System (TOSS)
The prototype made its maiden flight on 2nd of April 2000. In August 2001, the Brazilian Air Force awarded EMBRAER a contract for 52 A-27 Libélula aircraft with options for a further 23, acquired from a contract estimated to be worth around $320 USD millions. The first aircraft was delivered in December 2003. By September 2007, 50 aircraft had entered service. The 75th, and last, aircraft was delivered to the FAB in June 2012.
While the Libélula has not been used in foreign conflicts the aircraft already fired in anger: One of the main missions of the aircraft was and is border patrol under the SIVAM program, and this resulted in several incidents in which weapons were fired.
On 3 June 2009, two BAF A-27A Libélulas, guided by an EMBRAER E-99, intercepted a Cessna U206G engaged in drug trafficking activities. Inbound from Bolivia, the Cessna was intercepted in the region of Alta Floresta d'Oeste and, after exhausting all procedures, one of the Moscarsos fired a warning shot from its 30mm cannons, after which the aircraft followed the Libélulas to Cacoal airport.
This incident was the first use of powers granted under the Shoot-Down Act, which was enacted in October 2004 in order to legislate for the downing of illegal flights. A total of 176 kg of pure cocaine base paste, enough to produce almost a ton of cocaine, was discovered on board the Cessna; the aircraft's two occupants attempted a ground escape before being arrested by Federal Police in Pimenta Bueno.
On 5 August 2011, Brazil started “Operation Ágata”, part of a major "Frontiers Strategic Plan" launched by President Dilma Rousseff in June, with almost 30 continuous days of rigorous military activity in the region of Brazil’s border with Colombia. It mobilized 35 aircraft and more than 3,000 military personnel of the Brazilian Army, Brazilian Navy and Brazilian Air Force surveillance against drug trafficking, illegal mining and logging, and trafficking of wild animals.
A-29s of 1°/3º Aviation Group (GAv), Squadron Scorpion, as well as six A-27A’s from 4°/3° GAv launched a strike upon an illicit airstrip, deploying eight 230 kg (500 lb) computer-guided Mk 82 bombs to render the airstrip unusable.
Multiple EMB 320 were assigned for night operations, locating remote jungle airstrips used by drug smuggling gangs along the border, and were typically guarded by several E-99 aircraft. The Libélulas also located targets for the A-29 Super Tucanos, allowing them to bomb the airstrips with an extremely high level of accuracy, making use of night-vision systems and computer systems calculating the impact points of munitions.
General characteristics
Crew: 2
Length (w/o pitot): 41 ft 10 in (12.76 m)
Wingspan: 40 ft 9 1/2 in (12.45 m)
Height: 13 ft 6 2/3 in (4.14 m)
Wing area: 203.4 ft² (18.9 m²)
Empty weight: 8.920 lb (4.050 kg)
Max. take-off weight: 16.630 lb (7.550 kg)
Powerplant:
2× Garrett T76-G410/411 turboprops, 1,040 hp (775.5 kW) each
Performance:
Maximum speed: 307 mph (267 kn, 495 km/h)
Range: 1.860 mi (1.620 nmi, 3.000 km)
Service ceiling: 30.160 ft (9.150 m)
Rate of climb: 2.966 ft/min (15 m/s)
Armament:
2× fixed 30 mm (1.181 in) Bernardini Mk-164 cannons in the wing roots with 200 RPG
9× external hardpoints for an ordnance load of 8.000 lb (3.630 kg), including smart weapons (e. g. Paveway GBUs, AGM-65B,C or D Maverick, AGM-114 Hellfire), iron bombs, cluster bombs, napalm tanks, unguided rocket pods and AIM-9 Sidewinder AAMs as well as drop tanks.
The kit and its assembly:
This whif model is a remake of an idea I had/did many years ago from the remains of an Airfix OV-10D Bronco: converting it into a "normal" aircraft. While one could argue that this is not really exciting, I found this project pretty challenging as I wanted to make the result as plausible as possible, not just glue some leftover parts together (what I did years ago). And doing so turned a simple idea into major surgery and sculpting – or, how flickr fellow user Franclab called it, “it makes the Bronco look like the whif and the Libélula the real aircraft”.
The basis was a NiB OV-10A Bronco from Academy, a very good kit with a nice cockpit and lots or ordnance. Great value for the money. Design benchmark for what I had in mind was the FMA IA-58 Pucara, as it was designed for the exact same job as my EMB 320 - but details would differ.
The rear of the Bronco's central cabin was cut off and mated with the rear fuselage of a Matchbox Bf 110, which has a similar diameter - but the intersection between the square front of the Bronco and the oval Bf 110 fuselage was tricky (= requiring lots of putty work).
When these basic elements were fitted together, I finally decided to raise the spine. The mated fuselage parts would have had worked, but since the original high wings were missing, the EMB 320 would have had a distinctive and pointless hunchback - actually, with a rotor added, it could have become a helicopter, too!
Well, I went for the big solution, also in order to make the fuselage seam less obvious, and the whole upper rear fuselage was sculpted from 2C and NC putty. In the same process the tail was integrated into the fuselage. As a drawback, this shifted the kit's CG so far back that the lead load in the nose could not keep the front wheel down. Well, it's the price to pay for a better overall look.
The twin fins come from a 1:100 A-10, leftover from a Revell SnapFit kit, while the horizontal stabilizers were taken from the OV-10A, but had to be re-engraved in order to make the flap geometry plausible.
The wings were taken OOB and, relative to the Bronco, placed in a lower position, their original attachment point on top of the fuselage was faired over. The original plan had been to place them completely low, right where the OV-10's wing stubs would be located. But due to the engine nacelles under the wings I finally set them at mid height - otherwise, ground clearance and/or landing gear length had become a big issue - and the thing still looks stalky!
Moving the nacelles into a different (higher) wing position would have been an option, too, but that was IMHO too complicated. Since the EMD 320 would not have storage space behind the cockpit, a wing spar right through the fuselage would not be implausible. As a side effect I had to close the complete belly gap under the Bronco fuselage, again with 2C putty.
The Bronco’s tail booms were cut off and pointed end covers added, so that classic engine nacelles which also carry the main landing gear were created. The engine exhausts were relocated towards the nacelle’s end, and the propeller attachment modified, so that the propeller could turn freely on a metal axis and the overall look would be changed.
The cockpit tub was taken OOB, but armored seats from an Italeri AH-1 were used (with added headrests), as well as two crew figures, which come IIRC from a Hasegawa RA-5C Vigilante.
A new nose section with a sensor turret was built from scratch. It consists of parts from an AH-64 attack helicopter, mated with some styrene sheets for appropriate length. The shape was sculpted from massive material, and the result looks mean and menacing. The pitots were made from scratch, as well as the radar warning sensors on the hull.
The landing gear was improvised. The front strut actually belongs to a 1:200 Concorde(!) from Revell, the respective front wheels belong to an ESCI Ka-34 helicopter. For the main landing gear I used the struts from the Bronco kit, but the twin wheels are donations from the scrap box: these come from two Italeri Hawker Hawk kits.
The ordnance was puzzled together from the scrap box, too, as well as from Hasegawa Weapon sets. As the aircraft was supposed to have taken part in the real world “Operation Ágata”, I decided to add four light Paveway gliding bombs. Two Sidewinders and a pair of M260 rocket launchers (for seven 2.75"/70mm target marking missiles with phosphorous warheads) complete the full load.
The wing pylons come from two Italeri Tornados, those under the fuselage belong to a Matchbox Viggen and an Italeri Kfir.
As a final note: originally I wanted to call the aircraft “Moscardo” (= Hornet), but when it took shape its overall lines and potential agility made the dragonfly (Libélula in Portuguese) a much more appropriate namesake. So it goes... ^^
Painting and markings:
The reason why this turned out to be a Brazilian aircraft is the fact that I have been wanting to use the current FAB paint scheme for some time - it's basically made up from only two colors, FS 34092 (Dark Green) and FS 36176 (“F-15 Gray”, used on USAF F-15Es), paired with low-viz markings. Looks strange at first glance, like a poor man's Europe One/Lizard scheme, but over a typical rain forest scenery, low altitude and with hazy clouds around it is VERY effective, check the beauty pics which are based on BAF press releases. And it simply looks cool.
The pattern is based on current BAF F-5E fighters, the markings come from an FCM decal sheet and actually belong to a BAF Mirage 2000. 4º/3º GAv of the Brazilian Air Force is fictional, though, and some warning stencils were taken from the Academy kit.
The cockpit interior was painted in Dark Gull Gray (Humbrol 140), the landing gear wells in a yellow zinc chromate primer (Humbrol 225, Mid Stone) while the landing gear struts remained blank Aluminum, The outer wheel disks are white, while the inside is red - a detail I incorporated from some USN aircraft.
Painting was not spectacular - since the cockpit has a lot of glass to offer, I painted the windscreen with translucent light blue, and the observer on the rear seat received a similar sun blocker in deep blue. Translucent paint (yellow and black) was also used on the optical sensors at the nose turret as well as for position lights, all on a silver base.
The model was only slightly weathered thorough a black ink wash and some dry-brushing with Humbrol 140 and Testors 2076 (RLM 62) in order to emphasize panels - some panel lines were also painted onto the fuselage with thinned black ink, as the "new" rear body is devoid of any detail and difficult to engrave.
Bangladesh Railway (BR) started its journey in this portion of the sub-continent 142 years ago. Historically Bangladesh owned the Railway network, which was a part of the sub-continent. BR has recently introduced train related information using IVR (Interactive Voice Response) system through Mobile Phone and has taken initiative for computerization of pay roll, asset management, accounting, inventory control etc. which are the steps towards the implementation of Digital Bangladesh.
In Bangladesh, due to the huge population in the country, an inadequate number of seats on the local trains, and punishing poverty, some people are forced to borrow a ride now and then. Some are so poor that they cant buy ticket even. They ride on the roof top as well as between the carriages of Train or seat in floor between two carriages, canteen, beside door area every where.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All rights reserved. Do not use any of the images in this stream without my permission.
Part of the BMT elevated structure from Broadway Junction (with 4 tracks) carries part of the Atlantic Avenue Station while jogging over a block to rest atop a freight line that has just emerged from a tunnel through the Terminal Moraine. The other 2 tracks were a block to the left -- these have been completely demolished recently. Other than the 2 tracks used by the Canarsie Line, the structure had not been used since the last segment of the Fulton Street Elevated closed in 1956.
This has not always been a "happy" neighborhood. The headquarters of "Murder Incorporated" were near here in Brownsville (to the right) and the movie "Goodfellas" was set in the East New York area (to the left). Even in the 1970s, it was not a good idea to wander into this neighborhood, either on foot or in a vehicle. After many years, still have far too many "up close and personal" memories of the area.
In the last 2 decades or so the surrounding area has largely recovered and is no longer a dangerous slum
"There are places I remember
All my life, though some have changed
Some forever not for better
Some have gone and some remain
All these places had their moments
With lovers and friends
I still can recall
Some are dead and some are living
In my life I've loved them all"
"in My Life" - the Beatles
Note: despite the "antique" apperance the 14th Street / Canarsie Line was the first to be updated to CTC (computerized train control). Several formerly "depressed" neighborhoods along the line are again considered "desirable" and passenger traffic has drastically increased in recent years.
Until 1924 there was a passenger station just inside the tunnel portal (out of view) at the right. A stairway led down from Atlantic Avenue.
Artomatic For The People, 2017
“Shifts in technology are also shifts in culture and custom. And these shifts have become more frequent and more rapid over time. Before 2007, one of the most substantial technological shifts in daily life was probably the World Wide Web, which was already commercialized by the mid-1990s and mainstream by 2000. Before that? The personal computer, perhaps, which took from about 1977 until 1993 or so to become a staple of both home and business life. First we computerized work, then we computerized home and social life, then we condensed and transferred that life to our pockets. With the Apple Watch, now the company wants to condense it even further and have you wear it on your wrist.” ―Ian Bogost
longreads.com/2015/06/16/how-apples-transcendent-chihuahu...
a mixed Freight Rake...
PF-1 side MG of IZZATNAGAR..
at distance see-computerized reservation center and beautiful Night Lights..
and a tiny FOB ..and distance view towards nainitaal side.
BF-4 Flt 509 Maj Michael Lippert and BF-5 Flt 371 Cdr Nathan Gray Test aboard HMS Queen Elizabeth on 28 Sep 2018
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is a family of single-seat, single-engine, all-weather, stealth, fifth-generation, multirole combat aircraft, designed for ground-attack and air-superiority missions. It is built by Lockheed Martin and many subcontractors, including Northrop Grumman, Pratt & Whitney, and BAE Systems.
The F-35 has three main models: the conventional takeoff and landing F-35A (CTOL), the short take-off and vertical-landing F-35B (STOVL), and the catapult-assisted take-off but arrested recovery, carrier-based F-35C (CATOBAR). The F-35 descends from the Lockheed Martin X-35, the design that was awarded the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program over the competing Boeing X-32. The official Lightning II name has proven deeply unpopular and USAF pilots have nicknamed it Panther, instead.
The United States principally funds F-35 development, with additional funding from other NATO members and close U.S. allies, including the United Kingdom, Italy, Australia, Canada, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, and formerly Turkey. These funders generally receive subcontracts to manufacture components for the aircraft; for example, Turkey was the sole supplier of several F-35 parts until its removal from the program in July 2019. Several other countries have ordered, or are considering ordering, the aircraft.
As the largest and most expensive military program ever, the F-35 became the subject of much scrutiny and criticism in the U.S. and in other countries. In 2013 and 2014, critics argued that the plane was "plagued with design flaws", with many blaming the procurement process in which Lockheed was allowed "to design, test, and produce the F-35 all at the same time," instead of identifying and fixing "defects before firing up its production line". By 2014, the program was "$163 billion over budget [and] seven years behind schedule". Critics also contend that the program's high sunk costs and political momentum make it "too big to kill".
The F-35 first flew on 15 December 2006. In July 2015, the United States Marines declared its first squadron of F-35B fighters ready for deployment. However, the DOD-based durability testing indicated the service life of early-production F-35B aircraft is well under the expected 8,000 flight hours, and may be as low as 2,100 flight hours. Lot 9 and later aircraft include design changes but service life testing has yet to occur. The U.S. Air Force declared its first squadron of F-35As ready for deployment in August 2016. The U.S. Navy declared its first F-35Cs ready in February 2019. In 2018, the F-35 made its combat debut with the Israeli Air Force.
The U.S. stated plan is to buy 2,663 F-35s, which will provide the bulk of the crewed tactical airpower of the U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps in coming decades. Deliveries of the F-35 for the U.S. military are scheduled until 2037 with a projected service life up to 2070.
Development
F-35 development started in 1992 with the origins of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program and was to culminate in full production by 2018. The X-35 first flew on 24 October 2000 and the F-35A on 15 December 2006.
The F-35 was developed to replace most US fighter jets with the variants of a single design that would be common to all branches of the military. It was developed in co-operation with a number of foreign partners, and, unlike the F-22 Raptor, intended to be available for export. Three variants were designed: the F-35A (CTOL), the F-35B (STOVL), and the F-35C (CATOBAR). Despite being intended to share most of their parts to reduce costs and improve maintenance logistics, by 2017, the effective commonality was only 20%. The program received considerable criticism for cost overruns during development and for the total projected cost of the program over the lifetime of the jets.
By 2017, the program was expected to cost $406.5 billion over its lifetime (i.e. until 2070) for acquisition of the jets, and an additional $1.1 trillion for operations and maintenance. A number of design deficiencies were alleged, such as: carrying a small internal payload; performance inferior to the aircraft being replaced, particularly the F-16; lack of safety in relying on a single engine; and flaws such as the vulnerability of the fuel tank to fire and the propensity for transonic roll-off (wing drop). The possible obsolescence of stealth technology was also criticized.
Design
Overview
Although several experimental designs have been developed since the 1960s, such as the unsuccessful Rockwell XFV-12, the F-35B is to be the first operational supersonic STOVL stealth fighter. The single-engine F-35 resembles the larger twin-engined Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, drawing design elements from it. The exhaust duct design was inspired by the General Dynamics Model 200, proposed for a 1972 supersonic VTOL fighter requirement for the Sea Control Ship.
Lockheed Martin has suggested that the F-35 could replace the USAF's F-15C/D fighters in the air-superiority role and the F-15E Strike Eagle in the ground-attack role. It has also stated the F-35 is intended to have close- and long-range air-to-air capability second only to that of the F-22 Raptor, and that the F-35 has an advantage over the F-22 in basing flexibility and possesses "advanced sensors and information fusion".
Testifying before the House Appropriations Committee on 25 March 2009, acquisition deputy to the assistant secretary of the Air Force, Lt. Gen. Mark D. "Shack" Shackelford, stated that the F-35 is designed to be America's "premier surface-to-air missile killer, and is uniquely equipped for this mission with cutting-edge processing power, synthetic aperture radar integration techniques, and advanced target recognition".
Improvements
Ostensible improvements over past-generation fighter aircraft include:
Durable, low-maintenance stealth technology, using structural fiber mat instead of the high-maintenance coatings of legacy stealth platforms
Integrated avionics and sensor fusion that combine information from off- and on-board sensors to increase the pilot's situational awareness and improve target identification and weapon delivery, and to relay information quickly to other command and control (C2) nodes
High-speed data networking including IEEE 1394b and Fibre Channel (Fibre Channel is also used on Boeing's Super Hornet.
The Autonomic Logistics Global Sustainment, Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS), and Computerized maintenance management system to help ensure the aircraft can remain operational with minimal maintenance manpower The Pentagon has moved to open up the competitive bidding by other companies. This was after Lockheed Martin stated that instead of costing 20% less than the F-16 per flight hour, the F-35 would actually cost 12% more. Though the ALGS is intended to reduce maintenance costs, the company disagrees with including the cost of this system in the aircraft ownership calculations. The USMC has implemented a workaround for a cyber vulnerability in the system. The ALIS system currently requires a shipping-container load of servers to run, but Lockheed is working on a more portable version to support the Marines' expeditionary operations.
Electro-hydrostatic actuators run by a power-by-wire flight-control system
A modern and updated flight simulator, which may be used for a greater fraction of pilot training to reduce the costly flight hours of the actual aircraft
Lightweight, powerful lithium-ion batteries to provide power to run the control surfaces in an emergency
Structural composites in the F-35 are 35% of the airframe weight (up from 25% in the F-22). The majority of these are bismaleimide and composite epoxy materials. The F-35 will be the first mass-produced aircraft to include structural nanocomposites, namely carbon nanotube-reinforced epoxy. Experience of the F-22's problems with corrosion led to the F-35 using a gap filler that causes less galvanic corrosion to the airframe's skin, designed with fewer gaps requiring filler and implementing better drainage. The relatively short 35-foot wingspan of the A and B variants is set by the F-35B's requirement to fit inside the Navy's current amphibious assault ship parking area and elevators; the F-35C's longer wing is considered to be more fuel efficient.
Costs
A U.S. Navy study found that the F-35 will cost 30 to 40% more to maintain than current jet fighters, not accounting for inflation over the F-35's operational lifetime. A Pentagon study concluded a $1 trillion maintenance cost for the entire fleet over its lifespan, not accounting for inflation. The F-35 program office found that as of January 2014, costs for the F-35 fleet over a 53-year lifecycle was $857 billion. Costs for the fighter have been dropping and accounted for the 22 percent life cycle drop since 2010. Lockheed stated that by 2019, pricing for the fifth-generation aircraft will be less than fourth-generation fighters. An F-35A in 2019 is expected to cost $85 million per unit complete with engines and full mission systems, inflation adjusted from $75 million in December 2013.
Sagrada Família or Basílica i Temple Expiatori de la Sagrada Família (Catalan) or Basílica de la Sagrada Familia (Spanish) or Basilica of the Holy Family, is a large still largely unfinished church building in the Eixample district of Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain. Designed by the Catalan architect Antoni Gaudí (1852–1926), his work on Sagrada Família is part of a UNESCO World Heritage Site. On 7 November 2010, Pope Benedict XVI consecrated the church and proclaimed it a minor basilica. On 19 March 1882, construction of the Sagrada Família began under architect Francisco de Paula del Villar. In 1883, when Villar resigned, Gaudí took over as chief architect, transforming the project with his architectural and engineering style, combining Gothic and curvilinear Art Nouveau forms. Gaudí devoted the remainder of his life to the project, and he is buried in the crypt. At the time of his death in 1926, less than a quarter of the project was complete. Relying solely on private donations, the Sagrada Família's construction progressed slowly and was interrupted by the Spanish Civil War. In July 1936, revolutionaries set fire to the crypt and broke their way into the workshop, partially destroying Gaudí's original plans, drawings and plaster models, which led to 16 years of work to piece together the fragments of the master model. Construction resumed to intermittent progress in the 1950s. Advancements in technologies such as computer aided design and computerized numerical control (CNC) have since enabled faster progress and construction passed the midpoint in 2010. However, some of the project's greatest challenges remain, including the construction of ten more spires, each symbolizing an important Biblical figure in the New Testament. It was anticipated that the building would be completed by 2026, the centenary of Gaudí's death, but this has now been delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The basilica has a long history of splitting opinion among the residents of Barcelona: over the initial possibility it might compete with Barcelona's Cathedral, over Gaudí's design itself, over the possibility that work after Gaudí's death disregarded his design, and the 2007 proposal to build a tunnel nearby as part of Spain's high-speed rail link to France, possibly disturbing its stability. Describing the Sagrada Família, art critic Rainer Zerbst said "it is probably impossible to find a church building anything like it in the entire history of art", and Paul Goldberger describes it as "the most extraordinary personal interpretation of Gothic architecture since the Middle Ages". The basilica is not the cathedral church of the Archdiocese of Barcelona, as that title belongs to the Cathedral of the Holy Cross and Saint Eulalia (Barcelona Cathedral). The Basílica de la Sagrada Família was the inspiration of a bookseller, Josep Maria Bocabella, founder of Asociación Espiritual de Devotos de San José (Spiritual Association of Devotees of St. Joseph). After a visit to the Vatican in 1872, Bocabella returned from Italy with the intention of building a church inspired by the basilica at Loreto. The apse crypt of the church, funded by donations, was begun 19 March 1882, on the festival of St. Joseph, to the design of the architect Francisco de Paula del Villar, whose plan was for a Gothic revival church of a standard form. The apse crypt was completed before Villar's resignation on 18 March 1883, when Antoni Gaudí assumed responsibility for its design, which he changed radically. Gaudi began work on the church in 1883 but was not appointed Architect Director until 1884. On the subject of the extremely long construction period, Gaudí is said to have remarked: "My client is not in a hurry." When Gaudí died in 1926, the basilica was between 15 and 25 percent complete. After Gaudí's death, work continued under the direction of his main disciple Domènec Sugrañes i Gras until interrupted by the Spanish Civil War in 1936. Parts of the unfinished basilica and Gaudí's models and workshop were destroyed during the war by Catalan anarchists. The present design is based on reconstructed versions of the plans that were burned in a fire as well as on modern adaptations. Since 1940, the architects Francesc Quintana, Isidre Puig Boada, Lluís Bonet i Gari and Francesc Cardoner have carried on the work. The illumination was designed by Carles Buïgas. The director until 2012 was the son of Lluís Bonet, Jordi Bonet i Armengol. He has been introducing computers into the design and construction process since the 1980s. In 2012, Barcelona-born Jordi Faulí i Oller took over as architect of the project. Mark Burry of New Zealand serves as Executive Architect and Researcher. Sculptures by J. Busquets, Etsuro Sotoo and the controversial Josep Maria Subirachs decorate the fantastical façades. The central nave vaulting was completed in 2000 and the main tasks since then have been the construction of the transept vaults and apse. As of 2006, work concentrated on the crossing and supporting structure for the main steeple of Jesus Christ as well as the southern enclosure of the central nave, which will become the Glory façade. The church shares its site with the Sagrada Família Schools building, a school originally designed by Gaudí in 1909 for the children of the construction workers. Relocated in 2002 from the eastern corner of the site to the southern corner, the building now houses an exhibition. Chief architect Jordi Faulí announced in October 2015 that construction was 70 percent complete and had entered its final phase of raising six immense steeples. The steeples and most of the church's structure are to be completed by 2026, the centennial of Gaudí's death; as of a 2017 estimate, decorative elements should be complete by 2030 or 2032. Visitor entrance fees of €15 to €20 finance the annual construction budget of €25 million. Computer-aided design technology has been used to accelerate construction of the building. Current technology allows stone to be shaped off-site by a CNC milling machine, whereas in the 20th century the stone was carved by hand. In 2008, some renowned Catalan architects advocated halting construction to respect Gaudí's original designs, which, although they were not exhaustive and were partially destroyed, have been partially reconstructed in recent years. In 2018, the stone type needed for the construction was found in a quarry in Brinscall, near Chorley, England. The main nave was covered and an organ installed in mid-2010, allowing the still-unfinished building to be used for liturgies. The church was consecrated by Pope Benedict XVI on 7 November 2010 in front of a congregation of 6,500 people. A further 50,000 people followed the consecration Mass from outside the basilica, where more than 100 bishops and 300 priests were on hand to distribute Holy Communion. Gaudí's original design calls for a total of eighteen spires, representing in ascending order of height the Twelve Apostles, the Virgin Mary, the four Evangelists and, tallest of all, Jesus Christ. Nine spires have been built as of 2021, corresponding to four apostles at the Nativity façade and four apostles at the Passion façade and the Virgin Mary spire. According to the 2005 "Works Report" of the project's official website, drawings signed by Gaudí and recently found in the Municipal Archives, indicate that the spire of the Virgin was in fact intended by Gaudí to be shorter than those of the evangelists. The spire height will follow Gaudí's intention, which according to the report will work with the existing foundation. The Evangelists' spires will be surmounted by sculptures of their traditional symbols: a winged bull (Saint Luke), a winged man (Saint Matthew), an eagle (Saint John), and a winged lion (Saint Mark). The central spire of Jesus Christ is to be surmounted by a giant cross; its total height (172.5 meters (566 ft)) will be less than that of Montjuïc hill in Barcelona, as Gaudí believed that his creation should not surpass God's. The lower spires are surmounted by communion hosts with sheaves of wheat and chalices with bunches of grapes, representing the Eucharist. Plans call for tubular bells to be placed within the spires, driven by the force of the wind, and driving sound down into the interior of the church. Gaudí performed acoustic studies to achieve the appropriate acoustic results inside the temple. However, only one bell is currently in place.
The completion of the spires will make Sagrada Família the tallest church building in the world—11 meters taller than the current record-holder, Ulm Minster, which is 161.5 meters (530 ft) at its highest point. The Church will have three grand façades: the Nativity façade to the East, the Passion façade to the West, and the Glory façade to the South (yet to be completed). The Nativity Façade was built before work was interrupted in 1935 and bears the most direct Gaudí influence. In 2010 an organ was installed in the chancel by the Blancafort Orgueners de Montserrat organ builders. The instrument has 26 stops (1,492 pipes) on two manuals and a pedalboard. To overcome the unique acoustical challenges posed by the church's architecture and vast size, several additional organs will be installed at various points within the building. These instruments will be playable separately (from their own individual consoles) and simultaneously (from a single mobile console), yielding an organ of some 8,000 pipes when completed. Together with six other Gaudí buildings in Barcelona, part of la Sagrada Família is a UNESCO World Heritage Site, as testifying "to Gaudí's exceptional creative contribution to the development of architecture and building technology", "having represented el Modernisme of Catalonia" and "anticipated and influenced many of the forms and techniques that were relevant to the development of modern construction in the 20th century". The inscription only includes the Crypt and the Nativity Façade.
If you can read the computerized notes on the last one, you will have a record of my day. My favorites are the colored ones, of course, but i did feel that I was painting more loosely on them and didn't get so picky....with details. By the last one, it was past 2 and I was worn out for the day!
Original Caption: Fireman, left, and engineer in the cab of the Empire Builder passenger train as it heads west from Chicago to East Glacier Park Montana, and Seattle, Washington. Amtrak, since it assumed responsibility for most U.S. intercity rail passenger service in 1971 has been working to improve facilities and attract riders by using methods employed by the airlines such as computerized reservations, June 1974
U.S. National Archives’ Local Identifier: 412-DA-13634
Photographer: O'Rear, Charles, 1941-
Subjects:
Chicago (Illinois)
Environmental Protection Agency
Project DOCUMERICA
Persistent URL: research.archives.gov/description/556086
Repository: Still Picture Records Section, Special Media Archives Services Division (NWCS-S), National Archives at College Park, 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD, 20740-6001.
For information about ordering reproductions of photographs held by the Still Picture Unit, visit: www.archives.gov/research/order/still-pictures.html
Reproductions may be ordered via an independent vendor. NARA maintains a list of vendors at www.archives.gov/research/order/vendors-photos-maps-dc.html
Access Restrictions: Unrestricted
Use Restrictions: Unrestricted
Quite possibly the most famous airline in history, Pan American Airways—also known as Pan American World Airways, PAA or simply Pan Am—had its beginnings in geopolitics. A German owned airline in Colombia had expressed interest in flying to Panama in 1926, raising the specter of a German threat to the Panama Canal. At the time, German financed and owned airlines dominated South America’s airlines, and the United States wanted to change that. In June 1927, Juan Trippe, who already had built small airlines in the Northeast, formed the Aviation Corporation of the Americas, with significant backing from New York businessmen and the US government. ACA bought a small Key West, Florida-based airline that operated a Fairchild FC-2 floatplane, and this was reorganized as Pan American Airways—reflecting Trippe’s vision of a hemisphere-spanning airline. It flew its first air mail flight in October of that year to Havana, Cuba.
Trippe then set out to make his dream come true. Passenger service was added between Key West and Havana using land aircraft, and then Pan American began to steadily move south. Several South American airlines were bought out or set up by Pan American, Trippe taking advantage of Charles Lindbergh’s popularity by using the famous aviator to promote the airline. Worried that the US government’s enthusiastic backing of Trippe could lead to Pan American gaining a monopoly of domestic routes, the smaller domestic airlines of the United States secured an agreement that Pan American would limit itself only to international services—an agreement that would come back to haunt Pan American many decades later.
Trippe was not overly concerned, as his airline gained de facto control of international routes to the United States. Pan American did operate some land-based aircraft, but its most popular aircraft at the time were its huge seaplanes, aircraft like the Sikorsky S-38 series and eventually the mammoth Boeing 314. Trippe demanded and got highly trained and experienced crews from pilots to mechanics, further building Pan American’s reputation. Nor did he concentrate solely on Latin America: by 1939, Pan American had built an extensive Pacific route network with its flying boats, and was beginning transatlantic service.
World War II was a watershed for Pan American. The outbreak of war in the Pacific after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941 caught several Clippers in the air; these then had to turn around and fly back to the United States via Africa, and several dozen Pan American employees at Guam and Wake Island were captured by the Japanese. Pan American’s seaplanes were nationalized, and its Boeing 314s were used as executive transports, including by President Franklin Roosevelt—the unofficial beginning of “Air Force One.” Pan American crews continued to fly these routes under military control, gaining extensive experience in long-distance travel that would serve it well once the war ended.
When the shooting finally ended in 1945, Trippe did not waste a moment. He retired the surviving seaplanes, guessing correctly that the day of the flying boat was over. The real money was to be made in flying land-based aircraft across the Atlantic to London, and the race was on between British airline companies, Pan American, and Trippe’s biggest rival, Trans-World Airlines, owned by the mercurial Howard Hughes. Though Hughes had a head start, having financed Lockheed to built the pressurized, long-range L-749 Constellation, Trippe undercut him by ordering the same aircraft and getting them into service faster. Trippe also cultivated links with Douglas aircraft, which provided DC-4s and DC-6s to Pan American for its South American routes, slicing travel times in half. To deal with a threat from Northwest Airlines, which had inaugurated an Alaska route to Asia, Trippe partnered with Boeing again to produce the Boeing 377 Stratocruiser. Though the 377 was slower than Northwest’s DC-6s and its transpacific route from Hawaii to the Philippines longer, the Stratocruiser was far more luxurious, with a lounge and sleeping compartments that were reminiscent of the Boeing 314 Clippers. Trippe topped out Pan American’s postwar expansion by inaugurating the first scheduled around-the-world flights for an American carrier in 1947. When the airline became officially known as Pan American World Airways in 1950, it was merely acknowledging a fact.
Trippe was not alone in reacting in alarm to BOAC’s launch of the first scheduled jet airliner service with deHavilland Comet 1s; once more, a partnership was reached with Boeing, making Pan American the launch customer for the Boeing 707. BOAC had beaten the Americans across the Atlantic with jets, but after the Comet was grounded due to two catastrophic crashes caused by design flaws, Pan American, for all intents and purposes, owned the transatlantic market with its combination of 707s and DC-8s. Before finally retiring from Pan American in 1968, Trippe made one last, huge contribution to air travel: he made his airline the launch customer for the first wide-body airliner, the Boeing 747. The 747 was Boeing’s failed contribution to a very heavy transport for the US Air Force, but Trippe saw potential in tripling the passenger payload of the 707. Moreover, the 747’s “hump”—built so the cockpit would sit above the passenger compartment to allow for more seating—allowed Pan American to reintroduce the lounge to its flights. The 747 joined Pan American in 1970.
Trippe’s retirement presaged the decline of Pan American. While the 747 was truly revolutionary, it would be some time before its potential was realized: in 1970, air travel was still seen as more of a luxurious adventure than a routine method of travel. Trippe invested a great deal into the 747, and Pan American would lose money on it until a decade after its first revenue flight. That aside, it certainly did not seem that Pan American was in any sort of trouble: besides the airline itself—the world’s largest by route network—the company owned interests in several dozen airlines around the world and a hotel chain; it pioneered computerized reservation services; it enjoyed a near-monopoly on flights between West Berlin and West Germany, thanks to postwar agreements that prevented West Germany’s flag carrier Lufthansa from flying to Berlin; and it was favored by the US government itself. In many ways, Pan American was the United States’ flag carrier airline, and was treated as such.
Nonetheless, by 1980 Pan American was starting to show cracks in its empire. Pan American’s biggest weakness was the fact that it lacked a domestic route network, and was barred from doing so by the agreements made in the 1930s. Pan American could not even fly dedicated transcontinental routes between New York and Los Angeles. The airline saw an opportunity in deregulation to change this, buying out National Airlines in 1980 and gaining control of its extensive routes across the United States; it would also subcontract with several small airlines on the East Coast to provide Pan Am Express services, and attempted to compete with Eastern on the very profitable New York-Washington shuttle service. This came at a price, however: Pan American was now operating nearly every American jet airliner design, with a corresponding increase in maintenance and fuel costs.
The airline’s new CEOs—which underwent heavy turnover in the 1980s—did recognize the problem and consolidated where it could, restructuring the airline; the 747s, which had nearly driven Pan American into bankruptcy in the mid-1970s, were now making the profits Trippe had dreamed of. To replace its older 707s and National’s DC-10s, Pan American turned to Airbus, ordering large numbers of A300s and A310s. Further cuts in the fleet and consolidation of aircraft occurred in 1984, when its entire Pacific route network was sold to United, and nearly every service not immediately associated with flying, such as hotels, were also sold off. Nonetheless, Pan American continued to lose money.
It was about to get worse. Pan American sold its bread-and-butter New York-Kennedy to London-Heathrow route to United. It had already lost its West Berlin monopoly when Germany reunified in the same year, as Lufthansa was now able to fly to Berlin. When a merger with Northwest failed, Pan American had no choice but to declare bankruptcy in January 1991.
It was hoped that the bankruptcy would only be temporary. Delta bought most of Pan American’s assets, though enough was left to keep the latter in business, including transatlantic routes and East Coast services. Pan American tried to go back to its routes, relaunching itself from Miami, but this failed as well—the airline was just too far in debt. Delta was losing money daily on its support of Pan American, and an attempted merger with TWA came to nothing. In December 1991, Pan American was grounded for good, ending the history of arguably the most famous and storied airline in aviation history. At least six attempts have been made to restart Pan American since, but none have succeeded for very long.
I thought I had found all of the considerable number of Pan Am aircraft Bary Poletto had in his collection, but this 707 was a surprise. It is in excellent condition. This is Pan Am's best known livery, dating from the 1970s.
I saw this picture that Rankin had done and he used these white balls. His is a lot better and a bit different. His was very stark white, so I put my own twist on it.
First day of classes went well, I'm not quite as nervous as I was. The teacher really made me feel more comfortable about learning to stick people with needles, lol. More classes tomorrow, Pharmacology and and Computerized Medical Office class. Sounds fun...lol
This 1928 Detroit neighborhood house was built to resemble a Japanese outdoor garden theater. The theater was opened by the Kunsky chain, and purchased by the Goldberg family in 1931 as part of their Community Theaters circuit.
The Motor City chapter of the American Theatre Organ Society took over operation of the Redford in 1974,and purchased the building in 1977. Since that time the all volunteer staff has run it as a classic films/rental/stage show/organ concert venue. Much of the original Japanese decor was altered in past decades, and the MCTOS have been working for many years to re-create what was lost.
Recently the theater has a new computerized light board and new historically accurate seats. Restoration is continuing as funds and time permit. The classic film series shows a different film every other weekend.
-- CinemaTreasures.org
The Olympus PEN-FT is the most advanced member of the PEN half-format family that flourished in the 1960s. The Pen-F is, all appearances to the contrary, an SLR, but its designers avoided the characteristic hump and bulk of other SLRs by using a Porro prism and fixing it sideways. This required some creative engineering of the shutter design, but the camera's designer, the ingenious Y. Maitani, came up with a brilliant solution there.
All film Pens use 35 mm film but the image only takes up half a frame and is exposed sideways, so if you hold the camera horizontally, the picture will be taken in the portrait mode.
Olympus offered a large line-up of high quality lenses, but in my opinion, the standard 38/f.1.8 Zuiko lens is also far and away the best choice. Almost always, I find that the field of view is exactly what I need. The lens is fast enough too. Come on. Who needs more aperture than f/1.8?
The FT offers off-the-prism (and thus, implicitly, through-the-lens) metering, which makes the viewfinder image a bit darker. Focusing still is a breeze, however, thanks to the microprism focusing screen. The light meter is not coupled - it indicates which f-stop to use, albeit using a proprietary numbering scheme.
The web abounds with detailed descriptions of the panoply of technology used in this camera, so I won't talk about that,
On a personal note - I find this camera a pure joy to use. There are no frills. It does what it's supposed to do, no more. So I'm not distracted and can concentrate on composing my picture, which is what I should be doing instead of fiddling with controls and menus.
You feel, hear and see that it's a brilliant piece of technology. A lot of complex engineering went into making it as simple as it is. Unlike modern computerized DSLRs which appear to be following the tenet that "if it was difficult to engineer it should also be difficult to use."
People react to it. Not like they'd react to a high-end DSLR or medium format behemoth. This camera doesn't elicit envy, it just pleases people with its looks. The reaction of the technician in the camera shop today was typical: A small gasp, followed by "Wow, that's a stunner. Let me hear the sound of her." That's right. He said "her", not "it". And then I fired her and his eyes lit up with joy and he went "Ahhhhhh ....yes!"
See what I mean? Everyone who sees her walks off with a smile on their face.
This is not a silent camera. But her sound is pure music to anyone who loves cameras. Granted, she has drawbacks.
Though she's rather heavy (which is good), the manufacturing quality isn't comparable to, say, a Leica. You see that when she twists and flexes slightly in your hands and you feel it most of all when you advance the film. That has a grindy feel to it.
But still. This baby was made in 1966, and I'd say she's in a very admirable state, given that she'll turn 50 next year.
Ya'll know I don't do copyrighted characters except for when it's for family. I had to go 80's retro with the Optimus design -- the new computerized versions are NOT cake friendly! LOL
NS 5300 (built 2/1973) basks in the sun while sitting outside of Hershey's mainly computerized chocolate factory in Hershey, PA.
The sign is on the south side of the building. Another ghost sign adorns the north facade.
The building at 623 S. Wabash Ave. was constructed in 1895 and designed by Solon S. Beman or the Studebaker Brothers Carriage Company of Fort Wayne, Indiana as its Chicago regional office and warehouse facility. It was later owned by the Brunswick Company, makers of wood furnishings and built-in furniture for libraries, universities and a variety of public commercial and governmental facilities. The building was acquired by Columbia College in 1983 and now houses classrooms, academic offices, a computerized newsroom, sciences laboratories, art studios, stage and costume design workshops and two public gallery spaces.
This is a LEGO radiotherapy playset with a medical linear accelerator (LINAC), a CT scanner (computer tomograph) for treatment planning, and a control room for both LINAC and CT scanner.
Belville figures comprise the staff; brick separators receive their treatments - they suffer from diseases that require radiotherapy.
The control room (middle) is manned with a medical physicist, responsible for treatment planning, and an RT nurse at the CT scanner. In addition there is a brick separator on a stretcher waiting for his treatment.
(There is some indication that the staff are somewhat nerdy.)
The LINAC room is on the left side. There are two cameras for patient surveillance.
A shelf contains some masks, a wingboard, and a knee cushion. A radiation-shielding door provides access from the control room. It may be opened and closed.
A brick separator is currently being treated.
The LINAC has an on-board imaging system and a portal vision; both can be deployed. The gantry can be rotated, and the patient table may be swiveled.
The CT room is to the right; another brick separator is being scanned. The patient table is movable.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some Background:
On 23 January 1992, the Lithuanian Minister of Defense signed an order establishing the staff for the Aviation Base of the Aviation Service. But an actual base in the Šiauliai airport territory (Barysiai airfield) was not established until March, when according to the ordinance of the Government of Lithuanian Republic, all the infrastructure, buildings, territory and 24 An-2 aircraft were passed from ”Lithuanian Airlines" to the Aviation Service of the Ministry of Defense in January 1992.
On 12 June 1992, the first time after regaining the independence of Lithuania, An-2 aircraft, marked with the double cross of Vytis on its wings – the distinguishing sign of Lithuanian Air Force – took off from Barysiai airfield. This date is considered to be the Aviation Base foundation date. In February 1993 four L-39C Albatros aircraft were brought from Kyrgyzstan.
After 1 March 1993 Aviation Service was reformed to the Lithuanian Air Force and Aviation Base was renamed the First Aviation Base of the Lithuanian Air Force. In January 1994 Lithuania officially applied for NATO membership, and the country also looked out for a relatively cheap multi-purpose fighter that would fulfill both air space defence and attack tasks, the latter primarily against potential targets at sea (e. g. fast hoovercraft landing ships operated by the Russian Baltic Fleet).
After evaluating several options, the Lithuanian Air Force settled for a surprising aircraft: the venerable MiG-21! After the demise of the Soviet Union, several international companies started to offer conversion and upgrade programs for the widely used tactical fighter, about 5.000 specimen had been built to date. One of the first companies to enter the market was Israel Aircraft Industries: IAI's Lahav Division of (IAI) had developed the so-called MiG-21 2000 upgraded fighter and ground attack version, based on the MiG-21bis and the export MiG-21MF fighter aircraft.
The MiG-21 2000 upgrade provided modifications to the cockpit configuration, avionics architecture and weapons systems, enabling the MiG-21 2000 to compete with Western developed fighters like the F-16 and to make the transition to Western standards. The aircraft's original systems and components were retained wherever mission effectiveness was not compromised.
IAI Lahav augmented the original weapons system by introducing an EL/M-2032 radar, developed by IAI Elta Electronic Industries, based in Ashdod. The radar, which uses a low sidelobe planar array antenna and pulse Doppler beam sharpening, provides all-altitude, all-aspect look-up / look-down and shoot-down capability, as well as beyond-visual-range capability. In order to make the radar compatible with Western ordnance, a new armament interface and control unit were added, too, which enabled computerized control and release of weapons, including third and fourth-generation air-to-air missiles and precision-guided munitions of Western and Eastern provenance.
This system also gave the pilot the ability to use blind attack as well as continuously computed impact point (CCIP) and dive-toss bombing techniques. CCIP bombing involves the deployment of air-to-ground weapons, using the HUD to indicate the impact point for release of the weapons. Dive-toss bombing involves the release of air-to-ground weapons at the end of a steep dive manoeuver towards the target.
The MiG-21 2000 cockpit featured a new pilot-friendly layout that overcame the shortcomings of the original cockpit layout, which was crowded and lacked most of the desired man-machine interface characteristics. It incorporated a head-up display (HUD), eye-level multifunction color displays, hands on throttle and stick control (HOTAS), solid-state charge coupled device (CCD) camera, videotape recorder, and a one-piece windshield.
The MiG-21 2000 could be equipped with a display and sight helmet (DASH) system, supplied by Elbit of Haifa, which enabled the pilot to aim the weapons simply by looking at the target. The system worked by measuring the pilot's line of sight relative to the aircraft, and transferred the information to the aircraft's sensors, avionics and weapon systems. The helmet displayed vital information, such as the missile line of sight, missile status, flight information and warning data, on the visor. The DASH helmet allowed the pilot to fly head-up and off-boresight and assisted the pilot to detect, identify and shoot earlier.
IAI Lahav's upgrade package could be tailored to meet the customer's specific operational and budgetary requirements - the Lithuanian package included the radar, cockpit and also the DASH update and was rumored to cost around 4 Mio. USD per aircraft, and Lithuania was, together with Romania (where 110 MiG-21 were to be updated), lead customer.
As conversion basis, Lithuania purchased fifteen MiG-21 airframes for an unknown sum from the Ukraine, which had inherited a considerable MiG-21 fleet after the demise of the Soviet Union but did not (want to) operate it. The deal included thirteen airworthy MiG-21bis fighters and two MiG-21U trainers with few flying hours on the clocks, and - stripped off any military equipment - the small fleet was gradually transferred as disassembled kits via air ferry in Antonov Airlines An-124 transporters to Aerostar in Romania for conversion, starting in early 1996.
The first batch of Lithuanian MiG-21 2000, three fighters and one trainer, arrived in mid-1997 from Bacau on their own power and with civil Ukrainian registrations, and the Lithuanian Air Force’s fighter squadron, the Naikintuvu Eskadra, became ready for service in February 1998.
The rest of the country’s small MiG-21 fleet was delivered in the course of the same year, and these aircraft were semi-officially christened "Globėjas" (Guardian). Since the late Nineties, the Globėjas fighters provide the backbone of Lithuania's air defenses, with aircraft holding Quick Reaction Alert. QRA missions – so-called Alpha Scrambles – have constantly been on the rise thanks to the Russia’s increased aggression towards NATO. The MiG’s have regularly launched to intercept and shadow Russian Air Force Il-20 intelligence gathering aircraft over the Baltic Sea, as well as Tu-16 and Tu-95 patrols and even some Sukhoi Su-27s.
Lithuanian pilots use “hit and run” style tactics to deal with air threats, due to the limited range and endurance of their mounts - but this is of little concern due to the country's relatively small size and the defensive nature of the machines' tasks. While the Globėjas lack a beyond-visual range missile, although they could carry one, they have the ability to carry a range of different short-range air-to-air missiles like the Israeli Python III, which Lithuania procured from Rafael in Haifa as primary air-to-air missile.
After Lithuania joined NATO organization in 2004, its (alongside Latvia's and Estonia's) air space has been protected by NATO. NATO members provide usually 4 fighter aircraft, based in Lithuania, to police the Baltic States’ airspace, where they support the Lithuanian MiG-21 fleet. The duties rotate between NATO members (which started in March 2004 with Belgium Air Force F-16s) and most NATO members that operate fighters have made temporary deployments to Lithuania.
The Lithuanian Globėjas were also in regular demand as a simulated threat, and have gone up against US F-16s, F-15s, F/A-18s and A-10s, as well as the many different European fighter types that frequently rotate into the small country, including the Eurofighter, German F-4F Phantom IIs or French Mirage 2000.
Anyway, the Globėjas' airframes sooner or later reached their flying hour limits, and will be phased out towards 2020. As a replacement Lithuania will begin taking delivery of its first batch of ex-Portuguese F-16s in 2016, while the Baltic States are considering in the near future to protect their airspace on their own.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 14.5 [126] m (47 ft 7 in)
Wingspan: 7.154 m (23 ft 6 in)
Height: 4 m (13 ft 6 in)
Wing area: 23.0 m² (247.3 ft²)
Empty weight: 5,846 kg (12,880 lb)
Gross weight: 8,825 kg (19,425 lb)
Powerplant:
1× Tumansky R25-300, rated at 40.21 kN (9,040 lbf) thrust dry
and 69.62 kN (15,650 lbf) with afterburner
Performance:
Maximum speed: 2,175 km/h (1,351.48 mph)
Maximum speed: Mach 2.0
Landing speed: 350 km/h (190 kts)
Range: (internal fuel) 1,210 km (751 miles)
Service ceiling: 17,800 m (58,400 ft)
Rate of climb: 225 m/s (44,280 ft/min)
Armament:
1x internal 23 mm GSh-23 cannon
5x hardpoints for a wide range of guided and unguided ordnance of up to 3.310 lb (1.500 kg).
In QRA configuration the Lithuanian MiG-21 typically carry two or four Rafal Python III short
range air-to-air missiles and an 800l drop tank on the centerline pylon.
Against ground targets, unguided bombs of up to 1.100 lb (500kg) caliber or unguided rockets
can be carried; alternatively, a Rafael LITENING laser designation pod and three
Griffin Mk. 82 LGBs or a single Mk. 84 LGB can be carried, or optically guided weapons like up
to four AGM-65 Maverick or a single GBU-8.
The kit and its assembly:
This kit is the entry for the 2016 "One Week Group Build" at whatifmodelers.com, which ran from 29th of April until 8th May (so, actually nine days...). I had this project earmarked for the recent "Cold War" GB, but it fell outside of the build's time horizon. But despite the dubious kit as basis, I tackled the build since I had anything else already at hand.
The basis is the MiG-21-93 demonstrator kit from Ukrainian manufacturer Condor, one of the many reincarnations of the venerable KP MiG-21bis, but with some updates. You get, for instance, engraved, very fine panel lines, some typical details were added like the wraparound windscreen (wrong shape, though) and the radar warning fairing on the fin as well as an extra sprue with modern Russian ordnance – apparently from some other kit!
On the downside, there's overall mediocre fit due to the molds' age, some dubious details (anything appears softened or blurred…) or the simple lack thereof (e. g. there’s no ventral gun fairing at all). But there’s nothing that could not be mended, and after all this is just a whiffy version.
Since there was only one week time to build the thing and make beauty pics, the whole project remained close to OOB status, even though a lot of detail changes or additions were made in order to convert the Russian MiG-21-93 into an earlier but similar Israeli MiG-21 2000 derivative.
These mods include:
- A Martin Baker ejection seat, with wire trigger handles
- HUD made from clear styrene
- Lowered flaps
- An added jet pipe/interior for the otherwise bleak exhaust (parts from a Kangnam Yak-38)
- Hydraulic pipes on the landing gear, made from very thin wire
- Some more/different blade antennae
- Measuring vanes on the pitot boom
- Different GSh-23 gun fairing, from an Academy MiG-23
- Thinner blast deflector plates under the anti-surge doors
- A pair of Python III AAMs, plus respective launch rails
- Different centerline drop tank, from an F-5E
- Scratched chaff/flare dispensers under the rear fuselage (as carried by the MiG-21 2000 demonstrator)
Building the model went straightforward, but it took some putty work to fill some seams, dents and holes all around the kit. Biggest issue was a hole in front of the cockpit screen, where simply not enough styrene had been injected into the mould!
Painting and markings:
The Lithuanian Air Force as operator for this build was chosen because it would not only fit into the real world timeline (even though I doubt that there would have been any budget for this aircraft at that time, even if MiG-21s had not been upgraded at all...) and because the potential livery would be very simple: contemporary L-39 trainers, C-27L Spartan as well as some L-410 and Mi-8 transporters carry a uniform, dull grey livery. Why not apply it on an air superiority fighter, too?
Finding an appropriate tone was not easy, though. Some sources claim the grey tone to be FS 36306, others refer to FS 36270 or "close to Blue/Grey FS35237", but IMHO none of the cited Federal Standard tones works well. Real world Lithuanian aircraft appear pretty dark and dull, and the color also features a greenish, slate grey hue - it's a unique color indeed.
After some trials (and also wishing to avoid mixing) I settled for Humbrol 111 (German Field Grey, a.k.a. Uniform Grey) as basic tone. It's a rather dark choice, but I wanted some good contrast to the national markings. A full wraparound livery appeared a little too dark and boring, so I added light blue wing undersurfaces (Humbrol 115). The kit received a light black in wash and some panel shading, primarily in order to add some life to the otherwise uniform surface.
Details were painted according to real world MiG-21 pics: the cockpit became classic teal with light grey instrument panels, plus OOB decals for the dashboard and side consoles. The landing gear struts were painted in a light, metallic grey (Humbrol 127 + 56) while the wells were painted in an odd primer color, a mix of Aluminum, Sand and Olive Drab. Parts of the covers were painted with Humbrol 144 (Blue Grey), seen on a modernized real world MiG-21. The wheel discs became bright green.
IAI's MiG-21 2000 demonstrator from 1993 had a black radome (as well as later Romanian LanceR Cs), so I adapted this detail for my build. Other typical di-electric fairings on a MiG-21's hull were painted in slightly darker camouflage colors, while the fin's leading edge became dark grey.
The blast deflector plates received yellow and black warning stripes, and some potentially dangerous parts for the ground crews like the pointed anti-flutter booms were painted red. The Python IIIs were simply painted all-white, mounted on grey launch rails - a harsh contrast to the dull rest of the aircraft.
Main markings come from a Blue Rider Publishing aftermarket sheet for modern Lithuanian aircraft. This set also includes the small Air Force crests, which I put on the nose, as well as the typical, blue tactical codes.
The stencils come from the scrap box, the small Lithuanian flag stripes on the tail rudder were created from single decal stripes, a personal addition inspired by Lithuanian C-27J transporters. They add some more color to the otherwise murky Baltic MiG fighter.
The silver ring around the air intake as well as the stripes at the flaps and the rudder were created with simple decal stripes instead of paint.
Finally, after I added some graphite soot around the jet exhaust and some panle lines with a pencil (e .g. the blow-in doors and airbrake outlines), the kit was sealed with hardly thinned Revell matt acrylic varnish, trying to create a really dull finish.
A tough build, despite being mostly OOB, but the details took their toll. This Baltic MiG does not look flashy, but, with IAI's real world MiG-21 2000 as well as the LanceR conversion for Romania in the Nineties, this one is pretty plausible. And with the simple paint scheme, the MiG-21 looks even pretty chic!
This calves are healthy and comfortable indoors in a deep bed of straw. Great advert for animal welfare on a dairy farm. They are fed milk via an automatic computerized calf feeder. Technology keeps moving on - even for farmers. Fleckvieh is a dual purpose dairy breed - it can be used for milk or beef.
.
In the town where i grew up, there was a gem of a girl, (then young woman) ; a real validation of the human experiment . I first noticed her sometime in the early-to-mid 80's, as i recall, and last saw her sometime in the mid-to-late 90's .
One evening, she was with her boyfriend in the supermarket where i worked as a cashier ; this was not unusual . Over and again she burst out in laughter as they went, without apparent cause ; and yet when they came to the register she was very quiet .
Some years after i last saw her, i stopped by a garage sale on a block i had seen her turn down walking home . Seated was a kind-hearted and intelligent looking man, with a distant sadness to him . I bought a very nice, enigmatic looking, seated-cat paperweight made of solid aluminum ; (as i recall it, someone with a scribing pen had written, "Hoselton Canada 938", on the bottom in fine longhand) . The man said, "That used to belong to my daughter" . I did not pursue, but have ever since regarded it as hers .
I took it with me to Allentown, but am far too disorganized to have much use for paperweights most of the time . And yet, (as she was politically aware and left-of-center), when i contemplated attempting to destroy one of these computerized voting machines (i so distrust) at my polling place in 2006, it seemed logical to me to bring this paperweight for the purpose . I hope she would have agreed .
To the polling place workers' memory, it happened as soon as i was alone on the machine . To my own, finding the courage seemed to take forever . Memory is an imperfect record .
I was sent to county jail where i spent some 8 days . It really is a Land of Oz to be locked up --- with its own population, rules and customs ; and its own constant desire to be home . "There's no place like home" . My father bailed me out and i thank him for this --- i believe some of the boys were preparing to ass-jack me that very evening . And yet, when i turned to look back at the people locked up in that gymnasium-turned-cellblock, some of the others gave me a round of applause . Life can be like that --- such a (n even maddening) mix of opposites . No-one is pure evil, none is pure good .
I was discouraged from taking the matter to trial . Word had it i could receive 9 years . Word had it i could land in a lock-down mental facility --- where i was assured i wouldn't have fun . One fellow advised me to go along with being called a "quacking duck" if that's what the state wanted, and brought up Mulholland Falls --- this with good intentions --- i forgive him . And two local people hugged me, (though they tried to be inconspicuous about it) ; i thank them for this . I took it to trial anyway and the lawyer refused to be present . I was glad to see him go .
The prosecution didn't want to put the case before a jury and so reduced the charges to summary offenses . The judge was a good man who convicted me on them and sentenced me to 6 months' probation, with a warning not to do it again . He also ruled it was not a "necessary act" .
I didn't do it again --- to a polling place worker's apparent surprise . When i returned for the first time since, this past November, i voted without incident and bought coffee at the hospital's fundraiser .
And that is the story of Sarah's paperweight .
.
A few years ago, i was sued over bad debt . I had received some communications --- one from the hand of a deputy . It was a beautiful day, and i went to walk an errand, (i don't recall what), having already sold the car . When i got to the corner there were butterflies playing above wildflowers on the other side . I said, "I can't be 'in default', look at those butterflies!"
.
Preposterousrealizationlaughter . A word for the way we laugh, sometimes, when we realize that the preposterous, or what feels preposterous, has become real .
IMG_8637
(from Black's Law Dictionary, 8th edition)
. . .
It is upon this that i focus my Contitutional argument against voting machines, (of any kind), which record the vote in a manner invisible/intactile to the voter, for counting in a manner invisible to the public .
{
This would also include lever-machines, though i feel that the danger of wide-spread fraud had been far lower with these than with computerized systems ; as i believe that each mechanical machine would have had to have been rigged individually, by hand, and that such rigging would likely be visible to an inspector's eye . The acute danger, (in my opinion), of computerized voting systems is that insiders, (or any sufficiently malicious, equipped and skillfull people who gained private access to the equipment), could, (invisibly), rig such machines en masse by inserting malicious code and/or vulnerabilities into their distributed software packages and/or updates ; and/or, they could target the code of specific classes of machines further up the heirarachy, such as polling-place accumulators and central tabulators .
}
. . . .
Looking first at the leading phrase :
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,"
I quote from Black's Law Dictionary, (eighth edition), the definition of republic, (noun) ; and republican, (adjective) :
It seems obvious to me that this guarantee cannot be made firm if the vote is recorded in a manner invisible to the sighted voter, (and intactile to the blind one), for counting in a manner invisible to the public . Is there not a Constitutional imperative, therefore, upon (and within) the United States to be certain that conditions are such that fraud in the recording, counting and reporting of the vote cannot widely exist ?
I look now at that dictionary's definition of the word-pair, sovereign power, as this appears in its definition of the words republic and republican :
"The power to make and enforce laws."
It seems to me that the elected "representatives who exercise" the people's "sovereign power" would be Contitutionally prohibited from doing, (or agreeing to), anything which might undermine, (or place in jeapardy), the people's sovereign power at the ballot box --- where such power is Constitutionally intended to be applied --- and to which all organs and holders of governmental power within the republic are Constitutionally intended to be answerable .
Certainly, in my opinion, elected representatives who grant legal monopolies within their state's or county's polling places to corporations providing computer systems running trade-secret software on trade-secret hardware, which propose to record the vote in a manner both invisible and intangible to the voter for counting in a manner invisible to the public, have transgressed against such a Constitutional prohibition ; and against Madisonian common sense . There exists, (in my opinion), the possibility that the corporations involved --- or others able to privately access the computers and/or their code distributions, (and having the necessary skills and tools) --- might cheat ; intelligently, invisibly, repeatedly, broadly and successfully . And by such cheating diminish or defy the sovereign power of the people .
. . . .
Looking at the second phrase of Article IV Section 4 :
"and shall protect each of them against Invasion;"
Regarding the word invasion as defined in Black's Law Dictionary . I note, first, definition 1 :
"A hostile or forcible incursion on the rights of another."
Here it might be useful to look at the Dictionary's definition of State, which is spread over several columns on more than one page ; [i have modified their format slightly] :
. . . 1b. [A quotation on this matter by J. L. Brierly ; included beneath definition 1] .
I note that the emphasis is not on the geographical boundaries of the States, (though in the second sense of the word invasion, this would be the principal matter) . The Dictionary's emphasis is, first, upon the State's political system ; second, upon its self-government as part of a larger whole ; and third, upon its people .
In light of the above definitions,
I ask : In the Republican Form of government as intended to be guaranteed by Article IV Section 4 --- where the people hold sovereign power, and by their/our voting majorities and/or pluralities determine the political officers and character, (within Constitutional limits), of each State of our Union --- would not broad incursions on the right of the people of a State to participate in self-government constitute an invasion of that State ? And if so, would it not be unconstitutional for the elected and/or appointed office-holders of a State to allow a situation to develop wherein such incursions are more and/or unnecessarily likely to take place ?
Which leads to the question : Does not the right to cast a vote, (as a citizen of a republic), also and inseparably imply the right to the honest recording of that vote ? And would not the most effective means of achieving this be for the voter, (nondelegably except in case of personal disability), to record their/our ballot directly, in permanent ink, upon a fixed, persistent medium, (such as acid-free, embossed, counterfeit-resistant paper) ; a medium which is simultaneously visible to the sighted voter and tangible to the blind one ? Further, to protect against an invisible encroachment upon this presumed right, (the right to vote is also the right to have that vote honestly recorded), such as might occur within a computerized voting machine or system, would not the most effective measure to be to disallow the use of such machines ?
Pursuing this i ask now : Does not the above also and inseparably imply the right to an honest counting of the vote ? And would not the most effective means of achieving this be for the vote to be counted : by hand, by jury, on camera and in public ?
{
I feel that wherever and however people count votes --- either by hand or by computerized program --- there will exist the risk of partisan cheating and intimidation . This can, i hope, be minimized by convening the counting-juries from the same ward and district as the votes to be counted ; and by mandating that their racial and declared party-affiliation composition be within 10% of that of the ward and district whose vote is to be counted . It also seems useful to consider an interpretation of a ballot upon which a 2/3 majority of the jury agrees to be legally sufficient, while allowing any juror to flag a ballot for further consideration without removing it from the count .
}
To solidify this i ask also : Do not the above presumed rights also and inseparably imply the right to an honest keeping of the vote ?
{
I feel it best for the jury to count the vote as quickly as possible following the close of the election . While waiting for the count, i feel the ballot box should be sealed with multiple, high-quality locks, (of the choosing of those parties who each keep an individual lock's key or keys) ; whose keys are, (individually), kept by the two major parties and that third party which polls the highest . And while awaiting the count, the ballot box should be watched at all times by a guard including members of the military and of both major parties, along with that third party which polls highest ; and at no time be off-camera, (which would live-feed to the internet) .
}
Let me now address the matter of States' Rights, a claim based upon Amendment X to the Constitution .
I note that the last phrase of this Amendment, "or to the people", was not to my knowledge intended to be the least in all circumstances . Had the framers of the Constitution so intended, they could have included language to explicitly make a State's claim to a right superior to those of its people . And of couse, a degree of superior State claim to rights is a necessary and understandable part of instituting a State government ; but the exercise of caution is essential here, as claims to States' Rights could, potentially, be used as tools to undermine the establishment, and the persistence, of a Republican Form of Government ... which would have set this Amendment in opposition to Article IV Section 4, as well as to the rest of the Bill of Rights . Such caution seems underscored by adding the last phrase, "or to the people" . No legitimate interpretation of this amendment, (in my opinion), would allow the office-holders of a State, (whom are, both by the democratic process and by human mortality, only conditionally and temporarily in possession of the powers they wield), to claim the right to trespass upon the sovereign power of the people at the ballot box ; or to allow a situation where others would be well positioned to do so in a broad, invisible and persistent manner .
I see very little room within the Constitution, as i understand it, for intermediaries within the voting process : the votes' casting, safe-keeping, and counting . As the vote is where popular sovereignty is expressed, its recording, safe-keeping and counting should be regarded as a secular sacred . Only in regard to specific instances of voter disability, (such as a quadriplegic voter being assisted by a polling place worker), is the, (voter supervised), presence and action of a polling-place intermediary between the voter and the recording of his or her ballot acceptable ; from my point of view . And i see no acceptable intermediaries between the public and the counting of the ballot --- save those necessary to preserve order ; and to remove from the counting-juries those whom photographic records show, (upon the summoning of attention to them by the public witnesses to the count), to be repeatedly or persistently lying .
Returning to the definition of the word invasion, and looking deeper into the law, i regard the word hostile as defined in Black's Law Dictionary . I note definition 1 :
I now regard the word adverse as defined in Black's Law Dictionary ; noting definitions 2 and 3 :
2: Having an opposing or contrary interest, concern or position.
3: Contrary (to) or in opposition (to).
Would there not be sufficient concern within our republic --- where the people hold sovereign power, and thus the power to remove government officers and to, (indirectly), regulate corporations --- that government officers who grant a corporation legal monopoly to serve as an intermediary in the process of recording and counting the vote have allowed an entity potentially having an opposing or contrary interest, concern or position into the process, and have thus acted unconstitutionally ? Would this not also suggest that either the government officers are also of opposing or contrary interest, or that they have been careless in their discharge of duty ? Does the Constitution not imply that in the process of voting itself, all office holders and all corporations are, (at least potentially), contrary to or in opposition to the will of the people, whom assemble to decide whether they will remain in office, and whether, (through their choice of office holders), corporate regulation needs to be made more strict ? Would not Madisonian logic require that one does not, Constitutionally, wait for evidence of wrongdoing to appear, (and be tried in court and upheld), before excluding those, unnecessary to the safe and orderly conduct of the process, whom might hold an actionable interest hostile to the will of the electorate ? Should the participation of corporations providing vote recording, accumulating and counting equipment not, thus, be disallowed ; the more so when such equipment is computerized and thus, (in my opinion), more potentially dangerous to the will of the electorate ?
. . .
. . .
What follows is what i consider to be a fallback argument against the trade-secrecy protection of computerized voting systems' software and hardware . Given computers' many potential points of vulnerability, (in my opinion), and the invisibility, (again in my opinion), with which insiders or those with comparable access, skills, tools and knowledge of the systems could, (in my opinion), commit broad, deep, and persistent election fraud, i feel that the revelation of the system's software(s) and hardware(s) would not be sufficient to protect representative democracy without constant and intrusive verification that the systems provided held only the declared software, (provided that the declared software was good), and that they harbored no vulnerabilities . It would be far simpler and more reliable, (in my opinion), to banish these devices in favor of an all-human conduct of the election process as described above .
This argument's basic approach is that each candidate's, (and public question response's), total should be considered as a separate trust within the overall trust of the assembled ballots . As it is the expression of the relative strengths of these trusts that determines office-holders and the answers to public questions going forward, (and thus the character of the State), they should be considered an integral part of that State . Thus in my opinion, to protect each and every State from Invasion, (under Article IV Section 4), would also be to protect each and every individual ballot trust from invasion by the trustees --- the person or persons, (natural or corporate), charged with the recording, assembling, counting and reporting of other people's votes .
It is my opinion that the insiders of voting machine companies offering computerized systems running trade-secret software on trade-secret hardware for the expressed purpose of conducting elections are in an unconstitutionally advantageous position with respect to their abilities to invade such trusts, (whether they do so or not) . It is also my opinion that this advantage cannot, (over the long term), be reduced to be within Constitutionally allowable, (and Madisonially prudent), levels .
Regarding the word invasion as defined in Black's Law Dictionary . I note, now, definition 3 :
Regarding trusts, above, i note definition 2 :
and definition 3 :
The property so held ; Corpus (1)
Looking now at Black's definition for Corpus, i cite definition 1 :
"The property for which a trustee is responsible ; the trust principal."
I think it is worth looking at the election process as beginning with an incorporeal property, (please see definition 2 : "A legal right in property having no physical existance."), which is held by many people individually . The incorporeal property in this example would be our personal share as a citizen of the popular sovereignty of our nation . The ballot is then created by the voter as a legal instrument, backed by his or her share of the popular sovereignty, for the conveyance of a measure of authorization to wield power, on the citizen's behalf, to the trusts of those candidates and ballot options the voter selects . To these candidates and ballot options, the voter's ballot becomes a form of indispensible instrument in determining which candidate or ballot option will have a majority, (or, where applicable, plurality), of the vote and thus receive the full authorization of the sovereign public for the term or option stated .
I quote Black's definition of an indispensible instrument
{
"The formal written evidence of an interest in intangibles, so necessary to represent the intangible that the enjoyment, transfer or enforcement of the intangible depends on possession of the instrument."
}
I note here that, (as the ballot itself is or should be a public record), "possession" of the instrument can be considered as possessing the vote, the expressed intent, of the voter casting the ballot . Here i note also that an electronically recorded ballot is neither as formal, as tangible nor as immutable as i feel one should be, though it is independently readable with the necessary equipment ; (and that the ballot records of mechanical lever machines were also, in my view, insufficiently formal and immutable) .
As i see the ballot is an instrument of the popular sovereignty, not as an embodiment of the sovereignty itself, i feel that voters retain an interest and standing with regard to our cast ballots . Thus i feel that, as trustees within an election process --- where corporations and their equipment are involved in the recording, counting and/or reporting of votes --- such companies are, at most, only authorized to facilitate the creation of the ballot, (a legal instrument), by the voter ; and subsequently, to effect the transfer of the ballots from the individual voters to the collective trusts of candidate and issue-response totals . Any ability which may exist for trustees, (within this process), to invade or otherwise manipulate the individual candidates' and issues' trusts, (or the assembled overall trust), either during the creation of the ballots or afterward, to the advantage of one trust or the disadvanage of another, is unwarranted by their role ; and, in my opinion, would be unconstitutional under Article IV Section 4 .
2009 diesel hydraulic (biodiesel)
Marshfield Station, NH
Powered by a 600hp John Deere marine engine governed by a computerized operating system. Hydraulic pressure delivers a maximum of 30,000 ft-lbs. of torque to each of two drive cogs beneath the locomotive, pulling the train up the mountain. A redundant air brake system ensures positive braking and parking when needed, but in normal operations, hydraulic pressure is also used to bring the train back down to Marshfield Station.
The Cog also has 8 wooden coaches on its roster, No. 1 is shown here.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
Seeking a domestic aircraft manufacturer, the Brazilian government made several investments in this area during the 1940s and '50s, but it was not until 1969 that Empresa Brasileira de Aeronáutica (EMBRAER) was created as a government-owned corporation. Born from a Brazilian government plan and having been state-run from the beginning, EMBRAER began a privatization process alongside many other state-controlled companies during the government of Fernando Henrique Cardoso. This privatization effort saw EMBRAER sold on December 7, 1994, and helped it avoid a looming bankruptcy.
The company's first product was a turboprop transport, the EMBRAER EMB 110 Bandeirante. In the course of years, both civil and military aircraft were developed, the focus shifted more and more to airliners, but the military work was never abandoned. The company continued to win government contracts, which included the EMB 314/T-27 Tucano trainer or the EMB 324/A-29 ground attack aircraft.
The EMB 320 was a bigger aircraft, though, and conceived in the early 2000s, when, with renewed economic stability, the Brazilian Air Force (Força Aérea Brasileira, FAB) underwent an extensive renewal of its inventory through several acquisition programs. The most ambitious of which was the acquisition of 36 new front-line interceptor aircraft to replace its aging Mirage III, known as the “F-X Project”.
In parallel, a supplement to the relatively new AMX fighter bomber (designated A-1 in Brazil) was needed, too, and this program ran under the handle “A-X Project”. While the F-X program was postponed several times until 2005, the A-X program made, thanks to its smaller budget needs, quick progress and resulted in the EMB 320 'Libélula' (Hornet), a dedicated ground attack, COIN and observation/FAC aircraft which would fill the gap between the AMX jets and various helicopters, e. g. the Mi-35M4 attack helicopter.
The EMB 320 was a straightforward design: a mid-wing two-turboprop-engined all-metal monoplane with retractable landing gear. Conceptually it was very similar to the Argentinian FMA IA-58 Pucara, but more sophisticated and with more compact dimensions. The aircraft was designed to operate from forward bases, in high temperature and humidity conditions in extremely rugged terrain. Repairs could be made with ordinary tools, and no ground equipment was required to start the engines.
The EMB 320 had a tandem cockpit arrangement; the crew of two were seated under an extensively glazed canopy on Martin-Baker Mk 6AP6A zero/zero ejection seats and were provided with dual controls. The pilot sat in front, while the rear seat would, if the mission called for it, be occupied by an observer, WSO or a flight teacher for training purposes. Armor plating was fitted to protect the crew and engines from hostile ground fire.
The retractable tricycle landing gear, with a double nose wheel and twin main wheels retracting into the engine nacelles, was fitted with low pressure tires to suit operations on rough ground and unprepared air strips, while the undercarriage legs were tall to give good clearance for underslung weapon loads. The undercarriage, flaps and brakes are operated hydraulically, with no pneumatic systems.
Through powerful high lift devices the EMB 320 could perform short takeoffs and landings, even on aircraft carriers and large deck amphibious assault ships without using catapults or arresting wires. Additionally, three JATO rockets could be fitted under the fuselage to allow extra-short take-off.
The aircraft was powered by a pair of Garrett T76-G turboprops, 1,040 hp (775.5 kW) each, driving sets of contra-rotating, three-bladed Hamilton-Standard propellers which were also capable of being used as air brakes. The engines were modified for operating on soy-derived bio-jet fuel. Alternatively the engines would operate on high-octane automobile fuel with only a slight loss of power, too.
Fuel was fed from two fuselage tanks of combined capacity of 800 l (180 imp gal; 210 US gal) and two self-sealing tanks of 460 l (100 imp gal; 120 US gal) in the wings.
The “Libélula”, quickly christened this way due to its slender fuselage, straight wings and the large cockpit glazing, was highly maneuverable at low altitude, had a low heat signature and incorporated 4th generation avionics and weapons system to deliver precision guided munitions at all weather conditions, day and night.
Armament consisted of two fixed 30 mm (1.181 in) Bernardini Mk-164 cannons in the wing roots and a total of nine external weapon hardpoints; these included a pair of launch rails at the wingtips for AIM-9 Sidewinder AAMs (or ECM pods), four underwing pylons outside of the propeller radius and three underfuselage hardpoints. Chaff/flare dispensers in the tail section provided passive safety. The EMB 320 could carry more than 3.5 tons of external munitions, and loiter for three or more hours.
Avionics included:
● MIL-STD-1553 standards
● NVG ANVIS-9 (Night Vision)
● CCIP / CCRP / CCIL / DTOS / LCOS / SSLC (Computerized Attack Modes)
● R&S{RT} M3AR VHF/UHF airborne transceiver (two-way encrypted Data Link provision)
● HUD / HOTAS
● HMD with UFCP(Up Front Control Panel)
● Laser INS with GPS Navigational System
● CMFD (Colored Multi-Function Display) liquid crystal active matrix
● Integrated Radio Communication and Navigation
● Video Camera/Recorder
● Automatic Pilot with embedded mission planning capability
● Stormscope WX-1000E (Airborne weather mapping system)
● Laser Range Finder
● WiPak Support – (Wi-Fi integration for Paveway bombs)
● Training and Operation Support System (TOSS)
The prototype made its maiden flight on 2nd of April 2000. In August 2001, the Brazilian Air Force awarded EMBRAER a contract for 52 A-27 Libélula aircraft with options for a further 23, acquired from a contract estimated to be worth around $320 USD millions. The first aircraft was delivered in December 2003. By September 2007, 50 aircraft had entered service. The 75th, and last, aircraft was delivered to the FAB in June 2012.
While the Libélula has not been used in foreign conflicts the aircraft already fired in anger: One of the main missions of the aircraft was and is border patrol under the SIVAM program, and this resulted in several incidents in which weapons were fired.
On 3 June 2009, two BAF A-27A Libélulas, guided by an EMBRAER E-99, intercepted a Cessna U206G engaged in drug trafficking activities. Inbound from Bolivia, the Cessna was intercepted in the region of Alta Floresta d'Oeste and, after exhausting all procedures, one of the Moscarsos fired a warning shot from its 30mm cannons, after which the aircraft followed the Libélulas to Cacoal airport.
This incident was the first use of powers granted under the Shoot-Down Act, which was enacted in October 2004 in order to legislate for the downing of illegal flights. A total of 176 kg of pure cocaine base paste, enough to produce almost a ton of cocaine, was discovered on board the Cessna; the aircraft's two occupants attempted a ground escape before being arrested by Federal Police in Pimenta Bueno.
On 5 August 2011, Brazil started “Operation Ágata”, part of a major "Frontiers Strategic Plan" launched by President Dilma Rousseff in June, with almost 30 continuous days of rigorous military activity in the region of Brazil’s border with Colombia. It mobilized 35 aircraft and more than 3,000 military personnel of the Brazilian Army, Brazilian Navy and Brazilian Air Force surveillance against drug trafficking, illegal mining and logging, and trafficking of wild animals.
A-29s of 1°/3º Aviation Group (GAv), Squadron Scorpion, as well as six A-27A’s from 4°/3° GAv launched a strike upon an illicit airstrip, deploying eight 230 kg (500 lb) computer-guided Mk 82 bombs to render the airstrip unusable.
Multiple EMB 320 were assigned for night operations, locating remote jungle airstrips used by drug smuggling gangs along the border, and were typically guarded by several E-99 aircraft. The Libélulas also located targets for the A-29 Super Tucanos, allowing them to bomb the airstrips with an extremely high level of accuracy, making use of night-vision systems and computer systems calculating the impact points of munitions.
General characteristics
Crew: 2
Length (w/o pitot): 41 ft 10 in (12.76 m)
Wingspan: 40 ft 9 1/2 in (12.45 m)
Height: 13 ft 6 2/3 in (4.14 m)
Wing area: 203.4 ft² (18.9 m²)
Empty weight: 8.920 lb (4.050 kg)
Max. take-off weight: 16.630 lb (7.550 kg)
Powerplant:
2× Garrett T76-G410/411 turboprops, 1,040 hp (775.5 kW) each
Performance:
Maximum speed: 307 mph (267 kn, 495 km/h)
Range: 1.860 mi (1.620 nmi, 3.000 km)
Service ceiling: 30.160 ft (9.150 m)
Rate of climb: 2.966 ft/min (15 m/s)
Armament:
2× fixed 30 mm (1.181 in) Bernardini Mk-164 cannons in the wing roots with 200 RPG
9× external hardpoints for an ordnance load of 8.000 lb (3.630 kg), including smart weapons (e. g. Paveway GBUs, AGM-65B,C or D Maverick, AGM-114 Hellfire), iron bombs, cluster bombs, napalm tanks, unguided rocket pods and AIM-9 Sidewinder AAMs as well as drop tanks.
The kit and its assembly:
This whif model is a remake of an idea I had/did many years ago from the remains of an Airfix OV-10D Bronco: converting it into a "normal" aircraft. While one could argue that this is not really exciting, I found this project pretty challenging as I wanted to make the result as plausible as possible, not just glue some leftover parts together (what I did years ago). And doing so turned a simple idea into major surgery and sculpting – or, how flickr fellow user Franclab called it, “it makes the Bronco look like the whif and the Libélula the real aircraft”.
The basis was a NiB OV-10A Bronco from Academy, a very good kit with a nice cockpit and lots or ordnance. Great value for the money. Design benchmark for what I had in mind was the FMA IA-58 Pucara, as it was designed for the exact same job as my EMB 320 - but details would differ.
The rear of the Bronco's central cabin was cut off and mated with the rear fuselage of a Matchbox Bf 110, which has a similar diameter - but the intersection between the square front of the Bronco and the oval Bf 110 fuselage was tricky (= requiring lots of putty work).
When these basic elements were fitted together, I finally decided to raise the spine. The mated fuselage parts would have had worked, but since the original high wings were missing, the EMB 320 would have had a distinctive and pointless hunchback - actually, with a rotor added, it could have become a helicopter, too!
Well, I went for the big solution, also in order to make the fuselage seam less obvious, and the whole upper rear fuselage was sculpted from 2C and NC putty. In the same process the tail was integrated into the fuselage. As a drawback, this shifted the kit's CG so far back that the lead load in the nose could not keep the front wheel down. Well, it's the price to pay for a better overall look.
The twin fins come from a 1:100 A-10, leftover from a Revell SnapFit kit, while the horizontal stabilizers were taken from the OV-10A, but had to be re-engraved in order to make the flap geometry plausible.
The wings were taken OOB and, relative to the Bronco, placed in a lower position, their original attachment point on top of the fuselage was faired over. The original plan had been to place them completely low, right where the OV-10's wing stubs would be located. But due to the engine nacelles under the wings I finally set them at mid height - otherwise, ground clearance and/or landing gear length had become a big issue - and the thing still looks stalky!
Moving the nacelles into a different (higher) wing position would have been an option, too, but that was IMHO too complicated. Since the EMD 320 would not have storage space behind the cockpit, a wing spar right through the fuselage would not be implausible. As a side effect I had to close the complete belly gap under the Bronco fuselage, again with 2C putty.
The Bronco’s tail booms were cut off and pointed end covers added, so that classic engine nacelles which also carry the main landing gear were created. The engine exhausts were relocated towards the nacelle’s end, and the propeller attachment modified, so that the propeller could turn freely on a metal axis and the overall look would be changed.
The cockpit tub was taken OOB, but armored seats from an Italeri AH-1 were used (with added headrests), as well as two crew figures, which come IIRC from a Hasegawa RA-5C Vigilante.
A new nose section with a sensor turret was built from scratch. It consists of parts from an AH-64 attack helicopter, mated with some styrene sheets for appropriate length. The shape was sculpted from massive material, and the result looks mean and menacing. The pitots were made from scratch, as well as the radar warning sensors on the hull.
The landing gear was improvised. The front strut actually belongs to a 1:200 Concorde(!) from Revell, the respective front wheels belong to an ESCI Ka-34 helicopter. For the main landing gear I used the struts from the Bronco kit, but the twin wheels are donations from the scrap box: these come from two Italeri Hawker Hawk kits.
The ordnance was puzzled together from the scrap box, too, as well as from Hasegawa Weapon sets. As the aircraft was supposed to have taken part in the real world “Operation Ágata”, I decided to add four light Paveway gliding bombs. Two Sidewinders and a pair of M260 rocket launchers (for seven 2.75"/70mm target marking missiles with phosphorous warheads) complete the full load.
The wing pylons come from two Italeri Tornados, those under the fuselage belong to a Matchbox Viggen and an Italeri Kfir.
As a final note: originally I wanted to call the aircraft “Moscardo” (= Hornet), but when it took shape its overall lines and potential agility made the dragonfly (Libélula in Portuguese) a much more appropriate namesake. So it goes... ^^
Painting and markings:
The reason why this turned out to be a Brazilian aircraft is the fact that I have been wanting to use the current FAB paint scheme for some time - it's basically made up from only two colors, FS 34092 (Dark Green) and FS 36176 (“F-15 Gray”, used on USAF F-15Es), paired with low-viz markings. Looks strange at first glance, like a poor man's Europe One/Lizard scheme, but over a typical rain forest scenery, low altitude and with hazy clouds around it is VERY effective, check the beauty pics which are based on BAF press releases. And it simply looks cool.
The pattern is based on current BAF F-5E fighters, the markings come from an FCM decal sheet and actually belong to a BAF Mirage 2000. 4º/3º GAv of the Brazilian Air Force is fictional, though, and some warning stencils were taken from the Academy kit.
The cockpit interior was painted in Dark Gull Gray (Humbrol 140), the landing gear wells in a yellow zinc chromate primer (Humbrol 225, Mid Stone) while the landing gear struts remained blank Aluminum, The outer wheel disks are white, while the inside is red - a detail I incorporated from some USN aircraft.
Painting was not spectacular - since the cockpit has a lot of glass to offer, I painted the windscreen with translucent light blue, and the observer on the rear seat received a similar sun blocker in deep blue. Translucent paint (yellow and black) was also used on the optical sensors at the nose turret as well as for position lights, all on a silver base.
The model was only slightly weathered thorough a black ink wash and some dry-brushing with Humbrol 140 and Testors 2076 (RLM 62) in order to emphasize panels - some panel lines were also painted onto the fuselage with thinned black ink, as the "new" rear body is devoid of any detail and difficult to engrave.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is a family of single-seat, single-engine, all-weather, stealth, fifth-generation, multirole combat aircraft, designed for ground-attack and air-superiority missions. It is built by Lockheed Martin and many subcontractors, including Northrop Grumman, Pratt & Whitney, and BAE Systems.
The F-35 has three main models: the conventional takeoff and landing F-35A (CTOL), the short take-off and vertical-landing F-35B (STOVL), and the catapult-assisted take-off but arrested recovery, carrier-based F-35C (CATOBAR). The F-35 descends from the Lockheed Martin X-35, the design that was awarded the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program over the competing Boeing X-32. The official Lightning II name has proven deeply unpopular and USAF pilots have nicknamed it Panther, instead.
The United States principally funds F-35 development, with additional funding from other NATO members and close U.S. allies, including the United Kingdom, Italy, Australia, Canada, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, and formerly Turkey. These funders generally receive subcontracts to manufacture components for the aircraft; for example, Turkey was the sole supplier of several F-35 parts until its removal from the program in July 2019. Several other countries have ordered, or are considering ordering, the aircraft.
As the largest and most expensive military program ever, the F-35 became the subject of much scrutiny and criticism in the U.S. and in other countries. In 2013 and 2014, critics argued that the plane was "plagued with design flaws", with many blaming the procurement process in which Lockheed was allowed "to design, test, and produce the F-35 all at the same time," instead of identifying and fixing "defects before firing up its production line". By 2014, the program was "$163 billion over budget [and] seven years behind schedule". Critics also contend that the program's high sunk costs and political momentum make it "too big to kill".
The F-35 first flew on 15 December 2006. In July 2015, the United States Marines declared its first squadron of F-35B fighters ready for deployment. However, the DOD-based durability testing indicated the service life of early-production F-35B aircraft is well under the expected 8,000 flight hours, and may be as low as 2,100 flight hours. Lot 9 and later aircraft include design changes but service life testing has yet to occur. The U.S. Air Force declared its first squadron of F-35As ready for deployment in August 2016. The U.S. Navy declared its first F-35Cs ready in February 2019. In 2018, the F-35 made its combat debut with the Israeli Air Force.
The U.S. stated plan is to buy 2,663 F-35s, which will provide the bulk of the crewed tactical airpower of the U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps in coming decades. Deliveries of the F-35 for the U.S. military are scheduled until 2037 with a projected service life up to 2070.
Development
F-35 development started in 1992 with the origins of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program and was to culminate in full production by 2018. The X-35 first flew on 24 October 2000 and the F-35A on 15 December 2006.
The F-35 was developed to replace most US fighter jets with the variants of a single design that would be common to all branches of the military. It was developed in co-operation with a number of foreign partners, and, unlike the F-22 Raptor, intended to be available for export. Three variants were designed: the F-35A (CTOL), the F-35B (STOVL), and the F-35C (CATOBAR). Despite being intended to share most of their parts to reduce costs and improve maintenance logistics, by 2017, the effective commonality was only 20%. The program received considerable criticism for cost overruns during development and for the total projected cost of the program over the lifetime of the jets.
By 2017, the program was expected to cost $406.5 billion over its lifetime (i.e. until 2070) for acquisition of the jets, and an additional $1.1 trillion for operations and maintenance. A number of design deficiencies were alleged, such as: carrying a small internal payload; performance inferior to the aircraft being replaced, particularly the F-16; lack of safety in relying on a single engine; and flaws such as the vulnerability of the fuel tank to fire and the propensity for transonic roll-off (wing drop). The possible obsolescence of stealth technology was also criticized.
Design
Overview
Although several experimental designs have been developed since the 1960s, such as the unsuccessful Rockwell XFV-12, the F-35B is to be the first operational supersonic STOVL stealth fighter. The single-engine F-35 resembles the larger twin-engined Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, drawing design elements from it. The exhaust duct design was inspired by the General Dynamics Model 200, proposed for a 1972 supersonic VTOL fighter requirement for the Sea Control Ship.
Lockheed Martin has suggested that the F-35 could replace the USAF's F-15C/D fighters in the air-superiority role and the F-15E Strike Eagle in the ground-attack role. It has also stated the F-35 is intended to have close- and long-range air-to-air capability second only to that of the F-22 Raptor, and that the F-35 has an advantage over the F-22 in basing flexibility and possesses "advanced sensors and information fusion".
Testifying before the House Appropriations Committee on 25 March 2009, acquisition deputy to the assistant secretary of the Air Force, Lt. Gen. Mark D. "Shack" Shackelford, stated that the F-35 is designed to be America's "premier surface-to-air missile killer, and is uniquely equipped for this mission with cutting-edge processing power, synthetic aperture radar integration techniques, and advanced target recognition".
Improvements
Ostensible improvements over past-generation fighter aircraft include:
Durable, low-maintenance stealth technology, using structural fiber mat instead of the high-maintenance coatings of legacy stealth platforms
Integrated avionics and sensor fusion that combine information from off- and on-board sensors to increase the pilot's situational awareness and improve target identification and weapon delivery, and to relay information quickly to other command and control (C2) nodes
High-speed data networking including IEEE 1394b and Fibre Channel (Fibre Channel is also used on Boeing's Super Hornet.
The Autonomic Logistics Global Sustainment, Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS), and Computerized maintenance management system to help ensure the aircraft can remain operational with minimal maintenance manpower The Pentagon has moved to open up the competitive bidding by other companies. This was after Lockheed Martin stated that instead of costing 20% less than the F-16 per flight hour, the F-35 would actually cost 12% more. Though the ALGS is intended to reduce maintenance costs, the company disagrees with including the cost of this system in the aircraft ownership calculations. The USMC has implemented a workaround for a cyber vulnerability in the system. The ALIS system currently requires a shipping-container load of servers to run, but Lockheed is working on a more portable version to support the Marines' expeditionary operations.
Electro-hydrostatic actuators run by a power-by-wire flight-control system
A modern and updated flight simulator, which may be used for a greater fraction of pilot training to reduce the costly flight hours of the actual aircraft
Lightweight, powerful lithium-ion batteries to provide power to run the control surfaces in an emergency
Structural composites in the F-35 are 35% of the airframe weight (up from 25% in the F-22). The majority of these are bismaleimide and composite epoxy materials. The F-35 will be the first mass-produced aircraft to include structural nanocomposites, namely carbon nanotube-reinforced epoxy. Experience of the F-22's problems with corrosion led to the F-35 using a gap filler that causes less galvanic corrosion to the airframe's skin, designed with fewer gaps requiring filler and implementing better drainage. The relatively short 35-foot wingspan of the A and B variants is set by the F-35B's requirement to fit inside the Navy's current amphibious assault ship parking area and elevators; the F-35C's longer wing is considered to be more fuel efficient.
Costs
A U.S. Navy study found that the F-35 will cost 30 to 40% more to maintain than current jet fighters, not accounting for inflation over the F-35's operational lifetime. A Pentagon study concluded a $1 trillion maintenance cost for the entire fleet over its lifespan, not accounting for inflation. The F-35 program office found that as of January 2014, costs for the F-35 fleet over a 53-year lifecycle was $857 billion. Costs for the fighter have been dropping and accounted for the 22 percent life cycle drop since 2010. Lockheed stated that by 2019, pricing for the fifth-generation aircraft will be less than fourth-generation fighters. An F-35A in 2019 is expected to cost $85 million per unit complete with engines and full mission systems, inflation adjusted from $75 million in December 2013.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
Seeking a domestic aircraft manufacturer, the Brazilian government made several investments in this area during the 1940s and '50s, but it was not until 1969 that Empresa Brasileira de Aeronáutica (EMBRAER) was created as a government-owned corporation. Born from a Brazilian government plan and having been state-run from the beginning, EMBRAER began a privatization process alongside many other state-controlled companies during the government of Fernando Henrique Cardoso. This privatization effort saw EMBRAER sold on December 7, 1994, and helped it avoid a looming bankruptcy.
The company's first product was a turboprop transport, the EMBRAER EMB 110 Bandeirante. In the course of years, both civil and military aircraft were developed, the focus shifted more and more to airliners, but the military work was never abandoned. The company continued to win government contracts, which included the EMB 314/T-27 Tucano trainer or the EMB 324/A-29 ground attack aircraft.
The EMB 320 was a bigger aircraft, though, and conceived in the early 2000s, when, with renewed economic stability, the Brazilian Air Force (Força Aérea Brasileira, FAB) underwent an extensive renewal of its inventory through several acquisition programs. The most ambitious of which was the acquisition of 36 new front-line interceptor aircraft to replace its aging Mirage III, known as the “F-X Project”.
In parallel, a supplement to the relatively new AMX fighter bomber (designated A-1 in Brazil) was needed, too, and this program ran under the handle “A-X Project”. While the F-X program was postponed several times until 2005, the A-X program made, thanks to its smaller budget needs, quick progress and resulted in the EMB 320 'Libélula' (Hornet), a dedicated ground attack, COIN and observation/FAC aircraft which would fill the gap between the AMX jets and various helicopters, e. g. the Mi-35M4 attack helicopter.
The EMB 320 was a straightforward design: a mid-wing two-turboprop-engined all-metal monoplane with retractable landing gear. Conceptually it was very similar to the Argentinian FMA IA-58 Pucara, but more sophisticated and with more compact dimensions. The aircraft was designed to operate from forward bases, in high temperature and humidity conditions in extremely rugged terrain. Repairs could be made with ordinary tools, and no ground equipment was required to start the engines.
The EMB 320 had a tandem cockpit arrangement; the crew of two were seated under an extensively glazed canopy on Martin-Baker Mk 6AP6A zero/zero ejection seats and were provided with dual controls. The pilot sat in front, while the rear seat would, if the mission called for it, be occupied by an observer, WSO or a flight teacher for training purposes. Armor plating was fitted to protect the crew and engines from hostile ground fire.
The retractable tricycle landing gear, with a double nose wheel and twin main wheels retracting into the engine nacelles, was fitted with low pressure tires to suit operations on rough ground and unprepared air strips, while the undercarriage legs were tall to give good clearance for underslung weapon loads. The undercarriage, flaps and brakes are operated hydraulically, with no pneumatic systems.
Through powerful high lift devices the EMB 320 could perform short takeoffs and landings, even on aircraft carriers and large deck amphibious assault ships without using catapults or arresting wires. Additionally, three JATO rockets could be fitted under the fuselage to allow extra-short take-off.
The aircraft was powered by a pair of Garrett T76-G turboprops, 1,040 hp (775.5 kW) each, driving sets of contra-rotating, three-bladed Hamilton-Standard propellers which were also capable of being used as air brakes. The engines were modified for operating on soy-derived bio-jet fuel. Alternatively the engines would operate on high-octane automobile fuel with only a slight loss of power, too.
Fuel was fed from two fuselage tanks of combined capacity of 800 l (180 imp gal; 210 US gal) and two self-sealing tanks of 460 l (100 imp gal; 120 US gal) in the wings.
The “Libélula”, quickly christened this way due to its slender fuselage, straight wings and the large cockpit glazing, was highly maneuverable at low altitude, had a low heat signature and incorporated 4th generation avionics and weapons system to deliver precision guided munitions at all weather conditions, day and night.
Armament consisted of two fixed 30 mm (1.181 in) Bernardini Mk-164 cannons in the wing roots and a total of nine external weapon hardpoints; these included a pair of launch rails at the wingtips for AIM-9 Sidewinder AAMs (or ECM pods), four underwing pylons outside of the propeller radius and three underfuselage hardpoints. Chaff/flare dispensers in the tail section provided passive safety. The EMB 320 could carry more than 3.5 tons of external munitions, and loiter for three or more hours.
Avionics included:
● MIL-STD-1553 standards
● NVG ANVIS-9 (Night Vision)
● CCIP / CCRP / CCIL / DTOS / LCOS / SSLC (Computerized Attack Modes)
● R&S{RT} M3AR VHF/UHF airborne transceiver (two-way encrypted Data Link provision)
● HUD / HOTAS
● HMD with UFCP(Up Front Control Panel)
● Laser INS with GPS Navigational System
● CMFD (Colored Multi-Function Display) liquid crystal active matrix
● Integrated Radio Communication and Navigation
● Video Camera/Recorder
● Automatic Pilot with embedded mission planning capability
● Stormscope WX-1000E (Airborne weather mapping system)
● Laser Range Finder
● WiPak Support – (Wi-Fi integration for Paveway bombs)
● Training and Operation Support System (TOSS)
The prototype made its maiden flight on 2nd of April 2000. In August 2001, the Brazilian Air Force awarded EMBRAER a contract for 52 A-27 Libélula aircraft with options for a further 23, acquired from a contract estimated to be worth around $320 USD millions. The first aircraft was delivered in December 2003. By September 2007, 50 aircraft had entered service. The 75th, and last, aircraft was delivered to the FAB in June 2012.
While the Libélula has not been used in foreign conflicts the aircraft already fired in anger: One of the main missions of the aircraft was and is border patrol under the SIVAM program, and this resulted in several incidents in which weapons were fired.
On 3 June 2009, two BAF A-27A Libélulas, guided by an EMBRAER E-99, intercepted a Cessna U206G engaged in drug trafficking activities. Inbound from Bolivia, the Cessna was intercepted in the region of Alta Floresta d'Oeste and, after exhausting all procedures, one of the Moscarsos fired a warning shot from its 30mm cannons, after which the aircraft followed the Libélulas to Cacoal airport.
This incident was the first use of powers granted under the Shoot-Down Act, which was enacted in October 2004 in order to legislate for the downing of illegal flights. A total of 176 kg of pure cocaine base paste, enough to produce almost a ton of cocaine, was discovered on board the Cessna; the aircraft's two occupants attempted a ground escape before being arrested by Federal Police in Pimenta Bueno.
On 5 August 2011, Brazil started “Operation Ágata”, part of a major "Frontiers Strategic Plan" launched by President Dilma Rousseff in June, with almost 30 continuous days of rigorous military activity in the region of Brazil’s border with Colombia. It mobilized 35 aircraft and more than 3,000 military personnel of the Brazilian Army, Brazilian Navy and Brazilian Air Force surveillance against drug trafficking, illegal mining and logging, and trafficking of wild animals.
A-29s of 1°/3º Aviation Group (GAv), Squadron Scorpion, as well as six A-27A’s from 4°/3° GAv launched a strike upon an illicit airstrip, deploying eight 230 kg (500 lb) computer-guided Mk 82 bombs to render the airstrip unusable.
Multiple EMB 320 were assigned for night operations, locating remote jungle airstrips used by drug smuggling gangs along the border, and were typically guarded by several E-99 aircraft. The Libélulas also located targets for the A-29 Super Tucanos, allowing them to bomb the airstrips with an extremely high level of accuracy, making use of night-vision systems and computer systems calculating the impact points of munitions.
General characteristics
Crew: 2
Length (w/o pitot): 41 ft 10 in (12.76 m)
Wingspan: 40 ft 9 1/2 in (12.45 m)
Height: 13 ft 6 2/3 in (4.14 m)
Wing area: 203.4 ft² (18.9 m²)
Empty weight: 8.920 lb (4.050 kg)
Max. take-off weight: 16.630 lb (7.550 kg)
Powerplant:
2× Garrett T76-G410/411 turboprops, 1,040 hp (775.5 kW) each
Performance:
Maximum speed: 307 mph (267 kn, 495 km/h)
Range: 1.860 mi (1.620 nmi, 3.000 km)
Service ceiling: 30.160 ft (9.150 m)
Rate of climb: 2.966 ft/min (15 m/s)
Armament:
2× fixed 30 mm (1.181 in) Bernardini Mk-164 cannons in the wing roots with 200 RPG
9× external hardpoints for an ordnance load of 8.000 lb (3.630 kg), including smart weapons (e. g. Paveway GBUs, AGM-65B,C or D Maverick, AGM-114 Hellfire), iron bombs, cluster bombs, napalm tanks, unguided rocket pods and AIM-9 Sidewinder AAMs as well as drop tanks.
The kit and its assembly:
This whif model is a remake of an idea I had/did many years ago from the remains of an Airfix OV-10D Bronco: converting it into a "normal" aircraft. While one could argue that this is not really exciting, I found this project pretty challenging as I wanted to make the result as plausible as possible, not just glue some leftover parts together (what I did years ago). And doing so turned a simple idea into major surgery and sculpting – or, how flickr fellow user Franclab called it, “it makes the Bronco look like the whif and the Libélula the real aircraft”.
The basis was a NiB OV-10A Bronco from Academy, a very good kit with a nice cockpit and lots or ordnance. Great value for the money. Design benchmark for what I had in mind was the FMA IA-58 Pucara, as it was designed for the exact same job as my EMB 320 - but details would differ.
The rear of the Bronco's central cabin was cut off and mated with the rear fuselage of a Matchbox Bf 110, which has a similar diameter - but the intersection between the square front of the Bronco and the oval Bf 110 fuselage was tricky (= requiring lots of putty work).
When these basic elements were fitted together, I finally decided to raise the spine. The mated fuselage parts would have had worked, but since the original high wings were missing, the EMB 320 would have had a distinctive and pointless hunchback - actually, with a rotor added, it could have become a helicopter, too!
Well, I went for the big solution, also in order to make the fuselage seam less obvious, and the whole upper rear fuselage was sculpted from 2C and NC putty. In the same process the tail was integrated into the fuselage. As a drawback, this shifted the kit's CG so far back that the lead load in the nose could not keep the front wheel down. Well, it's the price to pay for a better overall look.
The twin fins come from a 1:100 A-10, leftover from a Revell SnapFit kit, while the horizontal stabilizers were taken from the OV-10A, but had to be re-engraved in order to make the flap geometry plausible.
The wings were taken OOB and, relative to the Bronco, placed in a lower position, their original attachment point on top of the fuselage was faired over. The original plan had been to place them completely low, right where the OV-10's wing stubs would be located. But due to the engine nacelles under the wings I finally set them at mid height - otherwise, ground clearance and/or landing gear length had become a big issue - and the thing still looks stalky!
Moving the nacelles into a different (higher) wing position would have been an option, too, but that was IMHO too complicated. Since the EMD 320 would not have storage space behind the cockpit, a wing spar right through the fuselage would not be implausible. As a side effect I had to close the complete belly gap under the Bronco fuselage, again with 2C putty.
The Bronco’s tail booms were cut off and pointed end covers added, so that classic engine nacelles which also carry the main landing gear were created. The engine exhausts were relocated towards the nacelle’s end, and the propeller attachment modified, so that the propeller could turn freely on a metal axis and the overall look would be changed.
The cockpit tub was taken OOB, but armored seats from an Italeri AH-1 were used (with added headrests), as well as two crew figures, which come IIRC from a Hasegawa RA-5C Vigilante.
A new nose section with a sensor turret was built from scratch. It consists of parts from an AH-64 attack helicopter, mated with some styrene sheets for appropriate length. The shape was sculpted from massive material, and the result looks mean and menacing. The pitots were made from scratch, as well as the radar warning sensors on the hull.
The landing gear was improvised. The front strut actually belongs to a 1:200 Concorde(!) from Revell, the respective front wheels belong to an ESCI Ka-34 helicopter. For the main landing gear I used the struts from the Bronco kit, but the twin wheels are donations from the scrap box: these come from two Italeri Hawker Hawk kits.
The ordnance was puzzled together from the scrap box, too, as well as from Hasegawa Weapon sets. As the aircraft was supposed to have taken part in the real world “Operation Ágata”, I decided to add four light Paveway gliding bombs. Two Sidewinders and a pair of M260 rocket launchers (for seven 2.75"/70mm target marking missiles with phosphorous warheads) complete the full load.
The wing pylons come from two Italeri Tornados, those under the fuselage belong to a Matchbox Viggen and an Italeri Kfir.
As a final note: originally I wanted to call the aircraft “Moscardo” (= Hornet), but when it took shape its overall lines and potential agility made the dragonfly (Libélula in Portuguese) a much more appropriate namesake. So it goes... ^^
Painting and markings:
The reason why this turned out to be a Brazilian aircraft is the fact that I have been wanting to use the current FAB paint scheme for some time - it's basically made up from only two colors, FS 34092 (Dark Green) and FS 36176 (“F-15 Gray”, used on USAF F-15Es), paired with low-viz markings. Looks strange at first glance, like a poor man's Europe One/Lizard scheme, but over a typical rain forest scenery, low altitude and with hazy clouds around it is VERY effective, check the beauty pics which are based on BAF press releases. And it simply looks cool.
The pattern is based on current BAF F-5E fighters, the markings come from an FCM decal sheet and actually belong to a BAF Mirage 2000. 4º/3º GAv of the Brazilian Air Force is fictional, though, and some warning stencils were taken from the Academy kit.
The cockpit interior was painted in Dark Gull Gray (Humbrol 140), the landing gear wells in a yellow zinc chromate primer (Humbrol 225, Mid Stone) while the landing gear struts remained blank Aluminum, The outer wheel disks are white, while the inside is red - a detail I incorporated from some USN aircraft.
Painting was not spectacular - since the cockpit has a lot of glass to offer, I painted the windscreen with translucent light blue, and the observer on the rear seat received a similar sun blocker in deep blue. Translucent paint (yellow and black) was also used on the optical sensors at the nose turret as well as for position lights, all on a silver base.
The model was only slightly weathered thorough a black ink wash and some dry-brushing with Humbrol 140 and Testors 2076 (RLM 62) in order to emphasize panels - some panel lines were also painted onto the fuselage with thinned black ink, as the "new" rear body is devoid of any detail and difficult to engrave.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some Background:
On 23 January 1992, the Lithuanian Minister of Defense signed an order establishing the staff for the Aviation Base of the Aviation Service. But an actual base in the Šiauliai airport territory (Barysiai airfield) was not established until March, when according to the ordinance of the Government of Lithuanian Republic, all the infrastructure, buildings, territory and 24 An-2 aircraft were passed from ”Lithuanian Airlines" to the Aviation Service of the Ministry of Defense in January 1992.
On 12 June 1992, the first time after regaining the independence of Lithuania, An-2 aircraft, marked with the double cross of Vytis on its wings – the distinguishing sign of Lithuanian Air Force – took off from Barysiai airfield. This date is considered to be the Aviation Base foundation date. In February 1993 four L-39C Albatros aircraft were brought from Kyrgyzstan.
After 1 March 1993 Aviation Service was reformed to the Lithuanian Air Force and Aviation Base was renamed the First Aviation Base of the Lithuanian Air Force. In January 1994 Lithuania officially applied for NATO membership, and the country also looked out for a relatively cheap multi-purpose fighter that would fulfill both air space defence and attack tasks, the latter primarily against potential targets at sea (e. g. fast hoovercraft landing ships operated by the Russian Baltic Fleet).
After evaluating several options, the Lithuanian Air Force settled for a surprising aircraft: the venerable MiG-21! After the demise of the Soviet Union, several international companies started to offer conversion and upgrade programs for the widely used tactical fighter, about 5.000 specimen had been built to date. One of the first companies to enter the market was Israel Aircraft Industries: IAI's Lahav Division of (IAI) had developed the so-called MiG-21 2000 upgraded fighter and ground attack version, based on the MiG-21bis and the export MiG-21MF fighter aircraft.
The MiG-21 2000 upgrade provided modifications to the cockpit configuration, avionics architecture and weapons systems, enabling the MiG-21 2000 to compete with Western developed fighters like the F-16 and to make the transition to Western standards. The aircraft's original systems and components were retained wherever mission effectiveness was not compromised.
IAI Lahav augmented the original weapons system by introducing an EL/M-2032 radar, developed by IAI Elta Electronic Industries, based in Ashdod. The radar, which uses a low sidelobe planar array antenna and pulse Doppler beam sharpening, provides all-altitude, all-aspect look-up / look-down and shoot-down capability, as well as beyond-visual-range capability. In order to make the radar compatible with Western ordnance, a new armament interface and control unit were added, too, which enabled computerized control and release of weapons, including third and fourth-generation air-to-air missiles and precision-guided munitions of Western and Eastern provenance.
This system also gave the pilot the ability to use blind attack as well as continuously computed impact point (CCIP) and dive-toss bombing techniques. CCIP bombing involves the deployment of air-to-ground weapons, using the HUD to indicate the impact point for release of the weapons. Dive-toss bombing involves the release of air-to-ground weapons at the end of a steep dive manoeuver towards the target.
The MiG-21 2000 cockpit featured a new pilot-friendly layout that overcame the shortcomings of the original cockpit layout, which was crowded and lacked most of the desired man-machine interface characteristics. It incorporated a head-up display (HUD), eye-level multifunction color displays, hands on throttle and stick control (HOTAS), solid-state charge coupled device (CCD) camera, videotape recorder, and a one-piece windshield.
The MiG-21 2000 could be equipped with a display and sight helmet (DASH) system, supplied by Elbit of Haifa, which enabled the pilot to aim the weapons simply by looking at the target. The system worked by measuring the pilot's line of sight relative to the aircraft, and transferred the information to the aircraft's sensors, avionics and weapon systems. The helmet displayed vital information, such as the missile line of sight, missile status, flight information and warning data, on the visor. The DASH helmet allowed the pilot to fly head-up and off-boresight and assisted the pilot to detect, identify and shoot earlier.
IAI Lahav's upgrade package could be tailored to meet the customer's specific operational and budgetary requirements - the Lithuanian package included the radar, cockpit and also the DASH update and was rumored to cost around 4 Mio. USD per aircraft, and Lithuania was, together with Romania (where 110 MiG-21 were to be updated), lead customer.
As conversion basis, Lithuania purchased fifteen MiG-21 airframes for an unknown sum from the Ukraine, which had inherited a considerable MiG-21 fleet after the demise of the Soviet Union but did not (want to) operate it. The deal included thirteen airworthy MiG-21bis fighters and two MiG-21U trainers with few flying hours on the clocks, and - stripped off any military equipment - the small fleet was gradually transferred as disassembled kits via air ferry in Antonov Airlines An-124 transporters to Aerostar in Romania for conversion, starting in early 1996.
The first batch of Lithuanian MiG-21 2000, three fighters and one trainer, arrived in mid-1997 from Bacau on their own power and with civil Ukrainian registrations, and the Lithuanian Air Force’s fighter squadron, the Naikintuvu Eskadra, became ready for service in February 1998.
The rest of the country’s small MiG-21 fleet was delivered in the course of the same year, and these aircraft were semi-officially christened "Globėjas" (Guardian). Since the late Nineties, the Globėjas fighters provide the backbone of Lithuania's air defenses, with aircraft holding Quick Reaction Alert. QRA missions – so-called Alpha Scrambles – have constantly been on the rise thanks to the Russia’s increased aggression towards NATO. The MiG’s have regularly launched to intercept and shadow Russian Air Force Il-20 intelligence gathering aircraft over the Baltic Sea, as well as Tu-16 and Tu-95 patrols and even some Sukhoi Su-27s.
Lithuanian pilots use “hit and run” style tactics to deal with air threats, due to the limited range and endurance of their mounts - but this is of little concern due to the country's relatively small size and the defensive nature of the machines' tasks. While the Globėjas lack a beyond-visual range missile, although they could carry one, they have the ability to carry a range of different short-range air-to-air missiles like the Israeli Python III, which Lithuania procured from Rafael in Haifa as primary air-to-air missile.
After Lithuania joined NATO organization in 2004, its (alongside Latvia's and Estonia's) air space has been protected by NATO. NATO members provide usually 4 fighter aircraft, based in Lithuania, to police the Baltic States’ airspace, where they support the Lithuanian MiG-21 fleet. The duties rotate between NATO members (which started in March 2004 with Belgium Air Force F-16s) and most NATO members that operate fighters have made temporary deployments to Lithuania.
The Lithuanian Globėjas were also in regular demand as a simulated threat, and have gone up against US F-16s, F-15s, F/A-18s and A-10s, as well as the many different European fighter types that frequently rotate into the small country, including the Eurofighter, German F-4F Phantom IIs or French Mirage 2000.
Anyway, the Globėjas' airframes sooner or later reached their flying hour limits, and will be phased out towards 2020. As a replacement Lithuania will begin taking delivery of its first batch of ex-Portuguese F-16s in 2016, while the Baltic States are considering in the near future to protect their airspace on their own.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 14.5 [126] m (47 ft 7 in)
Wingspan: 7.154 m (23 ft 6 in)
Height: 4 m (13 ft 6 in)
Wing area: 23.0 m² (247.3 ft²)
Empty weight: 5,846 kg (12,880 lb)
Gross weight: 8,825 kg (19,425 lb)
Powerplant:
1× Tumansky R25-300, rated at 40.21 kN (9,040 lbf) thrust dry
and 69.62 kN (15,650 lbf) with afterburner
Performance:
Maximum speed: 2,175 km/h (1,351.48 mph)
Maximum speed: Mach 2.0
Landing speed: 350 km/h (190 kts)
Range: (internal fuel) 1,210 km (751 miles)
Service ceiling: 17,800 m (58,400 ft)
Rate of climb: 225 m/s (44,280 ft/min)
Armament:
1x internal 23 mm GSh-23 cannon
5x hardpoints for a wide range of guided and unguided ordnance of up to 3.310 lb (1.500 kg).
In QRA configuration the Lithuanian MiG-21 typically carry two or four Rafal Python III short
range air-to-air missiles and an 800l drop tank on the centerline pylon.
Against ground targets, unguided bombs of up to 1.100 lb (500kg) caliber or unguided rockets
can be carried; alternatively, a Rafael LITENING laser designation pod and three
Griffin Mk. 82 LGBs or a single Mk. 84 LGB can be carried, or optically guided weapons like up
to four AGM-65 Maverick or a single GBU-8.
The kit and its assembly:
This kit is the entry for the 2016 "One Week Group Build" at whatifmodelers.com, which ran from 29th of April until 8th May (so, actually nine days...). I had this project earmarked for the recent "Cold War" GB, but it fell outside of the build's time horizon. But despite the dubious kit as basis, I tackled the build since I had anything else already at hand.
The basis is the MiG-21-93 demonstrator kit from Ukrainian manufacturer Condor, one of the many reincarnations of the venerable KP MiG-21bis, but with some updates. You get, for instance, engraved, very fine panel lines, some typical details were added like the wraparound windscreen (wrong shape, though) and the radar warning fairing on the fin as well as an extra sprue with modern Russian ordnance – apparently from some other kit!
On the downside, there's overall mediocre fit due to the molds' age, some dubious details (anything appears softened or blurred…) or the simple lack thereof (e. g. there’s no ventral gun fairing at all). But there’s nothing that could not be mended, and after all this is just a whiffy version.
Since there was only one week time to build the thing and make beauty pics, the whole project remained close to OOB status, even though a lot of detail changes or additions were made in order to convert the Russian MiG-21-93 into an earlier but similar Israeli MiG-21 2000 derivative.
These mods include:
- A Martin Baker ejection seat, with wire trigger handles
- HUD made from clear styrene
- Lowered flaps
- An added jet pipe/interior for the otherwise bleak exhaust (parts from a Kangnam Yak-38)
- Hydraulic pipes on the landing gear, made from very thin wire
- Some more/different blade antennae
- Measuring vanes on the pitot boom
- Different GSh-23 gun fairing, from an Academy MiG-23
- Thinner blast deflector plates under the anti-surge doors
- A pair of Python III AAMs, plus respective launch rails
- Different centerline drop tank, from an F-5E
- Scratched chaff/flare dispensers under the rear fuselage (as carried by the MiG-21 2000 demonstrator)
Building the model went straightforward, but it took some putty work to fill some seams, dents and holes all around the kit. Biggest issue was a hole in front of the cockpit screen, where simply not enough styrene had been injected into the mould!
Painting and markings:
The Lithuanian Air Force as operator for this build was chosen because it would not only fit into the real world timeline (even though I doubt that there would have been any budget for this aircraft at that time, even if MiG-21s had not been upgraded at all...) and because the potential livery would be very simple: contemporary L-39 trainers, C-27L Spartan as well as some L-410 and Mi-8 transporters carry a uniform, dull grey livery. Why not apply it on an air superiority fighter, too?
Finding an appropriate tone was not easy, though. Some sources claim the grey tone to be FS 36306, others refer to FS 36270 or "close to Blue/Grey FS35237", but IMHO none of the cited Federal Standard tones works well. Real world Lithuanian aircraft appear pretty dark and dull, and the color also features a greenish, slate grey hue - it's a unique color indeed.
After some trials (and also wishing to avoid mixing) I settled for Humbrol 111 (German Field Grey, a.k.a. Uniform Grey) as basic tone. It's a rather dark choice, but I wanted some good contrast to the national markings. A full wraparound livery appeared a little too dark and boring, so I added light blue wing undersurfaces (Humbrol 115). The kit received a light black in wash and some panel shading, primarily in order to add some life to the otherwise uniform surface.
Details were painted according to real world MiG-21 pics: the cockpit became classic teal with light grey instrument panels, plus OOB decals for the dashboard and side consoles. The landing gear struts were painted in a light, metallic grey (Humbrol 127 + 56) while the wells were painted in an odd primer color, a mix of Aluminum, Sand and Olive Drab. Parts of the covers were painted with Humbrol 144 (Blue Grey), seen on a modernized real world MiG-21. The wheel discs became bright green.
IAI's MiG-21 2000 demonstrator from 1993 had a black radome (as well as later Romanian LanceR Cs), so I adapted this detail for my build. Other typical di-electric fairings on a MiG-21's hull were painted in slightly darker camouflage colors, while the fin's leading edge became dark grey.
The blast deflector plates received yellow and black warning stripes, and some potentially dangerous parts for the ground crews like the pointed anti-flutter booms were painted red. The Python IIIs were simply painted all-white, mounted on grey launch rails - a harsh contrast to the dull rest of the aircraft.
Main markings come from a Blue Rider Publishing aftermarket sheet for modern Lithuanian aircraft. This set also includes the small Air Force crests, which I put on the nose, as well as the typical, blue tactical codes.
The stencils come from the scrap box, the small Lithuanian flag stripes on the tail rudder were created from single decal stripes, a personal addition inspired by Lithuanian C-27J transporters. They add some more color to the otherwise murky Baltic MiG fighter.
The silver ring around the air intake as well as the stripes at the flaps and the rudder were created with simple decal stripes instead of paint.
Finally, after I added some graphite soot around the jet exhaust and some panle lines with a pencil (e .g. the blow-in doors and airbrake outlines), the kit was sealed with hardly thinned Revell matt acrylic varnish, trying to create a really dull finish.
A tough build, despite being mostly OOB, but the details took their toll. This Baltic MiG does not look flashy, but, with IAI's real world MiG-21 2000 as well as the LanceR conversion for Romania in the Nineties, this one is pretty plausible. And with the simple paint scheme, the MiG-21 looks even pretty chic!
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is a family of single-seat, single-engine, all-weather, stealth, fifth-generation, multirole combat aircraft, designed for ground-attack and air-superiority missions. It is built by Lockheed Martin and many subcontractors, including Northrop Grumman, Pratt & Whitney, and BAE Systems.
The F-35 has three main models: the conventional takeoff and landing F-35A (CTOL), the short take-off and vertical-landing F-35B (STOVL), and the catapult-assisted take-off but arrested recovery, carrier-based F-35C (CATOBAR). The F-35 descends from the Lockheed Martin X-35, the design that was awarded the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program over the competing Boeing X-32. The official Lightning II name has proven deeply unpopular and USAF pilots have nicknamed it Panther, instead.
The United States principally funds F-35 development, with additional funding from other NATO members and close U.S. allies, including the United Kingdom, Italy, Australia, Canada, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, and formerly Turkey. These funders generally receive subcontracts to manufacture components for the aircraft; for example, Turkey was the sole supplier of several F-35 parts until its removal from the program in July 2019. Several other countries have ordered, or are considering ordering, the aircraft.
As the largest and most expensive military program ever, the F-35 became the subject of much scrutiny and criticism in the U.S. and in other countries. In 2013 and 2014, critics argued that the plane was "plagued with design flaws", with many blaming the procurement process in which Lockheed was allowed "to design, test, and produce the F-35 all at the same time," instead of identifying and fixing "defects before firing up its production line". By 2014, the program was "$163 billion over budget [and] seven years behind schedule". Critics also contend that the program's high sunk costs and political momentum make it "too big to kill".
The F-35 first flew on 15 December 2006. In July 2015, the United States Marines declared its first squadron of F-35B fighters ready for deployment. However, the DOD-based durability testing indicated the service life of early-production F-35B aircraft is well under the expected 8,000 flight hours, and may be as low as 2,100 flight hours. Lot 9 and later aircraft include design changes but service life testing has yet to occur. The U.S. Air Force declared its first squadron of F-35As ready for deployment in August 2016. The U.S. Navy declared its first F-35Cs ready in February 2019. In 2018, the F-35 made its combat debut with the Israeli Air Force.
The U.S. stated plan is to buy 2,663 F-35s, which will provide the bulk of the crewed tactical airpower of the U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps in coming decades. Deliveries of the F-35 for the U.S. military are scheduled until 2037 with a projected service life up to 2070.
Development
F-35 development started in 1992 with the origins of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program and was to culminate in full production by 2018. The X-35 first flew on 24 October 2000 and the F-35A on 15 December 2006.
The F-35 was developed to replace most US fighter jets with the variants of a single design that would be common to all branches of the military. It was developed in co-operation with a number of foreign partners, and, unlike the F-22 Raptor, intended to be available for export. Three variants were designed: the F-35A (CTOL), the F-35B (STOVL), and the F-35C (CATOBAR). Despite being intended to share most of their parts to reduce costs and improve maintenance logistics, by 2017, the effective commonality was only 20%. The program received considerable criticism for cost overruns during development and for the total projected cost of the program over the lifetime of the jets.
By 2017, the program was expected to cost $406.5 billion over its lifetime (i.e. until 2070) for acquisition of the jets, and an additional $1.1 trillion for operations and maintenance. A number of design deficiencies were alleged, such as: carrying a small internal payload; performance inferior to the aircraft being replaced, particularly the F-16; lack of safety in relying on a single engine; and flaws such as the vulnerability of the fuel tank to fire and the propensity for transonic roll-off (wing drop). The possible obsolescence of stealth technology was also criticized.
Design
Overview
Although several experimental designs have been developed since the 1960s, such as the unsuccessful Rockwell XFV-12, the F-35B is to be the first operational supersonic STOVL stealth fighter. The single-engine F-35 resembles the larger twin-engined Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, drawing design elements from it. The exhaust duct design was inspired by the General Dynamics Model 200, proposed for a 1972 supersonic VTOL fighter requirement for the Sea Control Ship.
Lockheed Martin has suggested that the F-35 could replace the USAF's F-15C/D fighters in the air-superiority role and the F-15E Strike Eagle in the ground-attack role. It has also stated the F-35 is intended to have close- and long-range air-to-air capability second only to that of the F-22 Raptor, and that the F-35 has an advantage over the F-22 in basing flexibility and possesses "advanced sensors and information fusion".
Testifying before the House Appropriations Committee on 25 March 2009, acquisition deputy to the assistant secretary of the Air Force, Lt. Gen. Mark D. "Shack" Shackelford, stated that the F-35 is designed to be America's "premier surface-to-air missile killer, and is uniquely equipped for this mission with cutting-edge processing power, synthetic aperture radar integration techniques, and advanced target recognition".
Improvements
Ostensible improvements over past-generation fighter aircraft include:
Durable, low-maintenance stealth technology, using structural fiber mat instead of the high-maintenance coatings of legacy stealth platforms
Integrated avionics and sensor fusion that combine information from off- and on-board sensors to increase the pilot's situational awareness and improve target identification and weapon delivery, and to relay information quickly to other command and control (C2) nodes
High-speed data networking including IEEE 1394b and Fibre Channel (Fibre Channel is also used on Boeing's Super Hornet.
The Autonomic Logistics Global Sustainment, Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS), and Computerized maintenance management system to help ensure the aircraft can remain operational with minimal maintenance manpower The Pentagon has moved to open up the competitive bidding by other companies. This was after Lockheed Martin stated that instead of costing 20% less than the F-16 per flight hour, the F-35 would actually cost 12% more. Though the ALGS is intended to reduce maintenance costs, the company disagrees with including the cost of this system in the aircraft ownership calculations. The USMC has implemented a workaround for a cyber vulnerability in the system. The ALIS system currently requires a shipping-container load of servers to run, but Lockheed is working on a more portable version to support the Marines' expeditionary operations.
Electro-hydrostatic actuators run by a power-by-wire flight-control system
A modern and updated flight simulator, which may be used for a greater fraction of pilot training to reduce the costly flight hours of the actual aircraft
Lightweight, powerful lithium-ion batteries to provide power to run the control surfaces in an emergency
Structural composites in the F-35 are 35% of the airframe weight (up from 25% in the F-22). The majority of these are bismaleimide and composite epoxy materials. The F-35 will be the first mass-produced aircraft to include structural nanocomposites, namely carbon nanotube-reinforced epoxy. Experience of the F-22's problems with corrosion led to the F-35 using a gap filler that causes less galvanic corrosion to the airframe's skin, designed with fewer gaps requiring filler and implementing better drainage. The relatively short 35-foot wingspan of the A and B variants is set by the F-35B's requirement to fit inside the Navy's current amphibious assault ship parking area and elevators; the F-35C's longer wing is considered to be more fuel efficient.
Costs
A U.S. Navy study found that the F-35 will cost 30 to 40% more to maintain than current jet fighters, not accounting for inflation over the F-35's operational lifetime. A Pentagon study concluded a $1 trillion maintenance cost for the entire fleet over its lifespan, not accounting for inflation. The F-35 program office found that as of January 2014, costs for the F-35 fleet over a 53-year lifecycle was $857 billion. Costs for the fighter have been dropping and accounted for the 22 percent life cycle drop since 2010. Lockheed stated that by 2019, pricing for the fifth-generation aircraft will be less than fourth-generation fighters. An F-35A in 2019 is expected to cost $85 million per unit complete with engines and full mission systems, inflation adjusted from $75 million in December 2013.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Waffenträger (Weapon Carrier) VTS3 “Diana” was a prototype for a wheeled tank destroyer. It was developed by Thyssen-Henschel (later Rheinmetall) in Kassel, Germany, in the late Seventies, in response to a German Army requirement for a highly mobile tank destroyer with the firepower of the Leopard 1 main battle tank then in service and about to be replaced with the more capable Leopard 2 MBT, but less complex and costly. The main mission of the Diana was light to medium territorial defense, protection of infantry units and other, lighter, elements of the cavalry as well as tactical reconnaissance. Instead of heavy armor it would rather use its good power-to-weight ratio, excellent range and cross-country ability (despite the wheeled design) for defense and a computerized fire control system to accomplish this mission.
In order to save development cost and time, the vehicle was heavily based on the Spähpanzer Luchs (Lynx), a new German 8x8 amphibious reconnaissance armored fighting vehicle that had just entered Bundeswehr service in 1975. The all-wheel drive Luchs made was well armored against light weapons, had a full NBC protection system and was characterized by its extremely low-noise running. The eight large low-pressure tires had run-flat properties, and, at speeds up to about 50 km/h, all four axles could be steered, giving the relatively large vehicle a surprising agility and very good off-road performance. As a special feature, the vehicle was equipped with a rear-facing driver with his own driving position (normally the radio operator), so that the vehicle could be driven at full speed into both directions – a heritage from German WWII designs, and a tactical advantage when the vehicle had to quickly retreat from tactical position after having been detected. The original Luchs weighed less than 20 tons, was fully amphibious and could surmount water obstacles quickly and independently using propellers at the rear and the fold back trim vane at the front. Its armament was relatively light, though, a 20 mm Rheinmetall MK 20 Rh 202 gun in the turret that was effective against both ground and air targets.
The Waffenträger “Diana” used the Luchs’ hull and dynamic components as basis, and Thyssen-Henschel solved the challenge to mount a large and heavy 105 mm L7 gun with its mount on the light chassis through a minimalistic, unmanned mount and an autoloader. Avoiding a traditional manned and heavy, armored turret, a lot of weight and internal volume that had to be protected could be saved, and crew safety was indirectly improved, too. This concept had concurrently been tested in the form of the VTS1 (“Versuchsträger Scheitellafette #1) experimental tank in 1976 for the Kampfpanzer 3 development, which eventually led to the Leopard 2 MBT (which retained a traditional turret, though).
For the “Diana” test vehicle, Thyssen-Henschel developed a new low-profile turret with a very small frontal area. Two crew members, the commander (on the right side) and the gunner (to the left), were seated in/under the gun mount, completely inside of the vehicle’s hull. The turret was a very innovative construction for its time, fully stabilized and mounted the proven 105mm L7 rifled cannon with a smoke discharger. Its autoloader contained 8 rounds in a carousel magazine. 16 more rounds could be carried in the hull, but they had to be manually re-loaded into the magazine, which was only externally accessible. A light, co-axial 7,62mm machine gun against soft targets was available, too, as well as eight defensive smoke grenade mortars.
The automated L7 had a rate of fire of ten rounds per minute and could fire four types of ammunition: a kinetic energy penetrator to destroy armored vehicles; a high explosive anti-tank round to destroy thin-skinned vehicles and provide anti-personnel fragmentation; a high explosive plastic round to destroy bunkers, machine gun and sniper positions, and create openings in walls for infantry to access; and a canister shot for use against dismounted infantry in the open or for smoke charges. The rounds to be fired could be pre-selected, so that the gun was able to automatically fire a certain ammunition sequence, but manual round selection was possible at any time, too.
In order to take the new turret, the Luchs hull had to be modified. Early calculations had revealed that a simple replacement of the Luchs’ turret with the new L7 mount would have unfavorably shifted the vehicle’s center of gravity up- and forward, making it very nose-heavy and hard to handle in rough terrain or at high speed, and the long barrel would have markedly overhung the front end, impairing handling further. It was also clear that the additional weight and the rise of the CoG made amphibious operations impossible - a fate that met the upgraded Luchs recce tanks in the Eighties, too, after several accidents with overturned vehicles during wading and drowned crews. With this insight the decision was made to omit the vehicle’s amphibious capability, save weight and complexity, and to modify the vehicle’s layout considerably to optimize the weight distribution.
Taking advantage of the fact that the Luchs already had two complete driver stations at both ends, a pair of late-production hulls were set aside in 1977 and their internal layout reversed. The engine bay was now in the vehicle’s front, the secured ammunition storage was placed next to it, behind the separate driver compartment, and the combat section with the turret mechanism was located behind it. Since the VTS3s were only prototypes, only minimal adaptations were made. This meant that the driver was now located on the right side of the vehicle, while and the now-rear-facing secondary driver/radio operator station ended up on the left side – much like a RHD vehicle – but this was easily accepted in the light of cost and time savings. As a result, the gun and its long, heavy barrel were now located above the vehicle’s hull, so that the overall weight distribution was almost neutral and overall dimensions remained compact.
Both test vehicles were completed in early 1978 and field trials immediately started. While the overall mobility was on par with the Luchs and the Diana’s high speed and low noise profile was highly appreciated, the armament was and remained a source of constant concern. Shooting in motion from the Diana turned out to be very problematic, and even firing from a standstill was troublesome. The gun mount and the vehicle’s complex suspension were able to "hold" the recoil of the full-fledged 105-mm tank gun, which had always been famous for its rather large muzzle energy. But when fired, even in the longitudinal plane, the vehicle body fell heavily towards the stern, so that the target was frequently lost and aiming had to be resumed – effectively negating the benefit from the autoloader’s high rate of fire and exposing the vehicle to potential target retaliation. Firing to the side was even worse. Several attempts were made to mend this flaw, but neither the addition of a muzzle brake, stronger shock absorbers and even hydro-pneumatic suspension elements did not solve the problem. In addition, the high muzzle flames and the resulting significant shockwave required the infantry to stay away from the vehicle intended to support them. The Bundeswehr also criticized the too small ammunition load, as well as the fact that the autoloader magazine could not be re-filled under armor protection, so that the vehicle had to retreat to safe areas to re-arm and/or to adapt to a new mission profile. This inherent flaw not only put the crew under the hazards of enemy fire, it also negated the vehicle’s NBC protection – a serious issue and likely Cold War scenario. Another weak point was the Diana’s weight: even though the net gain of weight compared with the Luchs was less than 3 tons after the conversion, this became another serious problem that led to the Diana’s demise: during trials the Bundeswehr considered the possibility to airlift the Diana, but its weight (even that of the Luchs, BTW) was too much for the Luftwaffe’s biggest own transport aircraft, the C-160 Transall. Even aircraft from other NATO members, e.g. the common C-130 Hercules, could hardly carry the vehicle. In theory, equipment had to be removed, including the cannon and parts of its mount.
Since the tactical value of the vehicle was doubtful and other light anti-tank weapons in the form of the HOT anti-tank missile had reached operational status, so that very light vehicles and even small infantry groups could now effectively fight against full-fledged enemy battle tanks from a safe distance, the Diana’s development was stopped in 1988. Both VTS3 prototypes were mothballed, stored at the Bundeswehr Munster Training Area camp and are still waiting to be revamped as historic exhibits alongside other prototypes like the Kampfpanzer 70 in the German Tank Museum located there, too.
Specifications:
Crew: 4 (commander, driver, gunner, radio operator/second driver)
Weight: 22.6 t
Length: 7.74 m (25 ft 4 ¼ in)
Width: 2.98 m ( 9 ft 9 in)
Height: XXX
Ground clearance: 440 mm (1 ft 4 in)
Suspension: hydraulic all-wheel drive and steering
Armor:
Unknown, but sufficient to withstand 14.5 mm AP rounds
Performance:
Speed: 90 km/h (56 mph) on roads
Operational range: 720 km (445 mi)
Power/weight: 13,3 hp/ton with petrol, 17,3 hp/ton with diesel
Engine:
1× Daimler Benz OM 403A turbocharged 10-cylinder 4-stroke multi-fuel engine,
delivering 300 hp with petrol, 390 hp with diesel
Armament:
1× 105 mm L7 rifled gun with autoloader (8 rounds ready, plus 16 in reserve)
1× co-axial 7.92 mm M3 machine gun with 2.000 rounds
Two groups of four Wegmann 76 mm smoke mortars
The kit and its assembly:
I have been a big Luchs fan since I witnessed one in action during a public Bundeswehr demo day when I was around 10 years old: a huge, boxy and futuristic vehicle with strange proportions, gigantic wheels, water propellers, a mind-boggling mobility and all of this utterly silent. Today you’d assume that this vehicle had an electric engine – spooky! So I always had a soft spot for it, and now it was time and a neat occasion to build a what-if model around it.
This fictional wheeled tank prototype model was spawned by a leftover Revell 1:72 Luchs kit, which I had bought some time ago primarily for the turret, used in a fictional post-WWII SdKfz. 234 “Puma” conversion. With just the chassis left I wondered what other use or equipment it might take, and, after several weeks with the idea in the back of my mind, I stumbled at Silesian Models over an M1128 resin conversion set for the Trumpeter M1126 “Stryker” 8x8 APC model. From this set as potential donor for a conversion the prototype idea with an unmanned turret was born.
Originally I just planned to mount the new turret onto the OOB hull, but when playing with the parts I found the look with an overhanging gun barrel and the bigger turret placed well forward on the hull goofy and unbalanced. I was about to shelf the idea again, until I recognized that the Luchs’ hull is almost symmetrical – the upper hull half could be easily reversed on the chassis tub (at least on the kit…), and this would allow much better proportions. From this conceptual change the build went straightforward, reversing the upper hull only took some minor PSR. The resin turret was taken mostly OOB, it only needed a scratched adapter to fit into the respective hull opening. I just added a co-axial machine gun fairing, antenna bases (from the Luchs kit, since they could, due to the long gun barrel, not be attached to the hull anymore) and smoke grenade mortars (also taken from the Luchs).
An unnerving challenge became the Luchs kit’s suspension and drive train – it took two days to assemble the vehicle’s underside alone! While this area is very accurate and delicate, the fact that almost EVERY lever and stabilizer is a separate piece on four(!) axles made the assembly a very slow process. Just for reference: the kit comes with three and a half sprues. A full one for the wheels (each consists of three parts, and more than another one for suspension and drivetrain!
Furthermore, the many hull surface details like tools or handles – these are more than a dozen bits and pieces – are separate, very fragile and small (tiny!), too. Cutting all these wee parts out and cleaning them was a tedious affair, too, plus painting them separately.
Otherwise the model went together well, but it’s certainly not good for quick builders and those with big fingers and/or poor sight.
Painting and markings:
The paint scheme was a conservative choice; it is a faithful adaptation of the Bundeswehr’s NATO standard camouflage for the European theatre of operations that was introduced in the Eighties. It was adopted by many armies to confuse potential aggressors from the East, so that observers could not easily identify a vehicle and its nationality. It consists of a green base with red-brown and black blotches, in Germany it was executed with RAL tones, namely 6031 (Bronze Green), 8027 (Leather Brown) and 9021 (Tar Black). The pattern was standardized for each vehicle type and I stuck to the official Luchs pattern, trying to adapt it to the new/bigger turret. I used Revell acrylic paints, since the authentic RAL tones are readily available in this product range (namely the tones 06, 65 and 84). The big tires were painted with Revell 09 (Anthracite).
Next the model was treated with a highly thinned washing with black and red-brown acrylic paint, before decals were applied, taken from the OOB sheet and without unit markings, since the Diana would represent a test vehicle. After sealing them with a thin coat of clear varnish the model was furthermore treated with lightly dry-brushed Revell 45 and 75 to emphasize edges and surface details, and the separately painted hull equipment was mounted. The following step was a cloudy treatment with watercolors (from a typical school paintbox, it’s great stuff for weathering!), simulating dust residue all over the hull. After a final protective coat with matt acrylic varnish I finally added some mineral artist pigments to the lower hull areas and created mud crusts on the wheels through light wet varnish traces into which pigments were “dusted”.
Basically a simple project, but the complex Luchs kit with its zillion of wee bits and pieces took time and cost some nerves. However, the result looks pretty good, and the Stryker turret blends well into the overall package. Not certain how realistic the swap of the Luchs’ internal layout would have been, but I think that the turret moved to the rear makes more sense than the original forward position? After all, the model is supposed to be a prototype, so there’s certainly room for creative freedom. And in classic Bundeswehr colors, the whole thing even looks pretty convincing.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Waffenträger (Weapon Carrier) VTS3 “Diana” was a prototype for a wheeled tank destroyer. It was developed by Thyssen-Henschel (later Rheinmetall) in Kassel, Germany, in the late Seventies, in response to a German Army requirement for a highly mobile tank destroyer with the firepower of the Leopard 1 main battle tank then in service and about to be replaced with the more capable Leopard 2 MBT, but less complex and costly. The main mission of the Diana was light to medium territorial defense, protection of infantry units and other, lighter, elements of the cavalry as well as tactical reconnaissance. Instead of heavy armor it would rather use its good power-to-weight ratio, excellent range and cross-country ability (despite the wheeled design) for defense and a computerized fire control system to accomplish this mission.
In order to save development cost and time, the vehicle was heavily based on the Spähpanzer Luchs (Lynx), a new German 8x8 amphibious reconnaissance armored fighting vehicle that had just entered Bundeswehr service in 1975. The all-wheel drive Luchs made was well armored against light weapons, had a full NBC protection system and was characterized by its extremely low-noise running. The eight large low-pressure tires had run-flat properties, and, at speeds up to about 50 km/h, all four axles could be steered, giving the relatively large vehicle a surprising agility and very good off-road performance. As a special feature, the vehicle was equipped with a rear-facing driver with his own driving position (normally the radio operator), so that the vehicle could be driven at full speed into both directions – a heritage from German WWII designs, and a tactical advantage when the vehicle had to quickly retreat from tactical position after having been detected. The original Luchs weighed less than 20 tons, was fully amphibious and could surmount water obstacles quickly and independently using propellers at the rear and the fold back trim vane at the front. Its armament was relatively light, though, a 20 mm Rheinmetall MK 20 Rh 202 gun in the turret that was effective against both ground and air targets.
The Waffenträger “Diana” used the Luchs’ hull and dynamic components as basis, and Thyssen-Henschel solved the challenge to mount a large and heavy 105 mm L7 gun with its mount on the light chassis through a minimalistic, unmanned mount and an autoloader. Avoiding a traditional manned and heavy, armored turret, a lot of weight and internal volume that had to be protected could be saved, and crew safety was indirectly improved, too. This concept had concurrently been tested in the form of the VTS1 (“Versuchsträger Scheitellafette #1) experimental tank in 1976 for the Kampfpanzer 3 development, which eventually led to the Leopard 2 MBT (which retained a traditional turret, though).
For the “Diana” test vehicle, Thyssen-Henschel developed a new low-profile turret with a very small frontal area. Two crew members, the commander (on the right side) and the gunner (to the left), were seated in/under the gun mount, completely inside of the vehicle’s hull. The turret was a very innovative construction for its time, fully stabilized and mounted the proven 105mm L7 rifled cannon with a smoke discharger. Its autoloader contained 8 rounds in a carousel magazine. 16 more rounds could be carried in the hull, but they had to be manually re-loaded into the magazine, which was only externally accessible. A light, co-axial 7,62mm machine gun against soft targets was available, too, as well as eight defensive smoke grenade mortars.
The automated L7 had a rate of fire of ten rounds per minute and could fire four types of ammunition: a kinetic energy penetrator to destroy armored vehicles; a high explosive anti-tank round to destroy thin-skinned vehicles and provide anti-personnel fragmentation; a high explosive plastic round to destroy bunkers, machine gun and sniper positions, and create openings in walls for infantry to access; and a canister shot for use against dismounted infantry in the open or for smoke charges. The rounds to be fired could be pre-selected, so that the gun was able to automatically fire a certain ammunition sequence, but manual round selection was possible at any time, too.
In order to take the new turret, the Luchs hull had to be modified. Early calculations had revealed that a simple replacement of the Luchs’ turret with the new L7 mount would have unfavorably shifted the vehicle’s center of gravity up- and forward, making it very nose-heavy and hard to handle in rough terrain or at high speed, and the long barrel would have markedly overhung the front end, impairing handling further. It was also clear that the additional weight and the rise of the CoG made amphibious operations impossible - a fate that met the upgraded Luchs recce tanks in the Eighties, too, after several accidents with overturned vehicles during wading and drowned crews. With this insight the decision was made to omit the vehicle’s amphibious capability, save weight and complexity, and to modify the vehicle’s layout considerably to optimize the weight distribution.
Taking advantage of the fact that the Luchs already had two complete driver stations at both ends, a pair of late-production hulls were set aside in 1977 and their internal layout reversed. The engine bay was now in the vehicle’s front, the secured ammunition storage was placed next to it, behind the separate driver compartment, and the combat section with the turret mechanism was located behind it. Since the VTS3s were only prototypes, only minimal adaptations were made. This meant that the driver was now located on the right side of the vehicle, while and the now-rear-facing secondary driver/radio operator station ended up on the left side – much like a RHD vehicle – but this was easily accepted in the light of cost and time savings. As a result, the gun and its long, heavy barrel were now located above the vehicle’s hull, so that the overall weight distribution was almost neutral and overall dimensions remained compact.
Both test vehicles were completed in early 1978 and field trials immediately started. While the overall mobility was on par with the Luchs and the Diana’s high speed and low noise profile was highly appreciated, the armament was and remained a source of constant concern. Shooting in motion from the Diana turned out to be very problematic, and even firing from a standstill was troublesome. The gun mount and the vehicle’s complex suspension were able to "hold" the recoil of the full-fledged 105-mm tank gun, which had always been famous for its rather large muzzle energy. But when fired, even in the longitudinal plane, the vehicle body fell heavily towards the stern, so that the target was frequently lost and aiming had to be resumed – effectively negating the benefit from the autoloader’s high rate of fire and exposing the vehicle to potential target retaliation. Firing to the side was even worse. Several attempts were made to mend this flaw, but neither the addition of a muzzle brake, stronger shock absorbers and even hydro-pneumatic suspension elements did not solve the problem. In addition, the high muzzle flames and the resulting significant shockwave required the infantry to stay away from the vehicle intended to support them. The Bundeswehr also criticized the too small ammunition load, as well as the fact that the autoloader magazine could not be re-filled under armor protection, so that the vehicle had to retreat to safe areas to re-arm and/or to adapt to a new mission profile. This inherent flaw not only put the crew under the hazards of enemy fire, it also negated the vehicle’s NBC protection – a serious issue and likely Cold War scenario. Another weak point was the Diana’s weight: even though the net gain of weight compared with the Luchs was less than 3 tons after the conversion, this became another serious problem that led to the Diana’s demise: during trials the Bundeswehr considered the possibility to airlift the Diana, but its weight (even that of the Luchs, BTW) was too much for the Luftwaffe’s biggest own transport aircraft, the C-160 Transall. Even aircraft from other NATO members, e.g. the common C-130 Hercules, could hardly carry the vehicle. In theory, equipment had to be removed, including the cannon and parts of its mount.
Since the tactical value of the vehicle was doubtful and other light anti-tank weapons in the form of the HOT anti-tank missile had reached operational status, so that very light vehicles and even small infantry groups could now effectively fight against full-fledged enemy battle tanks from a safe distance, the Diana’s development was stopped in 1988. Both VTS3 prototypes were mothballed, stored at the Bundeswehr Munster Training Area camp and are still waiting to be revamped as historic exhibits alongside other prototypes like the Kampfpanzer 70 in the German Tank Museum located there, too.
Specifications:
Crew: 4 (commander, driver, gunner, radio operator/second driver)
Weight: 22.6 t
Length: 7.74 m (25 ft 4 ¼ in)
Width: 2.98 m ( 9 ft 9 in)
Height: XXX
Ground clearance: 440 mm (1 ft 4 in)
Suspension: hydraulic all-wheel drive and steering
Armor:
Unknown, but sufficient to withstand 14.5 mm AP rounds
Performance:
Speed: 90 km/h (56 mph) on roads
Operational range: 720 km (445 mi)
Power/weight: 13,3 hp/ton with petrol, 17,3 hp/ton with diesel
Engine:
1× Daimler Benz OM 403A turbocharged 10-cylinder 4-stroke multi-fuel engine,
delivering 300 hp with petrol, 390 hp with diesel
Armament:
1× 105 mm L7 rifled gun with autoloader (8 rounds ready, plus 16 in reserve)
1× co-axial 7.92 mm M3 machine gun with 2.000 rounds
Two groups of four Wegmann 76 mm smoke mortars
The kit and its assembly:
I have been a big Luchs fan since I witnessed one in action during a public Bundeswehr demo day when I was around 10 years old: a huge, boxy and futuristic vehicle with strange proportions, gigantic wheels, water propellers, a mind-boggling mobility and all of this utterly silent. Today you’d assume that this vehicle had an electric engine – spooky! So I always had a soft spot for it, and now it was time and a neat occasion to build a what-if model around it.
This fictional wheeled tank prototype model was spawned by a leftover Revell 1:72 Luchs kit, which I had bought some time ago primarily for the turret, used in a fictional post-WWII SdKfz. 234 “Puma” conversion. With just the chassis left I wondered what other use or equipment it might take, and, after several weeks with the idea in the back of my mind, I stumbled at Silesian Models over an M1128 resin conversion set for the Trumpeter M1126 “Stryker” 8x8 APC model. From this set as potential donor for a conversion the prototype idea with an unmanned turret was born.
Originally I just planned to mount the new turret onto the OOB hull, but when playing with the parts I found the look with an overhanging gun barrel and the bigger turret placed well forward on the hull goofy and unbalanced. I was about to shelf the idea again, until I recognized that the Luchs’ hull is almost symmetrical – the upper hull half could be easily reversed on the chassis tub (at least on the kit…), and this would allow much better proportions. From this conceptual change the build went straightforward, reversing the upper hull only took some minor PSR. The resin turret was taken mostly OOB, it only needed a scratched adapter to fit into the respective hull opening. I just added a co-axial machine gun fairing, antenna bases (from the Luchs kit, since they could, due to the long gun barrel, not be attached to the hull anymore) and smoke grenade mortars (also taken from the Luchs).
An unnerving challenge became the Luchs kit’s suspension and drive train – it took two days to assemble the vehicle’s underside alone! While this area is very accurate and delicate, the fact that almost EVERY lever and stabilizer is a separate piece on four(!) axles made the assembly a very slow process. Just for reference: the kit comes with three and a half sprues. A full one for the wheels (each consists of three parts, and more than another one for suspension and drivetrain!
Furthermore, the many hull surface details like tools or handles – these are more than a dozen bits and pieces – are separate, very fragile and small (tiny!), too. Cutting all these wee parts out and cleaning them was a tedious affair, too, plus painting them separately.
Otherwise the model went together well, but it’s certainly not good for quick builders and those with big fingers and/or poor sight.
Painting and markings:
The paint scheme was a conservative choice; it is a faithful adaptation of the Bundeswehr’s NATO standard camouflage for the European theatre of operations that was introduced in the Eighties. It was adopted by many armies to confuse potential aggressors from the East, so that observers could not easily identify a vehicle and its nationality. It consists of a green base with red-brown and black blotches, in Germany it was executed with RAL tones, namely 6031 (Bronze Green), 8027 (Leather Brown) and 9021 (Tar Black). The pattern was standardized for each vehicle type and I stuck to the official Luchs pattern, trying to adapt it to the new/bigger turret. I used Revell acrylic paints, since the authentic RAL tones are readily available in this product range (namely the tones 06, 65 and 84). The big tires were painted with Revell 09 (Anthracite).
Next the model was treated with a highly thinned washing with black and red-brown acrylic paint, before decals were applied, taken from the OOB sheet and without unit markings, since the Diana would represent a test vehicle. After sealing them with a thin coat of clear varnish the model was furthermore treated with lightly dry-brushed Revell 45 and 75 to emphasize edges and surface details, and the separately painted hull equipment was mounted. The following step was a cloudy treatment with watercolors (from a typical school paintbox, it’s great stuff for weathering!), simulating dust residue all over the hull. After a final protective coat with matt acrylic varnish I finally added some mineral artist pigments to the lower hull areas and created mud crusts on the wheels through light wet varnish traces into which pigments were “dusted”.
Basically a simple project, but the complex Luchs kit with its zillion of wee bits and pieces took time and cost some nerves. However, the result looks pretty good, and the Stryker turret blends well into the overall package. Not certain how realistic the swap of the Luchs’ internal layout would have been, but I think that the turret moved to the rear makes more sense than the original forward position? After all, the model is supposed to be a prototype, so there’s certainly room for creative freedom. And in classic Bundeswehr colors, the whole thing even looks pretty convincing.
Fan trip for farewell of BR38 from Rottweil to Konstanz, here on the Einödtalbrücke near Tuttlingen, For this occasion the 038 382 carries its pre-computerized number
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some Background:
On 23 January 1992, the Lithuanian Minister of Defense signed an order establishing the staff for the Aviation Base of the Aviation Service. But an actual base in the Šiauliai airport territory (Barysiai airfield) was not established until March, when according to the ordinance of the Government of Lithuanian Republic, all the infrastructure, buildings, territory and 24 An-2 aircraft were passed from ”Lithuanian Airlines" to the Aviation Service of the Ministry of Defense in January 1992.
On 12 June 1992, the first time after regaining the independence of Lithuania, An-2 aircraft, marked with the double cross of Vytis on its wings – the distinguishing sign of Lithuanian Air Force – took off from Barysiai airfield. This date is considered to be the Aviation Base foundation date. In February 1993 four L-39C Albatros aircraft were brought from Kyrgyzstan.
After 1 March 1993 Aviation Service was reformed to the Lithuanian Air Force and Aviation Base was renamed the First Aviation Base of the Lithuanian Air Force. In January 1994 Lithuania officially applied for NATO membership, and the country also looked out for a relatively cheap multi-purpose fighter that would fulfill both air space defence and attack tasks, the latter primarily against potential targets at sea (e. g. fast hoovercraft landing ships operated by the Russian Baltic Fleet).
After evaluating several options, the Lithuanian Air Force settled for a surprising aircraft: the venerable MiG-21! After the demise of the Soviet Union, several international companies started to offer conversion and upgrade programs for the widely used tactical fighter, about 5.000 specimen had been built to date. One of the first companies to enter the market was Israel Aircraft Industries: IAI's Lahav Division of (IAI) had developed the so-called MiG-21 2000 upgraded fighter and ground attack version, based on the MiG-21bis and the export MiG-21MF fighter aircraft.
The MiG-21 2000 upgrade provided modifications to the cockpit configuration, avionics architecture and weapons systems, enabling the MiG-21 2000 to compete with Western developed fighters like the F-16 and to make the transition to Western standards. The aircraft's original systems and components were retained wherever mission effectiveness was not compromised.
IAI Lahav augmented the original weapons system by introducing an EL/M-2032 radar, developed by IAI Elta Electronic Industries, based in Ashdod. The radar, which uses a low sidelobe planar array antenna and pulse Doppler beam sharpening, provides all-altitude, all-aspect look-up / look-down and shoot-down capability, as well as beyond-visual-range capability. In order to make the radar compatible with Western ordnance, a new armament interface and control unit were added, too, which enabled computerized control and release of weapons, including third and fourth-generation air-to-air missiles and precision-guided munitions of Western and Eastern provenance.
This system also gave the pilot the ability to use blind attack as well as continuously computed impact point (CCIP) and dive-toss bombing techniques. CCIP bombing involves the deployment of air-to-ground weapons, using the HUD to indicate the impact point for release of the weapons. Dive-toss bombing involves the release of air-to-ground weapons at the end of a steep dive manoeuver towards the target.
The MiG-21 2000 cockpit featured a new pilot-friendly layout that overcame the shortcomings of the original cockpit layout, which was crowded and lacked most of the desired man-machine interface characteristics. It incorporated a head-up display (HUD), eye-level multifunction color displays, hands on throttle and stick control (HOTAS), solid-state charge coupled device (CCD) camera, videotape recorder, and a one-piece windshield.
The MiG-21 2000 could be equipped with a display and sight helmet (DASH) system, supplied by Elbit of Haifa, which enabled the pilot to aim the weapons simply by looking at the target. The system worked by measuring the pilot's line of sight relative to the aircraft, and transferred the information to the aircraft's sensors, avionics and weapon systems. The helmet displayed vital information, such as the missile line of sight, missile status, flight information and warning data, on the visor. The DASH helmet allowed the pilot to fly head-up and off-boresight and assisted the pilot to detect, identify and shoot earlier.
IAI Lahav's upgrade package could be tailored to meet the customer's specific operational and budgetary requirements - the Lithuanian package included the radar, cockpit and also the DASH update and was rumored to cost around 4 Mio. USD per aircraft, and Lithuania was, together with Romania (where 110 MiG-21 were to be updated), lead customer.
As conversion basis, Lithuania purchased fifteen MiG-21 airframes for an unknown sum from the Ukraine, which had inherited a considerable MiG-21 fleet after the demise of the Soviet Union but did not (want to) operate it. The deal included thirteen airworthy MiG-21bis fighters and two MiG-21U trainers with few flying hours on the clocks, and - stripped off any military equipment - the small fleet was gradually transferred as disassembled kits via air ferry in Antonov Airlines An-124 transporters to Aerostar in Romania for conversion, starting in early 1996.
The first batch of Lithuanian MiG-21 2000, three fighters and one trainer, arrived in mid-1997 from Bacau on their own power and with civil Ukrainian registrations, and the Lithuanian Air Force’s fighter squadron, the Naikintuvu Eskadra, became ready for service in February 1998.
The rest of the country’s small MiG-21 fleet was delivered in the course of the same year, and these aircraft were semi-officially christened "Globėjas" (Guardian). Since the late Nineties, the Globėjas fighters provide the backbone of Lithuania's air defenses, with aircraft holding Quick Reaction Alert. QRA missions – so-called Alpha Scrambles – have constantly been on the rise thanks to the Russia’s increased aggression towards NATO. The MiG’s have regularly launched to intercept and shadow Russian Air Force Il-20 intelligence gathering aircraft over the Baltic Sea, as well as Tu-16 and Tu-95 patrols and even some Sukhoi Su-27s.
Lithuanian pilots use “hit and run” style tactics to deal with air threats, due to the limited range and endurance of their mounts - but this is of little concern due to the country's relatively small size and the defensive nature of the machines' tasks. While the Globėjas lack a beyond-visual range missile, although they could carry one, they have the ability to carry a range of different short-range air-to-air missiles like the Israeli Python III, which Lithuania procured from Rafael in Haifa as primary air-to-air missile.
After Lithuania joined NATO organization in 2004, its (alongside Latvia's and Estonia's) air space has been protected by NATO. NATO members provide usually 4 fighter aircraft, based in Lithuania, to police the Baltic States’ airspace, where they support the Lithuanian MiG-21 fleet. The duties rotate between NATO members (which started in March 2004 with Belgium Air Force F-16s) and most NATO members that operate fighters have made temporary deployments to Lithuania.
The Lithuanian Globėjas were also in regular demand as a simulated threat, and have gone up against US F-16s, F-15s, F/A-18s and A-10s, as well as the many different European fighter types that frequently rotate into the small country, including the Eurofighter, German F-4F Phantom IIs or French Mirage 2000.
Anyway, the Globėjas' airframes sooner or later reached their flying hour limits, and will be phased out towards 2020. As a replacement Lithuania will begin taking delivery of its first batch of ex-Portuguese F-16s in 2016, while the Baltic States are considering in the near future to protect their airspace on their own.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 14.5 [126] m (47 ft 7 in)
Wingspan: 7.154 m (23 ft 6 in)
Height: 4 m (13 ft 6 in)
Wing area: 23.0 m² (247.3 ft²)
Empty weight: 5,846 kg (12,880 lb)
Gross weight: 8,825 kg (19,425 lb)
Powerplant:
1× Tumansky R25-300, rated at 40.21 kN (9,040 lbf) thrust dry
and 69.62 kN (15,650 lbf) with afterburner
Performance:
Maximum speed: 2,175 km/h (1,351.48 mph)
Maximum speed: Mach 2.0
Landing speed: 350 km/h (190 kts)
Range: (internal fuel) 1,210 km (751 miles)
Service ceiling: 17,800 m (58,400 ft)
Rate of climb: 225 m/s (44,280 ft/min)
Armament:
1x internal 23 mm GSh-23 cannon
5x hardpoints for a wide range of guided and unguided ordnance of up to 3.310 lb (1.500 kg).
In QRA configuration the Lithuanian MiG-21 typically carry two or four Rafal Python III short
range air-to-air missiles and an 800l drop tank on the centerline pylon.
Against ground targets, unguided bombs of up to 1.100 lb (500kg) caliber or unguided rockets
can be carried; alternatively, a Rafael LITENING laser designation pod and three
Griffin Mk. 82 LGBs or a single Mk. 84 LGB can be carried, or optically guided weapons like up
to four AGM-65 Maverick or a single GBU-8.
The kit and its assembly:
This kit is the entry for the 2016 "One Week Group Build" at whatifmodelers.com, which ran from 29th of April until 8th May (so, actually nine days...). I had this project earmarked for the recent "Cold War" GB, but it fell outside of the build's time horizon. But despite the dubious kit as basis, I tackled the build since I had anything else already at hand.
The basis is the MiG-21-93 demonstrator kit from Ukrainian manufacturer Condor, one of the many reincarnations of the venerable KP MiG-21bis, but with some updates. You get, for instance, engraved, very fine panel lines, some typical details were added like the wraparound windscreen (wrong shape, though) and the radar warning fairing on the fin as well as an extra sprue with modern Russian ordnance – apparently from some other kit!
On the downside, there's overall mediocre fit due to the molds' age, some dubious details (anything appears softened or blurred…) or the simple lack thereof (e. g. there’s no ventral gun fairing at all). But there’s nothing that could not be mended, and after all this is just a whiffy version.
Since there was only one week time to build the thing and make beauty pics, the whole project remained close to OOB status, even though a lot of detail changes or additions were made in order to convert the Russian MiG-21-93 into an earlier but similar Israeli MiG-21 2000 derivative.
These mods include:
- A Martin Baker ejection seat, with wire trigger handles
- HUD made from clear styrene
- Lowered flaps
- An added jet pipe/interior for the otherwise bleak exhaust (parts from a Kangnam Yak-38)
- Hydraulic pipes on the landing gear, made from very thin wire
- Some more/different blade antennae
- Measuring vanes on the pitot boom
- Different GSh-23 gun fairing, from an Academy MiG-23
- Thinner blast deflector plates under the anti-surge doors
- A pair of Python III AAMs, plus respective launch rails
- Different centerline drop tank, from an F-5E
- Scratched chaff/flare dispensers under the rear fuselage (as carried by the MiG-21 2000 demonstrator)
Building the model went straightforward, but it took some putty work to fill some seams, dents and holes all around the kit. Biggest issue was a hole in front of the cockpit screen, where simply not enough styrene had been injected into the mould!
Painting and markings:
The Lithuanian Air Force as operator for this build was chosen because it would not only fit into the real world timeline (even though I doubt that there would have been any budget for this aircraft at that time, even if MiG-21s had not been upgraded at all...) and because the potential livery would be very simple: contemporary L-39 trainers, C-27L Spartan as well as some L-410 and Mi-8 transporters carry a uniform, dull grey livery. Why not apply it on an air superiority fighter, too?
Finding an appropriate tone was not easy, though. Some sources claim the grey tone to be FS 36306, others refer to FS 36270 or "close to Blue/Grey FS35237", but IMHO none of the cited Federal Standard tones works well. Real world Lithuanian aircraft appear pretty dark and dull, and the color also features a greenish, slate grey hue - it's a unique color indeed.
After some trials (and also wishing to avoid mixing) I settled for Humbrol 111 (German Field Grey, a.k.a. Uniform Grey) as basic tone. It's a rather dark choice, but I wanted some good contrast to the national markings. A full wraparound livery appeared a little too dark and boring, so I added light blue wing undersurfaces (Humbrol 115). The kit received a light black in wash and some panel shading, primarily in order to add some life to the otherwise uniform surface.
Details were painted according to real world MiG-21 pics: the cockpit became classic teal with light grey instrument panels, plus OOB decals for the dashboard and side consoles. The landing gear struts were painted in a light, metallic grey (Humbrol 127 + 56) while the wells were painted in an odd primer color, a mix of Aluminum, Sand and Olive Drab. Parts of the covers were painted with Humbrol 144 (Blue Grey), seen on a modernized real world MiG-21. The wheel discs became bright green.
IAI's MiG-21 2000 demonstrator from 1993 had a black radome (as well as later Romanian LanceR Cs), so I adapted this detail for my build. Other typical di-electric fairings on a MiG-21's hull were painted in slightly darker camouflage colors, while the fin's leading edge became dark grey.
The blast deflector plates received yellow and black warning stripes, and some potentially dangerous parts for the ground crews like the pointed anti-flutter booms were painted red. The Python IIIs were simply painted all-white, mounted on grey launch rails - a harsh contrast to the dull rest of the aircraft.
Main markings come from a Blue Rider Publishing aftermarket sheet for modern Lithuanian aircraft. This set also includes the small Air Force crests, which I put on the nose, as well as the typical, blue tactical codes.
The stencils come from the scrap box, the small Lithuanian flag stripes on the tail rudder were created from single decal stripes, a personal addition inspired by Lithuanian C-27J transporters. They add some more color to the otherwise murky Baltic MiG fighter.
The silver ring around the air intake as well as the stripes at the flaps and the rudder were created with simple decal stripes instead of paint.
Finally, after I added some graphite soot around the jet exhaust and some panle lines with a pencil (e .g. the blow-in doors and airbrake outlines), the kit was sealed with hardly thinned Revell matt acrylic varnish, trying to create a really dull finish.
A tough build, despite being mostly OOB, but the details took their toll. This Baltic MiG does not look flashy, but, with IAI's real world MiG-21 2000 as well as the LanceR conversion for Romania in the Nineties, this one is pretty plausible. And with the simple paint scheme, the MiG-21 looks even pretty chic!
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some Background:
On 23 January 1992, the Lithuanian Minister of Defense signed an order establishing the staff for the Aviation Base of the Aviation Service. But an actual base in the Šiauliai airport territory (Barysiai airfield) was not established until March, when according to the ordinance of the Government of Lithuanian Republic, all the infrastructure, buildings, territory and 24 An-2 aircraft were passed from ”Lithuanian Airlines" to the Aviation Service of the Ministry of Defense in January 1992.
On 12 June 1992, the first time after regaining the independence of Lithuania, An-2 aircraft, marked with the double cross of Vytis on its wings – the distinguishing sign of Lithuanian Air Force – took off from Barysiai airfield. This date is considered to be the Aviation Base foundation date. In February 1993 four L-39C Albatros aircraft were brought from Kyrgyzstan.
After 1 March 1993 Aviation Service was reformed to the Lithuanian Air Force and Aviation Base was renamed the First Aviation Base of the Lithuanian Air Force. In January 1994 Lithuania officially applied for NATO membership, and the country also looked out for a relatively cheap multi-purpose fighter that would fulfill both air space defence and attack tasks, the latter primarily against potential targets at sea (e. g. fast hoovercraft landing ships operated by the Russian Baltic Fleet).
After evaluating several options, the Lithuanian Air Force settled for a surprising aircraft: the venerable MiG-21! After the demise of the Soviet Union, several international companies started to offer conversion and upgrade programs for the widely used tactical fighter, about 5.000 specimen had been built to date. One of the first companies to enter the market was Israel Aircraft Industries: IAI's Lahav Division of (IAI) had developed the so-called MiG-21 2000 upgraded fighter and ground attack version, based on the MiG-21bis and the export MiG-21MF fighter aircraft.
The MiG-21 2000 upgrade provided modifications to the cockpit configuration, avionics architecture and weapons systems, enabling the MiG-21 2000 to compete with Western developed fighters like the F-16 and to make the transition to Western standards. The aircraft's original systems and components were retained wherever mission effectiveness was not compromised.
IAI Lahav augmented the original weapons system by introducing an EL/M-2032 radar, developed by IAI Elta Electronic Industries, based in Ashdod. The radar, which uses a low sidelobe planar array antenna and pulse Doppler beam sharpening, provides all-altitude, all-aspect look-up / look-down and shoot-down capability, as well as beyond-visual-range capability. In order to make the radar compatible with Western ordnance, a new armament interface and control unit were added, too, which enabled computerized control and release of weapons, including third and fourth-generation air-to-air missiles and precision-guided munitions of Western and Eastern provenance.
This system also gave the pilot the ability to use blind attack as well as continuously computed impact point (CCIP) and dive-toss bombing techniques. CCIP bombing involves the deployment of air-to-ground weapons, using the HUD to indicate the impact point for release of the weapons. Dive-toss bombing involves the release of air-to-ground weapons at the end of a steep dive manoeuver towards the target.
The MiG-21 2000 cockpit featured a new pilot-friendly layout that overcame the shortcomings of the original cockpit layout, which was crowded and lacked most of the desired man-machine interface characteristics. It incorporated a head-up display (HUD), eye-level multifunction color displays, hands on throttle and stick control (HOTAS), solid-state charge coupled device (CCD) camera, videotape recorder, and a one-piece windshield.
The MiG-21 2000 could be equipped with a display and sight helmet (DASH) system, supplied by Elbit of Haifa, which enabled the pilot to aim the weapons simply by looking at the target. The system worked by measuring the pilot's line of sight relative to the aircraft, and transferred the information to the aircraft's sensors, avionics and weapon systems. The helmet displayed vital information, such as the missile line of sight, missile status, flight information and warning data, on the visor. The DASH helmet allowed the pilot to fly head-up and off-boresight and assisted the pilot to detect, identify and shoot earlier.
IAI Lahav's upgrade package could be tailored to meet the customer's specific operational and budgetary requirements - the Lithuanian package included the radar, cockpit and also the DASH update and was rumored to cost around 4 Mio. USD per aircraft, and Lithuania was, together with Romania (where 110 MiG-21 were to be updated), lead customer.
As conversion basis, Lithuania purchased fifteen MiG-21 airframes for an unknown sum from the Ukraine, which had inherited a considerable MiG-21 fleet after the demise of the Soviet Union but did not (want to) operate it. The deal included thirteen airworthy MiG-21bis fighters and two MiG-21U trainers with few flying hours on the clocks, and - stripped off any military equipment - the small fleet was gradually transferred as disassembled kits via air ferry in Antonov Airlines An-124 transporters to Aerostar in Romania for conversion, starting in early 1996.
The first batch of Lithuanian MiG-21 2000, three fighters and one trainer, arrived in mid-1997 from Bacau on their own power and with civil Ukrainian registrations, and the Lithuanian Air Force’s fighter squadron, the Naikintuvu Eskadra, became ready for service in February 1998.
The rest of the country’s small MiG-21 fleet was delivered in the course of the same year, and these aircraft were semi-officially christened "Globėjas" (Guardian). Since the late Nineties, the Globėjas fighters provide the backbone of Lithuania's air defenses, with aircraft holding Quick Reaction Alert. QRA missions – so-called Alpha Scrambles – have constantly been on the rise thanks to the Russia’s increased aggression towards NATO. The MiG’s have regularly launched to intercept and shadow Russian Air Force Il-20 intelligence gathering aircraft over the Baltic Sea, as well as Tu-16 and Tu-95 patrols and even some Sukhoi Su-27s.
Lithuanian pilots use “hit and run” style tactics to deal with air threats, due to the limited range and endurance of their mounts - but this is of little concern due to the country's relatively small size and the defensive nature of the machines' tasks. While the Globėjas lack a beyond-visual range missile, although they could carry one, they have the ability to carry a range of different short-range air-to-air missiles like the Israeli Python III, which Lithuania procured from Rafael in Haifa as primary air-to-air missile.
After Lithuania joined NATO organization in 2004, its (alongside Latvia's and Estonia's) air space has been protected by NATO. NATO members provide usually 4 fighter aircraft, based in Lithuania, to police the Baltic States’ airspace, where they support the Lithuanian MiG-21 fleet. The duties rotate between NATO members (which started in March 2004 with Belgium Air Force F-16s) and most NATO members that operate fighters have made temporary deployments to Lithuania.
The Lithuanian Globėjas were also in regular demand as a simulated threat, and have gone up against US F-16s, F-15s, F/A-18s and A-10s, as well as the many different European fighter types that frequently rotate into the small country, including the Eurofighter, German F-4F Phantom IIs or French Mirage 2000.
Anyway, the Globėjas' airframes sooner or later reached their flying hour limits, and will be phased out towards 2020. As a replacement Lithuania will begin taking delivery of its first batch of ex-Portuguese F-16s in 2016, while the Baltic States are considering in the near future to protect their airspace on their own.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 14.5 [126] m (47 ft 7 in)
Wingspan: 7.154 m (23 ft 6 in)
Height: 4 m (13 ft 6 in)
Wing area: 23.0 m² (247.3 ft²)
Empty weight: 5,846 kg (12,880 lb)
Gross weight: 8,825 kg (19,425 lb)
Powerplant:
1× Tumansky R25-300, rated at 40.21 kN (9,040 lbf) thrust dry
and 69.62 kN (15,650 lbf) with afterburner
Performance:
Maximum speed: 2,175 km/h (1,351.48 mph)
Maximum speed: Mach 2.0
Landing speed: 350 km/h (190 kts)
Range: (internal fuel) 1,210 km (751 miles)
Service ceiling: 17,800 m (58,400 ft)
Rate of climb: 225 m/s (44,280 ft/min)
Armament:
1x internal 23 mm GSh-23 cannon
5x hardpoints for a wide range of guided and unguided ordnance of up to 3.310 lb (1.500 kg).
In QRA configuration the Lithuanian MiG-21 typically carry two or four Rafal Python III short
range air-to-air missiles and an 800l drop tank on the centerline pylon.
Against ground targets, unguided bombs of up to 1.100 lb (500kg) caliber or unguided rockets
can be carried; alternatively, a Rafael LITENING laser designation pod and three
Griffin Mk. 82 LGBs or a single Mk. 84 LGB can be carried, or optically guided weapons like up
to four AGM-65 Maverick or a single GBU-8.
The kit and its assembly:
This kit is the entry for the 2016 "One Week Group Build" at whatifmodelers.com, which ran from 29th of April until 8th May (so, actually nine days...). I had this project earmarked for the recent "Cold War" GB, but it fell outside of the build's time horizon. But despite the dubious kit as basis, I tackled the build since I had anything else already at hand.
The basis is the MiG-21-93 demonstrator kit from Ukrainian manufacturer Condor, one of the many reincarnations of the venerable KP MiG-21bis, but with some updates. You get, for instance, engraved, very fine panel lines, some typical details were added like the wraparound windscreen (wrong shape, though) and the radar warning fairing on the fin as well as an extra sprue with modern Russian ordnance – apparently from some other kit!
On the downside, there's overall mediocre fit due to the molds' age, some dubious details (anything appears softened or blurred…) or the simple lack thereof (e. g. there’s no ventral gun fairing at all). But there’s nothing that could not be mended, and after all this is just a whiffy version.
Since there was only one week time to build the thing and make beauty pics, the whole project remained close to OOB status, even though a lot of detail changes or additions were made in order to convert the Russian MiG-21-93 into an earlier but similar Israeli MiG-21 2000 derivative.
These mods include:
- A Martin Baker ejection seat, with wire trigger handles
- HUD made from clear styrene
- Lowered flaps
- An added jet pipe/interior for the otherwise bleak exhaust (parts from a Kangnam Yak-38)
- Hydraulic pipes on the landing gear, made from very thin wire
- Some more/different blade antennae
- Measuring vanes on the pitot boom
- Different GSh-23 gun fairing, from an Academy MiG-23
- Thinner blast deflector plates under the anti-surge doors
- A pair of Python III AAMs, plus respective launch rails
- Different centerline drop tank, from an F-5E
- Scratched chaff/flare dispensers under the rear fuselage (as carried by the MiG-21 2000 demonstrator)
Building the model went straightforward, but it took some putty work to fill some seams, dents and holes all around the kit. Biggest issue was a hole in front of the cockpit screen, where simply not enough styrene had been injected into the mould!
Painting and markings:
The Lithuanian Air Force as operator for this build was chosen because it would not only fit into the real world timeline (even though I doubt that there would have been any budget for this aircraft at that time, even if MiG-21s had not been upgraded at all...) and because the potential livery would be very simple: contemporary L-39 trainers, C-27L Spartan as well as some L-410 and Mi-8 transporters carry a uniform, dull grey livery. Why not apply it on an air superiority fighter, too?
Finding an appropriate tone was not easy, though. Some sources claim the grey tone to be FS 36306, others refer to FS 36270 or "close to Blue/Grey FS35237", but IMHO none of the cited Federal Standard tones works well. Real world Lithuanian aircraft appear pretty dark and dull, and the color also features a greenish, slate grey hue - it's a unique color indeed.
After some trials (and also wishing to avoid mixing) I settled for Humbrol 111 (German Field Grey, a.k.a. Uniform Grey) as basic tone. It's a rather dark choice, but I wanted some good contrast to the national markings. A full wraparound livery appeared a little too dark and boring, so I added light blue wing undersurfaces (Humbrol 115). The kit received a light black in wash and some panel shading, primarily in order to add some life to the otherwise uniform surface.
Details were painted according to real world MiG-21 pics: the cockpit became classic teal with light grey instrument panels, plus OOB decals for the dashboard and side consoles. The landing gear struts were painted in a light, metallic grey (Humbrol 127 + 56) while the wells were painted in an odd primer color, a mix of Aluminum, Sand and Olive Drab. Parts of the covers were painted with Humbrol 144 (Blue Grey), seen on a modernized real world MiG-21. The wheel discs became bright green.
IAI's MiG-21 2000 demonstrator from 1993 had a black radome (as well as later Romanian LanceR Cs), so I adapted this detail for my build. Other typical di-electric fairings on a MiG-21's hull were painted in slightly darker camouflage colors, while the fin's leading edge became dark grey.
The blast deflector plates received yellow and black warning stripes, and some potentially dangerous parts for the ground crews like the pointed anti-flutter booms were painted red. The Python IIIs were simply painted all-white, mounted on grey launch rails - a harsh contrast to the dull rest of the aircraft.
Main markings come from a Blue Rider Publishing aftermarket sheet for modern Lithuanian aircraft. This set also includes the small Air Force crests, which I put on the nose, as well as the typical, blue tactical codes.
The stencils come from the scrap box, the small Lithuanian flag stripes on the tail rudder were created from single decal stripes, a personal addition inspired by Lithuanian C-27J transporters. They add some more color to the otherwise murky Baltic MiG fighter.
The silver ring around the air intake as well as the stripes at the flaps and the rudder were created with simple decal stripes instead of paint.
Finally, after I added some graphite soot around the jet exhaust and some panle lines with a pencil (e .g. the blow-in doors and airbrake outlines), the kit was sealed with hardly thinned Revell matt acrylic varnish, trying to create a really dull finish.
A tough build, despite being mostly OOB, but the details took their toll. This Baltic MiG does not look flashy, but, with IAI's real world MiG-21 2000 as well as the LanceR conversion for Romania in the Nineties, this one is pretty plausible. And with the simple paint scheme, the MiG-21 looks even pretty chic!
(Under the ownership of anti-war activist, musician & actor Tim Robbins & The Rogues Gallery Band. In the same group of combined art works & literature- they also own Robin Cracknell's 'JOY' & Michael Stevens' first edition of The Road to Interzone - Reading William Burroughs Reading..: www.flickr.com/photos/denesamy/4501519283/in/photostream )
IV. - Title - Why Does The Unknown Soldier, Remain Forever- The Unknown Soldier ? { la douleur d'être réel } NO MORE WAR -
18" x 24.5" acid free paper, ebony pencil, black ink, white acrylic & white charcoal.
"For these cultures, getting rid of the pain without addressing the deeper cause would be like shutting off a fire alarm while the fire's still going." -
David Foster Wallace
( Obama's War: www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamaswar/view/#morelink )
"The report, released Thursday at the Pentagon, found that it was not only the stress of repeated deployments over nearly a decade in Iraq and Afghanistan that has driven the Army suicide rate above the civilian rate for the first time since the Vietnam War. Significantly, the report said that 79 percent of the soldiers who committed suicide had had only one deployment, or had not deployed at all. "
- www.nytimes.com/2010/07/30/us/30suicide.html?src=mv
Treating Soldier Stress: www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,2008931_2172992,00...
British war dead in Afghanistan- www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/onthefrontline/582734...
British war dead in Iraq- www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/onthefrontline/439875...
"Women always disproportionately suffer the effects of war, and to think that women's rights can be won with bullets and bloodshed is a position dangerous in its naïveté." www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/30/is-the-war-in-afghanist...
Samantha Power - Development and Democracy - "Samantha Power discusses the political challenges facing democracy promotion and the practical needs of effective democratization." www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUUOO5cCNVg
"The facts revealed by WikiLeaks are indeed shocking: wide-scale killing of civilians by US and NATO forces; torture of prisoners handed over to the Communist-dominated Afghan secret police; American death squads; endemic corruption and theft; double-dealing and demoralization of Western occupation forces facing ever fiercer Taliban resistance. " - "Politicians are petrified to oppose this nine-year war lest they be accused of being anti-patriotic, the kiss of death in hyperpatriotic America where flag-wavers root for foreign wars so long as their kids don't have to serve and they don't have to pay taxes to finance them. "
www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-margolis/wikigate---the-truth...
( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_ecology )
"I still feel sick to my stomach when I think of my friends who died in Vietnam and whose families are still suffering from their pointless deaths." - www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/terrible-consequenc...
"JA: We have to be careful there. Remember, this is a civil war. Everyone says Taliban, but in fact, the Taliban are Afghans. This is a civil war that is going on. And Taliban are a part of the will of the Afghan people. They are also part, probably, of the Pakistani secret intelligence service, and maybe, of course, part of the will of Saudi Arabia, who is giving some money to this. But in terms of the bodies on the ground, people are actually doing their work. The Taliban is part of the will of the Afghan people. And the United States and the allied forces need to recognize and understand that it’s part of the Afghan people and if you are shooting Taliban, you are shooting the Afghan people.
That does not mean they do not have blood on their hands.
This material does not paint the behaviors of any military groups in a nice light – there is blood on all sides."
rt.com/Politics/2010-08-01/taliban-wikileaks-afghan-assan...
"This is but one isolated example, but it is a symptom of the main reason these leaks are important: in order to form an opinion on the war, we need to be able to trust the official information coming from the field. The leaks suggest that we cannot always do so. This in turn erodes populations' trust in what their military establishments tell them. "
www.huffingtonpost.com/azeem-ibrahim/dont-let-anyone-fool...
"the aim of those who had created these techniques was not to liberate people but to control them" From: The Century of Self, by Adam Curtis part 4: video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1122532358497501036#
“To a personal injury plaintiffs lawyer, those are all potential clients in a tort suit against a contractor,” she said.
”So, for the ambulance chasers of the battlefield, the WikiLeaks database is a goldmine.” blog.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2010/07/lawyer_wikileaks...
( & - www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/05/vietnam_35_years_later.... )
Noam Chomsky's recorded address to the United National Peace Conference, 7/24/2010 : www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcIVNzcMucU
Innocence Lost: Ethan McCord recounts aftermath of Iraqi civilian massacre | UNPC 7/24/2010 : www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ihPGtcHjNk
"Afghan life, like Iraqi life, must be almost invisible, like raindrops compared to ours."- www.americablog.com/2010/07/ellsberg-obama-has-indicted-m...
"War has become a luxury that only small nations can afford." -
Hannah Arendt
"Instead, many eyes will now pore over this data from many different directions, looking for patterns and attempting to eliminate the noise, disinformation and fog of war.
Many will look to it to criticise and condemn the US presence in Afghanistan, but if those on the other side – those who support such military incursions – have any sense, they too will use it to understand better the war in which they find themselves and adapt their counsel to fit more accurately the facts on the ground.
That’s the benefit, usually, of an open society. We get to triangulate on the truth by gathering facts in the public space, then providing them to all sides to chew over. We use this against our own illusions and those of more closed societies who can only view the world through one narrow perspective.": www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2010/0730/1224275801...
-
"Capable, generous men do not create victims, they nurture them." - Julian Assange, editor & founder of Wikileaks
"WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange on the 'War Logs- ; ''I Enjoy Crushing Bastards" www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,708518,00.html
- ( !! Yessssssssssssss.. Enough of bastards... )
-
"Wikileaks confirmed: A plan to kill American geologist with poison beer
The Wikileaks documents contain a claim that Pakistan and Afghanistan insurgents were working to poison alcoholic drinks in Afghanistan. While that's unproven, one US adviser in Afghanistan tells the Monitor he was almost poisoned that way in 2007." : www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2010/0728/Wiki...
"We journalists should be delighted that WikiLeaks exists because our central task has always been one of disclosure, of revealing public interest material that others believe wish to be kept secret.The website deserves our praise and needs to be defended against the reactionary forces that seek to avoid exposure."
edition.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/07/29/wikileaks.roy.greensla...
"The leak of tens of thousands of Afghanistan war-related documents tells us more than the sum total of many official communiqués about the war. On balance, more disclosure is a good thing, but the leaking of raw military intelligence is a special case that requires a careful, rather than a cavalier, approach.
There is not enough information about the war, and much official information is misleading. In Canada, the federal government's quarterly reports contain a few updates based on its goals in Kandahar, but little else that informs. The government has already shown itself to be an unreliable source on issues relating to Afghan detainees.
The situation is now too dangerous for the most trustworthy chroniclers – journalists, UN personnel – to go outside NATO-protected areas.
So reliable, independent information is lacking. The circumstances in this war make such information even more necessary."
www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/we-neede...
"The first phase was chilling, in part because the banter of the soldiers was so far beyond the boundaries of civilian discourse. “Just fuckin’, once you get on ’em, just open ’em up,” one of them said. The crew members of the Apache came upon about a dozen men ambling down a street, a block or so from American troops, and reported that five or six of the men were armed with AK-47s; as the Apache maneuvered into position to fire at them, the crew saw one of the Reuters journalists, who were mixed in among the other men, and mistook a long-lensed camera for an RPG. The Apaches fired on the men for twenty-five seconds, killing nearly all of them instantly."
Read more www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_khat...
"With the release of the WikiLeaks documents, Arab media may finally feel vindicated, as Western media finally start to give greater prominence to civilian casualties." newamericamedia.org/2010/07/wikileaks-documents-validate-...
"How to read the Afghanistan war logs: video tutorial
David Leigh, the Guardian's investigations editor, explains the online tools we have created to help you understand the secret US military files on the war in Afghanistan": www.guardian.co.uk/world/datablog/video/2010/jul/25/afgha...
"Jonathan Foreman, writing for the right of center National Review's Corner blog, hopes the documents will force America to deal with the possible deceptions being made by ally Pakistan. "It is possible that the publication of documents that provide actual evidence — rather than rumors — of the role of ISI personnel in Taliban planning, logistics, and strategy will give the West greater leverage in dealing with Islamabad and might force Pakistan’s political elite to confront the reality of the ISI’s secret activities. If so, that would be a silver lining to what is otherwise a military disaster abetted by the U.S. and British media."
www.nbclosangeles.com/news/politics/NATL-The-Importance-o...
"This is duplicitous only if you close your eyes to the Pakistani reality, which the Americans never did. There was ample evidence, as the WikiLeaks show, of covert ISI ties to the Taliban. The Americans knew they couldn't break those ties. They settled for what support Pakistan could give them while constantly pressing them harder and harder until genuine fears in Washington emerged that Pakistan could destabilize altogether. Since a stable Pakistan is more important to the United States than a victory in Afghanistan—which it wasn't going to get anyway—the United States released pressure and increased aid. If Pakistan collapsed, then India would be the sole regional power, not something the United States wants."
www.billoreilly.com/site/rd?satype=13&said=12&url...
"The real significance of the Afghan war diaries lies in what Wikileaks represents as a movement, as an evolution in journalism. One analyst has called it the emergence of open source journalism. Julian Assange makes it possible for anybody anywhere in the world to submit secret documents for publication." www.thehindu.com/opinion/columns/Sevanti_Ninan/article541...
A War Without End: www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,708314,00.html
"Julian Assange on the Afghanistan war logs: 'They show the true nature of this war'
Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, explains why he decided to publish thousands of secret US military files on the war in Afghanistan Afghanistan war logs expose truth of occupation": www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2010/jul/25/julian-assange...
The history of US leaks: www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10769495
Freedom of Information Act: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act_(United_...
"A long-delayed Afghanistan war funding bill, stripped of billions for teachers and black farmers, is back before the House and walking now into the storm over the Internet leak of battlefield reports stirring old doubts about U.S. policy and relations with Pakistan.": www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40254.html & www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40251.html
This ongoing series is dedicated to everyone who has needlessly had their lives destroyed, been injured or die in this almost past decade of war. For the sources, journalists & average citizens who risk their lives to inform us.
Reuters reporters Namir Eldeen, Saeed Chmagh & the good samaritan ( father ) who died trying to save them & of course his two surviving small children who will forever be impacted by the brutality of war for decades to come.
Please help Private Bradley Manning- www.bradleymanning.org/
"One surprising consequence of the war in Iraq is the surrender of postmodernism to a victorious modernism. This has been largely overlooked in North America.
In reaction to the U.S. intervention in Iraq, Jacques Derrida, a famous postmodernist, signed on as co-author of an article drafted by the German philosopher Jürgen Habermas, previously an opponent of his, in an unmistakable endorsement of modernist Enlightenment principles. Derrida, the apostle of deconstructionism, is now advocating some decidedly constructive and Eurocentric activism.
The article appeared simultaneously in two newspapers on May 31, in German in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung as "After the War: The Rebirth of Europe," and in French in Libération, less triumphantly, as "A Plea for a Common Foreign Policy: The demonstrations of Feb. 15 against the war in Iraq designed a new European public space."
Other famous intellectuals joined in with supportive newspaper articles of their own: Umberto Eco (of The Name of the Rose) and Gianni Vattimo in Italy and an American philosopher, Richard Rorty. This provoked much discussion in Europe, but only a few comments so far in North America, the Boston Globe and the Village Voice being rare exceptions.
This week in Montreal, there was an anti-globalization riot in which windows were broken in protest against a World Trade Organization (WTO) meeting. But the Habermas-Derrida declaration praises the WTO and even the International Monetary Fund as part of Weltinnenpolitik: maddeningly hard to translate, but something like "global domestic policy" or "external internal policy."
Yet it is not much of a stretch to claim the young anti-globalists as disciples of postmodernism and Derrida, who has hitherto been a foe of "logocentrism" (putting reason at the centre), "phallologocentrism" (reason is an erect male organ and, as such, damnably central) and Eurocentrism (the old, old West is the homeland of all of the above).
Derrida added a note to the article, observing most people would recognize Habermas's style and thinking in the piece, and that he hadn't had time to write a separate piece. But notwithstanding his "past confrontations" with Habermas (Derrida had objected to being called a "Judaistic mystic," for one thing), he agreed with the article he had signed, which calls for new European responsibilities "beyond all Eurocentrism" and the strengthening of international law and international institutions."
More: www.16beavergroup.org/mtarchive/archives/000361.php
"In early 2003, both Habermas and Derrida were very active in opposing the coming Iraq War, and called for in a manifesto that later became the book Old Europe, New Europe, Core Europe for a tighter union of the states of the European Union in order to provide a power capable of opposing American foreign policy. Derrida wrote a foreword expressing his unqualified subscription to Habermas's declaration of February 2003, "February 15, or, What Binds Europeans Together: Plea for a Common Foreign Policy, Beginning in Core Europe,” in Old Europe, New Europe, Core Europe which was a reaction to the Bush administration demands upon European nations for support for the coming Iraq War[25]. Habermas has offered further context for this declaration in an interview."
More: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%c3%bcrgen_Habermas#Habermas_and_D...
Habermas: ”The asymmetry between the concentrated destructive power of the electronically controlled clusters of elegant and versatile missiles in the air and the archaic ferocity of the swarms of bearded warriors outfitted with Kalashnikovs on the ground remains a morally obscene sight
I consider Bush' s decision to call for a "war against terrorism" a serious mistake, both normatively and pragmatically. Normatively, he is elevating these criminals to the status of war enemies; and pragmatically, one cannot lead a war against a "network" if the term "war" is to retain any definite meaning.”
Derrida: “To say it all too quickly and in passing, to amplify and clarify just a bit what I said earlier about an absolute threat whose origin is anonymous and not related to any state, such "terrorist" attacks already no longer need planes, bombs, or kamikazes: it is enough to infiltrate a strategically important computer system and introduce a virus or some other disruptive element to paralyze the economic, military, and political resources of an entire country or continent. And this can be attempted from just about anywhere on earth, at very little expense and with minimal means. The relationship between earth, terra territory, and terror has changed, and it is necessary to know that this is because of knowledge, that is, because of technoscience.
It is technoscience that blurs the distinction between war and terrorism. In this regard, when compared to the possibilities for destruction and chaotic disorder that are in reserve, for the future, in the computerized networks of the world, "September 11" is still part of the archaic theater of violence aimed at striking the imagination. One will be able to do even worse tomorrow, invisibly, in silence, more quickly and without any bloodshed, by attacking the computer and informational networks on which the entire life (social, economic, military, and so on) of a "great nation," of the greatest power on earth, depends.”
www.16beavergroup.org/mtarchive/archives/000361.php
I am incredibly- delighted at all the vital discussions about the war & US gov that are FINALLY taking place- & on a mass scale- as a result of this leak .. Simply miraculous..
FREEDOM & PEACE ( transparency, diplomacy & the evolution of such ) FOR ALL WAR NATIONS.
-
( WARNING - links ( after excerpt ) are NOT for sensitive viewers- ) "Wikileaks have released over 150 supressed images. This is the tip of the iceberg, keep looking, keep publishing.In the last week Wikileaks has released over 150 censored photos and videos of the Tibet uprising and has called on bloggers around the world to help drive the footage through the Chinese internet censorship regime — the so called “Great Firewall of China”The transparency group’s move comes as a response to the the Chinese Public Security Bureau’s carte-blanche censorship of youtube, the BBC, CNN, the Guardian and other sites carrying video footage of the Tibetan people’s recent heroic stand against the inhumane Chinese occupation of Tibet."
fortuzero.wordpress.com/2008/03/31/tibet-western-media-sa...
file.wikileaks.org/file/tibet-protest-photos/index.html
FREE TIBET!!!!!!!!!!!!
Also other dire & serious issues ( out of countless ) - that expose corruption by corporations & gov's:
"A documentary about intensive pig farming due to be screened at the Guardian Hay festival on Sunday is facing a legal threat from one of the companies it investigates. Pig Business criticises the practices of the world's largest pork processor, Smithfield Foods, claiming it is responsible for environmental pollution and health problems among residents near its factories."
www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/may/29/pig-business-document...
"In an investigation broadcast on BBC Radio 5 on November 14, 2004,[79] it was reported that the site is still contaminated with 'thousands' of metric tons of toxic chemicals, including benzene hexachloride and mercury, held in open containers or loose on the ground. A sample of drinking water from a well near the site had levels of contamination 500 times higher than the maximum limits recommended by the World Health Organization.[80]
In 2009, a day before the 25th anniversary of the disaster, Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), a Delhi based pollution monitoring lab, released latest tests from a study showing that groundwater in areas even three km from the factory up to 38.6 times more pesticides than Indian standards."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster
-
The Blue Mask - Lou Reed - www.goear.com/listen/9960779/the-blue-mask-lou-reed ( & O Superman ) www.goear.com/listen/02cf55d/o-superman-(for-massenet)-la...
Lou Reed The Blue Mask
Lyrics:
They tied his arms behind
his back to teach him how to
swim They put
blood in his coffee and milk
in his gin They stood over the
soldier in
the midst of the squalor
There was war in his body and
it caused his
brain to holler
Make the sacrifice
mutilate my face
If you need someone to kill
I'm a man without a will
Wash the razor in the rain
Let me luxuriate in pain
Please don't set me free
Death means a lot to me
The pain was lean and it made
him scream he knew he was alive
They put a
pin through the nipples on his chest
He thought he was a saint
I've made love to my mother,
killed my father and my brother
What am I
to do
When a sin goes too far, it's
like a runaway car It cannot
be controlled
Spit upon his face and scream
There's no Oedipus today
This is no play you're thinking you
are in What will you say
Take the blue mask down from my face and
look me in the eye I get a
thrill from punishment
I've always been that way
I loathe and despise repentance
You are permanently stained
Your weakness buys indifference
and indiscretion in the streets
Dirty's what you are and clean is what
you're not You deserve to be
soundly beat
Make the sacrifice
Take it all the way
There's no won't high enough
To stop this desperate day
Don't take death away
Cut the finger at the joint
Cut the stallion at his mount
And stuff it in his mouth
---
-
"It looks like you can write a minimalist piece without much bleeding. And you can. But not a good one.
It seems important to find ways of reminding ourselves that most "familiarity" is meditated and delusive.
Nuclear weapons and TV have simply intensified the consequences of our tendencies, upped the stakes.
One of the things that makes Wittgenstein a real artist to me is that he realized that no conclusion could be more horrible than solipsism.
Pleasure becomes a value, a teleological end in itself. It's probably more Western than U.S. per se. "
"And I'm not saying that television is vulgar and dumb because the people who compose the Audience are vulgar and dumb. Television is the way it is simply because people tend to be extremely similar.. in their vulgar and prurient and dumb interests and wildly different in their refined and aesthetic and noble interests." - All by David Foster Wallace
www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQ-oq-u2rKM
STOP CENSORSHIP IN THAILAND! - ( & Egypt, China, Australia- & in the US- etc & etc!! )
Before computerized simulation, there was Viewmaster, which--along with imagination--educated my generation. Here is a scan from a 1964 Viewmaster reel cover detailing what might happen on the Apollo 11 NASA Mission.
Released before the historic moonwalk mission, this imagined flight includes artists' renderings of the space walk.
I may have had this reel, although this one isn't mine.
I found this, and a reel featuring the actual 1969 spacewalk at "Curiosities," a fabulous treasure trove of antiques, folk art and supplies for the assemblage artist in Dallas, TX.
The walls of the Taj Mahal boast of an endless amount of art work that must have taken an army of expert artisans. There are geometrical shapes and recesses carved into slabs of marbles, floral designs carved right into the marble, and of course, the fabulous inlays with semiprecious stones.
The floral carvings above are over the surface of the marble, and not carved into the marble. Meaning, the designs are achieved by removing material from the surface of the marble, which is obviously far, far more work than carving the designs into the marble.
The surfaces of the marble in the areas without any designs are amazingly plane and smooth to the touch. I could see how a modern day computerized milling machine with a fine tip could be programmed to generate a carving like this. But to think people actually did this with simple hand tools some 400+ years ago and were able to achieve machine like precision is astonishing.
Just try carving your name into a bar of soap by scraping material off the soap to leave your name behind! You will appreciate the complexity of what you see here. It is just mind boggling to think of the time, effort and patience it must have taken to achieve such results.
Leica S2 + 70mm Summarit-S f/2.5
S2002042
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Waffenträger (Weapon Carrier) VTS3 “Diana” was a prototype for a wheeled tank destroyer. It was developed by Thyssen-Henschel (later Rheinmetall) in Kassel, Germany, in the late Seventies, in response to a German Army requirement for a highly mobile tank destroyer with the firepower of the Leopard 1 main battle tank then in service and about to be replaced with the more capable Leopard 2 MBT, but less complex and costly. The main mission of the Diana was light to medium territorial defense, protection of infantry units and other, lighter, elements of the cavalry as well as tactical reconnaissance. Instead of heavy armor it would rather use its good power-to-weight ratio, excellent range and cross-country ability (despite the wheeled design) for defense and a computerized fire control system to accomplish this mission.
In order to save development cost and time, the vehicle was heavily based on the Spähpanzer Luchs (Lynx), a new German 8x8 amphibious reconnaissance armored fighting vehicle that had just entered Bundeswehr service in 1975. The all-wheel drive Luchs made was well armored against light weapons, had a full NBC protection system and was characterized by its extremely low-noise running. The eight large low-pressure tires had run-flat properties, and, at speeds up to about 50 km/h, all four axles could be steered, giving the relatively large vehicle a surprising agility and very good off-road performance. As a special feature, the vehicle was equipped with a rear-facing driver with his own driving position (normally the radio operator), so that the vehicle could be driven at full speed into both directions – a heritage from German WWII designs, and a tactical advantage when the vehicle had to quickly retreat from tactical position after having been detected. The original Luchs weighed less than 20 tons, was fully amphibious and could surmount water obstacles quickly and independently using propellers at the rear and the fold back trim vane at the front. Its armament was relatively light, though, a 20 mm Rheinmetall MK 20 Rh 202 gun in the turret that was effective against both ground and air targets.
The Waffenträger “Diana” used the Luchs’ hull and dynamic components as basis, and Thyssen-Henschel solved the challenge to mount a large and heavy 105 mm L7 gun with its mount on the light chassis through a minimalistic, unmanned mount and an autoloader. Avoiding a traditional manned and heavy, armored turret, a lot of weight and internal volume that had to be protected could be saved, and crew safety was indirectly improved, too. This concept had concurrently been tested in the form of the VTS1 (“Versuchsträger Scheitellafette #1) experimental tank in 1976 for the Kampfpanzer 3 development, which eventually led to the Leopard 2 MBT (which retained a traditional turret, though).
For the “Diana” test vehicle, Thyssen-Henschel developed a new low-profile turret with a very small frontal area. Two crew members, the commander (on the right side) and the gunner (to the left), were seated in/under the gun mount, completely inside of the vehicle’s hull. The turret was a very innovative construction for its time, fully stabilized and mounted the proven 105mm L7 rifled cannon with a smoke discharger. Its autoloader contained 8 rounds in a carousel magazine. 16 more rounds could be carried in the hull, but they had to be manually re-loaded into the magazine, which was only externally accessible. A light, co-axial 7,62mm machine gun against soft targets was available, too, as well as eight defensive smoke grenade mortars.
The automated L7 had a rate of fire of ten rounds per minute and could fire four types of ammunition: a kinetic energy penetrator to destroy armored vehicles; a high explosive anti-tank round to destroy thin-skinned vehicles and provide anti-personnel fragmentation; a high explosive plastic round to destroy bunkers, machine gun and sniper positions, and create openings in walls for infantry to access; and a canister shot for use against dismounted infantry in the open or for smoke charges. The rounds to be fired could be pre-selected, so that the gun was able to automatically fire a certain ammunition sequence, but manual round selection was possible at any time, too.
In order to take the new turret, the Luchs hull had to be modified. Early calculations had revealed that a simple replacement of the Luchs’ turret with the new L7 mount would have unfavorably shifted the vehicle’s center of gravity up- and forward, making it very nose-heavy and hard to handle in rough terrain or at high speed, and the long barrel would have markedly overhung the front end, impairing handling further. It was also clear that the additional weight and the rise of the CoG made amphibious operations impossible - a fate that met the upgraded Luchs recce tanks in the Eighties, too, after several accidents with overturned vehicles during wading and drowned crews. With this insight the decision was made to omit the vehicle’s amphibious capability, save weight and complexity, and to modify the vehicle’s layout considerably to optimize the weight distribution.
Taking advantage of the fact that the Luchs already had two complete driver stations at both ends, a pair of late-production hulls were set aside in 1977 and their internal layout reversed. The engine bay was now in the vehicle’s front, the secured ammunition storage was placed next to it, behind the separate driver compartment, and the combat section with the turret mechanism was located behind it. Since the VTS3s were only prototypes, only minimal adaptations were made. This meant that the driver was now located on the right side of the vehicle, while and the now-rear-facing secondary driver/radio operator station ended up on the left side – much like a RHD vehicle – but this was easily accepted in the light of cost and time savings. As a result, the gun and its long, heavy barrel were now located above the vehicle’s hull, so that the overall weight distribution was almost neutral and overall dimensions remained compact.
Both test vehicles were completed in early 1978 and field trials immediately started. While the overall mobility was on par with the Luchs and the Diana’s high speed and low noise profile was highly appreciated, the armament was and remained a source of constant concern. Shooting in motion from the Diana turned out to be very problematic, and even firing from a standstill was troublesome. The gun mount and the vehicle’s complex suspension were able to "hold" the recoil of the full-fledged 105-mm tank gun, which had always been famous for its rather large muzzle energy. But when fired, even in the longitudinal plane, the vehicle body fell heavily towards the stern, so that the target was frequently lost and aiming had to be resumed – effectively negating the benefit from the autoloader’s high rate of fire and exposing the vehicle to potential target retaliation. Firing to the side was even worse. Several attempts were made to mend this flaw, but neither the addition of a muzzle brake, stronger shock absorbers and even hydro-pneumatic suspension elements did not solve the problem. In addition, the high muzzle flames and the resulting significant shockwave required the infantry to stay away from the vehicle intended to support them. The Bundeswehr also criticized the too small ammunition load, as well as the fact that the autoloader magazine could not be re-filled under armor protection, so that the vehicle had to retreat to safe areas to re-arm and/or to adapt to a new mission profile. This inherent flaw not only put the crew under the hazards of enemy fire, it also negated the vehicle’s NBC protection – a serious issue and likely Cold War scenario. Another weak point was the Diana’s weight: even though the net gain of weight compared with the Luchs was less than 3 tons after the conversion, this became another serious problem that led to the Diana’s demise: during trials the Bundeswehr considered the possibility to airlift the Diana, but its weight (even that of the Luchs, BTW) was too much for the Luftwaffe’s biggest own transport aircraft, the C-160 Transall. Even aircraft from other NATO members, e.g. the common C-130 Hercules, could hardly carry the vehicle. In theory, equipment had to be removed, including the cannon and parts of its mount.
Since the tactical value of the vehicle was doubtful and other light anti-tank weapons in the form of the HOT anti-tank missile had reached operational status, so that very light vehicles and even small infantry groups could now effectively fight against full-fledged enemy battle tanks from a safe distance, the Diana’s development was stopped in 1988. Both VTS3 prototypes were mothballed, stored at the Bundeswehr Munster Training Area camp and are still waiting to be revamped as historic exhibits alongside other prototypes like the Kampfpanzer 70 in the German Tank Museum located there, too.
Specifications:
Crew: 4 (commander, driver, gunner, radio operator/second driver)
Weight: 22.6 t
Length: 7.74 m (25 ft 4 ¼ in)
Width: 2.98 m ( 9 ft 9 in)
Height: XXX
Ground clearance: 440 mm (1 ft 4 in)
Suspension: hydraulic all-wheel drive and steering
Armor:
Unknown, but sufficient to withstand 14.5 mm AP rounds
Performance:
Speed: 90 km/h (56 mph) on roads
Operational range: 720 km (445 mi)
Power/weight: 13,3 hp/ton with petrol, 17,3 hp/ton with diesel
Engine:
1× Daimler Benz OM 403A turbocharged 10-cylinder 4-stroke multi-fuel engine,
delivering 300 hp with petrol, 390 hp with diesel
Armament:
1× 105 mm L7 rifled gun with autoloader (8 rounds ready, plus 16 in reserve)
1× co-axial 7.92 mm M3 machine gun with 2.000 rounds
Two groups of four Wegmann 76 mm smoke mortars
The kit and its assembly:
I have been a big Luchs fan since I witnessed one in action during a public Bundeswehr demo day when I was around 10 years old: a huge, boxy and futuristic vehicle with strange proportions, gigantic wheels, water propellers, a mind-boggling mobility and all of this utterly silent. Today you’d assume that this vehicle had an electric engine – spooky! So I always had a soft spot for it, and now it was time and a neat occasion to build a what-if model around it.
This fictional wheeled tank prototype model was spawned by a leftover Revell 1:72 Luchs kit, which I had bought some time ago primarily for the turret, used in a fictional post-WWII SdKfz. 234 “Puma” conversion. With just the chassis left I wondered what other use or equipment it might take, and, after several weeks with the idea in the back of my mind, I stumbled at Silesian Models over an M1128 resin conversion set for the Trumpeter M1126 “Stryker” 8x8 APC model. From this set as potential donor for a conversion the prototype idea with an unmanned turret was born.
Originally I just planned to mount the new turret onto the OOB hull, but when playing with the parts I found the look with an overhanging gun barrel and the bigger turret placed well forward on the hull goofy and unbalanced. I was about to shelf the idea again, until I recognized that the Luchs’ hull is almost symmetrical – the upper hull half could be easily reversed on the chassis tub (at least on the kit…), and this would allow much better proportions. From this conceptual change the build went straightforward, reversing the upper hull only took some minor PSR. The resin turret was taken mostly OOB, it only needed a scratched adapter to fit into the respective hull opening. I just added a co-axial machine gun fairing, antenna bases (from the Luchs kit, since they could, due to the long gun barrel, not be attached to the hull anymore) and smoke grenade mortars (also taken from the Luchs).
An unnerving challenge became the Luchs kit’s suspension and drive train – it took two days to assemble the vehicle’s underside alone! While this area is very accurate and delicate, the fact that almost EVERY lever and stabilizer is a separate piece on four(!) axles made the assembly a very slow process. Just for reference: the kit comes with three and a half sprues. A full one for the wheels (each consists of three parts, and more than another one for suspension and drivetrain!
Furthermore, the many hull surface details like tools or handles – these are more than a dozen bits and pieces – are separate, very fragile and small (tiny!), too. Cutting all these wee parts out and cleaning them was a tedious affair, too, plus painting them separately.
Otherwise the model went together well, but it’s certainly not good for quick builders and those with big fingers and/or poor sight.
Painting and markings:
The paint scheme was a conservative choice; it is a faithful adaptation of the Bundeswehr’s NATO standard camouflage for the European theatre of operations that was introduced in the Eighties. It was adopted by many armies to confuse potential aggressors from the East, so that observers could not easily identify a vehicle and its nationality. It consists of a green base with red-brown and black blotches, in Germany it was executed with RAL tones, namely 6031 (Bronze Green), 8027 (Leather Brown) and 9021 (Tar Black). The pattern was standardized for each vehicle type and I stuck to the official Luchs pattern, trying to adapt it to the new/bigger turret. I used Revell acrylic paints, since the authentic RAL tones are readily available in this product range (namely the tones 06, 65 and 84). The big tires were painted with Revell 09 (Anthracite).
Next the model was treated with a highly thinned washing with black and red-brown acrylic paint, before decals were applied, taken from the OOB sheet and without unit markings, since the Diana would represent a test vehicle. After sealing them with a thin coat of clear varnish the model was furthermore treated with lightly dry-brushed Revell 45 and 75 to emphasize edges and surface details, and the separately painted hull equipment was mounted. The following step was a cloudy treatment with watercolors (from a typical school paintbox, it’s great stuff for weathering!), simulating dust residue all over the hull. After a final protective coat with matt acrylic varnish I finally added some mineral artist pigments to the lower hull areas and created mud crusts on the wheels through light wet varnish traces into which pigments were “dusted”.
Basically a simple project, but the complex Luchs kit with its zillion of wee bits and pieces took time and cost some nerves. However, the result looks pretty good, and the Stryker turret blends well into the overall package. Not certain how realistic the swap of the Luchs’ internal layout would have been, but I think that the turret moved to the rear makes more sense than the original forward position? After all, the model is supposed to be a prototype, so there’s certainly room for creative freedom. And in classic Bundeswehr colors, the whole thing even looks pretty convincing.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some Background:
On 23 January 1992, the Lithuanian Minister of Defense signed an order establishing the staff for the Aviation Base of the Aviation Service. But an actual base in the Šiauliai airport territory (Barysiai airfield) was not established until March, when according to the ordinance of the Government of Lithuanian Republic, all the infrastructure, buildings, territory and 24 An-2 aircraft were passed from ”Lithuanian Airlines" to the Aviation Service of the Ministry of Defense in January 1992.
On 12 June 1992, the first time after regaining the independence of Lithuania, An-2 aircraft, marked with the double cross of Vytis on its wings – the distinguishing sign of Lithuanian Air Force – took off from Barysiai airfield. This date is considered to be the Aviation Base foundation date. In February 1993 four L-39C Albatros aircraft were brought from Kyrgyzstan.
After 1 March 1993 Aviation Service was reformed to the Lithuanian Air Force and Aviation Base was renamed the First Aviation Base of the Lithuanian Air Force. In January 1994 Lithuania officially applied for NATO membership, and the country also looked out for a relatively cheap multi-purpose fighter that would fulfill both air space defence and attack tasks, the latter primarily against potential targets at sea (e. g. fast hoovercraft landing ships operated by the Russian Baltic Fleet).
After evaluating several options, the Lithuanian Air Force settled for a surprising aircraft: the venerable MiG-21! After the demise of the Soviet Union, several international companies started to offer conversion and upgrade programs for the widely used tactical fighter, about 5.000 specimen had been built to date. One of the first companies to enter the market was Israel Aircraft Industries: IAI's Lahav Division of (IAI) had developed the so-called MiG-21 2000 upgraded fighter and ground attack version, based on the MiG-21bis and the export MiG-21MF fighter aircraft.
The MiG-21 2000 upgrade provided modifications to the cockpit configuration, avionics architecture and weapons systems, enabling the MiG-21 2000 to compete with Western developed fighters like the F-16 and to make the transition to Western standards. The aircraft's original systems and components were retained wherever mission effectiveness was not compromised.
IAI Lahav augmented the original weapons system by introducing an EL/M-2032 radar, developed by IAI Elta Electronic Industries, based in Ashdod. The radar, which uses a low sidelobe planar array antenna and pulse Doppler beam sharpening, provides all-altitude, all-aspect look-up / look-down and shoot-down capability, as well as beyond-visual-range capability. In order to make the radar compatible with Western ordnance, a new armament interface and control unit were added, too, which enabled computerized control and release of weapons, including third and fourth-generation air-to-air missiles and precision-guided munitions of Western and Eastern provenance.
This system also gave the pilot the ability to use blind attack as well as continuously computed impact point (CCIP) and dive-toss bombing techniques. CCIP bombing involves the deployment of air-to-ground weapons, using the HUD to indicate the impact point for release of the weapons. Dive-toss bombing involves the release of air-to-ground weapons at the end of a steep dive manoeuver towards the target.
The MiG-21 2000 cockpit featured a new pilot-friendly layout that overcame the shortcomings of the original cockpit layout, which was crowded and lacked most of the desired man-machine interface characteristics. It incorporated a head-up display (HUD), eye-level multifunction color displays, hands on throttle and stick control (HOTAS), solid-state charge coupled device (CCD) camera, videotape recorder, and a one-piece windshield.
The MiG-21 2000 could be equipped with a display and sight helmet (DASH) system, supplied by Elbit of Haifa, which enabled the pilot to aim the weapons simply by looking at the target. The system worked by measuring the pilot's line of sight relative to the aircraft, and transferred the information to the aircraft's sensors, avionics and weapon systems. The helmet displayed vital information, such as the missile line of sight, missile status, flight information and warning data, on the visor. The DASH helmet allowed the pilot to fly head-up and off-boresight and assisted the pilot to detect, identify and shoot earlier.
IAI Lahav's upgrade package could be tailored to meet the customer's specific operational and budgetary requirements - the Lithuanian package included the radar, cockpit and also the DASH update and was rumored to cost around 4 Mio. USD per aircraft, and Lithuania was, together with Romania (where 110 MiG-21 were to be updated), lead customer.
As conversion basis, Lithuania purchased fifteen MiG-21 airframes for an unknown sum from the Ukraine, which had inherited a considerable MiG-21 fleet after the demise of the Soviet Union but did not (want to) operate it. The deal included thirteen airworthy MiG-21bis fighters and two MiG-21U trainers with few flying hours on the clocks, and - stripped off any military equipment - the small fleet was gradually transferred as disassembled kits via air ferry in Antonov Airlines An-124 transporters to Aerostar in Romania for conversion, starting in early 1996.
The first batch of Lithuanian MiG-21 2000, three fighters and one trainer, arrived in mid-1997 from Bacau on their own power and with civil Ukrainian registrations, and the Lithuanian Air Force’s fighter squadron, the Naikintuvu Eskadra, became ready for service in February 1998.
The rest of the country’s small MiG-21 fleet was delivered in the course of the same year, and these aircraft were semi-officially christened "Globėjas" (Guardian). Since the late Nineties, the Globėjas fighters provide the backbone of Lithuania's air defenses, with aircraft holding Quick Reaction Alert. QRA missions – so-called Alpha Scrambles – have constantly been on the rise thanks to the Russia’s increased aggression towards NATO. The MiG’s have regularly launched to intercept and shadow Russian Air Force Il-20 intelligence gathering aircraft over the Baltic Sea, as well as Tu-16 and Tu-95 patrols and even some Sukhoi Su-27s.
Lithuanian pilots use “hit and run” style tactics to deal with air threats, due to the limited range and endurance of their mounts - but this is of little concern due to the country's relatively small size and the defensive nature of the machines' tasks. While the Globėjas lack a beyond-visual range missile, although they could carry one, they have the ability to carry a range of different short-range air-to-air missiles like the Israeli Python III, which Lithuania procured from Rafael in Haifa as primary air-to-air missile.
After Lithuania joined NATO organization in 2004, its (alongside Latvia's and Estonia's) air space has been protected by NATO. NATO members provide usually 4 fighter aircraft, based in Lithuania, to police the Baltic States’ airspace, where they support the Lithuanian MiG-21 fleet. The duties rotate between NATO members (which started in March 2004 with Belgium Air Force F-16s) and most NATO members that operate fighters have made temporary deployments to Lithuania.
The Lithuanian Globėjas were also in regular demand as a simulated threat, and have gone up against US F-16s, F-15s, F/A-18s and A-10s, as well as the many different European fighter types that frequently rotate into the small country, including the Eurofighter, German F-4F Phantom IIs or French Mirage 2000.
Anyway, the Globėjas' airframes sooner or later reached their flying hour limits, and will be phased out towards 2020. As a replacement Lithuania will begin taking delivery of its first batch of ex-Portuguese F-16s in 2016, while the Baltic States are considering in the near future to protect their airspace on their own.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 14.5 [126] m (47 ft 7 in)
Wingspan: 7.154 m (23 ft 6 in)
Height: 4 m (13 ft 6 in)
Wing area: 23.0 m² (247.3 ft²)
Empty weight: 5,846 kg (12,880 lb)
Gross weight: 8,825 kg (19,425 lb)
Powerplant:
1× Tumansky R25-300, rated at 40.21 kN (9,040 lbf) thrust dry
and 69.62 kN (15,650 lbf) with afterburner
Performance:
Maximum speed: 2,175 km/h (1,351.48 mph)
Maximum speed: Mach 2.0
Landing speed: 350 km/h (190 kts)
Range: (internal fuel) 1,210 km (751 miles)
Service ceiling: 17,800 m (58,400 ft)
Rate of climb: 225 m/s (44,280 ft/min)
Armament:
1x internal 23 mm GSh-23 cannon
5x hardpoints for a wide range of guided and unguided ordnance of up to 3.310 lb (1.500 kg).
In QRA configuration the Lithuanian MiG-21 typically carry two or four Rafal Python III short
range air-to-air missiles and an 800l drop tank on the centerline pylon.
Against ground targets, unguided bombs of up to 1.100 lb (500kg) caliber or unguided rockets
can be carried; alternatively, a Rafael LITENING laser designation pod and three
Griffin Mk. 82 LGBs or a single Mk. 84 LGB can be carried, or optically guided weapons like up
to four AGM-65 Maverick or a single GBU-8.
The kit and its assembly:
This kit is the entry for the 2016 "One Week Group Build" at whatifmodelers.com, which ran from 29th of April until 8th May (so, actually nine days...). I had this project earmarked for the recent "Cold War" GB, but it fell outside of the build's time horizon. But despite the dubious kit as basis, I tackled the build since I had anything else already at hand.
The basis is the MiG-21-93 demonstrator kit from Ukrainian manufacturer Condor, one of the many reincarnations of the venerable KP MiG-21bis, but with some updates. You get, for instance, engraved, very fine panel lines, some typical details were added like the wraparound windscreen (wrong shape, though) and the radar warning fairing on the fin as well as an extra sprue with modern Russian ordnance – apparently from some other kit!
On the downside, there's overall mediocre fit due to the molds' age, some dubious details (anything appears softened or blurred…) or the simple lack thereof (e. g. there’s no ventral gun fairing at all). But there’s nothing that could not be mended, and after all this is just a whiffy version.
Since there was only one week time to build the thing and make beauty pics, the whole project remained close to OOB status, even though a lot of detail changes or additions were made in order to convert the Russian MiG-21-93 into an earlier but similar Israeli MiG-21 2000 derivative.
These mods include:
- A Martin Baker ejection seat, with wire trigger handles
- HUD made from clear styrene
- Lowered flaps
- An added jet pipe/interior for the otherwise bleak exhaust (parts from a Kangnam Yak-38)
- Hydraulic pipes on the landing gear, made from very thin wire
- Some more/different blade antennae
- Measuring vanes on the pitot boom
- Different GSh-23 gun fairing, from an Academy MiG-23
- Thinner blast deflector plates under the anti-surge doors
- A pair of Python III AAMs, plus respective launch rails
- Different centerline drop tank, from an F-5E
- Scratched chaff/flare dispensers under the rear fuselage (as carried by the MiG-21 2000 demonstrator)
Building the model went straightforward, but it took some putty work to fill some seams, dents and holes all around the kit. Biggest issue was a hole in front of the cockpit screen, where simply not enough styrene had been injected into the mould!
Painting and markings:
The Lithuanian Air Force as operator for this build was chosen because it would not only fit into the real world timeline (even though I doubt that there would have been any budget for this aircraft at that time, even if MiG-21s had not been upgraded at all...) and because the potential livery would be very simple: contemporary L-39 trainers, C-27L Spartan as well as some L-410 and Mi-8 transporters carry a uniform, dull grey livery. Why not apply it on an air superiority fighter, too?
Finding an appropriate tone was not easy, though. Some sources claim the grey tone to be FS 36306, others refer to FS 36270 or "close to Blue/Grey FS35237", but IMHO none of the cited Federal Standard tones works well. Real world Lithuanian aircraft appear pretty dark and dull, and the color also features a greenish, slate grey hue - it's a unique color indeed.
After some trials (and also wishing to avoid mixing) I settled for Humbrol 111 (German Field Grey, a.k.a. Uniform Grey) as basic tone. It's a rather dark choice, but I wanted some good contrast to the national markings. A full wraparound livery appeared a little too dark and boring, so I added light blue wing undersurfaces (Humbrol 115). The kit received a light black in wash and some panel shading, primarily in order to add some life to the otherwise uniform surface.
Details were painted according to real world MiG-21 pics: the cockpit became classic teal with light grey instrument panels, plus OOB decals for the dashboard and side consoles. The landing gear struts were painted in a light, metallic grey (Humbrol 127 + 56) while the wells were painted in an odd primer color, a mix of Aluminum, Sand and Olive Drab. Parts of the covers were painted with Humbrol 144 (Blue Grey), seen on a modernized real world MiG-21. The wheel discs became bright green.
IAI's MiG-21 2000 demonstrator from 1993 had a black radome (as well as later Romanian LanceR Cs), so I adapted this detail for my build. Other typical di-electric fairings on a MiG-21's hull were painted in slightly darker camouflage colors, while the fin's leading edge became dark grey.
The blast deflector plates received yellow and black warning stripes, and some potentially dangerous parts for the ground crews like the pointed anti-flutter booms were painted red. The Python IIIs were simply painted all-white, mounted on grey launch rails - a harsh contrast to the dull rest of the aircraft.
Main markings come from a Blue Rider Publishing aftermarket sheet for modern Lithuanian aircraft. This set also includes the small Air Force crests, which I put on the nose, as well as the typical, blue tactical codes.
The stencils come from the scrap box, the small Lithuanian flag stripes on the tail rudder were created from single decal stripes, a personal addition inspired by Lithuanian C-27J transporters. They add some more color to the otherwise murky Baltic MiG fighter.
The silver ring around the air intake as well as the stripes at the flaps and the rudder were created with simple decal stripes instead of paint.
Finally, after I added some graphite soot around the jet exhaust and some panle lines with a pencil (e .g. the blow-in doors and airbrake outlines), the kit was sealed with hardly thinned Revell matt acrylic varnish, trying to create a really dull finish.
A tough build, despite being mostly OOB, but the details took their toll. This Baltic MiG does not look flashy, but, with IAI's real world MiG-21 2000 as well as the LanceR conversion for Romania in the Nineties, this one is pretty plausible. And with the simple paint scheme, the MiG-21 looks even pretty chic!
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some Background:
On 23 January 1992, the Lithuanian Minister of Defense signed an order establishing the staff for the Aviation Base of the Aviation Service. But an actual base in the Šiauliai airport territory (Barysiai airfield) was not established until March, when according to the ordinance of the Government of Lithuanian Republic, all the infrastructure, buildings, territory and 24 An-2 aircraft were passed from ”Lithuanian Airlines" to the Aviation Service of the Ministry of Defense in January 1992.
On 12 June 1992, the first time after regaining the independence of Lithuania, An-2 aircraft, marked with the double cross of Vytis on its wings – the distinguishing sign of Lithuanian Air Force – took off from Barysiai airfield. This date is considered to be the Aviation Base foundation date. In February 1993 four L-39C Albatros aircraft were brought from Kyrgyzstan.
After 1 March 1993 Aviation Service was reformed to the Lithuanian Air Force and Aviation Base was renamed the First Aviation Base of the Lithuanian Air Force. In January 1994 Lithuania officially applied for NATO membership, and the country also looked out for a relatively cheap multi-purpose fighter that would fulfill both air space defence and attack tasks, the latter primarily against potential targets at sea (e. g. fast hoovercraft landing ships operated by the Russian Baltic Fleet).
After evaluating several options, the Lithuanian Air Force settled for a surprising aircraft: the venerable MiG-21! After the demise of the Soviet Union, several international companies started to offer conversion and upgrade programs for the widely used tactical fighter, about 5.000 specimen had been built to date. One of the first companies to enter the market was Israel Aircraft Industries: IAI's Lahav Division of (IAI) had developed the so-called MiG-21 2000 upgraded fighter and ground attack version, based on the MiG-21bis and the export MiG-21MF fighter aircraft.
The MiG-21 2000 upgrade provided modifications to the cockpit configuration, avionics architecture and weapons systems, enabling the MiG-21 2000 to compete with Western developed fighters like the F-16 and to make the transition to Western standards. The aircraft's original systems and components were retained wherever mission effectiveness was not compromised.
IAI Lahav augmented the original weapons system by introducing an EL/M-2032 radar, developed by IAI Elta Electronic Industries, based in Ashdod. The radar, which uses a low sidelobe planar array antenna and pulse Doppler beam sharpening, provides all-altitude, all-aspect look-up / look-down and shoot-down capability, as well as beyond-visual-range capability. In order to make the radar compatible with Western ordnance, a new armament interface and control unit were added, too, which enabled computerized control and release of weapons, including third and fourth-generation air-to-air missiles and precision-guided munitions of Western and Eastern provenance.
This system also gave the pilot the ability to use blind attack as well as continuously computed impact point (CCIP) and dive-toss bombing techniques. CCIP bombing involves the deployment of air-to-ground weapons, using the HUD to indicate the impact point for release of the weapons. Dive-toss bombing involves the release of air-to-ground weapons at the end of a steep dive manoeuver towards the target.
The MiG-21 2000 cockpit featured a new pilot-friendly layout that overcame the shortcomings of the original cockpit layout, which was crowded and lacked most of the desired man-machine interface characteristics. It incorporated a head-up display (HUD), eye-level multifunction color displays, hands on throttle and stick control (HOTAS), solid-state charge coupled device (CCD) camera, videotape recorder, and a one-piece windshield.
The MiG-21 2000 could be equipped with a display and sight helmet (DASH) system, supplied by Elbit of Haifa, which enabled the pilot to aim the weapons simply by looking at the target. The system worked by measuring the pilot's line of sight relative to the aircraft, and transferred the information to the aircraft's sensors, avionics and weapon systems. The helmet displayed vital information, such as the missile line of sight, missile status, flight information and warning data, on the visor. The DASH helmet allowed the pilot to fly head-up and off-boresight and assisted the pilot to detect, identify and shoot earlier.
IAI Lahav's upgrade package could be tailored to meet the customer's specific operational and budgetary requirements - the Lithuanian package included the radar, cockpit and also the DASH update and was rumored to cost around 4 Mio. USD per aircraft, and Lithuania was, together with Romania (where 110 MiG-21 were to be updated), lead customer.
As conversion basis, Lithuania purchased fifteen MiG-21 airframes for an unknown sum from the Ukraine, which had inherited a considerable MiG-21 fleet after the demise of the Soviet Union but did not (want to) operate it. The deal included thirteen airworthy MiG-21bis fighters and two MiG-21U trainers with few flying hours on the clocks, and - stripped off any military equipment - the small fleet was gradually transferred as disassembled kits via air ferry in Antonov Airlines An-124 transporters to Aerostar in Romania for conversion, starting in early 1996.
The first batch of Lithuanian MiG-21 2000, three fighters and one trainer, arrived in mid-1997 from Bacau on their own power and with civil Ukrainian registrations, and the Lithuanian Air Force’s fighter squadron, the Naikintuvu Eskadra, became ready for service in February 1998.
The rest of the country’s small MiG-21 fleet was delivered in the course of the same year, and these aircraft were semi-officially christened "Globėjas" (Guardian). Since the late Nineties, the Globėjas fighters provide the backbone of Lithuania's air defenses, with aircraft holding Quick Reaction Alert. QRA missions – so-called Alpha Scrambles – have constantly been on the rise thanks to the Russia’s increased aggression towards NATO. The MiG’s have regularly launched to intercept and shadow Russian Air Force Il-20 intelligence gathering aircraft over the Baltic Sea, as well as Tu-16 and Tu-95 patrols and even some Sukhoi Su-27s.
Lithuanian pilots use “hit and run” style tactics to deal with air threats, due to the limited range and endurance of their mounts - but this is of little concern due to the country's relatively small size and the defensive nature of the machines' tasks. While the Globėjas lack a beyond-visual range missile, although they could carry one, they have the ability to carry a range of different short-range air-to-air missiles like the Israeli Python III, which Lithuania procured from Rafael in Haifa as primary air-to-air missile.
After Lithuania joined NATO organization in 2004, its (alongside Latvia's and Estonia's) air space has been protected by NATO. NATO members provide usually 4 fighter aircraft, based in Lithuania, to police the Baltic States’ airspace, where they support the Lithuanian MiG-21 fleet. The duties rotate between NATO members (which started in March 2004 with Belgium Air Force F-16s) and most NATO members that operate fighters have made temporary deployments to Lithuania.
The Lithuanian Globėjas were also in regular demand as a simulated threat, and have gone up against US F-16s, F-15s, F/A-18s and A-10s, as well as the many different European fighter types that frequently rotate into the small country, including the Eurofighter, German F-4F Phantom IIs or French Mirage 2000.
Anyway, the Globėjas' airframes sooner or later reached their flying hour limits, and will be phased out towards 2020. As a replacement Lithuania will begin taking delivery of its first batch of ex-Portuguese F-16s in 2016, while the Baltic States are considering in the near future to protect their airspace on their own.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 14.5 [126] m (47 ft 7 in)
Wingspan: 7.154 m (23 ft 6 in)
Height: 4 m (13 ft 6 in)
Wing area: 23.0 m² (247.3 ft²)
Empty weight: 5,846 kg (12,880 lb)
Gross weight: 8,825 kg (19,425 lb)
Powerplant:
1× Tumansky R25-300, rated at 40.21 kN (9,040 lbf) thrust dry
and 69.62 kN (15,650 lbf) with afterburner
Performance:
Maximum speed: 2,175 km/h (1,351.48 mph)
Maximum speed: Mach 2.0
Landing speed: 350 km/h (190 kts)
Range: (internal fuel) 1,210 km (751 miles)
Service ceiling: 17,800 m (58,400 ft)
Rate of climb: 225 m/s (44,280 ft/min)
Armament:
1x internal 23 mm GSh-23 cannon
5x hardpoints for a wide range of guided and unguided ordnance of up to 3.310 lb (1.500 kg).
In QRA configuration the Lithuanian MiG-21 typically carry two or four Rafal Python III short
range air-to-air missiles and an 800l drop tank on the centerline pylon.
Against ground targets, unguided bombs of up to 1.100 lb (500kg) caliber or unguided rockets
can be carried; alternatively, a Rafael LITENING laser designation pod and three
Griffin Mk. 82 LGBs or a single Mk. 84 LGB can be carried, or optically guided weapons like up
to four AGM-65 Maverick or a single GBU-8.
The kit and its assembly:
This kit is the entry for the 2016 "One Week Group Build" at whatifmodelers.com, which ran from 29th of April until 8th May (so, actually nine days...). I had this project earmarked for the recent "Cold War" GB, but it fell outside of the build's time horizon. But despite the dubious kit as basis, I tackled the build since I had anything else already at hand.
The basis is the MiG-21-93 demonstrator kit from Ukrainian manufacturer Condor, one of the many reincarnations of the venerable KP MiG-21bis, but with some updates. You get, for instance, engraved, very fine panel lines, some typical details were added like the wraparound windscreen (wrong shape, though) and the radar warning fairing on the fin as well as an extra sprue with modern Russian ordnance – apparently from some other kit!
On the downside, there's overall mediocre fit due to the molds' age, some dubious details (anything appears softened or blurred…) or the simple lack thereof (e. g. there’s no ventral gun fairing at all). But there’s nothing that could not be mended, and after all this is just a whiffy version.
Since there was only one week time to build the thing and make beauty pics, the whole project remained close to OOB status, even though a lot of detail changes or additions were made in order to convert the Russian MiG-21-93 into an earlier but similar Israeli MiG-21 2000 derivative.
These mods include:
- A Martin Baker ejection seat, with wire trigger handles
- HUD made from clear styrene
- Lowered flaps
- An added jet pipe/interior for the otherwise bleak exhaust (parts from a Kangnam Yak-38)
- Hydraulic pipes on the landing gear, made from very thin wire
- Some more/different blade antennae
- Measuring vanes on the pitot boom
- Different GSh-23 gun fairing, from an Academy MiG-23
- Thinner blast deflector plates under the anti-surge doors
- A pair of Python III AAMs, plus respective launch rails
- Different centerline drop tank, from an F-5E
- Scratched chaff/flare dispensers under the rear fuselage (as carried by the MiG-21 2000 demonstrator)
Building the model went straightforward, but it took some putty work to fill some seams, dents and holes all around the kit. Biggest issue was a hole in front of the cockpit screen, where simply not enough styrene had been injected into the mould!
Painting and markings:
The Lithuanian Air Force as operator for this build was chosen because it would not only fit into the real world timeline (even though I doubt that there would have been any budget for this aircraft at that time, even if MiG-21s had not been upgraded at all...) and because the potential livery would be very simple: contemporary L-39 trainers, C-27L Spartan as well as some L-410 and Mi-8 transporters carry a uniform, dull grey livery. Why not apply it on an air superiority fighter, too?
Finding an appropriate tone was not easy, though. Some sources claim the grey tone to be FS 36306, others refer to FS 36270 or "close to Blue/Grey FS35237", but IMHO none of the cited Federal Standard tones works well. Real world Lithuanian aircraft appear pretty dark and dull, and the color also features a greenish, slate grey hue - it's a unique color indeed.
After some trials (and also wishing to avoid mixing) I settled for Humbrol 111 (German Field Grey, a.k.a. Uniform Grey) as basic tone. It's a rather dark choice, but I wanted some good contrast to the national markings. A full wraparound livery appeared a little too dark and boring, so I added light blue wing undersurfaces (Humbrol 115). The kit received a light black in wash and some panel shading, primarily in order to add some life to the otherwise uniform surface.
Details were painted according to real world MiG-21 pics: the cockpit became classic teal with light grey instrument panels, plus OOB decals for the dashboard and side consoles. The landing gear struts were painted in a light, metallic grey (Humbrol 127 + 56) while the wells were painted in an odd primer color, a mix of Aluminum, Sand and Olive Drab. Parts of the covers were painted with Humbrol 144 (Blue Grey), seen on a modernized real world MiG-21. The wheel discs became bright green.
IAI's MiG-21 2000 demonstrator from 1993 had a black radome (as well as later Romanian LanceR Cs), so I adapted this detail for my build. Other typical di-electric fairings on a MiG-21's hull were painted in slightly darker camouflage colors, while the fin's leading edge became dark grey.
The blast deflector plates received yellow and black warning stripes, and some potentially dangerous parts for the ground crews like the pointed anti-flutter booms were painted red. The Python IIIs were simply painted all-white, mounted on grey launch rails - a harsh contrast to the dull rest of the aircraft.
Main markings come from a Blue Rider Publishing aftermarket sheet for modern Lithuanian aircraft. This set also includes the small Air Force crests, which I put on the nose, as well as the typical, blue tactical codes.
The stencils come from the scrap box, the small Lithuanian flag stripes on the tail rudder were created from single decal stripes, a personal addition inspired by Lithuanian C-27J transporters. They add some more color to the otherwise murky Baltic MiG fighter.
The silver ring around the air intake as well as the stripes at the flaps and the rudder were created with simple decal stripes instead of paint.
Finally, after I added some graphite soot around the jet exhaust and some panle lines with a pencil (e .g. the blow-in doors and airbrake outlines), the kit was sealed with hardly thinned Revell matt acrylic varnish, trying to create a really dull finish.
A tough build, despite being mostly OOB, but the details took their toll. This Baltic MiG does not look flashy, but, with IAI's real world MiG-21 2000 as well as the LanceR conversion for Romania in the Nineties, this one is pretty plausible. And with the simple paint scheme, the MiG-21 looks even pretty chic!
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the model, the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The T-54 and T-55 tanks were a series of Soviet main battle tanks introduced in the years following the Second World War. The first T-54 prototype was completed at Nizhny Tagil by the end of 1945. Initial production ramp up settled for 1947 at Nizhny Tagil, and 1948 for Kharkiv were halted and curtailed as many problems were uncovered; the T-34-85 still accounted for 88 percent of production through the 1950s.The T-54 eventually became the main tank for armored units of the Soviet Army, armies of the Warsaw Pact countries, and many others. T-54s and T-55s have been involved in many of the world's armed conflicts since the later part of the 20th century.
The T-54/55 series eventually became the most-produced tank in history. Estimated production numbers for the series range from 86,000 to 100,000. They were replaced by the T-62, T-64, T-72, T-80 and T-90 tanks in the Soviet and Russian armies but remain in use by up to 50 other armies worldwide, some having received sophisticated retrofitting.
The T-54/55 tanks were mechanically simple and robust, very simple to operate compared to Western tanks, and did not require a high level of training or education in their crew members. The T-54/55 was a relatively small main battle tank, presenting a smaller target for its opponents to hit. The tanks had good mobility thanks to their relatively light weight (which permitted easy transport by rail or flatbed truck and allowed crossing of lighter bridges), wide tracks (which gave lower ground pressure and hence good mobility on soft ground), a good cold-weather start-up system and a snorkel that allowed river crossings.
By the standards of the 1950s, the T-54 was an excellent tank combining lethal firepower, excellent armor protection and good reliability while remaining a significantly smaller and lighter tank than its NATO contemporaries—the US M48 Patton tank and the British Centurion tank. The 100 mm D-10T tank gun of the T-54 and the T-55 was also more powerful than its Western counterparts at that time (the M48 Patton initially carried a 90 mm tank gun and the Centurion Mk. 3 carried the 20-pounder (84 mm) tank gun). This advantage lasted until the T-54 began to be countered by newer Western developments like the M60 main battle tank and upgraded Centurions and M48 Pattons using the 105 mm rifled Royal Ordnance L7 or M68 gun. Due to the lack of a sub-caliber round for the 100 mm gun, and the tank's simple fire-control system, the T-54/55 was forced to rely on HEAT shaped-charge ammunition to engage tanks at long range well into the 1960s, despite the relative inaccuracy of this ammunition at long ranges. The Soviets considered this acceptable for a potential European conflict, until the development of composite armor began reducing the effectiveness of HEAT warheads and sabot rounds were developed for the D-10T gun.
T-54/55 tanks also had their drawbacks. Small size was achieved at the expense of interior space and ergonomics, which caused practical difficulties, as it constrained the physical movements of the crew and slowed operation of controls and equipment. This was a common trait of most Soviet tanks and hence height limits were set for certain tank crew positions in the Soviet Army.
The low turret profile of the tanks prevented them from depressing their main guns by more than 5° since the breech would strike the ceiling when fired, which limited the ability to cover terrain by fire from a hull-down position on a reverse slope – a tactical flaw that became apparent (and costly) during the Arab-Israeli the Six-Day War. As in most tanks of that generation, the internal ammunition supply was not shielded, increasing the risk that any enemy penetration of the fighting compartment could cause a catastrophic secondary explosion. The original T-54 lacked NBC protection, a revolving turret floor (which complicated the crew's operations), and early models lacked gun stabilization. All of these problems were corrected in the otherwise largely identical T-55 tank.
Together, the T-54/55 tanks have been manufactured in the tens of thousands, and many still remain in reserve, or even in front-line use among lower-technology fighting forces. Abundance and age together make these tanks cheap and easy to purchase. While the T-54/55 is not a match for a modern main battle tank, armor and ammunition upgrades could dramatically improve the old vehicle's performance to the point that it cannot be dismissed on the battlefield.
During the Cold War, Soviet tanks never directly faced their NATO adversaries in combat in Europe, but it became involved in many other local conflicts. For instance, the Israeli army fought against it during the Six-Day War in 1967, and many Egyptian and Syrian T-54/55s were captured. Their numbers were so great that they were repaired, modernized and even put into IDF service or exported - around 200 T-54s, T-55s and PT-76s fell into Israeli hands at that time. T-54s and T-55s were modernized to Tiran 4 or 5 standard prior to the Yom Kippur War, some outfitted with a NATO-compatible Sharir (Royal Ordnance L7) 105 mm gun and other Western equipment and weapons.
During the Yom Kippur War in 1973, Israel captured additional T-54s and T-55s, and these new vehicles led to the Ti-51 MBT (also known as “Tiran 51”)and some minor variants. This time the modifications were more thorough and included fitting an American Detroit Diesel engine, new semi-automatic hydromechanical transmission equipped with a torque converter and new air cleaners. Blazer explosive reactive armor was added to the hull and turret, a Cadillac-Gage-Textron gun stabilization system was integrated as well as an EL-OP Matador computerized fire control system. Further changes included a new low-profile commander's cupola, IR detectors, Image-intensifier night vision equipment for the commander, gunner and driver, Spectronix fire detection and suppression system, new turret basket, extensive external stowage, modernized driver's station including replacement of tillers by a steering wheel, new final drives, new all-internal fuel system and improved suspension. Basically, the T-54/55 hull was filled with new equipment, creating an almost new and different MBT! Some of these tanks were also outfitted with a detachable dozer blade and designated Ti-51Sh.
A small series of the captured Yom Kippur War tanks was furthermore re-built as so-called Ti-52s during 1974 and 1975. This program was focused on recycling T-54 and T-55 hulls that had damaged turrets or main weapons. The upgrade centered around an American 90 mm M41 cannon with a T-shaped blast deflector as new main armament, a weapon that was available in abundance after the IDF’s gun uprating of its M48 Patton tanks to the bigger L7 gun. For the Ti-52 a new, welded turret was devised, tailored to the M41 gun and its M87 mount. It was longer but narrower than the original T-54/55 turtle shell turret, but kept its low profile, and it featured prominent storage boxes at the sides and at the back that made it look outwardly bigger than it actually was. The turret had a 360° manual and electric-hydraulic traverse, (24°/sec) and the gun could be depressed to -9° and elevated to +19°. 60 rounds were carried (Fifteen in the turret, the rest in the hull). Beyond standard HE and AP ammunition types, a special HVAP round with a muzzle velocity of 3,750 ft/s (1,140 m/s) was available, too, with a maximum penetration of 15 in (380 mm) of vertical armor at 30 ft and still 9½ in (241 mm) at 2.000 yards. This was complemented by a coaxial heavy Browning .50 cal (12.7 mm) machine gun with 500 rounds (plus 500 more in reserve), a weapon that has proven to be useful and effective in asymmetric warfare. An additional .30 AA machine gun on a swivel mount and with 5.000 rounds in store was placed on the turret roof, next to the commander cupola.
The main automotive upgrade was the replacement of the original V12-W-55 engine with 560 hp with the proven American Detroit Diesel 8V-71T developing 609 hp that had already been used for other Tiran conversions. With a slightly better power/weaight ration than the original T-55 (the lighter turret and engine saved around 2 tons), performanca and handling of the Ti-52 were improved.
Other modifications included a laser rangefinder placed over the barrel, thermal/night sights for the gunner and commander, a computerized FCS, new radio equipment, complete NBC protection lining and anti-RPG rubber side skirts that also suppressed dust clouds while on the move as well as German-made smoke dischargers.
These upgraded vehicles entered service in 1975. With the conversion and different systems came a new role: The Ti-52s went from being an MBT to a tank destroyer and scout/reconnaissance vehicle. The Ti-52 was an ‘ambush predator’ and would use its small size, low profile and good maneuverability to outflank the enemy, engage, and then withdraw along pre-arranged lanes of engagement. The Ti-52 was unofficially nicknamed “עקרב/Ak'rav” (Scorpion) and became a successful conversion, but by the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s, the tank (just like the other Israeli Tiran versions as well as the original T-54/55 family) had become obsolete. Its gun simply did not have the penetrative power to combat modern armored fighting vehicles. Nevertheless, the tank served the Israeli Army well for 15 years, and it was used in combat during the 1982 Lebanon War, where it proved to be highly effective if its tactical strengths of speed and low profile could be exploited. In direct open-field confrontation it turned out to be vulnerable, esp. to dedicated anti-tank weapons of the time (AT-3 Sagger and RPG-7).
All Tirans of various versions were withdrawn from active IDF service at the end of the 1980s. Some were sold and some were converted into Achzarit APCs. However, some Tirans are still in possession of the Israeli Army, possibly in reserve or in storage. The Israeli Army had 488 Tirans in 1990, 300 in 1995, 200 in 2000, 2001 and 2002 and still 261 in 2006 and 2008.
Specifications:
Crew: Four (commander, gunner, loader, driver)
Weight: 34 tonnes (37.5 ST)
Length: 8,42 m (27 ft 7 in) with gun forward
6,37 m (20ft 10 1/2 in) hull only
Width: 3.53 m (11 ft 6 3/4 in) with side skirts
3.37 m (11 ft 1 in) hull only
Height: 2.73 m (9 ft)
Ground clearance: 0.425 m (16.73 in)
Suspension: Torsion bar
Fuel capacity: 580 l internal, plus 320 l external and 400 l in two jettisonable rear drums
Armor:
16 – 120 mm (0.63 – 4.72 in)
Performance:
Maximum road speed: 54 km/h (33.5 mph)
Off-road speed: 38 km/h (24 mph)
Operational range: 500 km on road
Up to 715 km with two 200-liter auxiliary fuel tanks
Power/weight: 17.9 hp (12.9 kW)/tonne
Engine:
1× American Detroit Diesel 8V-71T with 609 hp (438 kW)
Transmission:
Mechanical [synchromesh], 5 forward, 1 reverse gears
Armament:
1× 90mm M41/T139 gun with 60 rounds
1x coaxial .50 cal (12.7 mm) machine gun with a total of 1.000 rounds
1x .30 AA machine gun on a swivel mount with a total of 5.000 rounds
2x4 smoke grenade launchers
The kit and its assembly:
This is actually the second submissiion to the "Captured!" group build at whatifmodellers.com in November 2020, but since my first project stalled (waiting for parts that I ordered while building) I started this second tank and it made very quick progress.
Thsi what-if model has a concrete background: Israel captured during the Six Day War and the Yom Kippur conflict a lot of various Arabian tanks, including T-54/55s, PT-76s and T-62. Their numbers were so huge that many were converted on a serial basis and adopted into Israeli service or exported. So, this one became one of those modified T-55s with a new turret/gun, ERA and anti-RPG rubber side skirts. Inspiration was a little the Austrian "Kürassier" tank hunter, and the idea that many surplus 90 mm guns from upgraded M48 Patton tanks must have been available. So, why not combine everything into a dedicated IDF tank hunter?
The basis is a Trumpeter kit which went together well, just some PSR was necessary around the rear. I omitted the extra fuel drums (Israel is a rather small country...) and added some ERA plates to the front glacis plate. The biggest change is a different turret and mudguards, which come from an upgraded, late Danish M41 Walker Bulldog conversion set from S&S Models. It consists of a resin turret and many white metal parts, including the gun and the mantlet, the side skirts and some other stuff. The set is actually intended for a diecast M41 (Amercom/Altaya, Hobbymaster or Warmaster) as basis, but the parts were easy to integrate into the T-55 hull. The turret ring is a little smaller, so that a few spacers hold the new turret in place. The turret itself was taken OOB (including the smoke grenade dischargers), I just added the light machine gun and the swivel mount on the roof. IIRC, they are leftover pieces from an Italeri Merkava (very suitable!). The white metal mantlet and the resin turret were "bridged" with a woven dust cover, made from tissue paper dipped in white glue.
Themudguards are white metal pieces and needed some tailoring to fit at the front. They are actually a little too short for the T-55 hull, but taken "as is" they offered a nice opening for the drive sprocket wheels at the rear, and I settled for this simple solution.
Painting and markings:
Painting was done with paints from the rattle can - I chose a "Sinai Grey" livery for operations in the Southern regions (in the North, IDF tanks tend to be painted olive drab). After the base coat in two very similar shades of dark sand /RAL 7008 and 8000) the model received a black ink washing and dry-brushing with khaki drill (Humbrol 72) and later some light grey (Revell 75); the camouflage nets in the storage baskets were painted in olive drab (Humbrol 155) for some contrast.
The markings/decals come from a generic IDF markings set from Peddinghaus Decals. The Israeli marking system entered service after 1960 and it is still used today by the IDF, even if the meanings of some symbols are still unknown or unclear.
The white stripes on the cannon barrel identify which battalion the tank belongs to. If the tank belongs to the 1st Battalion, it only has one stripe on the barrel, if it is the 2nd Battalion, it has two stripes, and so on.
The company the tank belongs to is determined by a white Chevron, a white ‘V’ shaped symbol painted on the sides of the vehicle sometimes with a black outline. If the M-50 belonged to the 1st Company, the Chevron was pointing downwards, if the tank belonged to the 2nd Company, the ‘V’ was pointing forward. If the Chevron was pointed upwards, the vehicle belonged to the 3rd Company, and, if it pointed backward it belonged to the 4th Company.
The company identification markings have different sizes according to the space a tank has on its sides. The M48 Patton had these symbols painted on the turret and were quite big, while the Centurion had them painted on the side skirts. The Shermans had little space on the sides, and therefore, the company identification markings were painted on the side boxes, or in some cases, on the sides of the gun mantlet.
The platoon identification markings are written on the turrets and are divided in two: a number from 1 to 4 and one of the first four letters of the Hebrew alphabet: א (Aleph), ב (bet), ג (gimel) and ד (dalet ). The Arabic number, from 1 to 4, indicates the platoon to which a tank belongs to and the letter, the tank number inside each platoon. Tank number 1 of the 1st Platoon would have painted on the turret the symbol ‘1א’, tank number 2 of 3rd Platoon would have painted on the turret the symbol ‘3ב’, and so on. The platoon’s command tank only has the number without the letter, or in rare cases, the platoon commander has א, i.e. the first tank of the platoon.
Once painting and decals were done, the kit received an overall coat with matt acrylic varnish and final assembly started - namely the attempt to mount the wheels and tracks inside/thorugh the mudguards. Fiddly affair, but it worked better than expected, and as a final step I dusted the model with sand-grey mineral artist pigments.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Waffenträger (Weapon Carrier) VTS3 “Diana” was a prototype for a wheeled tank destroyer. It was developed by Thyssen-Henschel (later Rheinmetall) in Kassel, Germany, in the late Seventies, in response to a German Army requirement for a highly mobile tank destroyer with the firepower of the Leopard 1 main battle tank then in service and about to be replaced with the more capable Leopard 2 MBT, but less complex and costly. The main mission of the Diana was light to medium territorial defense, protection of infantry units and other, lighter, elements of the cavalry as well as tactical reconnaissance. Instead of heavy armor it would rather use its good power-to-weight ratio, excellent range and cross-country ability (despite the wheeled design) for defense and a computerized fire control system to accomplish this mission.
In order to save development cost and time, the vehicle was heavily based on the Spähpanzer Luchs (Lynx), a new German 8x8 amphibious reconnaissance armored fighting vehicle that had just entered Bundeswehr service in 1975. The all-wheel drive Luchs made was well armored against light weapons, had a full NBC protection system and was characterized by its extremely low-noise running. The eight large low-pressure tires had run-flat properties, and, at speeds up to about 50 km/h, all four axles could be steered, giving the relatively large vehicle a surprising agility and very good off-road performance. As a special feature, the vehicle was equipped with a rear-facing driver with his own driving position (normally the radio operator), so that the vehicle could be driven at full speed into both directions – a heritage from German WWII designs, and a tactical advantage when the vehicle had to quickly retreat from tactical position after having been detected. The original Luchs weighed less than 20 tons, was fully amphibious and could surmount water obstacles quickly and independently using propellers at the rear and the fold back trim vane at the front. Its armament was relatively light, though, a 20 mm Rheinmetall MK 20 Rh 202 gun in the turret that was effective against both ground and air targets.
The Waffenträger “Diana” used the Luchs’ hull and dynamic components as basis, and Thyssen-Henschel solved the challenge to mount a large and heavy 105 mm L7 gun with its mount on the light chassis through a minimalistic, unmanned mount and an autoloader. Avoiding a traditional manned and heavy, armored turret, a lot of weight and internal volume that had to be protected could be saved, and crew safety was indirectly improved, too. This concept had concurrently been tested in the form of the VTS1 (“Versuchsträger Scheitellafette #1) experimental tank in 1976 for the Kampfpanzer 3 development, which eventually led to the Leopard 2 MBT (which retained a traditional turret, though).
For the “Diana” test vehicle, Thyssen-Henschel developed a new low-profile turret with a very small frontal area. Two crew members, the commander (on the right side) and the gunner (to the left), were seated in/under the gun mount, completely inside of the vehicle’s hull. The turret was a very innovative construction for its time, fully stabilized and mounted the proven 105mm L7 rifled cannon with a smoke discharger. Its autoloader contained 8 rounds in a carousel magazine. 16 more rounds could be carried in the hull, but they had to be manually re-loaded into the magazine, which was only externally accessible. A light, co-axial 7,62mm machine gun against soft targets was available, too, as well as eight defensive smoke grenade mortars.
The automated L7 had a rate of fire of ten rounds per minute and could fire four types of ammunition: a kinetic energy penetrator to destroy armored vehicles; a high explosive anti-tank round to destroy thin-skinned vehicles and provide anti-personnel fragmentation; a high explosive plastic round to destroy bunkers, machine gun and sniper positions, and create openings in walls for infantry to access; and a canister shot for use against dismounted infantry in the open or for smoke charges. The rounds to be fired could be pre-selected, so that the gun was able to automatically fire a certain ammunition sequence, but manual round selection was possible at any time, too.
In order to take the new turret, the Luchs hull had to be modified. Early calculations had revealed that a simple replacement of the Luchs’ turret with the new L7 mount would have unfavorably shifted the vehicle’s center of gravity up- and forward, making it very nose-heavy and hard to handle in rough terrain or at high speed, and the long barrel would have markedly overhung the front end, impairing handling further. It was also clear that the additional weight and the rise of the CoG made amphibious operations impossible - a fate that met the upgraded Luchs recce tanks in the Eighties, too, after several accidents with overturned vehicles during wading and drowned crews. With this insight the decision was made to omit the vehicle’s amphibious capability, save weight and complexity, and to modify the vehicle’s layout considerably to optimize the weight distribution.
Taking advantage of the fact that the Luchs already had two complete driver stations at both ends, a pair of late-production hulls were set aside in 1977 and their internal layout reversed. The engine bay was now in the vehicle’s front, the secured ammunition storage was placed next to it, behind the separate driver compartment, and the combat section with the turret mechanism was located behind it. Since the VTS3s were only prototypes, only minimal adaptations were made. This meant that the driver was now located on the right side of the vehicle, while and the now-rear-facing secondary driver/radio operator station ended up on the left side – much like a RHD vehicle – but this was easily accepted in the light of cost and time savings. As a result, the gun and its long, heavy barrel were now located above the vehicle’s hull, so that the overall weight distribution was almost neutral and overall dimensions remained compact.
Both test vehicles were completed in early 1978 and field trials immediately started. While the overall mobility was on par with the Luchs and the Diana’s high speed and low noise profile was highly appreciated, the armament was and remained a source of constant concern. Shooting in motion from the Diana turned out to be very problematic, and even firing from a standstill was troublesome. The gun mount and the vehicle’s complex suspension were able to "hold" the recoil of the full-fledged 105-mm tank gun, which had always been famous for its rather large muzzle energy. But when fired, even in the longitudinal plane, the vehicle body fell heavily towards the stern, so that the target was frequently lost and aiming had to be resumed – effectively negating the benefit from the autoloader’s high rate of fire and exposing the vehicle to potential target retaliation. Firing to the side was even worse. Several attempts were made to mend this flaw, but neither the addition of a muzzle brake, stronger shock absorbers and even hydro-pneumatic suspension elements did not solve the problem. In addition, the high muzzle flames and the resulting significant shockwave required the infantry to stay away from the vehicle intended to support them. The Bundeswehr also criticized the too small ammunition load, as well as the fact that the autoloader magazine could not be re-filled under armor protection, so that the vehicle had to retreat to safe areas to re-arm and/or to adapt to a new mission profile. This inherent flaw not only put the crew under the hazards of enemy fire, it also negated the vehicle’s NBC protection – a serious issue and likely Cold War scenario. Another weak point was the Diana’s weight: even though the net gain of weight compared with the Luchs was less than 3 tons after the conversion, this became another serious problem that led to the Diana’s demise: during trials the Bundeswehr considered the possibility to airlift the Diana, but its weight (even that of the Luchs, BTW) was too much for the Luftwaffe’s biggest own transport aircraft, the C-160 Transall. Even aircraft from other NATO members, e.g. the common C-130 Hercules, could hardly carry the vehicle. In theory, equipment had to be removed, including the cannon and parts of its mount.
Since the tactical value of the vehicle was doubtful and other light anti-tank weapons in the form of the HOT anti-tank missile had reached operational status, so that very light vehicles and even small infantry groups could now effectively fight against full-fledged enemy battle tanks from a safe distance, the Diana’s development was stopped in 1988. Both VTS3 prototypes were mothballed, stored at the Bundeswehr Munster Training Area camp and are still waiting to be revamped as historic exhibits alongside other prototypes like the Kampfpanzer 70 in the German Tank Museum located there, too.
Specifications:
Crew: 4 (commander, driver, gunner, radio operator/second driver)
Weight: 22.6 t
Length: 7.74 m (25 ft 4 ¼ in)
Width: 2.98 m ( 9 ft 9 in)
Height: XXX
Ground clearance: 440 mm (1 ft 4 in)
Suspension: hydraulic all-wheel drive and steering
Armor:
Unknown, but sufficient to withstand 14.5 mm AP rounds
Performance:
Speed: 90 km/h (56 mph) on roads
Operational range: 720 km (445 mi)
Power/weight: 13,3 hp/ton with petrol, 17,3 hp/ton with diesel
Engine:
1× Daimler Benz OM 403A turbocharged 10-cylinder 4-stroke multi-fuel engine,
delivering 300 hp with petrol, 390 hp with diesel
Armament:
1× 105 mm L7 rifled gun with autoloader (8 rounds ready, plus 16 in reserve)
1× co-axial 7.92 mm M3 machine gun with 2.000 rounds
Two groups of four Wegmann 76 mm smoke mortars
The kit and its assembly:
I have been a big Luchs fan since I witnessed one in action during a public Bundeswehr demo day when I was around 10 years old: a huge, boxy and futuristic vehicle with strange proportions, gigantic wheels, water propellers, a mind-boggling mobility and all of this utterly silent. Today you’d assume that this vehicle had an electric engine – spooky! So I always had a soft spot for it, and now it was time and a neat occasion to build a what-if model around it.
This fictional wheeled tank prototype model was spawned by a leftover Revell 1:72 Luchs kit, which I had bought some time ago primarily for the turret, used in a fictional post-WWII SdKfz. 234 “Puma” conversion. With just the chassis left I wondered what other use or equipment it might take, and, after several weeks with the idea in the back of my mind, I stumbled at Silesian Models over an M1128 resin conversion set for the Trumpeter M1126 “Stryker” 8x8 APC model. From this set as potential donor for a conversion the prototype idea with an unmanned turret was born.
Originally I just planned to mount the new turret onto the OOB hull, but when playing with the parts I found the look with an overhanging gun barrel and the bigger turret placed well forward on the hull goofy and unbalanced. I was about to shelf the idea again, until I recognized that the Luchs’ hull is almost symmetrical – the upper hull half could be easily reversed on the chassis tub (at least on the kit…), and this would allow much better proportions. From this conceptual change the build went straightforward, reversing the upper hull only took some minor PSR. The resin turret was taken mostly OOB, it only needed a scratched adapter to fit into the respective hull opening. I just added a co-axial machine gun fairing, antenna bases (from the Luchs kit, since they could, due to the long gun barrel, not be attached to the hull anymore) and smoke grenade mortars (also taken from the Luchs).
An unnerving challenge became the Luchs kit’s suspension and drive train – it took two days to assemble the vehicle’s underside alone! While this area is very accurate and delicate, the fact that almost EVERY lever and stabilizer is a separate piece on four(!) axles made the assembly a very slow process. Just for reference: the kit comes with three and a half sprues. A full one for the wheels (each consists of three parts, and more than another one for suspension and drivetrain!
Furthermore, the many hull surface details like tools or handles – these are more than a dozen bits and pieces – are separate, very fragile and small (tiny!), too. Cutting all these wee parts out and cleaning them was a tedious affair, too, plus painting them separately.
Otherwise the model went together well, but it’s certainly not good for quick builders and those with big fingers and/or poor sight.
Painting and markings:
The paint scheme was a conservative choice; it is a faithful adaptation of the Bundeswehr’s NATO standard camouflage for the European theatre of operations that was introduced in the Eighties. It was adopted by many armies to confuse potential aggressors from the East, so that observers could not easily identify a vehicle and its nationality. It consists of a green base with red-brown and black blotches, in Germany it was executed with RAL tones, namely 6031 (Bronze Green), 8027 (Leather Brown) and 9021 (Tar Black). The pattern was standardized for each vehicle type and I stuck to the official Luchs pattern, trying to adapt it to the new/bigger turret. I used Revell acrylic paints, since the authentic RAL tones are readily available in this product range (namely the tones 06, 65 and 84). The big tires were painted with Revell 09 (Anthracite).
Next the model was treated with a highly thinned washing with black and red-brown acrylic paint, before decals were applied, taken from the OOB sheet and without unit markings, since the Diana would represent a test vehicle. After sealing them with a thin coat of clear varnish the model was furthermore treated with lightly dry-brushed Revell 45 and 75 to emphasize edges and surface details, and the separately painted hull equipment was mounted. The following step was a cloudy treatment with watercolors (from a typical school paintbox, it’s great stuff for weathering!), simulating dust residue all over the hull. After a final protective coat with matt acrylic varnish I finally added some mineral artist pigments to the lower hull areas and created mud crusts on the wheels through light wet varnish traces into which pigments were “dusted”.
Basically a simple project, but the complex Luchs kit with its zillion of wee bits and pieces took time and cost some nerves. However, the result looks pretty good, and the Stryker turret blends well into the overall package. Not certain how realistic the swap of the Luchs’ internal layout would have been, but I think that the turret moved to the rear makes more sense than the original forward position? After all, the model is supposed to be a prototype, so there’s certainly room for creative freedom. And in classic Bundeswehr colors, the whole thing even looks pretty convincing.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the model, the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The T-54 and T-55 tanks were a series of Soviet main battle tanks introduced in the years following the Second World War. The first T-54 prototype was completed at Nizhny Tagil by the end of 1945. Initial production ramp up settled for 1947 at Nizhny Tagil, and 1948 for Kharkiv were halted and curtailed as many problems were uncovered; the T-34-85 still accounted for 88 percent of production through the 1950s.The T-54 eventually became the main tank for armored units of the Soviet Army, armies of the Warsaw Pact countries, and many others. T-54s and T-55s have been involved in many of the world's armed conflicts since the later part of the 20th century.
The T-54/55 series eventually became the most-produced tank in history. Estimated production numbers for the series range from 86,000 to 100,000. They were replaced by the T-62, T-64, T-72, T-80 and T-90 tanks in the Soviet and Russian armies but remain in use by up to 50 other armies worldwide, some having received sophisticated retrofitting.
The T-54/55 tanks were mechanically simple and robust, very simple to operate compared to Western tanks, and did not require a high level of training or education in their crew members. The T-54/55 was a relatively small main battle tank, presenting a smaller target for its opponents to hit. The tanks had good mobility thanks to their relatively light weight (which permitted easy transport by rail or flatbed truck and allowed crossing of lighter bridges), wide tracks (which gave lower ground pressure and hence good mobility on soft ground), a good cold-weather start-up system and a snorkel that allowed river crossings.
By the standards of the 1950s, the T-54 was an excellent tank combining lethal firepower, excellent armor protection and good reliability while remaining a significantly smaller and lighter tank than its NATO contemporaries—the US M48 Patton tank and the British Centurion tank. The 100 mm D-10T tank gun of the T-54 and the T-55 was also more powerful than its Western counterparts at that time (the M48 Patton initially carried a 90 mm tank gun and the Centurion Mk. 3 carried the 20-pounder (84 mm) tank gun). This advantage lasted until the T-54 began to be countered by newer Western developments like the M60 main battle tank and upgraded Centurions and M48 Pattons using the 105 mm rifled Royal Ordnance L7 or M68 gun. Due to the lack of a sub-caliber round for the 100 mm gun, and the tank's simple fire-control system, the T-54/55 was forced to rely on HEAT shaped-charge ammunition to engage tanks at long range well into the 1960s, despite the relative inaccuracy of this ammunition at long ranges. The Soviets considered this acceptable for a potential European conflict, until the development of composite armor began reducing the effectiveness of HEAT warheads and sabot rounds were developed for the D-10T gun.
T-54/55 tanks also had their drawbacks. Small size was achieved at the expense of interior space and ergonomics, which caused practical difficulties, as it constrained the physical movements of the crew and slowed operation of controls and equipment. This was a common trait of most Soviet tanks and hence height limits were set for certain tank crew positions in the Soviet Army.
The low turret profile of the tanks prevented them from depressing their main guns by more than 5° since the breech would strike the ceiling when fired, which limited the ability to cover terrain by fire from a hull-down position on a reverse slope – a tactical flaw that became apparent (and costly) during the Arab-Israeli the Six-Day War. As in most tanks of that generation, the internal ammunition supply was not shielded, increasing the risk that any enemy penetration of the fighting compartment could cause a catastrophic secondary explosion. The original T-54 lacked NBC protection, a revolving turret floor (which complicated the crew's operations), and early models lacked gun stabilization. All of these problems were corrected in the otherwise largely identical T-55 tank.
Together, the T-54/55 tanks have been manufactured in the tens of thousands, and many still remain in reserve, or even in front-line use among lower-technology fighting forces. Abundance and age together make these tanks cheap and easy to purchase. While the T-54/55 is not a match for a modern main battle tank, armor and ammunition upgrades could dramatically improve the old vehicle's performance to the point that it cannot be dismissed on the battlefield.
During the Cold War, Soviet tanks never directly faced their NATO adversaries in combat in Europe, but it became involved in many other local conflicts. For instance, the Israeli army fought against it during the Six-Day War in 1967, and many Egyptian and Syrian T-54/55s were captured. Their numbers were so great that they were repaired, modernized and even put into IDF service or exported - around 200 T-54s, T-55s and PT-76s fell into Israeli hands at that time. T-54s and T-55s were modernized to Tiran 4 or 5 standard prior to the Yom Kippur War, some outfitted with a NATO-compatible Sharir (Royal Ordnance L7) 105 mm gun and other Western equipment and weapons.
During the Yom Kippur War in 1973, Israel captured additional T-54s and T-55s, and these new vehicles led to the Ti-51 MBT (also known as “Tiran 51”)and some minor variants. This time the modifications were more thorough and included fitting an American Detroit Diesel engine, new semi-automatic hydromechanical transmission equipped with a torque converter and new air cleaners. Blazer explosive reactive armor was added to the hull and turret, a Cadillac-Gage-Textron gun stabilization system was integrated as well as an EL-OP Matador computerized fire control system. Further changes included a new low-profile commander's cupola, IR detectors, Image-intensifier night vision equipment for the commander, gunner and driver, Spectronix fire detection and suppression system, new turret basket, extensive external stowage, modernized driver's station including replacement of tillers by a steering wheel, new final drives, new all-internal fuel system and improved suspension. Basically, the T-54/55 hull was filled with new equipment, creating an almost new and different MBT! Some of these tanks were also outfitted with a detachable dozer blade and designated Ti-51Sh.
A small series of the captured Yom Kippur War tanks was furthermore re-built as so-called Ti-52s during 1974 and 1975. This program was focused on recycling T-54 and T-55 hulls that had damaged turrets or main weapons. The upgrade centered around an American 90 mm M41 cannon with a T-shaped blast deflector as new main armament, a weapon that was available in abundance after the IDF’s gun uprating of its M48 Patton tanks to the bigger L7 gun. For the Ti-52 a new, welded turret was devised, tailored to the M41 gun and its M87 mount. It was longer but narrower than the original T-54/55 turtle shell turret, but kept its low profile, and it featured prominent storage boxes at the sides and at the back that made it look outwardly bigger than it actually was. The turret had a 360° manual and electric-hydraulic traverse, (24°/sec) and the gun could be depressed to -9° and elevated to +19°. 60 rounds were carried (Fifteen in the turret, the rest in the hull). Beyond standard HE and AP ammunition types, a special HVAP round with a muzzle velocity of 3,750 ft/s (1,140 m/s) was available, too, with a maximum penetration of 15 in (380 mm) of vertical armor at 30 ft and still 9½ in (241 mm) at 2.000 yards. This was complemented by a coaxial heavy Browning .50 cal (12.7 mm) machine gun with 500 rounds (plus 500 more in reserve), a weapon that has proven to be useful and effective in asymmetric warfare. An additional .30 AA machine gun on a swivel mount and with 5.000 rounds in store was placed on the turret roof, next to the commander cupola.
The main automotive upgrade was the replacement of the original V12-W-55 engine with 560 hp with the proven American Detroit Diesel 8V-71T developing 609 hp that had already been used for other Tiran conversions. With a slightly better power/weaight ration than the original T-55 (the lighter turret and engine saved around 2 tons), performanca and handling of the Ti-52 were improved.
Other modifications included a laser rangefinder placed over the barrel, thermal/night sights for the gunner and commander, a computerized FCS, new radio equipment, complete NBC protection lining and anti-RPG rubber side skirts that also suppressed dust clouds while on the move as well as German-made smoke dischargers.
These upgraded vehicles entered service in 1975. With the conversion and different systems came a new role: The Ti-52s went from being an MBT to a tank destroyer and scout/reconnaissance vehicle. The Ti-52 was an ‘ambush predator’ and would use its small size, low profile and good maneuverability to outflank the enemy, engage, and then withdraw along pre-arranged lanes of engagement. The Ti-52 was unofficially nicknamed “עקרב/Ak'rav” (Scorpion) and became a successful conversion, but by the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s, the tank (just like the other Israeli Tiran versions as well as the original T-54/55 family) had become obsolete. Its gun simply did not have the penetrative power to combat modern armored fighting vehicles. Nevertheless, the tank served the Israeli Army well for 15 years, and it was used in combat during the 1982 Lebanon War, where it proved to be highly effective if its tactical strengths of speed and low profile could be exploited. In direct open-field confrontation it turned out to be vulnerable, esp. to dedicated anti-tank weapons of the time (AT-3 Sagger and RPG-7).
All Tirans of various versions were withdrawn from active IDF service at the end of the 1980s. Some were sold and some were converted into Achzarit APCs. However, some Tirans are still in possession of the Israeli Army, possibly in reserve or in storage. The Israeli Army had 488 Tirans in 1990, 300 in 1995, 200 in 2000, 2001 and 2002 and still 261 in 2006 and 2008.
Specifications:
Crew: Four (commander, gunner, loader, driver)
Weight: 34 tonnes (37.5 ST)
Length: 8,42 m (27 ft 7 in) with gun forward
6,37 m (20ft 10 1/2 in) hull only
Width: 3.53 m (11 ft 6 3/4 in) with side skirts
3.37 m (11 ft 1 in) hull only
Height: 2.73 m (9 ft)
Ground clearance: 0.425 m (16.73 in)
Suspension: Torsion bar
Fuel capacity: 580 l internal, plus 320 l external and 400 l in two jettisonable rear drums
Armor:
16 – 120 mm (0.63 – 4.72 in)
Performance:
Maximum road speed: 54 km/h (33.5 mph)
Off-road speed: 38 km/h (24 mph)
Operational range: 500 km on road
Up to 715 km with two 200-liter auxiliary fuel tanks
Power/weight: 17.9 hp (12.9 kW)/tonne
Engine:
1× American Detroit Diesel 8V-71T with 609 hp (438 kW)
Transmission:
Mechanical [synchromesh], 5 forward, 1 reverse gears
Armament:
1× 90mm M41/T139 gun with 60 rounds
1x coaxial .50 cal (12.7 mm) machine gun with a total of 1.000 rounds
1x .30 AA machine gun on a swivel mount with a total of 5.000 rounds
2x4 smoke grenade launchers
The kit and its assembly:
This is actually the second submissiion to the "Captured!" group build at whatifmodellers.com in November 2020, but since my first project stalled (waiting for parts that I ordered while building) I started this second tank and it made very quick progress.
Thsi what-if model has a concrete background: Israel captured during the Six Day War and the Yom Kippur conflict a lot of various Arabian tanks, including T-54/55s, PT-76s and T-62. Their numbers were so huge that many were converted on a serial basis and adopted into Israeli service or exported. So, this one became one of those modified T-55s with a new turret/gun, ERA and anti-RPG rubber side skirts. Inspiration was a little the Austrian "Kürassier" tank hunter, and the idea that many surplus 90 mm guns from upgraded M48 Patton tanks must have been available. So, why not combine everything into a dedicated IDF tank hunter?
The basis is a Trumpeter kit which went together well, just some PSR was necessary around the rear. I omitted the extra fuel drums (Israel is a rather small country...) and added some ERA plates to the front glacis plate. The biggest change is a different turret and mudguards, which come from an upgraded, late Danish M41 Walker Bulldog conversion set from S&S Models. It consists of a resin turret and many white metal parts, including the gun and the mantlet, the side skirts and some other stuff. The set is actually intended for a diecast M41 (Amercom/Altaya, Hobbymaster or Warmaster) as basis, but the parts were easy to integrate into the T-55 hull. The turret ring is a little smaller, so that a few spacers hold the new turret in place. The turret itself was taken OOB (including the smoke grenade dischargers), I just added the light machine gun and the swivel mount on the roof. IIRC, they are leftover pieces from an Italeri Merkava (very suitable!). The white metal mantlet and the resin turret were "bridged" with a woven dust cover, made from tissue paper dipped in white glue.
Themudguards are white metal pieces and needed some tailoring to fit at the front. They are actually a little too short for the T-55 hull, but taken "as is" they offered a nice opening for the drive sprocket wheels at the rear, and I settled for this simple solution.
Painting and markings:
Painting was done with paints from the rattle can - I chose a "Sinai Grey" livery for operations in the Southern regions (in the North, IDF tanks tend to be painted olive drab). After the base coat in two very similar shades of dark sand /RAL 7008 and 8000) the model received a black ink washing and dry-brushing with khaki drill (Humbrol 72) and later some light grey (Revell 75); the camouflage nets in the storage baskets were painted in olive drab (Humbrol 155) for some contrast.
The markings/decals come from a generic IDF markings set from Peddinghaus Decals. The Israeli marking system entered service after 1960 and it is still used today by the IDF, even if the meanings of some symbols are still unknown or unclear.
The white stripes on the cannon barrel identify which battalion the tank belongs to. If the tank belongs to the 1st Battalion, it only has one stripe on the barrel, if it is the 2nd Battalion, it has two stripes, and so on.
The company the tank belongs to is determined by a white Chevron, a white ‘V’ shaped symbol painted on the sides of the vehicle sometimes with a black outline. If the M-50 belonged to the 1st Company, the Chevron was pointing downwards, if the tank belonged to the 2nd Company, the ‘V’ was pointing forward. If the Chevron was pointed upwards, the vehicle belonged to the 3rd Company, and, if it pointed backward it belonged to the 4th Company.
The company identification markings have different sizes according to the space a tank has on its sides. The M48 Patton had these symbols painted on the turret and were quite big, while the Centurion had them painted on the side skirts. The Shermans had little space on the sides, and therefore, the company identification markings were painted on the side boxes, or in some cases, on the sides of the gun mantlet.
The platoon identification markings are written on the turrets and are divided in two: a number from 1 to 4 and one of the first four letters of the Hebrew alphabet: א (Aleph), ב (bet), ג (gimel) and ד (dalet ). The Arabic number, from 1 to 4, indicates the platoon to which a tank belongs to and the letter, the tank number inside each platoon. Tank number 1 of the 1st Platoon would have painted on the turret the symbol ‘1א’, tank number 2 of 3rd Platoon would have painted on the turret the symbol ‘3ב’, and so on. The platoon’s command tank only has the number without the letter, or in rare cases, the platoon commander has א, i.e. the first tank of the platoon.
Once painting and decals were done, the kit received an overall coat with matt acrylic varnish and final assembly started - namely the attempt to mount the wheels and tracks inside/thorugh the mudguards. Fiddly affair, but it worked better than expected, and as a final step I dusted the model with sand-grey mineral artist pigments.