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:
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!
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.
(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 .
+++ 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.
(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!! )
packer blade is on top, and it rests on the partially retracted ejector blade. the two work in tandem to eject, in a computerized extend/retract sequence that keeps material from falling behind the blades. this can only be found on Amrep "Automated" units, aka ASLs.
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
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!
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.
The Arboretum has an interactive map on their web site. This map is found at the Arborway Gate.
Pasting from Wikipedia: Arnold Arboretum:
• • • • •
The Arnold Arboretum of Harvard University is an arboretum located in the Jamaica Plain and Roslindale sections of Boston, Massachusetts. It was designed by Frederick Law Olmsted and is the second largest "link" in the Emerald Necklace.
History
The Arboretum was founded in 1872 when the President and Fellows of Harvard College became trustees of a portion of the estate of James Arnold (1781–1868).
In 1842, Benjamin Bussey (1757–1842), a prosperous Boston merchant and scientific farmer, donated his country estate Woodland Hill and a part of his fortune to Harvard University "for instruction in agriculture, horticulture, and related subjects". Bussey had inherited land from fellow patriot Eleazer Weld in 1800 and further enlarged his large estate between 1806 and 1837 by acquiring and consolidating various farms that had been established as early as the seventeenth century. Harvard used this land for the creation of the Bussey Institute, which was dedicated to agricultural experimentation. The first Bussey Institute building was completed in 1871 and served as headquarters for an undergraduate school of agriculture.
Sixteen years after Bussey's death, James Arnold, a New Bedford, Massachusetts whaling merchant, specified that a portion of his estate was to be used for "...the promotion of Agricultural, or Horticultural improvements". In 1872, when the trustees of the will of James Arnold transferred his estate to Harvard University, Arnold’s gift was combined with 120 acres (0.49 km2) of the former Bussey estate to create the Arnold Arboretum. In the deed of trust between the Arnold trustees and the College, income from Arnold’s legacy was to be used for establishing, developing and maintaining an arboretum to be known as the Arnold Arboretum which "shall contain, as far as practicable, all the trees [and] shrubs ... either indigenous or exotic, which can be raised in the open air of West Roxbury". The historical mission of the Arnold Arboretum is to increase knowledge of woody plants through research and to disseminate this knowledge through education.
Charles Sprague Sargent was appointed director and Arnold Professor of Botany shortly after the establishment of the institution in 1872.[2] Together with landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted he developed the road and pathway system and delineated the collection areas by family and genus, following the then current and widely accepted classification system of Bentham and Hooker. The Hunnewell building was designed by architect Alexander Wadsworth Longfellow, Jr. in 1892 and constructed with funds donated by H. H. Hunnewell in 1903. From 1946 to 1950 the landscape architect Beatrix Farrand was the landscape design consultant for the Arboretum. Her early training in the 1890s included time with Charles Sprague Sargent and chief propagator and superintendent Jackson Thornton Johnson.[3] Today the Arboretum occupies 265 acres (107 hectares) of land divided between four parcels, viz. the main Arboretum and the Peters Hill, Weld-Walter and South Street tracts. The collections, however, are located primarily in the main Arboretum and on the Peters Hill tract. The Arboretum remains one of the finest examples of a landscape designed by Frederick Law Olmsted and it is a Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site) and a National Historic Landmark.
Robert E. Cook is the seventh and current Director of the Arnold Arboretum. He is also the Director of the Harvard University Herbaria located in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Status
The Arboretum is privately endowed as a department of Harvard University. The land, however, was deeded to the City of Boston in 1882 and incorporated into the so-called "Emerald Necklace". Under the agreement with the City, Harvard University was given a thousand-year lease on the property, and the University, as trustee, is directly responsible for the development, maintenance, and operation of the Arboretum; the City retains responsibility for water fountains, benches, roads, boundaries, and policing. The annual operating budget of $7,350,644 (fiscal year 2003) is largely derived from endowment, which is also managed by the University, and all Arboretum staff are University employees. Other income is obtained through granting agencies and contributors.
Location
The main Arborway gate is located on Route 203 a few hundred yards south of its junction with the Jamaicaway. Public transportation to the Arboretum is available on the MBTA Orange Line to its terminus at Forest Hills Station and by bus (#39) to the Monument in Jamaica Plain. The Arboretum is within easy walking distance from either of these points.
Hours
The grounds are open free of charge to the public from sunrise to sunset 365 days of the year. The Visitor's Center in the Hunnewell Building, 125 Arborway, is open Monday through Friday 9 a.m.–4 p.m.; Saturdays 10 a.m.–4 p.m.; Sundays 12 p.m.–4 PM. The Visitor’s Center is closed on holidays. The Library, located in the Hunnewell Building, is open Monday through Saturday, 10 a.m.–4 p.m.. The Library is closed on Sundays and holidays. Stacks are closed and the collection does not circulate.
Area
Two hundred and sixty-five acres (107 hectares) in the Jamaica Plain and Roslindale sections of Boston, Massachusetts, located at 42°19′N 71°5′W / 42.317°N 71.083°W / 42.317; -71.083, with altitudes ranging from 46 feet (15 m) in the meadow across the drive from the Hunnewell Building to 240 feet (79 m) at the top of Peters Hill.
Climate
Average yearly rainfall is 43.63 inches (1,102 mm); average snowfall, 40.2 inches (102 centimeters). Monthly mean temperature is 51.5 °F (10.8 °C); July's mean temperature is 73.5 °F (23 °C); January's is 29.6 °F (-1.3 °C). The Arboretum is located in USDA hardiness zone 6 (0 to −10 °F, −18 to −23 °C).
Collections (as of September 14, 2007)
At present, the living collections include 15,441 individual plants (including nursery holdings) belonging to 10,216 accessions representing 4,099 taxa; with particular emphasis on the ligneous species of North America and eastern Asia. Historic collections include the plant introductions from eastern Asia made by Charles Sprague Sargent, Ernest Henry Wilson, William Purdom, Joseph Hers, and Joseph Rock. Recent introductions from Asia have resulted from the 1977 Arnold Arboretum Expedition to Japan and Korea, the 1980 Sino-American Botanical Expedition to western Hubei Province, and more recent expeditions to China and Taiwan.
Comprehensive collections are maintained and augmented for most genera, and genera that have received particular emphasis include: Acer, Fagus, Carya, Forsythia, Taxodium, Pinus, Metasequoia, Lonicera, Magnolia, Malus, Quercus, Rhododendron, Syringa, Paulownia, Albizia, Ilex, Gleditsia and Tsuga. Other comprehensive collections include the Bradley Collection of Rosaceous Plants, the collection of conifers and dwarf conifers, and the Larz Anderson Bonsai Collection. Approximately 500 accessions are processed annually.
Collections policy
The mission of the Arnold Arboretum is to increase our knowledge of the evolution and biology of woody plants. Historically, this research has investigated the global distribution and evolutionary history of trees, shrubs and vines, with particular emphasis on the disjunct species of East Asia and North America. Today this work continues through molecular studies of the evolution and biogeography of the floras of temperate Asia, North America and Europe.
Research activities include molecular studies of gene evolution, investigations of plant-water relations, and the monitoring of plant phenology, vegetation succession, nutrient cycling and other factors that inform studies of environmental change. Applied work in horticulture uses the collections for studies in plant propagation, plant introduction, and environmental management. This diversity of scientific investigation is founded in a continuing commitment to acquire, grow, and document the recognized species and infraspecific taxa of ligneous plants of the Northern Hemisphere that are able to withstand the climate of the Arboretum’s 265-acre (1.07 km2) Jamaica Plain/Roslindale site.
As a primary resource for research in plant biology, the Arboretum’s living collections are actively developed, curated, and managed to support scientific investigation and study. To this end, acquisition policies place priority on obtaining plants that are genetically representative of documented wild populations. For each taxon, the Arnold Arboretum aspires to grow multiple accessions of known wild provenance in order to represent significant variation that may occur across the geographic range of the species. Accessions of garden or cultivated provenance are also acquired as governed by the collections policies herein.
For all specimens, full documentation of both provenance and history within the collection is a critical priority. Curatorial procedures provide for complete and accurate records for each accession, and document original provenance, locations in the collections, and changes in botanical identity. Herbarium specimens, DNA materials, and digital images are gathered for the collection and maintained in Arboretum data systems and the herbarium at the Roslindale site.
Research
Research on plant pathology and integrated pest management for maintenance of the living collections is constantly ongoing. Herbarium-based research focuses on the systematics and biodiversity of both temperate and tropical Asian forests, as well as the ecology and potential for sustainable use of their resources. The Arboretum's education programs offer school groups and the general public a wide range of lectures, courses, and walks focusing on the ecology and cultivation of plants. Its quarterly magazine, Arnoldia, provides in-depth information on horticulture, botany, and garden history. Current Research Initiatives
Plant Records
Plant records are maintained on a computerized database, BG-BASE 6.8 (BG-Base Inc.), which was initiated in 1985 at the request of the Arnold Arboretum and the Threatened Plants Unit (TPU) of the World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC). A computerized mapping program (based on AutoCAD (Autodesk)) is linked to BG-BASE, and each accession is recorded on a series of maps at a scale of 1-inch (25 mm) to 20 feet (1:240) or 1-inch (25 mm) to 10 feet (1:120). A computer-driven embosser generates records labels. All accessioned plants in the collections are labeled with accession number, botanical name, and cultivar name (when appropriate), source information, common name, and map location. Trunk and/or display labels are also hung on many accessions and include botanical and common names and nativity. Stake labels are used to identify plants located in the Leventritt Garden and Chinese Path.
Grounds Maintenance
The grounds staff consists of the superintendent and assistant superintendent, three arborists, and ten horticultural technologists. A service garage is adjacent to the Hunnewell Building, where offices and locker rooms are located. During the summer months ten horticultural interns supplement the grounds staff. A wide array of vehicles and modern equipment, including an aerial lift truck and a John Deere backhoe and front loader, are used in grounds maintenance. Permanent grounds staff, excluding the superintendents, are members of AFL/CIO Local 615, Service Employees International Union (SEIU).
Nursery and Greenhouse Facilities
The Dana Greenhouses, located at 1050 Centre Street (with a mailing address of 125 Arborway), were completed in 1962. They comprise four service greenhouses totaling 3,744 square feet (348 m²), the headhouse with offices, cold rooms, storage areas, and a classroom. Staffing at the greenhouse includes the manager of greenhouses and nurseries, the plant propagator, two assistants, and, during the summer months, two horticultural interns. Adjacent to the greenhouse is a shade house of 3,150 square feet (293 m²), a 12,600 cubic foot (357 m³) cold storage facility, and three irrigated, inground nurseries totaling approximately one and one-half acres (6,000 m²). Also located in the greenhouse complex is the bonsai pavilion, where the Larz Anderson Bonsai Collection is displayed from the middle of April to the end of October. During the winter months the bonsai are held in the cold storage unit at temperatures slightly above freezing.
Isabella Welles Hunnewell Internship Program
The living collections department of the Arnold Arboretum offers a paid summer internship program [2] that combines hands-on training in horticulture with educational courses. Intern trainees will be accepted for 12- to 24-week appointments. Ten interns will work with the grounds maintenance department and two in the Dana Greenhouses.
As part of the training program, interns participate in mandatory instructional sessions and field trips in order to develop a broader sense of the Arboretum’s horticultural practices as well as those of other institutions. Sessions and field trips are led by Arnold staff members and embrace an open question and answer format encouraging all to participate. Interns often bring experience and knowledge that everyone, including staff, benefits from. It is a competitive-free learning environment.
Horticultural Apprenticeship
The Arboretum created the horticultural apprenticeship program in 1997 to provide hands-on experience in all aspects of the development, curation, and maintenance of the Arboretum's living collections to individuals interested in pursuing a career in an arboretum or botanical garden.
The Living Collections department of the Arnold Arboretum offers a summer internship program[4] that combines practical hands-on training in horticulture with educational courses. Fourteen Interns/Horticultural Trainees are accepted for twelve to twenty-four week appointments. Interns receive the majority of their training in one of three departments: Grounds Maintenance, Nursery and Greenhouse, or Plant Records.
Lilac Sunday
The second Sunday in May every year is "Lilac Sunday". This is the only day of the year that picnicing is allowed. In 2008, on the 100th anniversary of Lilac Sunday, the Arboretum website touted:
Of the thousands of flowering plants in the Arboretum, only one, the lilac, is singled out each year for a daylong celebration. On Lilac Sunday, garden enthusiasts from all over New England gather at the Arboretum to picnic, watch Morris dancing, and tour the lilac collection. On the day of the event, which takes place rain or shine, the Arboretum is open as usual from dawn to dusk.[5]
Associated Collections
The Arboretum's herbarium in Jamaica Plain holds specimens of cultivated plants that relate to the living collections (ca. 160,000). The Jamaica Plain herbarium, horticultural library, archives, and photographs are maintained in the Hunnewell building at 125 Arborway; however, the main portions of the herbarium and library collections are housed in Cambridge on the campus of Harvard University, at 22 Divinity Avenue.
Publications
The inventory of living collections is updated periodically and made available to sister botanical gardens and arboreta on request; it is also available on the Arboretum’s website (searchable inventory). Arnoldia, the quarterly magazine of the Arnold Arboretum, frequently publishes articles relating to the living collections. A Reunion of Trees[6] by Stephen A. Spongberg (curator emeritus) recounts the history of the introduction of many of the exotic species included in the Arobretum’s collections. New England Natives[7] written by horticultural research archivist Sheila Connor describes many of the trees and shrubs of the New England flora and the ways New Englanders have used them since prehistoric times. Science in the Pleasure Ground[8] by Ida Hay (former curatorial associate) constitutes an institutional biography of the Arboretum.
Institutional Collaborations
The Arboretum maintains an institutional membership in the American Public Garden Association (APGA) and the International Association of Botanical Gardens and Arboreta. Additionally, members of the staff are associated with many national and international botanical and horticultural organizations. The Arboretum is also a cooperating institution with the Center for Plant Conservation (CPC), and as an active member of the North American Plant Collections Consortium (NAPCC), it is committed to broadening and maintaining its holdings of: Acer, Carya, Fagus, Stewartia, Syringa, and Tsuga for the purposes of plant conservation, evaluation, and research. The Arboretum is also a member of the North American China Plant Exploration Consortium (NACPEC).
See also
Larz Anderson Bonsai Collection, donated by businessman and ambassador Larz Anderson
The Case Estates of the Arnold Arboretum
List of botanical gardens in the United States
North American Plant Collections Consortium
External links
Arnold Arboretum Official Website
Arnold Arboretum Visitor Information
American Public Gardens Association (APGA)
Virtual Information Access (VIA) Catalog of visual resources at Harvard University.
Garden and Forest A Journal of Horticulture, Landscape Art, and Forestry (1888–1897)
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.
+++ 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 on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The North American A-5 Vigilante (Prior to 1962 unification of Navy and Air Force designations, it was designated the A3J) was an American carrier-based supersonic bomber designed and built by North American Aviation for the United States Navy. In 1953, North American Aviation began a private study for a carrier-based, long-range, all-weather strike bomber, capable of delivering nuclear weapons at supersonic speeds. This proposal, the North American General Purpose Attack Weapon (NAGPAW) concept, was accepted by the United States Navy, with some revisions, in 1955. A contract was awarded on 29 August 1956. Its first flight occurred two years later, on 31 August 1958 in Columbus, Ohio.
At the time of its introduction, the Vigilante was one of the largest and by far the most complex aircraft to operate from a Navy aircraft carrier. It had a high-mounted swept wing with a boundary-layer control system (blown flaps) to improve low-speed lift. It had no ailerons; roll control was provided by spoilers in conjunction with differential deflection of the all-moving tail surfaces. The use of aluminum-lithium alloy for wing skins and titanium for critical structures was also unusual. The A-5 had two widely spaced General Electric J79 turbojet engines, fed by inlets with variable intake ramps, and a single large all-moving vertical stabilizer. Preliminary design studies employed twin vertical fin/rudders, but this was eventually changed to a single tall but foldable fin. The wings and the nose radome folded for carrier stowage, too. The Vigilante had a crew of two seated in tandem, a pilot and a bombardier-navigator (BN) (reconnaissance/attack navigator (RAN) on later reconnaissance versions).
The Vigilante had advanced and complex electronics when it first entered service. It had one of the first "fly-by-wire" systems on an operational aircraft (with mechanical/hydraulic backup) and a computerized AN/ASB-12 nav/attack system incorporating a head-up display ("Pilot's Projected Display Indicator" (PPDI), one of the first), multi-mode radar, radar-equipped inertial navigation system (REINS, based on technologies developed for North American's Navaho missile), closed-circuit television camera under the nose, and an early digital computer known as "Versatile Digital Analyzer" (VERDAN) to run it all.
The aircraft replaced the subsonic Douglas A-3 Skywarrior as the Navy's primary nuclear-strike aircraft, but only briefly. Given its original design as a carrier-based, supersonic, nuclear heavy attack aircraft, the Vigilante’s main armament was carried in an unusual internal "linear bomb bay" between the engines in the rear fuselage, which allowed the bomb to be dropped at supersonic speeds. The single nuclear weapon, commonly the Mk 28 bomb, was attached to two disposable fuel tanks in the cylindrical bay in an assembly known as the "stores train". A set of extendable fins was attached to the aft end of the most rearward fuel tank. These fuel tanks were to be emptied during the flight to the target and then jettisoned with the bomb by an explosive drogue gun. The stores train was propelled rearward at about 50 feet (15 m) per second (30 knots) relative to the aircraft. It then followed a ballistic path.
The Vigilante originally had two wing pylons, intended primarily for drop tanks. The second Vigilante variant, the A3J-2 (A-5B), incorporated internal tanks for an additional 460 gallons of fuel, which added a pronounced dorsal "hump", along with two additional wing hardpoints, for a total of four. Other improvements included blown flaps on the leading edge of the wing, changes to the air intakes and stronger landing gear.
The reconnaissance version of the Vigilante, the RA-5C, was based on the A-5B airframe and had slightly greater wing area and added a long canoe-shaped fairing under the fuselage for a multi-sensor reconnaissance pack. This added an APD-7 side-looking airborne radar (SLAR), AAS-21 infrared line scanner, and camera packs, as well as improved electronic countermeasures. An AN/ALQ-61 electronic intelligence system could also be carried. The RA-5C retained the AN/ASB-12 bombing system, and could, in theory, carry weapons, although it never did in service. Later-built RA-5Cs had more powerful J79-10 engines with afterburning thrust of 17,900 lbf (80 kN), the same engines as the Navy’s F-4J Phantom IIs. The reconnaissance Vigilante weighed almost five tons more than the strike version with almost the same thrust and an only modestly enlarged wing. These changes reduced its acceleration and climb rate, though it remained fast in level flight and was still fully carrier-capable.
The last Vigilante version to be developed from 1964 on and to enter service in 1966 was the EA-5D, a dedicated electronic reconnaissance and electronic warfare version, again replacing respective A-3 Skywarrior variants. With the initial experience from the Vietnam conflict, the EA-5D was primarily conceived as a fast escort for supersonic strike aircraft – namely the USN’s F-4 Phantom IIs which progressively took over more strike missions and direly needed protection from SAMs that could keep up with them during their dangerous missions over enemy territory.
The EA-5D, which was unofficially nicknamed “Electric Vigilante”, “Eva” or simply “E-V” by its crews, was based on the late RA-5C’s airframe and was easily distinguishable through its fairing at the top of the fin which contained the electronics for a Bunker-Ramo AN/ALQ-86 ECM suite. It carried ECM gear in the linear bomb bay and a 16 feet (4.9 m) long canoe-shaped ventral fairing (looking like a shortened but deeper version of the RA-5C’s camera and SLAR installation), plus a heat exchanger, a non-jettisonable auxiliary tank and AN/ALE-41 chaff dispensers in an extended tail cone. The complete installation weighed some 6,000 pounds (2,700 kg). Receivers were installed in a fin-tip pod, or "football", like that of the contemporary EA-6A. This fin array caused some lateral instability, though, which could be compensated with a pair of fins under the rear fuselage.
Like the RA-5C, the EA-5D retained the AN/ASB-12 bombing system and was – in theory – like its recce sibling capable to carry out strike missions, but this never happened either. The EA-5Ds were furthermore equipped with an AN/APQ-129 fire control radar, making the aircraft capable of SEAD missions and of firing the AGM-45 “Shrike” anti-radiation missile, although they were apparently never used in that offensive role. Up to four ram-air turbine powered ALQ-76 countermeasures pods could be carried on the underwing hardpoints, augmenting the internal AN/ALQ-86 system’s bandwidth and jamming power. To improve survivability the EA-5D was furthermore outfitted with a pair of launch rails, mounted as sub-pylons on the outsides of the outer underwing hardpoints. Each could carry a single IR-guided AIM-9 Sidewinder AAM.
Despite the Vigilante's useful service as reconnaissance and ECM platform, it was expensive and complex to operate and occupied significant amounts of precious flight and hangar deck space aboard both conventional and nuclear-powered aircraft carriers at a time when carrier air wings, with the introduction of the F-14 Tomcat and S-3 Viking, were averaging 90 aircraft, many of which were larger than their predecessors. Moreover, the Vigilante did not end the career of the A-3 Skywarrior, which would carry on as photo reconnaissance aircraft, electronic warfare platforms, aerial refueling tankers, and executive transport aircraft designated as RA-3A/B, EA-3A/B, ERA-3B, EKA-3B, KA-3B, and VA-3B, into the early 1990s.
Only 28 EA-5Ds were built (two prototypes, 15 new-build, and 11 conversions from existing A-5A and RA-5C airframes) and the United States remained the only operator of the type. The EA-5D saw extensive use in Vietnam and seven machines were lost (four to SAMs, one to a VPAF MiG-21 and two through accidents), but after the end of hostilities and massive reductions of military expenses the EA-5D was quickly phased out from frontline service in the late 1970s, after an active career of just twelve years. In service it was replaced by the subsonic but much more potent EA-6B “Prowler”, which was based on the carrier-capable A-6 “Intruder” bomber, primarily to reduce the number of types in the USN’s arsenal and therewith operating costs and complexity. Since the EA-6B offered much higher ECM capabilities, the small EA-5D fleet was never upgraded, e. g. with the 2nd generation AGM-78 “Standard” ARM or the AN/ALQ-99 ECM pods.
However, a handful of “Electric Vigilantes” remained active with VAQ-137 (“Rooks”) until the late Eighties – long enough to receive the USN’s new tactical low-visibility paint scheme. These EA-5Ds were operated from land-bases only, not assigned to a Carrier Air Group, with a dedicated tail code (“KW”) to reflect this special status. They acted primarily as electronic aggressor aircraft but were also used to simulate supersonic cruise missiles like the contemporary Soviet Kh-20 (AS-3 “Kangaroo”) or Kh-22 (AS-4 “Kennel”) against land and sea targets during training and naval NATO maneuvers. Thanks to their size, speed and flight characteristics the aircraft were also employed as supersonic bomber aggressors, mimicking Soviet Tu-22s or Su-24s. Most of the Evas therefore received more or less authentic temporary Red Star decorations on their fins, which were, however, rarely overpainted after training missions and became part of the “standard markings”.
In 1987 the machines were finally retired, their airframes had reached their structural limit and maintenance costs of the complex aircraft had become prohibitive. They were in the electronic aggressor role eventually replaced with subsonic and much more economical EA-7L Corsair IIs.
General characteristics:
Crew: 2
Length: 76 ft 6 in (23.32 m)
Wingspan: 53 ft 0 in (16.16 m)
Height: 19 ft 5 in (5.91 m)
Wing area: 701 sq ft (65.1 m)
Empty weight: 32,783 lb (14,870 kg)
Gross weight: 47,631 lb (21,605 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 63,085 lb (28,615 kg)
Fuel capacity: 2,805 US gal (10,618 L; 2,336 imp gal) internal
or 19,074 lb (8,652 kg) of JP-5,
or 24,514 lb (11,119 kg) with 2 × 400 US gal external tanks
Powerplant:
2× General Electric J79-GE-10 after-burning turbojet engines,
10,900 lbf (48 kN) thrust each dry, 17,900 lbf (80 kN) with afterburner
Performance:
Maximum speed: 1,322 mph (Mach 2, 1,149 kn, 2,128 km/h) at 40,000 ft (12,000 m)
Combat range: 974 nmi (1,121 mi, 1,804 km)
Ferry range: 1,571 nmi (1,808 mi, 2,909 km)
Service ceiling: 52,100 ft (15,900 m)
g limits: +5
Rate of climb: 33,900 ft/min (172 m/s)
Wing loading: 80.4 lb/sq ft (393 kg/m2)
Thrust/weight: 0.72
Armament:
4x underwings pylons, each with a load capability of up to 2.000 lb (950 kg),
typically occupied with 400 US gal drop tanks or ALQ-76 Tactical Jamming System (TJS)
ECM pods. Other potential loads: AN/ALE-43(V)1&4 Bulk Chaff Dispensing System pod,
a single AN/AAQ-28(V) Litening targeting pod or AGM-45 Shrike anti-radar missiles
2x launch rails for defensive AIM-9 Sidewinder AAMs on the outer pylons
The kit and its assembly:
This what-if project had been lingering for a long time in the back of my mind, and I shoved it a side for years because of the model’s sheer size that eats up a lot of display space – even though I had the hardware already stashed away, collecting dust. While the build was rather inspired by its livery (see below) I wondered why the Vigilante, an elegant and impressive aircraft, had not been adapted to the ECM role? The concept of a supersonic penetrator/protector aircraft was realized by the USAF with the EF-111A Raven, but in the Vigilante’s time frame, the Vietnam War, esp. its end phase, an escort for fast USN attack aircraft might have made sense, so that I tried to mate the RA-5C with contemporary ECM technology and typical details – and the result became the fictional EA-5D.
With this idea the model became only a conversion of a basic airframe, not a spectacular kitbashing. Since I knew the Hasegawa RA-5C and its underwhelming quality/detail, I settled for the Trumpeter kit – a MUCH better but also a bit über-complicated offering. It is, however, better in any respect, even though you can ask why the cockpit has to consist of no less than thirty (!) parts (including seats and dashboard films), and the pylons as well as even the thin stabilizers and the fin have to consist of halves? One can also wonder why the kit comes with four(!) free-fall nukes but none of the RA-5C’s typical 400 gallon drop tanks? The kit features the type’s underwing flare dispensers, though. If there is something to criticize it’s the lack of air intake ducts – behind the wedge-shaped intakes and their ramps there is nothing inside the fuselage. Since I did not want to put too much effort into that flaw I simple blocked sight into the model’s body with a bulkhead made from black foamed styrene.
Everything goes together quite well, except for the fuselage halves which appear somewhat warped, and the rather massive plastic makes work easy. Despite this splendor of material, the sandwich leading and trailing edges are surprisingly thin and look pretty good.
While the RA-5C was at its core built OOB there were – naturally – some external mods to convey its ECM role. Most obvious detail is the fin top fairing, procured from a KiTech EA-6B, a shabby copy of the Hasegawa kit. This also provided the ECM pods and the pair of voluminous drop tanks.
The retrofitted Sidewinder launch rails on the outer pylons came from an Emhar FJ-4B, the then-state-of-the-art all-aspect AIM-9Ls came from a Hasegawa F-4 kit. To emphasize its electronic mission I added some antenna fairings around the hull. Beyond the fin pod, the EA-5D received sensor fairings along the flanks, inspired by the USAF F-105Gs’arrangement along the bomb bay, a shallow dorsal bulge behind the cockpits and some blister and blade antennae all around the hull.
The large ventral fairing that replaced the RA-5C’s “camera canoe” was scratched from a drop tank half, from a chunky Kangnam MiG-31, in an attempt to create something that the reminds of the EF-111’s arrangement. A ventral adapter for a display holder was integrated into the hull, too, for in-flight scenes.
A pair of long stabilizer fins was added under the rear fuselage, too, because I think that the large tail fin pod could somewhat hamper directional stability… The consist of rotor blades from a Matchbox SA.360 Dauphin helicopter.
The Vigilante’s tail cone, the former fairing for the linear bomb bay between the engines, was also heavily modified, with a thimble-shaped radome and a separate fairing for an internal chaff dispenser underneath, for a different look. To make the model look a bit more lively, esp. in its all-grey low-viz livery (see below) I mounted the flaps (all six are separate elements, and the inner pairs consist of lower and upper halves, too!) in lowered position.
Painting and markings:
The original reason to build this whiffy Vigilante was to see how the sleek and elegant aircraft would look in early USN low-viz colors! With this idea in mind the scheme was improvised and very simple: FS 36320 on the upper surfaces and FS 36375 underneath (Humbrol 128 and 127, respectively), on the flanks (with a relatively high waterline) and the fin. A slightly darker blue grey (FS 35237, Humbrol 145) was used for an anti-glare panel in front of the windshield. Most di-electric panels and the nose radome were painted in brownish light grey (RAL 7032, Revell 75), for low contrast but a significantly different color.
Inside, the landing gear as well as the air intakes were painted gloss white, the cockpit was painted in neutral grey (FS 36231) with dark grey ejection seats. The latter appears a bit tone-in-tone with the all-grey outside, but that was apparently the A-5’s interior design in real life.
To add some variety to the grey livery I painted the ordnance in “old” USN colors: the drop tanks became all-white and the ECM pods also received a white base. The AIM-9Ls on the extra launch rails (also painted white) received blue bodies as training missiles, with black seeker heads and white tail fins.
The wings’ leading edges (bare steel?) were masked and then painted with Revell 91 (iron metallic).
The whole model received a washing with thinned black ink to emphasize the many recessed rivets and panel lines, and then I added panel counter shading with lighter basic tones, also trying to create a slightly worn/weathered and not-so-uniform finish on the large grey surfaces, which underline the Vigilante’s elegant lines but also look quite boring, due to the sheer size/area, esp. from above.
The low-viz markings were improvised and puzzled together from various sources. The Red Stars on the fin were inspired by real-world aggressor markings, AFAIK some A-7Ls, EA-3Bs and A-4Fs carried such decorations, even paired with large bort numbers on the nose.
To improve the worn/grimy look I also treated the model’s surfaces with grinded graphite – only lightly, but I wanted to make the large grey areas to look even more diverse than just with the initial paint effects.
+++ 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 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!
Sheila Scott is pictured here with her Piper Aztec "Mythre," in which she made her world and a half flight in 1971. On this flight, she became the first person to fly over the North Pole in a single engine plane. She carried special NASA equipment for a communications experiment testing the Interrogation Recording and Location System (IRLS) of the Nimbus polar orbiting satellite. The IRLS equipment, a Balloon Interrogation package, transmitted data on Scott's location during the 34,000- mile around the world flight to the Nimbus satellite, which relayed it to NASA's ground station at Fairbanks, Alaska and then to a computer center in Greenbelt, Maryland. Sheila Scott's record-making, historic flight confirmed the satellite's ability to collect location data from remote computerized and human-operated stations with a unique "mobile platform" location test.
Credit: NASA
Image Number: 76-H-534
Date: October 20, 1971
Image was cropped by Nebulosity during scaling and alignment, cutting this image a little to close for my liking. This one's pretty noisy as well, hot subs 75-90 degree range......I need cooling!. Going to dust off my SCT and have a go at this one again. It would be more suitable for this FOV
Orion ED102T CF Triplet Apochromatic Refractor Telescope.
Orion Sirius German-equatorial Computerized Goto Mount
Images aquired using APT
Guided with Starshoot Autoguider and 50mm guide scope
Ha- 8x600 iso 800 modified Canon T3
OIII-12x600 iso 800 Canon T3i
SII-11x600 iso 800 modified Canon T3
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.
Audi Q7
As chic as it is spacious, few three-row vehicles can easily top the Q7 when it comes to mixing style with energy. The sole powertrain is really a supercharged 3. 0-liter V-6 creating 333 hp. An eight-speed computerized and all-wheel drive are usually standard.
Audi Q7
An optional oxygen...
i2.wp.com/www.autocars.asia/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Au...
The Stockport Mill is the last remaining mill on the Muskingum River. The first mill at this site was built in 1842 and operated only a few years before it burned. A second mill was built in 1849 and operated for 54 years until it caught fire and burned to the ground around 2 a.m. on July 1, 1903. In 1906, the Dover Brothers began construction of the current mill. A local boy, Fred James stated that it was built "plenty sturdy", which was a great foresight seeing as the 1913 flood took out many other mills on the Muskingum. The mill was powered by two Leffel turbines used for grinding. In 1908, the mill began fulfilling a contract to supply the village with electricity for street lights. On April 6, 1928, the Suburban Power Company was given the light contract and hydroelectric operation in the mill was shut down.
The Stockport Mill produced Gold Bond Pastry Flour, Pride of the Valley (bread) Flour, and it also ground feed for livestock. In 1942, Fred James and Ray Devitt purchased the mill from the Dover heirs for $4,000. They then sold it to the Farm Bureau and it was operated as the Landmark Mill with Dow Kasler as the manager. In 1979, the Landmark franchise ceased and the mill was taken over by Robert and Jack Grove on July 1. The Groves operated the mill for several years with the help and expertise of their wives, Peggy and Amy, along with Bob and Amy's children. Many 4-H projects got their start at the mill as chicks. Supplies for all the various animals were in stock, along with special halters and show supplies. Garden seeds and plants were also available, in addition to grinding grain for the local farmers.
The Mill fell silent in 1997 and the equipment was sold at auction. In October 1998, the Mill was purchased by Randy and Laura Smith of Bellville, Ohio. The Smiths renovated the Mill into a tourist attraction and it opened its doors as the Stockport Mill Inn and Restaurant on the Dam in May, 2000. The building features 14 guest rooms with private balconies overlooking the beautiful Muskingum River along with an eight foot dining terrace which wraps around the Mill from the first floor restaurant. The Mill also features many interesting antiques along with a unique gift shop, and a variety of information on the history and attractions of the local area. Guests are encouraged to visit the "Signing Wall" to "sign their name for posterity" and to "mill around," taking in the beauty of the building and the many attractions it has to offer. Great care was taken in preserving the original architecture and building materials, including the recycling of the slate roof into wall covering. Inside the Mill, guests will find paintings, pictures, and artifacts donated by local (and some not-so-local) Morgan County residents.
The basement once again came alive with the sound of spinning turbines and rushing water as the turbine re-installation process was completed in June 2002. The turbines produce around 800,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity per year, supplying the electrical needs for both the Inn and Restaurant with the excess being sold back to AEP. The original Leffel turbines were too corroded to restore but one is still on the premises, in the front of the Inn and the other in the basement. The vintage 100-year-old twin turbines now in use were found in Michigan, reconstructed by David Brown-Kinloch, Soft Energy Assocs., and are viewable through safety glass in the basement of the Mill. The only difference between the early era turbine operation and present day operation is computerization.
In July 2004, the Smiths' had parted and the Mill sold at an absolute auction. Dottie Singer of Three Sisters Inn, McConnelsville, Ohio was the winning bidder. Unfortunately, the turbines were silent having been neglected and suffered severe damage the previous year. The new owners first order of business was the restoration and repair of the two historic, but silent, Leffel Turbines. Due to the enormity of the project, government regulations, and river conditions it was November 2006, before the Hydro Project was once again supplying the electricity for Stockport Mill and Restaurant.
The Larz Anderson Bonsai Collection (Wikipedia).
Something about the mist & the hexagonal room made this remind me of the Bespin cloud city stuff from Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back.
Except with more topiary.
• • • • •
The Arboretum has an interactive map on their web site. This map is found at the Arborway Gate.
Pasting from Wikipedia: Arnold Arboretum:
• • • • •
The Arnold Arboretum of Harvard University is an arboretum located in the Jamaica Plain and Roslindale sections of Boston, Massachusetts. It was designed by Frederick Law Olmsted and is the second largest "link" in the Emerald Necklace.
History
The Arboretum was founded in 1872 when the President and Fellows of Harvard College became trustees of a portion of the estate of James Arnold (1781–1868).
In 1842, Benjamin Bussey (1757–1842), a prosperous Boston merchant and scientific farmer, donated his country estate Woodland Hill and a part of his fortune to Harvard University "for instruction in agriculture, horticulture, and related subjects". Bussey had inherited land from fellow patriot Eleazer Weld in 1800 and further enlarged his large estate between 1806 and 1837 by acquiring and consolidating various farms that had been established as early as the seventeenth century. Harvard used this land for the creation of the Bussey Institute, which was dedicated to agricultural experimentation. The first Bussey Institute building was completed in 1871 and served as headquarters for an undergraduate school of agriculture.
Sixteen years after Bussey's death, James Arnold, a New Bedford, Massachusetts whaling merchant, specified that a portion of his estate was to be used for "...the promotion of Agricultural, or Horticultural improvements". In 1872, when the trustees of the will of James Arnold transferred his estate to Harvard University, Arnold’s gift was combined with 120 acres (0.49 km2) of the former Bussey estate to create the Arnold Arboretum. In the deed of trust between the Arnold trustees and the College, income from Arnold’s legacy was to be used for establishing, developing and maintaining an arboretum to be known as the Arnold Arboretum which "shall contain, as far as practicable, all the trees [and] shrubs ... either indigenous or exotic, which can be raised in the open air of West Roxbury". The historical mission of the Arnold Arboretum is to increase knowledge of woody plants through research and to disseminate this knowledge through education.
Charles Sprague Sargent was appointed director and Arnold Professor of Botany shortly after the establishment of the institution in 1872.[2] Together with landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted he developed the road and pathway system and delineated the collection areas by family and genus, following the then current and widely accepted classification system of Bentham and Hooker. The Hunnewell building was designed by architect Alexander Wadsworth Longfellow, Jr. in 1892 and constructed with funds donated by H. H. Hunnewell in 1903. From 1946 to 1950 the landscape architect Beatrix Farrand was the landscape design consultant for the Arboretum. Her early training in the 1890s included time with Charles Sprague Sargent and chief propagator and superintendent Jackson Thornton Johnson.[3] Today the Arboretum occupies 265 acres (107 hectares) of land divided between four parcels, viz. the main Arboretum and the Peters Hill, Weld-Walter and South Street tracts. The collections, however, are located primarily in the main Arboretum and on the Peters Hill tract. The Arboretum remains one of the finest examples of a landscape designed by Frederick Law Olmsted and it is a Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site) and a National Historic Landmark.
Robert E. Cook is the seventh and current Director of the Arnold Arboretum. He is also the Director of the Harvard University Herbaria located in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Status
The Arboretum is privately endowed as a department of Harvard University. The land, however, was deeded to the City of Boston in 1882 and incorporated into the so-called "Emerald Necklace". Under the agreement with the City, Harvard University was given a thousand-year lease on the property, and the University, as trustee, is directly responsible for the development, maintenance, and operation of the Arboretum; the City retains responsibility for water fountains, benches, roads, boundaries, and policing. The annual operating budget of $7,350,644 (fiscal year 2003) is largely derived from endowment, which is also managed by the University, and all Arboretum staff are University employees. Other income is obtained through granting agencies and contributors.
Location
The main Arborway gate is located on Route 203 a few hundred yards south of its junction with the Jamaicaway. Public transportation to the Arboretum is available on the MBTA Orange Line to its terminus at Forest Hills Station and by bus (#39) to the Monument in Jamaica Plain. The Arboretum is within easy walking distance from either of these points.
Hours
The grounds are open free of charge to the public from sunrise to sunset 365 days of the year. The Visitor's Center in the Hunnewell Building, 125 Arborway, is open Monday through Friday 9 a.m.–4 p.m.; Saturdays 10 a.m.–4 p.m.; Sundays 12 p.m.–4 PM. The Visitor’s Center is closed on holidays. The Library, located in the Hunnewell Building, is open Monday through Saturday, 10 a.m.–4 p.m.. The Library is closed on Sundays and holidays. Stacks are closed and the collection does not circulate.
Area
Two hundred and sixty-five acres (107 hectares) in the Jamaica Plain and Roslindale sections of Boston, Massachusetts, located at 42°19′N 71°5′W / 42.317°N 71.083°W / 42.317; -71.083, with altitudes ranging from 46 feet (15 m) in the meadow across the drive from the Hunnewell Building to 240 feet (79 m) at the top of Peters Hill.
Climate
Average yearly rainfall is 43.63 inches (1,102 mm); average snowfall, 40.2 inches (102 centimeters). Monthly mean temperature is 51.5 °F (10.8 °C); July's mean temperature is 73.5 °F (23 °C); January's is 29.6 °F (-1.3 °C). The Arboretum is located in USDA hardiness zone 6 (0 to −10 °F, −18 to −23 °C).
Collections (as of September 14, 2007)
At present, the living collections include 15,441 individual plants (including nursery holdings) belonging to 10,216 accessions representing 4,099 taxa; with particular emphasis on the ligneous species of North America and eastern Asia. Historic collections include the plant introductions from eastern Asia made by Charles Sprague Sargent, Ernest Henry Wilson, William Purdom, Joseph Hers, and Joseph Rock. Recent introductions from Asia have resulted from the 1977 Arnold Arboretum Expedition to Japan and Korea, the 1980 Sino-American Botanical Expedition to western Hubei Province, and more recent expeditions to China and Taiwan.
Comprehensive collections are maintained and augmented for most genera, and genera that have received particular emphasis include: Acer, Fagus, Carya, Forsythia, Taxodium, Pinus, Metasequoia, Lonicera, Magnolia, Malus, Quercus, Rhododendron, Syringa, Paulownia, Albizia, Ilex, Gleditsia and Tsuga. Other comprehensive collections include the Bradley Collection of Rosaceous Plants, the collection of conifers and dwarf conifers, and the Larz Anderson Bonsai Collection. Approximately 500 accessions are processed annually.
Collections policy
The mission of the Arnold Arboretum is to increase our knowledge of the evolution and biology of woody plants. Historically, this research has investigated the global distribution and evolutionary history of trees, shrubs and vines, with particular emphasis on the disjunct species of East Asia and North America. Today this work continues through molecular studies of the evolution and biogeography of the floras of temperate Asia, North America and Europe.
Research activities include molecular studies of gene evolution, investigations of plant-water relations, and the monitoring of plant phenology, vegetation succession, nutrient cycling and other factors that inform studies of environmental change. Applied work in horticulture uses the collections for studies in plant propagation, plant introduction, and environmental management. This diversity of scientific investigation is founded in a continuing commitment to acquire, grow, and document the recognized species and infraspecific taxa of ligneous plants of the Northern Hemisphere that are able to withstand the climate of the Arboretum’s 265-acre (1.07 km2) Jamaica Plain/Roslindale site.
As a primary resource for research in plant biology, the Arboretum’s living collections are actively developed, curated, and managed to support scientific investigation and study. To this end, acquisition policies place priority on obtaining plants that are genetically representative of documented wild populations. For each taxon, the Arnold Arboretum aspires to grow multiple accessions of known wild provenance in order to represent significant variation that may occur across the geographic range of the species. Accessions of garden or cultivated provenance are also acquired as governed by the collections policies herein.
For all specimens, full documentation of both provenance and history within the collection is a critical priority. Curatorial procedures provide for complete and accurate records for each accession, and document original provenance, locations in the collections, and changes in botanical identity. Herbarium specimens, DNA materials, and digital images are gathered for the collection and maintained in Arboretum data systems and the herbarium at the Roslindale site.
Research
Research on plant pathology and integrated pest management for maintenance of the living collections is constantly ongoing. Herbarium-based research focuses on the systematics and biodiversity of both temperate and tropical Asian forests, as well as the ecology and potential for sustainable use of their resources. The Arboretum's education programs offer school groups and the general public a wide range of lectures, courses, and walks focusing on the ecology and cultivation of plants. Its quarterly magazine, Arnoldia, provides in-depth information on horticulture, botany, and garden history. Current Research Initiatives
Plant Records
Plant records are maintained on a computerized database, BG-BASE 6.8 (BG-Base Inc.), which was initiated in 1985 at the request of the Arnold Arboretum and the Threatened Plants Unit (TPU) of the World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC). A computerized mapping program (based on AutoCAD (Autodesk)) is linked to BG-BASE, and each accession is recorded on a series of maps at a scale of 1-inch (25 mm) to 20 feet (1:240) or 1-inch (25 mm) to 10 feet (1:120). A computer-driven embosser generates records labels. All accessioned plants in the collections are labeled with accession number, botanical name, and cultivar name (when appropriate), source information, common name, and map location. Trunk and/or display labels are also hung on many accessions and include botanical and common names and nativity. Stake labels are used to identify plants located in the Leventritt Garden and Chinese Path.
Grounds Maintenance
The grounds staff consists of the superintendent and assistant superintendent, three arborists, and ten horticultural technologists. A service garage is adjacent to the Hunnewell Building, where offices and locker rooms are located. During the summer months ten horticultural interns supplement the grounds staff. A wide array of vehicles and modern equipment, including an aerial lift truck and a John Deere backhoe and front loader, are used in grounds maintenance. Permanent grounds staff, excluding the superintendents, are members of AFL/CIO Local 615, Service Employees International Union (SEIU).
Nursery and Greenhouse Facilities
The Dana Greenhouses, located at 1050 Centre Street (with a mailing address of 125 Arborway), were completed in 1962. They comprise four service greenhouses totaling 3,744 square feet (348 m²), the headhouse with offices, cold rooms, storage areas, and a classroom. Staffing at the greenhouse includes the manager of greenhouses and nurseries, the plant propagator, two assistants, and, during the summer months, two horticultural interns. Adjacent to the greenhouse is a shade house of 3,150 square feet (293 m²), a 12,600 cubic foot (357 m³) cold storage facility, and three irrigated, inground nurseries totaling approximately one and one-half acres (6,000 m²). Also located in the greenhouse complex is the bonsai pavilion, where the Larz Anderson Bonsai Collection is displayed from the middle of April to the end of October. During the winter months the bonsai are held in the cold storage unit at temperatures slightly above freezing.
Isabella Welles Hunnewell Internship Program
The living collections department of the Arnold Arboretum offers a paid summer internship program [2] that combines hands-on training in horticulture with educational courses. Intern trainees will be accepted for 12- to 24-week appointments. Ten interns will work with the grounds maintenance department and two in the Dana Greenhouses.
As part of the training program, interns participate in mandatory instructional sessions and field trips in order to develop a broader sense of the Arboretum’s horticultural practices as well as those of other institutions. Sessions and field trips are led by Arnold staff members and embrace an open question and answer format encouraging all to participate. Interns often bring experience and knowledge that everyone, including staff, benefits from. It is a competitive-free learning environment.
Horticultural Apprenticeship
The Arboretum created the horticultural apprenticeship program in 1997 to provide hands-on experience in all aspects of the development, curation, and maintenance of the Arboretum's living collections to individuals interested in pursuing a career in an arboretum or botanical garden.
The Living Collections department of the Arnold Arboretum offers a summer internship program[4] that combines practical hands-on training in horticulture with educational courses. Fourteen Interns/Horticultural Trainees are accepted for twelve to twenty-four week appointments. Interns receive the majority of their training in one of three departments: Grounds Maintenance, Nursery and Greenhouse, or Plant Records.
Lilac Sunday
The second Sunday in May every year is "Lilac Sunday". This is the only day of the year that picnicing is allowed. In 2008, on the 100th anniversary of Lilac Sunday, the Arboretum website touted:
Of the thousands of flowering plants in the Arboretum, only one, the lilac, is singled out each year for a daylong celebration. On Lilac Sunday, garden enthusiasts from all over New England gather at the Arboretum to picnic, watch Morris dancing, and tour the lilac collection. On the day of the event, which takes place rain or shine, the Arboretum is open as usual from dawn to dusk.[5]
Associated Collections
The Arboretum's herbarium in Jamaica Plain holds specimens of cultivated plants that relate to the living collections (ca. 160,000). The Jamaica Plain herbarium, horticultural library, archives, and photographs are maintained in the Hunnewell building at 125 Arborway; however, the main portions of the herbarium and library collections are housed in Cambridge on the campus of Harvard University, at 22 Divinity Avenue.
Publications
The inventory of living collections is updated periodically and made available to sister botanical gardens and arboreta on request; it is also available on the Arboretum’s website (searchable inventory). Arnoldia, the quarterly magazine of the Arnold Arboretum, frequently publishes articles relating to the living collections. A Reunion of Trees[6] by Stephen A. Spongberg (curator emeritus) recounts the history of the introduction of many of the exotic species included in the Arobretum’s collections. New England Natives[7] written by horticultural research archivist Sheila Connor describes many of the trees and shrubs of the New England flora and the ways New Englanders have used them since prehistoric times. Science in the Pleasure Ground[8] by Ida Hay (former curatorial associate) constitutes an institutional biography of the Arboretum.
Institutional Collaborations
The Arboretum maintains an institutional membership in the American Public Garden Association (APGA) and the International Association of Botanical Gardens and Arboreta. Additionally, members of the staff are associated with many national and international botanical and horticultural organizations. The Arboretum is also a cooperating institution with the Center for Plant Conservation (CPC), and as an active member of the North American Plant Collections Consortium (NAPCC), it is committed to broadening and maintaining its holdings of: Acer, Carya, Fagus, Stewartia, Syringa, and Tsuga for the purposes of plant conservation, evaluation, and research. The Arboretum is also a member of the North American China Plant Exploration Consortium (NACPEC).
See also
Larz Anderson Bonsai Collection, donated by businessman and ambassador Larz Anderson
The Case Estates of the Arnold Arboretum
List of botanical gardens in the United States
North American Plant Collections Consortium
External links
Arnold Arboretum Official Website
Arnold Arboretum Visitor Information
American Public Gardens Association (APGA)
Virtual Information Access (VIA) Catalog of visual resources at Harvard University.
Garden and Forest A Journal of Horticulture, Landscape Art, and Forestry (1888–1897)
Former meatpacking plant that is now a haunted house.
Located at 1102 W. Grant Rd., Tucson, AZ
The actual mural has faded over time. This is my
attempt at computerized restoration.
Boeing's B-29 Superfortress was the most sophisticated, propeller-driven, bomber to fly during World War II, and the first bomber to house its crew in pressurized compartments. Boeing installed very advanced armament, propulsion, and avionics systems into the Superfortress. During the war in the Pacific Theater, the B-29 delivered the first nuclear weapons used in combat. On August 6, 1945, Colonel Paul W. Tibbets, Jr., in command of the Superfortress Enola Gay, dropped a highly enriched uranium, explosion-type, "gun-fired," atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan. Three days later, Major Charles W. Sweeney piloted the B-29 Bockscar and dropped a highly enriched plutonium, implosion-type atomic bomb on Nagasaki, Japan. Enola Gay flew as the advance weather reconnaissance aircraft that day. On August 14, 1945, the Japanese accepted Allied terms for unconditional surrender.
In the late 1930s, U. S. Army Air Corps leaders recognized the need for very long-range bombers that exceeded the performance of the B-17 Flying Fortress. Several years of preliminary studies paralleled a continuous fight against those who saw limited utility in developing such an expensive and unproven aircraft but the Air Corps issued a requirement for the new bomber in February 1940. It described an airplane that could carry a maximum bomb load of 909 kg (2,000 lb) at a speed of 644 kph (400 mph) a distance of at least 8,050 km (5,000 miles). Boeing, Consolidated, Douglas, and Lockheed responded with design proposals. The Army was impressed with the Boeing design and issued a contract for two flyable prototypes in September 1940. In April 1941, the Army issued another contract for 250 aircraft plus spare parts equivalent to another 25 bombers, eight months before Pearl Harbor and nearly a year-and-a-half before the first Superfortress would fly.
Among the design's innovations was a long, narrow, high-aspect ratio wing equipped with large Fowler-type flaps. This wing design allowed the B-29 to fly very fast at high altitudes but maintained comfortable handling characteristics during takeoff and landing. More revolutionary was the size and sophistication of the pressurized sections of the fuselage: the flight deck forward of the wing, the gunner's compartment aft of the wing, and the tail gunner's station. For the crew, flying at extreme altitudes became much more comfortable as pressure and temperature could be regulated. To protect the Superfortress, Boeing designed a remote-controlled, defensive weapons system. Engineers placed five gun turrets on the fuselage: a turret above and behind the cockpit that housed two .50 caliber machine guns (four guns in later versions), and another turret aft near the vertical tail equipped with two machine guns; plus two more turrets beneath the fuselage, each equipped with two .50 caliber guns. One of these turrets fired from behind the nose gear and the other hung further back near the tail. Another two .50 caliber machine guns and a 20-mm cannon (in early versions of the B-29) were fitted in the tail beneath the rudder. Gunners operated these turrets by remote control--a true innovation. They aimed the guns using computerized sights, and each gunner could take control of two or more turrets to concentrate firepower on a single target.
Boeing also equipped the B-29 with advanced radar equipment and avionics. Depending on the type of mission, a B-29 carried the AN/APQ-13 or AN/APQ-7 Eagle radar system to aid bombing and navigation. These systems were accurate enough to permit bombing through cloud layers that completely obscured the target. The B-29B was equipped with the AN/APG-15B airborne radar gun sighting system mounted in the tail, insuring accurate defense against enemy fighters attacking at night. B-29s also routinely carried as many as twenty different types of radios and navigation devices.
The first XB-29 took off at Boeing Field in Seattle on September 21, 1942. By the end of the year the second aircraft was ready for flight. Fourteen service-test YB-29s followed as production began to accelerate. Building this advanced bomber required massive logistics. Boeing built new B-29 plants at Renton, Washington, and Wichita, Kansas, while Bell built a new plant at Marietta, Georgia, and Martin built one in Omaha, Nebraska. Both Curtiss-Wright and the Dodge automobile company vastly expanded their manufacturing capacity to build the bomber's powerful and complex Curtiss-Wright R-3350 turbo supercharged engines. The program required thousands of sub-contractors but with extraordinary effort, it all came together, despite major teething problems. By April 1944, the first operational B-29s of the newly formed 20th Air Force began to touch down on dusty airfields in India. By May, 130 B-29s were operational. In June, 1944, less than two years after the initial flight of the XB-29, the U. S. Army Air Forces (AAF) flew its first B-29 combat mission against targets in Bangkok, Thailand. This mission (longest of the war to date) called for 100 B-29s but only 80 reached the target area. The AAF lost no aircraft to enemy action but bombing results were mediocre. The first bombing mission against the Japanese main islands since Lt. Col. "Jimmy" Doolittle's raid against Tokyo in April 1942, occurred on June 15, again with poor results. This was also the first mission launched from airbases in China.
With the fall of Saipan, Tinian, and Guam in the Mariana Islands chain in August 1944, the AAF acquired airbases that lay several hundred miles closer to mainland Japan. Late in 1944, the AAF moved the XXI Bomber Command, flying B-29s, to the Marianas and the unit began bombing Japan in December. However, they employed high-altitude, precision, bombing tactics that yielded poor results. The high altitude winds were so strong that bombing computers could not compensate and the weather was so poor that rarely was visual target acquisition possible at high altitudes. In March 1945, Major General Curtis E. LeMay ordered the group to abandon these tactics and strike instead at night, from low altitude, using incendiary bombs. These firebombing raids, carried out by hundreds of B-29s, devastated much of Japan's industrial and economic infrastructure. Yet Japan fought on. Late in 1944, AAF leaders selected the Martin assembly line to produce a squadron of B-29s codenamed SILVERPLATE. Martin modified these Superfortresses by removing all gun turrets except for the tail position, removing armor plate, installing Curtiss electric propellers, and modifying the bomb bay to accommodate either the "Fat Man" or "Little Boy" versions of the atomic bomb. The AAF assigned 15 Silverplate ships to the 509th Composite Group commanded by Colonel Paul Tibbets. As the Group Commander, Tibbets had no specific aircraft assigned to him as did the mission pilots. He was entitled to fly any aircraft at any time. He named the B-29 that he flew on 6 August Enola Gay after his mother. In the early morning hours, just prior to the August 6th mission, Tibbets had a young Army Air Forces maintenance man, Private Nelson Miller, paint the name just under the pilot's window.
Enola Gay is a model B-29-45-MO, serial number 44-86292. The AAF accepted this aircraft on June 14, 1945, from the Martin plant at Omaha (Located at what is today Offut AFB near Bellevue), Nebraska. After the war, Army Air Forces crews flew the airplane during the Operation Crossroads atomic test program in the Pacific, although it dropped no nuclear devices during these tests, and then delivered it to Davis-Monthan Army Airfield, Arizona, for storage. Later, the U. S. Air Force flew the bomber to Park Ridge, Illinois, then transferred it to the Smithsonian Institution on July 4, 1949. Although in Smithsonian custody, the aircraft remained stored at Pyote Air Force Base, Texas, between January 1952 and December 1953. The airplane's last flight ended on December 2 when the Enola Gay touched down at Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland. The bomber remained at Andrews in outdoor storage until August 1960. By then, concerned about the bomber deteriorating outdoors, the Smithsonian sent collections staff to disassemble the Superfortress and move it indoors to the Paul E. Garber Facility in Suitland, Maryland.
The staff at Garber began working to preserve and restore Enola Gay in December 1984. This was the largest restoration project ever undertaken at the National Air and Space Museum and the specialists anticipated the work would require from seven to nine years to complete. The project actually lasted nearly two decades and, when completed, had taken approximately 300,000 work-hours to complete. The B-29 is now displayed at the National Air and Space Museum, Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center.
Manufacturer: Boeing Aircraft Co.
Martin Co., Omaha, Nebr.
Date: 1945
Country of Origin: United States of America
Dimensions:
Overall: 900 x 3020cm, 32580kg, 4300cm (29ft 6 5/16in. x 99ft 1in., 71825.9lb., 141ft 15/16in.)
Materials:
Polished overall aluminum finish
Physical Description:
Four-engine heavy bomber with semi-monoqoque fuselage and high-aspect ratio wings. Polished aluminum finish overall, standard late-World War II Army Air Forces insignia on wings and aft fuselage and serial number on vertical fin; 509th Composite Group markings painted in black; "Enola Gay" in black, block letters on lower left nose.
Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center Virginia
This is a model from the near future with a computerized ammo, temperature, and range readout and a different ammo box.
Enjoy!
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.
Added SII data (only 85 minutes) and reprocessed, using only my noisy narrowband data. :(
Did not use any of my non-filtered frames(@ 3 hours worth)
Used various combinations of Canon T3i/Modified Canon T3 and Orion 80mm/120mm refractors:
10 hours 45 min
w/Ha filters:4x600 10x900 6x1200
w/OIII filter-7x600 8x900 3x1200
w?SII filter-4x600 3x900
Orion ED102T CF Triplet Apochromatic Refractor Telescope. OIII
Orion ST-80T "guide scope"-Ha & SII
Orion Sirius German-equatorial Computerized Goto Mount
Images aquired using APT
Guided with Phd, Starshoot Autoguider and 50mm guide scope
Budget software processing:(I should just get photoshop!)
Aquired with APT www.ideiki.com/astro/
Pre-process and demosaic with Nebulosity www.stark-labs.com/
Scaling and stretch using FITS Liberator www.spacetelescope.org/projects/fits_liberator/
Reduced noise and converted to BMP using Paint.net
Aligned and scaled manually with GIMP
RGB combine with StarTools startools.org/drupal/
Post-process with StarTools, GIMP & Windows Live Photo
www.sites.google.com/site/astrochuck123
*****Check out my "terrestrial" pictures on:
Port of Itajai
Vessel Berthed (Navio Atracado)
Vessel's Details (Detalhes do Navio)
Ship Type (tipo): Cargo - Hazard A (Major) - Full Container
Year Built (ano de construção): 2008
Length x Breadth (Comprimento x Largura): 261 m X 32 m
DeadWeight (Tonelagem Bruta): 53500 t
Speed recorded (Max / Average) (Velocidade - máx /média): 22.6 / 18.7 knots
Call Sign: A8OT3
IMO: 9362449, MMSI: 636091502
Shipbuilder Name (Construtor): Hyundai Samho Heavy Industries
Owner/Agent (Proprietário/Agente): MPC Munchmeyer Petersen Steamship GmbH & Co KG
Flag (Bandeira): Liberia
Berth (Berço): Portonave
A.T.B. (Atracação): Jan 11,2010
.
The Port of Itajai is a Brazilian port located in the City of Itajai, in the State of Santa Catarina, south Brazil.
This is the second largest port of Brazil in handling containers. It acts as export port and most of the Santa Catarina´s production passes through it.
The port of Itajai has over 15,000 m2 of covered area to warehouse products and 38,000 m2 of open area to warehouse containers. The users of the Itajai Port have at their disposal over 70 equipments to assist loadings and unloadings of 1 to 37 tons.
The port follows international safety standards. The operational units are fully computerized.
In 2010, the Port of Itajai handled a total of 954.38 thousand TEUs (Twenty-foot Equivalent Unit – international unit equivalent to a 20-foot container). Over 1.25 thousand vessels called at the Port of Itajai, including cargo and passenger vessels.
+++ 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.
Here is some info about the fabric from her website: The fabric is an exclusive Lee Andersen fabric design. It is made by the only company of its type remaining in America. The process begins by combining fluffy tufts of fiber to match Lee’s original painting colors. The fibers for each color are then twisted into yarn like ‘roving’ and wound into giant barrels. The yarns are then guided to each stitch placement by an amazing computerized knitting machine. It ‘reads’ Lee’s painting and knits thousands of precise stitches to create a soft wearable version of her original art. The garment itself is also sewn in Lee’s studio in America.
Port of Itajai
Vessel leaving the harbor (saindo do porto)
Vessel's Details (Detalhes do Navio)
Ship Type (tipo): Cargo - Hazard D (Recognizable)
Year Built (ano de construção): 1987
Length x Breadth (Comprimento x Largura): 195 m X 28 m
DeadWeight (Tonelagem Bruta): 24362 t
Speed recorded (Max / Average) (Velocidade - máx /média): 15.6 / 14.8 knots
Call Sign: HPNP
IMO: 8310530, MMSI: 352288000
Shipbuilder Name (Construtor): Astilleros y Fabricas Navales del Estado S.A.,
Ensenada/Mexico
Owner/Agent (Proprietário/Agente): Mediterranean Shipping Co. S.A., Geneva/Switzerland
Flag (Bandeira): Panama
E.T.D. (Previsão de saída): Jan 11,2010
.
The Port of Itajai is a Brazilian port located in the City of Itajai, in the State of Santa Catarina, south Brazil.
This is the second largest port of Brazil in handling containers. It acts as export port and most of the Santa Catarina´s production passes through it.
The port of Itajai has over 15,000 m2 of covered area to warehouse products and 38,000 m2 of open area to warehouse containers. The users of the Itajai Port have at their disposal over 70 equipments to assist loadings and unloadings of 1 to 37 tons.
The port follows international safety standards. The operational units are fully computerized.
In 2010, the Port of Itajai handled a total of 954.38 thousand TEUs (Twenty-foot Equivalent Unit – international unit equivalent to a 20-foot container). Over 1.25 thousand vessels called at the Port of Itajai, including cargo and passenger vessels.
+++ 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.
Port of Itajai
Vessel Berthed (Navio Atracado)
Vessel's Details (Detalhes do Navio)
Ship Type (tipo): Cargo - Full Container
Year Built (ano de construção): 1996
Length x Breadth (Comprimento x Largura): 242 m X 32 m
DeadWeight (Tonelagem Bruta): 42966 t
Speed recorded (Max / Average) (Velocidade - máx /média): 21.7 / 21.1 knots
Call Sign: 3EDK7
IMO: 9123166, MMSI: 371602000
Shipbuilder Name (Construtor): Samsung Heavy Industries Ulsan / South Korea
Owner/Agent (Proprietário/Agente): Mediterranean Shipping Co. S.A., Geneva/Switzerland
Flag (Bandeira): Panama
Berth (Berço): Portonave
A.T.B. (Atracação): Jan 11,2010
.
The Port of Itajai is a Brazilian port located in the City of Itajai, in the State of Santa Catarina, south Brazil.
This is the second largest port of Brazil in handling containers. It acts as export port and most of the Santa Catarina´s production passes through it.
The port of Itajai has over 15,000 m2 of covered area to warehouse products and 38,000 m2 of open area to warehouse containers. The users of the Itajai Port have at their disposal over 70 equipments to assist loadings and unloadings of 1 to 37 tons.
The port follows international safety standards. The operational units are fully computerized.
In 2010, the Port of Itajai handled a total of 954.38 thousand TEUs (Twenty-foot Equivalent Unit – international unit equivalent to a 20-foot container). Over 1.25 thousand vessels called at the Port of Itajai, including cargo and passenger vessels.
+++ 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.
+++ 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 ZSU-37-6 (“ZSU” stands for Zenitnaya Samokhodnaya Ustanovka / Зенитная Самоходная Установка = "anti-aircraft self-propelled mount"), also known as Object 511 during its development phase and later also as “ZSU-37-6 / Лена”, was a prototype for a lightly armored Soviet self-propelled, radar guided anti-aircraft weapon system that was to replace the cannon-armed ZSU-23-4 “Shilka” SPAAG.
The development of the "Shilka" began in 1957 and the vehicle was brought into service in 1965. The ZSU-23-4 was intended for AA defense of military facilities, troops, and mechanized columns on the march. The ZSU-23-4 combined a proven radar system, the non-amphibious chassis based on the GM-575 tracked vehicle, and four 23 mm autocannons. This delivered a highly effective combination of mobility with heavy firepower and considerable accuracy, outclassing all NATO anti-aircraft guns at the time. The system was widely fielded throughout the Warsaw Pact and among other pro-Soviet states. Around 2,500 ZSU-23-4s, of the total 6,500 produced, were exported to 23 countries.
The development of a potential successor started in 1970. At the request of the Soviet Ministry of Defense, the KBP Instrument Design Bureau in Tula started work on a new mobile anti-aircraft system as a replacement for the 23mm ZSU-23-4. The project was undertaken to improve on the observed shortcomings of the ZSU-23-4 (short range and no early warning) and to counter new ground attack aircraft in development, such as the A-10 Thunderbolt II, which was designed to be highly resistant to 23 mm cannons.
KBP studies demonstrated that a cannon of at least 30 mm caliber was necessary to counter these threats, and that a bigger caliber weapon would offer some more benefits. Firstly, to destroy a given target, such a weapon would only require from a third to a half of the number of shells that the ZSU-23-4’s 23 mm cannon would need. Secondly, comparison tests revealed that firing with an identical mass of 30 mm projectiles instead of 23 mm ammunition at a MiG-17 (or similarly at NATO's Hawker Hunter or Fiat G.91…) flying at 300 m/s would result in a 1.5 times greater kill probability. An increase in the maximum engagement altitude from 2,000 to 4,000 m and higher effectiveness when engaging lightly armored ground targets were also cited as potential benefits.
The initial requirements set for the new mobile weapon system were to achieve twice the performance in terms of the ZSU-23-4’s range, altitude and combat effectiveness. Additionally, the system should have a reaction time, from target acquisition to firing, no greater than 10 seconds, so that enemy helicopters that “popped up” from behind covers and launched fire-and-forget weapons at tanks or similar targets could be engaged effectively.
From these specifications KBP developed two schools of thought that proposed different concepts and respective vehicle prototypes: One design team followed the idea of an anti-aircraft complex with mixed cannon and missile armament, which made it effective against both low and high-flying targets but sacrificed short-range firepower. The alternative proposed by another team was a weapon carrier armed only with a heavy gatling-type gun, tailored to counter targets flying at low altitudes, esp. helicopters, filling a similar niche as the ZSU-23-4 and leaving medium to high altitude targets to specialized anti-aircraft missiles. The latter became soon known as “Object 511”.
Object 511 was based on the tracked and only lightly armored GM-577 chassis, produced by Minsk Tractor Works (MTZ). It featured six road wheels on each side, a drive sprocket at the rear and three return rollers. The chassis was primarily chosen because it was already in use for other anti-aircraft systems like the 2K11 “Krug” complex and could be taken more or less “off the rack”. A new feature was a hydropneumatic suspension, which was chosen in order to stabilize the chassis as firing platform and also to cope with the considerably higher all-up weight of the vehicle (27 tons vs. the ZSU-23-4’s 19 tons). Other standard equipment of Object 511 included heating, ventilation, navigational equipment, night vision aids, a 1V116 intercom and an external communications system with an R-173 receiver.
The hull was - as the entire vehicle - protected from small arms fire (7,62mm) and shell splinters, but not heavily armored. An NBC protection system was integrated into the chassis, as well as an automatic fire suppression system and an automatic gear change. The main engine bay, initially with a 2V-06-2 water-cooled multi-fuel diesel engine with 450 hp (331 kW) was in the rear. It was later replaced by a more powerful variant of the same engine with 510 hp (380 kW).
The driver sat in the front on the left side, with a small gas turbine APU to his right to operate the radar and hydraulic systems independently from the main engine.
Between these hull segments, the chassis carried a horseshoe-shaped turret with full 360° rotation. It was relatively large and covered more than the half of the hull’s roof, because it held the SPAAGs main armament and ammunition supply, the search and tracking radar equipment as well as a crew of two: the commander with a cupola on the right side and the gunner/radar operator on the left side, with the cannon installation and its feeding system between them. In fact, it was so large that Object 511’s engine bay was only accessible when the turret was rotated 90° to the side – unacceptable for an in-service vehicle (which would probably have been based on a bigger chassis), but accepted for the prototype which was rather focused on the turret and its complex weapon and radar systems.
Object 511’s centerpiece was the newly-developed Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-6-37 cannon, a heavy and experimental six-barreled 37mm gatling gun. This air-cooled weapon with electrical ignition was an upscaled version of the naval AO-18 30mm gun, which was part of an automated air defense system for ships, the AK-630 CIWS complex. Unlike most modern American rotary cannons, the GSh-6-37 was gas-operated rather than hydraulically driven, allowing it to "spin up" to maximum rate of fire more quickly. This resulted in more rounds and therefore weight of fire to be placed on target in a short burst, reduced reaction time and allowed hits even in a very small enemy engagement window.
The GSh-6-37 itself weighed around 524 kg (1.154 lb), the whole system, including the feed system and a full magazine, weighed 7,493 pounds (3,401 kg). The weapon had a total length of 5.01 m (16’ 7“), its barrels were 2.81 m (9’ 2½”) long. In Object 511’s turret it had an elevation between +80° and -11°, moving at 60°/sec, and a full turret rotation only took 3 seconds. Rate of fire was 4,500 rounds per minute, even though up to 5.500 RPM were theoretically possible and could be cleared with an emergency setting. However, the weapon would typically only fire short bursts of roundabout 50 rounds each, or longer bursts of 1-2 (maximum) seconds to save ammunition and to avoid overheating and damage – initially only to the barrels, but later also to avoid collateral damage from weapon operation itself (see below). Against ground targets and for prolonged, safe fire, the rate of fire could alternatively be limited to 150 RPM.
The GSh-6-37 fired 1.09 kg shells (each 338mm long) at 1,070 m/s (3.500 ft/s), developing a muzzle energy of 624,000 joules. This resulted in an effective range of 6,000 m (19.650 ft) against aerial and 7,000 m (23.0000 ft) against ground targets. Maximum firing range was past 7,160 m (23,490 ft), with the projectiles self-destructing beyond that distance. In a 1 sec. burst, the weapon delivered an impressive weight of fire of almost 100 kg.
The GSh-6-37 was belt-fed, with a closed-circuit magazine to avoid spilling casings all around and hurting friendly troops in the SPAAG’s vicinity. Typical types of ammunition were OFZT (proximity-fused incendiary fragmentation) and BZT (armor-piercing tracer, able to penetrate more than 60 mm of 30° sloped steel armor at 1.000 m/3.275’ distance). Since there was only a single ammunition supply that could not be switched, these rounds were normally loaded in 3:1 ratio—three OFZT, then one BZT, every 10th BZT round marked with a tracer. Especially the fragmentation rounds dealt extensive collateral damage, as the sheer numbers of fragments from detonating shells was sufficient to damage aircraft flying within a 200-meter radius from the impact center. This, coupled with the high density of fire, created a very effective obstacle for aerial targets and ensured a high hit probability even upon a casual and hurried attack.
The gun was placed in the turret front’s center, held by a massive mount with hydraulic dampers. The internal ammunition supply in the back of the turret comprised a total of 1.600 rounds, but an additional 800 rounds could be added in an external reserve feed bin, attached to the back of the turret and connected to the internal belt magazine loop through a pair of ports in the turret’s rear, normally used to reload the GSh-6-37.
A rotating, electronically scanned E-band (10 kW power) target acquisition radar array was mounted on the rear top of the turret that, when combined with the turret front mounted J-band (150 kW power) mono-pulse tracking radar, its dish antenna hidden under a fiberglass fairing to the right of the main weapon, formed the 1RL144 (NATO: Hot Shot) pulse-Doppler 3D radar system. Alongside, the 1A26 digital computer, a laser rangefinder co-axial to the GSh-6-37, and the 1G30 angle measurement system formed the 1A27 targeting complex.
Object 511’s target acquisition offered a 360-degree field of view, a detection range of around 18 km and could detect targets flying as low as 15 m. The array could be folded down and stowed when in transit, lying flat on the turret’s roof. The tracking radar had a range of 16 km, and a C/D-band IFF system was also fitted. The radar system was highly protected against various types of interference and was able to work properly even if there were mountains on the horizon, regardless of the background. The system made it possible to fire the GSh-6-37 on the move, against targets with a maximum target speed of up to 500 m/s, and it had an impressive reaction time of only 6-8 seconds.
Thanks to its computerized fire control system, the 1A27 was highly automated and reduced the SPAAG’s crew to only three men, making a dedicated radar operator (as on the ZSU-23-4) superfluous and saving internal space in the large but still rather cramped turret.
Development of Object 511 and its systems were kicked-off in 1972 but immediately slowed down with the introduction of the 9K33 “Osa” missile system, which seemed to fill the same requirement but with greater missile performance. However, after some considerable debate it was felt that a purely missile-based system would not be as effective at dealing with very low flying attack helicopters attacking at short range with no warning, as had been proven so successful in the 1973 Arab-Israeli War. Since the reaction time of a gun system was around 8–10 seconds, compared to approximately 30 seconds for a missile-based system, development of Object 511 was restarted in 1973.
A fully functional prototype, now officially dubbed “ZSU-37-6“ to reflect its role and armament and christened “Лена” (Lena, after the Russian river in Siberia), was completed in 1975 at the Ulyanovsk Mechanical Factory, but it took until 1976 that the capricious weapon and the 1A27 radar system had been successfully integrated and made work. System testing and trials were conducted between September 1977 and December 1978 on the Donguzskiy range, where the vehicle was detected by American spy satellites and erroneously identified as a self-propelled artillery system with a fully rotating turret (similar to the American M109), as a potential successor for the SAU-122/2S1 Gvozdika or SAU-152/2S3 Akatsiya SPGs that had been introduced ten years earlier, with a lighter weapon of 100-120mm caliber and an autoloader in the large turret.
The tests at Donguzskiy yielded mixed results. While the 1A27 surveillance and acquisition radar complex turned out to be quite effective, the GSh-6-37 remained a constant source of problems. The gun was highly unreliable and afforded a high level of maintenance. Furthermore, it had a massive recoil of 6.250 kp/61 kN when fired (the American 30 mm GAU-8 Avenger “only” had a recoil of 4.082 kp/40 kN). As a result, targets acquired by the 1A27 system were frequently lost after a single burst of fire, so that they had to be tracked anew before the next shot could be placed.
To make matters even words, the GSh-6-37 was noted for its high and often uncomfortable vibration and extreme noise, internally and externally. Pressure shock waves from the gun muzzles made the presence of unprotected personnel in the weapon’s proximity hazardous. The GSh-6-37’s massive vibrations shook the whole vehicle and led to numerous radio and radar system failures, tearing or jamming of maintenance doors and access hatches and the cracking of optical sensors. The effects were so severe that the gun’s impact led after six months to fatigue cracks in the gun mount, the welded turret hull, fuel tanks and other systems. One spectacular and fateful showcase of the gun’s detrimental powers was a transmission failure during a field test/maneuver in summer 1978 – which unfortunately included top military brass spectators and other VIPs, who were consequently not convinced of the ZSU-37-6 and its weapon.
The GSh-6-37’s persisting vibration and recoil problems, as well as its general unreliability if it was not immaculately serviced, could not be satisfactorily overcome during the 2 years of state acceptance trials. Furthermore, the large and heavy turret severely hampered Object 511’s off-road performance and handling, due to the high center of gravity and the relatively small chassis, so that the weapon system’s full field potential could not be explored. Had it found its way into a serial production vehicle, it would certainly have been based on a bigger and heavier chassis, e.g. from an MBT. Other novel features tested with Object 511, e.g. the hydropneumatic suspension and the automated 1A27 fire control system, proved to be more successful.
However, the troublesome GSh-6-37 temporarily attained new interest in 1979 through the Soviet Union’s engagement in Afghanistan, because it became quickly clear that conventional battle tanks, with long-barreled, large caliber guns and a very limited lift angle were not suited against small targets in mountainous regions and for combat in confined areas like narrow valleys or settlements. The GSh-6-37 appeared as a promising alternative weapon, and plans were made to mount it in a more strongly armored turret onto a T-72 chassis. A wooden mockup turret was built, but the project was not proceeded further with. Nevertheless, the concept of an armored support vehicle with high firepower and alternative armament would persist and lead, in the course of the following years, to a number of prototypes that eventually spawned the BMPT "Terminator" Tank Support Fighting Vehicle.
More tests and attempts to cope with the gun mount continued on a limited basis through 1979, but in late 1980 trials and development of Object 511 and the GSh-6-37 were stopped altogether: the 2K22 “Tunguska” SPAAG with mixed armament, developed in parallel, was preferred and officially accepted into service. In its original form, the 2K22 was armed with four 9M311 (NATO: SA-19 “Grison”) short-range missiles in the ready-to-fire position and two 2A38 30mm autocannons, using the same 1A27 radar system as Object 511. The Tunguska entered into limited service from 1984, when the first batteries, now armed with eight missiles, were delivered to the army, and gradually replaced the ZSU-23-4.
Having become obsolete, the sole Object 511 prototype was retired in 1981 and mothballed. It is today part of the Military Technical Museum collection at Ivanovskaya, near Moscow, even though not part of the public exhibition and in a rather derelict state, waiting for restoration and eventual display.
Specifications:
Crew: Three (commander, gunner, driver)
Weight: about 26,000 kg (57,300 lb)
Length: 7.78 m (25 ft 5 1/2 in) with gun facing forward
6.55 m (21 ft 5 1/2 in) hull only
Width: 3.25 m (10 ft 8 in)
Height: 3.88 m (12 ft 9 in) overall,
2.66 m (8 8 1/2 ft) with search radar stowed
Suspension: Hydropneumatic
Ground clearance: 17–57 cm
Fuel capacity: 760 l (200 US gal, 170 imp gal)
Armor:
Unknown, but probably not more than 15 mm (0.6”)
Performance:
Speed: 65 km/h (40 mph) maximum on the road
Climbing ability: 0.7 m (2.3')
Maximum climb gradient: 30°
Trench crossing ability: 2.5 m (8.2')
Fording depth: 1.0 m (3.3')
Operational range: 500 km (310 mi)
Power/weight: 24 hp/t
Engine:
1× 2V-06-2S water-cooled multi-fuel diesel engine with 510 hp (380 kW)
1× auxiliary DGChM-1 single-shaft gas turbine engine with 70 hp at 6,000 rpm,
connected with a direct-current generator
Transmission:
Hydromechanical
Armament:
1× GSh-6-37 six-barreled 37mm (1.5 in) Gatling gun with 1.600 rounds,
plus 800 more in an optional, external auxiliary magazine
The kit and its assembly:
This fictional SPAAG was intended as a submission to the “Prototypes” group build at whatifmodellers.com in August 2020. Inspiration came from a Trumpeter 1:72 2P25/SA-6 launch platform which I had recently acquired with a kit lot – primarily because of the chassis, which would lend itself for a conversion into “something else”.
The idea to build an anti-aircraft tank with a gatling gun came when I did research for my recent YA-14 build and its armament. When checking the American GAU-8 cannon from the A-10 I found that there had been plans to use this weapon for a short-range SPAAG (as a replacement for the US Army’s M163), and there had been plans for even heavier weapons in this role. For instance, there had been the T249 “Vigilante” prototype: This experimental system consisted of a 37 mm T250 six-barrel Gatling gun, mounted on a lengthened M113 armored personnel carrier platform, even though with a very limited ammunition supply, good only for 5 sec. of fire – it was just a conceptual test bed. But: why not create a Soviet counterpart? Even more so, since there is/was the real-world GSh-6-30 gatling gun as a potential weapon, which had, beyond use in the MiG-27, also been used in naval defense systems. Why not use/create an uprated/bigger version, too?
From this idea, things evolved in a straightforward fashion. The Trumpeter 2P25 chassis and hull were basically taken OOB, just the front was modified for a single driver position. However, the upper hull had to be changed in order to accept the new, large turret instead of the triple SA-6 launch array.
The new turret is a parts combination: The basis comes from a Revell 1:72 M109 howitzer kit, the 155 mm barrel was replaced with a QuickBoost 1:48 resin GSh-6-30 gun for a MiG-27, and a co-axial laser rangefinder (a piece of styrene) was added on a separate mount. Unfortunately, the Revell kit does not feature a movable gun barrel, so I decided to implant a functional joint, so that the model’s weapon could be displayed in raised and low position – primarily for the “action pictures”. The mechanism was scratched from styrene tubes and a piece of foamed plastic as a “brake” that holds the weapon in place and blocks the view into the turret from the front when the weapon is raised high up. The hinge was placed behind the OOB gun mantle, which was cut into two pieces and now works as in real life.
Further mods include the dish antenna for the tracking radar (a former tank wheel), placed on a disc-shaped pedestal onto the turret front’s right side, and the retractable rotating search radar antenna, scratched from various bits and pieces and mounted onto the rear of the turret – its roof had to be cleaned up to make suitable space next to the commander’s cupola.
Another challenge was the adaptation of the new turret to the hull, because the original SA-6 launch array has only a relatively small turret ring, and it is placed relatively far ahead on the hull. The new, massive turret had to be mounted further backwards, and the raised engine cowling on the back of the hull did not make things easier.
As a consequence, I had to move the SA-6 launcher ring bearing backwards, through a major surgical intervention in the hull roof (a square section was cut out, shortened, reversed and glued back again into the opening). In order to save the M109’s turret ring for later, I gave it a completely new turret floor and transplanted the small adapter ring from the SA-6 launch array to it. Another problem arose from the bulged engine cover: it had to be replaced with something flat, otherwise the turret would not have fitted. I was lucky to find a suitable donor in the spares box, from a Leopard 1 kit. More complex mods than expected, and thankfully most of the uglier changes are hidden under the huge turret. However, Object 511 looks pretty conclusive and menacing with everything in place, and the weapon is now movable in two axis’. The only flaw is a relatively wide gap between the turret and the hull, due to a step between the combat and engine section and the relatively narrow turret ring.
Painting and markings:
AFAIK, most Soviet tank prototypes in the Seventies/Eighties received a simple, uniform olive green livery, but ,while authentic, I found this to look rather boring. Since my “Object 511” would have taken part in military maneuvers, I decided to give it an Eighties Soviet Army three-tone camouflage, which was introduced during the late Eighties. It consisted of a relatively bright olive green, a light and cold bluish grey and black-grey, applied in large patches.
This scheme was also adapted by the late GDR’s Volksarmee (called “Verzerrungsanstrich” = “Distortion scheme”) and maybe – even though I am not certain – this special paint scheme might only have been used by Soviet troops based on GDR soil? However, it’s pretty unique and looks good, so I adapted it for the model.
Based upon visual guesstimates from real life pictures and some background info concerning NVA tank paint schemes, the basic colors became Humbrol 86 (Light Olive Green; RAL 6003), Revell 57 (Grey; RAL 7000) and Revell 06 (Tar Black; RAL 9021). Each vehicle had an individual paint scheme, in this case it was based on a real world NVA lorry.
On top of the basic colors, a washing with a mix of red brown and black acrylic paint was applied, and immediately dried with a soft cotton cloth so that it only remained in recesses and around edges, simulating dirt and dust. Some additional post-shading with lighter/brighter versions of the basic tones followed.
Decals came next – the Red Stars were a rather dramatic addition and came from the Trumpeter kit’s OOB sheet. The white “511” code on the flanks was created with white 3 mm letters from TL Modellbau.
The model received a light overall dry brushing treatment with light grey (Revell 75). As a finishing touch I added some branches as additional camouflage. These are bits of dried moss (collected on the local street), colorized with simple watercolors and attached with white glue. Finally, everything was sealed and stabilized with a coat of acrylic matt varnish and some pigments (a greyish-brown mix of various artist mineral pigments) were dusted into the running gear and onto the lower hull surfaces with a soft brush.
An effective kitbashing, and while mounting the different turret to the hull looks simple, the integration of unrelated hull and turret so that they actually fit and “work” was a rather fiddly task, and it’s effectively not obvious at all (which is good but “hides” the labour pains related to the mods). However, the result looks IMHO good, like a beefed-up ZSU-23-4 “Schilka”, just what this fictional tank model is supposed to depict.
+++ 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.
+++ 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.