** October 2010: This diffuser is very outdated but remains to show the progression of my setups through my Camera Gear set and also for demonstrative purposes for anyone wishing to make a similar diffuser. You can view my most current and often-used macro setup here.**

 

Flash diffuser mounted (with tape, for now...I spent a long time making an elaborate wire support, and it didn't work out. Oh well.) Looks rough, works great. I actually have to diffuse it further with paper for many subjects, it is so bright.

 

Can also see my rig with the kit lens (18-55) mounted in reverse in front of my 60mm macro with a 62-52mm step-down ring and a 52mm male-male reversing ring. I have to hold the aperture on the front lens open manually; ten staples happen to be the perfect size to do so (older SLR lenses had a ring, which made it much easier).

 

It's a crappy picture, just here for the tech aspect. Sorry for the poor quality, taken with an elderly Sony point-and-shoot.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on authentic facts. BEWARE!

  

Some background:

The Austrian Air Force in its current form was created in May 1955 by the victorious Allied powers, subject to restrictions on its use of guided missiles. The Austrian State Treaty of 1955 committed Austria to permanent neutrality. Pilot training started out with a four Yak-11 Moose and four Yak-18 Max aircraft donated by the Soviet Union, and Austria purchased further light trainer types under the Military Assistance Program. Until 1960 Austria purchased training and support aircraft under the MAP, but no modern fighter aircraft; the role of a fighter was rather inadequately filled by thirty already outdated Saab 29 Tunnan, bought second-hand from the Swedish Air Force in the early 1960s which equipped two fighter bomber squadrons.

 

To expand its capabilities and modernize the fleet, Austria purchased from 1970 on a total of 40 Saab 105 lightweight multi-role aircraft from Sweden with the intention to deploy them in trainer, reconnaissance, ground attack and even interception roles. As it became clear in the 1980s that the light sub-sonic aircraft were inadequate for air combat and airspace interdiction, Austria started looking for a more capable aircraft. In 1984, Austria had devised a two-phase solution to its problem: buying 30 interim aircrafts cheaply as a stopgap and then trading them back for a new generation aircraft in the early or mid-Nineties.

 

International response was quick and manifold: Bristol Aerospace offered initially ex RAF Jaguars to be replaced by Tornado F.3 or even Eurofighters; Saab-Scania offered between 24 and 30 former Royal Swedish Air Force J 35D Draken, followed by Saab J 39 Gripen as future substitutes; General-Electric suggested downgraded F-16/79 or F-16A for phase one and an option for the same aircraft in a more modern variant for phase two; Northrop’s numberF-5E was another alternative for phase one. Dassault was also present with refurbished Mirage III initially, followed by Mirage 2000.

 

Finding the most suitable option in this mass was not easy, and eventually a surprising deal materialized: In 1985 the contract for the sale of twenty-four Lightning F.56 fighters plus four T.55 trainers was signed by the SPÖ/FPÖ government under Fred Sinowatz. The background: Saudi Arabia had been operating thirty-four F.53 single-seaters and six T.55 trainers since 1967 and was about to retire its fleet, which was still in very good condition and with a reasonable number of flying hours left on many airframes. The aircraft would be refurbished directly at BAe in Great Britain with the option to switch to the Tornado ADV or its successor, the Eurofighter Typhoon, later.

 

The Lightning F.53 was an export version of the RAF’s F.6, but with a multi-role mission profile in mind that included, beyond the primary interceptor mission with guided missiles or internal guns, the capability to carry out interdiction/ground attacks and reconnaissance missions. To carry a suitable ordnance load, the F.53 featured additional underwing pylons for bombs or unguided rocket pods. Instead of the standard Firestreak/Red Top AAM missile station in the lower front fuselage, two retractable panniers with a total of forty-four unguided 50 mm rockets, which were effective against both ground and aerial targets, could be installed, or, alternatively, two camera packs (one with five cameras and another with a rotating camera mount) was available for tactical photo reconnaissance missions. Overwing hardpoints, adapted from the Lightning F.6, allowed to carry auxiliary fuel tanks to increase range/endurance, additional rocket pods or even retarded bombs.

The Lightning T.55 was also an export variant, a two-seat side-by-side training aircraft, and virtually identical to the T.5, which itself was based on the older F.3 fighter variant, and fully combat-capable.

 

The Saudi Arabian multi-role F.53s had served in the ground-attack and reconnaissance roles as well as an air defense fighter, with Lightnings of No. 6 Squadron RSAF carrying out ground-attack missions using rockets and bombs during a border dispute with South Yemen between December 1969 and May 1970. Saudi Arabia received Northrop F-5E fighters from 1971, which resulted in the Lightnings relinquishing the ground-attack mission, concentrating on air defense, and to a lesser extent, reconnaissance. Until 1982, Saudi Arabia's Lightnings were mainly operated by 2 and 6 Squadron RSAF (although a few were also used by 13 Squadron RSAF), but when 6 Squadron re-equipped with the F-15 Eagle from 1978 on, all the remaining aircraft were concentrated and operated by 2 Squadron at Tabuk. In 1985, as part of the agreement to sell the Panavia Tornado (both IDS and ADV versions) to the RSAF, the Lightnings were traded in to British Aerospace, returned to Warton for refurbishment and re-sold to Austria.

 

While the Saudi Arabian Lightnings’ hardware was in very good shape, the Austrian Bundesluftwaffe requested some modifications, including a different missile armament: instead of the maintenance-heavy British Firestreak/Red Top AAMs, the Lightnings were to be armed with simpler, lighter and more economical IR-guided AIM-9 Sidewinder AAMs which were already in the Austrian Air Force’s inventory. Two of these missiles were carried on single launch rails on the lower forward fuselage; an additional pair of Sidewinders could also be carried on the outer underwing stations, for a total of four. The F.53s’ optional retractable unguided rocket panniers were dropped altogether in favor of a permanent avionics bay for the Sidewinders in its place. However, to carry out tactical reconnaissance tasks (formerly executed by J 29Fs with a removable camera pod instead of the portside gun bay), four Austrian Lightnings frequently had one of the optional camera compartments installed, thereby losing the capability to deploy Sidewinders, though.

 

Among other things, the machines were furthermore upgraded with new bird strike-proof cockpit glazing, avionics were modernized, and several other minor customer requests were adopted, like a 0.6-megacandela night identification light. This spotlight is mounted in the former portside gun bay in front of the cockpit, and an anti-glare panel was added under the windscreen.

The fixed in-flight refueling probe was deleted, as this was not deemed necessary anymore since the Lightnings would exclusively operate within neutral Austria’s borders. The probes could, however, be re-installed, even though the Austrian pilots would not receive on-flight refueling training. The Lightnings' optional 260 imp gal overwing tanks were retained since they were considered to be sufficient for extended subsonic air patrols or eventual ferry flights.

 

The refurbished Lightnings were re-designated F.56 and delivered in batches of four between 1987 and 1989 to the Austrian Air Force’s 1st and then 2nd Fighter Squadrons, carrying a grey air superiority paint scheme. At that time, the airframes had between 1,550 and 2,800 flight hours and all had a general overhaul behind them. In 1991, the Lightings were joined by eighteen German ex-NVA-LSK MiG-23s, which were transferred to Austrian Air Force's ‘Fliegerwerft B’ at Nittner Air Base, where they'd be overhauled and updated with NATO-compatible equipment. As MiG-23Ö they were exclusively used as interceptors, too.

 

Shortly after their introduction, the Austrian Lightnings saw their first major use in airspace interdiction starting 1991 during the Yugoslav Wars, when Yugoslav MiG-21 fighters frequently crossed the Austrian border without permission. In one incident on 28 June a MiG-21 penetrated as far as Graz, causing widespread demands for action. Following repeated border crossings by armed aircraft of the Yugoslav People's Army, changes were suggested to the standing orders for aircraft armament.

 

With more and more practice and frequent interceptions one of the Lightning's basic flaws became apparent: its low range. Even though the Lightning had a phenomenal acceleration and rate of climb, this was only achieved in a relatively clean configuration - intercepting intruders was one thing but escorting them back to the Austrian border or an assigned airfield, as well as standing air patrols, were a different thing. With more tactical experience, the overwing tanks were taken back into service, even though they were so draggy that their range benefit was ultimately zero when the aircraft would use its afterburners during a typical interception mission. Therefore, the Austrian QRA Lightnings were typically operated in pairs: one clean and only lightly armed (typically with the guns and a pair of AIM-9s), to make a quick approach for visual intruder identification and contact, while a second aircraft with extra fuel would follow at high subsonic speed and eventually take over and escort the intruder. Airspace patrol was primarily executed with the MiG-23Ö, because it had a much better endurance, thanks to its VG wings, even though the Floggers had a poor service record, and their maintenance became ever more complicated.

 

After more experience, the Austrian Lightnings received in 1992 new ALR-45 radar detectors in a fairing on the fin top as well as chaff and flare dispenser systems, and the communication systems were upgraded, too. In 2004 the installation of Garmin 295 moving map navigation devices followed, even though this turned out to be a negligible update: on December 22, 2005, the active service life and thus military use of the Lightnings in general ended, and Austria was the last country to decommission the type, more than 50 years after the first flight of the prototype on August 4, 1954.

The Austrian Lightnings’ planned service period of 10 years was almost doubled, though, due to massive delays with the Eurofighter’s development: In 2002, Austria had already selected the Typhoon as its new “Phase II” air defense aircraft, having beaten the F-16 and the Saab Gripen in competition, and its introduction had been expected to occur from early 2005 on, so that the Lightnings could be gradually phased out. The purchase of 18 Typhoons was agreed on 1 July 2003, but it would take until 12 July 2007 that the first Typhoon would eventually be delivered to Zeltweg Air Base and formally enter service with the Austrian Air Force. This operational gap had to be bridged with twelve F-5E leased from Switzerland for EUR 75 mio., so that Quick Reaction Alert (QRA) duties for the Austrian airspace could be continued.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 55 ft 3 in (16.84 m)

Wingspan: 34 ft 10 in (10.62 m)

Height: 19 ft 7 in (5.97 m)

Wing area: 474.5 sq ft (44.08 m²)

Empty weight: 31,068 lb (14,092 kg) with armament and no fuel

Gross weight: 41,076 lb (18,632 kg) with two AIM-9B, cannon, ammunition, and internal fuel

Max takeoff weight: 45,750 lb (20,752 kg)

 

Powerplant:

2× Rolls-Royce Avon 301R afterburning turbojet engines,

12,690 lbf (56.4 kN) thrust each dry, 16,360 lbf (72.8 kN) with afterburner

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: Mach 2.27 (1,500 mph+ at 40,000 ft)

Range: 738 nmi (849 mi, 1,367 km)

Combat range: 135 nmi (155 mi, 250 km) supersonic intercept radius

Range: 800 nmi (920 mi, 1,500 km) with internal fuel

1,100 nmi (1,300 mi; 2,000 km) with external overwing tanks

Service ceiling: 60,000 ft (18,000 m)

Zoom ceiling: 70,000 ft (21,000 m)

Rate of climb: 20,000 ft/min (100 m/s) sustained to 30,000 ft (9,100 m)

Zoom climb: 50,000 ft/min

Time to altitude: 2.8 min to 36,000 ft (11,000 m)

Wing loading: 76 lb/sq ft (370 kg/m²) with two AIM-9 and 1/2 fuel

Thrust/weight: 0.78 (1.03 empty)

 

Armament:

2× 30 mm (1.181 in) ADEN cannon with 120 RPG in the lower fuselage

2× forward fuselage hardpoints for a single AIM-9 Sidewinder AAM each

2× underwing hardpoints for 1.000 lb (454 kg) each

2× overwing pylon stations for 2.000 lb (907 kg each),

typically occupied with 260 imp gal (310 US gal; 1,200 l) ferry tanks

  

The kit and its assembly:

This was another submission to the “Hunter, Lightning and Canberra” group build at whatifmodellers.com in 2022 and intended as a rather simple build since it was based on an alternate reality plot: the weird story that Austria was offered a revamped fleet of ex-Saudi Arabian Lightnings is true(!), but the decision eventually fell in favor of revamped Saab J 35Ds from Sweden. For this what-if build I used the real historic timeline, replaced the aircraft, and built both story and model around this – and the result became the BAC Lightning F.56 in Austrian Air Force service.

 

Initially I wanted to use an Airfix BAC Lightning in The Stash™, a really nice model kit and a relatively new mold, but it turned out to be the kit’s F.2A variant. While very similar to the F.6, changing it into a F.53 analogue with the OOB parts turned out to be too complex for my taste. For instance, the F.2A kit lacks the ventral gun bay (it just comes with the auxiliary tank option since the guns are already located in front of the cockpit) and the cable conduits on the lower flanks. Procuring a suitable and priceworthy Airfix F.6 turned out to be impossible, but then I remembered a Hasegawa Lightning F.6 in The Stash™ that I had shot at ev!lbay many moons ago for a laughable price and without a concrete plan. However, this kit is pretty old: it has raised (yet quite fine, less robust than the Matchbox kit) panel lines and even comes with a pilot figure, but also many weak spots like the air intake and the jet exhausts that end in flat walls after some millimeters depth and a very basic cockpit. But for this rather simple what-if project the kit appeared to be a suitable basis, and it would eventually find a good use.

 

The Hasegawa Lightning was basically built OOB, even though I made some cosmetic amendments like a better seat for the pilot, hydraulic fluid lines on the landing gear made from wire or opening the flat walls inside of the air intake opening and the jet nozzles. Behind the radome, a simple splitter plate was added as well as a recessed bulkhead in front of an implanted Me 262 cockpit tub (the Hasegawa kit just offers a bare floor panel, nothing else!), the afterburners were extended inwards with parts from a Matchbox A.W. Meteor night fighter.

 

The Red Top AAMs and the in-flight refueling probe were omitted. Instead, I added extra F.53-style forward-swept pylons under the outer wings, scratched from 1.5 mm styrene sheet due to their odd, raked shape, and I added Sidewinder launch rails plus suitable missiles from a Hasegawa air-to-air weapons set to all four stations. After long consideration I also retained the ‘overburger’ tanks, partly because of the unique layout on the Lightning, and also because of operational considerations.

Chaff dispensers were scratched from styrene profiles and placed at the fin’s base. A fairing for the retrofitted radar warning sensor was added to the fin tip, created from 1.5 mm styrene sheet.

  

Painting and markings:

To reflect the “alternate reality” role of the Lightning I gave the model a livery similar to the Saab J 35Ö that were actually procured: an adaptation of the USAF “Egypt One” scheme, carried primarily by the USAF F-16s. Adapting this simple three-tone camouflage from the flat F-16 to the Draken was easy and straightforward, but applying it to a Lightning with its many vertical surfaces turned out to be a tough challenge. I eventually came up with a paint scheme that reminds of the late RAF low-viz Lightning liveries, which existed in a wide range of patterns and graduations of grey.

 

The colors were authentic, FS 36118, 36270 and 36375 (using Humbrol 125, 126 and 127), and I decided to emphasize the camouflage of the flanks against the horizon, so that the vertical surfaces and the fin became FS 36270. The undersides of wings, stabilizers and fuselage became FS 36375. The dark FS 36118 was only applied to the upper sides of the wings and the stabilizer, and to a high dorsal section, starting at the wing roots. As a small contrast, the tank area on the spine was painted in light grey, simulating unpainted fiber glass. The radome was painted with a streaky mix of Humbrol 155 and 56.

 

As usual, the model received a light black ink washing, some post-panel-shading in lighter tones, and, due to the raised panel lines, was very lightly rubbed with graphite. The cockpit interior was painted in medium grey (Revell 47) with an olive drab fabric fairing behind the black pilot seat, which received ejection handles made from thin wire as eye candy. The landing gear and the respective wells were painted in Humbrol 56 (Aluminum Dope).

 

The decals are a wild mix: The fuselage roundels are actually wing markings from a Hasegawa J 35OE, as well as the huge orange "06" on the wings (I could not resist; they will later be partly obscured by the overwing tanks, but the heck with it!). The roundels on the wings come from a generic TL Modellbau sheet - I found that I needed larger markings than those on the Draken.

Both unit and individual aircraft identifiers are single black DIN font digits, also from TL Modellbau. The unit badges on the fin are authentic, even though from an earlier era: they came from an Austrian J 29 of Fliegerregiment 2 from a PrintScale sheet, and all stencils were taken from the OOB low-viz RAF markings sheet, plus four small warning triangles for the underwing pylons.

  

A ‘what-if’ model in the purest sense, since this model depicts what could really have been: ex Saudi-Arabian export BAC Lightnings over the Austrian Alps! However, refurbished Saab J 35D Draken made the race (and later followed by the Eurofighter Typhoon at ‘Stage 2’), so that this Lightning remains fictional. It does not look bad in the ‘Egypt One’ paint scheme, though, better than expected!

SPEEEEEED! Those Lisbon trams may be outdated, but the drivers go for it!

Collection Name: MS262 Camp Crowder Collection. Click here to see entire Collection on Missouri Digital Heritage.

 

Photographer/Studio: U.S. Army Signal Corps Training Aid Section Central Signal Corps School Camp Crowder, Missouri

 

Description: A soldier speaks on the phone associated with a facsimile machine: Facsimile Transceiver FX-1 made by Times Telephone Equipment, Inc. The machine is designed for wire or radio transmission of maps, messages and photographs. A photograph of an officer with his hands in the air being held at gunpoint is loaded on the roller, ready for transmission.

 

Coverage: United States - Missouri - Newton County

 

Date: May 1945

 

Rights: permission granted

 

Credit: Courtesy of Missouri State Archives

 

Image Number: MS262_068_014.tif

 

Institution: Missouri State Archives

Oxford

 

Konica FC-1

Konica Hexanon AR 50mm f/1.4

Outdated Kodak Color Plus 200

Boots scan + LR adjustments

1998 outdated KB200 rated 100ASA cut from bulk, processed in my home-made FX-4 Formula 1+1 and time cut to 8.5 mins Canon EF Zoom 75-300mm f4-5.6 Mk III

www.facebook.com/outdatedcoffeehouse

 

One flash YN-560 with shot-trough umbrella on the right hand side

Outdated ploughs on the lawn of a Farm on Westham Island.

At Rogers Park on the far north side of Chicago, a rather dilapidated Metra information board still refers to this as the Chicago & North Western North Line, 22 years after the UP merger. In C&NW tradition, a Metra UP-North Line train arrives at the outbound platform.

Rolleiflex | 75 3.5 | fuji 160s outdated

Testing a Minox 35 ML with outdated (2010) Kodak ColorPlus 200 film. Developed and scanned by Snappy Snaps, Oxford.

 

For the 2019 Dyxum film challenge (one-third keepers).

Yet another LEGO MARVEL minifigure made using GIMP.

Rolleiflex Automat II + Fomapan F17 outdated on 1991

Min al Jinnati wa Naas

(From the Jinn and Mankind)

 

Part I - The Cause

 

April 17th, 2020: “Brave new world” by Aldous Huxley starring Demi Moore! The tag selling the show: A world where monogamy is illegal. “Yikes” I thought! Infidelity in marriages and otherwise single partner relationships being berated in Hollywood’s writing, or perhaps all of the West, is not new. It first became noticeable to me in the mid 2000’s, 15 years ago. But illegal? That was definitely a whole different story.

 

The episode I remember in particular is from Gray’s Anatomy. The most insignificant and plain character in an otherwise “beautiful” cast was moping around because he wanted Thursdays to himself to do whatever he wished with whomever he chose. His wife was apparently being a pain about it. The insert was horrendous in terms of its deliberateness.

 

In Lahore the idea appeared differently in my generation. People started hiding behind “philosophical” discussions of whether monogamy was really a part of human nature to avoid saying, “I’m dying to have an affair.” It’s not like infidelity is a new concept having been around since time immemorial. The generation before mine just accepted it for what it was; a transgression. Mine has always wanted things to be somehow deemed kosher by someone else.

 

For the millenials and whatever the generation after them is called, the stakes were even higher. They were being taught subversively that there was no such thing as fidelity to begin with. Like religion it was outdated and irrelevant. The most overt example for me came from the first season of Ryan Murphy’s The Politician, a dark comedy about high school seniors, out on Netflix this January, Alice says to Payton after getting caught cheating on him, “Sex has nothing to do with loyalty. We're not our parents.” If the diktat of Hollywood prevails, which history has proven it almost always does, perhaps we can also safely arrive to a society where monogamy is illegal.

 

It made me wonder what that meant in terms of the verses of the Quran that spelled out the future in clear terms for those who were about to embark on the journey of being available to all.

 

الْخَبِيثَاتُ لِلْخَبِيثِينَ وَالْخَبِيثُونَ لِلْخَبِيثَاتِ ۖ وَالطَّيِّبَاتُ لِلطَّيِّبِينَ وَالطَّيِّبُونَ لِلطَّيِّبَاتِ

 

(In the nature of things), corrupt women are for corrupt men, and corrupt men, for corrupt women - just as good women are for good men, and good men for good women – Surah An-Nur, Verse 26

 

Talk about going head to head on an issue!

 

I knew people personally who, come a certain age, upon reading these verses had changed lifestyles completely. They had dropped whatever they were doing for eons. It wasn’t so surprising. Who wants to be with a corrupt, also translated as “evil, impure, wicked, unclean, bad, vile, indecent and dirty” person? No one I would think. But Iblis has his ways.

 

Huxley wrote his novel in the 1930s. It was required reading by my Mamu but I stopped when I got to the part of “hundreds of naked children engaged in sexual play and games.” It was too disturbing. The plot of the book moves around “a futuristic society, the World State, and warns of the dangers of giving the state control over new and powerful technologies…In this society, emotions and individuality are conditioned out of children at a young age. The embyros hatched in a lab are divided into five castes and there are no lasting relationships because ‘every one belongs to everyone else.’”

 

“People are divided into five castes; Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, or Epsilon. The Alpha embryos are destined to become the leaders and thinkers of the World State. Each of the succeeding castes is conditioned to be slightly less physically and intellectually impressive. One group, the Delta infants, are reprogrammed to dislike books and flowers. This conditioning helps to make Deltas docile and eager consumers. The Epsilons, stunted and stupefied by oxygen deprivation and chemical treatments, are destined to perform menial labor.”

 

“‘Hypnopaedic’ (sleep-teaching) methods are used to teach children the morals of the World State. The State successfully removes strong emotions, desires, and human relationships from society. Religion is abolished because it causes wars, pain, suffering and tears. Ford is the perfect “god” for World State society because, in developing his Ford Motor Company, he invented mass production by means of the assembly line and the specialization of workers, each of whom has one single, specific job.”

 

There were too many boxes to check in terms of the novel resonating with what was happening today so I leave that to the reader. I guess if one was writing a novel of that nature today, the “god” could be named Schmidt or Zuckerberg although the most promising choice seems to be Gates. A good friend of mine had been very upset with the Common Core system that the Gates Foundation, had sold to the public school system in 2009, “spending 400 million itself and influencing $4 trillion in US tax payer funds.”

 

She thought its sole purpose was to sift students through math and standardized tests and divide them into leaders and welders. Alphas and Epsilons so to speak! Her son was on the autism spectrum. The program ignored children with learning difficulties altogether. The stranger thing was that “the (Common Core) program had no pilot…There wasn’t even a draft available to the public before the Obama administration hooked states into contracts.” Today it’s dead.

 

A billionaire had an idea of what counts as success, decided to put it to action through what is these days knows as “advocacy philanthropy” and ended with naught. Except that for many schools, books were eliminated and learning became technology based. Technology in education had already made its advent much before Gates. In the 1920’s came radio programming in schools. In the 50’s and 60’s instructional television was introduced with huge grants from the Ford Foundation. In the 80’s came the computer. And that’s when the Jinn apparently came into my life.

 

To be clear I never knew anything about this particular creation of God. Then in the early days of the virus, I received a video from a friend of mine on the Naqshbandi path. It was intriguing. The speaker was Sheikh Hisham Qabbani and this is what he said:

 

April 20th, 2020: “We are in a war that has not been known before. Everybody is involved in it. We leave it to Allah who knows best what He has created. We need to adhere to the Zikr (remembrance of God) that follows this battle, which is a spiritual battle. Involving Jinn and human beings, the righteous ones against the corrupt (fasid) ones. And we are the ones oppressed in this battle that has come upon us from every side, but in the end we are the victors. We are the victors and victory is for the people of Islam and for the entire community (of Mankind), so do not be afraid.”

 

“This is a battle involving Jinn because it is coming from corrupt Jinn. There will come a time when the corrupt ones will perish. Like other corrupt ones have perished before them. So stay steadfast where you are and do not be afraid. There is someone coming to purify the Earth and that is Imam Mahdi (as) and the family of the Prophet (saw).”

 

Jinn! The only thing I ever heard about them in my life in Lahore was of people reading verses of the Quran specifically to call them for furtive purposes. Information could be retrieved though them or other favours asked. There seemed to always be a clear code for the arrangement. Between the human beings money exchanged hands or other compensation was due. Between the human supposedly in control of the Jinn, if you asked anything from the Jinn one thing was certain; they would ask something of you.

 

The Naqshbandi Spiritual Masters have been giving lectures on a regular basis to prepare and support their disciples throughout the world through the crisis of the disease that had enveloped the world. One of my friends happened to send me one titled “Jinn, Demon and Technology” by Sheikh Nurjan Mirahmadi. But it was a year old so had nothing to do with COVID-19. I include parts of it throughout the piece.

 

Feb 10th, 2019: “In the way of knowing ourselves, Mankind invented computers…This is from the world of Jinn. This is the convergence of the Jinn world into the human world with the intention to overtake Insaan. They (Jinn) are the smokeless fire.”

 

I asked Qari Sahib where exactly their creation was mentioned in the Quran. It was in Surah Ar-Rahman.

 

وَخَلَقَ الْجَانَّ مِن مَّارِجٍ مِّن نَّارٍ

 

And He (Allah) created the Jinn from a smokeless flame of fire – Surah Ar-Rahman, Verse 55

 

“You are using a smokeless fire that is called electricity,” Shiekh Nujan said. “Before that was the ‘horse and buggy world.’ How much change came about in that time (in the lives of human beings)? As soon as the Jinn world was allowed to enter the Earth, it began to enslave Mankind to be worshipped and to be taken as lords.”

 

“There are Jinn who live amongst us and those who live outside of this planet. The computer is (to make us) enter into their world. The Jinn are spiritual beings whose subtle reality has no physical protection. As a result of their spiritual power but physical frailty they conceal themselves in different forms…The computer was their way of asking us to communicate with them.”

 

“They are a reality from the time of Sayydana Sulaiman (as) who was given command of them. Allah did not want to establish the sunnah (way) of the Prophet to ask the Jinn for anything so his vizier who had the knowledge of the Book said, ‘I will bring it.’ So then using the Jinn became a choice for Mankind; to rely on the Jinn or the heavenly Book and the people of the Book?”

 

I knew the story of the Prophet Sulaiman (as) somewhat but not in great detail so I looked it up. It was the proof that whatever ability a fasid (corrupt) Jinn possessed, humans surpassed and so were not in need of them.

 

“The Prophet Sulaiman (as) could understand the speech of animals, even of the lowly ant. He was grateful to Allah for all his gifts and he always tried to serve God. Hazrat Sulaiman (as) had Jinn and birds serving in his army as well as men.

 

The kingdom of Saba was ruled by a rich and powerful queen. She and her people worshipped the sun and other idols instead of Allah. The Prophet Sulaiman (as) sent a letter to the queen, greeting her and requesting her to submit to God. The queen consulted with her ministers. They informed her that the country had the strength to wage a war, but they entrusted her with the decision of whether to use her armies or seek a peaceful settlement. The queen was reluctant to expose her country to the destruction and waste that would accompany a war. Instead she decided to try to please Sulaiman (as) by sending him expensive gifts. Her chiefs and ministers agreed with her decision.

 

When the messengers of the queen delivered the queen’s presents to the Prophet Sulaiman (as), he rejected the gifts. He said that the gifts which he had received from Allah were infinitely better than those which she had sent. He sent the messengers back with a message to the queen that she had better submit or he would send armies which would thoroughly destroy the Sabaeans and their country.

 

While the Prophet Sulaiman (as) was awaiting the arrival of the queen, he desired that her throne be brought to him. A Jinn present in his court raised his hand.

 

قَالَ عِفْرِيتٌ مِّنَ الْجِنِّ أَنَا آتِيكَ بِهِ قَبْلَ أَن تَقُومَ مِن مَّقَامِكَ ۖ

وَإِنِّي عَلَيْهِ لَقَوِيٌّ أَمِينٌ

 

Said a strong one of the Jinn, “I will bring it to you before you rise from your place. And indeed, I am for it surely strong, trustworthy” – Surah An-Naml, Verse 39

 

The Prophet (as) demanded it be faster than what the Jinn had offered.

 

قَالَ الَّذِي عِندَهُ عِلْمٌ مِّنَ الْكِتَابِ أَنَا آتِيكَ بِهِ قَبْلَ أَن يَرْتَدَّ إِلَيْكَ طَرْفُكَ ۚ

 

Said one who, with the knowledge of the Book, “I will bring it to you before returns to you your glance (in the blink of an eye).” - Surah An-Naml, Verse 40

 

Sheikh Nurjan had said that the vizier in possession of knowledge of the Book was able to do that which the Jinn could not. Bring the throne as he said, within a fraction of second. Why was that? I looked up the exegesis of the verse by Hazrat Abdul Qadir Jilani who I will henceforth refer to as Ghaus Pak (ra);

 

“He, (the one who brought the throne), was the one bestowed a little from the Divine Knowledge and the Lauh e Mahfouz, The Preserved Tablet, as well as the knowledge of the Names of God and knowledge of the realities of each and everything. This empowered him to make anything appear or disappear in a moment or less.”

 

Just a little! The man was Asif Bin Barkhia. He was an Auliya Allah, a Friend of God.

 

Back to Sheikh Nurjan: “The Jinn want to be the lords of Mankind. This device of the computer and its technologies, this is the Jinn world…They Jinns preferred environment is the sand hence the silicon chip. They taught them to make a chip based on silica. ‘We can live there and facilitate for you whatever you ask of us.’”

 

Throughout this talk, the Sheikh never said who the “them” were but I was too busy thinking, “Wow!” Google must have the king Jinn because no one was bringing anything faster and with more accuracy than them.”

 

Sheikh Nurjan continued: “The Jinn want to bring you more but in exchange so they say, ‘We want you to worship us and you will have to think of us as your provider.’ Their intention is to be worshipped by Mankind, to set themselves as an authority that ‘we will protect you and if you don’t follow us, we will destroy you. Fear us and not Allah.’”

 

Verses in the Quran sounded what he was saying.

 

إِنَّمَا ذَٰلِكُمُ الشَّيْطَانُ يُخَوِّفُ أَوْلِيَاءَهُ فَلَا تَخَافُوهُمْ وَخَافُونِ إِن كُنتُم مُّؤْمِنِينَ

 

It is only that the Shaitaan frightens you of his allies. So do not fear them, but fear Me, if you are Believers – Surah Al e Imran, Verse 175

 

The exception was made for the believers. Everyone else would be scared. So who was it then that fell in the trap of fear? I looked up the Tafseer e Jilani again. It was the hyprocrites, the Munafiqeen. I went back to read what Hazrat Sahel had said about how one became a hypocrite; Sin, anything that torments the self, leads to disobedience. The disobedience is rooted in refuting something while knowing it’s the truth. The denial of something whole knowing it to be true leads to falsehood. The falsehood results in hardness of the heart. The hardness of the heart leads to hypocrisy thus rendering one of the Munafiqeen. Everything lay in the heart.

 

قال رسول اللہ :اَلاَ وَاِنَّ فِی الْجَسَدِ مُضْغَۃً اِذَا صَلَحَتْ صَلَحَ الْجَسَدُ کُلُّہٗ

وَاِذَا فَسَدَتْ فَسَدَ الْجَسَدُ کُلُّہٗ اَلآَ وَھِیَ الْقَلْبُ

 

Said the Prophet (peace be upon him): “There is a piece of flesh inside you, that if it is healthy the rest of the body is healthy and if it is sick, the rest of the body is sick. And that piece of flesh is the heart.”

 

Towards the end Sheikh Nurjan offered advice: “Now people are farther from their beliefs. The more they use these devices, the more they stop using their spiritual abilities. The heart has ability that exceeds that of a machine. You think this (pointing to his phone) can do anything, but what God created you deny? People have become idol worshippers. These are the idols of the modern times. You can use it as your servant or become a servant to it. Either you can use it to propagate the Message of Allah and the glory of His Prophet (saw) or be a slave to it.”

 

“But the reality is important to understand. We (humans) are a power source of Divine Energy. ‘We are going to absorb everything from you,’ the Jinn are saying. ‘We want to feed off what you have and what we were not given. We want to take away your belief in Allah’ and that’s exactly what has happened.”

 

I looked forward to my next class with Qari Sahib. I asked him two things. One, what made a Jinn good or bad? Qari Sahib explained that the Jinn were created from Iblis who is called Abu al-Jinn, the Father of Jinn, just like the Prophet Adam (as) is called the Abu-al Adam. Like humans, some were good and some, not so good.

 

وَأَنَّا مِنَّا الصَّالِحُونَ وَمِنَّا دُونَ ذَٰلِكَ ۖ كُنَّا طَرَائِقَ قِدَدًا

 

And among us are the righteous, and among us are (others) not so; we were (of) divided ways – Surah Jinn, Verse 11

 

The righteous brought faith upon God and the ones who did not were those who left for a path divergent.

 

وَأَنَّا لَمَّا سَمِعْنَا الْهُدَىٰ آمَنَّا بِهِ ۖ فَمَن يُؤْمِن بِرَبِّهِ فَلَا يَخَافُ بَخْسًا وَلَا رَهَقًا

 

Hence, as soon as we heard this call to His Guidance, we came to believe in it. And he who believes in his Sustainer need never have fear of loss or burden – Surah Al-Jinn, Verse 13

 

I wanted to know about the ones who did not. The Quran calls them the Qasitoon, the unjust. They are unjust because “they, in their disobedience, turned their faces away from the guidance sent upon them only to roam in the valleys of disbelieving the Truth in a state of perpetual bewilderment.”

 

وَأَنَّا مِنَّا الْمُسْلِمُونَ وَمِنَّا الْقَاسِطُونَ

 

And there are among us some who have surrendered (to Allah), the Muslimoon and there are among us some who are unjust, the Qasitoon – Surah Al-Jinn, Verse 14

 

Same as us pretty much!

 

The second thing I wanted to know from Qari Sahib was what it was exactly that we had that the Sheikh kept referring to that they might want. It seemed like they were the ones controlling the distribution of information, processing everything in milliseconds. What was it about us that they envied exactly?

 

وَلَقَدْ كَرَّمْنَا بَنِي آدَمَ وَحَمَلْنَاهُمْ فِي الْبَرِّ وَالْبَحْرِ وَرَزَقْنَاهُم مِّنَ الطَّيِّبَاتِ

وَفَضَّلْنَاهُمْ عَلَىٰ كَثِيرٍ مِّمَّنْ خَلَقْنَا تَفْضِيلًا

 

And certainly, We have honored (the) children of Adam and We carried them on the land and the sea, and We have provided them of the good things and We preferred them over many of those whom We have created with preference – Surah Al-Isr’a, Verse 70

 

Ghaus Pak (ra) says that this preference from God is granted in many forms; ability of reflection, moderation in behavior, a balanced disposition with attributes derived from the Attributes of God, a pleasing appearance, countless blessings of nature and livelihood from that which is kosher. The list went on and on. The human being is bestowed aql, the power of reflection, for a particular purpose; it is what allows one to gain from Divine Knowledge to become informed about the Essence of God and then worship Him by connecting with Him through His Prophets, His Books and His Friends.

 

But the Jinn are bestowed the power to reflect as well so as to gain the same recognition (ma’rifat) of Divine Reality. The purpose of our creation was exactly the same.

 

وَمَا خَلَقْتُ الْجِنَّ وَالْإِنسَ إِلَّا لِيَعْبُدُونِ

 

And I did not create the Jinn and Mankind except to worship Me – Surah Al-Isra’, Verse 56

 

Why was it then that the human being was chosen to be God’s Vicegerent, His Khalifa, the earthly representative in this world?

 

Ghaus Pak (ra) says when Allah wanted His Essence to be examined, it was through the one who is the perfect manifestation of His Attributes. Uzair explained in a lecture who this akmal, the most perfect, most complete being was.

 

“When Allah wanted to manifest Himself, He says he ‘loved to be known.’

 

كُنتُ كنزاً مَخفياً فأحببتُ أن أُعْرَف فخَلَقتُ الخَلْقَ لكي أُعرف

 

I, Allah, was a treasure hidden so I loved to be known.

Therefore I created Creation so that I will be known.

 

That love is the light of the Prophet Muhammad (saw) that Allah created from His Nur. The Prophet (saw) is the one who is the perfect reflection of all of His Attributes and a copy derived from His Essence. The Prophet Adam (as) is a copy of him and we, in turn, are all versions of the model of the Prophet Adam (as).”

 

Then he came to the verse.

 

وَلَقَدْ كَرَّمْنَا بَنِي آدَمَ

 

And certainly, We have honored (the) children of Adam…

 

“Abdul Kareem Jili (ra) says that irrespective of your belief and what you do, whoever you are, there is a basic ta’zeem, an honour, that is bestowed upon every human being. But he asks, ‘What is in you that you deserve such greatness from your Creator?’ It is only and only that you are formed in the image of the Prophet Adam (as) and he is created in the image of the Beloved of God (saw). And the Beloved of God, the Prophet Muhammad (saw), is created directly from the Essence of God. That and only that is why you receive this exalted honour.”

 

وَإِنَّكَ لَعَلَىٰ خُلُقٍ عَظِيمٍ

 

And you, O Beloved (saw), are certainly on the most exalted standard of moral excellence – Surah Al-Qalm, Verse 4

 

It was remarkable what Jili was saying; Nabi Kareem (saw) was the only one deemed by God to be the one who fulfilled His Rights as they were worthy of being fulfilled. In return, God bestowed for the sake of that perfect devotion of just one individual, an honour that permeated to all the other human beings who then came through him.

 

From the Tafseer e Tustari; “That is in the beginning when God, Transcendant and Exalted is He, created him (the Prophet Muhammad) as a light within a column of light, a million years before creation, with the essential characteristic of faith, in a witnessing of the unseen through the unseen.”

 

Elation is all I could feel to be included in that love between the two. It made me think of myself in a particular way which I had never done before.

 

(Audio by Ustad Imran Jafri @the.softest.heart)

 

جام ہر ذرہ ہے سرشار تمنا مجھ سے

کس کا دل ہوں کہ دوعالم سے لگایا ہے مجھے

 

Every speck of the goblet is intoxicated with desire for me

Whose heart am I that the two worlds are made to feel enraptured by me? - Ghalib

 

And it made me realize that envy was indeed the worst of poisons.

 

Sheikh Nurjan: “People have lost their humanity. Nobody even has the ability to communicate. Everyone is looking only at their phone. That is what Shaitan (Iblis) wanted. ‘Look at me, just look at me,’ he says. ‘Whatever you want, I will send it to you. You don’t even have to move. Just ask me.’”

 

I wanted to know more about Iblis, the master Jinn whose resentment ran so deep he was hell-bent on devouring us all as well. Qari Sahib told me to go to a most interesting verse of Surah An-Nisa.

 

لَّعَنَهُ اللَّهُ وَقَالَ لَأَتَّخِذَنَّ مِنْ عِبَادِكَ نَصِيبًا مَّفْرُوضًا

 

Allah cursed him and he (Iblis) said, "Verily, of Your Servants I shall most certainly take my due share – Verse 118

 

What was the share he wanted that he thought was due? Turned out it was stealing the faith of those who believed in God. He didn’t have to worry about the others. He possessed them in his control anyway.

 

Ghaus Pak (ra): Iblis is referring to the ones who are on the Path of Oneness. He vows to delude them and make Allah’s Truth appear hidden from them. Then he convinces them to take on other worshippers and speak against God. He knows better than anyone that disregard will render one deprived of the honour of His Closeness and safeguarding, instead becoming deserving of His Anger.

 

The next verse continued Iblis’ vow of devastation that he would unleash upon us.

 

وَلَأُضِلَّنَّهُمْ وَلَأُمَنِّيَنَّهُمْ وَلَآمُرَنَّهُمْ فَلَيُبَتِّكُنَّ آذَانَ الْأَنْعَامِ وَلَآمُرَنَّهُمْ فَلَيُغَيِّرُنَّ خَلْقَ اللَّهِ ۚ

وَمَن يَتَّخِذِ الشَّيْطَانَ وَلِيًّا مِّن دُونِ اللَّهِ فَقَدْ خَسِرَ خُسْرَانًا مُّبِينًا

 

“And I shall lead them astray, and fill them with vain desires. And I shall command them - and they will cut off the ears of cattle. And I shall command them - and they will corrupt God’s Creation!” But all who take Satan rather than God for their master do indeed, most clearly, lose everything. – Verse 119

 

“Command them” (twice)? The arrogance and rage was certainly palpable. “Cut off the ears of cattle?” What did that even mean?

 

Ghaus Pak (ra): “I will make them lose themselves in delusion and paranoia so that they leave the Oneness of God and become astray. I will sow in them greed for worldly life and the lust of indecency. They will go against the Laws and Commands decreed by Allah and cause harm to all of God’s beings, destroying and devastating them through that which is forbidden. In accordance with my will and pleasure, I will make them alter their natural being.” Hence the last line from God; Leaving the friendship offered by God, instead making Iblis an ally, was the cause of the the loss of everything.

 

“Check, check, check and check,” I thought. Iblis must be smug about his success in fulfilling his mission of our destruction thus far.

 

But all his promises are false and misleading, God says further in the next verse. “These vain desires will never be fulfilled because his promises itself are delusions. These false promises will never come to pass. They have no reality and existence and therefore no benefit or result.”

 

That explained the years of going around in circles if not physically, then in one’s own head. Except it wasn’t flat ground. It was quicksand, inching one deeper into it until there was just plain stuckness and a drowning in slow motion.

 

It was the promotion of indecency, fahsha’, that appeared to be Iblis’ most favoured mode of corruption.

 

إِنَّمَا يَأْمُرُكُم بِالسُّوءِ وَالْفَحْشَاءِ وَأَن تَقُولُوا عَلَى اللَّهِ مَا لَا تَعْلَمُونَ

 

He (Iblis) will only command you to evil and indecency (immorality) and that you should say of Allah what you do not know – Surah Al-Baqarah, Verse 169

 

At 50 I had, for the most part, left the overt sins of my life. That’s one of the easier things to give up in the world, the worldly "forbidden" acts. Been there done that, moving on! But the Sufis explain indecency differently which makes it much more complicated.

 

“Fahsha’ (shamlessness) is a form of being wayward and astray. It refers to the corrupt ideology and intellectual doubts and misconceptions that are sowed in the hearts of those who are lost or otherwise immersed in lust of the world. Their state of darkness comes from the absence of the light of the Prophets, their disobedience towards them, their refusal to follow them. Therefore they are firmly attached to their own beliefs and their “grandiose” intellect. In that state when prodded by Iblis they say that which is inappropriate about God and completely incorrect.”

 

Sheikh Nurjan continued: “And the next generation (of technology) will be integrated with your thought. Because this (current) technology is only as good as the speed of your fingers. They say, ‘We want to integrate with your brain where we overtake your thinking process. Not wait for your command.’ Be aware, it’s not going to be singularity with the machine. It’s singularity with the Jinn world!”

 

It was most definitely an OMG moment! Elon Musk is the tech billionaire bringing that particular brand of technology to the city nearest you. Which luckily is nowhere near Lahore. Although I’m guessing India, which these days serves as the khalifa for Israel, will be all over it so who knows? I had read that the Modi government had recently mandated a contract tracing app in his country which had shocked even the West.

 

Contact tracing apps appeared to me as one of the most insidious yet transparent modes of the “enslaving” the Shiekh was talking about. Google and Apple have teamed up in the effort as they have between them 3 billion users. Almost half the world’s population! Everybody was doing it anyway but if all private information of one’s existence was handed over voluntary, there was really nothing left.

 

Every human being would literally become a data byte that could be sold or manipulated. The "social credit system" in place by the state (China) or private corporations in the West meant denial and access to services (Uber, AirBnB etc) for anyone would be in the control of others. The Factbook-Cambridge Analytica fiasco had proven elections could be won.

 

And if people weren’t willing, it seemed like they would be forced.

 

May 7th, 2020: “In early April, India’s government launched a contact tracing app that processes users’ travel history, symptoms, and location data to calculate their risk of contracting the coronavirus…The government has made the app mandatory for public workers and has ordered companies to ‘ensure 100 percent coverage’ among employees. In the city of Noida, near New Delhi, people caught without the app could be fined $13 or face six months in jail.” And this is the world’s largest “democracy!”

 

Only to be outdone by Israel again. On May 8th the Jersualem Post headlined, “Netanhayu suggests microchipping kids.” The man just straight up suggests it. This from a state that already has “a classified Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) database that stores information on all Israeli citizens and most Palestinians in the West Bank. The data tracked by the agency included movements, phone calls and text messages.”

 

Singularity with the Jinn world through the brain, although that is probably not how he would put it, was originally Musk’s brainchild. From what I have read nobody seemed clear on what it was really for. All I found was a lot of “it could be for this or that or something else.”

 

July 2019: “Musk presented the first product from his company Neuralink. It’s a tiny computer chip attached to ultrafine, electrode-studded wires, stitched into living brains by a clever robot. And it’s either a state-of-the-art tool for understanding the brain, a clinical advance for people with neurological disorders, or the next step in human evolution.

 

The operation of Neuralink will develop computer chips that able to be implanted in human brain. The implanted chip aimed to increase the capacity of brain to memorized as well as installing or downloading ‘thoughts.’

 

In 2019 Musk said the process “will take a long time.” Then just this month, May 7th, 2020 he said. “‘We may be able to implant a neural link in less than a year in a person I think.’…Musk likened the process of his neural stimulation device zapping the brain to “kicking a TV”… the purpose being to restore functionality where it has been lost. For instance, those with Alzheimer’s could have their memories restored…‘We are already a cyborg to some degree.’”

 

The kick in the head didn’t sound like bad idea (I jest). Of course Musk is not the only one trying to do this. Facebook is making its own inroads.

 

When I had heard Sheikh Nurjan say that Jinns were electricity I got the movie “The Current War.” It was about the rivalry between Westinghouse and Thomas Edison in making widespread the use of electricity in the States. It was also terribly boring. The only thing striking about the movie was how electricity was used for capital punishment for the first time, replacing hanging, in the effort to be more civilized. Only turning out to be “extra brutal” to put it mildly.

 

Edison had vowed he would never use his inventions for anything that was harmful for the human race. Until of course came the time he needed money. It’s always the same ending. Sometimes I feel what Allah said in the Quran about alcohol and gambling ends up being true of most things we humans do. It always starts off with something that is “good.” Before you know it has been overshadowed by unparalleled harm. Some subversive agenda appears reversing the “goodness” that was due in a matter of, more and more, just a few years.

 

يَسْأَلُونَكَ عَنِ الْخَمْرِ وَالْمَيْسِرِ ۖ

قُلْ فِيهِمَا إِثْمٌ كَبِيرٌ وَمَنَافِعُ لِلنَّاسِ وَإِثْمُهُمَا أَكْبَرُ مِن نَّفْعِهِمَا ۗ

 

They ask you, (O Beloved (saw)), about intoxicants and games of chance. Say, “In both of them is a sin great, and some benefits for people. But sin of both of them is greater than the benefit of the two.” – Surah Al-Baqarah, Verse 219

 

The Sufis interpret the verse through another lens. The intoxicants are of two types, overt (zahiri) and inner (baatini). It is the intoxicants that sicken the soul they focus upon (baatini sharaab). Hazrat Najmuddin Kubra (ra) says that the ingredients of the latter are forgetfulness of God, indecency, lust for the forbidden and love of the world. All things that corrupt the mind and soul are harmful. Therefore, they are not allowed even in small doses and forbidden altogether.

 

I decided to read the Suraj Jinn in its entirety. One verse in particular popped out; the people who sought refuge from the Jinn.

 

وَأَنَّهُ كَانَ رِجَالٌ مِّنَ الْإِنسِ يَعُوذُونَ بِرِجَالٍ مِّنَ الْجِنِّ فَزَادُوهُمْ رَهَقًا

 

And there were men from mankind who sought refuge in men from the Jinn, so they (only) increased them in burden – Surah Jinn, Verse 6

 

I didn’t understand the translation so I asked Qari Sahib to explain it. His go-to is the same as mine, Ghaus Pak (ra). We opened the Tafseer e Jilani.

 

“The Jinn said (about that which he knew happened), ‘Before it was unveiled upon us the Oneness of Truth, there were some men amongst the humans seeking refuge from the men of the Jinns, when they traveled in desolate areas. Whilst in such places, the humans used to say, “I ask for refuge from the king of this valley from the wicked of his tribe.”’

 

“Then the humans thought we have received help from the Jinn and are in their protection. This made the Jinn and humans increased in their arrogance and wrongdoing and allowed the Jinn to snatch for them (secrets and information they did not know) as well as speak to them.”

 

I asked Qari Sahib, “But the Jinn is talking in the past sense, Sir. So this used to happen but a long time ago. How do we know it happens now?”

 

“Because Nabi Kareem (saw) already said,” my teacher responded, “that there is nothing forbidden that has happened before which my Ummah will not do again.”

 

أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ، قَالَ : لَتَتَّبِعُنَّ سَنَنَ مَنْ قَبْلَكُمْ شِبْرًا بِشِبْر

وَذِرَاعًا بِذِرَاعٍ حَتَّى لَوْ سَلَكُوا جُحْرَ ضَبٍّ لَسَلَكْتُمُوهُ

 

The Prophet (saw) said, “You will follow the wrong ways, of your predecessors so completely and literally that if they should go into the hole of a mastigure, you too will go there.”

 

Man!

 

For me personally, the most harmful thing about the corrupt Jinns in machines was not about staring at a screen for eight hours a day or more. I don’t do that. It was about two things, the first being technology leading to over exposure, information overload and therefore the mass desensitization of the masses. It started a while ago with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan where the numbers of innocent civilians and children killed reached millions. Then came the terrorist attacks and the thousands of innocent civilians and children killed. That certainly muted reactions to the dying of others.

 

Time had confirmed that my own reaction to disturbing events was initially intense but always short-lived. Recent examples; Domestic violence is up 40% is Europe and the UK! Deep concern, next! Muslims in India are being targeted for “spreading the virus,” facing violence and denied medical services with some hospitals taking out full page ads in newspapers to say if they will not be treated if tested positive for COVID-19. Extreme rage, next! Tens of thousands of Americans are standing are standing for hours in lines to receive something to eat from food banks across the country, while Amazon clocks 10,000 dollars a minute. Genuine sadness, next! I hated it.

 

The second was what Huxley called ‘Hypnopaedic’ (sleep-teaching). In my world, the teacher of morality was popular culture, specifically the media which, through technology, had successfully stripped in two decades the values of societies thousands of years old. I witnessed such happenings countless times in my generation. Case in point; movies and the world’s largest film industry, Bollywood. The wheels set in motion in 2006. Disney started acquiring share in UTV, a Mumbai-based leading media and entertainment company. Within a decade India had fallen.

 

Other Bollywood studios started joint ventures with Hollywood and the on-screen erosion and systemic eradication of a country’s culture and religious morality began. We went from images of butterflies and birds as a proxy for intimacy in the 80’s to hook-ups between the young where you have sex first and ask the other’s name later. If ever! I literally saw that and it amazed me how anyone could even buy it.

 

In the writing New York or Los Angeles were transposed onto Delhi or Mumbai just like that and not a peep was heard. Not from the censor boards, not the clergy, not the actors who were “willing to go naked” to land roles, certainly not the viewer. The exact same thing happened in Pakistani cinema to a lesser extent but it didn’t matter. Up until all things Indian were banned recently, our society was imbued with Bollywood as much as the Indians. Mehndi’s had become sangeets and I don’t know who came up with the word “shandi.”

 

Then courtesy of the internet and smart phones, within a decade, South Asians became the top porn-watchers in the world. Sexual violence against women and children in conservative societies became rampant. Recently China has started flexing its muscles with Hollywood. Given the size of its viewership the state began to dictate content, censoring what was “against” them. They made no qualms about controlling the narrative or simply deleting what was offensive to their “values.” Kisses were edited out of upcoming movies like Mulan and songs, the cornerstone of a Disney flick, were removed. The driver remained the same; money begets control.

 

‘Hypnopaedic!’ For one generation a drug, marijuana, was illegal and criminalized so intensely, thousands of young African American men was incarcerated for years for minor possession. For another it was an ingredient for brownies and gummy bears sold in cafes and Maureen Dowd was writing an op-ed about her experience of edibles for the New York Times. Yet the same minorities continue getting brutally assaulted, if not killed by the police, most recently for not maintaining social distancing of all things, in the East Village of all places and everyone is programmed to swallow that with a sip of Diet Coke.

 

The Prophet (ﷺ) had told me what to do when faced with injustice for oneself or another.

 

“Whosoever of you sees an evil, let him change it with his hand. And if he is not able to do so, then (let him change it) with his tongue. And if he is not able to do so, then with his heart — and that is the weakest of faith.”

 

I felt upset that just expressing outrage in my heart or at best in my writing, was all I could do. I would feel bad but then I just forgot everything too as if it never happened. Till I read about it again. I asked Qari Sahib why I was like this, what was it that rendered me essentially unaffected by everything and anything. He gave me my answer.

 

أَفَلَمْ يَسِيرُوا فِي الْأَرْضِ فَتَكُونَ لَهُمْ قُلُوبٌ يَعْقِلُونَ بِهَا أَوْ آذَانٌ يَسْمَعُونَ بِهَا ۖ

فَإِنَّهَا لَا تَعْمَى الْأَبْصَارُ وَلَٰكِن تَعْمَى الْقُلُوبُ الَّتِي فِي الصُّدُورِ

 

Have they, then, never journeyed about the earth, letting their hearts gain wisdom, and causing their ears to hear? Yet, verily, it is not their eyes that have become blind - but blind have become the hearts that are in their breasts! – Surah Al-Hajj, Verse 46

 

A heart being blind! What did that even mean? Ghaus Pak’s (ra) explanation was spellbinding.

 

“The world has been created for you to travel in so you learn from it and open your eyes. And your ears have been given the ability to hear so as to be informed of the news and the states of why others are destroyed and disconnected from their origins.”

 

“But did those before you learn from these stories and incidents? Their eyes were not blind because they watched their happenings and were informed. But their hearts were blind in seeing. They did not learn a lesson from them or open their eyes to their realities or see the happenings to gain insight as a thinking person. They were not being watchful.”

“Overall know this; The one who does not learn lessons from that which is destroying others from detriment, these people their hearts have become blind even though their eyes are well.”

 

It was emulation of the worst kind! I was reminded of Confucius who said that there were three ways of acquiring wisdom. The most difficult and most noble was reflection. The easiest was emulation. The most bitter, experience. It certainly didn’t seem like our lustful desire to experience everything that came our way from the West or even closer was going to end anytime soon.

 

Personally I was never an emulator of any kind but that’s easy when you live on the periphery of society. It doesn’t let you in unless you mainstream yourself to death so if you don’t mind being alone, I guess you are rendered safe. Finally I understood what it was that Iblis wanted from me at least. My softness was the best part of me so it was the slow but sure stripping of my ehsaas, the ability to be sensitive to the state of another’s heart, that him the happiest.

 

June 30th, 2015 Live Science “Our brains can't handle the barrage of emotionally draining stories told to us, and this leads to a negation or suppression of emotion that destroys empathy. The natural response is to shut down our compassion, because we are emotionally exhausted..."

 

"...However, if we are conscious of the diminishment of empathy, we can recover it… Remember that empathy is a muscle: The more you use it, the stronger it gets. So, flex those empathy muscles through storytelling and expand your notion of who is in your group (meaning only the ones you care about). Or, be willing to fall prey to the increasing ideological polarization of our time and face the global consequences.”

 

To better understand how to hold on to that which made me human, I decided to look up the verses of the Prophet Adam (as) after he and Amma Hawwa (ratu) were made to leave Heaven for a transgression they were enticed to commit. In their sadness of their error how did they react?

 

قَالَا رَبَّنَا ظَلَمْنَا أَنفُسَنَا وَإِن لَّمْ تَغْفِرْ لَنَا

وَتَرْحَمْنَا لَنَكُونَنَّ مِنَ الْخَاسِرِينَ

 

The two replied, "O our Sustainer! We have sinned against ourselves and unless You grant us forgiveness and bestow Your Mercy upon us, we shall most certainly be lost!"

 

So one: blame yourself when you commit a wrongdoing and not the other, not even Iblis when it is him who misleads you. That was unexpected! Since he was the one who quite literally mislead them. Only when a mistake was committed by another person did the Prophet’s deflect blame from their loved ones to Satan. For sowing discord, as the Prophet Yousaf (as) had done when it came to his brothers.

 

وَقَدْ أَحْسَنَ بِي إِذْ أَخْرَجَنِي مِنَ السِّجْنِ

وَبَيْنَ إِخْوَتِي ۚ وَجَاءَ بِكُم مِّنَ الْبَدْوِ مِن بَعْدِ أَن نَّزَغَ الشَّيْطَانُ بَيْنِي

 

And He (Allah) was certainly good to me when He took me out of prison and brought you (here) from the desert life after Satan had caused discord between me and my brothers.” - Surah Yusuf, Verse 100

 

But when it came to their own selves and anything related to their lives, the Prophets never blamed anyone. Certainly never fate. Not during any trials. Not even though they were innocent, masoom, devoid of free will. It was because blame and accusation expels love from a relationship. But I digress. That’s another story.

 

Out of curiosity I asked Qari Sahib what it was exactly that Iblis had promised the Prophet Adam (as) when he lured him into doing that which was forbidden to him by God.

 

فَوَسْوَسَ إِلَيْهِ الشَّيْطَانُ قَالَ يَا آدَمُ هَلْ أَدُلُّكَ عَلَىٰ شَجَرَةِ الْخُلْدِ وَمُلْكٍ لَّا يَبْلَىٰ

 

Then whispered to him Shaitaan and he said, "O Adam! Shall I direct you to (the) tree (of) life eternal and a kingdom not (that will) deteriorate?" – Surah Taha, Verse 120

 

Eternal life! I had come across articles over recent years on the desire of billionaires to live longer.

 

Sep 2nd, 2015: “6 Billionaires who want to live forever” and the first line reads, “A growing number of tech moguls are trying to solve their biggest problem yet: Aging.” Who are they; Theil - Paypal, Ellison – Oracle, Larry Page – Alpahbet, Sergey Brin – Google, Zuckerburg – Facebook, Sean Parker – Napster.” Ellison’s quote; “Death has never made any sense to me. How can a person be there and then just vanish, just not be there?” I guess he hadn't come across the Quran : )

 

كُلُّ نَفْسٍ ذَائِقَةُ الْمَوْتِ

 

Every soul will taste death - Surah Aal e Imran, Verse 185

 

But perhaps many people not so rich want to live forever too. It was the second part of Iblis’ lure that I was interested in. Ghaus Pak (ra) defines the kingdom without decline in a particular way: “It is a kingdom that will only grow. It will be forever and it will be the first of its kind, not coming from another. It will never be in decline nor will it be transferred to another.”

 

I paused when I read the lines with Qari Sahib and looked at him in surprise. I didn’t know about the past but anybody could guess which “kingdoms” were the first of their kind in our lifetime.

 

“Maybe it was the banks before Sir or whoever but it’s definitely the tech companies now,” I spoke the words slowly. Nothing like them ever existed before. I guess that’s why they give their wealth to so-called philanthropy. The advancement of an agenda long after they’re dead must continue. Iblis offers them the wealth and the power that comes with it. Then he just keeps it while they die taking nothing to the grave. I had read about that being his modus operandi enough times in the books of the Auliya Karaam. It made sense why “advocacy philanthropy” or as I heard recently from enraged activists “philanthro-capitalism” was the call of the day.

 

But the most concise explanation of the problem with the corrupt Jinn lay in Surah An-Naas. In it is the last line of the Quran which formed the inspiration of the title of this piece. The surah was hugely significant. It contained God’s parting words to me. The strange thing was I knew the surah inside out because for my book where I had translated the entire tafseer from the Arabic so as not to miss a word. But I had done it entirely ignoring the word Jinn because I knew nothing about them. And what did it encompass; a warning!

 

(Begin excerpt “The Softest Heart”)

 

End of Part I - Click below to continue

 

www.flickr.com/photos/42093313@N00/49916190422/in/datepos...

 

www.youtube.com/channel/UCqb01bB-J3kyiu-HKIX2MKw

Nikon FM

Outdated Kodak Max 400 Film

+++ 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 FVM JF-22 ("JF" for Jaktflygplan = fighter aircraft) was a Swedish biplane fighter. It had been designed as a private venture by Gösta von Porat and Henry Kjellson at Flygcompaniets Verkstäder at Malmen (FVM) as a potential replacement for to the Swedish Air Force’s contemporary main fighter aircraft, the J1. This was the Austro-Hungarian Phönix D.III, a design dating back to WWI. A total of 10 J1s were operated since 1920, but the type was already outdated upon arrival, and the fleet’s small size was not sufficient, either.

 

The original design was designated JF-21. It was one of three biplanes amongst the FVM designs submitted to the Swedish Defense Department, along with competing designs from the national ASJA and Sparmann companies. After an extensive review the JF-21 was chosen in 1923 for limited production for evaluative purposes. The first prototype aircraft was built in early 1924. The JF-21 was a single-bay, unstaggered biplane of conventional configuration. The wings were braced with N-struts at around half-span, ailerons were only fitted to the lower wings in order to simplify construction and save weight, and the aircraft was powered by an imported Hispano-Suiza V8 engine that delivered 224 kW (300 hp). A training version, a two-seater designated Ö-21, was also created, powered with the same engine as the fighter but with a less powerful 180 hp version.

 

Testing revealed some serious stability deficiencies in the JF-21, and the first prototype was lost in a crash on 25th on May 1924, almost killing the pilot. Production was halted after just four airframes, but FVM did not give up on the design. A subsequent redesign in late 1924 morphed the aircraft into its final form as the JF-22. Changes included a wider span of the upper wing, a slightly longer rear fuselage with bigger tail surfaces (a fixed fin was added to the all-movable rudder) and a lifting fairing for the landing gear axle. All these measures were intended to improve flight stability and low speed handling. Furthermore, the interplane bracing was straightened and allowed, as a positive side effect, for a better field of view for the pilot.

 

Initially, two JF-22s were built during the winter 1924/25 and ready for testing in Spring 1925. Even though the flight characteristics were markedly improved the aircraft still showed some nervous handling characteristics that called for an experienced pilot. Further measures like spats on the main wheels (tested on the 1st prototype in late 1925) did not much improve these deficiencies. In consequence, the Swedish Air Force formally rejected the JF-22 in 1926, after three fighters and two trainers had been built and handed over to frontline units for trials and field evaluation.

 

At that time, FVM also had two further, experimental variants of the aircraft on the drawing boards, but none of them made it to the hardware stage. These were the JF-22J with a more powerful Jupiter radial engine (with an eye on the export market) and a dedicated race plane, the JF-22R, which was powered by a boosted HS-8Fb engine that delivered 298 kW (400 hp) and was outfitted with the JF-21’s former, shorter wings. The Swedish air force showed no interest and export customers did not materialize, either. In June 1927, FVM was successful in trials staged by the Belgian Air Force and submitted a JF-22 (the 3rd prototype), but the type was once again not accepted.

 

Instead of the FVM JF-22, the Swedish Air Force adopted the J2 and J3 for service, even though these were rather observation aircraft than pure fighters. Eventually, the indigenous J5/6 was chosen as Sweden’s new single seat fighter in 1930 – and by that time the technical development had advanced so far that the JF-22 had become obsolete.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: One

Length: 6.87 m (22 ft 6 in)

Wingspan: 8.90 m (29 ft 2 in)

Height: 2.74 m (9 ft 0 in)

Wing area: 21 m² (240 sq ft)

Empty weight: 765 kg (1,687 lb)

Gross weight: 1,075 kg (2,370 lb)

Fuel capacity: 140 kg (310 lb)

 

Powerplant:

1× Hispano-Suiza 8Fb V-8 water-cooled piston engine, 224 kW (300 hp) at 1,850rpm,

driving a 2-bladed wooden propeller

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 250 km/h (160 mph, 130 kn)

Stall speed: 90 km/h (56 mph, 49 kn)

Range: 600–650 km (370–400 mi, 320–350 nmi)

Time to altitude: 7,000 m (23,000 ft) in 35 min

 

Armament:

2× m/22 fixed 8 mm (0.315 in) machine guns (license built .30 AN/M2's) with 500 rounds each,

fitted with synchronization gear and firing through the propeller.

  

The kit and its assembly:

This relatively simple whif was actually inspired by a decal set for a Swedish J1 biplane. In order to have a “canvas” to put this scheme onto, a suitable aircraft had to be found – and it became the vintage (and dirty cheap) KP kit of the Avia H-21.

 

The kit turned out to be much better than expected. It has some flash, but the surface and interior details are nice, the kit comes with anything you’d ask for. It’s really good except for a mediocre fit, but that’s acceptable for the molds’ age and, thanks to the simple shapes, PSR is an easy task.

 

Even though the model depicts a fictional Swedish fighter, the kit was built almost OOB and stays close to the Avia H-21, which is IMHO quite elegant. I just reduced the lower wings’ span (which are on the H-21 wider than the upper wing!) for a slightly more conventional look. The propeller was replaced with a better one from the scrap box (IIRC from a Revell SPAD XIII), together with a metal axis and a respective styrene tube adapter. A small fin was added in front of the free-standing rudder (from a Revell Sopwith Triplane), and I added a set of spats that I had found in the spares bin, too. Rigging was done post-painting with heated/stretched black sprue material.

  

Painting and markings:

The paint scheme is based on a Swedish J1 around 1925, with a pretty three-tone camouflage consisting of two green tones and a sand brown. According to the cource, the undersides were light blue, but I have doubts because unpainted linen ("Duk") was more common on the J1s.

With this basis I did some legwork in trustworthy literature and found the following guesstimates for the respective colors: Ljusbrun: Humbrol 234 (Dark Skin Tone, for a pale reddish earth tone), Mellangrön: Revell 363 (Fern Green) and Mörkgron (I used Modelmaster’s RAF Dark Green, similar to USAF Forest Green FS 34079). Instead of the contemporary standard lacquered fabric underneath I painted the undersides in Humbrol 23 (RAF Duck Egg Green).

 

The engine cover was painted with Humbrol 56, the cockpit interior in Tamiya 57 (Light Buff), simulating unpainted but lacquered fabric. The wing struts as well as the propeller blades were painted in a streaky wet-in-wet mix of Humbrol 62 and 71, simulating wood grain on lacquered wood. The rudder flash was painted with Humbrol 99 and 104.

The model was lightly weathered with a thin black ink washing and some dry-brushing, emphasizing the fabric structures and the model's fine raised surface details. Graphite was used for some exhaust stains.

 

Markings/decals were minimal: The 1927-style roundels came from a Swedish pre-WWII D.H. Tiger Moth trainer (AZ Models aftermarket sheet), the tactical code was created with single digits in a proper Swedish 1927 font (Flying Colors Aerodecals). Everything was sealed with matt acrylic varnish and the rigging was done as the final step.

  

A small and quick project, building was done in just two days plus final rigging on day three. While not spectacular, the modified Avia H-21 in Swedish markings looks quite convincing, even more so because it depicts a prototype that never made it into service. And it’s colorful, too! ^^

 

Photo credited to strumdogg at forum.blu-ray.com. As one of my collaborations, Nickelodeon will release Blue's Clues Handy Dandy notebook prop replicas to stores everywhere replacing DVDs and Walmart will replace the DVD isle with expanded teacher supply isle with extra more teacher supply stuff like Green Chalkboards and electric mechanical wall bells and extra Disney Snow White and Pinocchio stuff and extra more new modern environmental friendly 1997 Crayola Crayon boxes for all elementary schools and daycare centers to replace all Bogen Muticom 2000 systems and having Corbeil School buses and all other school buses with an electric stop arm and my new safety updated ice cream trucks with the current yellow trapezoid children slow crossing warning blades that word CHILDREN SLOW CROSSING and school bus stop signs replacing all of the last remaining ice cream trucks that still have the bad old outdated red trapezoid children slow crossing warning blades that word IF-SAFE STOP THEN-GO and for all schools to get rid of that mean scary looking grumpy face with the freaky spikey eyelashes and triangular eyes and razor blade forehead wrinkles they used to have on Gordon in the old live action model version of Thomas and Friends and mean-spirited angers like mean teachers, Frankie Foster getting mad by yelling, screaming, and making freaky spikey eyelashes and triangular eyes in Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends, and Chief Wiggums meanly aiming his gun in modern Simpsons forever. And also with this collaborations Walmart will also have Blue's Clues Handy Dandy Notebook prop replicas and Little Golden Books replace all of the DVDs in the bargain bins since that many people including me love prop accurate Blue's Clues Handy Dandy Notebooks and Little Golden Books and that we also need to get rid of the bad old school junk like that Walmart and other stores need to get rid of 1992's Tom and Jerry: The Movie due to that 1992's Tom and Jerry: The Movie is extremely upsetting to Blue's Clues Steve fans because of the mean-spirited fake exaggerated house demolition with a pear-shaped wrecking ball at the beginning and the house at the beginning of 1992's Tom and Jerry: The Movie does resemble the Blue's Clues house and that 1992's Tom and Jerry: The Movie is also a huge plagiarism from Disney too because 1992's Tom and Jerry: The Movie is an extremely huge rip-off of The Rescuers which is a Disney Movie and Walmart and other stores also need to get rid of that mean scary looking grumpy face with the freaky spikey eyelashes and triangular eyes and razor blade forehead wrinkles they used to have on Gordon in the old live action model version of Thomas and Friends and mean-spirited anger images because they make little kids cry extremely bad and remind them of mean teachers at school. And these new changes I am making for Walmart and other stores and all other of my collaborations, Corduroy episodes at Nelvana, restoring all of the good things from my past, safety improvements, and Friendly rebrands will make a better economy and an all-inclusive future together. In the 2000s, Warner Bros reviving 1992's Tom and Jerry the movie and and selling too many DVD copies of that movie surpassing Corduroy the Bear and his buttons was all McDonald's corporation and Bogen Communication's fault because the super size at McDonald's was brainwashing many people by reviving the bad old 1992 Tom and Jerry movie and popularizing Bogen Multicom 2000 and their mean spirited bell tones that are haunted chimes that don't sound like a bell at all scaring off kids especially kids with autism and making them not want to go to school and abandoning my golden toddler stuff like Corduroy the Bear with two buttons on his green corduroy overalls but good thing I am undoing all of the bad influence the super size gave us by restoring my golden toddlerhood, safety improvements, kindness improvements, reviving Nelvana's version of Corduroy the Bear with the premiere of Two Buttons again and Forever fixing Betty Quan's upsetting mistake for good by showing that they did get Corduroy's button out of the storm drain and put Corduroy's button back on Corduroy the Bear's green corduroy overalls and that corduroy the bear does have two buttons on his green corduroy overalls forever and bringing back all nostalgic inducing stuff like green chalkboards and electric mechanical wall bells etc and create a nostalgic inducing future. So this is why all broadcasts of The Simpsons MUST BE BY LAW MANDATED to be ONLY reruns of classic Simpsons (first 18 seasons of The Simpsons). This is why all schools MUST BE BY LAW MANDATED to be set up like Middleborough, Hilltop School from Timothy Goes to School, and or my DeVry building in North Brunswick, NJ and all with green chalkboards, electric mechanical wall bells, and Corbeil school buses and other school buses with electric stop arms, and only kind-spirited stuff like Disney Snow White and Pinocchio stuff and Corduroy the Bear with two buttons on his green corduroy overalls and Steve Notebooks etc, and no mean-spirited stuff like Bogen Multicom 2000 and that mean scary looking grumpy face with the freaky spikey eyelashes and triangular eyes and razor blade forehead wrinkles they used to have on Gordon in the old live action model version of Thomas and Friends and no processed foods in the school lunches. This is why McDonald's restaurants MUST BE BY LAW MANDATED to be McEyebrows with the yellow and orange striped awnings, arch wedge the new aluminum exterior I have created, or the original 1970s version of the iconic double sloped mansard roof and better and safe updated indoor PlayPlaces with low and safe steps and slides and green chalkboards and or just the dining room option (no playplace), This is why all ice cream trucks MUST BE BY LAW MANDATED to be all updated to the current updated yellow trapezoid children slow crossing warning blades that word CHILDREN SLOW CROSSING and or school bus stop signs and that all ice cream trucks MUST BE BY LAW MANDEDTED TO GET RID of the bad old outdated red trapezoid children slow crossing warning blades that word IF-SAFE STOP THEN-GO for good, This is why Crayola Crayon boxes MUST BE BY LAW MANDATED to be new modern 1997 boxes. This is why school PA systems MUST BE BY LAW MANDATED to be Rauland Telecenter or PA systems with no bell tones. And this is why Nelvana and Hanna-Barbera MUST TAKE OVER Warner Bros. Animation. That mean scary looking grumpy face with the freaky spikey eyelashes, triangular eyes, and razor blade forehead wrinkles they used to have on Gordon in the old live action model version of Thomas and Friends is the worst mean spirited anger imagery because the way how that face is modeled was depicting Gordon the Big engine about to kill people by running over them and about to come out of the TV and kill the viewers of the show by running over them which is very bad and murding is the worst crime. Mean teachers getting students arrested for having autism or other disabilities MUST BE BANNED because that is very mean and hurtful and causes trauma to students with autism and other disabilities especially in modern Simpsons (The Simpsons seasons 19 and later) Chief Wiggums was getting people arrested for having autism and other disabilities is why modern Simpsons MUST END IMMEDIATELLY and that Nelvana's version of Corduroy the Bear MUST BE REVIVED with the premiere of Two Buttons again and Forever IMMEDIATELY and a lot of big schools with Bogen Multicom 2000 also have mean teachers getting students arrested for having autism or other disabilities is another reason why Bogen Multicom 2000 is a very mean-spirited PA System along their bell tones not sounding like a bell at all especially the in this picture of a mean teacher getting a boy arrested for having autism is in a school with a Bogen Multicom 2000 and allowing mean spirited stuff and allowing an ice cream truck to keep the bad old outdated red trapezoid children slow crossing warning blades that word IF-SAFE STOP THEN-GO is why I am dead furious with Bogen Communications and Fox Broadcasting and getting students arrested for having autism or other disabilities is one of the extremely bad impact modern Simpsons (The Simpsons seasons 19 and later) has gave us along with reusing bad things they used to make in the past and how to be mean and scary which are extremely bad. So this is why all broadcasts of The Simpsons MUST BE BY LAW MANDATED to be ONLY reruns of classic Simpsons (first 18 seasons of The Simpsons). This is why all schools MUST BE BY LAW MANDATED to be set up like Middleborough, Hilltop School from Timothy Goes to School, and or my DeVry building in North Brunswick, NJ and all with green chalkboards, electric mechanical wall bells, and Corbeil school buses and other school buses with electric stop arms, and only kind-spirited stuff like Disney Snow White and Pinocchio stuff and Corduroy the Bear with two buttons on his green corduroy overalls and Steve Notebooks etc, and no mean-spirited stuff like Bogen Multicom 2000 and that mean scary looking grumpy face with the freaky spikey eyelashes and triangular eyes and razor blade forehead wrinkles they used to have on Gordon in the old live action model version of Thomas and Friends and no processed foods in the school lunches. This is why McDonald's restaurants MUST BE BY LAW MANDATED to be McEyebrows with the yellow and orange striped awnings, arch wedge the new aluminum exterior I have created, or the original 1970s version of the iconic double sloped mansard roof and better and safe updated indoor PlayPlaces with low and safe steps and slides and green chalkboards and or just the dining room option (no playplace), This is why all ice cream trucks MUST BE BY LAW MANDATED to be all updated to the current updated yellow trapezoid children slow crossing warning blades that word CHILDREN SLOW CROSSING and or school bus stop signs and that all ice cream trucks MUST BE BY LAW MANDEDTED TO GET RID of the bad old outdated red trapezoid children slow crossing warning blades that word IF-SAFE STOP THEN-GO for good, This is why Crayola Crayon boxes MUST BE BY LAW MANDATED to be new modern 1997 boxes. This is why school PA systems MUST BE BY LAW MANDATED to be Rauland Telecenter or PA systems with no bell tones. And this is why Nelvana and Hanna-Barbera MUST TAKE OVER Warner Bros. Animation and Fuzzy Door Productions. And from now on the only childrens' books from the McDonald's double-sloped mansard era people MUST reuse in schools, republish, restore, reprint, and re-create are ONLY little golden books with the classic character train back cover template with Tootle pulling the long train of characters and Donald duck waving the flag saying "The World of Little Golden Books" not any of those old Thomas books with pictures from the old live action model version of Thomas and Friends so we will never ever have to deal with that mean scary looking grumpy face with the freaky spikey eyelashes and triangular eyes and razor blade forehead wrinkles they used to have on Gordon in the old live action model version of Thomas and Friends ever again. That mean scary looking grumpy face with the freaky spikey eyelashes, triangular eyes, and razor blade forehead wrinkles they used to have on Gordon in the old live action model version of Thomas and Friends is the worst mean spirited anger imagery because the way how that face is modeled was depicting Gordon the Big engine about to kill people by running over them and about to come out of the TV and kill the viewers of the show by running over them which is very bad and murding is the worst crime. Original photo credited to TrustaMann on Deviantart.com. Parents and Teachers being mean to them and destroying their kid's toys and belongings and yelling "GOD DAM HELL" and "GOD IN HELL" as a punishments MUST BE BANNED AND ILLEGAL EVERYWHERE FOREVER!!!!!!!! because Parents and Teachers taking away and destroying kid's toys and stuff as a punishment is being mean to kids and hurts their feelings real bad and cry which is extremely bad and parents and teachers use scary inappropriate behaviors like yelling "GOD DAM HELL" and meanly yell I'm so god dam cross with you whey they take away kid's toys and stuff needs to stop forever. And at Holly Springs school in my 5th grade school year there were mean teachers that got mean and super mad at me and took away my Steve notebook and forced me to see the freaky spikey eyelashes, razor blade forehead wrinkles, and triangular eyes they used to had on Gordon's grumpy face in the old model version of Thomas and Friends which scared me and other kids real bad when they meanly called me bad just because I made one bad choice and I am a good boy and always try to be kind and respectful. And in the old model version of Thomas and Friends, Gordon looked like an evil man with a gun when he gets grumpy is why I hate the old model version of Thomas and Friends and say that the old model version of Thomas and Friends MUST BE BANNED and good thing I the kind and respectful teachers gave me back my Steve Notebook. Also in my 5th grade year at Holly Springs there was a preschool class with a secondary teachers being mean and got super mad at the little kid and took away his toys and stuff and destroyed them and made the little kid sit in the hallway and and forced and made the little kid to see the freaky spikey eyelashes, razor blade forehead wrinkles, and triangular eyes they used to had on Gordon's grumpy face in the old model version of Thomas and Friends and the little kid cried real hard and I felt bad for the little kid but at least Santa mended the little kids destroyed toys back together at his workshop and gave the toys back to the little kid and at also it is a good thing Thomas and Friends moved to from live action models to CGI animations which is better and friendlier and made Gordon have a more accurate grumpy face similar to Homer Simpson in classic Simpsons episodes. This is why Bogen Multicom 2000 systems MUST BE BANNED from schools and that Bogen Communications MUST SHUT DOWN FOREVER. Especially, that mean scary looking grumpy face with the freaky spikey eyelashes, triangular eyes, and razor blade forehead wrinkles they used to have on Gordon in the old live action model version of Thomas and Friends is the worst mean spirited anger imagery because the way how that face is modeled was depicting Gordon the Big engine about to kill people by running over them and about to come out of the TV and kill the viewers of the show by running over them which is very bad and murding is the worst crime. Eventhough I am not worried about the mean teachers at Holly Springs school anymore, I still occasionally have nightmares about the mean teachers at Holly Springs school, one night I had 2 nightmares of the mean teachers at Holly Springs school and the first nightmare was in Mrs. Monic's room with the mean teachers at Holly Springs threatening to give me a punishment day by destroying my Steve notebook and forcing me to see that mean scary looking grumpy face with the freaky spikey eyelashes and triangular eyes and razor blade forehead wrinkles they used to have on Gordon in the old live action model version of Thomas and Friends and the mean then the mean teachers told me to shut up in a slow monster voice with teeth sticking together and then I woke up and realized it was only a dream and the second nightmare with the mean teachers at Holly Springs school the mean teachers were forbidding me to revive Nelvana's version of Corduroy the Bear with the premiere of Two Buttons again and Forever fixing Betty Quan's upsetting mistake for good and the mean teachers then were calling me a bad boy and then destroyed my Steve notebook and had Gordon in the old live action model version of Thomas and Friends kill me by running me over with that mean scary looking grumpy face with the freaky spikey eyelashes and triangular eyes and razor blade forehead wrinkles they used to have on Gordon in the old live action model version of Thomas and Friends and sending my soul to where the devil lives but good thing God came and angrily confronted the mean teachers at Holly Springs school and angrily destroyed that mean scary looking grumpy face with the freaky spikey eyelashes and triangular eyes and razor blade forehead wrinkles they used to have on Gordon in the old live action model version of Thomas and Friends and angrily put a grinning smile face on the live action model version of Gordon the Big engine and made the live action model version of Gordon the Big engine inanimate forever as his punishment and revived me and mended my Steve notebook back together and God told me that I am not a bad boy and then allowed me to revive Nelvana's version of Corduroy the Bear with the premiere of Two Buttons again and Forever fixing Betty Quan's upsetting mistake showing that they did get Corduroy's button out of the storm drain and put Corduroy's button back on Corduroy the Bear's green corduroy overalls and Corduroy the Bear does have two buttons on his green corduroy overalls forever. Especially when I was in 5th grade at Holly Springs, my anxiety had in my head of the mean teachers making evil magic giant steel crates to lock kids in with slamming lift doors forcing kids to see that mean scary looking grumpy face with the freaky spikey eyelashes and triangular eyes and razor blade forehead wrinkles they used to have on Gordon in the old live action model version of Thomas and Friends and the mean teachers having live action model version of Gordon the Big engine shoot a gun at the kids in the steel crate with that mean scary looking grumpy face with the freaky spikey eyelashes and triangular eyes they used to have on Gordon in the old live action model version of Thomas and Friends and the mean teachers having the live action model version of Gordon the Big engine kill the kids in the steel crate by running them over with that mean scary looking grumpy face with the freaky spikey eyelashes and triangular eyes and razor blade forehead wrinkles they used to have on Gordon in the old live action model version of Thomas and Friends and I had been having this scary thought since 5th grade at Holly Springs when the mean secondary teachers from Mrs. Monic's room was giving a little kid a punishment day in the hall and was giving me the idea of killing myself by setting my own body on fire I had this bottled up since 5th grade at Holly Springs school. This is why I am collaborating to make everything great again as when I revive Nelvana's version of Corduroy the Bear with the premiere of Two Buttons again and Forever fixing Betty Quan's upsetting mistake for good by showing that they did get Corduroy's button out of the storm drain and put Corduroy's button back on Corduroy the Bear's green corduroy overalls and Corduroy the Bear does have two buttons on his green corduroy overalls forever. This is why Bogen Multicom 2000 systems MUST BE BANNED from schools and that Bogen Communications MUST SHUT DOWN FOREVER. Especially, that mean scary looking grumpy face with the freaky spikey eyelashes, triangular eyes, and razor blade forehead wrinkles they used to have on Gordon in the old live action model version of Thomas and Friends is the worst mean spirited anger imagery because the way how that face is modeled was depicting Gordon the Big engine about to kill people by running over them and about to come out of the TV and kill the viewers of the show by running over them which is very bad and murding is the worst crime. And parents and teachers being mean to kids and destroying their kid's toys and belongings as punishments was giving me the idea of killing myself by setting my own body on fire.

Once the backbone of the Casian Federal Navy, The Cleaver-class frigate is no longer the most numerous vessel within the Service. Although it is now outdated, the Cleaver still carries an impressive amount of firepower. It has four heavy twin turrets, and four light Repeaters. Its twin propellers give it a respectable top speed, although they are notoriously difficult to perform maintenance on. In addition, its rear assembly is so cramped by the engines and props, that the steering rudders are unusually small, making this airship very sluggish despite its small size.

 

The Cleaver Class was a big part of the Casian response to the Blighting, serving as both fleet scouts and the primary fighting vessel of the Casian Militia. By that point, they were long in the tooth but not obsolete, and although losses of this airship type were high, their performance greatly helped the Allied Nations. Cyrenthian Workshops continued to build them in decreasing numbers right up to the start of the Continental War. The class' role in this war was significantly lesser than in the Feral War, as by this point they were quite obsolete and suffering from Mechanicum fatigue. No longer the mainstay of the Casian Federal Navy, having been replaced by the Dart-class, they were at this point found almost exclusively in the hands of smaller nations or the Casian Militia. They served primarily as patrol and rapid defensive response vessels during the Continental War, an undistinguished but vital role.

 

The Cleaver class was also known for being very cramped, and having terrible crew ergonomics. Many Clerics refused to serve aboard these ships because they lacked Holy rooms. As time went on, the poor Mechanicum quality of these ships became more and more pronounced, and there were calls to replace them with newer, more capable designs.

The few Cleaver-class airships left were either relegated to patrol duties, sold off to other nations and corporations, or given to Casian Militia units.

******************************************************************************************************

COMMENTS/QUESTIONS/SUGGESTIONS/FEEDBACK/REQUESTS ARE WELCOME AND APPRECIATED!

Rolleiflex | 75 3.5 | fuji 160c outdated

Burnley, Colne & Nelson Corporation purchased fourteen East Lancs half cab Leyland Tiger PS2/14 between 1953 and 1955. Despite their outdated design all were later converted for one man operation. Preserved 41 (CHG 541) was at the Trans Lancs Rally at Heaton Park, Manchester on September 4th 1994.

The Ticonderogas were designed to be the state-of-the-art replacements of the outdated Cold War Spruance Class. 27 Ticonderogas have been completed. The first 5 of the class, including the Ticonderoga, were decommissioned early. Their lack of a VLS (vertical launch system), made them obsolete. The 22 active vessels are slated to serve until they each reach the end of their individual life expectancies. Although, with the proposed dry docking and overhaul, they would be able to serve longer.

 

Length - 567ft

Displacement - 9,600-9,800 tons

Propulsion - 4 GE gas turbine engines, 2 rudders, 2 reversible-pitch propellers

Range - 6,000 nmi

Performance - 32.5 knots

Compliment - 30 officers, 300 enlisted

Armament - 2x61-cell Mk 41 VLS, 8 Harpoon launchers, 2x5in Mark 45 guns, 2x25mm Mark 38 guns, 2 Phalanx CIWS, 2 Mark 32 triple torpedo launchers

Deployable Vehicles - 2 SH-60 Seahawks, inflatable dinghies

 

Well, one more down. This one was pretty fun to revisit. I fixed a bunch of issues from my first version, and the only thing still bothering me is that main mast. Other than that, I’m quite happy with this design. Next, I will be moving on to the Whidbey Island Class dock landing ship.

+++ 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 Georgian Air Force and Air Defense Division (თავდაცვის ძალების ავიაციისა და საჰაერო თავდაცვის სარდლობა; tavdatsvis dzalebis aviatsiisa da sahaero tavdatsvis sardloba) was established on January 1, 1992, and in September the Georgian Air Force conducted its first combat flight during the separatist war in Abkhazia. On August 18, 1998, the two divisions were unified in a joint command structure and renamed the Georgian Air Force.

In 2010, the Georgian Air Force was abolished as a separate branch and incorporated into the Georgian Land Forces as Air and Air Defense sections. By that time, the equipment – primarily consisting of Eastern Bloc aircraft inherited from the Soviet Union after the country’s dissolution – was totally outdated, the most potent aircraft were a dozen Suchoj Su-25 attack aircraft and a handful of MiG-21U trainers.

 

In order to rejuvenate the air arm, Tbilisi Aircraft Manufacturing (TAM), also known as JSC Tbilaviamsheni and formerly known as 31st aviation factory, started a modernization program for the Su-25, for the domestic forces but also for export customers. TAM had a long tradition of aircraft production within the Soviet Union. In the 1950s the factory started the production of Mikoyan's MiG-15 and later, the MiG-17 fighter aircraft. In 1957 Tbilisi Aircraft State Association built the MiG-21 two-seater fighter-trainer aircraft and its various derivative aircraft, continuing the MiG-21 production for about 25 years. At the same time the company was manufacturing the K-10 air-to-surface guided missile. Furthermore, the first Sukhoi Su-25 (known in the West as the "Frogfoot") close support aircraft took its maiden voyage from the runway of 31st aviation factory. Since then, more than 800 SU-25s had been delivered to customers worldwide. From the first SU-25 to the 1990s, JSC Tbilaviamsheni was the only manufacturer of this aircraft, and even after the fall of the Soviet Union the production lines were still intact and spares for more than fifty complete aircraft available. Along with the SU-25 aircraft 31st aviation factory also launched large-scale production of air-to-air R-60 and R-73 IR guided missiles, a production effort that built over 6,000 missiles a year and that lasted until the early 1990s. From 1996 to 1998 the factory also produced Su-25U two-seaters.

 

In 2001 the factory started, in partnership with Elbit Systems of Israel, upgrading basic Su-25 airframes to the Su-25KM “Scorpion” variant. This was just a technical update, however, intended for former Su-25 export customers who would upgrade their less potent Su-25K export aircraft with modern avionics. The prototype aircraft made its maiden flight on 18 April 2001 at Tbilisi in full Georgian Air Force markings. The aircraft used a standard Su-25 airframe, enhanced with advanced avionics including a glass cockpit, digital map generator, helmet-mounted display, computerized weapons system, complete mission pre-plan capability, and fully redundant backup modes. Performance enhancements included a highly accurate navigation system, pinpoint weapon delivery systems, all-weather and day/night performance, NATO compatibility, state-of-the art safety and survivability features, and advanced onboard debriefing capabilities complying with international requirements. The Su-25KM had the ability to use NATO-standard Mark 82 and Mark 83 laser-guided bombs and new air-to-air missiles, the short-range Vympel R-73. This upgrade extended service life of the Su-25 airframes for another decade.

There were, however, not many customers. Manufacturing was eventually stopped at the end of 2010, after Georgian air forces have been permanently dismissed and abolished. By that time, approximately 12 Scorpions had been produced, but the Georgian Air Force still used the basic models of Su-25 because of high cost of Su-25KM and because it was destined mainly for export. According to unofficial sources several Scorpions had been transferred to Turkmenistan as part of a trade deal.

 

In the meantime, another, more ambitious project took shape at Tbilisi Aircraft Manufacturing, too: With the help of Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) the company started the development of a completely new attack aircraft, the TAM-1 “Gvelgeslas” (გველგესლას, Viper). It heavily relied on the year-long experience gathered with Su-25 production at Tblisi and on the tools at hand, but it was eventually a completely new aircraft – looking like a crossbreed between the Su-25 and the American A-10 with a T-tail.

 

This new layout had become necessary because the aircraft was to be powered by more modern, less noisy and more fuel-efficient Rolls Royce AE 3012 turbofan engines - which were originally intended to power the stillborn Yakovlev Yak-77 twin-engine business jet for up to 32 passengers, a slightly derated variant of the GMA 3012 with a 44 in diameter (112 cm) fan and procured via IAI from the United States through the company’s connection with Gulfstream Aerospace. Their larger diameter (the Su-25’s original Soyuz/Tumansky R-195 turbojets had a diameter of 109,5 cm/43.1 in) precluded the use of the former integral engine nacelles along the fuselage. To keep good ground clearance against FOD and to protect them from small arms fire, the engine layout was completely re-arranged. The fuselage was streamlined, and its internal structure was totally changed. The wings moved into a low position. The wings’ planform was almost identical to the Su-25’s, together with the characteristic tip-mounted “crocodile” air brakes. Just the leading edge inside of the “dogteeth” and the wing roots were re-designed, the latter because of the missing former engine nacelles. This resulted in a slightly increased net area, the original wingspan was retained. The bigger turbofans were then mounted in separate pods on short pylons along the rear fuselage, partly protected from below by the wings. Due to the jet efflux and the engines’ proximity to the stabilizers, these were re-located to the top of a deeper, reinforced fin for a T-tail arrangement.

 

Since the Su-25’s engine bays were now gone, the main landing gear had to be completely re-designed. Retracting them into the fuselage or into the relatively thin wings was not possible, TAM engineers settled upon a design that was very similar to the A-10: the aircraft received streamlined fairings, attached to the wings’ main spar, and positioned under the wings’ leading edges. The main legs were only semi-retractable; in flight, the wheels partly protruded from the fairings, but that hardly mattered from an aerodynamic point of view at the TAM-1’s subsonic operational speed. As a bonus they could still be used while retracted during emergency landings, improving the aircraft’s crash survivability.

 

Most flight and weapon avionics were procured from or via Elbit, including the Su-25KT’s modernized “glass cockpit”, and the TAM-1’s NATO compatibility was enhanced to appeal to a wider international export market. Beyond a total of eleven hardpoints under the wings and the fuselage for an external ordnance of up to 4.500 kg (9.900 lb), the TAM-1 was furthermore armed with an internal gun. Due to procurement issues, however, the Su-25’s original twin-barrel GSh-30-2 was replaced with an Oerlikon KDA 35mm cannon – a modern variant of the same cannon used in the German Gepard anti-aircraft tank, adapted to the use in an aircraft with a light-weight gun carriage. The KDA gun fired with a muzzle velocity of 1,440 m/s (4,700 ft/s) and a range of 5.500m, its rate of fire was typically 550 RPM. For the TAM-1, a unique feature from the SPAAG installation was adopted: the gun had two magazines, one with space for 200 rounds and another, smaller one for 50. The magazines could be filled with different types of ammunition, and the pilot was able select between them with a simple switch, adapting to the combat situation. Typical ammunition types were armor-piercing FAPDS rounds against hardened ground targets like tanks, and high explosive shells against soft ground targets and aircraft or helicopters, in a 3:1 ratio. Other ammunition types were available, too, and only 200 rounds were typically carried for balance reasons.

 

The TAM-1’s avionics included a SAGEM ULISS 81 INS, a Thomson-CSF VE-110 HUD, a TMV630 laser rangefinder in a modified nose and a TRT AHV 9 radio altimeter, with all avionics linked through a digital MIL-STD-1553B data bus and a modern “glass cockpit”. A HUD was standard, but an Elbit Systems DASH III HMD could be used by the pilot, too. The DASH GEN III was a wholly embedded design, closely integrated with the aircraft's weapon system, where the complete optical and position sensing coil package was built within the helmet (either the USAF standard HGU-55/P or the Israeli standard HGU-22/P), using a spherical visor to provide a collimated image to the pilot. A quick-disconnect wire powered the display and carried video drive signals to the helmet's Cathode Ray Tube (CRT).

 

The TAM-1’s development was long and protracted, though, primarily due to lack of resources and the fact that the Georgian air force was in an almost comatose state for several years, so that the potential prime customer for the TAM-1 was not officially available. However, the first TAM-1 prototype eventually made its maiden flight in September 2017. This was just in time, because the Georgian Air Force had formally been re-established in 2016, with plans for a major modernization and procurement program. Under the leadership of Georgian Minister of Defense Irakli Garibashvili the Air Force was re-prioritized and aircraft owned by the Georgian Air Force were being modernized and re-serviced after they were left abandoned for 4 years. This program lasted until 2020. In order to become more independent from foreign sources and support its domestic aircraft industry, the Georgian Air Force eventually ordered eight TAM-1s as Su-25K replacements, which would operate alongside a handful of modernized Su-25KMs from national stock. In the meantime, the new type also attained interest from abroad, e. g. from Bulgaria, the Congo and Cyprus. The IDF thoroughly tested two early production TAM-1s of the Georgian Air Force in 2018, too.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 15.53 m (50 ft 11 in), including pitot

Wingspan: 14.36 m (47 ft 1 in)

Height: 4.8 m (15 ft 9 in)

Wing area: 35.2 m² (378 sq ft)

Empty weight: 9,800 kg (21,605 lb)

Gross weight: 14,440 kg (31,835 lb)

Max takeoff weight: 19,300 kg (42,549 lb)

 

Powerplant:

2× Rolls-Royce AE 3012 turbofans with 44.1 kN (9,920 lbf) thrust each

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 975 km/h (606 mph, 526 kn, Mach 0.79)

Range: 1.000 km (620 mi, 540 nmi) with internal fuel, clean

Combat range: 750 km (470 mi, 400 nmi) at sea level with 4.500 kg (9,911 lb) of ordnance,

incl. two external fuel tanks

Service ceiling: 7.800 m (25,550 ft)

g limits: +6.5

Rate of climb: 58 m/s (11,400 ft/min)

 

Armament:

1× 35 mm (1.38 in) Oerlikon KDA cannon with 200 rds in two magazines

under the lower forward fuselage, offset to port side.

11× hardpoints with a capacity of up to 4.500 kg (9,911 lb) of external stores

  

The kit and its assembly:

This rather rigorous conversion had been on my project list for many years, and with the “Gunships” group build at whatifmodellers.com in late 2021 I eventually gathered my mojo to tackle it. The ingredients had already been procured long ago, but there are ideas that make you think twice before you take action…

 

This build was somewhat inspired by a CG rendition of a modified Su-25 that I came across while doing online search for potential ideas, running under the moniker “Su-125”, apparently created by someone called “Bispro” and published at DeviantArt in 2010; check this: (www.deviantart.com/bispro/art/Sukhoi-Su-125-Foghorn-15043...). The rendition shows a Su-25 with its engines re-located to the rear fuselage in separate nacelles, much like an A-10, plus a T-tail. However, as many photoshopped aircraft, the shown concept had IMHO some flaws. Where would a landing gear go, as the Su-125 still had shoulder wings? The engines’ position and size also looked fishy to me, quite small/narrow and very far high and back – I had doubts concerning the center of gravity. Nevertheless, I liked the idea, and the idea of an “A-10-esque remix” of the classic Frogfoot was born.

 

This idea was fueled even further when I found out that the Hobbycraft kit lends itself to such a conversion. The kit itself is not a brilliant Su-25 rendition, there are certainly better models of the aircraft in 1:72. However, what spoke for the kit as whiffing fodder was/is the fact that it is quite cheap (righteously so!) and AFAIK the only offering that comes with separate engine nacelles. These are attached to a completely independent central fuselage, and this avoids massive bodywork that would be necessary (if possible at all) with more conventional kits of this aircraft.

Another beneficial design feature is that the wing roots are an integral part of the original engine nacelles, forming their top side up to the fuselage spine. Through this, the original wingspan could be retained even without the nacelles, no wing extension would be necessary to retain the original proportions.

 

Work started with the central fuselage and the cockpit tub, which received a different (better) armored ejection seat and a pilot figure; the canopy remained unmodified and closed, because representing the model with an open cockpit would have required additional major body work on the spinal area behind the canopy. Inside, a new dashboard (from an Italeri BAe Hawk) was added, too – the original instrument panel is just a flat front bulkhead, there’s no space for the pilot to place the legs underneath the dashboard!

 

In parallel, the fin underwent major surgery. I initially considered an A-10-ish twin tail, but the Su-25’s high “tail stinger” prevented its implementation: the jet efflux would come very close to the tail surfaces. So, I went for something similar to the “Su-125” layout.

Mounting the OOB stabilizers to the fin was challenging, though. The fin lost its di-electric tip fairing, and it was cut into two sections, so that the tip would become long enough to match the stabilizers. A lucky find in the scrap box was a leftover tail tip from a Matchbox Blackburn Buccaneer, already shortened from a former, stillborn project: it had now the perfect length to take the Su-25 stabilizers! To make it fit on the fin, an 8mm deep section was inserted, in the form of a simple 1.5mm styrene sheet strip. Once dry, the surface was re-built with several PSR layers. Since it would sit further back on the new aircraft’s tail, the stinger with a RHAWS sensor was shortened.

 

On the fuselage, the attachment points for the wings and the engine nacelles were PSRed away and the front section filled with lots of lead beads, hoping that it would be enough to keep the model’s nose down.

 

Even though the wings had a proper span for a re-location into a low position, they still needed some attention: at the roots, there’s a ~1cm wide section without sweep (the area which would normally cover the original engine nacelles’ tops). This was mended through triangular 1.5 mm styrene wedges that extended the leading-edge sweep, roughly cut into shape once attached and later PSRed into the wings’ surfaces

 

The next construction site were the new landing gear attachment points. This had caused some serious headaches – where do you place and stow it? With new, low wings settled, the wings were the only logical place. But the wings were too thin to suitably take the retracted wheels, and, following the idea of a retrofitted existing design, I decided to adopt the A-10’s solution of nacelles into which the landing gear retracts forward, with the wheels still partly showing. This layout option appears quite plausible, since it would be a “graft-on” solution, and it also has the benefit of leaving lots of space for underwing stores, since the hardpoints’ position had to be modified now, too.

I was lucky to have a pair of A-10 landing gear nacelles at hand, left over from a wrecked Matchbox model from childhood time (the parts are probably 35 years old!). They were simply cut out, glued to the Su-25 wings and PSRed into shape. The result looked really good!

 

At this point I had to decide the model’s overall layout – where to place the wings, the tail and the new engine nacelles. The latter were not 1:72 A-10 transplants. I had some spare engine pods from the aforementioned Matchbox wreck, but these looked too rough and toylike for my taste. They were furthermore too bulky for the Su-25, which is markedly smaller than an A-10, so I had to look elsewhere. As a neat alternative for this project, I had already procured many moons ago a set of 1:144 resin PS-90A engines from a Russian company called “A.M.U.R. Reaver”, originally intended for a Tu-204 airliner or an Il-76 transport aircraft. These turbofan nacelles not only look very much like A-10 nacelles, just a bit smaller and more elegant, they are among the best resin aftermarket parts I have ever encountered: almost no flash, crisp molding, no bubbles, and perfect fit of the parts – WOW!

With these three elements at hand I was able to define the wings’ position, based on the tail, and from that the nacelles’ location, relative to the wings and the fin.

 

The next challenge: how to attach the new engines to the fuselage? The PS-90A engines came without pylons, so I had to improvise. I eventually found suitable pylons in the form of parts from F-14A underwing missile pylons, left over from an Italeri kit. Some major tailoring was necessary to find a proper position on the nacelles and on the fuselage, and PSRing these parts turned out to be quite difficult because of the tight and labyrinthine space.

 

When the engines were in place, work shifted towards the model’s underside. The landing gear was fully replaced. I initially wanted to retain the front wheel leg and the main wheels but found that the low wings would not allow a good ground clearance for underwing stores and re-arming the aircraft, a slightly taller solution was necessary. I eventually found a complete landing gear set in the scrap box, even though I am not certain to which aircraft it once belonged? I guess that the front wheel came from a Hasegawa RA-5C Vigilante, while the main gear and the wheels once belonged to an Italeri F-14A, alle struts were slightly shortened. The resulting stance is still a bit stalky, but an A-10 is also quite tall – this is just not so obvious because of the aircraft’s sheer size.

 

Due to the low wings and the landing gear pods, the Su-25’s hardpoints had to be re-arranged, and this eventually led to a layout very similar to the A-10. I gave the aircraft a pair of pylons inside of the pods, plus three hardpoints under the fuselage, even though all of these would only be used when slim ordnance was carried. I just fitted the outer pair. Outside of the landing gear fairings there would have been enough space for the Frogfoot’s original four outer for pylons, but I found this to be a little too much. So I gave it “just” three, with more space between them.

The respective ordnance is a mix for a CAS mission with dedicated and occasional targets. It consists of:

- Drop tanks under the inner wings (left over from a Bilek Su-17/22 kit)

- A pair of B-8M1 FFAR pods under the fuselage (from a vintage Mastercraft USSR weapon set)

- Two MERs with four 200 kg bombs each, mounted on the pylons outside of the landing gear (the odd MERs came from a Special Hobby IDF SMB-2 Super Mystère kit, the bombs are actually 1:100 USAF 750 lb bombs from a Tamiya F-105 Thunderchief in that scale)

- Four CBU-100 Rockeye Mk. II cluster bombs on the outer stations (from two Italeri USA/NATO weapon sets, each only offers a pair of these)

Yes, it’s a mix of Russian and NATO ordnance – but, like the real Georgian Su-25KM “Scorpion” upgrade, the TAM-1 would certainly be able to carry the same or even a wider mix, thanks to modified bomb racks and wirings. Esp. “dumb” weapons, which do not call for special targeting and guidance avionics, are qualified.

The gun under the nose was replaced with a piece from a hollow steel needle.

  

Painting and markings:

Nothing unusual here. I considered some more “exotic” options, but eventually settled for a “conservative” Soviet/Russian-style four-tone tactical camouflage, something that “normal” Su-25s would carry, too.

The disruptive pattern was adapted from a Macedonian Frogfoot but underwent some changes due to the T-tail and the engine nacelles. The basic tones were Humbrol 119 (RAF Light Earth), 150 (Forest Green), 195 (Chrome Oxide Green, RAL 6020) and 98 (Chocolate) on the upper surfaces and RLM78 from (Modelmaster #2087) from below, with a relatively low waterline, due to the low-set wings.

As usual, the model received a light black ink washing and some post-shading – especially on the hull and on the fin, where many details had either disappeared under PSR or were simply not there at all.

 

The landing gear and the lower areas of the cockpit were painted in light grey (Humbrol 64), while the upper cockpit sections were painted with bright turquoise (Modelmaster #2135). The wheel hubs were painted in bright green (Humbrol 101), while some di-electric fairings received a slightly less intense tone (Humbrol 2). A few of these flat fairings on the hull were furthermore created with green decal sheet material (from TL Modellbau) to avoid masking and corrections with paint.

 

The tactical markings became minimal, matching the look of late Georgian Su-25s. The roundels came from a Balkan Models Frogfoot sheet. The “07” was taken from a Blue Rider decal sheet, it actually belongs to a Lithuanian An-2. Some white stencils from generic MiG-21 and Mi-8 Begemot sheets were added, too, and some small markings were just painted onto the hull with yellow.

 

Some soot stains around the jet nozzles and the gun were added with graphite, and finally the kit was sealed with a coat of matt acrylic varnish.

  

A major bodywork project – and it’s weird that this is basically just a conversion of a stock kit and no kitbashing. A true Frogfoot remix! The new engines were the biggest “outsourced” addition, the A-10 landing gear fairings were a lucky find in the scrap box, and the rest is quite generic and could have looked differently. The result is impressive and balanced, though, the fictional TAM-1 looks quite plausible. The landing gear turned out to be a bit tall and stalky, though, making the aircraft look smaller on the ground than it actually is – but I left it that way.

These postcards with old photos are still commonly sold in the city today. This is the one of the three I see the most frequently.

 

There's no date on this one. Sometime in the 80's maybe? The trees on Powell were quite young.

Notably, Bank of America (With the old logo) was in the building on the left, and Woolworth's would have still been in the Flood Building on the right, even though the sign is gone.

+++ 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 Georgian Air Force and Air Defense Division (თავდაცვის ძალების ავიაციისა და საჰაერო თავდაცვის სარდლობა; tavdatsvis dzalebis aviatsiisa da sahaero tavdatsvis sardloba) was established on January 1, 1992, and in September the Georgian Air Force conducted its first combat flight during the separatist war in Abkhazia. On August 18, 1998, the two divisions were unified in a joint command structure and renamed the Georgian Air Force.

In 2010, the Georgian Air Force was abolished as a separate branch and incorporated into the Georgian Land Forces as Air and Air Defense sections. By that time, the equipment – primarily consisting of Eastern Bloc aircraft inherited from the Soviet Union after the country’s dissolution – was totally outdated, the most potent aircraft were a dozen Suchoj Su-25 attack aircraft and a handful of MiG-21U trainers.

 

In order to rejuvenate the air arm, Tbilisi Aircraft Manufacturing (TAM), also known as JSC Tbilaviamsheni and formerly known as 31st aviation factory, started a modernization program for the Su-25, for the domestic forces but also for export customers. TAM had a long tradition of aircraft production within the Soviet Union. In the 1950s the factory started the production of Mikoyan's MiG-15 and later, the MiG-17 fighter aircraft. In 1957 Tbilisi Aircraft State Association built the MiG-21 two-seater fighter-trainer aircraft and its various derivative aircraft, continuing the MiG-21 production for about 25 years. At the same time the company was manufacturing the K-10 air-to-surface guided missile. Furthermore, the first Sukhoi Su-25 (known in the West as the "Frogfoot") close support aircraft took its maiden voyage from the runway of 31st aviation factory. Since then, more than 800 SU-25s had been delivered to customers worldwide. From the first SU-25 to the 1990s, JSC Tbilaviamsheni was the only manufacturer of this aircraft, and even after the fall of the Soviet Union the production lines were still intact and spares for more than fifty complete aircraft available. Along with the SU-25 aircraft 31st aviation factory also launched large-scale production of air-to-air R-60 and R-73 IR guided missiles, a production effort that built over 6,000 missiles a year and that lasted until the early 1990s. From 1996 to 1998 the factory also produced Su-25U two-seaters.

 

In 2001 the factory started, in partnership with Elbit Systems of Israel, upgrading basic Su-25 airframes to the Su-25KM “Scorpion” variant. This was just a technical update, however, intended for former Su-25 export customers who would upgrade their less potent Su-25K export aircraft with modern avionics. The prototype aircraft made its maiden flight on 18 April 2001 at Tbilisi in full Georgian Air Force markings. The aircraft used a standard Su-25 airframe, enhanced with advanced avionics including a glass cockpit, digital map generator, helmet-mounted display, computerized weapons system, complete mission pre-plan capability, and fully redundant backup modes. Performance enhancements included a highly accurate navigation system, pinpoint weapon delivery systems, all-weather and day/night performance, NATO compatibility, state-of-the art safety and survivability features, and advanced onboard debriefing capabilities complying with international requirements. The Su-25KM had the ability to use NATO-standard Mark 82 and Mark 83 laser-guided bombs and new air-to-air missiles, the short-range Vympel R-73. This upgrade extended service life of the Su-25 airframes for another decade.

There were, however, not many customers. Manufacturing was eventually stopped at the end of 2010, after Georgian air forces have been permanently dismissed and abolished. By that time, approximately 12 Scorpions had been produced, but the Georgian Air Force still used the basic models of Su-25 because of high cost of Su-25KM and because it was destined mainly for export. According to unofficial sources several Scorpions had been transferred to Turkmenistan as part of a trade deal.

 

In the meantime, another, more ambitious project took shape at Tbilisi Aircraft Manufacturing, too: With the help of Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) the company started the development of a completely new attack aircraft, the TAM-1 “Gvelgeslas” (გველგესლას, Viper). It heavily relied on the year-long experience gathered with Su-25 production at Tblisi and on the tools at hand, but it was eventually a completely new aircraft – looking like a crossbreed between the Su-25 and the American A-10 with a T-tail.

 

This new layout had become necessary because the aircraft was to be powered by more modern, less noisy and more fuel-efficient Rolls Royce AE 3012 turbofan engines - which were originally intended to power the stillborn Yakovlev Yak-77 twin-engine business jet for up to 32 passengers, a slightly derated variant of the GMA 3012 with a 44 in diameter (112 cm) fan and procured via IAI from the United States through the company’s connection with Gulfstream Aerospace. Their larger diameter (the Su-25’s original Soyuz/Tumansky R-195 turbojets had a diameter of 109,5 cm/43.1 in) precluded the use of the former integral engine nacelles along the fuselage. To keep good ground clearance against FOD and to protect them from small arms fire, the engine layout was completely re-arranged. The fuselage was streamlined, and its internal structure was totally changed. The wings moved into a low position. The wings’ planform was almost identical to the Su-25’s, together with the characteristic tip-mounted “crocodile” air brakes. Just the leading edge inside of the “dogteeth” and the wing roots were re-designed, the latter because of the missing former engine nacelles. This resulted in a slightly increased net area, the original wingspan was retained. The bigger turbofans were then mounted in separate pods on short pylons along the rear fuselage, partly protected from below by the wings. Due to the jet efflux and the engines’ proximity to the stabilizers, these were re-located to the top of a deeper, reinforced fin for a T-tail arrangement.

 

Since the Su-25’s engine bays were now gone, the main landing gear had to be completely re-designed. Retracting them into the fuselage or into the relatively thin wings was not possible, TAM engineers settled upon a design that was very similar to the A-10: the aircraft received streamlined fairings, attached to the wings’ main spar, and positioned under the wings’ leading edges. The main legs were only semi-retractable; in flight, the wheels partly protruded from the fairings, but that hardly mattered from an aerodynamic point of view at the TAM-1’s subsonic operational speed. As a bonus they could still be used while retracted during emergency landings, improving the aircraft’s crash survivability.

 

Most flight and weapon avionics were procured from or via Elbit, including the Su-25KT’s modernized “glass cockpit”, and the TAM-1’s NATO compatibility was enhanced to appeal to a wider international export market. Beyond a total of eleven hardpoints under the wings and the fuselage for an external ordnance of up to 4.500 kg (9.900 lb), the TAM-1 was furthermore armed with an internal gun. Due to procurement issues, however, the Su-25’s original twin-barrel GSh-30-2 was replaced with an Oerlikon KDA 35mm cannon – a modern variant of the same cannon used in the German Gepard anti-aircraft tank, adapted to the use in an aircraft with a light-weight gun carriage. The KDA gun fired with a muzzle velocity of 1,440 m/s (4,700 ft/s) and a range of 5.500m, its rate of fire was typically 550 RPM. For the TAM-1, a unique feature from the SPAAG installation was adopted: the gun had two magazines, one with space for 200 rounds and another, smaller one for 50. The magazines could be filled with different types of ammunition, and the pilot was able select between them with a simple switch, adapting to the combat situation. Typical ammunition types were armor-piercing FAPDS rounds against hardened ground targets like tanks, and high explosive shells against soft ground targets and aircraft or helicopters, in a 3:1 ratio. Other ammunition types were available, too, and only 200 rounds were typically carried for balance reasons.

 

The TAM-1’s avionics included a SAGEM ULISS 81 INS, a Thomson-CSF VE-110 HUD, a TMV630 laser rangefinder in a modified nose and a TRT AHV 9 radio altimeter, with all avionics linked through a digital MIL-STD-1553B data bus and a modern “glass cockpit”. A HUD was standard, but an Elbit Systems DASH III HMD could be used by the pilot, too. The DASH GEN III was a wholly embedded design, closely integrated with the aircraft's weapon system, where the complete optical and position sensing coil package was built within the helmet (either the USAF standard HGU-55/P or the Israeli standard HGU-22/P), using a spherical visor to provide a collimated image to the pilot. A quick-disconnect wire powered the display and carried video drive signals to the helmet's Cathode Ray Tube (CRT).

 

The TAM-1’s development was long and protracted, though, primarily due to lack of resources and the fact that the Georgian air force was in an almost comatose state for several years, so that the potential prime customer for the TAM-1 was not officially available. However, the first TAM-1 prototype eventually made its maiden flight in September 2017. This was just in time, because the Georgian Air Force had formally been re-established in 2016, with plans for a major modernization and procurement program. Under the leadership of Georgian Minister of Defense Irakli Garibashvili the Air Force was re-prioritized and aircraft owned by the Georgian Air Force were being modernized and re-serviced after they were left abandoned for 4 years. This program lasted until 2020. In order to become more independent from foreign sources and support its domestic aircraft industry, the Georgian Air Force eventually ordered eight TAM-1s as Su-25K replacements, which would operate alongside a handful of modernized Su-25KMs from national stock. In the meantime, the new type also attained interest from abroad, e. g. from Bulgaria, the Congo and Cyprus. The IDF thoroughly tested two early production TAM-1s of the Georgian Air Force in 2018, too.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 15.53 m (50 ft 11 in), including pitot

Wingspan: 14.36 m (47 ft 1 in)

Height: 4.8 m (15 ft 9 in)

Wing area: 35.2 m² (378 sq ft)

Empty weight: 9,800 kg (21,605 lb)

Gross weight: 14,440 kg (31,835 lb)

Max takeoff weight: 19,300 kg (42,549 lb)

 

Powerplant:

2× Rolls-Royce AE 3012 turbofans with 44.1 kN (9,920 lbf) thrust each

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 975 km/h (606 mph, 526 kn, Mach 0.79)

Range: 1.000 km (620 mi, 540 nmi) with internal fuel, clean

Combat range: 750 km (470 mi, 400 nmi) at sea level with 4.500 kg (9,911 lb) of ordnance,

incl. two external fuel tanks

Service ceiling: 7.800 m (25,550 ft)

g limits: +6.5

Rate of climb: 58 m/s (11,400 ft/min)

 

Armament:

1× 35 mm (1.38 in) Oerlikon KDA cannon with 200 rds in two magazines

under the lower forward fuselage, offset to port side.

11× hardpoints with a capacity of up to 4.500 kg (9,911 lb) of external stores

  

The kit and its assembly:

This rather rigorous conversion had been on my project list for many years, and with the “Gunships” group build at whatifmodellers.com in late 2021 I eventually gathered my mojo to tackle it. The ingredients had already been procured long ago, but there are ideas that make you think twice before you take action…

 

This build was somewhat inspired by a CG rendition of a modified Su-25 that I came across while doing online search for potential ideas, running under the moniker “Su-125”, apparently created by someone called “Bispro” and published at DeviantArt in 2010; check this: (www.deviantart.com/bispro/art/Sukhoi-Su-125-Foghorn-15043...). The rendition shows a Su-25 with its engines re-located to the rear fuselage in separate nacelles, much like an A-10, plus a T-tail. However, as many photoshopped aircraft, the shown concept had IMHO some flaws. Where would a landing gear go, as the Su-125 still had shoulder wings? The engines’ position and size also looked fishy to me, quite small/narrow and very far high and back – I had doubts concerning the center of gravity. Nevertheless, I liked the idea, and the idea of an “A-10-esque remix” of the classic Frogfoot was born.

 

This idea was fueled even further when I found out that the Hobbycraft kit lends itself to such a conversion. The kit itself is not a brilliant Su-25 rendition, there are certainly better models of the aircraft in 1:72. However, what spoke for the kit as whiffing fodder was/is the fact that it is quite cheap (righteously so!) and AFAIK the only offering that comes with separate engine nacelles. These are attached to a completely independent central fuselage, and this avoids massive bodywork that would be necessary (if possible at all) with more conventional kits of this aircraft.

Another beneficial design feature is that the wing roots are an integral part of the original engine nacelles, forming their top side up to the fuselage spine. Through this, the original wingspan could be retained even without the nacelles, no wing extension would be necessary to retain the original proportions.

 

Work started with the central fuselage and the cockpit tub, which received a different (better) armored ejection seat and a pilot figure; the canopy remained unmodified and closed, because representing the model with an open cockpit would have required additional major body work on the spinal area behind the canopy. Inside, a new dashboard (from an Italeri BAe Hawk) was added, too – the original instrument panel is just a flat front bulkhead, there’s no space for the pilot to place the legs underneath the dashboard!

 

In parallel, the fin underwent major surgery. I initially considered an A-10-ish twin tail, but the Su-25’s high “tail stinger” prevented its implementation: the jet efflux would come very close to the tail surfaces. So, I went for something similar to the “Su-125” layout.

Mounting the OOB stabilizers to the fin was challenging, though. The fin lost its di-electric tip fairing, and it was cut into two sections, so that the tip would become long enough to match the stabilizers. A lucky find in the scrap box was a leftover tail tip from a Matchbox Blackburn Buccaneer, already shortened from a former, stillborn project: it had now the perfect length to take the Su-25 stabilizers! To make it fit on the fin, an 8mm deep section was inserted, in the form of a simple 1.5mm styrene sheet strip. Once dry, the surface was re-built with several PSR layers. Since it would sit further back on the new aircraft’s tail, the stinger with a RHAWS sensor was shortened.

 

On the fuselage, the attachment points for the wings and the engine nacelles were PSRed away and the front section filled with lots of lead beads, hoping that it would be enough to keep the model’s nose down.

 

Even though the wings had a proper span for a re-location into a low position, they still needed some attention: at the roots, there’s a ~1cm wide section without sweep (the area which would normally cover the original engine nacelles’ tops). This was mended through triangular 1.5 mm styrene wedges that extended the leading-edge sweep, roughly cut into shape once attached and later PSRed into the wings’ surfaces

 

The next construction site were the new landing gear attachment points. This had caused some serious headaches – where do you place and stow it? With new, low wings settled, the wings were the only logical place. But the wings were too thin to suitably take the retracted wheels, and, following the idea of a retrofitted existing design, I decided to adopt the A-10’s solution of nacelles into which the landing gear retracts forward, with the wheels still partly showing. This layout option appears quite plausible, since it would be a “graft-on” solution, and it also has the benefit of leaving lots of space for underwing stores, since the hardpoints’ position had to be modified now, too.

I was lucky to have a pair of A-10 landing gear nacelles at hand, left over from a wrecked Matchbox model from childhood time (the parts are probably 35 years old!). They were simply cut out, glued to the Su-25 wings and PSRed into shape. The result looked really good!

 

At this point I had to decide the model’s overall layout – where to place the wings, the tail and the new engine nacelles. The latter were not 1:72 A-10 transplants. I had some spare engine pods from the aforementioned Matchbox wreck, but these looked too rough and toylike for my taste. They were furthermore too bulky for the Su-25, which is markedly smaller than an A-10, so I had to look elsewhere. As a neat alternative for this project, I had already procured many moons ago a set of 1:144 resin PS-90A engines from a Russian company called “A.M.U.R. Reaver”, originally intended for a Tu-204 airliner or an Il-76 transport aircraft. These turbofan nacelles not only look very much like A-10 nacelles, just a bit smaller and more elegant, they are among the best resin aftermarket parts I have ever encountered: almost no flash, crisp molding, no bubbles, and perfect fit of the parts – WOW!

With these three elements at hand I was able to define the wings’ position, based on the tail, and from that the nacelles’ location, relative to the wings and the fin.

 

The next challenge: how to attach the new engines to the fuselage? The PS-90A engines came without pylons, so I had to improvise. I eventually found suitable pylons in the form of parts from F-14A underwing missile pylons, left over from an Italeri kit. Some major tailoring was necessary to find a proper position on the nacelles and on the fuselage, and PSRing these parts turned out to be quite difficult because of the tight and labyrinthine space.

 

When the engines were in place, work shifted towards the model’s underside. The landing gear was fully replaced. I initially wanted to retain the front wheel leg and the main wheels but found that the low wings would not allow a good ground clearance for underwing stores and re-arming the aircraft, a slightly taller solution was necessary. I eventually found a complete landing gear set in the scrap box, even though I am not certain to which aircraft it once belonged? I guess that the front wheel came from a Hasegawa RA-5C Vigilante, while the main gear and the wheels once belonged to an Italeri F-14A, alle struts were slightly shortened. The resulting stance is still a bit stalky, but an A-10 is also quite tall – this is just not so obvious because of the aircraft’s sheer size.

 

Due to the low wings and the landing gear pods, the Su-25’s hardpoints had to be re-arranged, and this eventually led to a layout very similar to the A-10. I gave the aircraft a pair of pylons inside of the pods, plus three hardpoints under the fuselage, even though all of these would only be used when slim ordnance was carried. I just fitted the outer pair. Outside of the landing gear fairings there would have been enough space for the Frogfoot’s original four outer for pylons, but I found this to be a little too much. So I gave it “just” three, with more space between them.

The respective ordnance is a mix for a CAS mission with dedicated and occasional targets. It consists of:

- Drop tanks under the inner wings (left over from a Bilek Su-17/22 kit)

- A pair of B-8M1 FFAR pods under the fuselage (from a vintage Mastercraft USSR weapon set)

- Two MERs with four 200 kg bombs each, mounted on the pylons outside of the landing gear (the odd MERs came from a Special Hobby IDF SMB-2 Super Mystère kit, the bombs are actually 1:100 USAF 750 lb bombs from a Tamiya F-105 Thunderchief in that scale)

- Four CBU-100 Rockeye Mk. II cluster bombs on the outer stations (from two Italeri USA/NATO weapon sets, each only offers a pair of these)

Yes, it’s a mix of Russian and NATO ordnance – but, like the real Georgian Su-25KM “Scorpion” upgrade, the TAM-1 would certainly be able to carry the same or even a wider mix, thanks to modified bomb racks and wirings. Esp. “dumb” weapons, which do not call for special targeting and guidance avionics, are qualified.

The gun under the nose was replaced with a piece from a hollow steel needle.

  

Painting and markings:

Nothing unusual here. I considered some more “exotic” options, but eventually settled for a “conservative” Soviet/Russian-style four-tone tactical camouflage, something that “normal” Su-25s would carry, too.

The disruptive pattern was adapted from a Macedonian Frogfoot but underwent some changes due to the T-tail and the engine nacelles. The basic tones were Humbrol 119 (RAF Light Earth), 150 (Forest Green), 195 (Chrome Oxide Green, RAL 6020) and 98 (Chocolate) on the upper surfaces and RLM78 from (Modelmaster #2087) from below, with a relatively low waterline, due to the low-set wings.

As usual, the model received a light black ink washing and some post-shading – especially on the hull and on the fin, where many details had either disappeared under PSR or were simply not there at all.

 

The landing gear and the lower areas of the cockpit were painted in light grey (Humbrol 64), while the upper cockpit sections were painted with bright turquoise (Modelmaster #2135). The wheel hubs were painted in bright green (Humbrol 101), while some di-electric fairings received a slightly less intense tone (Humbrol 2). A few of these flat fairings on the hull were furthermore created with green decal sheet material (from TL Modellbau) to avoid masking and corrections with paint.

 

The tactical markings became minimal, matching the look of late Georgian Su-25s. The roundels came from a Balkan Models Frogfoot sheet. The “07” was taken from a Blue Rider decal sheet, it actually belongs to a Lithuanian An-2. Some white stencils from generic MiG-21 and Mi-8 Begemot sheets were added, too, and some small markings were just painted onto the hull with yellow.

 

Some soot stains around the jet nozzles and the gun were added with graphite, and finally the kit was sealed with a coat of matt acrylic varnish.

  

A major bodywork project – and it’s weird that this is basically just a conversion of a stock kit and no kitbashing. A true Frogfoot remix! The new engines were the biggest “outsourced” addition, the A-10 landing gear fairings were a lucky find in the scrap box, and the rest is quite generic and could have looked differently. The result is impressive and balanced, though, the fictional TAM-1 looks quite plausible. The landing gear turned out to be a bit tall and stalky, though, making the aircraft look smaller on the ground than it actually is – but I left it that way.

+++ 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 Georgian Air Force and Air Defense Division (თავდაცვის ძალების ავიაციისა და საჰაერო თავდაცვის სარდლობა; tavdatsvis dzalebis aviatsiisa da sahaero tavdatsvis sardloba) was established on January 1, 1992, and in September the Georgian Air Force conducted its first combat flight during the separatist war in Abkhazia. On August 18, 1998, the two divisions were unified in a joint command structure and renamed the Georgian Air Force.

In 2010, the Georgian Air Force was abolished as a separate branch and incorporated into the Georgian Land Forces as Air and Air Defense sections. By that time, the equipment – primarily consisting of Eastern Bloc aircraft inherited from the Soviet Union after the country’s dissolution – was totally outdated, the most potent aircraft were a dozen Suchoj Su-25 attack aircraft and a handful of MiG-21U trainers.

 

In order to rejuvenate the air arm, Tbilisi Aircraft Manufacturing (TAM), also known as JSC Tbilaviamsheni and formerly known as 31st aviation factory, started a modernization program for the Su-25, for the domestic forces but also for export customers. TAM had a long tradition of aircraft production within the Soviet Union. In the 1950s the factory started the production of Mikoyan's MiG-15 and later, the MiG-17 fighter aircraft. In 1957 Tbilisi Aircraft State Association built the MiG-21 two-seater fighter-trainer aircraft and its various derivative aircraft, continuing the MiG-21 production for about 25 years. At the same time the company was manufacturing the K-10 air-to-surface guided missile. Furthermore, the first Sukhoi Su-25 (known in the West as the "Frogfoot") close support aircraft took its maiden voyage from the runway of 31st aviation factory. Since then, more than 800 SU-25s had been delivered to customers worldwide. From the first SU-25 to the 1990s, JSC Tbilaviamsheni was the only manufacturer of this aircraft, and even after the fall of the Soviet Union the production lines were still intact and spares for more than fifty complete aircraft available. Along with the SU-25 aircraft 31st aviation factory also launched large-scale production of air-to-air R-60 and R-73 IR guided missiles, a production effort that built over 6,000 missiles a year and that lasted until the early 1990s. From 1996 to 1998 the factory also produced Su-25U two-seaters.

 

In 2001 the factory started, in partnership with Elbit Systems of Israel, upgrading basic Su-25 airframes to the Su-25KM “Scorpion” variant. This was just a technical update, however, intended for former Su-25 export customers who would upgrade their less potent Su-25K export aircraft with modern avionics. The prototype aircraft made its maiden flight on 18 April 2001 at Tbilisi in full Georgian Air Force markings. The aircraft used a standard Su-25 airframe, enhanced with advanced avionics including a glass cockpit, digital map generator, helmet-mounted display, computerized weapons system, complete mission pre-plan capability, and fully redundant backup modes. Performance enhancements included a highly accurate navigation system, pinpoint weapon delivery systems, all-weather and day/night performance, NATO compatibility, state-of-the art safety and survivability features, and advanced onboard debriefing capabilities complying with international requirements. The Su-25KM had the ability to use NATO-standard Mark 82 and Mark 83 laser-guided bombs and new air-to-air missiles, the short-range Vympel R-73. This upgrade extended service life of the Su-25 airframes for another decade.

There were, however, not many customers. Manufacturing was eventually stopped at the end of 2010, after Georgian air forces have been permanently dismissed and abolished. By that time, approximately 12 Scorpions had been produced, but the Georgian Air Force still used the basic models of Su-25 because of high cost of Su-25KM and because it was destined mainly for export. According to unofficial sources several Scorpions had been transferred to Turkmenistan as part of a trade deal.

 

In the meantime, another, more ambitious project took shape at Tbilisi Aircraft Manufacturing, too: With the help of Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) the company started the development of a completely new attack aircraft, the TAM-1 “Gvelgeslas” (გველგესლას, Viper). It heavily relied on the year-long experience gathered with Su-25 production at Tblisi and on the tools at hand, but it was eventually a completely new aircraft – looking like a crossbreed between the Su-25 and the American A-10 with a T-tail.

 

This new layout had become necessary because the aircraft was to be powered by more modern, less noisy and more fuel-efficient Rolls Royce AE 3012 turbofan engines - which were originally intended to power the stillborn Yakovlev Yak-77 twin-engine business jet for up to 32 passengers, a slightly derated variant of the GMA 3012 with a 44 in diameter (112 cm) fan and procured via IAI from the United States through the company’s connection with Gulfstream Aerospace. Their larger diameter (the Su-25’s original Soyuz/Tumansky R-195 turbojets had a diameter of 109,5 cm/43.1 in) precluded the use of the former integral engine nacelles along the fuselage. To keep good ground clearance against FOD and to protect them from small arms fire, the engine layout was completely re-arranged. The fuselage was streamlined, and its internal structure was totally changed. The wings moved into a low position. The wings’ planform was almost identical to the Su-25’s, together with the characteristic tip-mounted “crocodile” air brakes. Just the leading edge inside of the “dogteeth” and the wing roots were re-designed, the latter because of the missing former engine nacelles. This resulted in a slightly increased net area, the original wingspan was retained. The bigger turbofans were then mounted in separate pods on short pylons along the rear fuselage, partly protected from below by the wings. Due to the jet efflux and the engines’ proximity to the stabilizers, these were re-located to the top of a deeper, reinforced fin for a T-tail arrangement.

 

Since the Su-25’s engine bays were now gone, the main landing gear had to be completely re-designed. Retracting them into the fuselage or into the relatively thin wings was not possible, TAM engineers settled upon a design that was very similar to the A-10: the aircraft received streamlined fairings, attached to the wings’ main spar, and positioned under the wings’ leading edges. The main legs were only semi-retractable; in flight, the wheels partly protruded from the fairings, but that hardly mattered from an aerodynamic point of view at the TAM-1’s subsonic operational speed. As a bonus they could still be used while retracted during emergency landings, improving the aircraft’s crash survivability.

 

Most flight and weapon avionics were procured from or via Elbit, including the Su-25KT’s modernized “glass cockpit”, and the TAM-1’s NATO compatibility was enhanced to appeal to a wider international export market. Beyond a total of eleven hardpoints under the wings and the fuselage for an external ordnance of up to 4.500 kg (9.900 lb), the TAM-1 was furthermore armed with an internal gun. Due to procurement issues, however, the Su-25’s original twin-barrel GSh-30-2 was replaced with an Oerlikon KDA 35mm cannon – a modern variant of the same cannon used in the German Gepard anti-aircraft tank, adapted to the use in an aircraft with a light-weight gun carriage. The KDA gun fired with a muzzle velocity of 1,440 m/s (4,700 ft/s) and a range of 5.500m, its rate of fire was typically 550 RPM. For the TAM-1, a unique feature from the SPAAG installation was adopted: the gun had two magazines, one with space for 200 rounds and another, smaller one for 50. The magazines could be filled with different types of ammunition, and the pilot was able select between them with a simple switch, adapting to the combat situation. Typical ammunition types were armor-piercing FAPDS rounds against hardened ground targets like tanks, and high explosive shells against soft ground targets and aircraft or helicopters, in a 3:1 ratio. Other ammunition types were available, too, and only 200 rounds were typically carried for balance reasons.

 

The TAM-1’s avionics included a SAGEM ULISS 81 INS, a Thomson-CSF VE-110 HUD, a TMV630 laser rangefinder in a modified nose and a TRT AHV 9 radio altimeter, with all avionics linked through a digital MIL-STD-1553B data bus and a modern “glass cockpit”. A HUD was standard, but an Elbit Systems DASH III HMD could be used by the pilot, too. The DASH GEN III was a wholly embedded design, closely integrated with the aircraft's weapon system, where the complete optical and position sensing coil package was built within the helmet (either the USAF standard HGU-55/P or the Israeli standard HGU-22/P), using a spherical visor to provide a collimated image to the pilot. A quick-disconnect wire powered the display and carried video drive signals to the helmet's Cathode Ray Tube (CRT).

 

The TAM-1’s development was long and protracted, though, primarily due to lack of resources and the fact that the Georgian air force was in an almost comatose state for several years, so that the potential prime customer for the TAM-1 was not officially available. However, the first TAM-1 prototype eventually made its maiden flight in September 2017. This was just in time, because the Georgian Air Force had formally been re-established in 2016, with plans for a major modernization and procurement program. Under the leadership of Georgian Minister of Defense Irakli Garibashvili the Air Force was re-prioritized and aircraft owned by the Georgian Air Force were being modernized and re-serviced after they were left abandoned for 4 years. This program lasted until 2020. In order to become more independent from foreign sources and support its domestic aircraft industry, the Georgian Air Force eventually ordered eight TAM-1s as Su-25K replacements, which would operate alongside a handful of modernized Su-25KMs from national stock. In the meantime, the new type also attained interest from abroad, e. g. from Bulgaria, the Congo and Cyprus. The IDF thoroughly tested two early production TAM-1s of the Georgian Air Force in 2018, too.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 15.53 m (50 ft 11 in), including pitot

Wingspan: 14.36 m (47 ft 1 in)

Height: 4.8 m (15 ft 9 in)

Wing area: 35.2 m² (378 sq ft)

Empty weight: 9,800 kg (21,605 lb)

Gross weight: 14,440 kg (31,835 lb)

Max takeoff weight: 19,300 kg (42,549 lb)

 

Powerplant:

2× Rolls-Royce AE 3012 turbofans with 44.1 kN (9,920 lbf) thrust each

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 975 km/h (606 mph, 526 kn, Mach 0.79)

Range: 1.000 km (620 mi, 540 nmi) with internal fuel, clean

Combat range: 750 km (470 mi, 400 nmi) at sea level with 4.500 kg (9,911 lb) of ordnance,

incl. two external fuel tanks

Service ceiling: 7.800 m (25,550 ft)

g limits: +6.5

Rate of climb: 58 m/s (11,400 ft/min)

 

Armament:

1× 35 mm (1.38 in) Oerlikon KDA cannon with 200 rds in two magazines

under the lower forward fuselage, offset to port side.

11× hardpoints with a capacity of up to 4.500 kg (9,911 lb) of external stores

  

The kit and its assembly:

This rather rigorous conversion had been on my project list for many years, and with the “Gunships” group build at whatifmodellers.com in late 2021 I eventually gathered my mojo to tackle it. The ingredients had already been procured long ago, but there are ideas that make you think twice before you take action…

 

This build was somewhat inspired by a CG rendition of a modified Su-25 that I came across while doing online search for potential ideas, running under the moniker “Su-125”, apparently created by someone called “Bispro” and published at DeviantArt in 2010; check this: (www.deviantart.com/bispro/art/Sukhoi-Su-125-Foghorn-15043...). The rendition shows a Su-25 with its engines re-located to the rear fuselage in separate nacelles, much like an A-10, plus a T-tail. However, as many photoshopped aircraft, the shown concept had IMHO some flaws. Where would a landing gear go, as the Su-125 still had shoulder wings? The engines’ position and size also looked fishy to me, quite small/narrow and very far high and back – I had doubts concerning the center of gravity. Nevertheless, I liked the idea, and the idea of an “A-10-esque remix” of the classic Frogfoot was born.

 

This idea was fueled even further when I found out that the Hobbycraft kit lends itself to such a conversion. The kit itself is not a brilliant Su-25 rendition, there are certainly better models of the aircraft in 1:72. However, what spoke for the kit as whiffing fodder was/is the fact that it is quite cheap (righteously so!) and AFAIK the only offering that comes with separate engine nacelles. These are attached to a completely independent central fuselage, and this avoids massive bodywork that would be necessary (if possible at all) with more conventional kits of this aircraft.

Another beneficial design feature is that the wing roots are an integral part of the original engine nacelles, forming their top side up to the fuselage spine. Through this, the original wingspan could be retained even without the nacelles, no wing extension would be necessary to retain the original proportions.

 

Work started with the central fuselage and the cockpit tub, which received a different (better) armored ejection seat and a pilot figure; the canopy remained unmodified and closed, because representing the model with an open cockpit would have required additional major body work on the spinal area behind the canopy. Inside, a new dashboard (from an Italeri BAe Hawk) was added, too – the original instrument panel is just a flat front bulkhead, there’s no space for the pilot to place the legs underneath the dashboard!

 

In parallel, the fin underwent major surgery. I initially considered an A-10-ish twin tail, but the Su-25’s high “tail stinger” prevented its implementation: the jet efflux would come very close to the tail surfaces. So, I went for something similar to the “Su-125” layout.

Mounting the OOB stabilizers to the fin was challenging, though. The fin lost its di-electric tip fairing, and it was cut into two sections, so that the tip would become long enough to match the stabilizers. A lucky find in the scrap box was a leftover tail tip from a Matchbox Blackburn Buccaneer, already shortened from a former, stillborn project: it had now the perfect length to take the Su-25 stabilizers! To make it fit on the fin, an 8mm deep section was inserted, in the form of a simple 1.5mm styrene sheet strip. Once dry, the surface was re-built with several PSR layers. Since it would sit further back on the new aircraft’s tail, the stinger with a RHAWS sensor was shortened.

 

On the fuselage, the attachment points for the wings and the engine nacelles were PSRed away and the front section filled with lots of lead beads, hoping that it would be enough to keep the model’s nose down.

 

Even though the wings had a proper span for a re-location into a low position, they still needed some attention: at the roots, there’s a ~1cm wide section without sweep (the area which would normally cover the original engine nacelles’ tops). This was mended through triangular 1.5 mm styrene wedges that extended the leading-edge sweep, roughly cut into shape once attached and later PSRed into the wings’ surfaces

 

The next construction site were the new landing gear attachment points. This had caused some serious headaches – where do you place and stow it? With new, low wings settled, the wings were the only logical place. But the wings were too thin to suitably take the retracted wheels, and, following the idea of a retrofitted existing design, I decided to adopt the A-10’s solution of nacelles into which the landing gear retracts forward, with the wheels still partly showing. This layout option appears quite plausible, since it would be a “graft-on” solution, and it also has the benefit of leaving lots of space for underwing stores, since the hardpoints’ position had to be modified now, too.

I was lucky to have a pair of A-10 landing gear nacelles at hand, left over from a wrecked Matchbox model from childhood time (the parts are probably 35 years old!). They were simply cut out, glued to the Su-25 wings and PSRed into shape. The result looked really good!

 

At this point I had to decide the model’s overall layout – where to place the wings, the tail and the new engine nacelles. The latter were not 1:72 A-10 transplants. I had some spare engine pods from the aforementioned Matchbox wreck, but these looked too rough and toylike for my taste. They were furthermore too bulky for the Su-25, which is markedly smaller than an A-10, so I had to look elsewhere. As a neat alternative for this project, I had already procured many moons ago a set of 1:144 resin PS-90A engines from a Russian company called “A.M.U.R. Reaver”, originally intended for a Tu-204 airliner or an Il-76 transport aircraft. These turbofan nacelles not only look very much like A-10 nacelles, just a bit smaller and more elegant, they are among the best resin aftermarket parts I have ever encountered: almost no flash, crisp molding, no bubbles, and perfect fit of the parts – WOW!

With these three elements at hand I was able to define the wings’ position, based on the tail, and from that the nacelles’ location, relative to the wings and the fin.

 

The next challenge: how to attach the new engines to the fuselage? The PS-90A engines came without pylons, so I had to improvise. I eventually found suitable pylons in the form of parts from F-14A underwing missile pylons, left over from an Italeri kit. Some major tailoring was necessary to find a proper position on the nacelles and on the fuselage, and PSRing these parts turned out to be quite difficult because of the tight and labyrinthine space.

 

When the engines were in place, work shifted towards the model’s underside. The landing gear was fully replaced. I initially wanted to retain the front wheel leg and the main wheels but found that the low wings would not allow a good ground clearance for underwing stores and re-arming the aircraft, a slightly taller solution was necessary. I eventually found a complete landing gear set in the scrap box, even though I am not certain to which aircraft it once belonged? I guess that the front wheel came from a Hasegawa RA-5C Vigilante, while the main gear and the wheels once belonged to an Italeri F-14A, alle struts were slightly shortened. The resulting stance is still a bit stalky, but an A-10 is also quite tall – this is just not so obvious because of the aircraft’s sheer size.

 

Due to the low wings and the landing gear pods, the Su-25’s hardpoints had to be re-arranged, and this eventually led to a layout very similar to the A-10. I gave the aircraft a pair of pylons inside of the pods, plus three hardpoints under the fuselage, even though all of these would only be used when slim ordnance was carried. I just fitted the outer pair. Outside of the landing gear fairings there would have been enough space for the Frogfoot’s original four outer for pylons, but I found this to be a little too much. So I gave it “just” three, with more space between them.

The respective ordnance is a mix for a CAS mission with dedicated and occasional targets. It consists of:

- Drop tanks under the inner wings (left over from a Bilek Su-17/22 kit)

- A pair of B-8M1 FFAR pods under the fuselage (from a vintage Mastercraft USSR weapon set)

- Two MERs with four 200 kg bombs each, mounted on the pylons outside of the landing gear (the odd MERs came from a Special Hobby IDF SMB-2 Super Mystère kit, the bombs are actually 1:100 USAF 750 lb bombs from a Tamiya F-105 Thunderchief in that scale)

- Four CBU-100 Rockeye Mk. II cluster bombs on the outer stations (from two Italeri USA/NATO weapon sets, each only offers a pair of these)

Yes, it’s a mix of Russian and NATO ordnance – but, like the real Georgian Su-25KM “Scorpion” upgrade, the TAM-1 would certainly be able to carry the same or even a wider mix, thanks to modified bomb racks and wirings. Esp. “dumb” weapons, which do not call for special targeting and guidance avionics, are qualified.

The gun under the nose was replaced with a piece from a hollow steel needle.

  

Painting and markings:

Nothing unusual here. I considered some more “exotic” options, but eventually settled for a “conservative” Soviet/Russian-style four-tone tactical camouflage, something that “normal” Su-25s would carry, too.

The disruptive pattern was adapted from a Macedonian Frogfoot but underwent some changes due to the T-tail and the engine nacelles. The basic tones were Humbrol 119 (RAF Light Earth), 150 (Forest Green), 195 (Chrome Oxide Green, RAL 6020) and 98 (Chocolate) on the upper surfaces and RLM78 from (Modelmaster #2087) from below, with a relatively low waterline, due to the low-set wings.

As usual, the model received a light black ink washing and some post-shading – especially on the hull and on the fin, where many details had either disappeared under PSR or were simply not there at all.

 

The landing gear and the lower areas of the cockpit were painted in light grey (Humbrol 64), while the upper cockpit sections were painted with bright turquoise (Modelmaster #2135). The wheel hubs were painted in bright green (Humbrol 101), while some di-electric fairings received a slightly less intense tone (Humbrol 2). A few of these flat fairings on the hull were furthermore created with green decal sheet material (from TL Modellbau) to avoid masking and corrections with paint.

 

The tactical markings became minimal, matching the look of late Georgian Su-25s. The roundels came from a Balkan Models Frogfoot sheet. The “07” was taken from a Blue Rider decal sheet, it actually belongs to a Lithuanian An-2. Some white stencils from generic MiG-21 and Mi-8 Begemot sheets were added, too, and some small markings were just painted onto the hull with yellow.

 

Some soot stains around the jet nozzles and the gun were added with graphite, and finally the kit was sealed with a coat of matt acrylic varnish.

  

A major bodywork project – and it’s weird that this is basically just a conversion of a stock kit and no kitbashing. A true Frogfoot remix! The new engines were the biggest “outsourced” addition, the A-10 landing gear fairings were a lucky find in the scrap box, and the rest is quite generic and could have looked differently. The result is impressive and balanced, though, the fictional TAM-1 looks quite plausible. The landing gear turned out to be a bit tall and stalky, though, making the aircraft look smaller on the ground than it actually is – but I left it that way.

+++ 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 Georgian Air Force and Air Defense Division (თავდაცვის ძალების ავიაციისა და საჰაერო თავდაცვის სარდლობა; tavdatsvis dzalebis aviatsiisa da sahaero tavdatsvis sardloba) was established on January 1, 1992, and in September the Georgian Air Force conducted its first combat flight during the separatist war in Abkhazia. On August 18, 1998, the two divisions were unified in a joint command structure and renamed the Georgian Air Force.

In 2010, the Georgian Air Force was abolished as a separate branch and incorporated into the Georgian Land Forces as Air and Air Defense sections. By that time, the equipment – primarily consisting of Eastern Bloc aircraft inherited from the Soviet Union after the country’s dissolution – was totally outdated, the most potent aircraft were a dozen Suchoj Su-25 attack aircraft and a handful of MiG-21U trainers.

 

In order to rejuvenate the air arm, Tbilisi Aircraft Manufacturing (TAM), also known as JSC Tbilaviamsheni and formerly known as 31st aviation factory, started a modernization program for the Su-25, for the domestic forces but also for export customers. TAM had a long tradition of aircraft production within the Soviet Union. In the 1950s the factory started the production of Mikoyan's MiG-15 and later, the MiG-17 fighter aircraft. In 1957 Tbilisi Aircraft State Association built the MiG-21 two-seater fighter-trainer aircraft and its various derivative aircraft, continuing the MiG-21 production for about 25 years. At the same time the company was manufacturing the K-10 air-to-surface guided missile. Furthermore, the first Sukhoi Su-25 (known in the West as the "Frogfoot") close support aircraft took its maiden voyage from the runway of 31st aviation factory. Since then, more than 800 SU-25s had been delivered to customers worldwide. From the first SU-25 to the 1990s, JSC Tbilaviamsheni was the only manufacturer of this aircraft, and even after the fall of the Soviet Union the production lines were still intact and spares for more than fifty complete aircraft available. Along with the SU-25 aircraft 31st aviation factory also launched large-scale production of air-to-air R-60 and R-73 IR guided missiles, a production effort that built over 6,000 missiles a year and that lasted until the early 1990s. From 1996 to 1998 the factory also produced Su-25U two-seaters.

 

In 2001 the factory started, in partnership with Elbit Systems of Israel, upgrading basic Su-25 airframes to the Su-25KM “Scorpion” variant. This was just a technical update, however, intended for former Su-25 export customers who would upgrade their less potent Su-25K export aircraft with modern avionics. The prototype aircraft made its maiden flight on 18 April 2001 at Tbilisi in full Georgian Air Force markings. The aircraft used a standard Su-25 airframe, enhanced with advanced avionics including a glass cockpit, digital map generator, helmet-mounted display, computerized weapons system, complete mission pre-plan capability, and fully redundant backup modes. Performance enhancements included a highly accurate navigation system, pinpoint weapon delivery systems, all-weather and day/night performance, NATO compatibility, state-of-the art safety and survivability features, and advanced onboard debriefing capabilities complying with international requirements. The Su-25KM had the ability to use NATO-standard Mark 82 and Mark 83 laser-guided bombs and new air-to-air missiles, the short-range Vympel R-73. This upgrade extended service life of the Su-25 airframes for another decade.

There were, however, not many customers. Manufacturing was eventually stopped at the end of 2010, after Georgian air forces have been permanently dismissed and abolished. By that time, approximately 12 Scorpions had been produced, but the Georgian Air Force still used the basic models of Su-25 because of high cost of Su-25KM and because it was destined mainly for export. According to unofficial sources several Scorpions had been transferred to Turkmenistan as part of a trade deal.

 

In the meantime, another, more ambitious project took shape at Tbilisi Aircraft Manufacturing, too: With the help of Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) the company started the development of a completely new attack aircraft, the TAM-1 “Gvelgeslas” (გველგესლას, Viper). It heavily relied on the year-long experience gathered with Su-25 production at Tblisi and on the tools at hand, but it was eventually a completely new aircraft – looking like a crossbreed between the Su-25 and the American A-10 with a T-tail.

 

This new layout had become necessary because the aircraft was to be powered by more modern, less noisy and more fuel-efficient Rolls Royce AE 3012 turbofan engines - which were originally intended to power the stillborn Yakovlev Yak-77 twin-engine business jet for up to 32 passengers, a slightly derated variant of the GMA 3012 with a 44 in diameter (112 cm) fan and procured via IAI from the United States through the company’s connection with Gulfstream Aerospace. Their larger diameter (the Su-25’s original Soyuz/Tumansky R-195 turbojets had a diameter of 109,5 cm/43.1 in) precluded the use of the former integral engine nacelles along the fuselage. To keep good ground clearance against FOD and to protect them from small arms fire, the engine layout was completely re-arranged. The fuselage was streamlined, and its internal structure was totally changed. The wings moved into a low position. The wings’ planform was almost identical to the Su-25’s, together with the characteristic tip-mounted “crocodile” air brakes. Just the leading edge inside of the “dogteeth” and the wing roots were re-designed, the latter because of the missing former engine nacelles. This resulted in a slightly increased net area, the original wingspan was retained. The bigger turbofans were then mounted in separate pods on short pylons along the rear fuselage, partly protected from below by the wings. Due to the jet efflux and the engines’ proximity to the stabilizers, these were re-located to the top of a deeper, reinforced fin for a T-tail arrangement.

 

Since the Su-25’s engine bays were now gone, the main landing gear had to be completely re-designed. Retracting them into the fuselage or into the relatively thin wings was not possible, TAM engineers settled upon a design that was very similar to the A-10: the aircraft received streamlined fairings, attached to the wings’ main spar, and positioned under the wings’ leading edges. The main legs were only semi-retractable; in flight, the wheels partly protruded from the fairings, but that hardly mattered from an aerodynamic point of view at the TAM-1’s subsonic operational speed. As a bonus they could still be used while retracted during emergency landings, improving the aircraft’s crash survivability.

 

Most flight and weapon avionics were procured from or via Elbit, including the Su-25KT’s modernized “glass cockpit”, and the TAM-1’s NATO compatibility was enhanced to appeal to a wider international export market. Beyond a total of eleven hardpoints under the wings and the fuselage for an external ordnance of up to 4.500 kg (9.900 lb), the TAM-1 was furthermore armed with an internal gun. Due to procurement issues, however, the Su-25’s original twin-barrel GSh-30-2 was replaced with an Oerlikon KDA 35mm cannon – a modern variant of the same cannon used in the German Gepard anti-aircraft tank, adapted to the use in an aircraft with a light-weight gun carriage. The KDA gun fired with a muzzle velocity of 1,440 m/s (4,700 ft/s) and a range of 5.500m, its rate of fire was typically 550 RPM. For the TAM-1, a unique feature from the SPAAG installation was adopted: the gun had two magazines, one with space for 200 rounds and another, smaller one for 50. The magazines could be filled with different types of ammunition, and the pilot was able select between them with a simple switch, adapting to the combat situation. Typical ammunition types were armor-piercing FAPDS rounds against hardened ground targets like tanks, and high explosive shells against soft ground targets and aircraft or helicopters, in a 3:1 ratio. Other ammunition types were available, too, and only 200 rounds were typically carried for balance reasons.

 

The TAM-1’s avionics included a SAGEM ULISS 81 INS, a Thomson-CSF VE-110 HUD, a TMV630 laser rangefinder in a modified nose and a TRT AHV 9 radio altimeter, with all avionics linked through a digital MIL-STD-1553B data bus and a modern “glass cockpit”. A HUD was standard, but an Elbit Systems DASH III HMD could be used by the pilot, too. The DASH GEN III was a wholly embedded design, closely integrated with the aircraft's weapon system, where the complete optical and position sensing coil package was built within the helmet (either the USAF standard HGU-55/P or the Israeli standard HGU-22/P), using a spherical visor to provide a collimated image to the pilot. A quick-disconnect wire powered the display and carried video drive signals to the helmet's Cathode Ray Tube (CRT).

 

The TAM-1’s development was long and protracted, though, primarily due to lack of resources and the fact that the Georgian air force was in an almost comatose state for several years, so that the potential prime customer for the TAM-1 was not officially available. However, the first TAM-1 prototype eventually made its maiden flight in September 2017. This was just in time, because the Georgian Air Force had formally been re-established in 2016, with plans for a major modernization and procurement program. Under the leadership of Georgian Minister of Defense Irakli Garibashvili the Air Force was re-prioritized and aircraft owned by the Georgian Air Force were being modernized and re-serviced after they were left abandoned for 4 years. This program lasted until 2020. In order to become more independent from foreign sources and support its domestic aircraft industry, the Georgian Air Force eventually ordered eight TAM-1s as Su-25K replacements, which would operate alongside a handful of modernized Su-25KMs from national stock. In the meantime, the new type also attained interest from abroad, e. g. from Bulgaria, the Congo and Cyprus. The IDF thoroughly tested two early production TAM-1s of the Georgian Air Force in 2018, too.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 15.53 m (50 ft 11 in), including pitot

Wingspan: 14.36 m (47 ft 1 in)

Height: 4.8 m (15 ft 9 in)

Wing area: 35.2 m² (378 sq ft)

Empty weight: 9,800 kg (21,605 lb)

Gross weight: 14,440 kg (31,835 lb)

Max takeoff weight: 19,300 kg (42,549 lb)

 

Powerplant:

2× Rolls-Royce AE 3012 turbofans with 44.1 kN (9,920 lbf) thrust each

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 975 km/h (606 mph, 526 kn, Mach 0.79)

Range: 1.000 km (620 mi, 540 nmi) with internal fuel, clean

Combat range: 750 km (470 mi, 400 nmi) at sea level with 4.500 kg (9,911 lb) of ordnance,

incl. two external fuel tanks

Service ceiling: 7.800 m (25,550 ft)

g limits: +6.5

Rate of climb: 58 m/s (11,400 ft/min)

 

Armament:

1× 35 mm (1.38 in) Oerlikon KDA cannon with 200 rds in two magazines

under the lower forward fuselage, offset to port side.

11× hardpoints with a capacity of up to 4.500 kg (9,911 lb) of external stores

  

The kit and its assembly:

This rather rigorous conversion had been on my project list for many years, and with the “Gunships” group build at whatifmodellers.com in late 2021 I eventually gathered my mojo to tackle it. The ingredients had already been procured long ago, but there are ideas that make you think twice before you take action…

 

This build was somewhat inspired by a CG rendition of a modified Su-25 that I came across while doing online search for potential ideas, running under the moniker “Su-125”, apparently created by someone called “Bispro” and published at DeviantArt in 2010; check this: (www.deviantart.com/bispro/art/Sukhoi-Su-125-Foghorn-15043...). The rendition shows a Su-25 with its engines re-located to the rear fuselage in separate nacelles, much like an A-10, plus a T-tail. However, as many photoshopped aircraft, the shown concept had IMHO some flaws. Where would a landing gear go, as the Su-125 still had shoulder wings? The engines’ position and size also looked fishy to me, quite small/narrow and very far high and back – I had doubts concerning the center of gravity. Nevertheless, I liked the idea, and the idea of an “A-10-esque remix” of the classic Frogfoot was born.

 

This idea was fueled even further when I found out that the Hobbycraft kit lends itself to such a conversion. The kit itself is not a brilliant Su-25 rendition, there are certainly better models of the aircraft in 1:72. However, what spoke for the kit as whiffing fodder was/is the fact that it is quite cheap (righteously so!) and AFAIK the only offering that comes with separate engine nacelles. These are attached to a completely independent central fuselage, and this avoids massive bodywork that would be necessary (if possible at all) with more conventional kits of this aircraft.

Another beneficial design feature is that the wing roots are an integral part of the original engine nacelles, forming their top side up to the fuselage spine. Through this, the original wingspan could be retained even without the nacelles, no wing extension would be necessary to retain the original proportions.

 

Work started with the central fuselage and the cockpit tub, which received a different (better) armored ejection seat and a pilot figure; the canopy remained unmodified and closed, because representing the model with an open cockpit would have required additional major body work on the spinal area behind the canopy. Inside, a new dashboard (from an Italeri BAe Hawk) was added, too – the original instrument panel is just a flat front bulkhead, there’s no space for the pilot to place the legs underneath the dashboard!

 

In parallel, the fin underwent major surgery. I initially considered an A-10-ish twin tail, but the Su-25’s high “tail stinger” prevented its implementation: the jet efflux would come very close to the tail surfaces. So, I went for something similar to the “Su-125” layout.

Mounting the OOB stabilizers to the fin was challenging, though. The fin lost its di-electric tip fairing, and it was cut into two sections, so that the tip would become long enough to match the stabilizers. A lucky find in the scrap box was a leftover tail tip from a Matchbox Blackburn Buccaneer, already shortened from a former, stillborn project: it had now the perfect length to take the Su-25 stabilizers! To make it fit on the fin, an 8mm deep section was inserted, in the form of a simple 1.5mm styrene sheet strip. Once dry, the surface was re-built with several PSR layers. Since it would sit further back on the new aircraft’s tail, the stinger with a RHAWS sensor was shortened.

 

On the fuselage, the attachment points for the wings and the engine nacelles were PSRed away and the front section filled with lots of lead beads, hoping that it would be enough to keep the model’s nose down.

 

Even though the wings had a proper span for a re-location into a low position, they still needed some attention: at the roots, there’s a ~1cm wide section without sweep (the area which would normally cover the original engine nacelles’ tops). This was mended through triangular 1.5 mm styrene wedges that extended the leading-edge sweep, roughly cut into shape once attached and later PSRed into the wings’ surfaces

 

The next construction site were the new landing gear attachment points. This had caused some serious headaches – where do you place and stow it? With new, low wings settled, the wings were the only logical place. But the wings were too thin to suitably take the retracted wheels, and, following the idea of a retrofitted existing design, I decided to adopt the A-10’s solution of nacelles into which the landing gear retracts forward, with the wheels still partly showing. This layout option appears quite plausible, since it would be a “graft-on” solution, and it also has the benefit of leaving lots of space for underwing stores, since the hardpoints’ position had to be modified now, too.

I was lucky to have a pair of A-10 landing gear nacelles at hand, left over from a wrecked Matchbox model from childhood time (the parts are probably 35 years old!). They were simply cut out, glued to the Su-25 wings and PSRed into shape. The result looked really good!

 

At this point I had to decide the model’s overall layout – where to place the wings, the tail and the new engine nacelles. The latter were not 1:72 A-10 transplants. I had some spare engine pods from the aforementioned Matchbox wreck, but these looked too rough and toylike for my taste. They were furthermore too bulky for the Su-25, which is markedly smaller than an A-10, so I had to look elsewhere. As a neat alternative for this project, I had already procured many moons ago a set of 1:144 resin PS-90A engines from a Russian company called “A.M.U.R. Reaver”, originally intended for a Tu-204 airliner or an Il-76 transport aircraft. These turbofan nacelles not only look very much like A-10 nacelles, just a bit smaller and more elegant, they are among the best resin aftermarket parts I have ever encountered: almost no flash, crisp molding, no bubbles, and perfect fit of the parts – WOW!

With these three elements at hand I was able to define the wings’ position, based on the tail, and from that the nacelles’ location, relative to the wings and the fin.

 

The next challenge: how to attach the new engines to the fuselage? The PS-90A engines came without pylons, so I had to improvise. I eventually found suitable pylons in the form of parts from F-14A underwing missile pylons, left over from an Italeri kit. Some major tailoring was necessary to find a proper position on the nacelles and on the fuselage, and PSRing these parts turned out to be quite difficult because of the tight and labyrinthine space.

 

When the engines were in place, work shifted towards the model’s underside. The landing gear was fully replaced. I initially wanted to retain the front wheel leg and the main wheels but found that the low wings would not allow a good ground clearance for underwing stores and re-arming the aircraft, a slightly taller solution was necessary. I eventually found a complete landing gear set in the scrap box, even though I am not certain to which aircraft it once belonged? I guess that the front wheel came from a Hasegawa RA-5C Vigilante, while the main gear and the wheels once belonged to an Italeri F-14A, alle struts were slightly shortened. The resulting stance is still a bit stalky, but an A-10 is also quite tall – this is just not so obvious because of the aircraft’s sheer size.

 

Due to the low wings and the landing gear pods, the Su-25’s hardpoints had to be re-arranged, and this eventually led to a layout very similar to the A-10. I gave the aircraft a pair of pylons inside of the pods, plus three hardpoints under the fuselage, even though all of these would only be used when slim ordnance was carried. I just fitted the outer pair. Outside of the landing gear fairings there would have been enough space for the Frogfoot’s original four outer for pylons, but I found this to be a little too much. So I gave it “just” three, with more space between them.

The respective ordnance is a mix for a CAS mission with dedicated and occasional targets. It consists of:

- Drop tanks under the inner wings (left over from a Bilek Su-17/22 kit)

- A pair of B-8M1 FFAR pods under the fuselage (from a vintage Mastercraft USSR weapon set)

- Two MERs with four 200 kg bombs each, mounted on the pylons outside of the landing gear (the odd MERs came from a Special Hobby IDF SMB-2 Super Mystère kit, the bombs are actually 1:100 USAF 750 lb bombs from a Tamiya F-105 Thunderchief in that scale)

- Four CBU-100 Rockeye Mk. II cluster bombs on the outer stations (from two Italeri USA/NATO weapon sets, each only offers a pair of these)

Yes, it’s a mix of Russian and NATO ordnance – but, like the real Georgian Su-25KM “Scorpion” upgrade, the TAM-1 would certainly be able to carry the same or even a wider mix, thanks to modified bomb racks and wirings. Esp. “dumb” weapons, which do not call for special targeting and guidance avionics, are qualified.

The gun under the nose was replaced with a piece from a hollow steel needle.

  

Painting and markings:

Nothing unusual here. I considered some more “exotic” options, but eventually settled for a “conservative” Soviet/Russian-style four-tone tactical camouflage, something that “normal” Su-25s would carry, too.

The disruptive pattern was adapted from a Macedonian Frogfoot but underwent some changes due to the T-tail and the engine nacelles. The basic tones were Humbrol 119 (RAF Light Earth), 150 (Forest Green), 195 (Chrome Oxide Green, RAL 6020) and 98 (Chocolate) on the upper surfaces and RLM78 from (Modelmaster #2087) from below, with a relatively low waterline, due to the low-set wings.

As usual, the model received a light black ink washing and some post-shading – especially on the hull and on the fin, where many details had either disappeared under PSR or were simply not there at all.

 

The landing gear and the lower areas of the cockpit were painted in light grey (Humbrol 64), while the upper cockpit sections were painted with bright turquoise (Modelmaster #2135). The wheel hubs were painted in bright green (Humbrol 101), while some di-electric fairings received a slightly less intense tone (Humbrol 2). A few of these flat fairings on the hull were furthermore created with green decal sheet material (from TL Modellbau) to avoid masking and corrections with paint.

 

The tactical markings became minimal, matching the look of late Georgian Su-25s. The roundels came from a Balkan Models Frogfoot sheet. The “07” was taken from a Blue Rider decal sheet, it actually belongs to a Lithuanian An-2. Some white stencils from generic MiG-21 and Mi-8 Begemot sheets were added, too, and some small markings were just painted onto the hull with yellow.

 

Some soot stains around the jet nozzles and the gun were added with graphite, and finally the kit was sealed with a coat of matt acrylic varnish.

  

A major bodywork project – and it’s weird that this is basically just a conversion of a stock kit and no kitbashing. A true Frogfoot remix! The new engines were the biggest “outsourced” addition, the A-10 landing gear fairings were a lucky find in the scrap box, and the rest is quite generic and could have looked differently. The result is impressive and balanced, though, the fictional TAM-1 looks quite plausible. The landing gear turned out to be a bit tall and stalky, though, making the aircraft look smaller on the ground than it actually is – but I left it that way.

+++ 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 Georgian Air Force and Air Defense Division (თავდაცვის ძალების ავიაციისა და საჰაერო თავდაცვის სარდლობა; tavdatsvis dzalebis aviatsiisa da sahaero tavdatsvis sardloba) was established on January 1, 1992, and in September the Georgian Air Force conducted its first combat flight during the separatist war in Abkhazia. On August 18, 1998, the two divisions were unified in a joint command structure and renamed the Georgian Air Force.

In 2010, the Georgian Air Force was abolished as a separate branch and incorporated into the Georgian Land Forces as Air and Air Defense sections. By that time, the equipment – primarily consisting of Eastern Bloc aircraft inherited from the Soviet Union after the country’s dissolution – was totally outdated, the most potent aircraft were a dozen Suchoj Su-25 attack aircraft and a handful of MiG-21U trainers.

 

In order to rejuvenate the air arm, Tbilisi Aircraft Manufacturing (TAM), also known as JSC Tbilaviamsheni and formerly known as 31st aviation factory, started a modernization program for the Su-25, for the domestic forces but also for export customers. TAM had a long tradition of aircraft production within the Soviet Union. In the 1950s the factory started the production of Mikoyan's MiG-15 and later, the MiG-17 fighter aircraft. In 1957 Tbilisi Aircraft State Association built the MiG-21 two-seater fighter-trainer aircraft and its various derivative aircraft, continuing the MiG-21 production for about 25 years. At the same time the company was manufacturing the K-10 air-to-surface guided missile. Furthermore, the first Sukhoi Su-25 (known in the West as the "Frogfoot") close support aircraft took its maiden voyage from the runway of 31st aviation factory. Since then, more than 800 SU-25s had been delivered to customers worldwide. From the first SU-25 to the 1990s, JSC Tbilaviamsheni was the only manufacturer of this aircraft, and even after the fall of the Soviet Union the production lines were still intact and spares for more than fifty complete aircraft available. Along with the SU-25 aircraft 31st aviation factory also launched large-scale production of air-to-air R-60 and R-73 IR guided missiles, a production effort that built over 6,000 missiles a year and that lasted until the early 1990s. From 1996 to 1998 the factory also produced Su-25U two-seaters.

 

In 2001 the factory started, in partnership with Elbit Systems of Israel, upgrading basic Su-25 airframes to the Su-25KM “Scorpion” variant. This was just a technical update, however, intended for former Su-25 export customers who would upgrade their less potent Su-25K export aircraft with modern avionics. The prototype aircraft made its maiden flight on 18 April 2001 at Tbilisi in full Georgian Air Force markings. The aircraft used a standard Su-25 airframe, enhanced with advanced avionics including a glass cockpit, digital map generator, helmet-mounted display, computerized weapons system, complete mission pre-plan capability, and fully redundant backup modes. Performance enhancements included a highly accurate navigation system, pinpoint weapon delivery systems, all-weather and day/night performance, NATO compatibility, state-of-the art safety and survivability features, and advanced onboard debriefing capabilities complying with international requirements. The Su-25KM had the ability to use NATO-standard Mark 82 and Mark 83 laser-guided bombs and new air-to-air missiles, the short-range Vympel R-73. This upgrade extended service life of the Su-25 airframes for another decade.

There were, however, not many customers. Manufacturing was eventually stopped at the end of 2010, after Georgian air forces have been permanently dismissed and abolished. By that time, approximately 12 Scorpions had been produced, but the Georgian Air Force still used the basic models of Su-25 because of high cost of Su-25KM and because it was destined mainly for export. According to unofficial sources several Scorpions had been transferred to Turkmenistan as part of a trade deal.

 

In the meantime, another, more ambitious project took shape at Tbilisi Aircraft Manufacturing, too: With the help of Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) the company started the development of a completely new attack aircraft, the TAM-1 “Gvelgeslas” (გველგესლას, Viper). It heavily relied on the year-long experience gathered with Su-25 production at Tblisi and on the tools at hand, but it was eventually a completely new aircraft – looking like a crossbreed between the Su-25 and the American A-10 with a T-tail.

 

This new layout had become necessary because the aircraft was to be powered by more modern, less noisy and more fuel-efficient Rolls Royce AE 3012 turbofan engines - which were originally intended to power the stillborn Yakovlev Yak-77 twin-engine business jet for up to 32 passengers, a slightly derated variant of the GMA 3012 with a 44 in diameter (112 cm) fan and procured via IAI from the United States through the company’s connection with Gulfstream Aerospace. Their larger diameter (the Su-25’s original Soyuz/Tumansky R-195 turbojets had a diameter of 109,5 cm/43.1 in) precluded the use of the former integral engine nacelles along the fuselage. To keep good ground clearance against FOD and to protect them from small arms fire, the engine layout was completely re-arranged. The fuselage was streamlined, and its internal structure was totally changed. The wings moved into a low position. The wings’ planform was almost identical to the Su-25’s, together with the characteristic tip-mounted “crocodile” air brakes. Just the leading edge inside of the “dogteeth” and the wing roots were re-designed, the latter because of the missing former engine nacelles. This resulted in a slightly increased net area, the original wingspan was retained. The bigger turbofans were then mounted in separate pods on short pylons along the rear fuselage, partly protected from below by the wings. Due to the jet efflux and the engines’ proximity to the stabilizers, these were re-located to the top of a deeper, reinforced fin for a T-tail arrangement.

 

Since the Su-25’s engine bays were now gone, the main landing gear had to be completely re-designed. Retracting them into the fuselage or into the relatively thin wings was not possible, TAM engineers settled upon a design that was very similar to the A-10: the aircraft received streamlined fairings, attached to the wings’ main spar, and positioned under the wings’ leading edges. The main legs were only semi-retractable; in flight, the wheels partly protruded from the fairings, but that hardly mattered from an aerodynamic point of view at the TAM-1’s subsonic operational speed. As a bonus they could still be used while retracted during emergency landings, improving the aircraft’s crash survivability.

 

Most flight and weapon avionics were procured from or via Elbit, including the Su-25KT’s modernized “glass cockpit”, and the TAM-1’s NATO compatibility was enhanced to appeal to a wider international export market. Beyond a total of eleven hardpoints under the wings and the fuselage for an external ordnance of up to 4.500 kg (9.900 lb), the TAM-1 was furthermore armed with an internal gun. Due to procurement issues, however, the Su-25’s original twin-barrel GSh-30-2 was replaced with an Oerlikon KDA 35mm cannon – a modern variant of the same cannon used in the German Gepard anti-aircraft tank, adapted to the use in an aircraft with a light-weight gun carriage. The KDA gun fired with a muzzle velocity of 1,440 m/s (4,700 ft/s) and a range of 5.500m, its rate of fire was typically 550 RPM. For the TAM-1, a unique feature from the SPAAG installation was adopted: the gun had two magazines, one with space for 200 rounds and another, smaller one for 50. The magazines could be filled with different types of ammunition, and the pilot was able select between them with a simple switch, adapting to the combat situation. Typical ammunition types were armor-piercing FAPDS rounds against hardened ground targets like tanks, and high explosive shells against soft ground targets and aircraft or helicopters, in a 3:1 ratio. Other ammunition types were available, too, and only 200 rounds were typically carried for balance reasons.

 

The TAM-1’s avionics included a SAGEM ULISS 81 INS, a Thomson-CSF VE-110 HUD, a TMV630 laser rangefinder in a modified nose and a TRT AHV 9 radio altimeter, with all avionics linked through a digital MIL-STD-1553B data bus and a modern “glass cockpit”. A HUD was standard, but an Elbit Systems DASH III HMD could be used by the pilot, too. The DASH GEN III was a wholly embedded design, closely integrated with the aircraft's weapon system, where the complete optical and position sensing coil package was built within the helmet (either the USAF standard HGU-55/P or the Israeli standard HGU-22/P), using a spherical visor to provide a collimated image to the pilot. A quick-disconnect wire powered the display and carried video drive signals to the helmet's Cathode Ray Tube (CRT).

 

The TAM-1’s development was long and protracted, though, primarily due to lack of resources and the fact that the Georgian air force was in an almost comatose state for several years, so that the potential prime customer for the TAM-1 was not officially available. However, the first TAM-1 prototype eventually made its maiden flight in September 2017. This was just in time, because the Georgian Air Force had formally been re-established in 2016, with plans for a major modernization and procurement program. Under the leadership of Georgian Minister of Defense Irakli Garibashvili the Air Force was re-prioritized and aircraft owned by the Georgian Air Force were being modernized and re-serviced after they were left abandoned for 4 years. This program lasted until 2020. In order to become more independent from foreign sources and support its domestic aircraft industry, the Georgian Air Force eventually ordered eight TAM-1s as Su-25K replacements, which would operate alongside a handful of modernized Su-25KMs from national stock. In the meantime, the new type also attained interest from abroad, e. g. from Bulgaria, the Congo and Cyprus. The IDF thoroughly tested two early production TAM-1s of the Georgian Air Force in 2018, too.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 15.53 m (50 ft 11 in), including pitot

Wingspan: 14.36 m (47 ft 1 in)

Height: 4.8 m (15 ft 9 in)

Wing area: 35.2 m² (378 sq ft)

Empty weight: 9,800 kg (21,605 lb)

Gross weight: 14,440 kg (31,835 lb)

Max takeoff weight: 19,300 kg (42,549 lb)

 

Powerplant:

2× Rolls-Royce AE 3012 turbofans with 44.1 kN (9,920 lbf) thrust each

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 975 km/h (606 mph, 526 kn, Mach 0.79)

Range: 1.000 km (620 mi, 540 nmi) with internal fuel, clean

Combat range: 750 km (470 mi, 400 nmi) at sea level with 4.500 kg (9,911 lb) of ordnance,

incl. two external fuel tanks

Service ceiling: 7.800 m (25,550 ft)

g limits: +6.5

Rate of climb: 58 m/s (11,400 ft/min)

 

Armament:

1× 35 mm (1.38 in) Oerlikon KDA cannon with 200 rds in two magazines

under the lower forward fuselage, offset to port side.

11× hardpoints with a capacity of up to 4.500 kg (9,911 lb) of external stores

  

The kit and its assembly:

This rather rigorous conversion had been on my project list for many years, and with the “Gunships” group build at whatifmodellers.com in late 2021 I eventually gathered my mojo to tackle it. The ingredients had already been procured long ago, but there are ideas that make you think twice before you take action…

 

This build was somewhat inspired by a CG rendition of a modified Su-25 that I came across while doing online search for potential ideas, running under the moniker “Su-125”, apparently created by someone called “Bispro” and published at DeviantArt in 2010; check this: (www.deviantart.com/bispro/art/Sukhoi-Su-125-Foghorn-15043...). The rendition shows a Su-25 with its engines re-located to the rear fuselage in separate nacelles, much like an A-10, plus a T-tail. However, as many photoshopped aircraft, the shown concept had IMHO some flaws. Where would a landing gear go, as the Su-125 still had shoulder wings? The engines’ position and size also looked fishy to me, quite small/narrow and very far high and back – I had doubts concerning the center of gravity. Nevertheless, I liked the idea, and the idea of an “A-10-esque remix” of the classic Frogfoot was born.

 

This idea was fueled even further when I found out that the Hobbycraft kit lends itself to such a conversion. The kit itself is not a brilliant Su-25 rendition, there are certainly better models of the aircraft in 1:72. However, what spoke for the kit as whiffing fodder was/is the fact that it is quite cheap (righteously so!) and AFAIK the only offering that comes with separate engine nacelles. These are attached to a completely independent central fuselage, and this avoids massive bodywork that would be necessary (if possible at all) with more conventional kits of this aircraft.

Another beneficial design feature is that the wing roots are an integral part of the original engine nacelles, forming their top side up to the fuselage spine. Through this, the original wingspan could be retained even without the nacelles, no wing extension would be necessary to retain the original proportions.

 

Work started with the central fuselage and the cockpit tub, which received a different (better) armored ejection seat and a pilot figure; the canopy remained unmodified and closed, because representing the model with an open cockpit would have required additional major body work on the spinal area behind the canopy. Inside, a new dashboard (from an Italeri BAe Hawk) was added, too – the original instrument panel is just a flat front bulkhead, there’s no space for the pilot to place the legs underneath the dashboard!

 

In parallel, the fin underwent major surgery. I initially considered an A-10-ish twin tail, but the Su-25’s high “tail stinger” prevented its implementation: the jet efflux would come very close to the tail surfaces. So, I went for something similar to the “Su-125” layout.

Mounting the OOB stabilizers to the fin was challenging, though. The fin lost its di-electric tip fairing, and it was cut into two sections, so that the tip would become long enough to match the stabilizers. A lucky find in the scrap box was a leftover tail tip from a Matchbox Blackburn Buccaneer, already shortened from a former, stillborn project: it had now the perfect length to take the Su-25 stabilizers! To make it fit on the fin, an 8mm deep section was inserted, in the form of a simple 1.5mm styrene sheet strip. Once dry, the surface was re-built with several PSR layers. Since it would sit further back on the new aircraft’s tail, the stinger with a RHAWS sensor was shortened.

 

On the fuselage, the attachment points for the wings and the engine nacelles were PSRed away and the front section filled with lots of lead beads, hoping that it would be enough to keep the model’s nose down.

 

Even though the wings had a proper span for a re-location into a low position, they still needed some attention: at the roots, there’s a ~1cm wide section without sweep (the area which would normally cover the original engine nacelles’ tops). This was mended through triangular 1.5 mm styrene wedges that extended the leading-edge sweep, roughly cut into shape once attached and later PSRed into the wings’ surfaces

 

The next construction site were the new landing gear attachment points. This had caused some serious headaches – where do you place and stow it? With new, low wings settled, the wings were the only logical place. But the wings were too thin to suitably take the retracted wheels, and, following the idea of a retrofitted existing design, I decided to adopt the A-10’s solution of nacelles into which the landing gear retracts forward, with the wheels still partly showing. This layout option appears quite plausible, since it would be a “graft-on” solution, and it also has the benefit of leaving lots of space for underwing stores, since the hardpoints’ position had to be modified now, too.

I was lucky to have a pair of A-10 landing gear nacelles at hand, left over from a wrecked Matchbox model from childhood time (the parts are probably 35 years old!). They were simply cut out, glued to the Su-25 wings and PSRed into shape. The result looked really good!

 

At this point I had to decide the model’s overall layout – where to place the wings, the tail and the new engine nacelles. The latter were not 1:72 A-10 transplants. I had some spare engine pods from the aforementioned Matchbox wreck, but these looked too rough and toylike for my taste. They were furthermore too bulky for the Su-25, which is markedly smaller than an A-10, so I had to look elsewhere. As a neat alternative for this project, I had already procured many moons ago a set of 1:144 resin PS-90A engines from a Russian company called “A.M.U.R. Reaver”, originally intended for a Tu-204 airliner or an Il-76 transport aircraft. These turbofan nacelles not only look very much like A-10 nacelles, just a bit smaller and more elegant, they are among the best resin aftermarket parts I have ever encountered: almost no flash, crisp molding, no bubbles, and perfect fit of the parts – WOW!

With these three elements at hand I was able to define the wings’ position, based on the tail, and from that the nacelles’ location, relative to the wings and the fin.

 

The next challenge: how to attach the new engines to the fuselage? The PS-90A engines came without pylons, so I had to improvise. I eventually found suitable pylons in the form of parts from F-14A underwing missile pylons, left over from an Italeri kit. Some major tailoring was necessary to find a proper position on the nacelles and on the fuselage, and PSRing these parts turned out to be quite difficult because of the tight and labyrinthine space.

 

When the engines were in place, work shifted towards the model’s underside. The landing gear was fully replaced. I initially wanted to retain the front wheel leg and the main wheels but found that the low wings would not allow a good ground clearance for underwing stores and re-arming the aircraft, a slightly taller solution was necessary. I eventually found a complete landing gear set in the scrap box, even though I am not certain to which aircraft it once belonged? I guess that the front wheel came from a Hasegawa RA-5C Vigilante, while the main gear and the wheels once belonged to an Italeri F-14A, alle struts were slightly shortened. The resulting stance is still a bit stalky, but an A-10 is also quite tall – this is just not so obvious because of the aircraft’s sheer size.

 

Due to the low wings and the landing gear pods, the Su-25’s hardpoints had to be re-arranged, and this eventually led to a layout very similar to the A-10. I gave the aircraft a pair of pylons inside of the pods, plus three hardpoints under the fuselage, even though all of these would only be used when slim ordnance was carried. I just fitted the outer pair. Outside of the landing gear fairings there would have been enough space for the Frogfoot’s original four outer for pylons, but I found this to be a little too much. So I gave it “just” three, with more space between them.

The respective ordnance is a mix for a CAS mission with dedicated and occasional targets. It consists of:

- Drop tanks under the inner wings (left over from a Bilek Su-17/22 kit)

- A pair of B-8M1 FFAR pods under the fuselage (from a vintage Mastercraft USSR weapon set)

- Two MERs with four 200 kg bombs each, mounted on the pylons outside of the landing gear (the odd MERs came from a Special Hobby IDF SMB-2 Super Mystère kit, the bombs are actually 1:100 USAF 750 lb bombs from a Tamiya F-105 Thunderchief in that scale)

- Four CBU-100 Rockeye Mk. II cluster bombs on the outer stations (from two Italeri USA/NATO weapon sets, each only offers a pair of these)

Yes, it’s a mix of Russian and NATO ordnance – but, like the real Georgian Su-25KM “Scorpion” upgrade, the TAM-1 would certainly be able to carry the same or even a wider mix, thanks to modified bomb racks and wirings. Esp. “dumb” weapons, which do not call for special targeting and guidance avionics, are qualified.

The gun under the nose was replaced with a piece from a hollow steel needle.

  

Painting and markings:

Nothing unusual here. I considered some more “exotic” options, but eventually settled for a “conservative” Soviet/Russian-style four-tone tactical camouflage, something that “normal” Su-25s would carry, too.

The disruptive pattern was adapted from a Macedonian Frogfoot but underwent some changes due to the T-tail and the engine nacelles. The basic tones were Humbrol 119 (RAF Light Earth), 150 (Forest Green), 195 (Chrome Oxide Green, RAL 6020) and 98 (Chocolate) on the upper surfaces and RLM78 from (Modelmaster #2087) from below, with a relatively low waterline, due to the low-set wings.

As usual, the model received a light black ink washing and some post-shading – especially on the hull and on the fin, where many details had either disappeared under PSR or were simply not there at all.

 

The landing gear and the lower areas of the cockpit were painted in light grey (Humbrol 64), while the upper cockpit sections were painted with bright turquoise (Modelmaster #2135). The wheel hubs were painted in bright green (Humbrol 101), while some di-electric fairings received a slightly less intense tone (Humbrol 2). A few of these flat fairings on the hull were furthermore created with green decal sheet material (from TL Modellbau) to avoid masking and corrections with paint.

 

The tactical markings became minimal, matching the look of late Georgian Su-25s. The roundels came from a Balkan Models Frogfoot sheet. The “07” was taken from a Blue Rider decal sheet, it actually belongs to a Lithuanian An-2. Some white stencils from generic MiG-21 and Mi-8 Begemot sheets were added, too, and some small markings were just painted onto the hull with yellow.

 

Some soot stains around the jet nozzles and the gun were added with graphite, and finally the kit was sealed with a coat of matt acrylic varnish.

  

A major bodywork project – and it’s weird that this is basically just a conversion of a stock kit and no kitbashing. A true Frogfoot remix! The new engines were the biggest “outsourced” addition, the A-10 landing gear fairings were a lucky find in the scrap box, and the rest is quite generic and could have looked differently. The result is impressive and balanced, though, the fictional TAM-1 looks quite plausible. The landing gear turned out to be a bit tall and stalky, though, making the aircraft look smaller on the ground than it actually is – but I left it that way.

+++ 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 Georgian Air Force and Air Defense Division (თავდაცვის ძალების ავიაციისა და საჰაერო თავდაცვის სარდლობა; tavdatsvis dzalebis aviatsiisa da sahaero tavdatsvis sardloba) was established on January 1, 1992, and in September the Georgian Air Force conducted its first combat flight during the separatist war in Abkhazia. On August 18, 1998, the two divisions were unified in a joint command structure and renamed the Georgian Air Force.

In 2010, the Georgian Air Force was abolished as a separate branch and incorporated into the Georgian Land Forces as Air and Air Defense sections. By that time, the equipment – primarily consisting of Eastern Bloc aircraft inherited from the Soviet Union after the country’s dissolution – was totally outdated, the most potent aircraft were a dozen Suchoj Su-25 attack aircraft and a handful of MiG-21U trainers.

 

In order to rejuvenate the air arm, Tbilisi Aircraft Manufacturing (TAM), also known as JSC Tbilaviamsheni and formerly known as 31st aviation factory, started a modernization program for the Su-25, for the domestic forces but also for export customers. TAM had a long tradition of aircraft production within the Soviet Union. In the 1950s the factory started the production of Mikoyan's MiG-15 and later, the MiG-17 fighter aircraft. In 1957 Tbilisi Aircraft State Association built the MiG-21 two-seater fighter-trainer aircraft and its various derivative aircraft, continuing the MiG-21 production for about 25 years. At the same time the company was manufacturing the K-10 air-to-surface guided missile. Furthermore, the first Sukhoi Su-25 (known in the West as the "Frogfoot") close support aircraft took its maiden voyage from the runway of 31st aviation factory. Since then, more than 800 SU-25s had been delivered to customers worldwide. From the first SU-25 to the 1990s, JSC Tbilaviamsheni was the only manufacturer of this aircraft, and even after the fall of the Soviet Union the production lines were still intact and spares for more than fifty complete aircraft available. Along with the SU-25 aircraft 31st aviation factory also launched large-scale production of air-to-air R-60 and R-73 IR guided missiles, a production effort that built over 6,000 missiles a year and that lasted until the early 1990s. From 1996 to 1998 the factory also produced Su-25U two-seaters.

 

In 2001 the factory started, in partnership with Elbit Systems of Israel, upgrading basic Su-25 airframes to the Su-25KM “Scorpion” variant. This was just a technical update, however, intended for former Su-25 export customers who would upgrade their less potent Su-25K export aircraft with modern avionics. The prototype aircraft made its maiden flight on 18 April 2001 at Tbilisi in full Georgian Air Force markings. The aircraft used a standard Su-25 airframe, enhanced with advanced avionics including a glass cockpit, digital map generator, helmet-mounted display, computerized weapons system, complete mission pre-plan capability, and fully redundant backup modes. Performance enhancements included a highly accurate navigation system, pinpoint weapon delivery systems, all-weather and day/night performance, NATO compatibility, state-of-the art safety and survivability features, and advanced onboard debriefing capabilities complying with international requirements. The Su-25KM had the ability to use NATO-standard Mark 82 and Mark 83 laser-guided bombs and new air-to-air missiles, the short-range Vympel R-73. This upgrade extended service life of the Su-25 airframes for another decade.

There were, however, not many customers. Manufacturing was eventually stopped at the end of 2010, after Georgian air forces have been permanently dismissed and abolished. By that time, approximately 12 Scorpions had been produced, but the Georgian Air Force still used the basic models of Su-25 because of high cost of Su-25KM and because it was destined mainly for export. According to unofficial sources several Scorpions had been transferred to Turkmenistan as part of a trade deal.

 

In the meantime, another, more ambitious project took shape at Tbilisi Aircraft Manufacturing, too: With the help of Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) the company started the development of a completely new attack aircraft, the TAM-1 “Gvelgeslas” (გველგესლას, Viper). It heavily relied on the year-long experience gathered with Su-25 production at Tblisi and on the tools at hand, but it was eventually a completely new aircraft – looking like a crossbreed between the Su-25 and the American A-10 with a T-tail.

 

This new layout had become necessary because the aircraft was to be powered by more modern, less noisy and more fuel-efficient Rolls Royce AE 3012 turbofan engines - which were originally intended to power the stillborn Yakovlev Yak-77 twin-engine business jet for up to 32 passengers, a slightly derated variant of the GMA 3012 with a 44 in diameter (112 cm) fan and procured via IAI from the United States through the company’s connection with Gulfstream Aerospace. Their larger diameter (the Su-25’s original Soyuz/Tumansky R-195 turbojets had a diameter of 109,5 cm/43.1 in) precluded the use of the former integral engine nacelles along the fuselage. To keep good ground clearance against FOD and to protect them from small arms fire, the engine layout was completely re-arranged. The fuselage was streamlined, and its internal structure was totally changed. The wings moved into a low position. The wings’ planform was almost identical to the Su-25’s, together with the characteristic tip-mounted “crocodile” air brakes. Just the leading edge inside of the “dogteeth” and the wing roots were re-designed, the latter because of the missing former engine nacelles. This resulted in a slightly increased net area, the original wingspan was retained. The bigger turbofans were then mounted in separate pods on short pylons along the rear fuselage, partly protected from below by the wings. Due to the jet efflux and the engines’ proximity to the stabilizers, these were re-located to the top of a deeper, reinforced fin for a T-tail arrangement.

 

Since the Su-25’s engine bays were now gone, the main landing gear had to be completely re-designed. Retracting them into the fuselage or into the relatively thin wings was not possible, TAM engineers settled upon a design that was very similar to the A-10: the aircraft received streamlined fairings, attached to the wings’ main spar, and positioned under the wings’ leading edges. The main legs were only semi-retractable; in flight, the wheels partly protruded from the fairings, but that hardly mattered from an aerodynamic point of view at the TAM-1’s subsonic operational speed. As a bonus they could still be used while retracted during emergency landings, improving the aircraft’s crash survivability.

 

Most flight and weapon avionics were procured from or via Elbit, including the Su-25KT’s modernized “glass cockpit”, and the TAM-1’s NATO compatibility was enhanced to appeal to a wider international export market. Beyond a total of eleven hardpoints under the wings and the fuselage for an external ordnance of up to 4.500 kg (9.900 lb), the TAM-1 was furthermore armed with an internal gun. Due to procurement issues, however, the Su-25’s original twin-barrel GSh-30-2 was replaced with an Oerlikon KDA 35mm cannon – a modern variant of the same cannon used in the German Gepard anti-aircraft tank, adapted to the use in an aircraft with a light-weight gun carriage. The KDA gun fired with a muzzle velocity of 1,440 m/s (4,700 ft/s) and a range of 5.500m, its rate of fire was typically 550 RPM. For the TAM-1, a unique feature from the SPAAG installation was adopted: the gun had two magazines, one with space for 200 rounds and another, smaller one for 50. The magazines could be filled with different types of ammunition, and the pilot was able select between them with a simple switch, adapting to the combat situation. Typical ammunition types were armor-piercing FAPDS rounds against hardened ground targets like tanks, and high explosive shells against soft ground targets and aircraft or helicopters, in a 3:1 ratio. Other ammunition types were available, too, and only 200 rounds were typically carried for balance reasons.

 

The TAM-1’s avionics included a SAGEM ULISS 81 INS, a Thomson-CSF VE-110 HUD, a TMV630 laser rangefinder in a modified nose and a TRT AHV 9 radio altimeter, with all avionics linked through a digital MIL-STD-1553B data bus and a modern “glass cockpit”. A HUD was standard, but an Elbit Systems DASH III HMD could be used by the pilot, too. The DASH GEN III was a wholly embedded design, closely integrated with the aircraft's weapon system, where the complete optical and position sensing coil package was built within the helmet (either the USAF standard HGU-55/P or the Israeli standard HGU-22/P), using a spherical visor to provide a collimated image to the pilot. A quick-disconnect wire powered the display and carried video drive signals to the helmet's Cathode Ray Tube (CRT).

 

The TAM-1’s development was long and protracted, though, primarily due to lack of resources and the fact that the Georgian air force was in an almost comatose state for several years, so that the potential prime customer for the TAM-1 was not officially available. However, the first TAM-1 prototype eventually made its maiden flight in September 2017. This was just in time, because the Georgian Air Force had formally been re-established in 2016, with plans for a major modernization and procurement program. Under the leadership of Georgian Minister of Defense Irakli Garibashvili the Air Force was re-prioritized and aircraft owned by the Georgian Air Force were being modernized and re-serviced after they were left abandoned for 4 years. This program lasted until 2020. In order to become more independent from foreign sources and support its domestic aircraft industry, the Georgian Air Force eventually ordered eight TAM-1s as Su-25K replacements, which would operate alongside a handful of modernized Su-25KMs from national stock. In the meantime, the new type also attained interest from abroad, e. g. from Bulgaria, the Congo and Cyprus. The IDF thoroughly tested two early production TAM-1s of the Georgian Air Force in 2018, too.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 15.53 m (50 ft 11 in), including pitot

Wingspan: 14.36 m (47 ft 1 in)

Height: 4.8 m (15 ft 9 in)

Wing area: 35.2 m² (378 sq ft)

Empty weight: 9,800 kg (21,605 lb)

Gross weight: 14,440 kg (31,835 lb)

Max takeoff weight: 19,300 kg (42,549 lb)

 

Powerplant:

2× Rolls-Royce AE 3012 turbofans with 44.1 kN (9,920 lbf) thrust each

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 975 km/h (606 mph, 526 kn, Mach 0.79)

Range: 1.000 km (620 mi, 540 nmi) with internal fuel, clean

Combat range: 750 km (470 mi, 400 nmi) at sea level with 4.500 kg (9,911 lb) of ordnance,

incl. two external fuel tanks

Service ceiling: 7.800 m (25,550 ft)

g limits: +6.5

Rate of climb: 58 m/s (11,400 ft/min)

 

Armament:

1× 35 mm (1.38 in) Oerlikon KDA cannon with 200 rds in two magazines

under the lower forward fuselage, offset to port side.

11× hardpoints with a capacity of up to 4.500 kg (9,911 lb) of external stores

  

The kit and its assembly:

This rather rigorous conversion had been on my project list for many years, and with the “Gunships” group build at whatifmodellers.com in late 2021 I eventually gathered my mojo to tackle it. The ingredients had already been procured long ago, but there are ideas that make you think twice before you take action…

 

This build was somewhat inspired by a CG rendition of a modified Su-25 that I came across while doing online search for potential ideas, running under the moniker “Su-125”, apparently created by someone called “Bispro” and published at DeviantArt in 2010; check this: (www.deviantart.com/bispro/art/Sukhoi-Su-125-Foghorn-15043...). The rendition shows a Su-25 with its engines re-located to the rear fuselage in separate nacelles, much like an A-10, plus a T-tail. However, as many photoshopped aircraft, the shown concept had IMHO some flaws. Where would a landing gear go, as the Su-125 still had shoulder wings? The engines’ position and size also looked fishy to me, quite small/narrow and very far high and back – I had doubts concerning the center of gravity. Nevertheless, I liked the idea, and the idea of an “A-10-esque remix” of the classic Frogfoot was born.

 

This idea was fueled even further when I found out that the Hobbycraft kit lends itself to such a conversion. The kit itself is not a brilliant Su-25 rendition, there are certainly better models of the aircraft in 1:72. However, what spoke for the kit as whiffing fodder was/is the fact that it is quite cheap (righteously so!) and AFAIK the only offering that comes with separate engine nacelles. These are attached to a completely independent central fuselage, and this avoids massive bodywork that would be necessary (if possible at all) with more conventional kits of this aircraft.

Another beneficial design feature is that the wing roots are an integral part of the original engine nacelles, forming their top side up to the fuselage spine. Through this, the original wingspan could be retained even without the nacelles, no wing extension would be necessary to retain the original proportions.

 

Work started with the central fuselage and the cockpit tub, which received a different (better) armored ejection seat and a pilot figure; the canopy remained unmodified and closed, because representing the model with an open cockpit would have required additional major body work on the spinal area behind the canopy. Inside, a new dashboard (from an Italeri BAe Hawk) was added, too – the original instrument panel is just a flat front bulkhead, there’s no space for the pilot to place the legs underneath the dashboard!

 

In parallel, the fin underwent major surgery. I initially considered an A-10-ish twin tail, but the Su-25’s high “tail stinger” prevented its implementation: the jet efflux would come very close to the tail surfaces. So, I went for something similar to the “Su-125” layout.

Mounting the OOB stabilizers to the fin was challenging, though. The fin lost its di-electric tip fairing, and it was cut into two sections, so that the tip would become long enough to match the stabilizers. A lucky find in the scrap box was a leftover tail tip from a Matchbox Blackburn Buccaneer, already shortened from a former, stillborn project: it had now the perfect length to take the Su-25 stabilizers! To make it fit on the fin, an 8mm deep section was inserted, in the form of a simple 1.5mm styrene sheet strip. Once dry, the surface was re-built with several PSR layers. Since it would sit further back on the new aircraft’s tail, the stinger with a RHAWS sensor was shortened.

 

On the fuselage, the attachment points for the wings and the engine nacelles were PSRed away and the front section filled with lots of lead beads, hoping that it would be enough to keep the model’s nose down.

 

Even though the wings had a proper span for a re-location into a low position, they still needed some attention: at the roots, there’s a ~1cm wide section without sweep (the area which would normally cover the original engine nacelles’ tops). This was mended through triangular 1.5 mm styrene wedges that extended the leading-edge sweep, roughly cut into shape once attached and later PSRed into the wings’ surfaces

 

The next construction site were the new landing gear attachment points. This had caused some serious headaches – where do you place and stow it? With new, low wings settled, the wings were the only logical place. But the wings were too thin to suitably take the retracted wheels, and, following the idea of a retrofitted existing design, I decided to adopt the A-10’s solution of nacelles into which the landing gear retracts forward, with the wheels still partly showing. This layout option appears quite plausible, since it would be a “graft-on” solution, and it also has the benefit of leaving lots of space for underwing stores, since the hardpoints’ position had to be modified now, too.

I was lucky to have a pair of A-10 landing gear nacelles at hand, left over from a wrecked Matchbox model from childhood time (the parts are probably 35 years old!). They were simply cut out, glued to the Su-25 wings and PSRed into shape. The result looked really good!

 

At this point I had to decide the model’s overall layout – where to place the wings, the tail and the new engine nacelles. The latter were not 1:72 A-10 transplants. I had some spare engine pods from the aforementioned Matchbox wreck, but these looked too rough and toylike for my taste. They were furthermore too bulky for the Su-25, which is markedly smaller than an A-10, so I had to look elsewhere. As a neat alternative for this project, I had already procured many moons ago a set of 1:144 resin PS-90A engines from a Russian company called “A.M.U.R. Reaver”, originally intended for a Tu-204 airliner or an Il-76 transport aircraft. These turbofan nacelles not only look very much like A-10 nacelles, just a bit smaller and more elegant, they are among the best resin aftermarket parts I have ever encountered: almost no flash, crisp molding, no bubbles, and perfect fit of the parts – WOW!

With these three elements at hand I was able to define the wings’ position, based on the tail, and from that the nacelles’ location, relative to the wings and the fin.

 

The next challenge: how to attach the new engines to the fuselage? The PS-90A engines came without pylons, so I had to improvise. I eventually found suitable pylons in the form of parts from F-14A underwing missile pylons, left over from an Italeri kit. Some major tailoring was necessary to find a proper position on the nacelles and on the fuselage, and PSRing these parts turned out to be quite difficult because of the tight and labyrinthine space.

 

When the engines were in place, work shifted towards the model’s underside. The landing gear was fully replaced. I initially wanted to retain the front wheel leg and the main wheels but found that the low wings would not allow a good ground clearance for underwing stores and re-arming the aircraft, a slightly taller solution was necessary. I eventually found a complete landing gear set in the scrap box, even though I am not certain to which aircraft it once belonged? I guess that the front wheel came from a Hasegawa RA-5C Vigilante, while the main gear and the wheels once belonged to an Italeri F-14A, alle struts were slightly shortened. The resulting stance is still a bit stalky, but an A-10 is also quite tall – this is just not so obvious because of the aircraft’s sheer size.

 

Due to the low wings and the landing gear pods, the Su-25’s hardpoints had to be re-arranged, and this eventually led to a layout very similar to the A-10. I gave the aircraft a pair of pylons inside of the pods, plus three hardpoints under the fuselage, even though all of these would only be used when slim ordnance was carried. I just fitted the outer pair. Outside of the landing gear fairings there would have been enough space for the Frogfoot’s original four outer for pylons, but I found this to be a little too much. So I gave it “just” three, with more space between them.

The respective ordnance is a mix for a CAS mission with dedicated and occasional targets. It consists of:

- Drop tanks under the inner wings (left over from a Bilek Su-17/22 kit)

- A pair of B-8M1 FFAR pods under the fuselage (from a vintage Mastercraft USSR weapon set)

- Two MERs with four 200 kg bombs each, mounted on the pylons outside of the landing gear (the odd MERs came from a Special Hobby IDF SMB-2 Super Mystère kit, the bombs are actually 1:100 USAF 750 lb bombs from a Tamiya F-105 Thunderchief in that scale)

- Four CBU-100 Rockeye Mk. II cluster bombs on the outer stations (from two Italeri USA/NATO weapon sets, each only offers a pair of these)

Yes, it’s a mix of Russian and NATO ordnance – but, like the real Georgian Su-25KM “Scorpion” upgrade, the TAM-1 would certainly be able to carry the same or even a wider mix, thanks to modified bomb racks and wirings. Esp. “dumb” weapons, which do not call for special targeting and guidance avionics, are qualified.

The gun under the nose was replaced with a piece from a hollow steel needle.

  

Painting and markings:

Nothing unusual here. I considered some more “exotic” options, but eventually settled for a “conservative” Soviet/Russian-style four-tone tactical camouflage, something that “normal” Su-25s would carry, too.

The disruptive pattern was adapted from a Macedonian Frogfoot but underwent some changes due to the T-tail and the engine nacelles. The basic tones were Humbrol 119 (RAF Light Earth), 150 (Forest Green), 195 (Chrome Oxide Green, RAL 6020) and 98 (Chocolate) on the upper surfaces and RLM78 from (Modelmaster #2087) from below, with a relatively low waterline, due to the low-set wings.

As usual, the model received a light black ink washing and some post-shading – especially on the hull and on the fin, where many details had either disappeared under PSR or were simply not there at all.

 

The landing gear and the lower areas of the cockpit were painted in light grey (Humbrol 64), while the upper cockpit sections were painted with bright turquoise (Modelmaster #2135). The wheel hubs were painted in bright green (Humbrol 101), while some di-electric fairings received a slightly less intense tone (Humbrol 2). A few of these flat fairings on the hull were furthermore created with green decal sheet material (from TL Modellbau) to avoid masking and corrections with paint.

 

The tactical markings became minimal, matching the look of late Georgian Su-25s. The roundels came from a Balkan Models Frogfoot sheet. The “07” was taken from a Blue Rider decal sheet, it actually belongs to a Lithuanian An-2. Some white stencils from generic MiG-21 and Mi-8 Begemot sheets were added, too, and some small markings were just painted onto the hull with yellow.

 

Some soot stains around the jet nozzles and the gun were added with graphite, and finally the kit was sealed with a coat of matt acrylic varnish.

  

A major bodywork project – and it’s weird that this is basically just a conversion of a stock kit and no kitbashing. A true Frogfoot remix! The new engines were the biggest “outsourced” addition, the A-10 landing gear fairings were a lucky find in the scrap box, and the rest is quite generic and could have looked differently. The result is impressive and balanced, though, the fictional TAM-1 looks quite plausible. The landing gear turned out to be a bit tall and stalky, though, making the aircraft look smaller on the ground than it actually is – but I left it that way.

+++ 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 Georgian Air Force and Air Defense Division (თავდაცვის ძალების ავიაციისა და საჰაერო თავდაცვის სარდლობა; tavdatsvis dzalebis aviatsiisa da sahaero tavdatsvis sardloba) was established on January 1, 1992, and in September the Georgian Air Force conducted its first combat flight during the separatist war in Abkhazia. On August 18, 1998, the two divisions were unified in a joint command structure and renamed the Georgian Air Force.

In 2010, the Georgian Air Force was abolished as a separate branch and incorporated into the Georgian Land Forces as Air and Air Defense sections. By that time, the equipment – primarily consisting of Eastern Bloc aircraft inherited from the Soviet Union after the country’s dissolution – was totally outdated, the most potent aircraft were a dozen Suchoj Su-25 attack aircraft and a handful of MiG-21U trainers.

 

In order to rejuvenate the air arm, Tbilisi Aircraft Manufacturing (TAM), also known as JSC Tbilaviamsheni and formerly known as 31st aviation factory, started a modernization program for the Su-25, for the domestic forces but also for export customers. TAM had a long tradition of aircraft production within the Soviet Union. In the 1950s the factory started the production of Mikoyan's MiG-15 and later, the MiG-17 fighter aircraft. In 1957 Tbilisi Aircraft State Association built the MiG-21 two-seater fighter-trainer aircraft and its various derivative aircraft, continuing the MiG-21 production for about 25 years. At the same time the company was manufacturing the K-10 air-to-surface guided missile. Furthermore, the first Sukhoi Su-25 (known in the West as the "Frogfoot") close support aircraft took its maiden voyage from the runway of 31st aviation factory. Since then, more than 800 SU-25s had been delivered to customers worldwide. From the first SU-25 to the 1990s, JSC Tbilaviamsheni was the only manufacturer of this aircraft, and even after the fall of the Soviet Union the production lines were still intact and spares for more than fifty complete aircraft available. Along with the SU-25 aircraft 31st aviation factory also launched large-scale production of air-to-air R-60 and R-73 IR guided missiles, a production effort that built over 6,000 missiles a year and that lasted until the early 1990s. From 1996 to 1998 the factory also produced Su-25U two-seaters.

 

In 2001 the factory started, in partnership with Elbit Systems of Israel, upgrading basic Su-25 airframes to the Su-25KM “Scorpion” variant. This was just a technical update, however, intended for former Su-25 export customers who would upgrade their less potent Su-25K export aircraft with modern avionics. The prototype aircraft made its maiden flight on 18 April 2001 at Tbilisi in full Georgian Air Force markings. The aircraft used a standard Su-25 airframe, enhanced with advanced avionics including a glass cockpit, digital map generator, helmet-mounted display, computerized weapons system, complete mission pre-plan capability, and fully redundant backup modes. Performance enhancements included a highly accurate navigation system, pinpoint weapon delivery systems, all-weather and day/night performance, NATO compatibility, state-of-the art safety and survivability features, and advanced onboard debriefing capabilities complying with international requirements. The Su-25KM had the ability to use NATO-standard Mark 82 and Mark 83 laser-guided bombs and new air-to-air missiles, the short-range Vympel R-73. This upgrade extended service life of the Su-25 airframes for another decade.

There were, however, not many customers. Manufacturing was eventually stopped at the end of 2010, after Georgian air forces have been permanently dismissed and abolished. By that time, approximately 12 Scorpions had been produced, but the Georgian Air Force still used the basic models of Su-25 because of high cost of Su-25KM and because it was destined mainly for export. According to unofficial sources several Scorpions had been transferred to Turkmenistan as part of a trade deal.

 

In the meantime, another, more ambitious project took shape at Tbilisi Aircraft Manufacturing, too: With the help of Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) the company started the development of a completely new attack aircraft, the TAM-1 “Gvelgeslas” (გველგესლას, Viper). It heavily relied on the year-long experience gathered with Su-25 production at Tblisi and on the tools at hand, but it was eventually a completely new aircraft – looking like a crossbreed between the Su-25 and the American A-10 with a T-tail.

 

This new layout had become necessary because the aircraft was to be powered by more modern, less noisy and more fuel-efficient Rolls Royce AE 3012 turbofan engines - which were originally intended to power the stillborn Yakovlev Yak-77 twin-engine business jet for up to 32 passengers, a slightly derated variant of the GMA 3012 with a 44 in diameter (112 cm) fan and procured via IAI from the United States through the company’s connection with Gulfstream Aerospace. Their larger diameter (the Su-25’s original Soyuz/Tumansky R-195 turbojets had a diameter of 109,5 cm/43.1 in) precluded the use of the former integral engine nacelles along the fuselage. To keep good ground clearance against FOD and to protect them from small arms fire, the engine layout was completely re-arranged. The fuselage was streamlined, and its internal structure was totally changed. The wings moved into a low position. The wings’ planform was almost identical to the Su-25’s, together with the characteristic tip-mounted “crocodile” air brakes. Just the leading edge inside of the “dogteeth” and the wing roots were re-designed, the latter because of the missing former engine nacelles. This resulted in a slightly increased net area, the original wingspan was retained. The bigger turbofans were then mounted in separate pods on short pylons along the rear fuselage, partly protected from below by the wings. Due to the jet efflux and the engines’ proximity to the stabilizers, these were re-located to the top of a deeper, reinforced fin for a T-tail arrangement.

 

Since the Su-25’s engine bays were now gone, the main landing gear had to be completely re-designed. Retracting them into the fuselage or into the relatively thin wings was not possible, TAM engineers settled upon a design that was very similar to the A-10: the aircraft received streamlined fairings, attached to the wings’ main spar, and positioned under the wings’ leading edges. The main legs were only semi-retractable; in flight, the wheels partly protruded from the fairings, but that hardly mattered from an aerodynamic point of view at the TAM-1’s subsonic operational speed. As a bonus they could still be used while retracted during emergency landings, improving the aircraft’s crash survivability.

 

Most flight and weapon avionics were procured from or via Elbit, including the Su-25KT’s modernized “glass cockpit”, and the TAM-1’s NATO compatibility was enhanced to appeal to a wider international export market. Beyond a total of eleven hardpoints under the wings and the fuselage for an external ordnance of up to 4.500 kg (9.900 lb), the TAM-1 was furthermore armed with an internal gun. Due to procurement issues, however, the Su-25’s original twin-barrel GSh-30-2 was replaced with an Oerlikon KDA 35mm cannon – a modern variant of the same cannon used in the German Gepard anti-aircraft tank, adapted to the use in an aircraft with a light-weight gun carriage. The KDA gun fired with a muzzle velocity of 1,440 m/s (4,700 ft/s) and a range of 5.500m, its rate of fire was typically 550 RPM. For the TAM-1, a unique feature from the SPAAG installation was adopted: the gun had two magazines, one with space for 200 rounds and another, smaller one for 50. The magazines could be filled with different types of ammunition, and the pilot was able select between them with a simple switch, adapting to the combat situation. Typical ammunition types were armor-piercing FAPDS rounds against hardened ground targets like tanks, and high explosive shells against soft ground targets and aircraft or helicopters, in a 3:1 ratio. Other ammunition types were available, too, and only 200 rounds were typically carried for balance reasons.

 

The TAM-1’s avionics included a SAGEM ULISS 81 INS, a Thomson-CSF VE-110 HUD, a TMV630 laser rangefinder in a modified nose and a TRT AHV 9 radio altimeter, with all avionics linked through a digital MIL-STD-1553B data bus and a modern “glass cockpit”. A HUD was standard, but an Elbit Systems DASH III HMD could be used by the pilot, too. The DASH GEN III was a wholly embedded design, closely integrated with the aircraft's weapon system, where the complete optical and position sensing coil package was built within the helmet (either the USAF standard HGU-55/P or the Israeli standard HGU-22/P), using a spherical visor to provide a collimated image to the pilot. A quick-disconnect wire powered the display and carried video drive signals to the helmet's Cathode Ray Tube (CRT).

 

The TAM-1’s development was long and protracted, though, primarily due to lack of resources and the fact that the Georgian air force was in an almost comatose state for several years, so that the potential prime customer for the TAM-1 was not officially available. However, the first TAM-1 prototype eventually made its maiden flight in September 2017. This was just in time, because the Georgian Air Force had formally been re-established in 2016, with plans for a major modernization and procurement program. Under the leadership of Georgian Minister of Defense Irakli Garibashvili the Air Force was re-prioritized and aircraft owned by the Georgian Air Force were being modernized and re-serviced after they were left abandoned for 4 years. This program lasted until 2020. In order to become more independent from foreign sources and support its domestic aircraft industry, the Georgian Air Force eventually ordered eight TAM-1s as Su-25K replacements, which would operate alongside a handful of modernized Su-25KMs from national stock. In the meantime, the new type also attained interest from abroad, e. g. from Bulgaria, the Congo and Cyprus. The IDF thoroughly tested two early production TAM-1s of the Georgian Air Force in 2018, too.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 15.53 m (50 ft 11 in), including pitot

Wingspan: 14.36 m (47 ft 1 in)

Height: 4.8 m (15 ft 9 in)

Wing area: 35.2 m² (378 sq ft)

Empty weight: 9,800 kg (21,605 lb)

Gross weight: 14,440 kg (31,835 lb)

Max takeoff weight: 19,300 kg (42,549 lb)

 

Powerplant:

2× Rolls-Royce AE 3012 turbofans with 44.1 kN (9,920 lbf) thrust each

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 975 km/h (606 mph, 526 kn, Mach 0.79)

Range: 1.000 km (620 mi, 540 nmi) with internal fuel, clean

Combat range: 750 km (470 mi, 400 nmi) at sea level with 4.500 kg (9,911 lb) of ordnance,

incl. two external fuel tanks

Service ceiling: 7.800 m (25,550 ft)

g limits: +6.5

Rate of climb: 58 m/s (11,400 ft/min)

 

Armament:

1× 35 mm (1.38 in) Oerlikon KDA cannon with 200 rds in two magazines

under the lower forward fuselage, offset to port side.

11× hardpoints with a capacity of up to 4.500 kg (9,911 lb) of external stores

  

The kit and its assembly:

This rather rigorous conversion had been on my project list for many years, and with the “Gunships” group build at whatifmodellers.com in late 2021 I eventually gathered my mojo to tackle it. The ingredients had already been procured long ago, but there are ideas that make you think twice before you take action…

 

This build was somewhat inspired by a CG rendition of a modified Su-25 that I came across while doing online search for potential ideas, running under the moniker “Su-125”, apparently created by someone called “Bispro” and published at DeviantArt in 2010; check this: (www.deviantart.com/bispro/art/Sukhoi-Su-125-Foghorn-15043...). The rendition shows a Su-25 with its engines re-located to the rear fuselage in separate nacelles, much like an A-10, plus a T-tail. However, as many photoshopped aircraft, the shown concept had IMHO some flaws. Where would a landing gear go, as the Su-125 still had shoulder wings? The engines’ position and size also looked fishy to me, quite small/narrow and very far high and back – I had doubts concerning the center of gravity. Nevertheless, I liked the idea, and the idea of an “A-10-esque remix” of the classic Frogfoot was born.

 

This idea was fueled even further when I found out that the Hobbycraft kit lends itself to such a conversion. The kit itself is not a brilliant Su-25 rendition, there are certainly better models of the aircraft in 1:72. However, what spoke for the kit as whiffing fodder was/is the fact that it is quite cheap (righteously so!) and AFAIK the only offering that comes with separate engine nacelles. These are attached to a completely independent central fuselage, and this avoids massive bodywork that would be necessary (if possible at all) with more conventional kits of this aircraft.

Another beneficial design feature is that the wing roots are an integral part of the original engine nacelles, forming their top side up to the fuselage spine. Through this, the original wingspan could be retained even without the nacelles, no wing extension would be necessary to retain the original proportions.

 

Work started with the central fuselage and the cockpit tub, which received a different (better) armored ejection seat and a pilot figure; the canopy remained unmodified and closed, because representing the model with an open cockpit would have required additional major body work on the spinal area behind the canopy. Inside, a new dashboard (from an Italeri BAe Hawk) was added, too – the original instrument panel is just a flat front bulkhead, there’s no space for the pilot to place the legs underneath the dashboard!

 

In parallel, the fin underwent major surgery. I initially considered an A-10-ish twin tail, but the Su-25’s high “tail stinger” prevented its implementation: the jet efflux would come very close to the tail surfaces. So, I went for something similar to the “Su-125” layout.

Mounting the OOB stabilizers to the fin was challenging, though. The fin lost its di-electric tip fairing, and it was cut into two sections, so that the tip would become long enough to match the stabilizers. A lucky find in the scrap box was a leftover tail tip from a Matchbox Blackburn Buccaneer, already shortened from a former, stillborn project: it had now the perfect length to take the Su-25 stabilizers! To make it fit on the fin, an 8mm deep section was inserted, in the form of a simple 1.5mm styrene sheet strip. Once dry, the surface was re-built with several PSR layers. Since it would sit further back on the new aircraft’s tail, the stinger with a RHAWS sensor was shortened.

 

On the fuselage, the attachment points for the wings and the engine nacelles were PSRed away and the front section filled with lots of lead beads, hoping that it would be enough to keep the model’s nose down.

 

Even though the wings had a proper span for a re-location into a low position, they still needed some attention: at the roots, there’s a ~1cm wide section without sweep (the area which would normally cover the original engine nacelles’ tops). This was mended through triangular 1.5 mm styrene wedges that extended the leading-edge sweep, roughly cut into shape once attached and later PSRed into the wings’ surfaces

 

The next construction site were the new landing gear attachment points. This had caused some serious headaches – where do you place and stow it? With new, low wings settled, the wings were the only logical place. But the wings were too thin to suitably take the retracted wheels, and, following the idea of a retrofitted existing design, I decided to adopt the A-10’s solution of nacelles into which the landing gear retracts forward, with the wheels still partly showing. This layout option appears quite plausible, since it would be a “graft-on” solution, and it also has the benefit of leaving lots of space for underwing stores, since the hardpoints’ position had to be modified now, too.

I was lucky to have a pair of A-10 landing gear nacelles at hand, left over from a wrecked Matchbox model from childhood time (the parts are probably 35 years old!). They were simply cut out, glued to the Su-25 wings and PSRed into shape. The result looked really good!

 

At this point I had to decide the model’s overall layout – where to place the wings, the tail and the new engine nacelles. The latter were not 1:72 A-10 transplants. I had some spare engine pods from the aforementioned Matchbox wreck, but these looked too rough and toylike for my taste. They were furthermore too bulky for the Su-25, which is markedly smaller than an A-10, so I had to look elsewhere. As a neat alternative for this project, I had already procured many moons ago a set of 1:144 resin PS-90A engines from a Russian company called “A.M.U.R. Reaver”, originally intended for a Tu-204 airliner or an Il-76 transport aircraft. These turbofan nacelles not only look very much like A-10 nacelles, just a bit smaller and more elegant, they are among the best resin aftermarket parts I have ever encountered: almost no flash, crisp molding, no bubbles, and perfect fit of the parts – WOW!

With these three elements at hand I was able to define the wings’ position, based on the tail, and from that the nacelles’ location, relative to the wings and the fin.

 

The next challenge: how to attach the new engines to the fuselage? The PS-90A engines came without pylons, so I had to improvise. I eventually found suitable pylons in the form of parts from F-14A underwing missile pylons, left over from an Italeri kit. Some major tailoring was necessary to find a proper position on the nacelles and on the fuselage, and PSRing these parts turned out to be quite difficult because of the tight and labyrinthine space.

 

When the engines were in place, work shifted towards the model’s underside. The landing gear was fully replaced. I initially wanted to retain the front wheel leg and the main wheels but found that the low wings would not allow a good ground clearance for underwing stores and re-arming the aircraft, a slightly taller solution was necessary. I eventually found a complete landing gear set in the scrap box, even though I am not certain to which aircraft it once belonged? I guess that the front wheel came from a Hasegawa RA-5C Vigilante, while the main gear and the wheels once belonged to an Italeri F-14A, alle struts were slightly shortened. The resulting stance is still a bit stalky, but an A-10 is also quite tall – this is just not so obvious because of the aircraft’s sheer size.

 

Due to the low wings and the landing gear pods, the Su-25’s hardpoints had to be re-arranged, and this eventually led to a layout very similar to the A-10. I gave the aircraft a pair of pylons inside of the pods, plus three hardpoints under the fuselage, even though all of these would only be used when slim ordnance was carried. I just fitted the outer pair. Outside of the landing gear fairings there would have been enough space for the Frogfoot’s original four outer for pylons, but I found this to be a little too much. So I gave it “just” three, with more space between them.

The respective ordnance is a mix for a CAS mission with dedicated and occasional targets. It consists of:

- Drop tanks under the inner wings (left over from a Bilek Su-17/22 kit)

- A pair of B-8M1 FFAR pods under the fuselage (from a vintage Mastercraft USSR weapon set)

- Two MERs with four 200 kg bombs each, mounted on the pylons outside of the landing gear (the odd MERs came from a Special Hobby IDF SMB-2 Super Mystère kit, the bombs are actually 1:100 USAF 750 lb bombs from a Tamiya F-105 Thunderchief in that scale)

- Four CBU-100 Rockeye Mk. II cluster bombs on the outer stations (from two Italeri USA/NATO weapon sets, each only offers a pair of these)

Yes, it’s a mix of Russian and NATO ordnance – but, like the real Georgian Su-25KM “Scorpion” upgrade, the TAM-1 would certainly be able to carry the same or even a wider mix, thanks to modified bomb racks and wirings. Esp. “dumb” weapons, which do not call for special targeting and guidance avionics, are qualified.

The gun under the nose was replaced with a piece from a hollow steel needle.

  

Painting and markings:

Nothing unusual here. I considered some more “exotic” options, but eventually settled for a “conservative” Soviet/Russian-style four-tone tactical camouflage, something that “normal” Su-25s would carry, too.

The disruptive pattern was adapted from a Macedonian Frogfoot but underwent some changes due to the T-tail and the engine nacelles. The basic tones were Humbrol 119 (RAF Light Earth), 150 (Forest Green), 195 (Chrome Oxide Green, RAL 6020) and 98 (Chocolate) on the upper surfaces and RLM78 from (Modelmaster #2087) from below, with a relatively low waterline, due to the low-set wings.

As usual, the model received a light black ink washing and some post-shading – especially on the hull and on the fin, where many details had either disappeared under PSR or were simply not there at all.

 

The landing gear and the lower areas of the cockpit were painted in light grey (Humbrol 64), while the upper cockpit sections were painted with bright turquoise (Modelmaster #2135). The wheel hubs were painted in bright green (Humbrol 101), while some di-electric fairings received a slightly less intense tone (Humbrol 2). A few of these flat fairings on the hull were furthermore created with green decal sheet material (from TL Modellbau) to avoid masking and corrections with paint.

 

The tactical markings became minimal, matching the look of late Georgian Su-25s. The roundels came from a Balkan Models Frogfoot sheet. The “07” was taken from a Blue Rider decal sheet, it actually belongs to a Lithuanian An-2. Some white stencils from generic MiG-21 and Mi-8 Begemot sheets were added, too, and some small markings were just painted onto the hull with yellow.

 

Some soot stains around the jet nozzles and the gun were added with graphite, and finally the kit was sealed with a coat of matt acrylic varnish.

  

A major bodywork project – and it’s weird that this is basically just a conversion of a stock kit and no kitbashing. A true Frogfoot remix! The new engines were the biggest “outsourced” addition, the A-10 landing gear fairings were a lucky find in the scrap box, and the rest is quite generic and could have looked differently. The result is impressive and balanced, though, the fictional TAM-1 looks quite plausible. The landing gear turned out to be a bit tall and stalky, though, making the aircraft look smaller on the ground than it actually is – but I left it that way.

+++ 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 Georgian Air Force and Air Defense Division (თავდაცვის ძალების ავიაციისა და საჰაერო თავდაცვის სარდლობა; tavdatsvis dzalebis aviatsiisa da sahaero tavdatsvis sardloba) was established on January 1, 1992, and in September the Georgian Air Force conducted its first combat flight during the separatist war in Abkhazia. On August 18, 1998, the two divisions were unified in a joint command structure and renamed the Georgian Air Force.

In 2010, the Georgian Air Force was abolished as a separate branch and incorporated into the Georgian Land Forces as Air and Air Defense sections. By that time, the equipment – primarily consisting of Eastern Bloc aircraft inherited from the Soviet Union after the country’s dissolution – was totally outdated, the most potent aircraft were a dozen Suchoj Su-25 attack aircraft and a handful of MiG-21U trainers.

 

In order to rejuvenate the air arm, Tbilisi Aircraft Manufacturing (TAM), also known as JSC Tbilaviamsheni and formerly known as 31st aviation factory, started a modernization program for the Su-25, for the domestic forces but also for export customers. TAM had a long tradition of aircraft production within the Soviet Union. In the 1950s the factory started the production of Mikoyan's MiG-15 and later, the MiG-17 fighter aircraft. In 1957 Tbilisi Aircraft State Association built the MiG-21 two-seater fighter-trainer aircraft and its various derivative aircraft, continuing the MiG-21 production for about 25 years. At the same time the company was manufacturing the K-10 air-to-surface guided missile. Furthermore, the first Sukhoi Su-25 (known in the West as the "Frogfoot") close support aircraft took its maiden voyage from the runway of 31st aviation factory. Since then, more than 800 SU-25s had been delivered to customers worldwide. From the first SU-25 to the 1990s, JSC Tbilaviamsheni was the only manufacturer of this aircraft, and even after the fall of the Soviet Union the production lines were still intact and spares for more than fifty complete aircraft available. Along with the SU-25 aircraft 31st aviation factory also launched large-scale production of air-to-air R-60 and R-73 IR guided missiles, a production effort that built over 6,000 missiles a year and that lasted until the early 1990s. From 1996 to 1998 the factory also produced Su-25U two-seaters.

 

In 2001 the factory started, in partnership with Elbit Systems of Israel, upgrading basic Su-25 airframes to the Su-25KM “Scorpion” variant. This was just a technical update, however, intended for former Su-25 export customers who would upgrade their less potent Su-25K export aircraft with modern avionics. The prototype aircraft made its maiden flight on 18 April 2001 at Tbilisi in full Georgian Air Force markings. The aircraft used a standard Su-25 airframe, enhanced with advanced avionics including a glass cockpit, digital map generator, helmet-mounted display, computerized weapons system, complete mission pre-plan capability, and fully redundant backup modes. Performance enhancements included a highly accurate navigation system, pinpoint weapon delivery systems, all-weather and day/night performance, NATO compatibility, state-of-the art safety and survivability features, and advanced onboard debriefing capabilities complying with international requirements. The Su-25KM had the ability to use NATO-standard Mark 82 and Mark 83 laser-guided bombs and new air-to-air missiles, the short-range Vympel R-73. This upgrade extended service life of the Su-25 airframes for another decade.

There were, however, not many customers. Manufacturing was eventually stopped at the end of 2010, after Georgian air forces have been permanently dismissed and abolished. By that time, approximately 12 Scorpions had been produced, but the Georgian Air Force still used the basic models of Su-25 because of high cost of Su-25KM and because it was destined mainly for export. According to unofficial sources several Scorpions had been transferred to Turkmenistan as part of a trade deal.

 

In the meantime, another, more ambitious project took shape at Tbilisi Aircraft Manufacturing, too: With the help of Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) the company started the development of a completely new attack aircraft, the TAM-1 “Gvelgeslas” (გველგესლას, Viper). It heavily relied on the year-long experience gathered with Su-25 production at Tblisi and on the tools at hand, but it was eventually a completely new aircraft – looking like a crossbreed between the Su-25 and the American A-10 with a T-tail.

 

This new layout had become necessary because the aircraft was to be powered by more modern, less noisy and more fuel-efficient Rolls Royce AE 3012 turbofan engines - which were originally intended to power the stillborn Yakovlev Yak-77 twin-engine business jet for up to 32 passengers, a slightly derated variant of the GMA 3012 with a 44 in diameter (112 cm) fan and procured via IAI from the United States through the company’s connection with Gulfstream Aerospace. Their larger diameter (the Su-25’s original Soyuz/Tumansky R-195 turbojets had a diameter of 109,5 cm/43.1 in) precluded the use of the former integral engine nacelles along the fuselage. To keep good ground clearance against FOD and to protect them from small arms fire, the engine layout was completely re-arranged. The fuselage was streamlined, and its internal structure was totally changed. The wings moved into a low position. The wings’ planform was almost identical to the Su-25’s, together with the characteristic tip-mounted “crocodile” air brakes. Just the leading edge inside of the “dogteeth” and the wing roots were re-designed, the latter because of the missing former engine nacelles. This resulted in a slightly increased net area, the original wingspan was retained. The bigger turbofans were then mounted in separate pods on short pylons along the rear fuselage, partly protected from below by the wings. Due to the jet efflux and the engines’ proximity to the stabilizers, these were re-located to the top of a deeper, reinforced fin for a T-tail arrangement.

 

Since the Su-25’s engine bays were now gone, the main landing gear had to be completely re-designed. Retracting them into the fuselage or into the relatively thin wings was not possible, TAM engineers settled upon a design that was very similar to the A-10: the aircraft received streamlined fairings, attached to the wings’ main spar, and positioned under the wings’ leading edges. The main legs were only semi-retractable; in flight, the wheels partly protruded from the fairings, but that hardly mattered from an aerodynamic point of view at the TAM-1’s subsonic operational speed. As a bonus they could still be used while retracted during emergency landings, improving the aircraft’s crash survivability.

 

Most flight and weapon avionics were procured from or via Elbit, including the Su-25KT’s modernized “glass cockpit”, and the TAM-1’s NATO compatibility was enhanced to appeal to a wider international export market. Beyond a total of eleven hardpoints under the wings and the fuselage for an external ordnance of up to 4.500 kg (9.900 lb), the TAM-1 was furthermore armed with an internal gun. Due to procurement issues, however, the Su-25’s original twin-barrel GSh-30-2 was replaced with an Oerlikon KDA 35mm cannon – a modern variant of the same cannon used in the German Gepard anti-aircraft tank, adapted to the use in an aircraft with a light-weight gun carriage. The KDA gun fired with a muzzle velocity of 1,440 m/s (4,700 ft/s) and a range of 5.500m, its rate of fire was typically 550 RPM. For the TAM-1, a unique feature from the SPAAG installation was adopted: the gun had two magazines, one with space for 200 rounds and another, smaller one for 50. The magazines could be filled with different types of ammunition, and the pilot was able select between them with a simple switch, adapting to the combat situation. Typical ammunition types were armor-piercing FAPDS rounds against hardened ground targets like tanks, and high explosive shells against soft ground targets and aircraft or helicopters, in a 3:1 ratio. Other ammunition types were available, too, and only 200 rounds were typically carried for balance reasons.

 

The TAM-1’s avionics included a SAGEM ULISS 81 INS, a Thomson-CSF VE-110 HUD, a TMV630 laser rangefinder in a modified nose and a TRT AHV 9 radio altimeter, with all avionics linked through a digital MIL-STD-1553B data bus and a modern “glass cockpit”. A HUD was standard, but an Elbit Systems DASH III HMD could be used by the pilot, too. The DASH GEN III was a wholly embedded design, closely integrated with the aircraft's weapon system, where the complete optical and position sensing coil package was built within the helmet (either the USAF standard HGU-55/P or the Israeli standard HGU-22/P), using a spherical visor to provide a collimated image to the pilot. A quick-disconnect wire powered the display and carried video drive signals to the helmet's Cathode Ray Tube (CRT).

 

The TAM-1’s development was long and protracted, though, primarily due to lack of resources and the fact that the Georgian air force was in an almost comatose state for several years, so that the potential prime customer for the TAM-1 was not officially available. However, the first TAM-1 prototype eventually made its maiden flight in September 2017. This was just in time, because the Georgian Air Force had formally been re-established in 2016, with plans for a major modernization and procurement program. Under the leadership of Georgian Minister of Defense Irakli Garibashvili the Air Force was re-prioritized and aircraft owned by the Georgian Air Force were being modernized and re-serviced after they were left abandoned for 4 years. This program lasted until 2020. In order to become more independent from foreign sources and support its domestic aircraft industry, the Georgian Air Force eventually ordered eight TAM-1s as Su-25K replacements, which would operate alongside a handful of modernized Su-25KMs from national stock. In the meantime, the new type also attained interest from abroad, e. g. from Bulgaria, the Congo and Cyprus. The IDF thoroughly tested two early production TAM-1s of the Georgian Air Force in 2018, too.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 15.53 m (50 ft 11 in), including pitot

Wingspan: 14.36 m (47 ft 1 in)

Height: 4.8 m (15 ft 9 in)

Wing area: 35.2 m² (378 sq ft)

Empty weight: 9,800 kg (21,605 lb)

Gross weight: 14,440 kg (31,835 lb)

Max takeoff weight: 19,300 kg (42,549 lb)

 

Powerplant:

2× Rolls-Royce AE 3012 turbofans with 44.1 kN (9,920 lbf) thrust each

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 975 km/h (606 mph, 526 kn, Mach 0.79)

Range: 1.000 km (620 mi, 540 nmi) with internal fuel, clean

Combat range: 750 km (470 mi, 400 nmi) at sea level with 4.500 kg (9,911 lb) of ordnance,

incl. two external fuel tanks

Service ceiling: 7.800 m (25,550 ft)

g limits: +6.5

Rate of climb: 58 m/s (11,400 ft/min)

 

Armament:

1× 35 mm (1.38 in) Oerlikon KDA cannon with 200 rds in two magazines

under the lower forward fuselage, offset to port side.

11× hardpoints with a capacity of up to 4.500 kg (9,911 lb) of external stores

  

The kit and its assembly:

This rather rigorous conversion had been on my project list for many years, and with the “Gunships” group build at whatifmodellers.com in late 2021 I eventually gathered my mojo to tackle it. The ingredients had already been procured long ago, but there are ideas that make you think twice before you take action…

 

This build was somewhat inspired by a CG rendition of a modified Su-25 that I came across while doing online search for potential ideas, running under the moniker “Su-125”, apparently created by someone called “Bispro” and published at DeviantArt in 2010; check this: (www.deviantart.com/bispro/art/Sukhoi-Su-125-Foghorn-15043...). The rendition shows a Su-25 with its engines re-located to the rear fuselage in separate nacelles, much like an A-10, plus a T-tail. However, as many photoshopped aircraft, the shown concept had IMHO some flaws. Where would a landing gear go, as the Su-125 still had shoulder wings? The engines’ position and size also looked fishy to me, quite small/narrow and very far high and back – I had doubts concerning the center of gravity. Nevertheless, I liked the idea, and the idea of an “A-10-esque remix” of the classic Frogfoot was born.

 

This idea was fueled even further when I found out that the Hobbycraft kit lends itself to such a conversion. The kit itself is not a brilliant Su-25 rendition, there are certainly better models of the aircraft in 1:72. However, what spoke for the kit as whiffing fodder was/is the fact that it is quite cheap (righteously so!) and AFAIK the only offering that comes with separate engine nacelles. These are attached to a completely independent central fuselage, and this avoids massive bodywork that would be necessary (if possible at all) with more conventional kits of this aircraft.

Another beneficial design feature is that the wing roots are an integral part of the original engine nacelles, forming their top side up to the fuselage spine. Through this, the original wingspan could be retained even without the nacelles, no wing extension would be necessary to retain the original proportions.

 

Work started with the central fuselage and the cockpit tub, which received a different (better) armored ejection seat and a pilot figure; the canopy remained unmodified and closed, because representing the model with an open cockpit would have required additional major body work on the spinal area behind the canopy. Inside, a new dashboard (from an Italeri BAe Hawk) was added, too – the original instrument panel is just a flat front bulkhead, there’s no space for the pilot to place the legs underneath the dashboard!

 

In parallel, the fin underwent major surgery. I initially considered an A-10-ish twin tail, but the Su-25’s high “tail stinger” prevented its implementation: the jet efflux would come very close to the tail surfaces. So, I went for something similar to the “Su-125” layout.

Mounting the OOB stabilizers to the fin was challenging, though. The fin lost its di-electric tip fairing, and it was cut into two sections, so that the tip would become long enough to match the stabilizers. A lucky find in the scrap box was a leftover tail tip from a Matchbox Blackburn Buccaneer, already shortened from a former, stillborn project: it had now the perfect length to take the Su-25 stabilizers! To make it fit on the fin, an 8mm deep section was inserted, in the form of a simple 1.5mm styrene sheet strip. Once dry, the surface was re-built with several PSR layers. Since it would sit further back on the new aircraft’s tail, the stinger with a RHAWS sensor was shortened.

 

On the fuselage, the attachment points for the wings and the engine nacelles were PSRed away and the front section filled with lots of lead beads, hoping that it would be enough to keep the model’s nose down.

 

Even though the wings had a proper span for a re-location into a low position, they still needed some attention: at the roots, there’s a ~1cm wide section without sweep (the area which would normally cover the original engine nacelles’ tops). This was mended through triangular 1.5 mm styrene wedges that extended the leading-edge sweep, roughly cut into shape once attached and later PSRed into the wings’ surfaces

 

The next construction site were the new landing gear attachment points. This had caused some serious headaches – where do you place and stow it? With new, low wings settled, the wings were the only logical place. But the wings were too thin to suitably take the retracted wheels, and, following the idea of a retrofitted existing design, I decided to adopt the A-10’s solution of nacelles into which the landing gear retracts forward, with the wheels still partly showing. This layout option appears quite plausible, since it would be a “graft-on” solution, and it also has the benefit of leaving lots of space for underwing stores, since the hardpoints’ position had to be modified now, too.

I was lucky to have a pair of A-10 landing gear nacelles at hand, left over from a wrecked Matchbox model from childhood time (the parts are probably 35 years old!). They were simply cut out, glued to the Su-25 wings and PSRed into shape. The result looked really good!

 

At this point I had to decide the model’s overall layout – where to place the wings, the tail and the new engine nacelles. The latter were not 1:72 A-10 transplants. I had some spare engine pods from the aforementioned Matchbox wreck, but these looked too rough and toylike for my taste. They were furthermore too bulky for the Su-25, which is markedly smaller than an A-10, so I had to look elsewhere. As a neat alternative for this project, I had already procured many moons ago a set of 1:144 resin PS-90A engines from a Russian company called “A.M.U.R. Reaver”, originally intended for a Tu-204 airliner or an Il-76 transport aircraft. These turbofan nacelles not only look very much like A-10 nacelles, just a bit smaller and more elegant, they are among the best resin aftermarket parts I have ever encountered: almost no flash, crisp molding, no bubbles, and perfect fit of the parts – WOW!

With these three elements at hand I was able to define the wings’ position, based on the tail, and from that the nacelles’ location, relative to the wings and the fin.

 

The next challenge: how to attach the new engines to the fuselage? The PS-90A engines came without pylons, so I had to improvise. I eventually found suitable pylons in the form of parts from F-14A underwing missile pylons, left over from an Italeri kit. Some major tailoring was necessary to find a proper position on the nacelles and on the fuselage, and PSRing these parts turned out to be quite difficult because of the tight and labyrinthine space.

 

When the engines were in place, work shifted towards the model’s underside. The landing gear was fully replaced. I initially wanted to retain the front wheel leg and the main wheels but found that the low wings would not allow a good ground clearance for underwing stores and re-arming the aircraft, a slightly taller solution was necessary. I eventually found a complete landing gear set in the scrap box, even though I am not certain to which aircraft it once belonged? I guess that the front wheel came from a Hasegawa RA-5C Vigilante, while the main gear and the wheels once belonged to an Italeri F-14A, alle struts were slightly shortened. The resulting stance is still a bit stalky, but an A-10 is also quite tall – this is just not so obvious because of the aircraft’s sheer size.

 

Due to the low wings and the landing gear pods, the Su-25’s hardpoints had to be re-arranged, and this eventually led to a layout very similar to the A-10. I gave the aircraft a pair of pylons inside of the pods, plus three hardpoints under the fuselage, even though all of these would only be used when slim ordnance was carried. I just fitted the outer pair. Outside of the landing gear fairings there would have been enough space for the Frogfoot’s original four outer for pylons, but I found this to be a little too much. So I gave it “just” three, with more space between them.

The respective ordnance is a mix for a CAS mission with dedicated and occasional targets. It consists of:

- Drop tanks under the inner wings (left over from a Bilek Su-17/22 kit)

- A pair of B-8M1 FFAR pods under the fuselage (from a vintage Mastercraft USSR weapon set)

- Two MERs with four 200 kg bombs each, mounted on the pylons outside of the landing gear (the odd MERs came from a Special Hobby IDF SMB-2 Super Mystère kit, the bombs are actually 1:100 USAF 750 lb bombs from a Tamiya F-105 Thunderchief in that scale)

- Four CBU-100 Rockeye Mk. II cluster bombs on the outer stations (from two Italeri USA/NATO weapon sets, each only offers a pair of these)

Yes, it’s a mix of Russian and NATO ordnance – but, like the real Georgian Su-25KM “Scorpion” upgrade, the TAM-1 would certainly be able to carry the same or even a wider mix, thanks to modified bomb racks and wirings. Esp. “dumb” weapons, which do not call for special targeting and guidance avionics, are qualified.

The gun under the nose was replaced with a piece from a hollow steel needle.

  

Painting and markings:

Nothing unusual here. I considered some more “exotic” options, but eventually settled for a “conservative” Soviet/Russian-style four-tone tactical camouflage, something that “normal” Su-25s would carry, too.

The disruptive pattern was adapted from a Macedonian Frogfoot but underwent some changes due to the T-tail and the engine nacelles. The basic tones were Humbrol 119 (RAF Light Earth), 150 (Forest Green), 195 (Chrome Oxide Green, RAL 6020) and 98 (Chocolate) on the upper surfaces and RLM78 from (Modelmaster #2087) from below, with a relatively low waterline, due to the low-set wings.

As usual, the model received a light black ink washing and some post-shading – especially on the hull and on the fin, where many details had either disappeared under PSR or were simply not there at all.

 

The landing gear and the lower areas of the cockpit were painted in light grey (Humbrol 64), while the upper cockpit sections were painted with bright turquoise (Modelmaster #2135). The wheel hubs were painted in bright green (Humbrol 101), while some di-electric fairings received a slightly less intense tone (Humbrol 2). A few of these flat fairings on the hull were furthermore created with green decal sheet material (from TL Modellbau) to avoid masking and corrections with paint.

 

The tactical markings became minimal, matching the look of late Georgian Su-25s. The roundels came from a Balkan Models Frogfoot sheet. The “07” was taken from a Blue Rider decal sheet, it actually belongs to a Lithuanian An-2. Some white stencils from generic MiG-21 and Mi-8 Begemot sheets were added, too, and some small markings were just painted onto the hull with yellow.

 

Some soot stains around the jet nozzles and the gun were added with graphite, and finally the kit was sealed with a coat of matt acrylic varnish.

  

A major bodywork project – and it’s weird that this is basically just a conversion of a stock kit and no kitbashing. A true Frogfoot remix! The new engines were the biggest “outsourced” addition, the A-10 landing gear fairings were a lucky find in the scrap box, and the rest is quite generic and could have looked differently. The result is impressive and balanced, though, the fictional TAM-1 looks quite plausible. The landing gear turned out to be a bit tall and stalky, though, making the aircraft look smaller on the ground than it actually is – but I left it that way.

The Lewis and Clark Class came to the scene in 2006, replacing the outdated auxiliary vessels of the Cold War. The 14 L&C ships were designed to maximize the space of a larger ship (as compared to their predecessors) to perform replenishment and refueling more quickly, being able to transport 1,388,000 cubic feet of cargo (food stores, spare parts, munitions, etc.) and 23,450 barrels of fuel cargo (aviation fuel and fuel for warships). The ships are powered diesel generators and propelled by a single screw and a bow thruster. They are crewed by 11 naval personnel and 124 civilians. For defense, they have mounting points for .50 cals and the reserve power to operate CIWS if installed. They have a flight deck and hangar space for two helicopters.

 

Just like the USAF has the Military Airlift Command, the USN has the Military Sealift Command which has jurisdiction of the Naval Fleet Auxiliary Force which the L&Cs are apart of. They transit the ocean with the strike fleets for when they are needed. It is unlikely they would run out of dry cargo at sea during a normal deployment. However, they do run out of fuel cargo and when they do, they break off from the fleet and rendezvous with a Henry Kaiser Class Oiler to top off and then return to the fleet. They also perform roles such as offshore replacement stations for landed marine forces during amphibious operations.

 

This model turned out larger than I expected, but the proportions are still mostly accurate.

Autumn 2015

 

Konica FC-1

Konica Hexanon AR 50mm f/1.4

Outdated Kodak Color Plus 200

Boots scan + LR adjustments

Outdated Konica 400 120 film - Agfa Isolette 1, before the leaks were patched Agfa Isolette 1, Agfa Agnar 1:4.5/85mm, Vario Shutter - Epson V750 Scanner

Collection Name: RG104 Department of Economic Development Commerce and Industrial Development (CID) Photograph Collection

 

Photographer/Studio: unknown

 

Description: A man works with a crossbar telephone switching system.

 

Coverage: United States - Missouri

 

Date: n.d.

 

Rights: public domain

 

Credit: Courtesy of Missouri State Archives

 

Image Number: RG104_CIDPrints_049_015.tif

 

Institution: Missouri State Archives

Taken using the Panning Creative Expansion Card for Minolta cameras. The card uses part of the viewfinder to give feedback on how well you are tracking a subject and then selects an optimal exposure to blur the background and keep the subject sharp. The apparent inclusion of the 'wrong' shadow is a bonus.

 

Minolta Dynax 700si and severely outdated (1998) Fujichrome Sensia 200 colour slide film, rated ISO 100 (+1 EV)

Rollei 35 S with Kodak Color Plus (200 ASA), outdated (02-2010). Process and scan, Snappy Snaps Oxford.

DONALD TRUMP ....... THE NEW PRESIDENT ....THE MAN WITH NUCLEAR BOMB CODES ....COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF AMERICAN MILITARY........OH MY GOD !!!!

Sherman Oaks, CA 2011

Mamiya RB67 Pro-S

127mm Sekor-C

T4/5.6

1/60 shutter

Kodak Portra 400NC (outdated 2005)

Scanned Epson 4490

Jen=fun

Why did this make me think of "1984"? I had to go to the traffic department this week to renew my license. Three queues: one for the form, the next for the eye test, the last to pay. While I was sitting waiting for the eye test I looked around for possible photographs and although I badly wanted to take a picture of the beautiful young woman sitting next to me I could not pluck up the courage to ask her. Instead I noticed this sign and saw how out of date it was and thought it summed up so many things. And sometimes the animals we encounter on the road are a lot more dangerous than these!

 

Hope your Wednesday has been/is a good one

Yashica Mat 124G - Rollei 25 (outdated) - Epson Scan V600

----------------------------------------------

Contact me & Buy Print at: Les Parisii // Facebook Page // 500px

Don't forget to like us on Facebook Page

An old Display setup with young Eartheaters which took MonsterFishKeepers Tank of the Year competition in 2009.

Taken with My Ciro Flex Model E using outdated Ilford XP2 Super 400 ASA film. Pearl St. Cambridgeport, Mass.

also on my photoblog . . .

 

Spud Drive-In, Driggs, Idaho, December 2008.

 

Accepted for the 5th Annual International Juried Plastic Camera Show at RayKo Photo Center, San Francisco (Jan.18-March 6, 2012).

The US embargo against Cuba is an outdated and hypocritical foreign policy. The US has diplomatic and economic relations with the largest communist country China and also trade with Communist Vietnam. Lest we forget the US fought a war with the latter in which over 50 thousand Americans died. So the argument that we cannot have contact with countries that we do not share ideology or human rights concern with seems flawed to say the least. The Cold war is over, End the Embargo! This poster was created to raise public awareness of the 44-year-long US embargo against Cuba

  

Five Reasons to End the Embargo

 

1. A majority of 85% of Americans polled in 2000 favored ending the embargo.

 

2. The embargo is bad for business; key agricultural and business interests oppose trade restrictions.

 

3. The embargo hurts Cuban families, not the government.

 

4. The embargo prevents us from supporting shade coffee farmers in Cuba who provide vital habitat to dozens of migratory bird species.

 

5. The embargo is condemned by the entire world; just three countries voted with the US at the United Nations in 2004 (Israel, Palau, Marshall Islands, with Micronesia abstaining), 179-4.

 

Source: Thanksgiving Coffee Company

 

www.endtheembargo.com/

 

www.cigaraficionado.com/Cigar/CA_Archives/CA_Show_Article...

 

www.democracyinamericas.org/cubacentral/

Using up some outdated FUJI Neopan 400 in my 2002 HASSELBLAD 501CM with A16 back. I processed in my 'Home-Made FX-4 Formula 1+1 ' and got great negs and did DARKROOM PRINTS which I scanned on old Kodak 'Royal Bromesko WSL' cut down from 16x12" paper.

80mm f2.8 CFE Planar T* Camera held at waist level

Strobist info: One flash, YN-560, with shoot-trough umbrella on front of the models

 

Zeiss-Ikon Super Ikonta 530/16 + Kodak Gold 100 (outdated)

outdated Provia 100f packed into Pentacon Six equipped with Biometar 80, at 2.8 i guess. Beacause, yeap - i tend to use it only wide open...