View allAll Photos Tagged PASSIVE
© Leanne Boulton, All Rights Reserved
Street candid taken in Glasgow, Scotland. I love that you can't see them smoking but know that they are by the plumes of smoke lingering in the cold air.
SHITAPPLE VISTA ~ a grief retirement community, CUMBOY CANYON (213, 118, 28) - Moderate
passive aggressive yung cum bois griefers old people rude cvnt mage outrun juwassic pawk hax onyx paranoia TWH W-HAT priceless exposure goon mutants curry wurst hentai butthole beach virgins
Visit this location at SHITAPPLE VISTA ~ a grief retirement community in Second Life
non-smoker who lives with a smoker may be exposed to about 1% of their tobacco smoke from passive smoking. This can increase their chances of developing lung cancer or dying from a heart attack. The same applies to people who work in a smoky atmosphere. So stop smoking because smoker are not harm them self only they cause the harm to the people around them too =)
Digital blending from 2 JPG produced from single RAW file.
Multiexposure mode in the K20D used to smooth out the waters - ND110 would have been far too strong for this scene. I was waist deep in water for this shot, and a wave happily came and engulfed me (and my camera bag) in seawater. Nothing was harmed, since I only had the one lens and I kept my camera out of harm's way, but my spare battery was soaked through and through and died on me. It's lasted me for 2 years, I guess it was time to go.
Changi Boardwalk, Singapore.
A solitary sign in Seattle during Coronavirus lockdown protests the perpetually rising rents in the city.
—
Fujinon XF 80mm f/2.8 + Fujifilm X-T2.
Was discussing the whole passive aggressive thing with a contact the other day and I was telling her both Critter and Beaker are very passive and I have not seen any aggression in either of them...yet.
Now Cisco is very passive and easy going but I have seen him open a can of whoop- ass on two horses when he had had enough.
One time where i had him agisted we had to walk through a paddock which contained a 4 year old Thoroughbred and every afternoon this young horse would nip and annoy Cisco wanting to play but Cisco never did anything about just walked by until one day he had had enough....and with one double-barrel(two back legs) kick to the horses chest it was over. Not once after that did this young horse annoy him.
Another time was when I first got Cisco, he was in a yard with another horse his age and they got along fine. Cisco is so passive he would let this horse eat the hay that was hanging out of his mouth. Cisco shared his food and it was no drama until one day Cisco went to eat this horses food and the horse kicked up a stink about it, well again Cisco opened up his aggression and let him have it. After that the horse shared his food.
Although I know the old boy is passive I also know he is passive to a point.
Cisco is 24 years old and he and King have never fought.
4 in comments
- www.kevin-palmer.com - At the top of Dome Mountain I found this passive repeater, some 40 feet tall. I don't know why it had the camo pattern, but the whole structure looked very new. I also don't know what it was pointed at, since there are no towns in that direction.
I sat looking at my legs in pantyhose and the sculpture of them amazed me, then i went all warm and fuzzy as I pan down and seen my heels. 🔥
Its really strange, I honestly thought no one would like this classic dame image!
To see what I was wearing underneath click to the next 2 pictures. 💖
A classic Sienna look that still makes me go oooh.💖
Wake up and face me
Don't play dead 'cause maybe
Someday I will walk away and say
Maybe you're better off this way
Leaning over you here
Cold and catatonic
I catch a brief reflection
Of what you could and might have been
It's your right and your ability
To become my perfect enemy.
Ever optimistic, but accepting of reality.
Children who sugarcoat their hostility do not grow beyond it. Never developing better coping strategies or skills sets for self-expression, they can become adults who, beneath the seductive veneer, harbor vindictive intent. *
The only one that has to look at themselves in the mirror, is you.
It was cold yesterday. Like, not above 15˚F all day cold.
Luckily, our sunporch has been better than awesome at lending a little bit of solar heat to get us through the cold snaps. It was 75˚ in there by lunchtime. Sixty degrees warmer than the outside.... for FREE! Amazing.
A worker is seen preparing the launch gantry to be rolled back from the United Launch Alliance Delta II rocket with Soil Moisture Active Passive (SMAP) observatory onboard, at the Space Launch Complex 2, Wednesday, Jan. 28, 2015, Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. Scheduled to launch early Thursday morning, SMAP is NASA’s first Earth-observing satellite designed to collect global observations of surface soil moisture and its freeze/thaw state. SMAP will provide high resolution global measurements of soil moisture from space. The data will be used to enhance scientists' understanding of the processes that link Earth's water, energy, and carbon cycles. Photo Credit: (NASA/Bill Ingalls)
We must not preach an obedience that is mere passive compliance, a humility that is the glad acceptance of depersonalized abjection, a spirituality that glorifies, as “abnegation,” the total abdication of all human worth and all identity. This must be seen for what it is: a debasing of man which gives no glory to God, but is bad theology and false supernaturalism, and which seriously endangers the faith of those who allow themselves to be caught in it for a while, only to leave later disgusted and disillusioned. 91
-Thomas Merton, Contemplation in a World of Action
Best Viewed Large!
Model: Angela
The work contained in my gallery is copyrighted ©2006-2009 Alice Marie Photography. All rights reserved. My work may not be reproduced, copied, edited, published, transmitted or uploaded in any way without my written permission. My work does not belong to the public domain.
Photo captured via Nikon Zoom-Nikkor AI-S 80-200mm F/4 lens. Kittitas County, Washington. Early October 2015.
Exposure Time: 1/6 sec. * ISO Speed: ISO-100 * Aperture: F/16 * Bracketing: None
Go ahead and play dead
I know that you can hear this
Go ahead and play dead
Why can't you turn and face me?
Why can't you turn against me?
WAKE UP!
You fucking disappoint me
Passive-aggressive bullshit...
Page 26/27 issuu.com/14standard/docs/lusikka4
Hawk and Mesa Ranch
Desert getaway in secluded Pipes Canyon in Pioneertown, California
\Photo by Lance Gerber
Seen on NE Alberta Street in Portland.
A few years ago, a so-called "community" group blew up a redevelopment proposal in north Portland that would have brought a Trader Joe's into what had long been a food desert. All they had to do was claim "gentrification" and the project was DOA.
That was a shame, because the proposal was the result of long negotiations with actual stakeholders in the neighborhood, whose buy-in had been secured.
Fast forward and that parcel of property is occupied by - drum roll - an upscale grocery store!
Portland being Portland, the city has established a commendable fund to compensate people who have been displaced from certain gentrified neighborhoods. At the last report I heard, there have been very few claimants.
The producers of this little visual rat bite would do well to remember that it's almost certain that they and their friends are living on land obtained by Europeans from Native Americans under extremely dodgy circumstances. We're all of us gentrifiers.
Last winter the chickadees at our feeders planted a small proportion of the sunflower seeds they were given.
And being the kind of passive gardeners we are, the sunflowers that sprouted this spring were given their own pots and sunny spots to grow in. Grow they did, and we even let them go to seed.
Now the chickadees are picking seeds from the seedy flower heads, from the sunflowers they planted. Smart birds. Nothing prodigal about them.
And who's trained whom? They have domesticated us. They are the active gardeners.
This picture was just as the sun was going down this afternoon.
+++ 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 BAC Jet Provost was a British jet trainer aircraft that was in use with the Royal Air Force (RAF) from 1955 to 1993. It was originally developed by Hunting Percival from the earlier piston engine-powered Percival Provost basic trainer, and later produced by the British Aircraft Corporation (BAC). In addition to the multiple RAF orders, the Jet Provost, sometimes with light armament, was exported to many air forces worldwide. The design was also further developed into a more heavily armed ground attack variant under the name BAC Strikemaster, which was not operated by the Royal Air Force but became a worldwide export success.
The Jet Provost was produced for the Royal Air Force in several variants with gradually stronger engines and other detail improvements, the first trainers entered RAF service in 1955. A major development step was the T.5 variant in 1967 with a pressurized cabin, a modified front section and the option for export customers to arm it with machine guns and underwing hardpoints. The T.5 was fitted with the Viper 201 or 202 turbojet engine and its versatility encouraged the RAF to utilize the Jet Provost in more roles besides basic training. With a top speed of 440 mph, excellent maneuverability, mechanical reliability and low operating costs, the Jet Provost was utilized as an aerobatic aircraft, for air warfare and tactical weapons training as well as for advanced training. T.5 deliveries from BAC's Warton factory commenced on 3 September 1969, and operators of the type included the RAFs Central Flying School and No. 1, No. 3, and No. 6 Flying Training Schools. During their career the T.5s were modified with improved avionics and a rough coating on the wing to break up the smooth airflow and give the trainee pilot an early indication of the onset of a stall (the T.5's original clean wing gave the pilot little warning); upgraded aircraft were re- designated T.5A. A sub-variant, unofficially designated T.5B, was a small number of T.5As fitted with wingtip-tanks (so far only used by export customers) and special equipment for long-range low-level navigator training.
During the Mid-Eighties the RAF started to look for a more economical successor for the aging Jet Provost fleet, and this eventually became the turbo-prop Shorts Tucano. The Tucano was selected in 1985 in preference to the Swiss Pilatus PC-9 and the British Hunting Firecracker. The first Tucano flew in Brazil on 14 February 1986, with the first Shorts built production aircraft flying on 30 December 1986. However, problems with the ejection seats delayed the introduction of the aircraft into service until 1989. During this period the Jet Provost remained the RAF’s mainstay trainer, but it was gradually withdrawn from RAF service, mostly due to many airframes’ age. However, late in their career a handful of these robust aircraft eventually saw frontline use and were deployed in a hot conflict during the first Gulf War, in an unexpected but important role that paved the way for new air strike tactics.
When the RAF took part in combat operations during Operation Granby/Desert Storm in 1991, it had been anticipated that complex and fast attack aircraft like the Tornado would autonomously perform air strikes, either with iron bombs against area targets or with precision weapons like laser-guided glide bombs against important or small objects. However, early experience from the front lines showed that deploying precision weapons was not easy: target acquisition and then both target designation and weapon deployment were not feasible with just a single aircraft – it would be exposed to potential enemy fire for too long or require two or more passes over the target, so that any surprise moment was ruined. During the early stages of the RAF’s air raids a strike group of six aircraft would require two of them to act as dedicated target designators, selecting and illuminating targets with laser projectors for other aircraft. Another problem was that these scouts had to fly ahead of the strike force, check out the battlefield and loiter at relatively slow speed in hostile environment until the fast strike aircraft would arrive and drop their weapons. “Wasting” Tornados and their strike capability for these FAC duties was regarded as inefficient, and an alternative aircraft that was better suited for this task was chosen: the vintage but small and nimble Jet Provost T.5A!
Early on, this had been thought to be "unlikely”, but following a short-notice decision to deploy, the first batch of six aircraft were readied to deploy in under 72 hours. These were dedicated long-range navigational trainers, operated by 79(R) Squadron as part of No. 229 Operational Conversion Unit, and the aircraft were hastily prepared for their unusual mission. This included the removal of the aerodynamic wing coating to improve the flight characteristics again, the adoption of desert camouflage, mounting of underwing hardpoints and additional equipment like an encrypted radio with better range and navigation systems (including a GPS sensor in a spinal fairing). As protective measures, Kevlar mats were added to the cockpit floor and lower side walls, as well as a passive radar warning system with sensors on nose and fin and chaff/flare dispensers under the rear fuselage. A fixed refueling probe was considered for the transfer flight and to extend loiter time during missions via air-to-air refueling, but this was not realized due to the lack of time.
To mark their special status the machines were (now officially) designated T(R).5B. They departed from RAF Brawdy in Wales for the Middle Eastern theatre early on 26 January 1991. Upon arrival the machines were immediately thrown into action. It now became common for each attack formation to comprise four Tornados or Jaguars and two Jet Provosts; each Jet Provost carried a 144-inch-long (3.66 m), 420-lb (209 kg) AN/AVQ-23E ‘Pave Spike’ laser designator pod on one of the outer underwing stations and acted as backup to the other in the event of an equipment malfunction. The machines would typically not carry offensive loads, except for occasional unguided SNEB missiles to visually mark potential targets, since they did not have a sufficient load-carrying capacity, but they were frequently equipped with drop tanks to extend their range and loiter time, and “Dash 10” (AN/ALQ-101) ECM pods to counter radar-guided weapons against them.
The first combat mission already took place on 2 February 1991, operating at a medium altitude of roughly 18,000 feet (5,500 m), and successfully attacked the As Suwaira Road Bridge. Operations continued, practically every available day, even though missions did not take place at night as the RAF’s ’Pave Spike’ pods (a simplified version of the American AN/ASQ-153) lacked night-time functionality. After the first missions the Jet Provosts received black anti-glare-panels in front of the windscreen – they had been re-painted in the UK without them, and the black panel markedly reduced the camouflage’s efficiency, but the strong and constant sunshine reflection from the Jet Provosts’ bulged nose frequently blinded the crews. Another retrofitted feature was the addition of a video camera to document the targeting missions, which was mounted in a shallow blister on top of the nose, just above the landing light cluster.
When the tactical separation of target designation and strike missions proved to be successful, more and more potent aircraft were sent into the theatre of operations, namely the RAF’s Blackburn Buccaneer, which replaced the Jet Provosts on long-range missions and also carried out strike and dive-bombing missions. Approximately 20 road bridges were destroyed with the help of the target spotter aircraft, restricting the Iraqi Army's mobility and communications. In conjunction with the advance of Coalition ground forces into Iraq, the Buccaneers switched to airfield bombing missions, targeting bunkers, runways, and any aircraft sighted on the ground, while the Jet Provosts were used over less dangerous terrain and closer to the air bases, primarily acting as artillery spotters. However, the designator pods were still carried to mark targets of opportunity and strike aircraft were then called in to eliminate them.
The Jet Provost T(R).5Bs took part in 186 missions during the Gulf War. Two from the total of eight deployed Jet Provosts were lost during their short active career: One was shot down at low level by a MANPADS (probably an IR-guided 9K38 Igla/SA-18 Grouse), both crew members were lost; the other crashed due a failure of the hydraulic system but could be brought down over friendly terrain and the crew ejected safely.
After their return to Great Britain the worn machines were quickly phased out and all T(R).5Bs were retired when 79(R) Squadron was disbanded in August 1992. The last Jet Provosts in RAF service were retired in 1993.
General characteristics:
Crew: 2
Length: 34 ft 0 in (10.36 m)
Wingspan: 35 ft 4 in (10.77 m) with wingtip tanks
Height: 10 ft 2 in (3.10 m)
Wing area: 213.7 sq ft (19.85 m²)
Airfoil: root: NACA 23015 mod; tip: NACA 4412 mod
Empty weight: 4,888 lb (2,217 kg)
Gross weight: 6,989 lb (3,170 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 9,200 lb (4,173 kg)
Powerplant:
1× Armstrong Siddeley Viper Mk.202 turbojet engine, 2,500 lbf (11,1 kN)
Performance:
Maximum speed: 382 kn (440 mph, 707 km/h) at 25,000 ft (7,620 m)
Range: 780 nmi (900 mi, 1,440 km) with tip tanks
Service ceiling: 36,750 ft (11,200 m)
Rate of climb: 4,000 ft/min (20 m/s)
Wing loading: 32.7 lb/sq ft (160 kg/m²)
Armament:
No internal guns;
4× underwing hardpoints, each capable of carrying 540 lb (245 kg), for a wide range of loads,
including bombs, pods and launch rails with unguided missiles, gun pods;
the inner pair of pylons were plumbed for auxiliary tanks.
The T( R).5B was outfitted with an AN/AVQ-23E Pave Spike laser designator pod and an AN/ALQ-101
ECM pod on the outer stations, plus a pair of 75 Imp gallon (341 liter) drop tanks or pods with 28
unguided SNEB missiles on the inner pylons
The kit and its assembly:
This fictional Gulf War participant was a spontaneous decision to build – actually as a group build submission, but it turned out to be ineligible. After fellow user SPINNERS posted one of his CG skins, a grey RAF low-viz Jet Provost at whatifmodellers.com, I suggested in the respective thread a machine in Desert Pink – and it was promptly realized, including equipment from the Gulf War Buccaneers and LGBs as ordnance. Inspiration enough to dig out an Airfix kit out of The Stash™ for which I had no concrete plan yet and turn the CG rendition into hardware.
The kit is a simple affair and shows its age through (light) flash and shaggy fit around the seams almost everywhere. Nothing dramatic, but you have to invest time and PSR effort. And it features the most complicated landing light arrangement I have ever come across: five(!) single parts if you include the front cover. Why the mold designer did not just provide a single clear piece with three lens-shaped dents at the back - and instead went for a bulkhead, three(!) separate and tiny clear lenses PLUS a clear cover that is supposed to fit in a rather dysmorphic nose opening is beyond me?
The kit was basically built OOB, using the Jet Provost T.5 air intakes and fuselage details but the Strikemaster wing tip tanks and wing pylons. The Pave Spike pod came from a Hasegawa 1:72 aircraft weapon set, the ECM pod from a Revell 1:72 F-16A (the vintage kit of the prototype with the extra engine) – it is shorter than a typical AN/ALQ-101, rather looks like an AN/ALQ-119, but these pods were all modular and could have different lengths/sizes. And I think that the shorter variant suits the Jet provost well, the Pave Spike pod is already quite long for the small aircraft.
Unlike SPINNERS I settled just for drop tanks on the inner wing stations to extend range and loiter time. I also doubt that the Jet Provost had enough carrying capacity and speed for LGBs, and on their target designation missions the RAF Buccaneers did AFAIK not carry much offensive ordnance, either. There’s also not much clearance under a Jet Provost on the ground – I doubt that anything with big fins could safely go under it? However, for a modernized look I replaced the Jet Provost’s OOB teardrop-shaped tanks with cigar-shaped alternatives.
Further mods were only of cosmetic nature: the seats received ejection handles made from thin wire, the characteristic chines under the nose were omitted (the kit’s parts are rather robust, and they were left away on some T.5s in real life, anyway), and I scratched small conformal chaff/flare dispensers from styrene profile and put them under the lower rear fuselage. Fairings for a radar-warning system were scratched from 1.5 mm styrene rods, too, some blade antennae were added around the hull, and sprue material was used to create the GPS antenna “bubble” behind the cockpit. The shallow camera bulge on the nose was created in a similar fashion.
Another problem: the model is seriously tail-heavy. I filled the chamber between the odd landing lights compartment and the cockpit with lead beads, but once the landing gear had been attached the model still sat on its tail. I was lucky that I had not glued the seats into place yet, so I was able to add more ballast in front of the main wheels, therewith creating a bulkhead (which is missing OOB) behind the seats, what was eventually enough to shift the model’s center of gravity forward.
Painting and markings:
Desert Pink was the driving theme for this build (to be correct, it’s FS 30279 “Desert Sand”). While real RAF aircraft from Operation Granby were painted all-over with this tone (and SPINNERS did the same with the CG rendition), I wanted a bit more variety and just painted the upper surfaces and the underside of the leading edges, the inside of the air intakes and the tip tanks in the sand tone, while the undersides were painted in RAF Barley Grey (Humbrol 167), as if an late all-grey low-viz trainer had been painted over just on the upper surfaces.
For the Desert Pink I was able to use the authentic tone, I had a virgin tin of Humbrol 250 in my enamels hoard that now found a good use. After basic painting the kit received an overall black in washing, dry-brushing with Revell 35 (Skin – it’s a perfect match for panel post-shading!) to retain the pinkish hue and, after the decals had been applied, a bit of grinded graphite to simulate wear and dirt and emphasize the raised surface details.
The cockpit interior was painted in Anthracite (Revell 06), the dashboard became medium grey with dark instruments (not painted, thanks to the raised details I simple rubbed some graphite over it, and the effect is nice!). The ejection seats became tar black with grey-green cushions. The landing gear was painted in Medium Sea Grey (Humbrol 165).
The drop tanks became Medium Sea Grey (Humbrol 165) and Barley Grey, as if they had been procured from a different aircraft, while the Pave Spike pod and the ECM pod were both in RAF Dark Green (Humbrol 163), for good contrast to the rest of the model.
Decals/markings come from Xtradecal sheets. The low-viz roundels were taken from a dedicated RAF roundel sheet because I wanted a uniform roundel size (in six positions) and slightly darker print colors. Unit markings and tactical codes came from a Jet Provost/Strikemaster sheet, also from Xtradecal; RAF 79 Squadron actually operated the Jet provost, but AFAIK only the T.4 version, but not the pressurized T.5 or even the T.5A navigator trainers. The nose art at bow side came from a USN EA-6B Prowler.
After some final details (position lights), the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish.
A quick project, and the Operation Granby Jet Provost looks better than expected. However, I am not sold on the vintage Airfix kit. It clearly shows its age, nothing really went together smoothly, gaps and sinkholes, PSR on every seam. It also required tons of nose weight to keep it on its spindly legs. The alternative Matchbox kit is not much better, though, with even more simple surface and cockpit details, but at least the parts fit together. I might try to hunt down a Sword kit if I should want to build one again, AFAIK the only other IP option? The result looks interesting, though, quite purposeful with its low-viz markings, and the simple livery turns out to be very effective over the desert terrain where it would have been supposed to operate. Furthermore, the model fits well into the Jet Provost’s historic final years of duty with the RAF – even though in an unlikely role!
+++ 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:
During the 1950s, Hindustan Aircraft Limited (HAL) had developed and produced several types of trainer aircraft, such as the HAL HT-2. However, elements within the firm were eager to expand into the then-new realm of supersonic fighter aircraft. Around the same time, the Indian government was in the process of formulating a new Air Staff Requirement for a Mach 2-capable combat aircraft to equip the Indian Air Force (IAF). However, as HAL lacked the necessary experience in both developing and manufacturing frontline combat fighters, it was clear that external guidance would be invaluable; this assistance was embodied by Kurt Tank.
In 1956, HAL formally began design work on the supersonic fighter project. The Indian government, led by Jawaharlal Nehru, authorized the development of the aircraft, stating that it would aid in the development of a modern aircraft industry in India. The first phase of the project sought to develop an airframe suitable for travelling at supersonic speeds, and able to effectively perform combat missions as a fighter aircraft, while the second phase sought to domestically design and produce an engine capable of propelling the aircraft. Early on, there was an explicit adherence to satisfying the IAF's requirements for a capable fighter bomber; attributes such as a twin-engine configuration and a speed of Mach 1.4 to 1.5 were quickly emphasized, and this led to the HF-24 Marut.
On 24 June 1961, the first prototype Marut conducted its maiden flight. It was powered by the same Bristol Siddeley Orpheus 703 turbojets that had powered the Folland Gnat, also being manufactured by HAL at that time. On 1 April 1967, the first production Marut was delivered to the IAF. While originally intended only as an interim measure during testing, HAL decided to power production Maruts with a pair of unreheated Orpheus 703s, meaning the aircraft could not attain supersonic speed. Although originally conceived to operate around Mach 2 the Marut in fact was barely capable of reaching Mach 1 due to the lack of suitably powerful engines.
The IAF were reluctant to procure a fighter aircraft only marginally superior to its existing fleet of British-built Hawker Hunters. However, in 1961, the Indian Government decided to procure the Marut, nevertheless, but only 147 aircraft, including 18 two-seat trainers, were completed out of a planned 214. Just after the decision to build the lukewarm Marut, the development of a more advanced aircraft with the desired supersonic performance was initiated.
This enterprise started star-crossed, though: after the Indian Government conducted its first nuclear tests at Pokhran, international pressure prevented the import of better engines of Western origin, or at times, even spares for the Orpheus engines, so that the Marut never realized its full potential due to insufficient power, and it was relatively obsolescent by the time it reached production.
Due to these restrictions India looked for other sources for supersonic aircraft and eventually settled upon the MiG-21 F-13 from the Soviet Union, which entered service in 1964. While fast and agile, the Fishbed was only a short-range daylight interceptor. It lacked proper range for escort missions and air space patrols, and it had no radar that enabled it to conduct all-weather interceptions. To fill this operational gap, the new indigenous HF-26 project was launched around the same time.
For the nascent Indian aircraft industry, HF-26 had a demanding requirements specification: the aircraft was to achieve Mach 2 top speed at high altitude and carry a radar with a guided missile armament that allowed interceptions in any weather, day and night. The powerplant question was left open, but it was clear from the start that a Soviet engine would be needed, since an indigenous development of a suitable powerplant would take much too long and block vital resources, and western alternatives were out of reach. The mission profile and the performance requirements quickly defined the planned aircraft’s layout: To fit a radar, the air intakes with movable ramps to feed the engines were placed on the fuselage flanks. To make sure the aircraft would fulfill its high-performance demands, it was right from the outset powered by two engines, and it was decided to give it delta wings, a popular design among high-speed aircraft of the time – exemplified by the highly successful Dassault Mirage III (which was to be delivered to Pakistan in 1967). With two engines, the HF-26 would be a heavier aircraft than the Mirage III, though, and it was planned to operate the aircraft from semi-prepared airfields, so that it would receive a robust landing gear with low-pressure tires and a brake parachute.
In 1962 India was able to negotiate the delivery of Tumansky RD-9 turbojet engines from the Soviet Union, even though no afterburner was part of the deal – this had to be indigenously developed by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL). However, this meant that the afterburner could be tailored to the HF-26, and this task would provide HAL with valuable engineering experience, too.
Now knowing the powerplant, HAL created a single-seater airframe around it, a rather robust design that superficially reminded of the French Mirage III, but there were fundamental differences. The HF-26 had boxy air intakes with movable ramps to control the airflow to the two engines and a relatively wide fuselage to hold them and most of the fuel in tanks between the air ducts behind the cockpit. The aircraft had a single swept fin and a rather small mid-positioned delta-wing with a 60° sweep. The pilot sat under a tight canopy that offered - similar to the Mirage III - only limited all-round vision.
The HF-26's conical nose radome covered an antenna for a ‘Garud’ interception radar – which was in fact a downgraded Soviet ‘Oryol' (Eagle; NATO reporting name 'Skip Spin') system that guided the HF-26’s main armament, a pair of semi-active radar homing (SARH) ‚Saanp’ missiles.
The Saanp missile was developed specifically for the HF-26 in India but used many components of Soviet origin, too, so that they were compatible with the radar. In performance, the Saanp was comparable with the French Matra R.530 air-to-air missile, even though the aerodynamic layout was reversed, with steering fins at the front end, right behind the SARH seaker head - overall the missile reminded of an enlarged AIM-4 Falcon. The missile weighed 180 kg and had a length of 3.5 m. Power came from a two-stage solid rocket that offered a maximum thrust of 80 kN for 2.7 s during the launch phase plus 6.5 s cruise. Maximum speed was Mach 2.7 and operational range was 1.5 to 20 km (0.9 to 12.5 miles). Two of these missiles could be carried on the main wing hardpoints in front of the landing gear wells. Alternatively, infrared-guided R-3 (AA-2 ‘Atoll’) short-range AAMs could be carried by the HF-26, too, and typically two of these were carried on the outer underwing hardpoints, which were plumbed to accept drop tanks (typically supersonic PTB-490s that were carried by the IAF's MiG-21s, too) . Initially, no internal gun was envisioned, as the HF-26 was supposed to be a pure high-speed/high-altitude interceptor that would not engage in dogfights. Two more hardpoints under the fuselage were plumbed, too, for a total of six external stations.
Due to its wing planform, the HF-26 was soon aptly called “Teer” (= Arrow), and with Soviet help the first prototype was rolled out in early 1964 and presented to the public. The first flight, however, would take place almost a year later in January 1965, due to many technical problems, and these were soon complemented by aerodynamic problems. The original delta-winged HF-26 had poor take-off and landing characteristics, and directional stability was weak, too. While a second prototype was under construction in April 1965 the first aircraft was lost after it had entered a spin from which the pilot could not escape – the aircraft crashed and its pilot was killed during the attempt to eject.
After this loss HAL investigated an enlarged fin and a modified wing design with deeper wingtips with lower sweep, which increased wing area and improved low speed handling, too. Furthermore, the fuselage shape had to be modified, too, to reduce supersonic drag, and a more pronounced area ruling was introduced. The indigenous afterburner for the RD-9 engines was unstable and troublesome, too.
It took until 1968 and three more flying prototypes (plus two static airframes) to refine the Teer for serial production service introduction. In this highly modified form, the aircraft was re-designated HF-26M and the first machines were delivered to IAF No. 3 Squadron in late 1969. However, it would take several months until a fully operational status could be achieved. By that time, it was already clear that the Teer, much like the HF-24 Marut before, could not live up to its expectations and was at the brink of becoming obsolete as it entered service. The RD-9 was not a modern engine anymore, and despite its indigenous afterburner – which turned out not only to be chronically unreliable but also to be very thirsty when engaged – the Teer had a disappointing performance: The fighter only achieved a top speed of Mach 1.6 at full power, and with full external load it hardly broke the wall of sound in level flight. Its main armament, the Saanp AAM, also turned out to be unreliable even under ideal conditions.
However, the HF-26M came just in time to take part in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 and was, despite its weaknesses, extensively used – even though not necessarily in its intended role. High-flying slow bombers were not fielded during the conflict, and the Teer remained, despite its on-board radar, heavily dependent on ground control interception (GCI) to vector its pilot onto targets coming in at medium and even low altitude. The HF-26M had no capability against low-flying aircraft either, so that pilots had to engage incoming, low-flying enemy aircraft after visual identification – a task the IAF’s nimble MiG-21s were much better suited for. Escorts and air cover missions for fighter-bombers were flown, too, but the HF-26M’s limited range only made it a suitable companion for the equally short-legged Su-7s. The IAF Canberras were frequently deployed on longer range missions, but the HF-26Ms simply could not follow them all the time; for a sufficient range the Teer had to carry four drop tanks, what increased drag and only left the outer pair of underwing hardpoints (which were not plumbed) free for a pair of AA-2 missiles. With the imminent danger of aerial close range combat, though, During the conflict with Pakistan, most HF-26M's were retrofitted with rear-view mirrors in their canopies to improve the pilot's field of view, and a passive IR sensor was added in a small fairing under the nose to improve the aircraft's all-weather capabilities and avoid active radar emissions that would warn potential prey too early.
The lack of an internal gun turned out to be another great weakness of the Teer, and this was only lightly mended through the use of external gun pods. Two of these cigar-shaped pods that resembled the Soviet UPK-23 pod could be carried on the two ventral pylons, and each contained a 23 mm Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-23L autocannon of Soviet origin with 200 rounds. Technically these pods were very similar to the conformal GP-9 pods carried by the IAF MiG-21FLs. While the gun pods considerably improved the HF-26M’s firepower and versatility, the pods were draggy, blocked valuable hardpoints (from extra fuel) and their recoil tended to damage the pylons as well as the underlying aircraft structure, so that they were only commissioned to be used in an emergency.
However, beyond air-to-air weapons, the HF-26M could also carry ordnance of up to 1.000 kg (2.207 lb) on the ventral and inner wing hardpoints and up to 500 kg (1.100 lb) on the other pair of wing hardpoints, including iron bombs and/or unguided missile pods. However, the limited field of view from the cockpit over the radome as well as the relatively high wing loading did not recommend the aircraft for ground attack missions – even though these frequently happened during the conflict with Pakistan. For these tactical missions, many HF-26Ms lost their original overall natural metal finish and instead received camouflage paint schemes on squadron level, resulting in individual and sometimes even spectacular liveries. Most notable examples were the Teer fighters of No. 1 Squadron (The Tigers), which sported various camouflage adaptations of the unit’s eponym.
Despite its many deficiencies, the HF-26M became heavily involved in the Indo-Pakistan conflict. As the Indian Army tightened its grip in East Pakistan, the Indian Air Force continued with its attacks against Pakistan as the campaign developed into a series of daylight anti-airfield, anti-radar, and close-support attacks by fighter jets, with night attacks against airfields and strategic targets by Canberras and An-12s, while Pakistan responded with similar night attacks with its B-57s and C-130s.
The PAF deployed its F-6s mainly on defensive combat air patrol missions over their own bases, leaving the PAF unable to conduct effective offensive operations. Sporadic raids by the IAF continued against PAF forward air bases in Pakistan until the end of the war, and interdiction and close-support operations were maintained. One of the most successful air raids by India into West Pakistan happened on 8 December 1971, when Indian Hunter aircraft from the Pathankot-based 20 Squadron, attacked the Pakistani base in Murid and destroyed 5 F-86 aircraft on the ground.
The PAF played a more limited role in the operations, even though they were reinforced by Mirages from an unidentified Middle Eastern ally (whose identity remains unknown). The IAF was able to conduct a wide range of missions – troop support; air combat; deep penetration strikes; para-dropping behind enemy lines; feints to draw enemy fighters away from the actual target; bombing and reconnaissance. India flew 1,978 sorties in the East and about 4,000 in Pakistan, while the PAF flew about 30 and 2,840 at the respective fronts. More than 80 percent of IAF sorties were close-support and interdiction and about 45 IAF aircraft were lost, including three HF-26Ms. Pakistan lost 60 to 75 aircraft, not including any F-86s, Mirage IIIs, or the six Jordanian F-104s which failed to return to their donors. The imbalance in air losses was explained by the IAF's considerably higher sortie rate and its emphasis on ground-attack missions. The PAF, which was solely focused on air combat, was reluctant to oppose these massive attacks and rather took refuge at Iranian air bases or in concrete bunkers, refusing to offer fights and respective losses.
After the war, the HF-26M was officially regarded as outdated, and as license production of the improved MiG-21FL (designated HAL Type 77 and nicknamed “Trishul” = Trident) and later of the MiG-21M (HAL Type 88) was organized in India, the aircraft were quickly retired from frontline units. They kept on serving into the Eighties, though, but now restricted to their original interceptor role. Beyond the upgrades from the Indo-Pakistani War, only a few upgrades were made. For instance, the new R-60 AAM was introduced to the HF-26M and around 1978 small (but fixed) canards were retrofitted to the air intakes behind the cockpit that improved the Teer’s poor slow speed control and high landing speed as well as the aircraft’s overall maneuverability.
A radar upgrade, together with the introduction of better air-to-ai missiles with a higher range and look down/shoot down capability was considered but never carried out. Furthermore, the idea of a true HF-26 2nd generation variant, powered by a pair of Tumansky R-11F-300 afterburner jet engines (from the license-built MiG-21FLs), was dropped, too – even though this powerplant eventually promised to fulfill the Teer’s design promise of Mach 2 top speed. A total of only 82 HF-26s (including thirteen two-seat trainers with a lengthened fuselage and reduced fuel capacity, plus eight prototypes) were built. The last aircraft were retired from IAF service in 1988 and replaced with Mirage 2000 fighters procured from France that were armed with the Matra Super 530 AAM.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 14.97 m (49 ft ½ in)
Wingspan: 9.43 m (30 ft 11 in)
Height: 4.03 m (13 ft 2½ in)
Wing area: 30.6 m² (285 sq ft)
Empty weight: 7,000 kg (15,432 lb)
Gross weight: 10,954 kg (24,149 lb) with full internal fuel
Max takeoff weight: 15,700 kg (34,613 lb) with external stores
Powerplant:
2× Tumansky RD-9 afterburning turbojet engines; 29 kN (6,600 lbf) dry thrust each
and 36.78 kN (8,270 lbf) with afterburner
Performance:
Maximum speed: 1,700 km/h (1,056 mph; 917 kn; Mach 1.6) at 11,000 m (36,000 ft)
1,350 km/h (840 mph, 730 kn; Mach 1.1) at sea level
Combat range: 725 km (450 mi, 391 nmi) with internal fuel only
Ferry range: 1,700 km (1,100 mi, 920 nmi) with four drop tanks
Service ceiling: 18,100 m (59,400 ft)
g limits: +6.5
Time to altitude: 9,145 m (30,003 ft) in 1 minute 30 seconds
Wing loading: 555 kg/m² (114 lb/sq ft)
Armament
6× hardpoints (four underwing and two under the fuselage) for a total of 2.500 kg (5.500 lb);
Typical interceptor payload:
- two IR-guided R-3 or R-60 air-to-air-missiles or
two PTB-490 drop tanks on the outer underwing stations
- two semi-active radar-guided ‚Saanp’ air-to-air missiles or two more R-3 or R-60 AAMs
on inner underwing stations
- two 500 l drop tanks or two gun pods with a 23 mm GSh-23L autocannon and 200 RPG
each under the fuselage
The kit and its assembly:
This whiffy delta-wing fighter was inspired when I recently sliced up a PM Model Su-15 kit for my side-by-side-engine BAC Lightning build. At an early stage of the conversion, I held the Su-15 fuselage with its molded delta wings in my hand and wondered if a shortened tail section (as well as a shorter overall fuselage to keep proportions balanced) could make a delta-wing jet fighter from the Flagon base? Only a hardware experiment could yield an answer, and since the Su-15’s overall outlines look a bit retro I settled at an early stage on India as potential designer and operator, as “the thing the HF-24 Marut never was”.
True to the initial idea, work started on the tail, and I chopped off the fuselage behind the wings’ trailing edge. Some PSR was necessary to blend the separate exhaust section into the fuselage, which had to be reduced in depth through wedges that I cut out under the wings trailing edge, plus some good amount of glue and sheer force the bend the section a bit upwards. The PM Model's jet exhausts were drilled open, and I added afterburner dummies inside - anything would look better than the bleak vertical walls inside after only 2-3 mm! The original fin was omitted, because it was a bit too large for the new, smaller aircraft and its shape reminded a lot of the Suchoj heavy fighter family. It was replaced with a Mirage III/V fin, left over from a (crappy!) Pioneer 2 IAI Nesher kit.
Once the rear section was complete, I had to adjust the front end - and here the kitbashing started. First, I chopped off the cockpit section in front of the molded air intake - the Su-15’s long radome and the cockpit on top of the fuselage did not work anymore. As a remedy I remembered another Su-15 conversion I did a (long) while ago: I created a model of a planned ground attack derivative, the T-58Sh, and, as a part of the extensive body work, I transplanted the slanted nose from an academy MiG-27 between the air intakes – a stunt that was relatively easy and which appreciably lowered the cockpit position. For the HF-26M I did something similar, I just transplanted a cockpit from a Hasegawa/Academy MiG-23 with its ogival radome that size-wise better matched with the rest of the leftover Su-15 airframe.
The MiG-23 cockpit matched perfectly with the Su-15's front end, just the spinal area behind the cockpit had to be raised/re-sculpted to blend the parts smoothly together. For a different look from the Su-15 ancestry I also transplanted the front sections of the MiG-23 air intakes with their shorter ramps. Some mods had to be made to the Su-15 intake stubs, but the MiG-23 intakes were an almost perfect fit in size and shape and easy to integrate into the modified front hill. The result looks very natural!
However, when the fuselage was complete, I found that the nose appeared to be a bit too long, leaving the whole new hull with the wings somewhat off balance. As a remedy I decided at a rather late stage to shorten the nose and took out a 6 mm section in front of the cockpit - a stunt I had not planned, but sometimes you can judge things only after certain work stages. Some serious PSR was necessary to re-adjust the conical nose shape, which now looked more Mirage III-ish than planned!
The cockpit was taken mostly OOB, I just replaced the ejection seat and gave it a trigger handle made from thin wire. With the basic airframe complete it was time for details. The PM Model Su-15s massive and rather crude main landing gear was replaced with something more delicate from the scrap box, even though I retained the main wheels. The front landing gear was taken wholesale from the MiG-23, but had to be shortened for a proper stance.
A display holder adapter was integrated into the belly for the flight scenes, hidden well between the ventral ordnance.
The hardpoints, including missile launch rails, came from the MiG-23; the pylons had to be adjusted to match the Su-15's wing profile shape, the Anab missiles lost their tail sections to create the fictional Indian 'Saanp' AAMs. The R-3s on the outer stations were left over from a MP MiG-21. The ventral pylons belong to Academy MiG-23/27s, one came from the donor kit, the other was found in the spares box. The PTB-490 drop tanks also came from a KP MiG-21 (or one of its many reincarnations, not certain).
Painting and markings:
The paint scheme for this fictional aircraft was largely inspired by a picture of a whiffy and very attractive Saab 37 Viggen (an 1:72 Airfix kit) in IAF colors, apparently a model from a contest. BTW, India actually considered buying the Viggen for its Air Force!
IAF aircraft were and are known for their exotic and sometimes gawdy paint schemes, and with IAF MiG-21 “C 992” there’s even a very popular (yet obscure) aircraft that sported literal tiger stripes. The IAF Viggen model was surely inspired by this real aircraft, and I adopted something similar for my HF-26M.
IAF 1 Squadron was therefore settled, and for the paint scheme I opted for a "stripish" scheme, but not as "tigeresque" as "C 992". I found a suitable benchmark in a recent Libyian MiG-21, which carried a very disruptive two-tone grey scheme. I adapted this pattern to the HA-26M airframe and replaced its colors, similar to the IAF Viggen model, which became a greenish sand tone (a mix of Humbrol 121 with some 159; I later found out that I could have used Humbrol 83 from the beginning, though...) and a very dark olive drab (Humbrol 66, which looks like a dull dark brown in contrast with the sand tone), with bluish grey (Humbrol 247) undersides. With the large delta wings, this turned out to look very good and even effective!
For that special "Indian touch" I gave the aircraft a high-contrast fin in a design that I had seen on a real camouflaged IAF MiG-21bis: an overall dark green base with a broad, red vertical stripe which was also the shield for the fin flash and the aircraft's tactical code (on the original bare metal). The fin was first painted in green (Humbrol 2), the red stripe was created with orange-red decal sheet material. Similar material was also used to create the bare metal field for the tactical code, the yellow bars on the splitter plates and for the thin white canopy sealing.
After basic painting was done the model received an overall black ink washing, post-panel shading and extensive dry-brushing with aluminum and iron for a rather worn look.
The missiles became classic white, while the drop tanks, as a contrast to the camouflaged belly, were left in bare metal.
Decals/markings came primarily from a Begemot MiG-25 kit, the tactical codes on the fin and under the wings originally belong to an RAF post-WWII Spitfire, just the first serial letter was omitted. Stencils are few and they came from various sources. A compromise is the unit badge on the fin: I needed a tiger motif, and the only suitable option I found was the tiger head emblem on a white disc from RAF No. 74 Squadron, from the Matchbox BAC Lightning F.6&F.2A kit. It fits stylistically well, though. ;-)
Finally, the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (except for the black radome, which became a bit glossy) and finally assembled.
A spontaneous build, and the last one that I completed in 2022. However, despite a vague design plan the model evolved as it grew. Bashing the primitive PM Model Su-15 with the Academy MiG-23 parts was easier than expected, though, and the resulting fictional aircraft looks sturdy but quite believable - even though it appears to me like the unexpected child of a Mirage III/F-4 Phantom II intercourse, or like a juvenile CF-105 Arrow, just with mid-wings? Nevertheless, the disruptive paint scheme suits the delta wing fighter well, and the green/red fin is a striking contrast - it's a colorful model, but not garish.
Passive, humble, embarrassed.
Ready to conform to the authority or will of others; meekly (??) obedient or passive.
A submissive, almost sheep like people
Quick overview about the reserve and the Landwehr of the German Empire (around 1890)
The defense strategy of the German Empire was designed so that the population should help to defend the country in the event of war. Therefore, there was a military service for the male population, which was essentially divided into active and passive military service.
Active service took place in the army or the navy. This was followed by service in the Landwehr I., then Landwehr II. and finally in the Landsturm. The reserve service was part of the active service, but without spending the time in the barracks.