View allAll Photos Tagged capabilities
MARINE CORPS AIR STATION IWAKUNI, YAMAGUCHI, Japan (July 7, 2022) - The U.S. Air Force 354th Air Expeditionary Wing and Marine Aircraft Group 12 performed a capabilities demonstration during a pre-planned readiness exercise at Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni, Japan, July 7, 2022. The demonstration included five U.S. Marine Corps F/A-18 Hornets, eight F-35B Lightning IIs, a KC-130J Super Hercules aircraft, 10 U.S. Air Force F-22 Raptors and 10 F-35A Lightning II aircraft, showcasing a high level of readiness and joint service capability in support of a free and open Indo-Pacific. (U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Jose Miguel T. Tamondong) 220707-F-XX992-1160
** Interested in following U.S. Indo-Pacific Command? Engage and connect with us at www.facebook.com/indopacom | twitter.com/INDOPACOM | www.instagram.com/indopacom | www.flickr.com/photos/us-pacific-command; | www.youtube.com/user/USPacificCommand | www.pacom.mil/ **
The Airbus A400M Atlas is a European, four-engine turboprop military transport aircraft. It was designed by Airbus Military (now Airbus Defence and Space) as a tactical airlifter with strategic capabilities to replace older transport aircraft, such as the Transall C-160 and the Lockheed C-130 Hercules. The A400M is positioned, in terms of size, between the C-130 and the C-17; it can carry heavier loads than the C-130 and is able to use rough landing strips. Along with the transport role, the A400M can perform aerial refuelling and medical evacuation when fitted with appropriate equipment.
The A400M's maiden flight, originally planned for 2008, took place on 11 December 2009 from Seville, Spain. Between 2009 and 2010, the A400M faced cancellation as a result of development programme delays and cost overruns however, the customer nations chose to maintain their support of the project. A total of 174 A400M aircraft had been ordered by eight nations by July 2011. In March 2013, the A400M received European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) certification. The first aircraft was delivered to the French Air Force in August 2013.
he project began as the Future International Military Airlifter (FIMA) group, set up in 1982 by Aérospatiale, British Aerospace (BAe), Lockheed, and Messerschmitt-Bölkow-Blohm (MBB) to develop a replacement for the C-130 Hercules and Transall C-160.[7] Varying requirements and the complications of international politics caused slow progress. In 1989, Lockheed left the grouping and went on to develop an upgraded Hercules, the C-130J Super Hercules. With the addition of Alenia of Italy and CASA of Spain the FIMA group became Euroflag.
Since no existing turboprop engine in the western world was powerful enough to reach the projected cruise speed of Mach 0.72, a new engine design was required. Originally the SNECMA M138 turboprop (based on the M88 core) was selected, but didn't meet the requirements. Airbus Military issued a new request for proposal (RFP) in April 2002, after which Pratt & Whitney Canada with the PW180 and Europrop International answered. In May 2003, Airbus Military selected the Europrop TP400-D6, reportedly due to political interference over the PW180 engine.
The original partner nations were France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom, Turkey, Belgium, and Luxembourg. These nations decided to charge the Organisation for Joint Armament Cooperation (OCCAR) with the management of the acquisition of the A400M. Following the withdrawal of Italy and revision of procurement totals the revised requirement was for 180 aircraft, with first flight in 2008 and first delivery in 2009. On 28 April 2005, South Africa joined the partnership programme with the state-owned Denel Saab Aerostructures receiving a contract for fuselage components.
The A400M is positioned as an intermediate size and range between the Lockheed C-130 and the Boeing C-17, carrying cargo too large or too heavy for the C-130 while able to use rough landing strips. It has been advertised with the tagline "transport what the C130 cannot to places that the C17 can’t".
Tamar class lifeboats are all-weather lifeboats (ALB's) operated by the RNLI. They have replaced the majority of the older Tyne ALB's. The prototype was built in 2000 and 27 production boats were constructed between 2006 and 2013. The class name comes from the 61 miles (98 km) long River Tamar in south west England which forms most of the border between Devon and Cornwall and flows into the sea at Plymouth Sound, a bay of the the English Channel.
Since 1982 the RNLI had deployed Tyne lifeboats at stations which launched their boats down slipways or needed to operate in shallow waters. The organisation desired to increase the speed and range of their operations so introduced faster Severn and Trent boats starting in 1994 at locations where they could be moored afloat. They then needed to produce a boat with similar capabilities but with protected propellers and other modifications that would allow it to be launched on a slipway.
Although nominally the replacement for the Tyne ALB's, only twenty seven Tamar's have been built compared to forty Tyne's. The remaining Tyne's will be replaced by Shannon boats.
The prototype Tamar was built in 2000 and was used for trials until 2006. It was sold in December 2008 to Kent Police, becoming Princess Alexandra III, the force's permanent maritime vessel operating out of Sheerness. The first production boat, Haydn Miller entered service at Tenby in March 2006. A few of the early boats suffered problems such as fuel leaking under the floor of the engine room around hydraulic lines. These boats were recalled and the problems rectified.
The 27th. and last Tamar class lifeboat, allocated to The Mumbles, was launched on 12th. March 2013 in Devonport Dockyard and after sea trials was handed over to the RNLI on 21st. May 2013.
Ten lifeboat stations keep Tamar's moored afloat, thirteen launch them down slipways, and the remaining four form a Relief Fleet to cover when boats are unavailable for service. Most of the slipway stations required entirely new boathouses and slipways to accommodate the Tamar, but at Cromer and Angle the existing fairly modern boathouses were adapted and at Sennen Cove the capacious old boathouse was able to be modified to take the new boat.
The Tamar has a new design of crew workstation with seats that can move up and down 20 centimetres (7.9 in) as the boat passes through rough seas at high speed, and an onboard computer system called Systems and Information Management System (SIMS) allows complex tasks such as engine and navigation management to be displayed on a single flat LCD screen, six of which are positioned around the vessel, to allow crew to operate all the systems without moving from their seats. The coxswain and helmsman have seat-mounted throttles, trackerball and joystick controls of the rudder. Alternatively the boat may be monitored and controlled by two controls on the bridge, dual throttle controls and joystick on the left, dual throttle, wheel and control-screen on the right. All aspects of the vessel may also be controlled from this position.
The lifeboat is completely water-tight allowing it to self-right with 51 people on board. The boat has the potential to carry a maximum of 120 passengers on board, but without self-righting capability. The survivors space has room for 10 sitting and 8 standing. The survivors space is accessed either through the wheelhouse or the fore deck emergency escape hatch.
Each Tamar carries a daughter Y Class inflatable boat in a recessed chamber in the stern section. Access to the inflatable is by means of lowering the transom, and lifting a section of deck. This allows the tender to be launched and recovered at sea onto a ramp provided by the lowered transom section. There is a provision for a PWC (Personal Water Craft, more commonly known as a jet ski) to be specified instead, should it prove more suitable.
All Tamar Class lifeboats have sea water sourced open loop heat pump systems on board to keep the crew comfortable in high or low temperature conditions.
RNLB Lester is the ALB lifeboat stationed at Cromer, Norfolk and is the first Tamar class lifeboat to be stationed on the east coast of England. The lifeboats name, Lester, has been created by using parts of the surnames of Derek Clifton Lethern and William Foster, both of whom have been long term supporters and members of the RNLI. Mr. Lethern left £1.23m to the RNLI when he died in 1992 and asked for a new lifeboat to be bought in memory of him and his friend Mr. Foster.
After her launch the Lester underwent a long period of sea trials. Around 30 Cromer crewmen took part in these trials to familiarise themselves with their new lifeboat. On 8th. October 2007 the lifeboat crew took part in a week of training aboard the new lifeboat at the RNLI Lifeboat college in Poole, Dorset. The lifeboat finally arrived at Cromer on 9th. December 2007 and was recovered, for the first time, up her new slipway in to the boathouse. The vessel was officially operational at 3:55 pm on 6th. January 2008.
Lester was launched on her first service on 14th. January 2008. She attended the car carrier The City of Sunderland which had gone aground in the early hours of the morning on the southern edge of Happisburgh Sands. The car carrier had been on passage from Zeebrugge, Belgium to Tees Port near Middlesbrough. When the Lester arrived at the scene, two tugs from Felixstowe, Suffolk were attempting to tow the vessel off the sands. Assisting with the operation the crew of the lifeboat kept a watchful eye on the situation and stood by while the vessel carried out essential checks to her steering and propulsion systems once she was re-floated. The Lifeboat finally left the scene at 23:50 and made her way back to the pier boathouse for recovery.
Lester is seen in the yacht marina at Lowestoft, Suffolk.
Name: Lester
Station: Cromer, Norfolk
Class: Tamar
Number: 16-07
Official Number: 1287
MMSI: 235030385
Call Sign: MKHW9
Builders:
Hull: Green Marine, Lymington, Hampshire
Fitting out: DML, Devonport, Plymouth
Construction:
Hull: Fibre-reinforced composite (FRC)
Deck and superstructure: 25 mm foam-cored FRC sandwich.
Launched: 26th. April 2007
In service: 6th. January 2008 to present
Christened: 8th. September 2008 by The Duke of Kent.
Cost: £2.6m
Displacement: 31.5 tons
Length: 16.3 m (53 ft. 4 in.)
Beam: 5.3 m (17 ft. 4 in.)
Draught: 1.4 m (4 ft. 7 in.)
Engine: 2 x Caterpillar C18 diesels
Engine output: 2 x 1,015 hp (757 kW)
Propellers: 2 x fixed pitch 5-blade
Fuel capacity: 4,600 lt. (1,000 gals)
Speed: 25 knots (29 mph/ 46 km/h)
Range: 250 nautical miles (286 miles/460 km)
Endurance: 10 hours at 25 knots
Survivors: 118 (self-righting up to 44)
Crew: 7
Class: Y class inflatable
Official Number: Y-207
Length: 3 m (9 ft. 9 in.)
Propulsion: 1 × Mariner outboard engine
Outboard output: 15 hp (11 kW)
Speed: 25 knots (29 mph/ 46 km/h)
Range: Within visual range of ALB
Crew: 2
WELL ENHANCER LWI / DIVE SUPPORT VESSEL
COILED TUBING CAPABILITIES, MONOHULL PERFORMANCE
The Well Enhancer is designed to minimize production downtime and provides cost effective well maintenance, production enhancement and well abandonment solutions. With 1,100m2 of main deck space and the ability to run rigid riser and coiled tubing, the vessel can also perform a range of well testing and production flowback services.
The vessel features a 150 Te multi-purpose tower (MPT), capable of deploying wireline and coiled-tubing. The vessel also features kill pumps and a 100 Te main crane and is currently capable of conducting LWI operations to a depth of 600m.
The DP3 Well Enhancer features a purpose built derrick over a 7m x 7m moonpool and has a travelling block rated to 150 Te capacity in passive mode.
The Well Enhancer’s 18 man saturation diving spread is rated to 300 m, and combined with the vessel’s work/observation class ROVs, provides for full IRM and light construction services and diving support for any tree systems which require manual intervention to facilitate LWI operations.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
In the late 1970s the Mikoyan OKB began development of a hypersonic high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft. Designated "Izdeliye 301" (also known as 3.01), the machine had an unusual design, combining a tailless layout with variable geometry wings. The two engines fueled by kerosene were located side by side above the rear fuselage, with the single vertical fin raising above them, not unlike the Tu-22 “Blinder” bomber of that time, but also reminiscent of the US-American SR-71 Mach 3 reconnaissance aircraft.
Only few and rather corny information leaked into the West, and the 301 was believed not only to act as a reconnaissance plane , it was also believed to have (nuclear) bombing capabilities. Despite wind tunnel testing with models, no hardware of the 301 was ever produced - aven though the aircraft could have become a basis for a long-range interceptor that would replace by time the PVO's Tupolew Tu-28P (ASCC code "Fiddler"), a large aircraft armed solely with missiles.
Despite limitations, the Tu-28P served well in its role, but the concept of a very fast interceptor aircraft, lingered on, since the Soviet Union had large areas to defend against aerial intruders, esp. from the North and the East. High speed, coupled with long range and the ability to intercept an incoming target at long distances independently from ground guidance had high priority for the Soviet Air Defence Forces. Even though no official requirement was issued, the concept of Izdeliye 301 from the Seventies was eventually developed further into the fixed-wing "Izdeliye 701" ultra-long-range high-altitude interceptor in the 1980ies.
The impulse for this new approach came when Oleg S. Samoylovich joined the Mikoyan OKB after having worked at Suchoi OKB on the T-60S missile carrier project. Similar in overall design to the former 301, the 701 was primarily intended as a kind of successor for the MiG-31 Foxhound for the 21st century, which just had completed flight tests and was about to enter PVO's front line units.
Being based on a long range cruise missile carrier, the 701 would have been a huge plane, featuring a length of 30-31m, a wing span of 19m (featuring a highly swept double delta wing) and having a maximum TOW of 70 tons! Target performance figures included a top speed of 2.500km/h, a cruising speed of 2.100km/h at 17.000m and an effective range of 7.000km in supersonic or 11.000km in subsonic mode. Eventually, the 701 program was mothballed, too, being too ambitious and expensive for a specialized development that could also have been a fighter version of the Tu-22 bomber!
Anyway, while the MiG-31 was successfully introduced in 1979 and had evolved in into a capable long-range interceptor with a top speed of more than Mach 3 (limited to Mach 2.8 in order to protect the aircraft's structural integrity), MiG OKB decided in 1984 to take further action and to develop a next-generation technology demonstrator, knowing that even the formidable "Foxhound" was only an interim solution on the way to a true "Four plus" of even a 6th generation fighter. Other new threats like low-flying cruise missiles, the USAF's "Project Pluto" or the assumed SR-71 Mach 5 successor “Aurora” kept Soviet military officials on the edge of their seats, too.
Main objective was to expand the Foxhound's state-of the-art performance, and coiple it with modern features like aerodynamic instability, supercruise, stealth features and further development potential.
The aircraft's core mission objectives comprised:
- Provide strategic air defense and surveillance in areas not covered by ground-based air defense systems (incl. guidance of other aircraft with less sophisticated avionics)
- Top speed of Mach 3.2 or more in a dash and cruise at Mach 3.0 for prolonged periods
- Long range/high speed interception of airspace intruders of any kind, including low flying cruise missiles, UAVs and helicopters
- Intercept cruise missiles and their launch aircraft from sea level up to 30.000m altitude by reaching missile launch range in the lowest possible time after departing the loiter area
Because funding was scarce and no official GOR had been issued, the project was taken on as a private venture. The new project was internally known as "Izdeliye 710" or "71.0". It was based on both 301 and 701 layout ideas and the wind tunnel experiences with their unusual layouts, as well as Oleg Samoylovich's experience with the Suchoi T-4 Mach 3 bomber project and the T-60S.
"Izdeliye 710" was from the start intended only as a proof-of-concept prototype, yet fully functional. It would also incorporate new technologies like heat-resistant ceramics against kinetic heating at prolonged high speeds (the airframe had to resist temperatures of 300°C/570°F and more for considerable periods), but with potential for future development into a full-fledged interceptor, penetrator and reconnaissance aircraft.
Overall, “Izdeliye 710" looked like a shrinked version of a mix of both former MiG OKB 301 and 701 designs, limited to the MiG-31's weight class of about 40 tons TOW. Compared with the former designs, the airframe received an aerodynamically more refined, partly blended, slender fuselage that also incorporated mild stealth features like a “clean” underside, softened contours and partly shielded air intakes. Structurally, the airframe's speed limit was set at Mach 3.8.
From the earlier 301 design,the plane retained the variable geometry wing. Despite the system's complexity and weight, this solution was deemed to be the best approach for a combination of a high continuous top speed, extended loiter time in the mission’s patrol areas and good performance on improvised airfields. Minimum sweep was a mere 10°, while, fully swept at 68°, the wings blended into the LERXes. Additional lift was created through the fuselage shape itself, so that aerodynamic surfaces and therefore drag could be reduced.
Pilot and radar operator sat in tandem under a common canopy with rather limited sight. The cockpit was equipped with a modern glass cockpit with LCD screens. The aircraft’s two engines were, again, placed in a large, mutual nacelle on the upper rear fuselage, fed by large air intakes with two-dimensional vertical ramps and a carefully modulated airflow over the aircraft’s dorsal area.
Initially, the 71.0 was to be powered by a pair of Soloviev D-30F6 afterburning turbofans with a dry thrust of 93 kN (20,900 lbf) each, and with 152 kN (34,172 lbf) with full afterburner. These were the same engines that powered the MiG-31, but there were high hopes for the Kolesov NK-101 engine: a variable bypass engine with a maximum thrust in the 200kN range, at the time of the 71.0's design undergoing bench tests and originally developed for the advanced Suchoj T-4MS strike aircraft.
With the D-30F6, the 71.0 was expected to reach Mach 3.2 (making the aircraft capable of effectively intercepting the SR-71), but the NK-101 would offer in pure jet mode a top speed in excess of Mach 3.5 and also improve range and especially loiter time when running as a subsonic turbofan engine.
A single fin with an all-moving top and an additional deep rudder at its base was placed on top of the engine nacelle. Additional maneuverability at lower speed was achieved by retractable, all-moving foreplanes, stowed in narrow slits under the cockpit. Longitudinal stability at high speed was improved through deflectable stabilizers: these were kept horizontal for take-off and added to the overall lift, but they could be folded down by up to 60° in flight, acting additionally as stabilizer strakes.
Due to the aircraft’s slender shape and unique proportions, the 71.0 quickly received the unofficial nickname "жура́вль" (‘Zhurávl' = Crane). The aircaft’s stalky impression was emphasized even more through its unusual landing gear arrangement: Due to the limited internal space for the main landing gear wells between the weapons bay, the wing folding mechanisms and the engine nacelle, MiG OKB decided to incorporate a bicycle landing gear, normally a trademark of Yakovlew OKB designs, but a conventional landing gear could simply not be mounted, or its construction would have become much too heavy and complex.
In order to facilitate operations from improvised airfields and on snow the landing gear featured twin front wheels on a conventional strut and a single four wheel bogie as main wheels. Smaller, single stabilizer wheels were mounted on outriggers that retracted into slender fairings at the wings’ fixed section trailing edge, reminiscent of early Tupolev designs.
All standard air-to-air weaponry, as well as fuel, was to be carried internally. Main armament would be the K-100 missile (in service eventually designated R-100), stored in a large weapons bay behind the cockpit on a rotary mount. The K-100 had been under development at that time at NPO Novator, internally coded ‘Izdeliye 172’. The K-100 missile was an impressive weapon, and specifically designed to attack vital and heavily defended aerial targets like NATO’s AWACS aircraft at BVR distance.
Being 15’ (4.57 m) long and weighing 1.370 lb (620 kg), this huge ultra-long-range weapon had a maximum range of 250 mi (400 km) in a cruise/glide profile and attained a speed of Mach 6 with its solid rocket engine. This range could be boosted even further with a pair of jettisonable ramjets in tubular pods on the missile’s flanks for another 60 mi (100 km). The missile could attack targets ranging in altitude between 15 – 25,000 meters.
The weapon would initially be allocated to a specified target through the launch aircraft’s on-board radar and sent via inertial guidance into the target’s direction. Closing in, the K-100’s Agat 9B-1388 active seeker would identify the target, lock on, and independently attack it, also in coordination with other K-100’s shot at the same target, so that the attack would be coordinated in time and approach directions in order to overload defense and ensure a hit.
The 71.0’s internal mount could hold four of these large missiles, or, alternatively, the same number of the MiG-31’s R-33 AAMs. The mount also had a slot for the storage of additional mid- and short-range missiles for self-defense, e .g. three R-60 or two R-73 AAMs. An internal gun was not considered to be necessary, since the 71.0 or potential derivatives would fight their targets at very long distances and rather rely on a "hit-and-run" tactic, sacrificing dogfight capabilities for long loitering time in stand-by mode, high approach speed and outstanding acceleration and altitude performance.
Anyway, provisions were made to carry a Gsh-301-250 gun pod on a retractable hardpoint in the weapons bay instead of a K-100. Alternatively, such pods could be carried externally on four optional wing root pylons, which were primarily intended for PTB-1500 or PTB-3000 drop tanks, or further missiles - theoretically, a maximum of ten K-100 missiles could be carried, plus a pair of short-range AAMs.
Additionally, a "buddy-to-buffy" IFR set with a retractable drogue (probably the same system as used on the Su-24) was tested (71.2 was outfitted with a retractable refuelling probe in front of the cockpit), as well as the carriage of simple iron bombs or nuclear stores, to be delivered from very high altitudes. Several pallets with cameras and sensors (e .g. a high resolution SLAR) were also envisioned, which could easily replace the missile mounts and the folding weapon bay covers for recce missions.
Since there had been little official support for the project, work on the 710 up to the hardware stage made only little progress, since the MiG-31 already filled the long-range interceptor role in a sufficient fashion and offered further development potential.
A wooden mockup of the cockpit section was presented to PVO and VVS officials in 1989, and airframe work (including tests with composite materials on structural parts, including ceramic tiles for leading edges) were undertaken throughout 1990 and 1991, including test rigs for the engine nacelle and the swing wing mechanism.
Eventually, the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 suddenly stopped most of the project work, after two prototype airframes had been completed. Their internal designations were Izdeliye 71.1 and 71.2, respectively. It took a while until the political situation as well as the ex-Soviet Air Force’s status were settled, and work on Izdeliye 710 resumed at a slow pace.
After taking two years to be completed, 71.1 eventually made its roll-out and maiden flight in summer 1994, just when MiG-31 production had ended. MiG OKB still had high hopes in this aircraft, since the MiG-31 would have to be replaced in the next couple of years and "Izdeliye 710" was just in time for the potential procurement process. The first prototype wore a striking all-white livery, with dark grey ceramic tiles on the wings’ leading edges standing out prominently – in this guise and with its futuristic lines the slender aircraft reminded a lot of the American Space Shuttle.
71.1 was primarily intended for engine and flight tests (esp. for the eagerly awaited NK-101 engines), as well as for the development of the envisioned ramjet propulsion system for full-scale production and further development of Izdeliye 710 into a Mach 3+ interceptor. No mission avionics were initially fitted to this plane, but it carried a comprehensive test equipment suite and ballast.
Its sister ship 71.2 flew for the first time in late 1994, wearing a more unpretentious grey/bare metal livery. This plane was earmarked for avionics development and weapons integration, especially as a test bed for the K-100 missile, which shared Izdeliye 710’s fate of being a leftover Soviet project with an uncertain future and an even more corny funding outlook.
Anyway, aircraft 71.2 was from the start equipped with a complete RP-31 ('Zaslon-M') weapon control system, which had been under development at that time as an upgrade for the Russian MiG-31 fleet being part of the radar’s development program secured financial support from the government and allowed the flight tests to continue. The RP-31 possessed a maximum detection range of 400 km (250 mi) against airliner-sized targets at high altitude or 200 km against fighter-sized targets; the typical width of detection along the front was given as 225 km. The system could track 24 airborne targets at one time at a range of 120 km, 6 of which could be simultaneously attacked with missiles.
With these capabilities the RP-31 suite could, coupled with an appropriate carrier airframe, fulfil the originally intended airspace control function and would render a dedicated and highly vulnerable airspace control aircraft (like the Beriev A-50 derivative of the Il-76 transport) more or less obsolete. A group of four aircraft equipped with the 'Zaslon-M' suite would be able to permanently control an area of airspace across a total length of 800–900 km, while having ultra-long range weapons at hand to counter any intrusion into airspace with a quicker reaction time than any ground-based fighter on QRA duty. The 71.0, outfitted with the RP-31/K-100 system, would have posed a serious threat to any aggressor.
In March 1995 both prototypes were eventually transferred to the Kerchenskaya Guards Air Base at Savasleyka in the Oblast Vladimir, 300 km east of Mocsow, where they received tactical codes of '11 Blue' and '12 Blue'. Besides the basic test program and the RP-31/K-100 system tests, both machines were directly evaluated against the MiG-31 and Su-27 fighters by the Air Force's 4th TsBPi PLS, based at the same site.
Both aircraft exceeded expectations, but also fell short in certain aspects. The 71.0’s calculated top speed of Mach 3.2 was achieved during the tests with a top speed of 3,394 km/h (2.108 mph) at 21,000 m (69.000 ft). Top speed at sea level was confirmed at 1.200 km/h (745 mph) indicated airspeed.
Combat radius with full weapon load and internal fuel only was limited to 1,450 km (900 mi) at Mach 0.8 and at an altitude of 10,000 m (33,000 ft), though, and it sank to a mere 720 km (450 mi) at Mach 2.35 and at an altitude of 18,000 m (59,000 ft). Combat range with 4x K-100 internally and 2 drop tanks was settled at 3,000 km (1,860 mi), rising to 5,400 km (3,360 mi) with one in-flight refueling, tested with the 71.2. Endurance at altitude was only slightly above 3 hours, though. Service ceiling was 22,800 m (74,680 ft), 2.000 m higher than the MiG-31.
While these figures were impressive, Soviet officials were not truly convinced: they did not show a significant improvement over the simpler MiG-31. MiG OKB tried to persuade the government into more flight tests and begged for access to the NK-101, but the Soviet Union's collapse halted this project, too, so that both Izdeliye 710 had to keep the Soloviev D-30F6.
Little is known about the Izdeliye 710 project’s progress or further developments. The initial tests lasted until at least 1997, and obviously the updated MiG-31M received official favor instead of a completely new aircraft. The K-100 was also dropped, since the R-33 missile and later its R-37 derivative sufficiently performed in the long-range aerial strike role.
Development on the aircraft as such seemed to have stopped with the advent of modernized Su-27 derivatives and the PAK FA project, resulting in the Suchoi T-50 prototype. Unconfirmed reports suggest that one of the prototypes (probably 71.1) was used in the development of the N014 Pulse-Doppler radar with a passive electronically scanned array antenna in the wake of the MFI program. The N014 was designed with a range of 420 km, detection target of 250km to 1m and able to track 40 targets while able to shoot against 20.
Most interestingly, Izdeliye 710 was never officially presented to the public, but NATO became aware of its development through satellite pictures in the early Nineties and the aircraft consequently received the ASCC reporting codename "Fastback".
Until today, only the two prototypes have been known to exist, and it is assumed – had the type entered service – that the long-range fighter had received the official designation "MiG-41".
General characteristics:
Crew: 2 (Pilot, weapon system officer)
Length (incl. pitot): 93 ft 10 in (28.66 m)
Wingspan:
- minimum 10° sweep: 69 ft 4 in (21.16 m)
- maximum 68° sweep: 48 ft 9 in (14,88 m)
Height: 23 ft 1 1/2 in (7,06 m )
Wing area: 1008.9 ft² (90.8 m²)
Weight: 88.151 lbs (39.986 kg)
Performance:
Maximum speed:
- Mach 3.2 (2.050 mph (3.300 km/h) at height
- 995 mph (1.600 km/h) supercruise speed at 36,000 ft (11,000 m)
- 915 mph (1.470 km/h) at sea level
Range: 3.705 miles (5.955 km) with internal fuel
Service ceiling: 75.000 ft (22.500 m)
Rate of climb: 31.000 ft/min (155 m/s)
Engine:
2x Soloviev D-30F6 afterburning turbofans with a dry thrust of 93 kN (20,900 lbf) each
and with 152 kN (34,172 lbf) with full afterburner.
Armament:
Internal weapons bay, main armament comprises a flexible missile load; basic ordnance of 4x K-100 ultra long range AAMs plus 2x R-73 short-range AAMs: other types like the R-27, R-33, R-60 and R-77 have been carried and tested, too, as well as podded guns on internal and external mounts. Alternatively, the weapon bay can hold various sensor pallets.
Four hardpoints under the wing roots, the outer pair “wet” for drop tanks of up to 3.000 l capacity, ECM pods or a buddy-buddy refueling drogue system. Maximum payload mass is 9000 kg.
The kit and its assembly
The second entry for the 2017 “Soviet” Group Build at whatifmodelers.com – a true Frankenstein creation, based on the scarce information about the real (but never realized) MiG 301 and 701 projects, the Suchoj T-60S, as well as some vague design sketches you can find online and in literature.
This one had been on my project list for years and I already had donor kits stashed away – but the sheer size (where will I leave it once done…?) and potential complexity kept me from tackling it.
The whole thing was an ambitious project and just the unique layout with a massive engine nacelle on top of the slender fuselage instead of an all-in-one design makes these aircraft an interesting topic to build. The GB was a good motivator.
“My” fictional interpretation of the MiG concepts is mainly based on a Dragon B-1B in 1:144 scale (fuselage, wings), a PM Model Su-15 two seater (donating the nose section and the cockpit, as well as wing parts for the fin) and a Kangnam MiG-31 (for the engine pod and some small parts). Another major ingredient is a pair of horizontal stabilizers from a 1:72 Hasegawa A-5 Vigilante.
Fitting the cockpit section took some major surgery and even more putty to blend the parts smoothly together. Another major surgical area was the tail; the "engine box" came to be rather straightforward, using the complete rear fuselage section from the MiG-31 and adding the intakes form the same kit, but mounted horizontally with a vertical splitter.
Blending the thing to the cut-away tail section of the B-1 was quite a task, though, since I not only wanted to add the element to the fuselage, but rather make it look a bit 'organic'. More than putty was necessary, I also had to made some cuts and transplantations. And after six PSR rounds I stopped counting…
The landing gear was built from scratch – the front wheel comes mostly from the MiG-31 kit. The central bogie and its massive leg come from a VEB Plasticart 1:100 Tu-20/95 bomber, plus some additional struts. The outriggers are leftover landing gear struts from a Hobby Boss Fw 190, mated with wheels which I believe come from a 1:200 VEB Plasticart kit, an An-24. Not certain, though. The fairings are slender MiG-21 drop tanks blended into the wing training edge. For the whole landing gear, the covers were improvised with styrene sheet, parts from a plastic straw(!) or leftover bits from the B-1B.
The main landing gear well was well as the weapons’ bay themselves were cut into the B-1B underside and an interior scratched from sheet and various leftover materials – I tried to maximize their space while still leaving enough room for the B-1B kit’s internal VG mechanism.
The large missiles (two were visible fitted and the rotary launcher just visibly hinted at) are, in fact, AGM-78 ‘Standard’ ARMs in a fantasy guise. They look pretty Soviet, though, like big brothers of the already not small R-33 missiles from the MiG-31.
While not in the focus of attention, the cockpit interior is completely new, too – OOB, the Su-15 cockpit only has a floor and rather stubby seats, under a massive single piece canopy. On top of the front wheel well (from a Hasegawa F-4) I added a new floor and added side consoles, scratched from styrene sheet. F-4 dashboards improve the decoration, and I added a pair of Soviet election seats from the scrap box – IIRC left over from two KP MiG-19 kits.
The canopy was taken OOB, I just cut it into five parts for open display. The material’s thickness does not look too bad on this aircraft – after all, it would need a rather sturdy construction when flying at Mach 3+ and withstanding the respective pressures and temperatures.
Painting
As a pure whif, I was free to use a weirdo design - but I rejected this idea quickly. I did not want a garish splinter scheme or a bright “Greenbottle Fly” Su-27 finish.
With the strange layout of the aircraft, the prototype idea was soon settled – and Soviet prototypes tend to look very utilitarian and lusterless, might even be left in grey. Consequently, I adapted a kind of bare look for this one, inspired by the rather shaggy Soviet Tu-22 “Blinder” bombers which carried a mix of bare metal and white and grey panels. With additional black leading edges on the aerodynamic surfaces, this would create a special/provisional but still purposeful look.
For the painting, I used a mix of several metallizer tones from ModelMaster and Humbrol (including Steel, Magnesium, Titanium, as well as matt and polished aluminum, and some Gun Metal and Exhaust around the engine nozzles, partly mixed with a bit of blue) and opaque tones (Humbrol 147 and 127). The “scheme” evolved panel-wise and step by step. The black leading edges were an interim addition, coming as things evolved, and they were painted first with black acrylic paint as a rough foundation and later trimmed with generic black decal stripes (from TL Modellbau). A very convenient and clean solution!
The radomes on nose and tail and other di-electric panels became dark grey (Humbrol 125). The cockpit tub was painted with Soviet Cockpit Teal (from ModelMaster), while the cockpit opening and canopy frames were kept in a more modest medium grey (Revell 57). On the outside of the cabin windows, a fat, deep yellow sealant frame (Humbrol 93, actually “Sand”) was added.
The weapon bay was painted in a yellow-ish primer tone (seen on pics of Tu-160 bombers) while the landing gear wells received a mix of gold and sand; the struts were painted in a mixed color, too, made of Humbrol 56 (Aluminum) and 34 (Flat White). The green wheel discs (Humbrol 131), a typical Soviet detail, stand out well from the rather subdued but not boring aircraft, and they make a nice contrast to the red Stars and the blue tactical code – the only major markings, besides a pair of MiG OKB logos under the cockpit.
Decals were puzzled together from various sheets, and I also added a lot of stencils for a more technical look. In order to enhance the prototype look further I added some photo calibration markings on the nose and the tail, made from scratch.
A massive kitbashing project that I had pushed away for years - but I am happy that I finally tackled it, and the result looks spectacular. The "Firefox" similarity was not intended, but this beast really looks like a movie prop - and who knwos if the Firefox was not inspired by the same projects (the MiG 301 and 701) as my kitbash model?
The background info is a bit lengthy, but there's some good background info concerning the aforementioned projects, and this aircraft - as a weapon system - would have played a very special and complex role, so a lot of explanations are worthwhile - also in order to emphasize that I di not simply try to glue some model parts together, but rather try to spin real world ideas further.
Mighty bird!
Listen 🙏
Off/ On 📷
Wave
Taking pictures a tool (camera), not a photographer.
The choice of tool limits the possibilities.
Experience allows him (instrument) less and less to limit their capabilities.
The ability to see is given only when the observer allows ...
The moment of observation is the real find ...
Training and mastering it defies. Training leads to poor imitations of the original.
Often the result should ripen, like wine. Although time is the understanding of the mind, therefore it is very speculative.
The meaning of all this is the process!
Find someone who inspires shooting the camera!
www.instagram.com/listenwave_photography/
Often we are visited by thoughts that may reveal something unknown ... Our mind many times tries to solve a problem with known methods ... This is its main mistake! The path of the heart opens the doors that appear in our path. It is a pity that not everyone has the courage to insert the keys that are always with us ...
(Listenwave- 圣彼得堡)
Lakhta. This small village on the northern shore of the Gulf of Finland, about 15 km north-west of the city, is the birthplace of human settlements on the banks of the Neva. It was in the territory of Lakhta that the remains of a man’s camp of three thousand years ago were found.
In official documents, the settlement named Lakhta has been dating since 1500. The name is derived from the Finnish-language word lahti - "bay". It is one of the few settlements that has not changed its name throughout its 500-year history. It is also known as Lahes, Lahes-by, Lahes and was originally inhabited by Izhora. In the last decades of the 15th century, Lakhta was a village (which indicates a significant number of its population) and was the center of the same name of the Grand-Ducal volost, which was part of the Spassko-Gorodensky pogost of Orekhovsky district of Vodskaya Pyatina. In the village there were 10 yards with 20 people (married men). In Lakhta, on average, there were 2 families each, and the total population of the village probably reached 75 people.
From the marks on the fields of the Swedish scribal book of the Spassky Pogost of 1640, it follows that the lands along the lower reaches of the Neva River and part of the coast of the Gulf of Finland, including Lakhta Karelia, Perekulyu (from the Finnish "back village", probably because of its position relative to Lakhta) and Konduya Lakhtinsky, was granted royal charter on January 15, 1638, to the possession of the Stockholm dignitary, General Rickshulz Bernhard Sten von Stenhausen, of Dutch origin. On October 31, 1648, the Swedish government granted these lands to the city of Nuena (Nyenskansu). With the arrival of the Swedes in the Neva region, Lakhta was settled by the Finns, who until the middle of the 20th century constituted the absolute majority of the villagers.
On December 22, 1766, Catherine 2 granted the Lakhta manor, which at that time belonged to the Office of the Chancellery from the buildings of palaces and gardens, "in which and in her villages with yard people 208 souls" to her favorite, Count Orlov. Not later than 1768 Count J.A. Bruce took possession of the estate. In 1788, the Lakhta manor with its wooden services on dry land (high place) and the villages of Lakhta, Dubki, Lisiy Nos and Konnaya, also on dry land, were listed there, in those villages of male peasants 238 souls. On May 1, 1813, Lakhta was taken over by the landlords of the Yakovlevs. On October 5, 1844, Count A. I. Stenbok-Fermor took possession of the Lakhta estate, in which there were then 255 male souls. This genus was the owner of the estate until 1912, when his last representative got into debt and the nobility was established over the estate. On October 4, 1913, the count, in order to pay off his debts, was forced to go into incorporation, and the Lakhta estate became the property of the Lakht Joint-Stock Company of Stenbock-Fermor and Co.
After the revolution, Lakhta was left to itself for some time; on May 19, 1919, in the former estate of the Stenbock-Fermor estate, the Lakhta sightseeing station was opened, which lasted until 1932. In the early 1920s, sand mining began on the Lakhta beaches, and the abandoned and dilapidated peat-bedding plant of the Lakhta estate in 1922 took the Oblzmotdel department under its jurisdiction and launched it after major repairs. In 1963, the village of Lakhta was included in the Zhdanovsky (Primorsky) district of Leningrad (St. Petersburg).
The shuttle hangar is open to all comers, but this one is authorised personnel only.
Visit this location at Limoncello Art Gallery & Space Station in Second Life
Angela Smange is a Multi-Galactic Exploratrice. She decided to expand her capabilities and to do so required a lot of shiny new gear. Angela contacted Morbo Super Tech to work with her to design an outpost, a defensive support vehicle and a new, personal starfighter.
The Outpost has two floors: the first is living space with all amenities included and the second has the blaster turret force field window and the array controls. The rooftop has a landing pad for the starfighter and an impressive communications array.
(Shift to real life speak) Angela is my wonderful Fiancee (for now, the wedding is Saturday) and this is her base! It may have to be reworked if she wants it more personalized. In that case I'll just claim this for LEGO Nate!
This was not a last minute build even though I took it to the limit. There was a ton of R&D since I was trying to cram a ton of play features into this while maintaining a strict level of toughness. I should have kept it at a single floor but what fun is an elevator then??
Video here! Please watch to see all the features!
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
In the late 1970s the Mikoyan OKB began development of a hypersonic high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft. Designated "Izdeliye 301" (also known as 3.01), the machine had an unusual design, combining a tailless layout with variable geometry wings. The two engines fueled by kerosene were located side by side above the rear fuselage, with the single vertical fin raising above them, not unlike the Tu-22 “Blinder” bomber of that time, but also reminiscent of the US-American SR-71 Mach 3 reconnaissance aircraft.
Only few and rather corny information leaked into the West, and the 301 was believed not only to act as a reconnaissance plane , it was also believed to have (nuclear) bombing capabilities. Despite wind tunnel testing with models, no hardware of the 301 was ever produced - aven though the aircraft could have become a basis for a long-range interceptor that would replace by time the PVO's Tupolew Tu-28P (ASCC code "Fiddler"), a large aircraft armed solely with missiles.
Despite limitations, the Tu-28P served well in its role, but the concept of a very fast interceptor aircraft, lingered on, since the Soviet Union had large areas to defend against aerial intruders, esp. from the North and the East. High speed, coupled with long range and the ability to intercept an incoming target at long distances independently from ground guidance had high priority for the Soviet Air Defence Forces. Even though no official requirement was issued, the concept of Izdeliye 301 from the Seventies was eventually developed further into the fixed-wing "Izdeliye 701" ultra-long-range high-altitude interceptor in the 1980ies.
The impulse for this new approach came when Oleg S. Samoylovich joined the Mikoyan OKB after having worked at Suchoi OKB on the T-60S missile carrier project. Similar in overall design to the former 301, the 701 was primarily intended as a kind of successor for the MiG-31 Foxhound for the 21st century, which just had completed flight tests and was about to enter PVO's front line units.
Being based on a long range cruise missile carrier, the 701 would have been a huge plane, featuring a length of 30-31m, a wing span of 19m (featuring a highly swept double delta wing) and having a maximum TOW of 70 tons! Target performance figures included a top speed of 2.500km/h, a cruising speed of 2.100km/h at 17.000m and an effective range of 7.000km in supersonic or 11.000km in subsonic mode. Eventually, the 701 program was mothballed, too, being too ambitious and expensive for a specialized development that could also have been a fighter version of the Tu-22 bomber!
Anyway, while the MiG-31 was successfully introduced in 1979 and had evolved in into a capable long-range interceptor with a top speed of more than Mach 3 (limited to Mach 2.8 in order to protect the aircraft's structural integrity), MiG OKB decided in 1984 to take further action and to develop a next-generation technology demonstrator, knowing that even the formidable "Foxhound" was only an interim solution on the way to a true "Four plus" of even a 6th generation fighter. Other new threats like low-flying cruise missiles, the USAF's "Project Pluto" or the assumed SR-71 Mach 5 successor “Aurora” kept Soviet military officials on the edge of their seats, too.
Main objective was to expand the Foxhound's state-of the-art performance, and coiple it with modern features like aerodynamic instability, supercruise, stealth features and further development potential.
The aircraft's core mission objectives comprised:
- Provide strategic air defense and surveillance in areas not covered by ground-based air defense systems (incl. guidance of other aircraft with less sophisticated avionics)
- Top speed of Mach 3.2 or more in a dash and cruise at Mach 3.0 for prolonged periods
- Long range/high speed interception of airspace intruders of any kind, including low flying cruise missiles, UAVs and helicopters
- Intercept cruise missiles and their launch aircraft from sea level up to 30.000m altitude by reaching missile launch range in the lowest possible time after departing the loiter area
Because funding was scarce and no official GOR had been issued, the project was taken on as a private venture. The new project was internally known as "Izdeliye 710" or "71.0". It was based on both 301 and 701 layout ideas and the wind tunnel experiences with their unusual layouts, as well as Oleg Samoylovich's experience with the Suchoi T-4 Mach 3 bomber project and the T-60S.
"Izdeliye 710" was from the start intended only as a proof-of-concept prototype, yet fully functional. It would also incorporate new technologies like heat-resistant ceramics against kinetic heating at prolonged high speeds (the airframe had to resist temperatures of 300°C/570°F and more for considerable periods), but with potential for future development into a full-fledged interceptor, penetrator and reconnaissance aircraft.
Overall, “Izdeliye 710" looked like a shrinked version of a mix of both former MiG OKB 301 and 701 designs, limited to the MiG-31's weight class of about 40 tons TOW. Compared with the former designs, the airframe received an aerodynamically more refined, partly blended, slender fuselage that also incorporated mild stealth features like a “clean” underside, softened contours and partly shielded air intakes. Structurally, the airframe's speed limit was set at Mach 3.8.
From the earlier 301 design,the plane retained the variable geometry wing. Despite the system's complexity and weight, this solution was deemed to be the best approach for a combination of a high continuous top speed, extended loiter time in the mission’s patrol areas and good performance on improvised airfields. Minimum sweep was a mere 10°, while, fully swept at 68°, the wings blended into the LERXes. Additional lift was created through the fuselage shape itself, so that aerodynamic surfaces and therefore drag could be reduced.
Pilot and radar operator sat in tandem under a common canopy with rather limited sight. The cockpit was equipped with a modern glass cockpit with LCD screens. The aircraft’s two engines were, again, placed in a large, mutual nacelle on the upper rear fuselage, fed by large air intakes with two-dimensional vertical ramps and a carefully modulated airflow over the aircraft’s dorsal area.
Initially, the 71.0 was to be powered by a pair of Soloviev D-30F6 afterburning turbofans with a dry thrust of 93 kN (20,900 lbf) each, and with 152 kN (34,172 lbf) with full afterburner. These were the same engines that powered the MiG-31, but there were high hopes for the Kolesov NK-101 engine: a variable bypass engine with a maximum thrust in the 200kN range, at the time of the 71.0's design undergoing bench tests and originally developed for the advanced Suchoj T-4MS strike aircraft.
With the D-30F6, the 71.0 was expected to reach Mach 3.2 (making the aircraft capable of effectively intercepting the SR-71), but the NK-101 would offer in pure jet mode a top speed in excess of Mach 3.5 and also improve range and especially loiter time when running as a subsonic turbofan engine.
A single fin with an all-moving top and an additional deep rudder at its base was placed on top of the engine nacelle. Additional maneuverability at lower speed was achieved by retractable, all-moving foreplanes, stowed in narrow slits under the cockpit. Longitudinal stability at high speed was improved through deflectable stabilizers: these were kept horizontal for take-off and added to the overall lift, but they could be folded down by up to 60° in flight, acting additionally as stabilizer strakes.
Due to the aircraft’s slender shape and unique proportions, the 71.0 quickly received the unofficial nickname "жура́вль" (‘Zhurávl' = Crane). The aircaft’s stalky impression was emphasized even more through its unusual landing gear arrangement: Due to the limited internal space for the main landing gear wells between the weapons bay, the wing folding mechanisms and the engine nacelle, MiG OKB decided to incorporate a bicycle landing gear, normally a trademark of Yakovlew OKB designs, but a conventional landing gear could simply not be mounted, or its construction would have become much too heavy and complex.
In order to facilitate operations from improvised airfields and on snow the landing gear featured twin front wheels on a conventional strut and a single four wheel bogie as main wheels. Smaller, single stabilizer wheels were mounted on outriggers that retracted into slender fairings at the wings’ fixed section trailing edge, reminiscent of early Tupolev designs.
All standard air-to-air weaponry, as well as fuel, was to be carried internally. Main armament would be the K-100 missile (in service eventually designated R-100), stored in a large weapons bay behind the cockpit on a rotary mount. The K-100 had been under development at that time at NPO Novator, internally coded ‘Izdeliye 172’. The K-100 missile was an impressive weapon, and specifically designed to attack vital and heavily defended aerial targets like NATO’s AWACS aircraft at BVR distance.
Being 15’ (4.57 m) long and weighing 1.370 lb (620 kg), this huge ultra-long-range weapon had a maximum range of 250 mi (400 km) in a cruise/glide profile and attained a speed of Mach 6 with its solid rocket engine. This range could be boosted even further with a pair of jettisonable ramjets in tubular pods on the missile’s flanks for another 60 mi (100 km). The missile could attack targets ranging in altitude between 15 – 25,000 meters.
The weapon would initially be allocated to a specified target through the launch aircraft’s on-board radar and sent via inertial guidance into the target’s direction. Closing in, the K-100’s Agat 9B-1388 active seeker would identify the target, lock on, and independently attack it, also in coordination with other K-100’s shot at the same target, so that the attack would be coordinated in time and approach directions in order to overload defense and ensure a hit.
The 71.0’s internal mount could hold four of these large missiles, or, alternatively, the same number of the MiG-31’s R-33 AAMs. The mount also had a slot for the storage of additional mid- and short-range missiles for self-defense, e .g. three R-60 or two R-73 AAMs. An internal gun was not considered to be necessary, since the 71.0 or potential derivatives would fight their targets at very long distances and rather rely on a "hit-and-run" tactic, sacrificing dogfight capabilities for long loitering time in stand-by mode, high approach speed and outstanding acceleration and altitude performance.
Anyway, provisions were made to carry a Gsh-301-250 gun pod on a retractable hardpoint in the weapons bay instead of a K-100. Alternatively, such pods could be carried externally on four optional wing root pylons, which were primarily intended for PTB-1500 or PTB-3000 drop tanks, or further missiles - theoretically, a maximum of ten K-100 missiles could be carried, plus a pair of short-range AAMs.
Additionally, a "buddy-to-buffy" IFR set with a retractable drogue (probably the same system as used on the Su-24) was tested (71.2 was outfitted with a retractable refuelling probe in front of the cockpit), as well as the carriage of simple iron bombs or nuclear stores, to be delivered from very high altitudes. Several pallets with cameras and sensors (e .g. a high resolution SLAR) were also envisioned, which could easily replace the missile mounts and the folding weapon bay covers for recce missions.
Since there had been little official support for the project, work on the 710 up to the hardware stage made only little progress, since the MiG-31 already filled the long-range interceptor role in a sufficient fashion and offered further development potential.
A wooden mockup of the cockpit section was presented to PVO and VVS officials in 1989, and airframe work (including tests with composite materials on structural parts, including ceramic tiles for leading edges) were undertaken throughout 1990 and 1991, including test rigs for the engine nacelle and the swing wing mechanism.
Eventually, the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 suddenly stopped most of the project work, after two prototype airframes had been completed. Their internal designations were Izdeliye 71.1 and 71.2, respectively. It took a while until the political situation as well as the ex-Soviet Air Force’s status were settled, and work on Izdeliye 710 resumed at a slow pace.
After taking two years to be completed, 71.1 eventually made its roll-out and maiden flight in summer 1994, just when MiG-31 production had ended. MiG OKB still had high hopes in this aircraft, since the MiG-31 would have to be replaced in the next couple of years and "Izdeliye 710" was just in time for the potential procurement process. The first prototype wore a striking all-white livery, with dark grey ceramic tiles on the wings’ leading edges standing out prominently – in this guise and with its futuristic lines the slender aircraft reminded a lot of the American Space Shuttle.
71.1 was primarily intended for engine and flight tests (esp. for the eagerly awaited NK-101 engines), as well as for the development of the envisioned ramjet propulsion system for full-scale production and further development of Izdeliye 710 into a Mach 3+ interceptor. No mission avionics were initially fitted to this plane, but it carried a comprehensive test equipment suite and ballast.
Its sister ship 71.2 flew for the first time in late 1994, wearing a more unpretentious grey/bare metal livery. This plane was earmarked for avionics development and weapons integration, especially as a test bed for the K-100 missile, which shared Izdeliye 710’s fate of being a leftover Soviet project with an uncertain future and an even more corny funding outlook.
Anyway, aircraft 71.2 was from the start equipped with a complete RP-31 ('Zaslon-M') weapon control system, which had been under development at that time as an upgrade for the Russian MiG-31 fleet being part of the radar’s development program secured financial support from the government and allowed the flight tests to continue. The RP-31 possessed a maximum detection range of 400 km (250 mi) against airliner-sized targets at high altitude or 200 km against fighter-sized targets; the typical width of detection along the front was given as 225 km. The system could track 24 airborne targets at one time at a range of 120 km, 6 of which could be simultaneously attacked with missiles.
With these capabilities the RP-31 suite could, coupled with an appropriate carrier airframe, fulfil the originally intended airspace control function and would render a dedicated and highly vulnerable airspace control aircraft (like the Beriev A-50 derivative of the Il-76 transport) more or less obsolete. A group of four aircraft equipped with the 'Zaslon-M' suite would be able to permanently control an area of airspace across a total length of 800–900 km, while having ultra-long range weapons at hand to counter any intrusion into airspace with a quicker reaction time than any ground-based fighter on QRA duty. The 71.0, outfitted with the RP-31/K-100 system, would have posed a serious threat to any aggressor.
In March 1995 both prototypes were eventually transferred to the Kerchenskaya Guards Air Base at Savasleyka in the Oblast Vladimir, 300 km east of Mocsow, where they received tactical codes of '11 Blue' and '12 Blue'. Besides the basic test program and the RP-31/K-100 system tests, both machines were directly evaluated against the MiG-31 and Su-27 fighters by the Air Force's 4th TsBPi PLS, based at the same site.
Both aircraft exceeded expectations, but also fell short in certain aspects. The 71.0’s calculated top speed of Mach 3.2 was achieved during the tests with a top speed of 3,394 km/h (2.108 mph) at 21,000 m (69.000 ft). Top speed at sea level was confirmed at 1.200 km/h (745 mph) indicated airspeed.
Combat radius with full weapon load and internal fuel only was limited to 1,450 km (900 mi) at Mach 0.8 and at an altitude of 10,000 m (33,000 ft), though, and it sank to a mere 720 km (450 mi) at Mach 2.35 and at an altitude of 18,000 m (59,000 ft). Combat range with 4x K-100 internally and 2 drop tanks was settled at 3,000 km (1,860 mi), rising to 5,400 km (3,360 mi) with one in-flight refueling, tested with the 71.2. Endurance at altitude was only slightly above 3 hours, though. Service ceiling was 22,800 m (74,680 ft), 2.000 m higher than the MiG-31.
While these figures were impressive, Soviet officials were not truly convinced: they did not show a significant improvement over the simpler MiG-31. MiG OKB tried to persuade the government into more flight tests and begged for access to the NK-101, but the Soviet Union's collapse halted this project, too, so that both Izdeliye 710 had to keep the Soloviev D-30F6.
Little is known about the Izdeliye 710 project’s progress or further developments. The initial tests lasted until at least 1997, and obviously the updated MiG-31M received official favor instead of a completely new aircraft. The K-100 was also dropped, since the R-33 missile and later its R-37 derivative sufficiently performed in the long-range aerial strike role.
Development on the aircraft as such seemed to have stopped with the advent of modernized Su-27 derivatives and the PAK FA project, resulting in the Suchoi T-50 prototype. Unconfirmed reports suggest that one of the prototypes (probably 71.1) was used in the development of the N014 Pulse-Doppler radar with a passive electronically scanned array antenna in the wake of the MFI program. The N014 was designed with a range of 420 km, detection target of 250km to 1m and able to track 40 targets while able to shoot against 20.
Most interestingly, Izdeliye 710 was never officially presented to the public, but NATO became aware of its development through satellite pictures in the early Nineties and the aircraft consequently received the ASCC reporting codename "Fastback".
Until today, only the two prototypes have been known to exist, and it is assumed – had the type entered service – that the long-range fighter had received the official designation "MiG-41".
General characteristics:
Crew: 2 (Pilot, weapon system officer)
Length (incl. pitot): 93 ft 10 in (28.66 m)
Wingspan:
- minimum 10° sweep: 69 ft 4 in (21.16 m)
- maximum 68° sweep: 48 ft 9 in (14,88 m)
Height: 23 ft 1 1/2 in (7,06 m )
Wing area: 1008.9 ft² (90.8 m²)
Weight: 88.151 lbs (39.986 kg)
Performance:
Maximum speed:
- Mach 3.2 (2.050 mph (3.300 km/h) at height
- 995 mph (1.600 km/h) supercruise speed at 36,000 ft (11,000 m)
- 915 mph (1.470 km/h) at sea level
Range: 3.705 miles (5.955 km) with internal fuel
Service ceiling: 75.000 ft (22.500 m)
Rate of climb: 31.000 ft/min (155 m/s)
Engine:
2x Soloviev D-30F6 afterburning turbofans with a dry thrust of 93 kN (20,900 lbf) each
and with 152 kN (34,172 lbf) with full afterburner.
Armament:
Internal weapons bay, main armament comprises a flexible missile load; basic ordnance of 4x K-100 ultra long range AAMs plus 2x R-73 short-range AAMs: other types like the R-27, R-33, R-60 and R-77 have been carried and tested, too, as well as podded guns on internal and external mounts. Alternatively, the weapon bay can hold various sensor pallets.
Four hardpoints under the wing roots, the outer pair “wet” for drop tanks of up to 3.000 l capacity, ECM pods or a buddy-buddy refueling drogue system. Maximum payload mass is 9000 kg.
The kit and its assembly
The second entry for the 2017 “Soviet” Group Build at whatifmodelers.com – a true Frankenstein creation, based on the scarce information about the real (but never realized) MiG 301 and 701 projects, the Suchoj T-60S, as well as some vague design sketches you can find online and in literature.
This one had been on my project list for years and I already had donor kits stashed away – but the sheer size (where will I leave it once done…?) and potential complexity kept me from tackling it.
The whole thing was an ambitious project and just the unique layout with a massive engine nacelle on top of the slender fuselage instead of an all-in-one design makes these aircraft an interesting topic to build. The GB was a good motivator.
“My” fictional interpretation of the MiG concepts is mainly based on a Dragon B-1B in 1:144 scale (fuselage, wings), a PM Model Su-15 two seater (donating the nose section and the cockpit, as well as wing parts for the fin) and a Kangnam MiG-31 (for the engine pod and some small parts). Another major ingredient is a pair of horizontal stabilizers from a 1:72 Hasegawa A-5 Vigilante.
Fitting the cockpit section took some major surgery and even more putty to blend the parts smoothly together. Another major surgical area was the tail; the "engine box" came to be rather straightforward, using the complete rear fuselage section from the MiG-31 and adding the intakes form the same kit, but mounted horizontally with a vertical splitter.
Blending the thing to the cut-away tail section of the B-1 was quite a task, though, since I not only wanted to add the element to the fuselage, but rather make it look a bit 'organic'. More than putty was necessary, I also had to made some cuts and transplantations. And after six PSR rounds I stopped counting…
The landing gear was built from scratch – the front wheel comes mostly from the MiG-31 kit. The central bogie and its massive leg come from a VEB Plasticart 1:100 Tu-20/95 bomber, plus some additional struts. The outriggers are leftover landing gear struts from a Hobby Boss Fw 190, mated with wheels which I believe come from a 1:200 VEB Plasticart kit, an An-24. Not certain, though. The fairings are slender MiG-21 drop tanks blended into the wing training edge. For the whole landing gear, the covers were improvised with styrene sheet, parts from a plastic straw(!) or leftover bits from the B-1B.
The main landing gear well was well as the weapons’ bay themselves were cut into the B-1B underside and an interior scratched from sheet and various leftover materials – I tried to maximize their space while still leaving enough room for the B-1B kit’s internal VG mechanism.
The large missiles (two were visible fitted and the rotary launcher just visibly hinted at) are, in fact, AGM-78 ‘Standard’ ARMs in a fantasy guise. They look pretty Soviet, though, like big brothers of the already not small R-33 missiles from the MiG-31.
While not in the focus of attention, the cockpit interior is completely new, too – OOB, the Su-15 cockpit only has a floor and rather stubby seats, under a massive single piece canopy. On top of the front wheel well (from a Hasegawa F-4) I added a new floor and added side consoles, scratched from styrene sheet. F-4 dashboards improve the decoration, and I added a pair of Soviet election seats from the scrap box – IIRC left over from two KP MiG-19 kits.
The canopy was taken OOB, I just cut it into five parts for open display. The material’s thickness does not look too bad on this aircraft – after all, it would need a rather sturdy construction when flying at Mach 3+ and withstanding the respective pressures and temperatures.
Painting
As a pure whif, I was free to use a weirdo design - but I rejected this idea quickly. I did not want a garish splinter scheme or a bright “Greenbottle Fly” Su-27 finish.
With the strange layout of the aircraft, the prototype idea was soon settled – and Soviet prototypes tend to look very utilitarian and lusterless, might even be left in grey. Consequently, I adapted a kind of bare look for this one, inspired by the rather shaggy Soviet Tu-22 “Blinder” bombers which carried a mix of bare metal and white and grey panels. With additional black leading edges on the aerodynamic surfaces, this would create a special/provisional but still purposeful look.
For the painting, I used a mix of several metallizer tones from ModelMaster and Humbrol (including Steel, Magnesium, Titanium, as well as matt and polished aluminum, and some Gun Metal and Exhaust around the engine nozzles, partly mixed with a bit of blue) and opaque tones (Humbrol 147 and 127). The “scheme” evolved panel-wise and step by step. The black leading edges were an interim addition, coming as things evolved, and they were painted first with black acrylic paint as a rough foundation and later trimmed with generic black decal stripes (from TL Modellbau). A very convenient and clean solution!
The radomes on nose and tail and other di-electric panels became dark grey (Humbrol 125). The cockpit tub was painted with Soviet Cockpit Teal (from ModelMaster), while the cockpit opening and canopy frames were kept in a more modest medium grey (Revell 57). On the outside of the cabin windows, a fat, deep yellow sealant frame (Humbrol 93, actually “Sand”) was added.
The weapon bay was painted in a yellow-ish primer tone (seen on pics of Tu-160 bombers) while the landing gear wells received a mix of gold and sand; the struts were painted in a mixed color, too, made of Humbrol 56 (Aluminum) and 34 (Flat White). The green wheel discs (Humbrol 131), a typical Soviet detail, stand out well from the rather subdued but not boring aircraft, and they make a nice contrast to the red Stars and the blue tactical code – the only major markings, besides a pair of MiG OKB logos under the cockpit.
Decals were puzzled together from various sheets, and I also added a lot of stencils for a more technical look. In order to enhance the prototype look further I added some photo calibration markings on the nose and the tail, made from scratch.
A massive kitbashing project that I had pushed away for years - but I am happy that I finally tackled it, and the result looks spectacular. The "Firefox" similarity was not intended, but this beast really looks like a movie prop - and who knwos if the Firefox was not inspired by the same projects (the MiG 301 and 701) as my kitbash model?
The background info is a bit lengthy, but there's some good background info concerning the aforementioned projects, and this aircraft - as a weapon system - would have played a very special and complex role, so a lot of explanations are worthwhile - also in order to emphasize that I di not simply try to glue some model parts together, but rather try to spin real world ideas further.
Mighty bird!
+++ 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:
After the Ukrainian independence in 1991, the Ukrainian Air Force (Повітряні Сили України, Povitryani Syly Ukrayiny) was established on March 17, 1992, in accordance with a Directive of the General Staff Chief of the Armed Forces. When the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, many aircraft were left on Ukrainian territory, including a wide range of fighters and attack aircraft, helicopters and even strategic bombers, and these became the initial equipment. Ever since, the Ukrainian air force has been downsizing and upgrading its forces, but for many years the main inventory still consisted of Soviet-made aircraft.
Following the 2014 Ukrainian Revolution and subsequent March 2014 Russian annexation of the Crimea peninsula and the following violence and insurgency in east Ukraine, the Ukrainian government tried to increase its defense spending and capabilities. Returning equipment (of Russian origin, though) to service was a key part of the spending drive, but in parallel attempts were made to procure flying material from Western sources in order to become moer and more independent from the obtrusive neighbor. In April 2014 two MiG-29 aircraft were restored to flight on short notice and in August a decommissioned An-26 transport aircraft was restored to active service by a volunteer group. On 5 January 2015 the air force received another 4 restored airplanes, two MiG-29s and two Su-27s, as well as two Mi-8 and Mi-2 helicopters. However, since these aircraft had already accumulated a considerable number of flying hours, this could only have been an interim solution and the Ukraine turned directly to NATO for material support.
This politically highly delicate help was eventually granted in the form of eight General Dynamics F-16 C (six) and D (two) multi-role fighters of early Block 40 standard, leased from the U.S.A. and diverted from active aircraft which were about to become surplus stock and mothballed, anyway.
The F-16 Fighting Falcon itself was a single-engine supersonic multirole fighter aircraft originally developed by General Dynamics for the United States Air Force (USAF). Designed as a light air superiority day fighter as a complement to the heavier F-15 Eagle interceptor, it evolved into a successful all-weather multirole aircraft. Over 4,600 aircraft were built since production was approved in 1976. In 1993, General Dynamics sold its aircraft manufacturing business to the Lockheed Corporation, which in turn became part of Lockheed Martin after a 1995 merger with Martin Marietta.
Although no longer being purchased by the launch customer, the U.S. Air Force, improved versions are still being built for export customers – the F-16 has been procured to serve in the air forces of 25 other nations all around the world, making it one of the world's most numerous fixed-wing aircraft in military service.
The Fighting Falcon's key features include a frameless bubble canopy for better visibility, side-mounted control stick to ease control while maneuvering, an ejection seat reclined 30 degrees from vertical to reduce the effect of g-forces on the pilot, and the first use of a relaxed static stability/fly-by-wire flight control system which helps to make it an agile aircraft. The F-16 has an internal M61 Vulcan cannon and the advanced C/D version features a total of 11 locations for mounting weapons and other mission equipment.
The eight machines for the Ukraine arrived in June 2016 via direct transfer flights over the Atlantic and Western Europe. The former USAF machines were delivered “as is”, even though they had some state-of-the-art avionics replaced by less sensitive alternatives from older F-16 production blocks. Together with the fighters, an undisclosed number of AIM-9M Sidewinder and AIM-120 AMRAAM air-to-air missiles were delivered, but the leasing agreement did not include LANTIRN pods that would provide the F-16C/D with improved all-day/all-weather strike capability. Other equipment like ECM pods was also not included. Service, maintenance and logistics for the new type in Ukrainian service was, due to the small operational number, secured with the help of the Polish air force, which had been operating 48 F-16C/D+ Block 52 fighters since 2006 and had the required experience and facilities at its 31st Tactical Air Base in Poznań-Krzesiny.
Upon arrival, the aircraft were immediately re-painted in a striking digital camouflage and received non-consecutive tactical codes, apparently based on the airframe’s former U.S. serial numbers, using the last two digits. They were all allocated to the 40th Tactical Aviation Brigade, based at Vasylkiv air base, south of Kiev, where they replaced a number of outdated and partly grounded MiG-29 fighters. They were exclusively tasked with aerial defense of the Ukrainian capital city – also as a political sign that the machines were not intended for attack missions.
Since their introduction, the Ukrainian F-16s have been fulfilling QRA duties and airspace patrol, and the corresponding maintenance infrastructure has been gradually built up, so that F-16 operations became independent from Poland in 2019. With the worsening relationship to Russia, more military hardware of Western origin is expected to enter Ukrainian service. If the tight Ukrainian defense budget allows it, twenty more 2nd hand F-16s are to be delivered in 2021 to replace more Soviet fighter types (primarily the rest of the Ukrainian MiG-29 “Fulcrum” single and two seater fleet), and the procurement of LANTIRN pods to expand the type’s capabilities is under consideration and negotiations, too.
General characteristics:
Length: 49 ft 5 in (15.06 m)
Wingspan: 32 ft 8 in (9.96 m)
Height: 16 ft (4.9 m)
Wing area: 300 sq ft (28 m²)
Airfoil: NACA 64A204
Empty weight: 18,900 lb (8,573 kg)
Gross weight: 26,500 lb (12,020 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 42,300 lb (19,187 kg)
Internal fuel capacity: 7,000 pounds (3,200 kg)
Powerplant:
1× General Electric F110-GE-100 afterburning turbofan
with 17,155 lbf (76.31 kN) dry and 28,600 lbf (127 kN) thrust with afterburner
Performance:
Maximum speed: Mach 2.05 at altitude in clean configuration
Mach 1.2, 800 kn (921 mph; 1,482 km/h) at sea level
Combat range: 295 nmi (339 mi, 546 km) on a hi-lo-hi mission with 4x 1,000 lb (454 kg) bombs
Ferry range: 2,277 nmi (2,620 mi, 4,217 km) with drop tanks
Service ceiling: 50,000 ft (15,000 m) plus
g limits: +9.0 (limited by flight control system)
Rate of climb: +50,000 ft/min (250 m/s)
Wing loading: 88.3 lb/sq ft (431 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 1.095 (1.24 with loaded weight & 50% internal fuel)
Armament:
1× 20 mm (0.787 in) M61A1 Vulcan 6-barrel rotary cannon with 511 rounds
2× wing-tip air-to-air missile launch rails plus 6× under-wing
and 3× under-fuselage pylon (2 of these for sensors) stations
with a capacity of up to 17,000 lb (7,700 kg) of a wide range of stores
The kit and its assembly:
I am not a big F-16 fan, but in some cases it’s an unavoidable canvas – just like in this case here. This fictional aircraft model (or better: this model of a [yet] fictional F-16 operator) was spawned by two ideas. One was the simple question: what if the Ukraine had after the USSR’s dissolution chosen a stronger attachment to (old) Western forces after the dissolution of the USSSR? And/or: what if the Ukraine had started to procure non-Russian equipment, esp. aircraft? So, what would an Ukrainian F-16 might have looked like, in general but esp. after the Crimea annexation in 2014 when such a scenario had become even more possible?
The other source of inspiration was a picture of an Ukrainian Su-24 with grey digital camouflage, a scheme that was/is also worn by some Su-25s. When I stumbled upon an Authentic Decals sheet for this unique paint scheme that allows to apply the complex and delicate pattern through water-slide transfers, I thought that the relatively “flat” F-16 surface would be an ideal basis to try this stunt?
What sounded like a very simple livery whif on an OOB model turned into a construction nightmare. Originally, this project provided me with a purpose for a dubious Trumpeter F-16 kit that I had bought some years ago – dead cheap, but righteously so. This kit is cruel, the model even has no concrete variant specification and is apparently the re-boxing of a kit from an obscure Chinese company called “Income”. Effectively, the Trumpeter F-16 is a rip-off of Italeri’s quite nice F-16C/D kit – but the Income/Trumpeter clone comes with MUCH deeper engravings esp. on the fuselage that remind a lot of the dreaded Matchbox “trenches”. Everything is rather “soft” and toylike, the clear parts are poor and the (few) decals look like toy stickers (!!!). I’d call it crude, even the instructions are apparently poor scans or photocopies from the Italeri kit, including hints for detail painting with no corresponding reference what colors should be used at all… All that could have been overlooked, but after starting with the kit I could not commit myself to use it any further. It’s rare that I give up because of a kit’s basis!
Next idea to “save” the project’s idea of an Ukrainian F-16 was to dig out a surplus Intech F-16 from the pile, also bought long ago because it was cheap, as conversion fodder. This kit has also been re-released in infinite variations under the Mister-/Mastercraft label. Upon closer inspection this kit turned out to have massive flaws, too, but in different areas from the Trumpeter thing. For instance, the Intech kit’s wings are utterly thick, certainly 1mm thicker than the Trumpeter model’s parts. This does not sound much, but on the really thin F-16 wings and stabilizers this looks really awful! Furthermore, the clear parts had not been fully molded, so I’d have needed a replacement canopy, anyway. Again, I gave up on building…
…until I decided to make the best of this mess and combine the “best” parts from both gimp models, trying to mend the worst flaws to an acceptable level. This led to the glorious kitbashing that this model eventually became! From the Intech kit I took the acceptable fuselage, including cockpit interior, air intake and landing gear, as well as the fin and the weapon pylons. The Trumpeter kit donated its thinner wings and the stabilizers, as well as the much better open exhaust nozzle (there’s an optional closed one, too; the Intech kit only offers an open nozzle, without ANY surface detail at all, it’s just a blank pipe!).
Beyond these basic ingredients, some more donors became necessary: All clear parts from both Intech and Trumpeter kit turned out to be rubbish for various reasons. The decision to build an F-16D two-seater was dictated by the fact that I had a leftover canopy from an Italeri F-16 kit in the donor bank – luckily it fitted well to the Intech kit’s body. Two crewmen from the spares box populate the cockpit and hide the rather basic interior, which was not improved at all. Furthermore, the ordnance came from external sources, too. The characteristic drop tanks with their cut-off tails were also leftover parts from the Italeri F-16, all AAMs come from a Hasegawa weapon set.
Some PSR was necessary to blend the parts from different kits together – thankfully, almost all F-16 kits are constructed in a similar fashion, even though there are small detail differences. In this case, the wings had to be slightly modified to fit onto the Intech fuselage. However, even those parts from the original kit(s) that are supposed to fit, e.g. the fin or the alternative cockpit opening frames for the optional single- and two-seater canopies, do hardly match at all. Horrible.
I rather focused on the model’s exterior, and a personal addition to improve the overall look of the otherwise rather basic/poor model, I added some small blade antennae that were totally missing on either model. Another extra detail are the small static dischargers on the trailing edges, created with thin, heated sprue material. Only small details, but they improve IMHO the model’s look considerably.
Painting and markings:
Until today, I never dared to apply decal camouflage to a model, but I expected that the flat/smooth F-16 surface would make this stunt relatively easy. This application method would also make painting the model easy, since only a single, uniform color had to be laid down from above and below.
To my surprise, the painting instructions of the Authentic Decals sheet for a number of Ukrainian Su-25 (which all carry the same standardized pixel camouflage) indicated RAL tones – a little surprising, but: why not? Since no other authentic color references were available, I cross-checked the paint suggestions with real life pictures of Su-24s and -25s in this striking paint scheme, and the indicated tones appear very plausible.
The problem: not every RAL tone is available as a model paint, so I had to make guesstimates. This eventually led to Modelmaster 2133 (Fulcrum Grey) as a light grey overall basis (suggested: RAL 7030 Achatgrau/Agate Grey, a tone with a brownish hue) from above and Humbrol 47 (Sea Blue Gloss) for a pale blue underside. The recommendation for the belly is RAL 7001 (Silbergrau/Silver Grey, very close to FS 36375), and this appears plausible, too, even though real-life pictures suggest a more bluish tone. But for a more dramatic look and some color contrast to the upper side’s all-grey I deliberately settled upon the Humbrol color, and this looks IMHO good.
The other suggested grey tones that make up the pixel patterns are RAL 7040 (Fenstergrau/Window Grey), RAL 7037 (Staubgrau/Dust Grey) and RAL 7043 (Verkehrsgrau B/Traffic Grey).
The cockpit interior was painted in medium grey (FS 36231, Humbrol 140), the air intake and the landing gear in white (Humbrol 22). The exhaust nozzle was painted externally with individual Metallizer mixes (with blue and gold added), while the inside was painted with Burnt Steel Metallizer towards the afterburner section while the ceramic nozzle petals were painted in a pale, almost white grey with darker lines, applied wet-in-wet. This looks pretty good – but does not withstand a closer inspection, just like the rest of this Franken-bashed F-16 thing.
Applying the digital camouflage pattern went better than expected. The decals turned out to be very thin and delicate, though, with almost no excessive clear film outside of the printed areas, so that application had to be executed swiftly and with lots of water to slide them into place. Nothing for modelers who are faint at heart! Because the single pixel clouds partly follow the Su-25 outlines, the decals had partly to be tailored to the rather different F-16 shape, and due to the different proportions I also had to improvise with the material at hand – fortunately the Su-25 sheet offered enough material to cover the F-16! Some small areas lacked decal material and had to be filled through painting, though, with replacement model paints for the aforementioned darker RAL greys, namely Humbrol 246 (RLM 75) and a 2:1 mix of Humbrol 125 and 67. The lightest grey on the prints turned out to be very close to the Fulcrum Grey, so there’s unfortunately very little contrast, and this only became clear after the decals had already dried. However, I left it that way, because lightening the Fulcrum Grey up further would have been a quite messy affair, ending in a rather dirty look that I wanted to avoid, and it had called for an almost white tone.
Another challenge became the weathering process, since I normally apply a black ink wash and some post-panel shading to the finished and painted model before I add the decals to a model. Fearing that the ink might creep under the decals’ clear sections, I left that step out completely. The delicate static dischargers were another complicating factor. So, I decided to finish the upper camouflage with the light grey base and the decals cammo first. This made trimming down excess decal material easier. After that had been roughly finished, the dischargers were added and the underside was painted blue. On top of that came the “normal” decals with national markings, codes and stencils. The latter were mostly taken from a vintage Microscale F-16 sheet, the tactical code came from a Begemot Ka-27 sheet. Since the bort number on the air intake was not well visible frame every angle, I added a white 77 to the fin, too. Thereafter I added some panel lines with the help of thinned black ink and a soft pencil. This way the model appears pretty clean, and I think that’s fine since many recent Ukrainian aircraft I know from pictures look well-tended. Finally, the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish overall.
A simple F-16 in alternative markings – that’s what this model was supposed to be. I did not expect that the building phase would become such a challenge, and I’d sincerely recommend to any modeler who wants to build a “serious” F-16 in 1:72 to stay away from the Trumpeter and the Intech/Mister-/Mastercraft kits. They might be cheap, but that does not outweigh their flaws and building troubles.
Beyond these technical issues, I like the look of this “Ukrainized” Viper, the digital camouflage looks very special and works well on the aircraft. The light grey base could have been lighter, though. In fact, the F-16 now looks like an exaggerated U.S. Aggressor on first sight, but with the Ukrainian markings the whole thing looks pretty different and conclusive - a “what if” in the best sense. 😉
Some background:
The VF-1 was developed by Stonewell/Bellcom/Shinnakasu for the U.N. Spacy by using alien Overtechnology obtained from the SDF-1 Macross alien spaceship. Its production was preceded by an aerodynamic proving version of its airframe, the VF-X. Unlike all later VF vehicles, the VF-X was strictly a jet aircraft, built to demonstrate that a jet fighter with the features necessary to convert to Battroid mode was aerodynamically feasible. After the VF-X's testing was finished, an advanced concept atmospheric-only prototype, the VF-0 Phoenix, was flight-tested from 2005 to 2007 and briefly served as an active-duty fighter from 2007 to the VF-1's rollout in late 2008, while the bugs were being worked out of the full-up VF-1 prototype (VF-X-1).
The space-capable VF-1's combat debut was on February 7, 2009, during the Battle of South Ataria Island - the first battle of Space War I - and remained the mainstay fighter of the U.N. Spacy for the entire conflict. Introduced in 2008, the VF-1 would be out of frontline service just five years later, though.
The VF-1 proved to be an extremely capable craft, successfully combating a variety of Zentraedi mecha even in most sorties which saw UN Spacy forces significantly outnumbered. The versatility of the Valkyrie design enabled the variable fighter to act as both large-scale infantry and as air/space superiority fighter. The signature skills of U.N. Spacy ace pilot Maximilian Jenius exemplified the effectiveness of the variable systems as he near-constantly transformed the Valkyrie in battle to seize advantages of each mode as combat conditions changed from moment to moment.
The basic VF-1 was deployed in four sub-variants (designated A, D, J, and S) and its success was increased by continued development of various enhancements including the GBP-1S "Armored" Valkyrie, FAST Pack "Super" Valkyrie and the additional RÖ-X2 heavy cannon pack weapon system for the VF-1S for additional firepower. The FAST Pack system was designed to enhance the VF-1 Valkyrie variable fighter, and the initial V1.0 came in the form of conformal pallets that could be attached to the fighter’s leg flanks for additional fuel – primarily for Long Range Interdiction tasks in atmospheric environment. Later FAST Packs were designed for space operations.
After the end of Space War I, the VF-1 continued to be manufactured both in the Sol system and throughout the UNG space colonies. Although the VF-1 would be replaced in 2020 as the primary Variable Fighter of the U.N. Spacy by the more capable, but also much bigger, VF-4 Lightning III, a long service record and continued production after the war proved the lasting worth of the design.
The versatile aircraft underwent constant upgrade programs. For instance, about a third of all VF-1 Valkyries were upgraded with Infrared Search and Track (IRST) systems from 2016 onwards, placed in a streamlined fairing in front of the cockpit. This system allowed for long-range search and track modes, freeing the pilot from the need to give away his position with active radar emissions, and it could also be used for target illumination and guiding precision weapons.
Many Valkyries also received improved radar warning systems, with sensor arrays, depending on the systems, mounted on the wing-tips, on the fins and/or on the LERXs. Improved ECR measures were also added to some machines, typically in conformal fairings on the flanks of the legs/engine pods.
The U.N.S. Marine Corps, which evolved from the United States Marine Corps after the national service was transferred to the global U.N. Spacy command in 2008, was a late adopter of the VF-1, because the Valkyries’ as well as the Destroids’ potential for landing operations was underestimated. But especially the VF-1’s versatility and VTOL capabilities made it a perfect candidate as a replacement for the service’s AV-8B Harrier II and AH-1 Cobra fleet in the close air support (CAS) and interdiction role. The first VF-1s were taken into service in January 2010 by SVMF-49 “Vikings” at Miramar Air Base in California/USA, and other units followed soon, immediately joining the battle against the Zentraedi forces.
The UNSMC’s VF-1s were almost identical to the standard Valkyries, but they had from the start additional hardpoints for light loads like sensor pods added to their upper legs, on the lower corners of the air intake ducts. These were intended to carry FLIR, laser target designators (for respective guided smart weapons) or ECM pods, while freeing the swiveling underwing hardpoints to offensive ordnance.
Insisting on their independent heritage, the UNSMC’s Valkyries were never repainted in the U.N. Spacy’s standard tan and white livery. They either received a unique two tone low visibility gray paint scheme (the fighter units) or retained paint schemes that were typical for their former units, including some all-field green machines or VF-1s in a disruptive wraparound livery in grey, green and black.
Beyond A and J single-seaters (the UNSMC did not receive the premium S variant), a handful of VF-1D two-seaters were upgraded to the UNSMC’s specification and very effectively operated in the FAC (Forward Air Control) role, guiding both long-range artillery as well as attack aircraft against enemy positions.
The UNSMC’s VF-1s suffered heavy losses, though – for instance, SVMF-49 was completely wiped out during the so-called “Zentraedi Rain of Death” in April 2011, when the Zentraedi Imperial Grand Fleet, consisting of nearly five million warships, appeared in orbit around the Earth. Commanded by Dolza, Supreme Commander of the Zentraedi, they were ordered to incinerate the planet's surface, which they did. 70% of the Earth was utterly destroyed, according to the staff at Alaska Base. Dolza initially believed this to be total victory, until a massive energy pulse began to form on the Earth's surface. This was the Grand Cannon, a weapon of incredible destructive power that the Zentraedi were unaware of, and it disintegrated a good deal of the armada that was hanging over the Northern Hemisphere. While the Zentraedi were successful in rendering the weapon inoperable before it could fire a second time, the SDF-1 began a counterattack of its own alongside the renegade Imperial-Class Fleet and Seventh Mechanized Space Division, which destroyed the Imperial Grand Fleet. After this event, though, the UNSMC as well as other still independent services like the U.N. Navy were dissolved and the respective units integrated into the all-encompassing U.N. Spacy.
The VF-1 was without doubt the most recognizable variable fighter of Space War I and was seen as a vibrant symbol of the U.N. Spacy even into the first year of the New Era 0001 in 2013. At the end of 2015 the final rollout of the VF-1 was celebrated at a special ceremony, commemorating this most famous of variable fighters. The VF-1 Valkryie was built from 2006 to 2013 with a total production of 5,459 VF-1 variable fighters with several variants (VF-1A = 5,093, VF-1D = 85, VF-1J = 49, VF-1S = 30, VF-1G = 12, VE-1 = 122, VT-1 = 68)
However, the fighter remained active in many second line units and continued to show its worthiness years later, e. g. through Milia Jenius who would use her old VF-1 fighter in defense of the colonization fleet - 35 years after the type's service introduction!
General characteristics:
All-environment variable fighter and tactical combat Battroid,
used by U.N. Spacy, U.N. Navy, U.N. Space Air Force and U.N.S. Marine Corps
Accommodation:
Pilot only in Marty & Beck Mk-7 zero/zero ejection seat
Dimensions:
Fighter Mode:
Length 14.23 meters
Wingspan 14.78 meters (at 20° minimum sweep)
Height 3.84 meters
Battroid Mode:
Height 12.68 meters
Width 7.3 meters
Length 4.0 meters
Empty weight: 13.25 metric tons;
Standard T-O mass: 18.5 metric tons;
MTOW: 37.0 metric tons
Power Plant:
2x Shinnakasu Heavy Industry/P&W/Roice FF-2001 thermonuclear reaction turbine engines, output 650 MW each, rated at 11,500 kg in standard or 225.63 kN in overboost
4x Shinnakasu Heavy Industry NBS-1 high-thrust vernier thrusters (1 x counter reverse vernier thruster nozzle mounted on the side of each leg nacelle/air intake, 1 x wing thruster roll control system on each wingtip)
18x P&W LHP04 low-thrust vernier thrusters beneath multipurpose hook/handles
Performance:
Battroid Mode: maximum walking speed 160 km/h
Fighter Mode: at 10,000 m Mach 2.71; at 30,000+ m Mach 3.87
g limit: in space +7
Thrust-to-weight ratio: empty 3.47; standard T-O 2.49; maximum T-O 1.24
Design Features:
3-mode variable transformation; variable geometry wing; vertical take-off and landing; control-configurable vehicle; single-axis thrust vectoring; three "magic hand" manipulators for maintenance use; retractable canopy shield for Battroid mode and atmospheric reentry; option of GBP-1S system, atmospheric-escape booster, or FAST Pack system
Transformation:
Standard time from Fighter to Battroid (automated): under 5 sec.
Min. time from Fighter to Battroid (manual): 0.9 sec.
Armament:
2x Mauler RÖV-20 anti-aircraft laser cannon, firing 6,000 pulses per minute
1x Howard GU-11 55 mm three-barrel Gatling gun pod with 200 RPG, fired at 1,200 rds/min
4x underwing hard points for a wide variety of ordnance, including…
12x AMM-1 hybrid guided multipurpose missiles (3/point), or
12x MK-82 LDGB conventional bombs (3/point), or
6x RMS-1 large anti-ship reaction missiles (2/outboard point, 1/inboard point), or
4x UUM-7 micro-missile pods (1/point) each carrying 15 x Bifors HMM-01 micro-missiles,
or a combination of above load-outs
2x auxiliary hardpoints on the legs for light loads like a FLIR sensor, laser rangefinder/
target designator or ECM pod (typically not used for offensive ordnance)
The kit and its assembly:
This fictional VF-1 was born from spontaneous inspiration and the question if the USMC could have adopted the Valkyrie within the Macross time frame and applied its rather special grey/green/black paint scheme from the Nineties that was carried by AH-1s, CH-46s and also some OV-10s.
The model is a simple, vintage ARII VF-1 in Fighter mode, in this case a VF-1D two-seater that received the cockpit section and the head unit from a VF-1J Gerwalk model to create a single seater. While the parts are interchangeable, the Gerwalk and the Fighter kit have different molds for the cockpit sections and the canopies, too. This is mostly evident through the lack of a front landing gear well under the Gerwalk's cockpit - I had to "carve" a suitable opening into the bottom of the nose, but that was not a problem.
The kit was otherwiese built OOB, with the landing gear down and (finally, after the scenic flight pictures) with an open canopy for final display among the rest of my VF-1 fleet. However, I added some non-canonical small details like small hardpoints on the upper legs and the FLIR and targeting pods on them, scratched from styrene bits.
The ordnance was changed from twelve AMM-1 missiles under the wings to something better suited for attack missions. Finding suitable material became quite a challenge, though. I eventually settled on a pair of large laser-guided smart bombs and two pairs of small air-to-ground missile clusters. The LGBs are streamlined 1:72 2.000 lb general purpose bombs, IIRC from a Hobby Boss F-5E kit, and the launch tubes were scratched from a pair of Bazooka starters from an Academy 1:72 P-51 kit. The ventral standard GU-11 pod was retained and modified to hold a scratched wire display for in-flight pictures at its rear end.
Some blade antennae were added around the hull as a standard measure to improve the simple kit’s look. The cockpit was taken OOB, I just added a pilot figure for the scenic shots and the thick canopy was later mounted on a small lift arm in open position.
Painting and markings:
Adapting the characteristic USMC three-tone paint scheme for the VF-1 was not easy; I used the symmetric pattern from the AH-1s as starting point for the fuselage and gradually evolved it onto the wings into an asymmetric free-form pattern, making sure that the areas where low-viz roundels and some vital stencils would sit on grey for good contrast and readability. The tones became authentic: USMC Field Green (FS 34095, Humbrol 105), USN Medium Grey (FS 35237, Humbrol 145) and black (using Revell 06 Tar Black, which is a very dark grey and not pure black). For some contrast the wings' leading edges were painted with a sand brown/yellow (Humbrol 94).
The landing gear became standard white (Revell 301), the cockpit interior medium grey (Revell 47) with a black ejection seat with brown cushions, and the air intakes as well as the interior of the VG wings dark grey (Revell 77). To set the camouflaged nose radome apart I gave it a slightly different shade of green. The GU-11 pod became bare metal (Revell 91). The LGBs were painted olive drab overall while the AGMs became light grey.
Roundels as well as the UNSMC and unit tags were printed at home in black on clear decal sheet. The unit markings came from an Academy OV-10. The modex came from an 1:72 Revell F8F sheet. Stencils becvame eitrher black or white to keep the low-viz look, just a few tiny color highlights bereak the camouflage up. Some of the characteristic vernier thrusters around the hull are also self-made decals.
Finally, after some typical details and position lights were added with clear paint over a silver base, the small VF-1 was sealed with a coat of matt acrylic varnish.
A spontaneous interim project - and the UMSC's three-tone paint scheme suits the VF-1 well, which might have been a very suitable aircraft for this service and its mission profiles. I am still a bit uncertain about the camouflage's effectiveness, though - yes, it's disruptive, but the color contrasts are so high that a hiding effect seems very poor, even though I find that the scheme works well over urban terrain? It's fictional, though, and even though there are canonical U.N.S. Marines VF-1s to be found in literature, none I came across so far carried this type of livery.
+++ 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!
Power can significantly change a person's personality. Maybe even transform it. To fight hubris syndrome, we must begin by fighting our tendency to admire power.Power has always inspired writers. Hubris syndrome "- when power drives an individual mad - would also have transfigured a large number of historical personalities.
Hubris (/ˈhjuːbrɪs/, also hybris, from ancient Greek ὕβρις) describes a personality quality of extreme or foolish pride or dangerous overconfidence.[1] In its ancient Greek context, it typically describes behavior that defies the norms of behavior or challenges the gods, and which in turn brings about the downfall, or nemesis, of the perpetrator of hubris.
The adjectival form of the noun hubris is "hubristic". Hubris is usually perceived as a characteristic of an individual rather than a group, although the group the offender belongs to may suffer collateral consequences from the wrongful act. Hubris often indicates a loss of contact with reality and an overestimation of one's own competence, accomplishments or capabilities. Contrary to common expectations,[by whom?] hubris is not necessarily associated with high self-esteem but with highly fluctuating or variable self-esteem, and a gap between inflated self perception and a more modest reality. In ancient Greek, hubris referred to actions that shamed and humiliated the victim for the pleasure or gratification of the abuser. The term had a strong sexual connotation, and the shame reflected upon the perpetrator as well. Violations of the law against hubris included what might today be termed assault and battery; sexual crimes; or the theft of public or sacred property. Two well-known cases are found in the speeches of Demosthenes, a prominent statesman and orator in ancient Greece. These two examples occurred when first Midias punched Demosthenes in the face in the theatre (Against Midias), and second when (in Against Conon) a defendant allegedly assaulted a man and crowed over the victim. Yet another example of hubris appears in Aeschines' Against Timarchus, where the defendant, Timarchus, is accused of breaking the law of hubris by submitting himself to prostitution and anal intercourse. Aeschines brought this suit against Timarchus to bar him from the rights of political office and his case succeeded. In ancient Athens, hubris was defined as the use of violence to shame the victim (this sense of hubris could also characterize rape. Aristotle defined hubris as shaming the victim, not because of anything that happened to the committer or might happen to the committer, but merely for that committer's own gratification: to cause shame to the victim, not in order that anything may happen to you, nor because anything has happened to you, but merely for your own gratification. Hubris is not the requital of past injuries; this is revenge. As for the pleasure in hubris, its cause is this: naive men think that by ill-treating others they make their own superiority the greater. Crucial to this definition are the ancient Greek concepts of honour (τιμή, timē) and shame (αἰδώς, aidōs). The concept of honour included not only the exaltation of the one receiving honour, but also the shaming of the one overcome by the act of hubris. This concept of honour is akin to a zero-sum game. Rush Rehm simplifies this definition of hubris to the contemporary concept of "insolence, contempt, and excessive violence".In Greek mythology, when a figure's hubris offends the pagan gods of ancient Greece, it is usually punished; examples of such hubristic, sinful humans include Icarus, Phaethon, Arachne, Salmoneus, Niobe, Cassiopeia, and Tereus. The concept of hubris is not only derived from Greek philosophy - as it is found in Plato and Aristotle - but also from the theatre, where it allows us to tell the story of great epics, where success goes up to the head of the hero, who claims to rise to the rank of gods; it is then ruthlessly put in its place by Nemesis, the goddess of vengeance. The Greek hybris refers to the excesses and their disastrous consequences.
In its modern usage, hubris denotes overconfident pride combined with arrogance.[10] Hubris is often associated with a lack of humility. Sometimes a person's hubris is also associated with ignorance. The accusation of hubris often implies that suffering or punishment will follow, similar to the occasional pairing of hubris and nemesis in Greek mythology. The proverb "pride goeth (goes) before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall" (from the biblical Book of Proverbs, 16:18) is thought to sum up the modern use of hubris. Hubris is also referred to as "pride that blinds" because it often causes a committer of hubris to act in foolish ways that belie common sense.[11] In other words, the modern definition may be thought of as, "that pride that goes just before the fall."
Examples of hubris are often found in literature, most famously in John Milton's Paradise Lost, in which Lucifer attempts to compel the other angels to worship him, is cast into hell by God and the innocent angels, and proclaims: "Better to reign in hell than serve in heaven." Victor in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein manifests hubris in his attempt to become a great scientist by creating life through technological means, but comes to regret his project. Marlowe's play Doctor Faustus portrays the eponymous character as a scholar whose arrogance and pride compel him to sign a deal with the Devil, and retain his haughtiness until his death and damnation, despite the fact that he could easily have repented had he chosen to do so.
Charisma, charm, the ability to inspire, persuasiveness, breadth of vision, willingness to take risks, grandiose aspirations and bold self-confidence—these qualities are often associated with successful leadership. Yet there is another side to this profile, for these very same qualities can be marked by impetuosity, a refusal to listen to or take advice and a particular form of incompetence when impulsivity, recklessness and frequent inattention to detail predominate. This can result in disastrous leadership and cause damage on a large scale. The attendant loss of capacity to make rational decisions is perceived by the general public to be more than ‘just making a mistake’. While they may use discarded medical or colloquial terms, such as ‘madness’ or ‘he's lost it’, to describe such behaviour, they instinctively sense a change of behaviour although their words do not adequately capture its essence. A common thread tying these elements together is hubris, or exaggerated pride, overwhelming self-confidence and contempt for others (Owen, 2006). How may we usefully think about a leader who hubristically abuses power, damaging the lives of others? Some see it as nothing more than the extreme manifestation of normal behaviour along a spectrum of narcissism. Others simply dismiss hubris as an occupational hazard of powerful leaders, politicians or leaders in business, the military and academia; an unattractive but understandable aspect of those who crave power. But the matter can be formulated differently so that it becomes appropriate to think of hubris in medical terms. It then becomes necessary first to rule out conditions such as bipolar (manic-depressive) disorder, in which grandiosity may be a prominent feature. From the medical perspective, a number of questions other than the practicalities of treatment can be raised. For example can physicians and psychiatrists help in identifying features of hubris and contribute to designing legislation, codes of practice and democratic processes to constrain some of its features? Can neuroscientists go further and discover through brain imaging and other techniques more about the presentations of abnormal personality? (Goodman et al., 2007).
We see the relevance of hubris by virtue of it being a trait or a propensity towards certain attitudes and behaviours. A certain level of hubris can indicate a shift in the behavioural pattern of a leader who then becomes no longer fully functional in terms of the powerful office held. First, several characteristics of hubris are easily thought of as adaptive behaviours either in a modified context or when present with slightly less intensity. The most illustrative such example is impulsivity, which can be adaptive in certain contexts. More detailed study of powerful leaders is needed to see whether it is mere impulsivity that leads to haphazard decision making, or whether some become impulsive because they inhabit a more emotional grandiose and isolated culture of decision making.
We believe that extreme hubristic behaviour is a syndrome, constituting a cluster of features (‘symptoms’) evoked by a specific trigger (power), and usually remitting when power fades. ‘Hubris syndrome’ is seen as an acquired condition, and therefore different from most personality disorders which are traditionally seen as persistent throughout adulthood. The key concept is that hubris syndrome is a disorder of the possession of power, particularly power which has been associated with overwhelming success, held for a period of years and with minimal constraint on the leader.
The ability to make swift decisions, sometimes based on little evidence, is of particular importance—arguably necessary—in a leader. Similarly, a thin-skinned person will not be able to stand the process of public scrutiny, attacks by opponents and back-stabbings from within, without some form of self-exultation and grand belief about their own mission and importance. Powerful leaders are a highly selected sample and many criteria of any syndrome based on hubris are those behaviours by which they are probably selected—they make up the pores of the filter through which such individuals must pass to achieve high office.
Hubris is associated in Greek mythology with Nemesis. The syndrome, however, develops irrespective of whether the individual's leadership is judged a success or failure; and it is not dependent on bad outcomes. For the purpose of clarity, given that these are retrospective judgements, we have determined that the syndrome is best confined to those who have no history of a major depressive illness that could conceivably be a manifestation of bipolar disorder.
Hubris is acquired, therefore, over a period. The full blown hubris, associated with holding considerable power in high office, may or may not be transient. There is a moving scale of hubris and no absolute cut-off in definition or the distinction from fully functional leadership. External events can influence the variation both in intensity and time of onset.
Dictators are particularly prone to hubris because there are few, if any, constraints on their behaviour. Here, this complex area is not covered but one of us has considered the matter elsewhere (Owen, 2008). Hitler's biographer, Ian Kershaw (1998, 2000), entitled his first volume 1889–1936 Hubris and the second 1936–1945 Nemesis. Stalin's hubris was not as marked or as progressive as Hitler's. As for Mussolini and Mao both had hubris but probably each also had bipolar disorder. Khrushchev was diagnosed as having hypomania and there is some evidence that Saddam Hussein had bipolar disease (Owen, 2008).
Being elected to high office for a democratic leader is a significant event. Subsequent election victories appear to increase the likelihood of hubristic behaviour becoming hubris syndrome. Facing a crisis situation such as a looming or actual war or facing potential financial disaster may further increase hubris. But only the more developed cases of hubris deserve classification as a syndrome exposed as an occupational hazard in those made vulnerable by circumstance.
Hubris syndrome and its characteristics
Unlike most personality disorders, which appear by early adulthood, we view hubris syndrome as developing only after power has been held for a period of time, and therefore manifesting at any age. In this regard, it follows a tradition which acknowledges the existence of pathological personality change, such as the four types in ICD-10: enduring personality change after trauma, psychiatric illness, chronic pain or unspecified type (ICD-10, 1994)—although ICD-10 implies that these four diagnoses are unlikely to improve.
Initially 14 symptoms constituting the hubristic syndrome were proposed (Owen, 2006). Now, we have shortened and tabulated these descriptions and mapped their broad affinities with the DSM IV criteria for narcissistic personality disorder, antisocial personality disorder and histrionic personality disorder. These three personality disorders also appear in ICD-10, although narcissistic personality disorder is presented in an appendix as a provisional condition, whose clinical or scientific status is regarded as uncertain. ICD-10 considers narcissistic personality disorder to be sufficiently important to warrant more study, but that it is not yet ready for international acceptance. In practice, the correlations are less precise than the table suggests and the syndrome better described by the broader patterns and descriptions that the individual criteria encapsulate.
Establishing the diagnostic features of hubris syndrome
The nosology of psychiatric illness depends on traditional criteria for placing diagnoses in a biomedical framework (Robins and Guze, 1970). There are, however, other underpinnings—psychological or sociological—that can be applied. Validity for a psychiatric illness involves assessing five phases: (i) clinical description; (ii) laboratory studies; (iii) defining boundaries vis-a-vis other disorders; (iv) follow-up study; and (v) family study. While these phases are worth analysing, it has to be recognized that there are severe limitations in rigidly applying such criteria to hubris syndrome given that so few people exercise real power in any society and the frequency amongst those ‘at-risk’ is low. The potential importance of the syndrome derives, however, from the extensive damage that can be done by the small number of people who are affected. As an investigative strategy, it may be that studies such as neuroimaging, family studies, or careful personality assessments in more accessible subjects with hubristic qualities or narcissistic personality disorder from other vulnerable groups might inform the validation process.
Proposed clinical features
Hubris syndrome was formulated as a pattern of behaviour in a person who: (i) sees the world as a place for self-glorification through the use of power; (ii) has a tendency to take action primarily to enhance personal image; (iii) shows disproportionate concern for image and presentation; (iv) exhibits messianic zeal and exaltation in speech; (v) conflates self with nation or organization; (vi) uses the royal ‘we’ in conversation; (vii) shows excessive self-confidence; (viii) manifestly has contempt for others; (ix) shows accountability only to a higher court (history or God); (x) displays unshakeable belief that they will be vindicated in that court; (xi) loses contact with reality; (xii) resorts to restlessness, recklessness and impulsive actions; (xiii) allows moral rectitude to obviate consideration of practicality, cost or outcome; and (xiv) displays incompetence with disregard for nuts and bolts of policy making.
In defining the clinical features of any disorder, more is required than simply listing the symptoms. In the case of hubris syndrome, a context of substantial power is necessary, as well as a certain period of time in power—although the length has not been specified, varying in the cases described from 1 to 9 years. The condition may have predisposing personality characteristics but it is acquired, that is its appearance post-dates the acquisition of power.
Establishment of the clinical features should include the demonstration of criterion reliability, exploration of a preferred threshold for the minimum number of features that must be present, and the measurement of symptoms (e.g. their presence or absence, and a severity scale). This endeavour may also include a decision as to whether the 14 criteria suggested might usefully be revised.
To determine whether hubris syndrome can be characterized biologically will be very difficult. It is the nature of leaders who have the syndrome that they are resistant to the very idea that they can be ill, for this is a sign of weakness. Rather, they tend to cover up illness and so would be most unlikely to submit voluntarily to any testing, e.g. the completion of scales measuring anxiety, neuroticism and impulsivity. Also the numbers of people with the syndrome is likely to be so small preventing the realistic application of statistical analyses. It also needs to be remembered that leaders are prone to using performance-enhancing drugs fashionable at the time. Two heads of government, Eden and Kennedy, were on amphetamines in the 1950s and 1960s. In the 21st century hubristic leaders are likely to be amongst the first to use the new category of so-called cognition enhancers. Many neuroscientists believe that such drugs properly used can be taken without harm. The problem is a leader who takes these without medical supervision and in combination with other substances or in dosages substantially above those that are recommended. In 2008, Nature carried out an informal survey of its mainly scientific readers and found that one in five of 1400 responders were taking stimulants and wake-promoting agents such as methylphenidate and modafinil, or β-blockers for non-medical reasons (Maher, 2008).
In defining the boundaries, one of the more important questions may be to understand whether hubris syndrome is essentially the same as narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), a subtype of NPD or a separate entity. As shown in Table 1, 7 of the 14 possible defining symptoms are also among the criteria for NPD in DSM-IV, and two correspond to those for antisocial personality and histrionic personality disorders (APD and HPD, respectively) (American Psychiatric Association, 2000). The five remaining symptoms are unique, in the sense they have not been classified elsewhere: (v) conflation of self with the nation or organization; (vi) use of the royal ‘we’; (x) an unshakable belief that a higher court (history or God) will provide vindication; (xii) restlessness, recklessness and impulsiveness; and (xiii) moral rectitude that overrides practicalities, cost and outcome.
academic.oup.com/brain/article/132/5/1396/354862/Hubris-s...
La Vie site cites the work of researcher Ian H. Robertson, who studied the effect of hubris on a fish species in Lake Tanganyka in Africa, on which the seizure of power triggers a hormonal reaction that changes their organism. The researcher explains that the situation is similar for humans, whose intelligence is multiplied tenfold by dopamine intake, but "too much dopamine will have harmful consequences. But absolute power floods the brain with dopamine. It also creates an addiction,"says the researcher. That is not all. Excessive self-confidence puts in place a mental mechanism that makes it impossible to assess oneself properly. The more you have a fair appreciation of your own qualities, the more modest you are. And you don't normally feel fit to become head of state,"explains Sebastian Dieguez, a neuroscience researcher at the University of Freiburg.
The U.S. Army Special Operations Command conducted their capabilities exercise, CAPEX 19, at Fort Bragg, N.C., June 10-13, 2019.
The CAPEX 19 demonstrated the advanced skills and diverse capabilities of Army Special Operators.
The scenario, based on potential real-world Special Operations Forces mission requirements, was designed to improve interoperability with conventional forces, enhance interagency and intergovernmental partnerships and test capabilities.
The exercise incorporates volunteers, who witness first-hand, the operations, activities and actions of USASOC’s specialized subordinate commands, consisting of the 75th Ranger Regiment, 1st Special Forces Command (Airborne), U.S. Army Special Operations Aviation Command and the U.S. Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School.
U.S. Army photo by Spc. ShaTyra Reed, 22nd Mobile Public Affairs Detachment
While the Shield Liger's capabilities were solid for its day, the Blade Liger improves upon them, being faster and more agile than its predecessor. It also gains new weaponry, the most noticeable being a pair of Laser Blades capable of cutting through all but the densest of enemy armour, hence its name. Its E-shield is enhanced with the addition of four cooling units located in the white 'fins' of its shoulder armour. Like the Shield Liger, it sports a Shock Cannon on its chest, albeit a longer dual-barreled one as opposed to its predecessor's shorter triple-barreled variant, and the Pulse Laser Guns found on the blunt sides of the Laser Blades add to the Zoid's ranged combat abilities.
Well, here's another Zoid! This is Leon's Blade Liger from Zoids New Century. It's a complete revamp of my original Liger.
All designs are based upon the Apocalust-style Zoids. The Zoids brand belongs to TOMY Toys.
I'd appreciate that with a fave, you give some feedback as well! Thanks!
The long-range and airdrop capabilities of the Hercules served the broad needs of the US Coast Guard. The HC-130H is used primarily for long-range overwater search missions, maritime patrol, North Atlantic Ice Patrol and command and control of search and rescue. In some circumstances, the HC-130H can airdrop rescue equipment to survivors at sea or over open terrain.
An HC-130H of Coast Guard Air Station (CGAS) Kodiak in Alaska patrols the coastline. Begun in September 1939, the US Navy constructed an air station near the city of Kodiak, Alaska, and PBY squadrons flew reconnaissance missions from here early in World War 2. In 1950, NAS Kodiak was redesignated Naval Station Kodiak and in 1972 the site was handed over to the US Coast Guard. Currently, three HC-130H aircraft are stationed there. Note the large window on the forward fuselage. This makes it easier for spotters to see the ocean below.
F-22 Raptors at Hickam AFB, Hawaii - Cyber security is strongest when engineered into our systems versus designing cyber security protections later. That is why we design all aircraft, and their supporting systems, to operate in a cyber contested environment.
A U.S. Air Force Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor flies above Royal Australian Air Force Base Tindal, Australia, March 2, 2017. Twelve Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptors and approximately 200 U.S. Air Force Airmen participated in the first Enhanced Air Cooperation, an initiative under the Force Posture Agreement between the U.S. and Australia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor is a fifth-generation, single-seat, twin-engine, all-weather stealth tactical fighter aircraft developed for the United States Air Force (USAF). The result of the USAF's Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) program, the aircraft was designed primarily as an air superiority fighter, but also has ground attack, electronic warfare, and signal intelligence capabilities. The prime contractor, Lockheed Martin, built most of the F-22's airframe and weapons systems and conducted final assembly, while Boeing provided the wings, aft fuselage, avionics integration, and training systems.
The aircraft was variously designated F-22 and F/A-22 before it formally entered service in December 2005 as the F-22A. Despite its protracted development and various operational issues, USAF officials consider the F-22 a critical component of the service's tactical air power. Its combination of stealth, aerodynamic performance, and situational awareness enable unprecedented air combat capabilities.
Service officials had originally planned to buy a total of 750 ATFs. In 2009, the program was cut to 187 operational production aircraft due to high costs, a lack of clear air-to-air missions due to delays in Russian and Chinese fighter programs, a ban on exports, and development of the more versatile F-35. The last F-22 was delivered in 2012.
Development
Origins
In 1981, the U.S. Air Force identified a requirement for an Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) to replace the F-15 Eagle and F-16 Fighting Falcon. Code named "Senior Sky", this air-superiority fighter program was influenced by emerging worldwide threats, including new developments in Soviet air defense systems and the proliferation of the Su-27 Flanker- and MiG-29 Fulcrum-class of fighter aircraft. It would take advantage of the new technologies in fighter design on the horizon, including composite materials, lightweight alloys, advanced flight control systems, more powerful propulsion systems, and most importantly, stealth technology. In 1983, the ATF concept development team became the System Program Office (SPO) and managed the program at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. The demonstration and validation (Dem/Val) request for proposals (RFP) was issued in September 1985, with requirements placing strong emphasis on stealth and supercruise. Of the seven bidding companies, Lockheed and Northrop were selected on 31 October 1986. Lockheed teamed with Boeing and General Dynamics while Northrop teamed with McDonnell Douglas, and the two contractor teams undertook a 50-month Dem/Val phase, culminating in the flight test of two technology demonstrator prototypes, the YF-22 and the YF-23, respectively.
Dem/Val was focused on risk reduction and technology development plans over specific aircraft designs. Contractors made extensive use of analytical and empirical methods, including computational fluid dynamics, wind-tunnel testing, and radar cross-section calculations and pole testing; the Lockheed team would conduct nearly 18,000 hours of wind-tunnel testing. Avionics development was marked by extensive testing and prototyping and supported by ground and flying laboratories. During Dem/Val, the SPO used the results of performance and cost trade studies conducted by contractor teams to adjust ATF requirements and delete ones that were significant weight and cost drivers while having marginal value. The short takeoff and landing (STOL) requirement was relaxed in order to delete thrust-reversers, saving substantial weight. As avionics was a major cost driver, side-looking radars were deleted, and the dedicated infra-red search and track (IRST) system was downgraded from multi-color to single color and then deleted as well. However, space and cooling provisions were retained to allow for future addition of these components. The ejection seat requirement was downgraded from a fresh design to the existing McDonnell Douglas ACES II. Despite efforts by the contractor teams to rein in weight, the takeoff gross weight estimate was increased from 50,000 lb (22,700 kg) to 60,000 lb (27,200 kg), resulting in engine thrust requirement increasing from 30,000 lbf (133 kN) to 35,000 lbf (156 kN) class.
Each team produced two prototype air vehicles for Dem/Val, one for each of the two engine options. The YF-22 had its maiden flight on 29 September 1990 and in flight tests achieved up to Mach 1.58 in supercruise. After the Dem/Val flight test of the prototypes, on 23 April 1991, Secretary of the USAF Donald Rice announced the Lockheed team as the winner of the ATF competition. The YF-23 design was considered stealthier and faster, while the YF-22, with its thrust vectoring nozzles, was more maneuverable as well as less expensive and risky. The aviation press speculated that the Lockheed team's design was also more adaptable to the U.S. Navy's Navalized Advanced Tactical Fighter (NATF), but by 1992, the Navy had abandoned NATF.
Production and procurement
As the program moved to full-scale development, or the Engineering & Manufacturing Development (EMD) stage, the production version had notable differences from the YF-22, despite having a broadly similar shape. The swept-back angle of the leading edge was decreased from 48° to 42°, while the vertical stabilizers were shifted rearward and decreased in area by 20%. To improve pilot visibility, the canopy was moved forward 7 inches (18 cm), and the engine intakes moved rearward 14 inches (36 cm). The shapes of the wing and stabilator trailing edges were refined to improve aerodynamics, strength, and stealth characteristics. Increasing weight during development caused slight reductions in range and maneuver performance.
Prime contractor Lockheed Martin Aeronautics manufactured the majority of the airframe and performed final assembly at Dobbins Air Reserve Base in Marietta, Georgia; program partner Boeing Defense, Space & Security provided additional airframe components as well as avionics integration and training systems. The first F-22, an EMD aircraft with tail number 4001, was unveiled at Marietta, Georgia, on 9 April 1997, and first flew on 7 September 1997. Production, with the first lot awarded in September 2000, supported over 1,000 subcontractors and suppliers from 46 states and up to 95,000 jobs, and spanned 15 years at a peak rate of roughly two airplanes per month. In 2006, the F-22 development team won the Collier Trophy, American aviation's most prestigious award. Due to the aircraft's advanced nature, contractors have been targeted by cyberattacks and technology theft.
The USAF originally envisioned ordering 750 ATFs at a total program cost of $44.3 billion and procurement cost of $26.2 billion in fiscal year (FY) 1985 dollars, with production beginning in 1994. The 1990 Major Aircraft Review led by Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney reduced this to 648 aircraft beginning in 1996. By 1997, funding instability had further cut the total to 339, which was again reduced to 277 by 2003. In 2004, the Department of Defense (DoD) further reduced this to 183 operational aircraft, despite the USAF's preference for 381. A multi-year procurement plan was implemented in 2006 to save $15 billion, with total program cost projected to be $62 billion for 183 F-22s distributed to seven combat squadrons. In 2008, Congress passed a defense spending bill that raised the total orders for production aircraft to 187.
The first two F-22s built were EMD aircraft in the Block 1.0 configuration for initial flight testing, while the third was a Block 2.0 aircraft built to represent the internal structure of production airframes and enabled it to test full flight loads. Six more EMD aircraft were built in the Block 10 configuration for development and upgrade testing, with the last two considered essentially production quality jets. Production for operational squadrons consisted of 37 Block 20 training aircraft and 149 Block 30/35 combat aircraft; one of the Block 35 aircraft is dedicated to flight sciences at Edwards Air Force Base.
The numerous new technologies in the F-22 resulted in substantial cost overruns and delays. Many capabilities were deferred to post-service upgrades, reducing the initial cost but increasing total program cost. As production wound down in 2011, the total program cost is estimated to be about $67.3 billion, with $32.4 billion spent on Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) and $34.9 billion on procurement and military construction (MILCON) in then year dollars. The incremental cost for an additional F-22 was estimated at about $138 million in 2009.
Ban on exports
The F-22 cannot be exported under US federal law to protect its stealth technology and other high-tech features. Customers for U.S. fighters are acquiring earlier designs such as the F-15 Eagle and F-16 Fighting Falcon or the newer F-35 Lightning II, which contains technology from the F-22 but was designed to be cheaper, more flexible, and available for export. In September 2006, Congress upheld the ban on foreign F-22 sales. Despite the ban, the 2010 defense authorization bill included provisions requiring the DoD to prepare a report on the costs and feasibility for an F-22 export variant, and another report on the effect of F-22 export sales on U.S. aerospace industry.
Some Australian politicians and defense commentators proposed that Australia should attempt to purchase F-22s instead of the planned F-35s, citing the F-22's known capabilities and F-35's delays and developmental uncertainties. However, the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) determined that the F-22 was unable to perform the F-35's strike and close air support roles. The Japanese government also showed interest in the F-22 for its Replacement-Fighter program. The Japan Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF) would reportedly require fewer fighters for its mission if it obtained the F-22, thus reducing engineering and staffing costs. However, in 2009 it was reported that acquiring the F-22 would require increases to the Japanese government's defense budget beyond the historical 1 percent of its GDP. With the end of F-22 production, Japan chose the F-35 in December 2011. Israel also expressed interest, but eventually chose the F-35 because of the F-22's price and unavailability.
Production termination
Throughout the 2000s, the need for F-22s was debated, due to rising costs and the lack of relevant adversaries. In 2006, Comptroller General of the United States David Walker found that "the DoD has not demonstrated the need" for more investment in the F-22, and further opposition to the program was expressed by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon R. England, Senator John McCain, and Chairman of U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services Senator John Warner. The F-22 program lost influential supporters in 2008 after the forced resignations of Secretary of the Air Force Michael Wynne and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force General T. Michael Moseley.
In November 2008, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated that the F-22 was not relevant in post-Cold War conflicts such as irregular warfare operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in April 2009, under the new Obama Administration, he called for ending production in FY2011, leaving the USAF with 187 production aircraft. In July, General James Cartwright, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated to the Senate Committee on Armed Services his reasons for supporting termination of F-22 production. They included shifting resources to the multirole F-35 to allow proliferation of fifth-generation fighters for three service branches and preserving the F/A-18 production line to maintain the military's electronic warfare (EW) capabilities in the Boeing EA-18G Growler. Issues with the F-22's reliability and availability also raised concerns. After President Obama threatened to veto further production, the Senate voted in July 2009 in favor of ending production and the House subsequently agreed to abide by the 187 production aircraft cap. Gates stated that the decision was taken in light of the F-35's capabilities, and in 2010, he set the F-22 requirement to 187 aircraft by lowering the number of major regional conflict preparations from two to one.
In 2010, USAF initiated a study to determine the costs of retaining F-22 tooling for a future Service Life Extension Program (SLEP). A RAND Corporation paper from this study estimated that restarting production and building an additional 75 F-22s would cost $17 billion, resulting in $227 million per aircraft, or $54 million higher than the flyaway cost. Lockheed Martin stated that restarting the production line itself would cost about $200 million. Production tooling and associated documentation were subsequently stored at the Sierra Army Depot, allowing the retained tooling to support the fleet life cycle. There were reports that attempts to retrieve this tooling found empty containers, but a subsequent audit found that the tooling was stored as expected.
Russian and Chinese fighter developments have fueled concern, and in 2009, General John Corley, head of Air Combat Command, stated that a fleet of 187 F-22s would be inadequate, but Secretary Gates dismissed General Corley's concern. In 2011, Gates explained that Chinese fifth-generation fighter developments had been accounted for when the number of F-22s was set, and that the U.S. would have a considerable advantage in stealth aircraft in 2025, even with F-35 delays. In December 2011, the 195th and final F-22 was completed out of 8 test EMD and 187 operational aircraft produced; the aircraft was delivered to the USAF on 2 May 2012.
In April 2016, the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee proposed legislation that would direct the Air Force to conduct a cost study and assessment associated with resuming production of the F-22. Since the production halt directed in 2009 by then Defense Secretary Gates, lawmakers and the Pentagon noted that air warfare systems of Russia and China were catching up to those of the U.S. Lockheed Martin has proposed upgrading the Block 20 training aircraft into combat-coded Block 30/35 versions as a way to increase numbers available for deployment. On 9 June 2017, the Air Force submitted their report to Congress stating they had no plans to restart the F-22 production line due to economic and operational issues; it estimated it would cost approximately $50 billion to procure 194 additional F-22s at a cost of $206–$216 million per aircraft, including approximately $9.9 billion for non-recurring start-up costs and $40.4 billion for aircraft procurement costs.
Upgrades
The first aircraft with combat-capable Block 3.0 software flew in 2001. Increment 2, the first upgrade program, was implemented in 2005 for Block 20 aircraft onward and enabled the employment of Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM). Certification of the improved AN/APG-77(V)1 radar was completed in March 2007, and airframes from production Lot 5 onward are fitted with this radar, which incorporates air-to-ground modes. Increment 3.1 for Block 30 aircraft onward provided improved ground-attack capability through synthetic aperture radar mapping and radio emitter direction finding, electronic attack and Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) integration; testing began in 2009 and the first upgraded aircraft was delivered in 2011. To address oxygen deprivation issues, F-22s were fitted with an automatic backup oxygen system (ABOS) and modified life support system starting in 2012.
Increment 3.2 for Block 35 aircraft is a two-part upgrade process; 3.2A focuses on electronic warfare, communications and identification, while 3.2B includes geolocation improvements and a new stores management system to show the correct symbols for the AIM-9X and AIM-120D. To enable two-way communication with other platforms, the F-22 can use the Battlefield Airborne Communications Node (BACN) as a gateway. The planned Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL) integration was cut due to development delays and lack of proliferation among USAF platforms. The F-22 fleet is planned to start receiving Increment 3.2B as well as a software upgrade for cryptography capabilities and avionics stability in May 2019. A Multifunctional Information Distribution System-Joint (MIDS-J) radio that replaces the current Link-16 receive-only box is expected to be operational by 2020. Subsequent upgrades are also focusing on having an open architecture to enable faster future enhancements.
In 2024, funding is projected to begin for the F-22 mid-life upgrade (MLU), which is expected to include new sensors and antennas, hardware refresh, cockpit improvements, and a helmet mounted display and cuing system. Other enhancements being developed include IRST functionality for the AN/AAR-56 Missile Launch Detector (MLD) and more durable stealth coating based on the F-35's.
The F-22 was designed for a service life of 8,000 flight hours, with a $350 million "structures retrofit program". Investigations are being made for upgrades to extend their useful lives further. In the long term, the F-22 is expected to be superseded by a sixth-generation jet fighter to be fielded in the 2030s.
Design
Overview
The F-22 Raptor is a fifth-generation fighter that is considered fourth generation in stealth aircraft technology by the USAF.[91] It is the first operational aircraft to combine supercruise, supermaneuverability, stealth, and sensor fusion in a single weapons platform. The F-22 has four empennage surfaces, retractable tricycle landing gear, and clipped delta wings with reverse trailing edge sweep and leading edge extensions running to the upper outboard corner of the inlets. Flight control surfaces include leading-edge flaps, flaperons, ailerons, rudders on the canted vertical stabilizers, and all-moving horizontal tails (stabilators); for speed brake function, the ailerons deflect up, flaperons down, and rudders outwards to increase drag.
The aircraft's dual Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 augmented turbofan engines are closely spaced and incorporate pitch-axis thrust vectoring nozzles with a range of ±20 degrees; each engine has maximum thrust in the 35,000 lbf (156 kN) class. The F-22's thrust-to-weight ratio at typical combat weight is nearly at unity in maximum military power and 1.25 in full afterburner. Maximum speed without external stores is approximately Mach 1.8 at military power and greater than Mach 2 with afterburners.
The F-22's high cruise speed and operating altitude over prior fighters improve the effectiveness of its sensors and weapon systems, and increase survivability against ground defenses such as surface-to-air missiles. The aircraft is among only a few that can supercruise, or sustain supersonic flight without using fuel-inefficient afterburners; it can intercept targets which subsonic aircraft would lack the speed to pursue and an afterburner-dependent aircraft would lack the fuel to reach. The F-22's thrust and aerodynamics enable regular combat speeds of Mach 1.5 at 50,000 feet (15,000 m). The use of internal weapons bays permits the aircraft to maintain comparatively higher performance over most other combat-configured fighters due to a lack of aerodynamic drag from external stores. The aircraft's structure contains a significant amount of high-strength materials to withstand stress and heat of sustained supersonic flight. Respectively, titanium alloys and composites comprise 39% and 24% of the structural weight.
The F-22's aerodynamics, relaxed stability, and powerful thrust-vectoring engines give it excellent maneuverability and energy potential across its flight envelope. The airplane has excellent high alpha (angle of attack) characteristics, capable of flying at trimmed alpha of over 60° while maintaining roll control and performing maneuvers such as the Herbst maneuver (J-turn) and Pugachev's Cobra. The flight control system and full-authority digital engine control (FADEC) make the aircraft highly departure resistant and controllable, thus giving the pilot carefree handling.
Stealth
The F-22 was designed to be highly difficult to detect and track by radar. Measures to reduce radar cross-section (RCS) include airframe shaping such as alignment of edges, fixed-geometry serpentine inlets and curved vanes that prevent line-of-sight of the engine faces and turbines from any exterior view, use of radar-absorbent material (RAM), and attention to detail such as hinges and pilot helmets that could provide a radar return. The F-22 was also designed to have decreased radio emissions, infrared signature and acoustic signature as well as reduced visibility to the naked eye. The aircraft's flat thrust-vectoring nozzles reduce infrared emissions of the exhaust plume to mitigate the threat of infrared homing ("heat seeking") surface-to-air or air-to-air missiles. Additional measures to reduce the infrared signature include special topcoat and active cooling of leading edges to manage the heat buildup from supersonic flight.
Compared to previous stealth designs like the F-117, the F-22 is less reliant on RAM, which are maintenance-intensive and susceptible to adverse weather conditions. Unlike the B-2, which requires climate-controlled hangars, the F-22 can undergo repairs on the flight line or in a normal hangar. The F-22 has a Signature Assessment System which delivers warnings when the radar signature is degraded and necessitates repair. While the F-22's exact RCS is classified, in 2009 Lockheed Martin released information indicating that from certain angles the aircraft has an RCS of 0.0001 m² or −40 dBsm – equivalent to the radar reflection of a "steel marble". Effectively maintaining the stealth features can decrease the F-22's mission capable rate to 62–70%.
The effectiveness of the stealth characteristics is difficult to gauge. The RCS value is a restrictive measurement of the aircraft's frontal or side area from the perspective of a static radar. When an aircraft maneuvers it exposes a completely different set of angles and surface area, potentially increasing radar observability. Furthermore, the F-22's stealth contouring and radar absorbent materials are chiefly effective against high-frequency radars, usually found on other aircraft. The effects of Rayleigh scattering and resonance mean that low-frequency radars such as weather radars and early-warning radars are more likely to detect the F-22 due to its physical size. However, such radars are also conspicuous, susceptible to clutter, and have low precision. Additionally, while faint or fleeting radar contacts make defenders aware that a stealth aircraft is present, reliably vectoring interception to attack the aircraft is much more challenging. According to the USAF an F-22 surprised an Iranian F-4 Phantom II that was attempting to intercept an American UAV, despite Iran's assertion of having military VHF radar coverage over the Persian Gulf.
The United States Border Patrol is a federal law enforcement agency within U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), a component of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Its 20,200 Agents[1] are primarily responsible for immigration and border law enforcement as codified in the Immigration and Nationality Act. Their duty is to prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the United States and to deter, detect, and apprehend illegal aliens and individuals involved in the illegal drug trade who enter the United States other than through designated ports of entry.
Additionally, the CBP enforces federal controlled substances laws (as codified in the Controlled Substances Act) when violations occur or are found during the enforcement of federal immigration laws, via delegated authority from the Drug Enforcement Administration.
Note that there are two personnel segments of U.S. Customs and Border Protection that people often confuse with each other, the CBP Officer [1], who wears a blue uniform and the Border Patrol Agent [2] who wears a green uniform.
Contents [hide]
1 History
2 Strategy
2.1 1986: Employer sanctions and interior enforcement
2.2 Inspection stations
2.2.1 El Paso Sector's Operation Hold the Line
2.2.2 San Diego Sector's Operation Gatekeeper
2.2.3 Tucson Sector's Operation Safeguard
2.3 Northern border
2.4 Border Patrol moves away from interior enforcement
2.5 The new strategy
3 Capabilities
4 Expansion
5 Special Operations Group
5.1 Other specialized programs
6 Border Patrol organization
6.1 Border Patrol Sectors
7 Training
7.1 Uniforms
7.2 Border Patrol (OBP) Ranks and Insignia
7.2.1 Border Patrol Shoulder Ornaments
8 Awards
8.1 Newton-Azrak Award for Heroism
9 Border Patrol Uniform Devices
10 Equipment
10.1 Weapons
10.2 Transportation
11 Line of duty deaths
12 Armed incursions
13 Ramos and Compean
14 Criticisms
14.1 Ineffective
14.2 Allegations of abuse
14.3 Corruption
15 National Border Patrol Council
16 National Border Patrol Museum
17 In popular culture
17.1 Books
17.2 Film
17.2.1 Documentaries
18 See also
19 References
20 External links
21 External Video
21.1 GAO and OIG Reports
[edit] History
Immigration inspectors, circa 1924Mounted watchmen of the United States Immigration Service patrolled the border in an effort to prevent illegal crossings as early as 1904, but their efforts were irregular and undertaken only when resources permitted. The inspectors, usually called "mounted guards", operated out of El Paso, Texas. Though they never totaled more than 75, they patrolled as far west as California trying to restrict the flow of illegal Chinese immigration.
In March 1915, Congress authorized a separate group of mounted guards, often referred to as "mounted inspectors". Most rode on horseback, but a few operated automobiles, motorcycles and boats. Although these inspectors had broader arrest authority, they still largely pursued Chinese immigrants trying to avoid the National Origins Act and Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. These patrolmen were Immigrant Inspectors, assigned to inspection stations, and could not watch the border at all times. U.S. Army troops along the southwest border performed intermittent border patrolling, but this was secondary to "the more serious work of military training." Non-nationals encountered illegally in the U.S. by the army were directed to the immigration inspection stations. Texas Rangers were also sporadically assigned to patrol duties by the state, and their efforts were noted as "singularly effective".
The Border Patrol was founded on May 28, 1924 as an agency of the United States Department of Labor to prevent illegal entries along the Mexico–United States border and the United States-Canada border. The first two border patrol stations were in El Paso, Texas and Detroit, Michigan.[2] Additional operations were established along the Gulf Coast in 1927 to perform crewman control to insure that non-American crewmen departed on the same ship on which they arrived. Additional stations were temporarily added along the Gulf Coast, Florida and the Eastern Seaboard during the sixties when in Cuba triumphed the Cuban Revolution and emerged the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Prior to 2003, the Border Patrol was part of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), an agency that was within the U.S. Department of Justice. INS was disbanded in March 2003 when its operations were divided between CBP, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
The priority mission of the Border Patrol, as a result of the 9/11 attacks and its merging into the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is to prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the United States of America. However, the Border Patrol's traditional mission remains as the deterrence, detection and apprehension of illegal immigrants and individuals involved in the illegal drug trade who generally enter the United States other than through designated ports of entry. The Border Patrol also operates 33 permanent interior checkpoints along the southern border of the United States.
Currently, the U.S. Border Patrol employs over 20,200 agents (as of the end of fiscal year 2009),[3] who are specifically responsible for patrolling the 6,000 miles of Mexican and Canadian international land borders and 2,000 miles of coastal waters surrounding the Florida Peninsula and the island of Puerto Rico. Agents are assigned primarily to the Mexico–United States border, where they are assigned to control drug trafficking and illegal immigration.[4] Patrols on horseback have made a comeback since smugglers have been pushed into the more remote mountainous regions, which are hard to cover with modern tracking strategies.[5]
[edit] Strategy
[edit] 1986: Employer sanctions and interior enforcement
Border Patrol Agents with a Hummer and Astar patrol for illegal entry into U.S.The Border Patrol's priorities have changed over the years. In 1986, the Immigration Reform and Control Act placed renewed emphasis on controlling illegal immigration by going after the employers that hire illegal immigrants. The belief was that jobs were the magnet that attracted most illegal immigrants to come to the United States. The Border Patrol increased interior enforcement and Form I-9 audits of businesses through an inspection program known as "employer sanctions". Several agents were assigned to interior stations, such as within the Livermore Sector in Northern California.
Employer sanctions never became the effective tool it was expected to be by Congress. Illegal immigration continued to swell after the 1986 amnesty despite employer sanctions. By 1993, Californians passed Proposition 187, denying benefits to illegal immigrants and criminalizing illegal immigrants in possession of forged green cards, I.D. cards and Social Security Numbers. It also authorized police officers to question non-nationals as to their immigration status and required police and sheriff departments to cooperate and report illegal immigrants to the INS. Proposition 187 drew nationwide attention to illegal immigration.
[edit] Inspection stations
United States Border Patrol Interior Checkpoints are inspection stations operated by the USBP within 100 miles of a national border (with Mexico or Canada) or in the Florida Keys. As federal inspection stations are also operated by the Mexican government within 50 km of its borders where they are officially known as a "Garita de Revisión." or Garitas, they are known also by that name to Latinos.
[edit] El Paso Sector's Operation Hold the Line
El Paso Sector Chief Patrol Agent (and future U.S. congressman) Silvestre Reyes started a program called "Operation Hold the Line". In this program, Border Patrol agents would no longer react to illegal entries resulting in apprehensions, but would instead be forward deployed to the border, immediately detecting any attempted entries or deterring crossing at a more remote location. The idea was that it would be easier to capture illegal entrants in the wide open deserts than through the urban alleyways. Chief Reyes deployed his agents along the Rio Grande River, within eyesight of other agents. The program significantly reduced illegal entries in the urban part of El Paso, however, the operation merely shifted the illegal entries to other areas.
[edit] San Diego Sector's Operation Gatekeeper
A Border Patrol Jeep stands watch over the U.S.-Mexico border at San Ysidro, California.San Diego Sector tried Silvestre Reyes' approach of forward deploying agents to deter illegal entries into the country. Congress authorized the hiring of thousands of new agents, and many were sent to San Diego Sector.[citation needed] In addition, Congressman Duncan Hunter obtained surplus military landing mats to use as a border fence.[citation needed] Stadium lighting, ground sensors and infra-red cameras were also placed in the area.[citation needed] Apprehensions decreased dramatically in that area as people crossed in different regions.
[edit] Tucson Sector's Operation Safeguard
California was no longer the hotbed of illegal entry and the traffic shifted to Arizona, primarily in Nogales and Douglas.[citation needed] The Border Patrol instituted the same deterrent strategy it used in San Diego to Arizona.
[edit] Northern border
In 2001, the Border Patrol had approximately 340 agents assigned along the Canada – United States border border. Northern border staffing had been increased to 1,128 agents to 1,470 agents by the end of fiscal year 2008, and is projected to expand to 1,845 by the end of fiscal year 2009, a sixfold increase. Resources that support Border Patrol agents include the use of new technology and a more focused application of air and marine assets.
The northern border sectors are Blaine (Washington), Buffalo (New York), Detroit (Selfridge ANGB, Michigan), Grand Forks (North Dakota), Havre (Montana), Houlton (Maine), Spokane (Washington), and Swanton (Vermont).
[edit] Border Patrol moves away from interior enforcement
In the 1990s, Congress mandated that the Border Patrol shift agents away from the interior and focus them on the borders.
After the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Department of Homeland Security created two immigration enforcement agencies out of the defunct Immigration and Naturalization Service: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). ICE was tasked with investigations, detention and removal of illegal immigrants, and interior enforcement. CBP was tasked with inspections at U.S. ports of entry and with preventing illegal entries between the port of entry, transportation check, and entries on U.S. coastal borders. DHS management decided to align the Border Patrol with CBP. CBP itself is solely responsible for the nation's ports of entry, while Border Patrol maintains jurisdiction over all locations between ports of entry, giving Border Patrol agents federal authority absolutely[dubious – discuss] nationwide[dubious – discuss].
In July 2004, the Livermore Sector of the United States Border Patrol was closed. Livermore Sector served Northern California and included stations at Dublin (Parks Reserve Forces Training Area), Sacramento, Stockton, Fresno and Bakersfield. The Border Patrol also closed other stations in the interior of the United States including Roseburg, Oregon and Little Rock, Arkansas. The Border Patrol functions in these areas consisted largely of local jail and transportation terminal checks for illegal immigrants. These functions were turned over to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
[edit] The new strategy
Cameras add "Smart Border" surveillance.In November 2005, the U.S. Border Patrol published an updated national strategy.[6] The goal of this updated strategy is operational control of the United States border. The strategy has five main objectives:
Apprehend terrorists and terrorist weapons illegally entering the United States;
Deter illegal entries through improved enforcement;
Detect, apprehend, and deter smugglers of humans, drugs, and other contraband;
Use "smart border" technology; and
Reduce crime in border communities, improving quality of life.
[edit] Capabilities
The border is a barely discernible line in uninhabited deserts, canyons, or mountains. The Border Patrol utilizes a variety of equipment and methods, such as electronic sensors placed at strategic locations along the border, to detect people or vehicles entering the country illegally. Video monitors and night vision scopes are also used to detect illegal entries. Agents patrol the border in vehicles, boats, aircraft, and afoot. In some areas, the Border Patrol employs horses, all-terrain motorcycles, bicycles, and snowmobiles. Air surveillance capabilities are provided by unmanned aerial vehicles.[3]
The primary activity of a Border Patrol Agent is "Line Watch". Line Watch involves the detection, prevention, and apprehension of terrorists, undocumented aliens and smugglers of aliens at or near the land border by maintaining surveillance from a covert position; following up on leads; responding to electronic sensor television systems and aircraft sightings; and interpreting and following tracks, marks, and other physical evidence. Major activities include traffic check, traffic observation, city patrol, transportation check, administrative, intelligence, and anti-smuggling activities.[4]
Traffic checks are conducted on major highways leading away from the border to detect and apprehend illegal aliens attempting to travel further into the interior of the United States after evading detection at the border, and to detect illegal narcotics.[3]
Transportation checks are inspections of interior-bound conveyances, which include buses, commercial aircraft, passenger and freight trains, and marine craft.[3]
Marine Patrols are conducted along the coastal waterways of the United States, primarily along the Pacific coast, the Caribbean, the tip of Florida, and Puerto Rico and interior waterways common to the United States and Canada. Border Patrol conducts border control activities from 130 marine craft of various sizes. The Border Patrol maintains watercraft ranging from blue-water craft to inflatable-hull craft, in 16 sectors, in addition to headquarters special operations components.[3]
Horse and bike patrols are used to augment regular vehicle and foot patrols. Horse units patrol remote areas along the international boundary that are inaccessible to standard all-terrain vehicles. Bike patrol aids city patrol and is used over rough terrain to support linewatch.[3] Snowmobiles are used to patrol remote areas along the northern border in the winter.
[edit] Expansion
Attrition in the Border Patrol was normally at 5%. From 1995-2001 attrition spiked to above 10%, which was a period when the Border Patrol was undergoing massive hiring. In 2002 the attrition rate climbed to 18%. The 18% attrition was largely attributed to agents transferring to the Federal Air Marshals after 9/11. Since that time the attrition problem has decreased significantly and Congress has increased journeyman Border Patrol Agent pay from GS-9 to GS-11 in 2002. The Border Patrol Marine Position was created in 2009 (BPA-M). This position will be updated to a GS-12 position sometime in 2010 or 2011. Border Patrol Field Training Officers may possibly be updated in 2010 to a temporary GS-12 pay rate. In 2005, Border Patrol attrition dropped to 4% and remains in the area of 4% to 6% as of 2009.[7]
The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (signed by President Bush on December 17, 2004) authorized hiring an additional 10,000 agents, "subject to appropriation". This authorization, if fully implemented, would nearly double the Border Patrol manpower from 11,000 to 21,000 agents by 2010.
In July 2005, Congress signed the Emergency Supplemental Spending Act for military operations in Iraq/Afghanistan and other operations. The act also appropriated funding to increase Border Patrol manpower by 500 Agents. In October 2005, President Bush also signed the DHS FY06 Appropriation bill, funding an additional 1,000 Agents.
In November 2005, President George W. Bush made a trip to southern Arizona to discuss more options that would decrease illegal crossings at the U.S. and Mexican border. In his proposed fiscal year 2007 budget he has requested an additional 1,500 Border Patrol agents.
The Secure Fence Act, signed by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2006, has met with much opposition. In October 2007, environmental groups and concerned citizens filed a restraining order hoping to halt the construction of the fence, set to be built between the United States and Mexico. The act mandates that the fence be built by December 2008. Ultimately, the United States seeks to put fencing around the 1,945-mile (3,130 km) border, but the act requires only 700 miles (1,100 km) of fencing. DHS secretary Michael Chertoff has bypassed environmental and other oppositions with a waiver that was granted to him by Congress in Section 102 of the act, which allows DHS to avoid any conflicts that would prevent a speedy assembly of the fence.[8][9]
This action has led many environment groups and landowners to speak out against the impending construction of the fence.[10] Environment and wildlife groups fear that the plans to clear brush, construct fences, install bright lights, motion sensors, and cameras will scare wildlife and endanger the indigenous species of the area.[11] Environmentalists claim that the ecosystem could be affected due to the fact that a border fence would restrict movement of all animal species, which in turn would keep them from water and food sources on one side or another. Desert plants would also feel the impact, as they would be uprooted in many areas where the fence is set to occupy.[12]
Property owners in these areas fear a loss of land. Landowners would have to give some of their land over to the government for the fence. Citizens also fear that communities will be split. Many students travel over the border every day to attend classes at the University of Texas at Brownsville. Brownsville mayor Pat Ahumada favors alternative options to a border fence. He suggests that the Rio Grande River be widened and deepened to provide for a natural barrier to hinder illegal immigrants and drug smugglers.[13]
The United States Border Patrol Academy is located in Artesia, New Mexico.
[edit] Special Operations Group
A Border Patrol Special Response Team searches room-by-room a hotel in New Orleans in response to Hurricane Katrina.
CBP BORSTAR canine team conducting rappeling trainingIn 2007, the Border Patrol created the Special Operations Group (SOG) headquartered in El Paso, TX to coordinate the specialized units of the agency.[14]
Border Patrol Tactical Unit (BORTAC)
National Special Response Team (NSRT)
Border Patrol, Search, Trauma and Rescue (BORSTAR)
Air Mobile Unit (AMU)
[edit] Other specialized programs
The Border Patrol has a number of other specialized programs and details.
Air and Marine Operations
K9 Units
Mounted Patrol
Bike patrol
Sign-cutting (tracking)
Snowmobile unit
Infrared scope unit
Intelligence
Anti-smuggling investigations
Border Criminal Alien Program
Multi-agency Anti-Gang Task Forces (regional & local units)
Honor Guard
Pipes and Drums
Chaplain
Peer Support
[edit] Border Patrol organization
David V. Aguilar, Acting Commissioner of Customs and Border ProtectionThe current Acting Chief of the Border Patrol is Michael J. Fisher who succeeded in 2010 David V. Aguilar, who is now the Acting Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection.
[edit] Border Patrol Sectors
There are 20 Border Patrol sectors, each headed by a Sector Chief Patrol Agent.
Northern Border (West to East):
Blaine Sector (Western Washington State, Idaho, and Western Montana.) - stations; Bellingham, Blaine, Port Angeles, Sumas.
Spokane Sector (Eastern Washington State)
Havre Sector (Montana)
Grand Forks Sector (North Dakota)
Detroit Sector (Selfridge Air National Guard Base, Michigan) - stations; Downtown Detroit, Marysville, Gibralter, Sault Sainte Marie, Sandusky Bay.
Buffalo Sector (New York) - stations; Buffalo, Erie, Niagura Falls, Oswego, Rochester, Wellesley Island.
Swanton Sector (Vermont)
Houlton Sector (Maine)
Southern Border (West to East):
San Diego Sector (San Diego, California)
El Centro Sector (Imperial County, California)
Yuma Sector (Western Arizona)- stations; Wellton, Yuma, Blythe
Tucson Sector (Eastern Arizona)
El Paso Sector (El Paso, Texas and New Mexico) - stations; Alamogordo, Albuquerque, Deming, El Paso, Fabens, Fort Hancock, Las Cruces, Lordsburg, Santa Teresa, Truth or Consequences, Ysleta
Marfa Sector (Big Bend Area of West Texas) - stations; Alpine, Amarillo, Big Bend, Fort Stockton, Lubbock, Marfa, Midland, Pecos, Presidio, Sanderson, Sierra Blanca, Van Horn
Del Rio Sector (Del Rio, Texas) - stations; Abilene, Brackettville, Carrizo Springs, Comstock, Del Rio, Eagle Pass North, Eagle Pass South, Rocksprings, San Angelo, Uvalde
Rio Grande Valley Sector (South Texas) - stations; Brownsville, Corpus Christi, Falfurrias, Fort Brown, Harlingen, Kingsville, McAllen, Rio Grande City, Weslaco
Laredo Sector (South Texas) - stations; Cotulla, Dallas, Freer, Hebbronville, Laredo North, Laredo South, Laredo West, San Antonio, Zapata
New Orleans Sector (Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and West Florida)
Miami Sector (Florida East and South)
Caribbean
Ramey Sector (Aguadilla, Puerto Rico) and the Virgin Islands, it is the only Border Patrol Sector located outside the continental United States
[edit] Training
All Border Patrol Agents spend 15 weeks in training at the Border Patrol Academy (if they are fluent in Spanish) in Artesia, New Mexico, which is a component of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC).Those who are not fluent in Spanish spend an additional eight weeks at the Academy. Recruits are instructed in Border Patrol and federal law enforcement subjects.
Border Patrol courses include: Immigration and Nationality Law, Criminal Law and Statutory Authority, Spanish, Border Patrol Operations, Care and Use of Firearms, Physical Training, Driver Training, and Anti-Terrorism.
FLETC courses include: Communications, Ethics and Conduct, Report Writing, Introduction to Computers, Fingerprinting, and Constitutional Law.[15]
The physical aspects of the Border Patrol Training Program are extremely demanding. At the end of 55 days, trainees must be able to complete a one and a half mile run in 13 minutes or less, a confidence course in two and a half minutes or less, and a 220 yard dash in 46 seconds or less. This final test is much easier than the day to day physical training during the program.[15]
[edit] Uniforms
The Border Patrol currently wears the following types of uniforms:
CBP officers at a ceremony in 2007Dress uniform – The dress uniform consists of olive-green trousers with a blue stripe, and an olive-green shirt, which may or may not have blue shoulder straps. The campaign hat is worn with uniform.
Ceremonial uniform – When required, the following items are added to the dress uniform to complete the ceremonial uniform: olive-green Ike jacket or tunic with blue accents (shoulder straps and cuffs, blue tie, brass tie tack, white gloves, and olive-green felt campaign hat with leather hat band. The campaign hat is worn with uniform.
Rough duty uniform – The rough duty uniform consists of green cargo trousers and work shirt (in short or long sleeves). Usually worn with green baseball cap or tan stetson.
Accessories, footwear, and outerwear – Additional items are worn in matching blue or black colors as appropriate.
Organization patches – The Border Patrol wears two:
The CBP patch is worn on the right sleeves of the uniform. It contains the DHS seal against a black background with a "keystone" shape. A "keystone" is the central, wedge-shaped stone in an arch, which holds all the other stones in place.
Border Patrol agents retain the circular legacy Border Patrol patch, which is worn on the left sleeve.
The Border Patrol uniform is getting its first makeover since the 1950s to appear more like military fatigues and less like a police officer's duty garb.[16] Leather belts with brass buckles are being replaced by nylon belts with quick-release plastic buckles, slacks are being replaced by lightweight cargo pants, and shiny badges and nameplates are being replaced by cloth patches.
[edit] Border Patrol (OBP) Ranks and Insignia
Location Title Collar insignia Shoulder ornament Pay grade
Border Patrol Headquarters Chief of the Border Patrol Gold-plated Senior Executive Service (SES)
Deputy Chief of the Border Patrol Gold-plated SES
Division Chief Gold-plated SES
Deputy Division Chief Gold-plated GS-15, General Schedule
Associate Chief Gold-plated GS-15
Assistant Chief Silver-plated GS-14
Operations Officer Oxidized GS-13
Border Patrol Sectors Chief Patrol Agent (CPA) Gold-plated SES or GS-15
Deputy Chief Patrol Agent (DCPA) Gold-plated SES/GS-15 or GS-14
Division Chief Gold-plated GS-15
Assistant Chief Patrol Agent (ACPA) Silver-plated GS-15 or GS-14
Patrol Agent in Charge (PAIC) Silver-plated GS-14 or GS-13
Assistant Patrol Agent in Charge (APAIC) Oxidized GS-13
Special Operations Supervisor (SOS) Oxidized GS-13
Field Operations Supervisor (FOS) Oxidized GS-13
Supervisory Border Patrol Agent (SBPA) Oxidized GS-12
Senior Patrol Agent (SPA) (Note: Being phased out through attrition) No insignia Currently GS-11 (Will be upgraded to full performance level GS-12 sometime during the 1st quarter of 2011)
Border Patrol Agent (BPA) No insignia GS-5, 7, 9, 11 (Upgrade to GS-12 pending)
Border Patrol Academy Chief Patrol Agent (CPA) Gold-plated GS-15
Deputy Chief Patrol Agent (DCPA) Gold-plated GS-15
Assistant Chief Patrol Agent (ACPA) Silver-plated GS-14
Training Operations Supervisor (TOS) Oxidized GS-14
Supervisory Border Patrol Agent (Senior Instructor) Oxidized GS-13
Supervisory Border Patrol Agent (Instructor) Oxidized GS-13
[edit] Border Patrol Shoulder Ornaments
[edit] Awards
Newton-Azrak Award for Heroism Commissioners Distinguished Career Service Award Commissioners Exceptional Service Medal Commissioners Meritorious Service Award Commissioners Special Commendation Award Chiefs Commendation Medal
No Image Available No Image Available No Image Available
Commissioners Excellence in Group Achievement Award Purple Cross Wound Medal Academy Honor Award Winner Border Patrol Long Service Medal 75th Anniversary of the Border Patrol Commemorative Medal
No Image Available No Image Available
[edit] Newton-Azrak Award for Heroism
The Border Patrol's highest honor is the Newton-Azrak Award for Heroism. This Award is bestowed to Border Patrol Agents for extraordinary actions, service; accomplishments reflecting unusual courage or bravery in the line of duty; or an extraordinarily heroic or humane act committed during times of extreme stress or in an emergency.
This award is named for Border Patrol Inspectors Theodore Newton[17] and George Azrak,[18] who were murdered by two drug smugglers in San Diego County in 1967.
[edit] Border Patrol Uniform Devices
Border Patrol Tactical Unit (BORTAC) Border Patrol Search, Trauma and Rescue Unit (BORSTAR) Special Response Team (NSRT) Honor Guard Border Patrol Pipes and Drums Cap Badge
No Image Available
K-9 Handler Chaplain Field Training Officer Peer Support
[edit] Equipment
[edit] Weapons
A Border Patrol Agent carrying an M14 rifle.Border Patrol Agents are issued the H&K P2000 double action pistol in .40 S&W. It can contain as many as 13 rounds of ammunition (12 in the magazine and one in the chamber).
Like other law enforcement agencies, the Remington 870 is the standard shotgun.
Border Patrol Agents also commonly carry the M4 Carbine and the H&K UMP 40 caliber submachine gun. The M14 rifle is used for mostly ceremonial purposes.
As a less than lethal option, the Border Patrol also uses the FN303.
[edit] Transportation
Unlike in many other law enforcement agencies in the United States, the Border Patrol operates several thousand SUVs and pickup trucks, which are known for their capabilities to move around in any sort of terrain. This vehicles may have individual revolving lights (strobes or LEDs) and/or light bars and sirens. An extensive modernization drive has ensured that these vehicles are equipped with wireless sets in communication with a central control room. Border Patrol vehicles may also have equipment such as speed radar, breathalyzers, and emergency first aid kits. Some sectors make use of sedans like the Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor or the Dodge Charger as patrol cars or high speed "interceptors" on highways. The Border Patrol also operates ATVs, motorcycles, snowmobiles, and small boats in the riverine environment. In 2005, all Border Patrol and ICE aircraft operations were combined under CBP's Office of Air and Marine. All CBP vessel operation in Customs Waters are conducted by Office of Air and Marine.
Color schemes of Border Patrol vehicles are either a long green stripe running the length of the vehicle or a broad green diagonal stripe on the door. Most Border Patrol vehicles are painted predominantly white.
The Border Patrol also extensively uses horses for remote area patrols. The U.S. Border Patrol has 205 horses As of 2005[update]. Most are employed along the Mexico–United States border. In Arizona, these animals are fed special processed feed pellets so that their wastes do not spread non-native plants in the national parks and wildlife areas they patrol.[19]
[edit] Line of duty deaths
Total line of duty deaths (since 1904): 105[20]
Aircraft accident: 14
Assault: 2
Automobile accident: 28
Drowned: 4
Fall: 4
Gunfire: 30
Gunfire (Accidental): 3
Heart attack: 6
Heat exhaustion: 1
Motorcycle accident: 2
Stabbed: 2
Struck by train: 3
Struck by vehicle: 3
Vehicle pursuit: 2
Vehicular assault: 3
[edit] Armed incursions
On August 7, 2008, Mexican troops crossed the border into Arizona and held a U.S. Border Patrol Agent at gunpoint. Agents stationed at Ajo, Arizona said that the Mexican soldiers crossed the border into an isolated area southwest of Tucson and pointed rifles at the agent, who has not been identified. The Mexicans withdrew after other American agents arrived on the scene.[21]
[edit] Ramos and Compean
In February 2005, Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean were involved in an incident while pursuing a van in Fabens, Texas. The driver, later identified as Aldrete Davila, was shot by Agent Ramos during a scuffle. Davila escaped back into Mexico, and the agents discovered that the van contained a million dollars worth of marijuana (about 750 pounds). None of the agents at the scene orally reported the shooting, including two supervisors. The Department of Homeland Security opened up an internal affairs investigation into the incident.[22] See also [23][24][25]
[edit] Criticisms
[edit] Ineffective
In 2006, a documentary called The Illegal Immigration Invasion[26] linked the scale of illegal immigration into the United States chiefly to the ineffectiveness of the Border Patrol. The film claimed that this is due to the lack of judicial powers of the Border Patrol and the effective hamstringing of the agency by the federal government. The film interviews people that deal with illegal immigration on a daily basis, as well as local citizens living in the border areas.
[edit] Allegations of abuse
There are allegations of abuse by the United States Border Patrol such as the ones reported by Jesus A. Trevino, that concludes in an article published in the Houston Journal of International Law (2006) with a request to create an independent review commission to oversee the actions of the Border Patrol, and that creating such review board will make the American public aware of the "serious problem of abuse that exists at the border by making this review process public" and that "illegal immigrants deserve the same constitutionally-mandated humane treatment of citizens and legal residents".[27]
In 1998, Amnesty International investigated allegations of ill-treatment and brutality by officers of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and particularly the Border Patrol. Their report said they found indications of human rights violations during 1996, 1997 and early 1998.[28]
An article in Social Justice by Michael Huspek, Leticia Jimenez, Roberto Martinez (1998) cites that in December 1997, John Case, head of the INS Office of Internal Audit, announced at a press conference that public complaints to the INS had risen 29% from 1996, with the "vast majority" of complaints emanating from the southwest border region, but that of the 2,300 cases, the 243 cases of serious allegations of abuse were down in 1997. These serious cases are considered to be distinct from less serious complaints, such as "verbal abuse, discrimination, extended detention without cause."[29]
[edit] Corruption
Incidences of corruption in the U.S. Border Patrol include:
Pablo Sergio Barry, an agent charged with one count of harboring an illegal immigrant, three counts of false statements, and two counts of making a false document.[30] He plead guilty.[31]
Christopher E. Bernis, an agent indicted on a charge of harboring an illegal immigrant for nine months while employed as a U.S. Border Patrol agent.[32]
Jose De Jesus Ruiz, an agent whose girlfriend was an illegal immigrant, he was put on administrative leave pending an investigation.[32]
Oscar Antonio Ortiz, an illegal immigrant[33] who used a fake birth certificate to get into the Border Patrol admitted to smuggling more than 100 illegal immigrants into the U.S., some of them in his government truck,[34] and was helping to smuggle illegal immigrants and charged with conspiring with another agent to smuggle immigrants.
An unidentified patrol agent who was recorded on a wire tap stating that he helped to smuggle 30 to 50 immigrants at a time.[33]
[edit] National Border Patrol Council
National Border Patrol Council (NBPC) is the labor union which represents over 14,000 Border Patrol Agents and support staff. The NBPC was founded in 1968, and its parent organization is the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO. The NBPC's executive committee is staffed by current and retired Border Patrol Agents and, along with its constituent locals, employs a staff of a dozen attorneys and field representatives. The NBPC is associated with the Peace Officer Research Association of California’s Legal Defense Fund.[35]
[edit] National Border Patrol Museum
The National Border Patrol Museum is located in El Paso, Texas. The museum exhibits uniforms, equipment, photographs, guns, vehicles, airplanes, boats, and documents which depict the historical and current sector operations throughout the United States.
[edit] In popular culture
[edit] Books
Border Patrol by Alvin Edward Moore
The Border Patrol by Deborah Wells Salter
EWI: Entry Without Inspection (Title 8 U.S.C. § 1325 Improper entry by alien) by Fortuna Testarona Valiente
Tracks in the Sand: A Tale of the Border Patrol by Kent E Lundgren,
On The Line: Inside the U.S. Border Patrol by Alex Pacheco and Erich Krauss
Patrolling Chaos: The U.S. Border Patrol in Deep South Texas by Robert Lee Maril
The U.S. Border Patrol: Guarding the Nation (Blazers) by Connie Collwell Miller
My Border Patrol Diary: Laredo, Texas by Dale Squint
Holding the Line: War Stories of the U.S. Border Patrol by Gerald Schumacher
The Border Patrol Ate My Dust by Alicia Alarcon, Ethriam Cash Brammer, and Ethriam Cash Brammer de Gonzales
The Border: Exploring the U.S.-Mexican Divide by David J. Danelo
Beat The Border: An Insider's Guide To How The U.S. Border Works And How To Beat It by Ned Beaumont
West of the Moon: A Border Patrol Agent's Tale by D. B. Prehoda
The Journey: U.S. Border Patrol & the Solution to the Illegal Alien Problem by Donald R. Coppock
Border patrol: With the U.S. Immigration Service on the Mexican boundary, 1910-54 by Clifford Alan Perkins
Border Patrol: How U.S. Agents Protect Our Borders from Illegal Entry by Carroll B. Colby
In Mortal Danger: The Battle for America's Border and Security by Tom Tancredo
[edit] Film
Border Patrolman, a 1936 film in which a Border Patrolman Bob Wallace, played by George O'Brien, resigns in protest after being humiliated by the spoiled granddaughter of a millionaire.
Border Patrol, a 1943 film starring William C. Boyd, Andy Clyde, George Reeves, and Robert Mitchum
Borderline, a 1950 film noir starring Fred MacMurray about drug smuggling across the U.S./Mexico border
Border Patrol, a 1959 syndicated television series, starring Richard Webb as the fictitious deputy chief of the U.S. Border Patrol
Borderline, a 1980 movie starring Charles Bronson about a Border Patrol Agent on the U.S./Mexico border
The Border, a 1982 film starring Jack Nicholson
El Norte, a 1983 film portraying Central American Indian peasants traveling to the United States.
Flashpoint, a 1984 film starring Kris Kristofferson
Last Man Standing, a 1996 film starring Bruce Willis and Ken Jenkins as Texas Ranger Captain Tom Pickett who is investing the killing of an unnamed Immigration Inspector (played by Larry Holt) across the border in Mexico.
Men in Black, a 1997 science fiction comedy action film starring Tommy Lee Jones, Will Smith and Vincent D'Onofrio. The Border Patrol was portrayed as Immigration Inspectors
The Gatekeeper, a 2002 film by John Carlos Frey about the struggles of migrants at the Mexican/US border.
The Shepherd: Border Patrol, a 2007 film starring Jean-Claude Van Damme
Linewatch, a 2008 film starring Cuba Gooding, Jr., as a Border Patrol agent defending his family from a group of Los Angeles gang members involved in the illegal trade of importing narcotics into the United States.
[edit] Documentaries
Border Patrol: American's Gatekeepers A&E with former United States Attorney General Janet Reno
Investigative Reports: Border Patrol: America's Gatekeepers A&E Investigates
History the Enforcers : Border Patrol History Channel
[edit] See also
Border Protection Personnel
United States portal
Law enforcement/Law enforcement topics portal
List of United States federal law enforcement agencies
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Border control
Ignacio Ramos
Illegal immigration
H.R. 4437
Minuteman Project
MQ-9 Reaper
No More Deaths
Office of CBP Air
United States Mexico barrier
United States-Canadian Border
la migra
[edit] References
^ "Reinstatements to the northern border". CPB.gov. US Customs and Border Protection. 2008-05-19. www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/border_security/border_patrol/reinsta.... Retrieved 2009-06-01.
^ www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/border_security/border_patrol/border_...
^ a b c d e f "Boarder Patrol overview". CPB.gov. US Customs and Boarder Protection. 2008-08-22. www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/border_security/border_patrol/border_.... Retrieved 2009-06-01.
^ a b "Who we are and what we do". CPB.gov. US Customs and Boarder Protection. 2008-09-03. www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/border_security/border_patrol/who_we_.... Retrieved 2009-06-01.
^ Gaynor, Tim (2008-01-23). "U.S. turns to horses to secure borders". Reuters. www.reuters.com/article/inDepthNews/idUSN2323280820080124.... Retrieved 2008-01-24.
^ www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/border_security/border_patro...[dead link]
^ Nuñez-Neto, Blas (2006-010-25) (PDF). Border security: The role of the U.S. Border Patrol. Congressional Research Service. p. 35. digital.library.unt.edu/govdocs/crs//data/2006/upl-meta-c.... Retrieved 2009-06-01.
^ Coyle, Marcia (2008-03-03). "Waivers for border fence challenged: Environmental groups take their complaints to Supreme Court". The Recorder.
^ Archibold, Randal C. (2008-04-02). "Government issues waiver for fencing along border". New York Times. www.nytimes.com/2008/04/02/us/02fence.html. Retrieved 2008-04-02.
^ "Conservation groups call for an immediate halt to construction of border fence in San Pedro National Conservation Area". US Newswire. 2007-10-05.
^ Gordon, David George (May 2000). "A 'grande' dispute". National Geographic World: p. 4.
^ Cohn, Jeffrey P. (2007). "The environmental impacts of a border fence". BioScience 57 (1): 96. doi:10.1641/B570116. www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1641/B570116. Retrieved 2009-06-01.
^ "Expansive border fence stirs fights over land". Tell Me More. NPR. 2008-03-03.
^ 2007 State of the Border Patrol video[dead link]
^ a b "FAQs: Working for the Border Patrol-basic training". CPB.gov. US Customs and Boarder Protection. 2008-05-29. www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/careers/customs_careers/border_career.... Retrieved 2009-06-01.
^ Spagat, Elliot (2007-08-16). "Border Patrol uniform gets first makeover since the 1950s". North County Times. www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/08/17/news/sandiego/18_64_3.... Retrieved 2009-06-01.
^ "Border Patrol Inspector Theodore L. Newton Jr.". The Officer Down Memorial Page. www.odmp.org/officer.php?oid=9933. Retrieved 2009-06-01.
^ "Border Patrol Inspector George F. Azrak". The Officer Down Memorial Page. www.odmp.org/officer.php?oid=1368. Retrieved 2009-06-01.
^ Rostien, Arthur H. (2005-06-09). "Border Patrol horses get special feed that helps protect desert ecosystem". Environmental News Network. www.enn.com/top_stories/article/1731. Retrieved 2009-06-01.
^ "United States Department of Homeland Security - Customs and Border Protection - Border Patrol". The Officer Down Memorial Page. www.odmp.org/agency/4830-united-states-department-of-home.... Retrieved 2009-06-01.
^ Meyers, Jim (2008-08-06). "Mexican troops cross border, hold border agent". Newsmax.com. newsmax.com/insidecover/mexican_troops_border/2008/08/06/.... Retrieved 2009-06-01.
^ "Glenn Beck: Ramos & Compean - the whole story". The Glenn Beck Program. Premiere Radio Networks. 2008-07-29. www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/196/13098/. Retrieved 2009-06-01.
^ "Error: no |title= specified when using {{Cite web}}". Ramos-Compean. ramos-compean.blogspot.com/. Retrieved 2009-06-01.
^ "2 Border Patrol agents face 20 years in prison". WorldDailyNet. 2006-08-07. www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51417. Retrieved 2009-06-01.
^ "Ramos and Campean - court appeal". www.scribd.com/doc/219384/Ramos-and-Campean-Court-Appeal. Retrieved 2009-06-01.
^ (Google video) The illegal immigration invasion. October Sun Films. 2006-04-06. video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1451035544403625746. Retrieved 2009-06-01.
^ Jesus A. Trevino (1998). "Border violence against illegal immigrants and the need to change the border patrol's current complaint review process" (PDF). Houston Journal of International Law 21 (1): 85–114. ISSN 0194-1879. www.hjil.org/ArticleFiles/21_1_10.pdf. Retrieved 2009-06-01.
^ United States of America: Human rights concerns in the border region with Mexico. Amnesty International. 1998-05-19. web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engAMR510031998. Retrieved 2009-06-01.
^ Huspek, Michael; Roberto Martinez, and Leticia Jimenez (1998). "Violations of human and civil rights on the U.S.-Mexico border, 1995 to 1997: a report" (Reprint). Social Justice 25 (2). ISSN 1043-1578. findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3427/is_n2_v25/ai_n28711.... Retrieved 2009-06-01.
The data compiled in this report suggest that law enforcement in the southwest region of the United States may be verging on lawlessness. This statement receives fuller support from announcements emanating from the INS. In December 1997, John Chase, head of the INS Office of Internal Audit, announced at a press conference that public complaints to the INS had risen 29% from 1996, with the "vast majority" of complaints emanating from the southwest border region. Over 2,300 complaints were filed in 1997 as opposed to the 1,813 complaints filed in 1996. Another 400 reports of "minor misconduct" were placed in a new category. Chase was quick to emphasize, however, that the 243 "serious" allegations of abuse and use of excessive force that could warrant criminal prosecution were down in 1997, as compared with the 328 in 1996. These "serious" cases are considered to be distinct from less serious complaints, such as "verbal abuse, discrimination, extended detention without cause.
^ June 23, 2005 "Border agent accused of hiding an illegal entrant". Arizona Daily Star. 2005-06-23. www.azstarnet.com/sn/border/81082.php June 23, 2005. Retrieved 2009-06-01.
^ "Border agent pleads guilty to harboring illegal entrant". Arizona Daily Star. 2005-09-22. www.azstarnet.com/sn/border/94491.php. Retrieved 2009-06-01.
^ a b "U.S. border agent indicted". Arizona Daily Star. 2005-03-11. www.azstarnet.com/sn/border/65117.php. Retrieved 2009-06-01.
^ a b "Boarder agent said to also be smuggler". SignOnSanDiego.com. Union-Tribune Publishing. 2005-08-05. www.signonsandiego.com/news/mexico/tijuana/20050805-9999-.... Retrieved 2009-06-01.
^ Spagat, Elliot (2006-07-28). "Border agent gets 5 years for smuggling". The Washington Post. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/28/.... Retrieved 2009-06-01.
^ "About NBPC". National Border Patrol Council. 2008-08-14. www.nbpc.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&a.... Retrieved 2009-06-01.
[edit] External links
Official US Border Patrol website
US Border Patrol history
National Border Patrol Strategy(PDF)
Border Patrol official recruiting page
Border Patrol Supervisor's Association (BPSA)
Border Patrol agents killed in the line of duty
Large Border Patrol site
Border Patrol Museum official site
National Border Patrol Council official site
National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers
Friends of the Border Patrol
Congressional Research Service (CRS) Reports regarding the U.S. Border Patrol
Civilian Border Patrol Organizations: An Overview and History of the Phenomenon by the Congressional Research Service.
Border Patrol hiring forums and information for potential agents
National Border Patrol Museum
Pictures of Border Patrol vehicles
Crossing Guards in Training LA Times report on Border Patrol training.
The Coalition Against Illegal Immigration
Border Patrol unofficial Auxiliary NOT a Government Agency and not affiliated with the federal Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
[edit] External Video
Border Stories
[edit] GAO and OIG Reports
GAO Report: Border Patrol - Southwest Border Enforcement Affected by Mission Expansion and Budget August 1992
GAO Report: Border Control - Revised Strategy is Showing Some Positive Results December 1994
g96065.pdf GAO Report: Border Patrol - Staffing and Enforcement Activities March 1996
GAO Report: ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION - Southwest Border Strategy Results Inconclusive; More Evaluation Needed December 1997
USDOJ OIG Report: Operation Gatekeeper July 1998
GAO Report: ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION - Status of Southwest Border Strategy Implementation 1999
GAO Report: Border Patrol Hiring December 1999
GAO Report: Southwest Border Strategy - Resource and Impact Issues Remain After Seven Years August 2001
National Border Patrol Strategy March 2005
GAO Report: Effectiveness of Border Patrol Checkpoints July 2005
DHS OIG Report: An Assessment of the Proposal to Merge Customs and Border Protection with Immigration and Customs Enforcement November 2005
[hide]v • d • eBorder guards
Asia Bangladesh · China · Israel · Hong Kong · India (Border Security Force · Indo-Tibetan Border Police · Rashtriya Rifles · Indian Home Guard · Special Frontier Force · Assam Rifles) · Pakistan (Frontier Corps · Rangers) · Singapore · Taiwan · Thailand
Europe Estonia · European Union · Finland · France · Germany · Italy · Latvia · Lithuania · Norway · Poland · Romania · Russian Federation · Switzerland · Ukraine · United Kingdom
North America Canada · United States of America
Oceania Australia (Department of Immigration and Citizenship · Australian Customs and Border Protection Service) · New Zealand (Immigration New Zealand · New Zealand Customs Service)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Border_Patrol"
Categories: Federal law enforcement agencies of the United States | Border guards | Specialist law enforcement agencies of the United States | History of immigration to the United States | United States Department of Homeland Security | Borders of the United States
Hidden categories: All articles with dead external links | Articles with dead external links from June 2009 | Articles with broken citations | Articles needing cleanup from December 2009 | All pages needing cleanup | All articles with unsourced statements | Articles with unsourced statements from February 2007 | All accuracy disputes | Articles with disputed statements from December 2009 | Articles containing potentially dated statements from 2005 | All articles containing potentially dated statements
Copyright - All Rights Reserved - Black Diamond Images
Testing the low light capabilities of the IPhone 13 Pro Max.
Testing my iPhone 6's closeup capabilities, I got this not-sharp shot of a Snowberry clearwing moth a few minutes ago. I can’t yet use my SX60 camera because of my broken forearm. I took a better, though not excellent, shot of one last August.
*******************
copyright © Mim Eisenberg/mimbrava studio. All rights reserved.
See my photos on fluidr: www.fluidr.com/photos/mimbrava
I invite you to stroll through my Galleries: www.flickr.com/photos/mimbrava/galleries
PACIFIC OCEAN (Oct. 3, 2021) - A U.S. Marine Corps F-35B Lightning II aircraft with Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA) 242 conducts a vertical landing aboard the Japanese Ship Izumo off the coast of Japan, Oct. 3, 2021. U.S. Marines and Sailors embarked aboard the Japanese Ship Izumo in support of the first ever F-35B Lightning II operations aboard a Japanese vessel. The U.S. and Japan continue to work closely together to broaden their operational capabilities, support the Treaty of mutual Cooperation and Security, and maintain a free and open Indo-Pacific. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Tyler Harmon) 211003-M-JO217-1555
** Interested in following U.S. Indo-Pacific Command? Engage and connect with us at www.facebook.com/indopacom | twitter.com/INDOPACOM |
www.instagram.com/indopacom | www.flickr.com/photos/us-pacific-command; | www.youtube.com/user/USPacificCommand | www.pacom.mil/ **
Sky portion of a panorama done in Zion 3 years ago, testing out the new BlurX in PixInsight and it's capabilities with a wide angle pano that's stretched and color adjusted with curves. I chose this pano because it's one of the worst case stitches I've ever had, I never actually finished the pano because it was so bad. This was shot with a self modified Nikon Z6 and Tamron 35mm f1.4 (at f2). The modification caused some severe sensor tilt that I couldn't ever get dialed in properly, as a result there are significant star problems and stitching problems throughout the image. Even worse was the rapidly moving bands of bright green airglow which enhanced the star problems and color problems. I pretty much binned the pano because it was so hard to edit.
RC-Astro released a new version of his BlurX plugin for PixInsight last month and Bry thought to try it on one of her shots, then showed me. I was very impressed, so I wanted to give it a shot on the horrible picture to see what I could get out of it. I opened the stitched sky and do some curves adjustment to try and tame some of the colors (no saturation/vibrance and no sharpening/noise reduction though). Then I opened the tiff file in PixInsight and ran BlurX on it at 0.4/0.4 for stars/non-stellar sharpening, which is a low to moderate amount. Finally I resampled the image to 6144px on the long edge (the max res Flickr can display).
The Hawker Siddeley Harrier is the first of the Harrier Jump Jet series of aircraft. It was developed in the 1960s as the first operational close-support and reconnaissance fighter aircraft with vertical/short takeoff and landing (V/STOL) capabilities and the only truly successful V/STOL design of the many that arose in that era. The Harrier was developed directly from the Hawker Siddeley Kestrel prototype aircraft, following the cancellation of a more advanced supersonic aircraft, the Hawker Siddeley P.1154. The British Royal Air Force (RAF) ordered the Harrier GR.1 and GR.3 variants in the late 1960s. It was exported to the United States as the AV-8A, for use by the US Marine Corps (USMC), in the 1970s.
During the Harrier's service the RAF positioned the bulk of the aircraft in West Germany to defend against a potential invasion of Western Europe by the Warsaw Pact forces; the unique abilities of the Harrier allowed the RAF to disperse their forces away from vulnerable airbases. The USMC used their Harriers primarily for close air support, operating from amphibious assault ships, and, if needed, forward operating bases. Harrier squadrons saw several deployments overseas. The Harrier's ability to operate with minimal ground facilities and very short runways allowed it to be used at locations unavailable to other fixed-wing aircraft. The Harrier received criticism for having a high accident rate and for a time-consuming maintenance process.
In the 1970s the British Aerospace Sea Harrier was developed from the Harrier for use by the Royal Navy (RN) on Invincible-class aircraft carriers. The Sea Harrier and the Harrier fought in the 1982 Falklands War, in which the aircraft proved to be crucial and versatile. The RN Sea Harriers provided fixed-wing air defence while the RAF Harriers focused on ground-attack missions in support of the advancing British land force. The Harrier was also extensively redesigned as the AV-8B Harrier II and British Aerospace Harrier II by the team of McDonnell Douglas and British Aerospace. The innovative Harrier family and its Rolls-Royce Pegasus engines with thrust vectoring nozzles have generated long-term interest in V/STOL aircraft.
Animus and Anima are present in all modes of consciousness. The masculine and feminine both manifest themselves consciously in qualia (feeling a baby kick in the womb) in the subconscious and unconscious (releasing progesterone during pregnancy to stop ovulation, producing semen, the focus arising from testosterone) and in the collective unconscious (masculine and feminine roles structure collective experience, language, literature, etc.)
Animus has distinctive notes that must be expressed in the mode of Anima where Anima predominates. For Jung, the distinctive notes of Animus are Power, meaning, and self-consciousness. Power is the predominant mode of animus in primitive experience. Here the paradigms are the hero (Achilles, Beowulf), the cowboy, the athlete. The paradigm manifests competition, drive, determination, authority, superiority. This level of Animus has many expressions in Anima: the figure skater, female gymnast, powerful queen, grizzly-mother, activist, office manager. Where meaning and self-consciousness are measured by relationship to God or in religious terms, there are also clear modes of equality between Animus and Anima: Animus makes theologies and disputes over abstract concepts; Anima has personal, mystical insight within the religious-wisdom tradition.
The problem arises when self-consciousness is defined through the inherently abstract, impersonal, and fundamentally subjugative mode of technological accomplishment. Anima has yet to find a way to express itself in this mode, and so finds itself fundamentally alienated. This is the problem of Anima in the contemporary world, and it is not clear whether valuing technology in this way can be just. But this does not bode well for technology, since Anima simply will not tolerate this sort of exclusion from the highest mode of consciousness for long.
“The problem arises when self-consciousness is defined through the inherently abstract, impersonal, and fundamentally subjugative mode of technological accomplishment. Anima has yet to find a way to express itself in this mode, and so finds itself fundamentally alienated.”
Which sort of technological accomplishment do you have in mind here?
I guess when I think of technological trends in the last 10-20 years, a significant number have been toward an increase in social functions (Facebook & other social media, texting, Skype), intuitive interface (iPad, Nintendo Wii), and personal customization (iPhone, Android). Rather than abstract and impersonal, they are becoming normal elements of everyday social interaction and personal expression.
The use of technology (used broadly to include biotech, machines, etc.) and science can always be personal and integrative, but its the making of the stuff that is seen as the height of self-consciousness and human achievement. We’ve exalted the mastery and dominance over nature in thought and praxis as the ideal, and Jung’s claim is that we have yet to find a way in which Anima can express this. This has led some to deny the value of Anima and say either that liberation requires assimilating all to the masculine or that masculine and feminine mere constructions imposed on a sexless substrate. But what could be more male than to see “person” as an objectively sexless substrate? This is exactly the sort of depersonalized abstraction that is alienating Anima in the first place. Both ideas involve the grossest sexual injustice.
Note that, while on the first level of approximation this will lead to an obvious tension between the sexes and a subjugation of women, Animus and Anima are definitive characteristics in all persons. To put it concretely if crudely, men have estrogen and women have testosterone. While the problems set down above is primary a problem with alienating women, the problem will manifest itself in another way by alienating the proper expression of the Anima in male life too.
Okay. That helps. Perhaps the problem is that modern technology arises from a largely Animus-dominated scientific progression, focusing on impersonal laws and mechanisms in the first place. I’m not sure what the Anima parallel might be, but I guess it is easier for me to imagine something arising in the future altogether different than the technology in question than to see some significant way in which Anima could modify or fit into what we have now. The way you put it, it seems like a square peg/round hole problem, akin perhaps (acknowledging that both men and women have Animus and Anima) to the protests of some modern feminists today that the liberation women achieved in the past was that women could do everything a man does like a man, but that she still is not honored to do specifically feminine things as a woman, e.g. having special breaks at work after childbirth to beastfeed her child or pump milk. I’m not sure if that is the most helpful example, but it’s the best I can do.Emma Jung (1880-1955) was wife of psychiatrist Carl Gustav Jung (1875-1961) for more than 50 years and, also for many years, was one of the directors of Carl Gustav Jung Institute in Zurique, where she gave lectures and worked as a psychotherapist and supervisor. Twelve important works (from 1931 and 1955) are together in this book; the book was published in Jerusalem in 1967 and only now in Portuguese. Jung's psychology, the animus and the anima are forças mentais that, among other activities, form laços between (1) or collective unconsciousness, that is present from birth and that is genetically (biologically) determined, and (2) the unconscious person, that is the product of all the experiences of a person in the environment. Animals and animations also have important functions in the sexual identification of a person and in forming relationships with people of the opposite sex. In Jung's terminology, these are special types of archetypes. For the last few years, C. G. Jung's psychotherapy theories and techniques are attracting ever-growing attention. Jung is not suffering the progressive decline of interest that other psychiatric psychiatric writers, such as Freud and the various post-Freudians, are suffering. It is provable that in large part the persistence, and even the increase, of Jung's influence is due to the fact that Jung's psychology combines well with religious points of view. Only Jung, among the great pioneers in psychology and psychiatry in the 20th century, has this quality. Jung also has, and always has, a wide audience, especially among people who are interested in spiritual matters. In order to satisfy the growing interest of Jung in Brazil, Editora Cultrix, besides this volume, published in recent years more than a few vintage or other classic works of Jungian literature. It's clear that many psychiatrists and psychologists cannot accept Jung's basic theories. They cannot agree with the Jungian theses that (1) complete mental health requires an extensive development of forces (arquétipos) that have potential for religious expression, and that exist since the birth of collective unconsciousness in each person, and (2) one of the fundamental functions of psychotherapy is to help that spiritual development. Still, it is clear that psychiatrists and other professionals in the field of mental health are updated on important currents in the various branches of our profession, and this book by Emma Jung deals with a significant aspect of the Jungian psychological system. Readers who have accepted, or are willing to accept, Jung's points of view will make this book interesting enough, but readers who cannot afford to accept Jung's theories will try to make many speculative parts of it.
Practising psychotherapists in the West are becoming
familiar with the emergence of the psychological
problems that are affecting “liberated” women. A large
number of women who are highly successful and
competent in outer terms are plagued with a deep-
rooted inner feeling of worthlessness, lack of value and
inferiority. The conventional approach to this malaise
has been to ascribe it to psychological overloading, ME
or the necessity for these women to become yet more
ambitious and striving.
The Jungian concept of the animus is particularly suited to dealing with the problems facing the new women. Jung discovered that the human psyche was androgynous
and consisted of both masculine and feminine. Because of gender-identified ego-development, however, the masculine element in the woman and the feminine element in the
man remain unconscious and undifferentiated. When any psychological content is unconscious it follows two courses – either it becomes projected outwards onto an external
object, or leads to identification with it.
While a woman’s animus remains unconscious it too will follow these channels for expression. Whilst the “unliberated” woman will project her animus outwards through
romantic novels, stereotyped relationships and an existence lived through the men in her life, the liberated woman falls into the other side of the trap, i.e. she becomes identified with her animus and loses the vital link with her feminine identity, living on a false (for a woman) masculine level. Such a woman will then find herself in a double-bind situation, where her idealisation of the masculine leads her to denigrate the feminine. Considering the thousands of years of the patriarchal inflation of the male principle it is hardly surprising that women who introject this find themselves in the grip of a tyrannical, powerful and judgemental force that undermines their individual identity. ’Together with this the woman also introjects inferior images of the feminine, images that are based on the two classic reactions of the male to the female: horror and fascination. The witch at one end of the pole suggests woman in her demonic aspect, devouring, ugly, isolated, and phallic, representing everything that is despised and rejected in the feminine. The enchantress on the other end of the pole is sexually voracious, a siren and a Circe who traps men and turns them into swine. On the individual level
each woman carries this rejected aspect of the feminine in her shadow side.Women who are presenting with this problem in analysis will often have initial dreams of witches, hags and down-and-out women, which is how they see themselves unconsciously. Thus identified with the negative side of their shadow they find that the moment the animus emerges it allies itself with the shadow, leading at the moment of greatest outward animus-fulfilling achievements to the most dejected feelings of inner worthlessness.
The Father Complex
Because the first carrier of the woman’s animus is her father the condition and force of her personal animus will be determined by the father-complex. If her father has been
too strong, she will internalise the voice of judgement and critical authority. If he is too weak, she will have no opportunity for internalising the masculine and will lead a
vegetative, unconscious existence, ready to serve the projections and needs of all the male forces in her life. The animus also provides a woman with the ability to question,
think, and for spirituality. It must not be forgotten that the animus does have a positive role to play in the psychological development of women. When it is activated
in its positive aspect, it releases positive masculine energy, focused attention, concentration and every quality associated with logos thinking, the ability to connect in consciously with what was previously unconscious. It can also be a positive “father-force”, carrying encouragement, protection, principle and containment. In dreams the animus can appear as collective body of men, soldiers, sailors, jury, committees and other symbols of masculine authority. It can also appear as the father, brother, lover, husband, son or other male figure from the dreamer’s life. More undifferentiated animus symbols includes clouds, wind, rain, thunder, penetrating phallus,
animals such as snakes, bulls, horses and dogs. In its more collective archetypal force the animus can appear as a king, a warrior, a wise man as well as mythological figures such
as Pan, Adonis, Dionysus, Appollo and Hermes.Apart from the father aspect of the animus in its mantel of law, order, authority and establishment, the animus also presents itself in the unexpected guise of the trickster both on the outer and the inner plane. In this aspect, the animus is an amoral dissolute adventurer who yet performs the necessary function of releasing the woman from the tyranny of established law (father) to a life of adventure, instability and subversion. On
the outer level, women often get involved with Don Juans with whom they can only enjoy a transient non-committal relationship which they can use as a tool of rebellion
against an authoritarian father. On the inner level too the trickster-animus has a similar function, providing a woman with a counterpoint against the father-animus. Pan,
Hermes, monkeys, goblins, dwarves, knackers, clowns, harlequins, leprechauns etc. are images of the trickster in dreams. Over a period of time, the trickster has a way of evolving from an amoral, half-human creature to its rightful function as a symbol of transformation and then it appears increasingly in dreams in the various guises of Hermes, ringing bells, knocking on doors, demanding attention, bearing gifts, guiding journeys, and generally being indispensable in the woman’s psychological development.
It is important to keep in mind that as in any psychological process, there is no strict logical order; the analysand is having to deal with different aspects of the animus at the
same time, and this will be reflected in her dreams. It will generally be well into the process of differentiation when dreams contain different aspects of the animus. When this
happens, it is important to pay attention to what is presenting, allowing the woman to reclaim what is hers and reject that which is psychologically alien. A woman engaged in
this process dreamt:
”While my father, my husband and I are out of our flat, my maid has let in a 14 year old boy who had come selling sachets of herbal perfume. He needs a job as he is quite poor, and there is something very honest
about him. My father sees red, and says he will only break things. But the boy assures me he is very careful and always pushes back drawers that he has opened. I have a struggle with myself, my first instinct being to listen to the better judgement of my father. But then I decide that I can find a job for the boy, he can take charge of the daily shopping for
groceries.”The dream indicates a distinct turning point in the dreamer’s struggle for liberation from an idealised father. The boy is the new emerging personal animus who will be in
the service of the woman, the rightful place psychologically speaking for a woman’s masculine element. Both perfume sachets and shopping indicate the feeling values, which is
what the dreamer needs to balance her thinking-orientated activities. The boy is very careful to push back the drawers which to the dreamer held contents that were intimate,
for instance jewellery and underwear. So this animus can be entrusted with exploring the secrets of her psyche whilst yet providing a container that is safe and private. This would be yet another function of the positive animus.The above dream occurred about two years into the woman’s analysis. Her previous dreams had consisted of negative male figures constellated both by her father-complex and her partner. In its negative aspect, the animus constellates as the inner critic, judge, sadist, murderer, evil magician and the proverbial cad who constantly informs the woman that she’s ugly, worthless, stupid, and unlovable. It disrupts all the feeling-relationships
of the woman, in the face of all reality “proving” to her that her partner doesn’t love her. This is the inner critical voice that every woman has heard. It always strikes when something has already occurred to shake the woman or when she has been very successful, to deflate her. This inner tyrant holds complete sway and she finds herself yielding areas of her life that gave her pleasure and enrichment. Every time she tries to enjoy a well-deserved rest or treat the animus will taunt her with the accusation that she’s wasting her time, she’d be better off doing something “productive”.This is the introjected father-turned-judge who lays down the laws of acceptable behaviour and feelings. It convinces us that if we go against these dictates we are letting some authority down. In the presence of this voice every woman will be made to feel
like a silly little girl, who possesses no dignity in her own right.
The Inner Tyrant
The classic manifestation in dreams of this inner tyrant is as a Nazi imprisoning the woman in a concentration camp. If we keep in mind that the Nazis considered themselves Ubermenchen (Supermen) we can see how apt a symbol of this inflated masculine the unconscious has chosen. Women often have dreams of trying to escape from a camp,
being chased or shot at by the Nazi guards. Rapists, killers, and burglars are also common symbols. As well as violation, invasion, mutilation and dismemberment all indicate the
masculine principle turned awry and attacking the feminine identity. The following is a dream of a 26 year old woman before analysis:“It is night-time. There is a young, beautiful homosexual man inside a military camp. Outside the military camp, under a street lamp, sits a dwarf in a wheelchair. The young homosexual man passes by. The dwarf
calls him over as if asking for help. When the young man comes up to the dwarf, the dwarf pulls out a big knife and cuts the young man up in pieces.”The violence perpetrated in this dream is on the emerging personal animus. The young, beautiful aspect of the animus has an ambiguous masculinity, i.e. he is homosexual. The young and beautiful also suggests a narcissistic quality which in fact is a reflection of the dreamer’s father who suffered a narcissistic personality disorder. The dwarf is a stunted animus who is guarding the military camp and who cuts up the young
animus with a huge (and phallic) knife.The experience of sexual abuse can greatly affect the woman’s introjection of the masculine. When this has been the case the analyst has to take special care to disentangle the symbolic from the literal. For instance, a woman who had been sexually molested
when she was eight, as an adult often had dreams and fantasies of being attacked by several large penises. She also felt extremely uncomfortable with male physicality. During
the course of the analysis the possibility that she had been abused began to emerge. In her case, the invasion by the masculine had been a literal one, and had contaminated her
animus so that the animus too had turned against her. She was obsessive about her work, cut off from feeling type activities, highly successful but also with an inbuilt feeling of
worthlessncss which reflected her damaged femininity. The task of therapy was to cut down the animus to size by enhancing and encouraging the feminine.
The Wise ManAnother aspect of the animus is the Wise Man, the man who knows everything, whose function it is to inform, guide, teach and lead us. In its positive forms this is the archetype of wisdom. Like Moses or Solomon this man can relate to an idea in a subjective way and represents the true thinking function which is not split off, cold, sterile and objec
tive as it is assumed to be, but passionate and original However, if the woman identifies with the wise man archetype, she can become totally, and dangerously, caught up with the ideal way to be, invaded by the “spirit-father”. She will then seek achievement in masculine spiritual and cultural terms seeing herself as a sybil, a genius or a pure unearthly angel untainted by the blood and flesh of her feminine identity. Or she could live out this fantasy vicariously, through serving as the anima of some great man.Identification with any aspect of the animus, negative or positive, incurs the enmityand wrath of the Great Mother archetype (the mature feminine) which turns negative and appears in the woman’s dreams often as a witch, devouring, malignant. The negative great mother can also manifest in physical symptoms such as irregular menstruation, amenorrhoea and fertility problems.
High-achieving, animus-possessed women can also suffer from compulsive disorders such as bulimia or anorexia nervosa. Because of the lack of a strong female matrix, the
body is attacked by the negative animus, and the woman becomes split off from the feminine. Women who suffer from these disorders will in fact often acknowledge that it is
their own femininity they are attacking, and will often say that it is an internal dictator who drives them in such a regimented and forceful way to the brink of death. Angelyn Spignesi, in “Starving Women” quotes an analysand who describes the “morbid urge which rules her” as “an enemy, a man with a drawn sword, or an armed man who surrounds me and stops me whenever I try to escape his domination.”The animus possesses such extraordinary power within the woman’s psyche because it is an archetype. It is impersonal, inhuman and autonomous. If we don’t relate to it and allow it a conscious channel, it can obliterate the ego-identity. It has a life of its own, which is not under human control. Barbara Hannah pointed out that the animus jumps in whenever the feminine ego is not functioning, choosing and discriminating.
Emma Jung wrote that women have need for the spiritual. When this need is denied, the animus appropriates the Self.
Jung, in the Visions Seminars , wrote that “the animus is a very greedy fellow, and everything that falls into the unconscious is possessed by it. He is there with open mouth
and catches everything that falls down from the table of consciousness….if you let some feeling or reaction get away from you he eats it, becomes strong, and begins to argue
.” So becoming more conscious of her thoughts, feelings and values is crucial to the woman. This is particularly so as regards hurt feelings which if not expressed in a related way,
can turn into animus attacks. These attacks take the form of being caught or possessed in a spiral of rage, which gathers, momentum and leads us on to say the most appalling
things. The animus can damage marriage or close relationships by cutting off the feeling function, and also by unconsciously engaging the man’s anima. When the anima and animus begin to argue they are fed by a store of suppressed feelings of anger, resentment, envy, power, coldness and fear, each fed by the parental complexes of the partners.
Redeeming the Personal Father
In dealing with the problem of the animus the therapist will first have to deal with the father, since the main problem of the animus is constellated by the father-complex.
The woman’s main task in this process is to redeem her personal father, or rather her inner relation to her father. By attempting to see her father in both his dark and light
side she can get out of the trap of being caught in opposite sides of a spectrum which is what gives a complex its force. The dark side of the father consists of anger, lack of con
trol and incompleteness, the positive side offers power, generosity and creativity. But as long as the woman is caught in an idealised/rejecting pole she will be disowning elements of her own psyche. Being whole also requires the withdrawal of projections by reclaiming the parts of ourselves that we have projected externally. Because the father
also represents authority and something, by rejecting him the woman is also rejecting her own authority. If the woman’s attitude to her father is too idealised on the other hand, it will have the effect of cutting her off from her own professional capabilities. She will only be able to succeed on her father’s terms, and will have great difficulty in accepting and devel
oping her own talents. They will always appear slightly inconsequential to her. Too positive a relationship to the father can also prevent the woman from having a real re
lationship with another man, as any prospective partner will be compared to the idealised father and inevitably found wanting. To internalise the father principle, the woman then
has to break the idealised transference to her father by acknowledging his negative side. Linda Schierse Leonard, writing in “To Be a Woman” (3) says that “ultimately, redeeming the father entails reshaping the Masculine within, fathering that side of ourselves. Instead of the “perverted old man” and the “angry, rebellious boy”, we need to find the Man with Heart, the inner man with a good relation to the Feminine.” The emergence of this man with heart was signalled for an analysand in the following dream:“A friend of my partner’s called Sweetman has called on me. He has a briefcase in one hand and a doll in the other. He says that the doll had gone bald but he had transplanted hair back onto its head. He never went anywhere without it now.”The bald doll represents a sterile logos, thinking without heart. One is reminded of Yeats’ “Bald heads forgetful of their sins”. By restoring hair, Sweetman restores to it the crowning glory of the feminine. This is the man who is sweet, who has found a balance between the masculine and the feminine. Now he never goes anywhere without the feminine.Of course the integration with the feminine is still only in its formative stages, since it appears as a doll, but its a start and this analysand’s subsequent dreams show how the doll becomes a flesh and blood woman, a positive shadow figure who is “at her side”.
Strengthening the Feminine
Apart from redeeming the father and the masculine the woman, in her efforts to humanise the animus, also has to strengthen the feminine within her. This means not only
restoring value to the feminine in the face of patriarchy and her own rejection of the feminine but also to acknowledge her female ancestors. Modern woman, in order to free herself from the shackles of subservient femininity also rejects her mother and the collective archetype of femininity. The conscious separation from the mother’s model of life and marriage also separates the woman from the emotional and instinctive part of herself. So an intrinsic part of the healing will be to develop a strong feminine container, which can reconcile the woman to her nurturing, receptive, biological identity. The therapist’s role is crucial to this process in providing a safe maternal container. The unwary therapist can worsen matters at this stage if he/she has political feminist views which are concerned with liberating women from the feminine rather than liberating them to be feminine. Counselling the animus-identified woman who secretly feels inferior to be more assertive and ambitious is the worst possible thing. In fact, the therapist has to make it possible for the analysand to be more receptive, intuitive and feeling.
Rituals are particularly good for grounding in the feminine. Anything that the patient relates to is valuable e.g. drawing, sculpting, clay-modelling, dancing, knitting. It enables the patient to act out the boundaries outside that she’s trying to create inside. Rituals provide containers which allow one to play within a pattern. Acting them out can be tremendously healing. I have found rituals to be of particular help to women suffering from eating disorders. Women should also be warned against sacrificing their personal instincts and feelings for an ideal, an achievement or external goal, a particularly strong temptation for the conscious female. Animus, being very goal-oriented keeps woman on the move. Whenever this voice dictates, women should try and resist it, by taking time off or treating themselves. Humour can quickly restore a sane perspective, deflating the pompous self-importance of the animus. Indulging oneself in trivialities too can be very healing. One woman, in the grip of her animus, dreamt that she was in a large store in Grafton Street looking at little trinkets. She then bought a perfume called “Sweet Nothings”.The dream was a gentle hint to pay more attention to the sweet nothings of life. Caught in the grip of the animus, a woman feels cut off from precisely the sweetness of life. Activities that help us to use our feeling function of relatedness are perhaps the best antidote to the grip of the animus. Taking time off to play with the children, giving attention to a pet, cultivating a garden, these are all activities that centre around nurturing life. They have to be undertaken in a very deliberate manner, even though this might seem unspontaneous at the time.
Channelling Energies
If a woman is in the grip of the “spirit-father: (see above) animus, she can be caught up in thinking that she is a creative genius or get involved in some project that is vague and inflated. At this time, what is needed is a very specific project that the woman can channel her energies into. This grounds the high-flying animus, at the same time of fering it a channel for its energy. Emma Jung wrote in “Anima and Animus” that “confronted with one of these aspects of the animus, the woman’s task is to create a place for it in her life and personality. Usually our talents, hobbies and so on, have already given us hints as to the direction in which this energy can become active. Often too, dreams point this way, and….will mention studies, books, and definite lines of work, or of artistic or executive activities”.
Confronted with the difficulties that the animus creates, women sometimes wonder whether it is not best left alone. The animus in fact is extremely important in the psychological development of women, enabling her to extend her consciousness, and through the capacity for objective, independent thought, allowing her to reclaim territories of her psyche previously unconscious and in the possession of extrinsic authority. The big struggle that now faces women is in learning to contain the animus both in its archetypal and personal spheres. Traditional feminist theories have fed the negative animus, because they have believed that women can only succeed on men’s terms. This extreme position was necessary to compensate for the oppression of women. But now women need to create structures in their lives and in society which ensure a niche for the conscious feminine. It is time to explode the fallacy that men and women are the same. Being equal does not mean having to be similar. Perhaps the time has come when we can afford to be different yet equal.
iahip.org/inside-out/issue-7-winter-1991/rescuing-the-fem...
From Wikipedia
Feldherrnhalle
The Feldherrnhalle (Field Marshals' Hall) is a monumental loggia on the Odeonsplatz in Munich, Germany. Modeled after the Loggia dei Lanzi in Florence, it was commissioned in 1841 by King Ludwig I of Bavaria to honor the tradition of his army.
In 1923 it was the site of the brief battle that ended Hitler's Beer Hall Putsch. During the Nazi era it served as a monument commemorating the death of 16 members of the Nazi party.
Structure
The Feldherrnhalle was built between 1841 and 1844 at the southern end of Munich's Ludwigstrasse next to the Palais Preysing and east of the Hofgarten. Previously the Gothic Schwabinger Tor (gate) occupied that place. Friedrich von Gärtner built the Feldherrnhalle[1] at the behest of King Ludwig I of Bavaria after the example of the Loggia dei Lanzi in Florence.
The Feldherrnhalle was a symbol of the honours of the Bavarian Army, represented by statues of two military leaders Johann Tilly and Karl Philipp von Wrede. The first led Bavarians in the Thirty Years War; the second led the fight against Napoleon.[2] The statues were created by Ludwig Schwanthaler.[3]
Right from the start, some Munich folk used to (and still does) ridicule the two persons honoured in the "Bayerische Feldherrnhalle" (lit. 'Bavarian Hall of Field Commanders / Field Marshals') in reference to the descendance of Tilly and the military strategic capabilities of Wrede: "The one / first was" indeed "never anything like a Bavarian and the second / other" imputedly "never anything like a Feldherr". It is a citation from Lion Feuchtwanger's novel Erfolg (de).
A sculptural group by Ferdinand von Miller was added to the centre of the monument in 1882, after the Franco-Prussian War, representing the victory over the French and the unification of Germany. The lions are a work of Wilhelm von Rümann, added in 1906 in imitation of the Medici lions of the Loggia dei Lanzi.
Site of the Beer Hall Putsch
The Feldherrnhalle was the scene of a confrontation on Friday morning, 9 November 1923, between the Bavarian State Police and the followers of Adolf Hitler in which the Nazi party attempted to storm the Bavarian Defense Ministry. This was the culmination of the Nazis' failed coup attempt to take over the Bavarian State, commonly referred to as the Beer Hall Putsch. In the ensuing gun battle, four policemen and sixteen marchers were killed. Many more were wounded, including Hermann Göring. As a result of the failure of the so-called Beer Hall Putsch, Hitler was arrested and sentenced to a prison term.
Sacred Nazi site
After the Nazis took power in 1933, Hitler turned the Feldherrnhalle into a memorial to the Nazis killed during the failed putsch. A memorial to the fallen SA men was put up on its east side, opposite the location of the shootings. This monument, called the Mahnmal der Bewegung, was created to a design by Paul Ludwig Troost. It was a rectangular structure listing the names of the martyrs.[2] This was under perpetual ceremonial guard by the SS. The square in front of the Feldherrnhalle (the Odeonsplatz) was used for SS parades and commemorative rallies. During some of these events the sixteen dead were each commemorated by a temporary pillar placed in the Feldherrnhalle topped by a flame. New SS recruits took their oath of loyalty to Hitler in front of the memorial. Passers-by were expected to hail the site with the Nazi salute.
Consequently, some people tried to avoid this. The structure's backside was (and still is) occupied by a rococo palace, the Palais Preysing, in front of which runs a lane, the "Viscardigasse". This little detour helped to bypass the hall, subsequently earning it the nickname "Drückebergergasse" (lit. 'shirker's lane').[2]
Post war
At the end of the war the Feldherrnhalle was restored to its pre-Nazi appearance. Local people spontaneously smashed the Mahnmal der Bewegung to pieces on 3 June 1945.[2] In the 1950s a plan to move Bavaria's memorial to the unknown soldier to the Feldherrnhalle was halted on the grounds that it could provide an excuse for neo-Nazis to meet at the site.[2]
On 25 April 1995 Reinhold Elstner, a World War II veteran, committed self-immolation in front of Feldhernhalle to protest against "the ongoing official slander and demonization of the German people and German soldiers". Each year neo-fascist groups from various European countries try to hold a commemorative ceremony for him, which Bavarian authorities try to prevent through state and federal courts.[4]
+++ 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:
Clarence L. "Kelly" Johnson, vice president of engineering and research at Lockheed's Skunk Works, visited USAF air bases across South Korea in November 1951 to speak with fighter pilots about what they wanted and needed in a fighter aircraft. At the time, the American pilots were confronting the MiG-15 with North American F-86 Sabres, and many felt that the MiGs were superior to the larger and more complex American design. The pilots requested a small and simple aircraft with excellent performance, especially high speed and altitude capabilities. Armed with this information, Johnson immediately started the design of such an aircraft on his return to the United States.
Work started in March 1952. In order to achieve the desired performance, Lockheed chose a small and simple aircraft, weighing in at 12,000 lb (5,400 kg) with a single powerful engine. The engine chosen was the new General Electric J79 turbojet, an engine of dramatically improved performance in comparison with contemporary designs. The small L-246 design remained essentially identical to the Model 083 Starfighter as eventually delivered.
Johnson presented the design to the Air Force on 5 November 1952, and work progressed quickly, with a mock-up ready for inspection at the end of April, and work starting on two prototypes that summer. The first prototype was completed by early 1954 and first flew on 4 March at Edwards AFB. The total time from contract to first flight was less than one year.
The first YF-104A flew on 17 February 1956 and, with the other 16 trial aircraft, were soon carrying out equipment evaluation and flight tests. Lockheed made several improvements to the aircraft throughout the testing period, including strengthening the airframe, adding a ventral fin to improve directional stability at supersonic speed, and installing a boundary layer control system (BLCS) to reduce landing speed. Problems were encountered with the J79 afterburner; further delays were caused by the need to add AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles. On 28 January 1958, the first production F-104A to enter service was delivered.
Even though the F-104 saw only limited use by the USAF, later versions, tailored to a fighter bomber role and intended for overseas sales, were more prolific. This was in particular the F-104G, which became the Starfighter's main version, a total of 1,127 F-104Gs were produced under license by Canadair and a consortium of European companies that included Messerschmitt/MBB, Fiat, Fokker, and SABCA.
The F-104G differed considerably from earlier versions. It featured strengthened fuselage, wing, and empennage structures; a larger vertical fin with fully powered rudder as used on the earlier two-seat versions; fully powered brakes, new anti-skid system, and larger tires; revised flaps for improved combat maneuvering; a larger braking chute. Upgraded avionics included an Autonetics NASARR F15A-41B multi-mode radar with air-to-air, ground-mapping, contour-mapping, and terrain-avoidance modes, as well as the Litton LN-3 Inertial Navigation System, the first on a production fighter.
Germany was among the first foreign operators of the F-104G variant. As a side note, a widespread misconception was and still is that the "G" explicitly stood for "Germany". But that was not the case and pure incidence, it was just the next free letter, even though Germany had a major influence on the aircraft's concept and equipment. The German Air Force and Navy used a large number of F-104G aircraft for interception, reconnaissance and fighter bomber roles. In total, Germany operated 916 Starfighters, becoming the type's biggest operator in the world. Beyond the single seat fighter bombers, Germany also bought and initially 30 F-104F two-seat aircraft and then 137 TF-104G trainers. Most went to the Luftwaffe and a total of 151 Starfighters was allocated to the Marineflieger units.
The introduction of this highly technical aircraft type to a newly reformed German air force was fraught with problems. Many were of technical nature, but there were other sources of problems, too. For instance, after WWII, many pilots and ground crews had settled into civilian jobs and had not kept pace with military and technological developments. Newly recruited/re-activated pilots were just being sent on short "refresher" courses in slow and benign-handling first-generation jet aircraft or trained on piston-driven types. Ground crews were similarly employed with minimal training and experience, which was one consequence of a conscripted military with high turnover of service personnel. Operating in poor northwest European weather conditions (vastly unlike the fair-weather training conditions at Luke AFB in Arizona) and flying low at high speed over hilly terrain, a great many Starfighter accidents were attributed to controlled flight into terrain (CFIT). German Air Force and Navy losses with the type totaled 110 pilots, around half of them naval officers.
One general contributing factor to the high attrition rate was the operational assignment of the F-104 in German service: it was mainly used as a (nuclear strike) fighter-bomber, flying at low altitude underneath enemy radar and using landscape clutter as passive radar defense, as opposed to the original design of a high-speed, high-altitude fighter/interceptor. In addition to the different and demanding mission profiles, the installation of additional avionic equipment in the F-104G version, such as the inertial navigation system, added distraction to the pilot and additional weight that further hampered the flying abilities of the plane. In contemporary German magazine articles highlighting the Starfighter safety problems, the aircraft was portrayed as "overburdened" with technology, which was considered a latent overstrain on the aircrews. Furthermore, many losses in naval service were attributed to the Starfighter’s lack of safety margin through a twin-engine design like the contemporary Blackburn Buccaneer, which had been the German navy air arm’s favored type. But due to political reasons (primarily the outlook to produce the Starfighter in Southern Germany in license), the Marine had to accept and make do with the Starfighter, even if it was totally unsuited for the air arm's mission profile.
Erich Hartmann, the world's top-scoring fighter ace from WWII, commanded one of Germany's first (post-war) jet fighter-equipped squadrons and deemed the F-104 to be an unsafe aircraft with poor handling characteristics for aerial combat. To the dismay of his superiors, Hartmann judged the fighter unfit for Luftwaffe use even before its introduction.
In 1966 Johannes Steinhoff took over command of the Luftwaffe and grounded the entire Luftwaffe and Bundesmarine F-104 fleet until he was satisfied that the persistent problems had been resolved or at least reduced to an acceptable level. One measure to improve the situation was that some Starfighters were modified to carry a flight data recorder or "black box" which could give an indication of the probable cause of an accident. In later years, the German Starfighters’ safety record improved, although a new problem of structural failure of the wings emerged: original fatigue calculations had not taken into account the high number of g-force loading cycles that the German F-104 fleet was experiencing through their mission profiles, and many airframes were returned to the depot for wing replacement or outright retirement.
The German F-104Gs served primarily in the strike role as part of the Western nuclear deterrent strategy, some of these dedicated nuclear strike Starfighters even had their M61 gun replaced by an additional fuel tank for deeper penetration missions. However, some units close to the German borders, e.g. Jagdgeschwader (JG) 71 in Wittmundhafen (East Frisia) as well as JG 74 in Neuburg (Bavaria), operated the Starfighter as a true interceptor on QRA duty. From 1980 onwards, these dedicated F-104Gs received a new air superiority camouflage, consisting of three shades of grey in an integral wraparound scheme, together with smaller, subdued national markings. This livery was officially called “Norm 82” and unofficially “Alberich”, after the secretive guardian of the Nibelung's treasure. A similar wraparound paint scheme, tailored to low-level operations and consisting of two greens and black (called Norm 83), was soon applied to the fighter bombers and the RF-104 fleet, too, as well as to the Luftwaffe’s young Tornado IDS fleet.
However, the Luftwaffe’s F-104Gs were at that time already about to be gradually replaced, esp. in the interceptor role, by the more capable and reliable F-4F Phantom II, a process that lasted well into the mid-Eighties due to a lagging modernization program for the Phantoms. The Luftwaffe’s fighter bombers and recce Starfighters were replaced by the MRCA Tornado and RF-4E Phantoms. In naval service the Starfighters soldiered on for a little longer until they were also replaced by the MRCA Tornado – eventually, the Marineflieger units received a two engine aircraft type that was suitable for their kind of missions.
In the course of the ongoing withdrawal, a lot of German aircraft with sufficiently enough flying hours left were transferred to other NATO partners like Norway, Greece, Turkey and Italy, and two were sold to the NASA. One specific Starfighter was furthermore modified into a CCV (Control-Configured Vehicle) experimental aircraft under control of the German Industry, paving the way to aerodynamically unstable aircraft like the Eurofighter/Typhoon. The last operational German F-104 made its farewell flight on 22. Mai 1991, and the type’s final flight worldwide was in Italy in October 2004.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 54 ft 8 in (16.66 m)
Wingspan: 21 ft 9 in (6.63 m)
Height: 13 ft 6 in (4.11 m)
Wing area: 196.1 ft² (18.22 m²)
Airfoil: Biconvex 3.36 % root and tip
Empty weight: 14,000 lb (6,350 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 29,027 lb (13,166 kg)
Powerplant:
1× General Electric J79 afterburning turbojet,
10,000 lbf (44 kN) thrust dry, 15,600 lbf (69 kN) with afterburner
Performance:
Maximum speed: 1,528 mph (2,459 km/h, 1,328 kn)
Maximum speed: Mach 2
Combat range: 420 mi (680 km, 360 nmi)
Ferry range: 1,630 mi (2,620 km, 1,420 nmi)
Service ceiling: 50,000 ft (15,000 m)
Rate of climb: 48,000 ft/min (240 m/s) initially
Lift-to-drag: 9.2
Wing loading: 105 lb/ft² (510 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 0.54 with max. takeoff weight (0.76 loaded)
Armament:
1× 20 mm (0.787 in) M61A1 Vulcan six-barreled Gatling cannon, 725 rounds
7× hardpoints with a capacity of 4,000 lb (1,800 kg), including up to four AIM-9 Sidewinder, (nuclear)
bombs, guided and unguided missiles, or other stores like drop tanks or recce pods
The kit and its assembly:
A relatively simple what-if project – based on the question how a German F-104 interceptor might have looked like, had it been operated for a longer time to see the Luftwaffe’s low-viz era from 1981 onwards. In service, the Luftwaffe F-104Gs started in NMF and then carried the Norm 64 scheme, the well-known splinter scheme in grey and olive drab. Towards the end of their career the fighter bombers and recce planes received the Norm 83 wraparound scheme in green and black, but by that time no dedicated interceptors were operational anymore, so I stretched the background story a little.
The model is the very nice Italeri F-104G/S model, which is based on the ESCI molds from the Eighties, but it comes with recessed engravings and an extra sprue that contains additional drop tanks and an Orpheus camera pod. The kit also includes a pair of Sidewinders with launch rails for the wing tips as well as the ventral “catamaran” twin rail, which was frequently used by German Starfighters because the wing tips were almost constantly occupied with tanks.
Fit and detail is good – the kit is IMHO very good value for the money. There are just some light sinkholes on the fuselage behind the locator pins, the fit of the separate tail section is mediocre and calls for PSR, and the thin and very clear canopy is just a single piece – for open display, you have to cut it by yourself.
Since the model would become a standard Luftwaffe F-104G, just with a fictional livery, the kit was built OOB. The only change I made are drooped flaps, and the air brakes were mounted in open position.
The ordnance (wing tip tanks plus the ventral missiles) was taken from the kit, reflecting the typical German interceptor configuration: the wing tips were frequently occupied with tanks, sometimes even together with another pair of drop tanks under the wings, so that any missile had to go under the fuselage. The instructions for the ventral catamaran launch rails are BTW wrong – they tell the builder to mount the launch rails onto the twin carrier upside down! Correctly, the carrier’s curvature should lie flush on the fuselage, with no distance at all. When mounted as proposed, the Sidewinders come very close to the ground and the whole installation looks pretty goofy! I slightly modified the catamaran launch rail with some thin styrene profile strips as spacers, and the missiles themselves, AIM-9Bs, were replaced with more modern and delicate AIM-9Js from a Hasegawa air-to-air weapons set. Around the hull, some small blade antennae, a dorsal rotating warning light and an angle-of-attack sensor were added.
Painting and markings:
The exotic livery is what defined this what-if build, and the paint scheme was actually inspired by a real world benchmark: some Dornier Do-28D Skyservants of the German Marineflieger received, late in their career, a wraparound scheme in three shades of grey, namely RAL 7030 (Steingrau), 7000 (Fehgrau) and 7012 (Basaltgrau). I thought that this would work pretty well for an F-104G interceptor that operates at medium to high altitudes, certainly better than the relatively dark Norm 64 splinter scheme or the Norm 83 low-altitude pattern.
The camouflage pattern was simply adopted from the Starfighter’s Norm 83 scheme, just the colors were exchanged. The kit was painted with acrylic paints from Revell, since the authentic tones were readily available, namely 75, 57 and 77. As a disrupting detail I gave the wing tip tanks the old Norm 64 colors: uniform Gelboliv from above (RAL 6014, Revell 42), Silbergrau underneath (RAL 7001, Humbrol’s 127 comes pretty close), and bright RAL 2005 dayglo orange markings, the latter created with TL Modellbau decal sheet material for clean edges and an even finish.
The cockpit interior was painted in standard medium grey (Humbrol 140, Dark Gull Grey), the landing gear including the wells became aluminum (Humbrol 56), the interior of the air intakes was painted with bright matt aluminum metallizer (Humbrol 27001) with black anti-icing devices in the edges and the shock cones. The radome was painted with very light grey (Humbrol 196, RAL 7035), the dark green anti-glare panel is a decal from the OOB sheet.
The model received a standard black ink washing and some panel post-shading (with Testors 2133 Russian Fulcrum Grey, Humbrol 128 FS 36320 and Humbrol 156 FS 36173) in an attempt to even out the very different shades of grey. The result does not look bad, pretty worn and weathered (like many German Starfighters), even though the paint scheme reminds a lot of the Hellenic "Ghost" scheme from the late F-4Es and the current F-16s?
The decals for the subdued Luftwaffe markings were puzzled together from various sources. The stencils were mostly taken from the kit’s exhaustive and sharply printed sheet. Tactical codes (“26+40” is in the real Starfighter range, but this specific code was AFAIK never allocated), iron crosses and the small JG 71 emblems come from TL Modellbau aftermarket sheets. Finally, after some light soot stains around the gun port, the afterburner and some air outlets along the fuselage with graphite, the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish.
A simple affair, since the (nice) kit was built OOB and the only really fictional aspect of this model is its livery. But the resulting aircraft looks good, the all-grey wraparound scheme suits the slender F-104 well and makes an interceptor role quite believable. Would probably also look good on a German Eurofighter? Certainly more interesting than the real world all-blue-grey scheme.
In the beauty pics the scheme also appears to be quite effective over open water, too, so that the application to the Marineflieger Do-28Ds made sense. However, for the real-world Starfighter, this idea came a couple of years too late.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Yakovlev Yak-38 (Russian: Яковлева Як-38; NATO reporting name: "Forger") was the Soviet Naval Aviation's first and only operational VTOL strike fighter aircraft, in addition to being its first operational carrier-based fixed-wing aircraft. It was developed specifically for and served almost exclusively on the Kiev-class aircraft carriers.
Some specimen of the initial variant were tested during the Soviet Union's intervention in Afghanistan. These trials revealed several weaknesses of the construction in the form of unacceptable hot and high capabilities as well as a low payload. A further development for the Soviet Navy was therefore decided in August 1981, the abilities of which were fixed in October 1982. Already in November 1982 the first flight experiments of the prototype, leading to the Yak-38M, took place. In mid-1983 the manufacturing tests were completed and the production release was granted.
Anyway, the Soviet Air Force also had interest in a VTOL attack aircraft, which could provide CAS duties in immediate front line theatres, complementing the new Suchoj Su-25 Frogfoot and various attack helicopter types - but the Yak-38 was outright rejected. The Frontal Aviation demanded a much better performance, a dedicated avionics suite for ground attack duties and a higher payload of at least 2.500 kg (5.500 lb) in VTOL mode, plus an internal gun, and 3.000 kg (6.600 lb) when operating in C/STOL mode at sea level and from semi-prepared airstrips. For its primary ground attack role, the machine was also to be armored against projectiles of up to 0.5” around the lower hull and against 20mm rounds in the cockpit section. Finally, the machine had to be, compared with the Yak-38, simplified and be more rugged in order to ease frontline service and endure survivability.
OKB Yakovlev accepted the challenge and dusted off studies that had been undertaken during the Yak-38’s design stage. One of these was the Yak-38L (for 'lift/cruise'), a design built around a single, modified the AL-21F turbojet with vectoring nozzles and no lift engines, which were just dead weight in normal flight. This route seemed to be the most promising option for the Frontal Aviation's demands, even though it would mean a severe re-construction of the airframe.
The new aircraft, internally referred to as 'Izdeliye 138', was based on the Yak-38 airframe, but adapted and literally built around a lift/cruise variant of the large Kuznetsov NK-32 low bypass turbofan engine (originally, with an afterburner, powering the late Tu-144 airliners and the Tu-160 bomber). This engine’s initial derivative, NK-32L-1, adapted for operation with four vectoring nozzles, had a dry thrust of roundabout 110 kN (25,000 lbf) – about 10% more than the Yak-38’s engine trio all together. And the massive engine bore potential for at least 10% more power for the service aircraft.
The overall layout differed considerably from the long and sleek Yak-38: in order to create enough space for the large turbofan stage and its bigger, fixed-configuration air intakes, the fuselage had to be widened behind the cockpit section and the wings' main spar was moved upwards, so that the wings were now shoulder-mounted. The overall arrangement was reminiscent of the successful Hawker Harrier, but differed in some details like the landing gear, which was a classic tricycle design.
Cold air from the NK-32L’s initial turbofan stage was ducted into vectoring nozzles at the forward fuselage flanks, just in front of the aircraft's center of gravity, while the hot exhaust gasses passed through a bifurcated jet pipe through another pair of vectoring nozzles behind the CoG, in an arrangement which was also used in the Yak-38.
Slow speed control was ensured through puffer jet nozzles, fed by bleed air from the engine and placed on both wing tips as well as under the nose and in the aircraft’s tail section.
Teething troubles with the new engine, as well as the new, vectored nozzle arrangement, postponed the Izedeliye 138 prototype’s first flight until March 1986. Work was also slowed down because OKB Yakovlev had been working on the supersonic Yak-41 V/STOL fighter for the Soviet Navy, too. The Soviet Air Force's Frontal Aviation kept interested in the project, though, since they wanted a dedicated attack aircraft, and no complex multi-role fighter.
State acceptance trials lasted until mid 1987, and a total of four prototypes were built (including one for static ground tests). The Yak-138 was found to be easier to handle than the Yak-38, and the single engine made operations and also the handling during flight mode transition much easier and safer.
The prototypes were soon followed by a pre-production batch of 21 aircraft for field trials in frontline units. By then, the NK-32L had been much improved and now offered 137 kN (31,000 lbf) of thrust for short periods, which made it possible to meet all the Frontal Aviations requirements (esp. the call for 2.000 kg ordnance in VTOL mode).
Among its test pilots, the Yak-138 was quite popular and called "Balkon" ("Balcony") because of the good frontal view from the armored cockpit (offering a 17° downwards sight angle).
For frontline service, the aircraft was now equipped with sophisticated avionics, including a Sokol-138 navigation suite with a DISS-7 Doppler radar and a digital computer. A comprehensive ECM suite was installed for self-defence, including SPS-141 and SB-1 active jammers, KDS-23 chaff/flare dispensers built into the ventral pylon and an SPO-10 radar himing and warning system.
In accordance with the Yak-138‘s strike and low-level attack requirements, provisions were made to mount missiles and precision-guided munitions, as well as retaining a nuclear capability in line with other Soviet combat aircraft. An S-17VG-1 optical sight was fitted, as well as a laser rangefinder and marked-target seeker behind a flat, sloped window in the lower nose section.In the upper nose, between the aircraft's two characterisitic pitot booms, a Delta-2NG beam-riding missile guidance system antenna was placed in a small bullet fairing.
By 1989, the initial batch of aircraft had been delivered (receiving the NATO ASCC code 'Flitchbeam') and successfully tested. An order for 42 more aircraft had been placed and a dual training facility with the Soviet Navy at Kaspiysk AB in the Dagestan region (where Soviet Navy Yak-38U trainers were used for transitional training) established , when the disruption of the Soviet Union suddenly stopped the program in 1991 before the Yak-138 could enter production and service on a large scale.
Most of the machines in Frontal Aviation service fell to the Ukraine, where most of the machines had been based. This situation sealed the fate of the promising Yak-138 more or less over night: the now independent Ukraine did not want to keep the exotic type in its arsenal (together with some Yak-38s of the former Soviet Navy, too), and Russia did not want (and could simply not afford) to pay anything for the machines, which had been offered for an unknown sum.
Officially, all Ukrainian Yak-138 were scrapped until 1994, even though rumor has it that one or two airframes had been sold behind the scenes to China. In Russia only five specimen had survived, and since the spares situation was doubtful none could be kept in flying condition. One Yak-138 was eventually handed over to the Ulyanovsk Aircraft Museum, while the rest was either mothballed or scrapped, too. Unfortunately, the sole museum exhibit was lost in 1995 in a fire accident.
General characteristics:
Crew: One
Length (incl. pitot): 15.84 m (51 ft 10 1/2 in)
Wingspan: 8,17 m (26 ft 9 in)
Height: 4.19 m (14 ft 3 in)
Wing area: 24.18 m² (260.27 ft²)
Empty weight: 7,385 kg (16,281 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 11,300 kg (28,700 lb)
Powerplant:
1x Kuznetsov NK-32L-2 turbofan engine, rated at 137 kN (31,000 lbf)
Performance:
Maximum speed: 1,176 km/h (730 mph; 635 knots) at sea level
Combat radius: 230 mi (200 nmi, 370 km) lo-lo-lo with 4,400 lb (2,000 kg) payload
Ferry range: 2,129 mi (1,850 nmi, 3,425 km)
Endurance: 1 hr 30 min (combat air patrol – 115 mi (185 km) from base)
Service ceiling: 51,200 ft (15,600 m)
Time to climb to 40,000 ft (12,200 m): 2 min 23 s
Armament:
1x GSh-23L 23mm machine cannon with 250 RPG under the fuselage
5 hardpoints with a total external capacity of
- 3.000 kg (6,600 lb) for C/STOL operations and
- 2.000 kg (4.400 lb) in VTOL mode
Provisions to carry combinations of various types of unguided rockets (up to 240 mm), anti-ship
or air-to-surface Kh-23 (AS-7 Kerry) missiles (together with a Delta N guidance pod), R-60,
R-60M (AA-8 Aphid) or R-73 (AA-11 Archer) air-to-air missiles; tactical nuclear bombs, general
purpose bombs of up to 500 kg (1.100 lb) caliber, or incendiary ZB-500 napalm tanks or up to
three PTB-800 drop tanks under the fuselage and the inner pair of wing pylons
The kit and its assembly:
Sixth contribution to the “Soviet” Group Build at whatifmodelers.com in early 2017, on pretty short notice since the GB had been coming to its end. This totally fictional aircraft was inspired CG illustrations that had been roaming the WWW for some time: a hybrid between a Yak-38 (mostly the tail section), mated with an AV-8B Harrier II (cockpit, wings, landing gear). This did not look bad at all, yet a bit weird, with lift engines added in front of the fin. Certainly not conformal with a good CG balance – but I liked the idea of a single-engine Forger. And actually, OKB Yakovlev had been considering this.
So, the basic idea was a Harrier/Yak-38 kitbash. But the more I thought about the concept, the more additional donor parts came into play. One major addition was the nose section from a MiG-27 – with its slanted nose it would offer the pilot an excellent field of view, and the aircraft would, as a front line attack plane like the Harrier, not carry a radar, so the Flogger’s nose shape was perfect.
Therefore, initial ingredients for the Yak-138 were:
- Rear fuselage, wings and tail from a Tsukuda Hobby/Kangnam/Revell Yak-38
- Mid-fuselage with air intakes and front vectoring nozzles from a Matchbox Sea Harrier
- Cockpit from an Academy MiG-27
Work started with the MiG-27 cockpit, which was more or less taken OOB (except for side consoles in the cockpit and different seat), and the Yak-38 the tail section, built in parallel. To my surprise the Forger fuselage was easier to combine with the Harrier than expected, even though the position of the right cuts took multiple measurements until I came up with a proper solution. Since the Harrier is overall shorter than the Yak-38, the latter’s fuselage had to be shortened. I retained the tail cone, the Forger’s vectoring nozzles and the landing gear wells – and a 2cm plug was taken out between them. Instead of the Harrier’s tandem landing gear arrangement with outriggers under the outer wings, this one was to receive a conventional landing gear for optional C/STOL operations with a higher ordnance load, so that the Yak-38 parts were a welcome basis. Once the fuselage’s underside was more or less complete, the upper rest of the Yak-38 fuselage could be cut to size and integrated into the lower half and the Harrier parts.
After the rear end was settled, the MiG-27 cockpit could be mounted to the front end, which was slightly shortened by 2-3mm (since the Flogger’s is markedly longer than the short Harrier nose). In order to change the overall look of the aircraft, I eventually dropped the Harrier intakes and decided to use the Flogger’s boxy air intakes instead. These are considerably smaller than the gaping Harrier holes, and blending the conflicting shapes into each other for a more or less consistent look took several PSR turns. But it worked, better than expected, and it changes the aircraft’s look effectively, so that almost anything Harrier-esque was gone.
Once the fuselage was completed, I realized that I could not use the Yak-38 wings anymore. They are already pretty small, but with the more voluminous Harrier and Flogger parts added to the aircraft, they’d just be too small!
What to do...? I checked the donor bank and – in order to add even more individual flavor – used a pair of double delta wings from a PM Model Su-15! But only the core of them was left after considerable modifications: The inner delta wing sections were cut off, as well as the tip sections and parts of the trailing edge (for a planform similar to the Yak-38’s wings). On the underside, the landing gear openings were filled up and wing tips from the Yak-38, with puffer jet nozzles, transplanted. The inner leading edges had to be re-sculpted, too. The Su-15 wing fences were kept - a welcome, very Soviet design detail.
A lot of work, but I think it paid out because of the individual shape and look of these “new” wings?
As a consequence of the new, bigger wings, the little Yak-38 stabilizers could not be used anymore, either. In order to keep the square wing shape, I used modified stabilizers from an Intech F-16C/D – their trailing edges were clipped, but the bigger span retained. Together with the characteristic OOB Yak-38 fin they work well, and all of the aerodynamic surfaces IMHO blend well into the overall design of the aircraft.
After the hull was complete, work on smaller things could start. Under the fuselage, a GSh-23-2 pod from a MiG-21 was added, as well as pylons from the Tsukuda Yak-38 under the wings and a donor part from the scrap box in ventral position.
The landing gear is a mix, too: the main struts come from the Yak-38, the balloon wheels from the Matchbox Harrier. The front landing gear comes from the Academy MiG-27, including the wheels with mudguards. It was just mounted in a fashion that it now retracts forward.
The Harrier vectoring nozzles were modified, too, the exhaust “grills” replaced by square, simple ducts, scratched from styrene profile and putty. Care was taken that the nozzles would remain moveable in the fuselage flanks – for later hover pictures. The Yak-38’s nozzles were retained, but since they can OOB only be mounted in a single, fixed position, I added a simple pin to each nozzle, together with two holes in the hull, so that positions can now be switched between hover and level flight.
All around the hull, finally some small details like pitots, blade antennae and air scoops were finally added, and the ordnance consists of a pair of unguided 57mm rocket pods and a pair of Kh-23 (AS-7 Kerry) guided missiles – the latter come from the Yak-38 kit, but they are very crude and their tail sections were modified in order to come (slightly) closer to reality.
Painting and markings:
As an aircraft of the Soviet Frontal Aviation in the late Eighties, I settled upon a typical, disruptive four-tone camouflage with blue undersides. Very conventional, but with an exotic VTOL model I thought that a subtle look would be appropriate – and also separate it from the Naval Yak-38 cousin.
Design benchmark is the scheme on a contemporary MiG-21bis from a Soviert Frontal Aviation unit, chosen because of the disruptive pattern. The tones are guesstimates, though, based on various similar aircraft in more or less weathered condition. I settled for:
- Humbrol 195 (Dark Satin Green)
- Humbrol 78 (RAF Interior Green)
- Modelmaster 2005 (Burnt Umber)
- Humbrol 119 (Light Earth)
- Humbrol 115 (Russian Blue) for the undersides
The cockpit was painted in Russian Cockpit Green, opf course. The landing gear and their respective wells in a mix of Aluminum and Khaki Drab (Humbrol 56 & 26), and the wheel discs became bright green (Humbrol 131). Several di-electric panels and antennae were painted in Humbrol 106 (RAF Ocean Grey).
The kit received a thin black ink wash, in order to emphasize the panel lines, and panel post-shading with subtly lighter tones of the basic colors. National markings, codes and emblems come from several aftermarket sheets, mostly from High Decal Line and Begemot.
After some soot stains (grinded graphite) had been added, the kit was sealed with matt acrlyic varnish (Italeri) and the ordnace added.
Messy work, but I am surprised how consistent and normal the resulting aircraft appears? From certain angles, my Yak-138 creation reminds a good deal of the stillborn Hawker P.1154 (no similarity intended, though), the SEPECAT Jaguar or rather exotic Soko J-22 Orao/IAR-93 Vultur fighter bomber. IMHO, there’s also some A-4 Skyhawk style to it, esp. in planview? Anyway, there’s still some good Yak-38 heritage recognizable, and the tactical Frontal Aviation paint scheme suits the aircraft well - looks like a serious mud mover.
My Electronics Workbench includes computer Analysis and Diagnostic capabilities, working alongside a collection of Vintage
1950's - 70's reconditioned testing and evaluation equipment. My so called obsolete equipment includes a (factory built) HeathKit
Model 0-12 oscilloscope which has been around for over fifty years, However this device has been modified and serves me well.
I also use a Tektronix 465 scope and a computer scope for comparative purposes.
My Hewlett Packard collection includes the 410B, 400D voltmeters, a 5512A electronic frequency counter and a 202C low
frequency oscillator.
I have several vacuum tube testers. My primary unit is a Sencore MU140, which has been painstakingly reconditioned.
The unit was removed from it's original briefcase enclosure and was mounted into a slide out drawer under my workbench.
My secondary unit is a custom built computer assisted tube analyzer and the third unit is a B&K 747 for continuity and
comparison, providing me with backup in the event of a failure.
A note of possible interest: when I removed the Sencore's control panel from it's case, I found a Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory (NASA) Service Technician's punch list sheet with notes, plus additional Sencore documents in a plastic envelope
glued to the inside bottom of the briefcase enclosure which was a fascinating find.
I also have a few other interesting devices tucked away. Some other essential pieces of equipment I have besides a few extra
multimeters is a hand built multi outlet isolated & regulated power supply, several variable DC power supplies and a variable
metered autotransformer.
This equipment is just a chain of readily available components on the power supply end of an electronics workstation, assuring
an outcome that results in the best possible performance from your equipment and the tasks at hand. However a typical power
supply and protection setup like this is not fool proof and can be vulnerable and unreliable under certain conditions, making it
necessary at times to use battery operated (standalone) equipment in conjunction with your AC equipment while performing
certain multi point tests to avoid misleading readings.
All and all, I have enough confidence to use my vintage test equipment without computer assistance, weather it's a checkup,
test and repair job or even on a new build.
Some of the devices mentioned but not seen in this photo are kept in an easily movable autonomous roll out equipment
rack under my workbench.
Recent equipment includes an additional Sencore MU140 tube tester, a Hewlett Packard 339A Distortion Analyzer, a UDB /
DDS multi-function signal generator, a handheld Owon 60Mhz dual oscilloscope with advanced multi-functions and a Heath
Zenith variable isolated AC Power Supply, plus the lion's share of assorted specialty hand tools.
I was doing some more real-world test of the capabilities of the Nikkor AF-P 70-300mm DX lense and happened to be near the HMCS Haida moored at Hamilton, Ontario’s Pier 9 on Burlington Bay. The Haida is a under the care and control of Canada’s national parks service, Parks Canada, and has been preserved as the last Tribal Class destroyer because of its war service record (www.pc.gc.ca/en/lhn-nhs/on/haida, and tours are free in 2017 in celebration of Canada’s 150th anniversary of Confederation, in case you wanted to visit). Uncooperative weather conditions made general photography at this location less than productive but I decided to go for an image of the hull of the Haida with the idea of capturing the curves of the hull and also the rivet patterns. Black-and-white/monochrome treatment seemed a natural fit to the subject under the conditions at the time. - JW
Date Taken: 2017-07-28
Tech Details:
Taken using a tripod-mounted Nikon D7100 fitted with an AF-P Nikkor 70-300mm DX lense set to 200mm, ISO100, AutoWB, Aperture priority mode, f/8.0, 1/125 sec with an EV+0.33 exposure bias. PP in free Open Source RAWTherapee from Nikon RAW/NEF source file: scale image to 9000x6000, set exposure to 1/2 stop over as-shot (brighter), increase contrast and Chromaticity in L-A-B mode (i.e. get it looking reasonable in colour before converting it to B&W), enable Graduated-Neutral-Density/GND tool and rotate and shift it to cover the wedge of sky along the left side of the frame and then darken the sky somewhat to just recover some texture, convert to B&W, enable shadows-highlights and recover highlights to recover some detail in the sky as well as brighten the darkest areas of the hull, fine tune contrast. sharpen, save. PP in free Open Source GIMP: adjust tone curve to slightly brighten the top end of the curve by pulling up the curve at about 2/3 of the way across the curve and then also pull down (darken) the curve at about the 25% point in from the left, sharpen, save, scale image to 6000x4000, sharpen, save, add fine black-and-white frame, add bar and text on left, save, scale image to 1800 wide for posting, sharpen, save.
HOKKAIDO, Japan (Oct. 4, 2022) - U.S. Marines with 3d Battalion, 12th Marines and members of the Northern Army, Japan Self-Defense Force (JSDF) demonstrate High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems ( HIMARS) during exercise Resolute Dragon 22 at Yausubetsu Maneuver Area, Hokkaido, Japan, Oct. 4, 2022. Resolute Dragon 22 is an annual bilateral exercise designed to strengthen the defensive capabilities of the U.S.-Japan Alliance by exercising integrated command and control, targeting, combined arms, and maneuver across multiple domains. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Lorenzo Ducato) 221004-M-GN953-1162
** Interested in following U.S. Indo-Pacific Command? Engage and connect with us at www.facebook.com/indopacom | twitter.com/INDOPACOM |
www.instagram.com/indopacom | www.flickr.com/photos/us-pacific-command; | www.youtube.com/user/USPacificCommand | www.pacom.mil/ **
Benjamin Reed, deputy program manager of NASA’s Satellite Servicing Capabilities Office, shows Dr. Holdren the technologies that NASA is developing for the Restore-L satellite servicing mission. NASA will launch the Restore-L servicer in 2020 to refuel a live satellite and demonstrate that a suite of satellite-servicing technologies are operational.
More info: Asteroid Redirect Mission Update – On Sept. 14, 2016, NASA provided an update on the Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM) and how it contributes to the agency’s journey to Mars and protection of Earth. The presentation took place in the Robotic Operations Center at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. Assistant to the President for Science and Technology Dr. John P. Holdren, NASA Administrator Charles Bolden and NASA’s ARM Program Director, Dr. Michele Gates discussed the latest update regarding the mission. They explained the mission’s scientific and technological benefits and how ARM will demonstrate technology for defending Earth from potentially hazardous asteroids. The briefing aired live on NASA TV and the agency’s website. For more information about ARM go to www.nasa.gov/arm.
Credit: NASA/Goddard/Debbie Mccallum
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center enables NASA’s mission through four scientific endeavors: Earth Science, Heliophysics, Solar System Exploration, and Astrophysics. Goddard plays a leading role in NASA’s accomplishments by contributing compelling scientific knowledge to advance the Agency’s mission.
Follow us on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Find us on Instagram
+++ 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:
As an island nation, Japan’s highest priorities for research in World War II were its navy and aviation industries. The army was large, but its military equipment could not match rival European counterparts who had stronger ground forces. Japan did not use heavy tanks, and an examination of the most advanced mass-produced Japanese vehicle—the Type 97 Chi-Ha—shows it lighter, smaller and with worse armament than its contemporaries: the Soviet T-34, German Pz.Kpfw IV and US M4 Sherman.
The reason that Japan did not develop heavier tanks was not the result of military incompetence, but rather of logistics: Japan was fighting for control of small Pacific islands. All vehicles and equipment had to be transported by sea, onto island terrain not suitable for using heavy vehicles; where designs were concerned, lighter was better! At the time, China, the only major mainland rival of Japan, did not have good armor or anti-armor capabilities, so the existing Japanese vehicles were deemed acceptable for the task at hand. Additionally, except for battle ships, the Japanese industry did not have much experience with the production of heavier tanks, and the respective tools were also not present.
On December 7, 1941, Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and went to war with the USA. They achieved several early victories, invading the Philippines, multiple islands of Oceania, and part of New Guinea. The Allies were hard-pressed to keep up.
During their domination in the Pacific region, the Japanese created a defensive perimeter using islands as strongholds. The Americans and other allied forces began to hit back. In June 1942, the Japanese lost four aircraft carriers during the Battle of Midway, and US forces slugged it out for six months during the Battle of Guadalcanal before emerging victorious in February 1943. Similar to Stalingrad in the East these two battles deprived Japan of the strategic initiative, and their defensive perimeter fell under attack, island by island. The Allied forces were nearing the Japanese Home Islands.
In June 1943, Japan's ambassador visited one of the Wehrmacht's heavy tank detachments. He was very impressed by the huge tiger. Germany and the Kaiserreich made a deal. Allies help each other. Anyone who has a particularly effective new weapon passes information about it to the army of the country that is fighting at least one common enemy. This is exactly what happened in the Third Reich between June 1943 and autumn 1944. The Japanese embassy in Berlin had concluded from press reports about the unsuccessful battles by German troops in Tunisia, which ultimately ended with a surrender, that the Wehrmacht had a new super tank. So, Ambassador General Hiroshi Oshima asked to see this new weapon - after all, the Japanese Empire was fighting against the USA, if not against Stalin's Soviet Union. On June 7, 1943, he personally visited the German front in front of Leningrad with a few adjutants. That was unusual; Actually, such a mission would have been more the task of a military attaché - although Oshima had already been in Berlin from 1934 to 1938. He also spoke perfect German and was friends with Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop.
The Wehrmacht had had a stranglehold on the former Russian capital since autumn 1941; conquering them was one of the main goals of Army Group North, especially of 18th Army. This is one of the reasons why the 1st Company of the 502nd Heavy Tank Battalion remained in Siewersi, around 70 kilometers south of Leningrad city center. It was one of the detachments with the new Tiger tanks. Commanded by Oberleutnant Klaus Diehls, the 1st company had only one Tiger ready for action after heavy fighting around Schlüsselburg in January 1943, but by the beginning of June they received new vehicles as supplies, so that the unit again had 14 Panzer VIs at its disposal - the was the nominal strength after the regrouping to a pure Tiger company. A day after the arrival of the new vehicles, the Japanese military delegation, accompanied by Colonel General Georg Lindemann, the commander of the 18th Army, Klaus Diehls, the heavy tanks demonstrated their capabilities to the high-ranking guests, and Oshima was even allowed to take the commander's seat of a tiger. The ambassador was deeply impressed by the sheer power of the tank.
Oshima knew that the Japanese tanks could not match the firepower and protection of the models in the European theater of war. In 1943 the most modern model was the Type 1 Chi-He, which with a weight of 17.5 tons, a 47 mm gun and an output of 240 hp was just about the same as a German Panzer III from 1940. However, this was not due to any incompetence on the part of Japanese engineers - their specifications were simply different: Since the empire wanted to expand its sphere of influence far into the Pacific, ship portability was an essential criterion when developing its own armored vehicles.
However, since the Japanese defeat in the Battle of Midway in June 1942, the US Marines increasingly used Sherman tanks during the fierce fighting for individual Pacific islands. This medium combat vehicle was clearly superior to the German Panzer III and, depending on the version, roughly equivalent to the Panzer IV; Shooting down Japanese models was no problem at all for its 75mm gun. So, in Japan there was the idea of replicating the most modern German tanks and transporting them to the occupied Pacific islands that had not yet been attacked, in order to stop or at least slow down the advance of the marines.
The time for an indigenous development, so the calculation, could be saved if the Japanese industry simply copied or license-built operational models from Germany. The Japanese delegation was particularly impressed by the firepower of the German “Acht-Achter”, the Tiger's 88 mm gun. With such a weapon it should be possible to stop the Marines' Shermans.
A few weeks later, in July 1943, Oshima and his companions visited the Henschel tank factory in Kassel. Here he had the production of the German super tank explained in detail, experienced a demonstration at the test site near Wilhelmsthal Castle and also viewed a specimen of the new medium-heavy German tank, the Panther. Presumably, the German side rather concealed the weaknesses of the Tiger, which had already become apparent during the first operations in 1942/43: the vertical armor of the hull at the front and the sides was unnecessarily vulnerable. The engine was undersized, the weight too high for many routes and the speed off-road at a maximum of 20 kilometers per hour too low. While the Henschel engineers were developing the successor to the Tiger I, logically called Tiger II, to production maturity in the second half of 1943, the Japanese embassy was negotiating with the Wehrmacht about the delivery of the Tiger I.
In 1943, Germany sent Japan two packages of technical documentation, but Japan also wanted to purchase the tank and import vehicles to Japan by submarine. The cost to produce a Tiger was around 300,000 Reichsmarks in 1943, while the Ministry of Armaments and the Henschel Company requested 645,000 Reichsmarks from the Japanese for a fully loaded tank. The Germans had not simply decided to “cash in” on oversea allies: the cost of technical documentation was also included into the amount; and the tank would be supplied with ammunition, an excellent radio, and optics. Also, Germany was prepared to disassemble and pack the thirty-ton tank for shipment to Japan.
The Allies commanded the Mediterranean Sea and Atlantic, so underwater shipping was the only way to get the Tiger to Japan, but few vessels could carry a bulky 30-ton tank hull. The only option were Japanese submarine aircraft carriers that had corresponding characteristics, namely the IJN’s I-400-class submarines. These were the largest submarines of World War II and remained the largest ever built until the construction of nuclear ballistic missile submarines in the 1960s. Measuring more than 120 m (390 ft) long overall, they displaced 5,900 t (6,500 short tons), more than double their typical American contemporaries. The cross-section of its pressure hull had a unique figure-of-eight shape which afforded the necessary strength and stability to handle the weight of a large on-deck aircraft hangar. To allow stowage of three aircraft along the vessel's centerline, the conning tower was offset to port. Located approximately amidships on the top deck was a cylindrical watertight aircraft hangar, 31 m (102 ft) long and 3.5 m (11 ft) in diameter. The outer access door could be opened hydraulically from within or manually from the outside by turning a large hand-wheel connected to a rack and spur gear. The door was made waterproof with a 51-millimetre-thick (2.0 in) rubber gasket.
The I-400 class was designed with the range to travel anywhere in the world and return. A fleet of 18 boats was planned in 1942, and work started on the first in January 1943 at the Kure, Hiroshima arsenal. However, within a year the plan was scaled back to just five ships, and this fleet hardly had any practical value in the aircraft carrier role except for long-range reconnaissance or special strike missions, so that they were frequently used for underwater transport of heavy/bulky items – including the disassembled Tiger I tank!
With this highly limited logistics option, the Tiger tanks had trouble reaching Japan at all. Most optimistic estimates put its arrival in December of 1944. Despite many difficulties, the first tank for Japan was sent to a Bordeaux port in February 1944, and the Japanese paid for the order: officially coming into possession of the Tiger, but not able to use or reverse engineer it. Until summer of 1944, when the Allies landed in Normandy, only a handful of Tiger Is had been sent to Japan through I-400 submarines, re-assembled and put into IJA service, where they were designated Type 99 ‘To-Ra’.
The To-Ra was, even though it looked like the German Tiger I, a unique variant that differed from its ancestor. The hull was the same, with the same level of overall armor, but apparently the “export Tigers” were produced with hardened steel of lower quality than the German tanks, saving material and money. The running gear was simplified, too; it had only twelve wheels instead of the Tiger I’s original arrangement of sixteen interleaved wheels and used the rubber-saving all-metal wheels that were often retrofitted to German tanks during field repairs. The commander cupola on top of the turret was the new, standardized cast model (the same one that was used on the Panzer V Panther, too) that was introduced on late-production Tiger Is; it was easier to produce and offered a better field of view than the Tiger’s early welded “dustbin” model. Another small difference were all-metal drive wheels, another sign of the use of steel with less quality, and the export tanks were not – like late German production Tiger Is – watertight and not capable of deep-fording anymore.
The tanks for Japan mostly retained the original German equipment, including the radio set, optics, engine and the powerful 8.8 cm KwK 36. However, the gun was outfitted with a simpler and slightly longer single-piece L/71 barrel (instead of the original L/56 two-piece barrel), and the machine guns were not fitted upon delievery; they were, upon re-assembly in Japan, replaced with Japanese 7.7mm Type 97 light machine guns. Another, visible domestic modification was the installation of a rigid frame radio antenna on the turret instead of the European whip antenna on the rear hull.
In September 1944, with a worsening control situation in France, the submarine transfers were moved to other ports under German control. However, they ceased altogether in late 1944, due to the worsening war situation, logistics problems, the general dangers of the long naval travel and the increasing lack of fuel to support the deliveries in both Germany and Japan. All in all, probably less than twenty Tiger I tanks reached Japan. All were re-assembled, but only a little more than a dozen became fully operational and ready for combat.
The Type 99 was exclusively allocated to home defense units, where it would have been a powerful asset. They were based on the southern Japanese mainland, waiting for the Allied invasion (operation Olympic), but it never came. Most of the time the Tigers were just used to train crews, or they were enlisted for PR appearances, boosting morale and confusing the enemy with potential massive resistance and firepower.
The To-Ras was, however, due to their sheer bulk and weight, very limited. The Japanese Tigers were relatively immobile and could not be transferred to the continental Japanese colonies, where they were direly needed and where the might have had some impact: When the Soviets invaded Manchuria in August 1945, they found an impressive Japanese tank force, at least on the paper, but a deep ravine separated the IJA and Soviet types. The latter had constantly improved their models in response to German tanks, and were much more advanced in speed, firepower, and protection than the average IJA models, which were light and/or obsolete by any standards of the time. The To-Ra/Tigers would have been a match, even a serious threat at long distance, but they were too few and stuck in homeland defense, so that their overall contribution was negligible. In fact, no Japanese Tiger fired in anger until the end of the war.
Specifications:
Crew: Five (commander, gunner, loader, driver, radio operator)
Weight: 54 tonnes (60 short tons) empty,
57 tonnes (63 short tons) combat weight
Length: 6.32 m (20 ft 8.7 in)
8.85 m (29 ft) overall with gun facing forward
Width: 3.56 m (11 ft 8 in)
Height: 3.00 m (9 ft 10 in)
Ground clearance: 0.47 m (1 ft 7 in)
Suspension: Torsion bar, interleaved road wheels
Fuel capacity: 540 liters
Armor:
25–120 mm (0.98–4.72 in)
Performance:
Maximum speed: 45.4 km/h (28.2 mph) on roads
20–25 km/h (12–16 mph) cross country
Operational range: 195 km (121 mi) on road
110 km (68 mi) cross country
Power/weight: 13 PS (9.5 kW) / tonne
Engine & transmission:
Maybach HL230 P45 V-12 petrol engine with 700 PS (690 hp, 515 kW),
Maybach Olvar Typ OG 40 12 16 gearbox (8 forward and 4 reverse)
Armament:
1× 1× 8.8 cm KwK 36 L/71 with 92 AP and HE rounds
2× 7.7mm Type 97 light machine guns with a total of 4,800 rounds
The kit and its assembly:
This rather romantic what-if model is an interpretation of the real historic desire of Japan to obtain the Tiger I from Germany, and there are actually OOB model kits of this oddity available (e .g. from Border Models in 1:35). However, I am not a big fan of the Tiger I – it looks like a box with tracks and a bulky turret on top, very uninspired. Well, I had a Hasegawa 1:72 Tiger I kit in The Stash™, which I only had bought a while ago because it came with an extra set of road wheels, which had already gone into another conversion problem. The IJA Tiger, aptly called “To-Ra” (which means “Tiger” in Japanese, AFAIK), offered a good story to finally build the leftover kit – even though constructing a plausible background story how this heavy tank might have shown up in Japan called for some serious imagination!
That said, the very simple kit was built almost OOB, using the kit’s late production rubber-saving all-metal wheels and an optional roof top with the late, cast commander cupola. I also used one of the kit’s optional gun mantlets and implanted a longer, single-piece 8.8cm gun barrel from an early-production Jagdpanther (Armorfast), for a slightly different look. For more “Japanism” I scratched a frame antenna from steel wire and sprue material. It's just a small change, but with the antenna the tank looks quite different now, and it has a retro touch?
However, mounting the road wheels turned out to be a bit tricky. The featureless “inner” set of wheels needed its central holes to be considerably widened to fit onto their respective swing arms, and the “outer” wheels lack deep holes on their backs, so that the area that holds them on the swing arm tips(!) is very limited. Everything appears über-tight, all in all a wobbly affair, even though I understand that the Tiger I’s running gear is a complex thing to depict and construct in 1:72. However, I have built the Trumpeter counterpart of this model, and it was much easier to assemble and robust.
Painting and markings:
The more exotic aspect of the model, and I applied a typical IJA paint scheme from earlier war periods – one with the famous yellow contrast stripes, which were probably in real life more subdued than frequently depicted. The four-tone camouflage consists of Humbrol 160 for the “cha-iro” red brown, Humbrol 30 for “midori-iro” (dark green), a mix of Humbrol 155 and 121 for a greenish variant of the light IJA khaki, and Humbrol 81 (Pale Yellow) for the contrast stripes.
The black vinyl tracks were painted with a streaky mix of grey, red brown and some silver.
The markings were applied after an overall washing with dark brown acrylic paint; they were improvised and are purely fictional, even though the white flash icon appeared AFAIK on tanks of the unit the model depicts. The Japanese flags are further romantic geegaw – even though such markings apparently appeared on late-war IJN tanks.
After the decals the model received an overall treatment with dry-brushed dark earth and beige, and some bare metal marks with silver. As final steps, the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish, assembled, and then lightly dusted with mineral artist pigments around the lower areas.
A rather simple project – something that might make World of Warcraft nerds nervous? The frame antenna was the biggest modeling challenge, the running gear a nuisance. But finding a halfway plausible explanation how even a small number of Tiger I tanks from Germany could appear in Japan at all was a bigger one! However, the result looks surprisingly convincing, and the IJA paint scheme suits the boxy Tiger I well, it looks very natural under the false flag, And I am happy that I eventually found a use for the leftover kit! :-D
Some background:
The Leyland “Type D” was one of several armoured vehicle types designed in 1940 on the orders of Lord Beaverbrook and Admiral Sir Edward Evans, as a part of the hasty measures taken by the British Government following the Dunkirk evacuation and the threat of invasion.
The “Type D” was a heavy scout car, intended to replace the Lanchester 6x4 and Rolls-Royce 4x2 armoured cars, which dated back to the WWI era and the early interwar period. While they were reliable vehicles and still in active service, their off-road capabilities, armament and armour left a lot to be desired – esp. in the face of the modern German army and its effective equipment.
Certainly inspired by the German SdKfz. 231/232 family of heavy 8x8 armoured reconnaissance vehicles, Leyland added a fourth axle to better distribute the vehicle’s weight and a drivetrain to the front axle to a modified “Retriever” 3-ton 6x4 lorry chassis, resulting in a 6x8 layout. The rigid axles were mounted on leaf springs front and rear with hydraulic dampers, both front axles were steerable. The engine, a water-cooled 6-litre, 4-cylinder overhead camshaft petrol engine with 73 hp, was, together with the gearbox, relocated to the rear, making room for a fully enclosed crew compartment in the front section with two access doors in the vehicle’s flanks. The crew consisted of four, with the driver seat at the front. The gunner and commander (the commander at the right and gunner at the left) stood behind them into the turret or were sitting on simple leather belts, and behind them was a working station for a radio operator.
The tall, cylindrical turret was welded and electrically traversed, but it lacked a commander cupola. All the armament was mounted in the turret and consisted of a quick-firing two-pounder (40mm) cannon and a coaxial 7.92 mm Besa machine gun. The faceted hull was, like the turret, welded from homogenous steel armour plates, and a straightforward design. Maximum armour thickness was 15 mm at the front, 8 mm on the sides, and 10 mm on the back, with 6 mm and 5 mm of armour on the top and bottom respectively. It had been designed to provide protection from small arms fire and HE fragments, but it was ineffective against heavier weapons. This armour was a compromise, since better protection had resulted in a higher weight and overstrained the Type D’s lorry chassis and engine. The armoured cabin was mounted to the chassis at only four points - front, rear and sides - to give some flexibility but with precautions against excessive movement.
The Type D’s prototype was designed, built, tested and approved just within 3 months. Deliveries of the first production vehicles commenced only 2 months later, just in time to become involved in the North Africa campaign. All early production vehicles were immediately sent to Egypt and took part in Operation Compass and the Western Desert Campaign.
It comes as no surprise that the Type D – developed and produced in a hurry and thrown into battle in an environment it had not been designed for – initially failed, and even when the worst deficits had been rectified the Type D’s performance remained mediocre at best. The biggest problems concerned the engine’s cooling system, its low power output and therefore poor speed, and the vehicle’s poor off-road performance, esp. on soft ground like sand. The vehicle’s suspension was quickly overburdened in heavy terrain and the tall turret placed its center of gravity very high, making the Type D prone to topple over to a side when slope angles were taken too slightly. Poor cabin ventilation was another problem that became even more apparent under the African sun.
Initial losses were high: more than half of the Type Ds lost in North Africa during the early months of 1941 were abandoned vehicles which got stuck or had to be left behind due to mechanical failures. The rest had fallen easy prey to German and Italian attacks – the Type D was not only very vulnerable even to the Panzer II’s 20 mm autocannon, its thin top armour made it in the open desert also very vulnerable to air attacks: German MG 131 machine gun rounds easily punched the vehicle’s shell, and even lighter weapons were a serious threat to the tall Type D.
As soon as the first sobering field reports returned back to Great Britain, Leyland immediately devised major improvements. These were introduced to newly produced Mk. II vehicles and partly retrofitted to the early Mk. I vehicles in field workshops. One of these general improvements were new desert wheels and tires, which were considerably wider than the original lorry wheels and featured a flat pattern that better distributed the vehicle’s weight on soft and unstable ground, what considerably improved the Type D’s performance on sand. A kit with a more effective radiator and a bigger engine cooling system was quickly developed and sent to the units in Africa, too. The kit did not fully solve the overheating problems of the early Mk. I, but improved the situation. From the outside, retrofitted Type Ds could be recognized by a raised engine cover with enlarged air intakes. Due to the limits of the chassis the armour level was not improved, even though the crews and field workshops tried to attach improvised additional protective measures like spare track links from tanks or sandbags – with mixed results, though. The armament was not updated either, except for an optional mount for an additional light anti-aircraft machine gun on the turret and kits for smoke dischargers on the turret’s flanks.
The Type D Mk. II, which gradually replaced the Mk. I on the production lines from March 1941 on, furthermore received a different and much more effective powerplant, a Leyland 7-litre six-cylinder diesel engine with an output of 95 hp (70 kW). It not only provided more power and torque, markedly improving the vehicle’s off-road performance, it also had a better fuel economy than the former lorry petrol engine (extending range by 25%), and the fuel itself was less prone to ignite upon hits or accidents.
During its short career the Leyland Type D was primarily used in the North African Campaign by the 11th Hussars and other units. After the invasion of Italy, a small number was also used in the Southern European theatre by reconnaissance regiments of British and Canadian infantry divisions. A few vehicles were furthermore used for patrol duty along the Iran supply route.
However, the Type D was not popular, quickly replaced by smaller and more agile vehicles like the Humber scout car, and by 1944 outdated and retired. Leyland built a total of 220 Type Ds of both versions until early 1943, whilst an additional 86 Mk. IIs were built by the London, Midland and Scottish Railway's Derby Carriage Works.
Specifications:
Crew: Four (commander, gunner, driver, co-driver/radio operator/loader)
Weight: 8.3 tons
Length: 20 ft 5 in (6,30 m)
Width: 7 ft 5 in (2,27 m)
Height: 9 ft 2¾ in (2,81 m)
Ground clearance: 12 in (30.5 cm)
Turning radius: 39 ft (12 m)
Suspension: Wheel, rigid front and rear axles;
4x8 rear-wheel drive with selectable additional 6x8 front axle drive
Fuel capacity: 31 imp gal (141 litres)
Armour:
5–15 mm (0.2 – 0.6 in)
Performance:
Maximum road speed: 35 mph (56 km/h)
Sustained road speed: 30 mph (48 km/h)
Cross country speed: up to 20 mph (32 km/h)
Operational range: 250 mi (400 km)
Power/weight: 11,44 hp/ton
Engine:
1× Leyland 7-litre six-cylinder diesel engine, 95 hp (70 kW)
Transmission:
4-speed, with a 2-speed auxiliary box
Armament:
1× QF Two-pounder (40 mm/1.57 in) cannon with 94 rounds
1× 7.92 mm Besa machine gun mounted co-axially with 2.425 rounds
2-4× smoke dischargers, mounted on the turret
The kit and its assembly:
This fictional British WWII vehicle might look weird, but it has a real-world inspiration: the Marmon Herrington Mk. VI armoured heavy scout car. This vehicle only existed as a prototype and is AFAIK still preserved in a museum in South Africa – and upon a cursory glance it looks like an SdKfz. 232 with the shrunk turret from a “Crusader” cruiser tank with a short-barreled six pounder gun. It looks like a fake! Another reason for this build was a credible “canvas” for the application of the iconic “Caunter Scheme”, so that I placed the Type D in a suitable historic time frame.
The Type D was not supposed to be a truthful Marmon Herrington Mk. VI copy, so I started with a 1:72 “First to Fight” SdKfz. 232. This is a simple and sturdy tabletop wargaming model, but it is quite accurate, goes together well, is cheap and even comes with a metal gun barrel. It’s good value for the money, even though the plastic is a little thick and soft.
However, from this basis things changed in many ways. I initially wanted to shorten the hull, but the new wheels (see below) made this idea impossible. Nevertheless, the front glacis plate was completely re-modeled with 2C putty in the style of the Humber scout car, and the crew cabin was extended backwards with the same method. New observation slits had to be scratched with styrene profile material. The engine bay received a raised cover, simulating extra air intakes. The turret was replaced with a resin piece for an A13 “Valentine” Mk.III tank (S&S Models), which had a perfect size and even came with a suitable gun.
The suspension was taken OOB, but the wheels were replaced with two aftermarket resin sets (Silesian Models) with special Allied desert wheels/tires from 1941, they originally belong to a Chevrolet truck and are markedly bigger and wider than the SdKfz. 232 wheels. However, they had to be modified to match the rest of the suspension, and their size necessitated a thorough modification of the mudguards. They were not only mounted 1mm higher on the flanks, their sides, normally consisting of closed skirts, were fully opened to make sufficient room for the new wheels to change the vehicle’s look. They were furthermore separated into four two-wheel covers and their front and rear ends were slightly bent upwards. Sufficient space for the side doors had to be made, too. The spare wheels that came with the respective sets were mounted to the front (again Humber-style) and onto the engine bay cover, under a scratched tarpaulin (made from paper tissue drenched with white glue).
To conceal the SdKfz. 232 heritage even more I added more equipment to the vehicle’s flanks. Tool boxed were added to the engine bay’s flanks, some more tools to the fenders, scratched tarpaulin rolls above the side doors and I tried to scratch PSP plates with aluminum foil rubbed against a flight stand diorama floor made from PSP. Not perfect, but all the stuff livens the Type D up. A new exhaust (IIRC from a Panzer IV) was added to the rear and bumpers scratched from wire and mounted low unto the hull.
Painting and markings:
Finally, the British, so-called “Caunter Scheme”, a great source of misinterpretation not only in museums but also by modelers who have painted their British tanks in dubious if not garish colors. I do not claim that my interpretation of the colors is authentic, but I did some legwork and tried to improvise with my resources some tones that appear plausible (at least to me), based on descriptions and contemporary references.
The pattern itself was well defined for each vehicle type, and I adapted a M3 “Stuart” pattern for the model. All three basic colors, “Light Stone”, “Silver Grey” and “Slate”, were guesstimated. “Slate” is a relatively dark and greenish tone, and I chose Tamiya XF-65 (Field Grey). “Light Stone” is rather yellow-ish, light sand tone, and I used Humbrol 103 (Cream). Some sources suggest the use of Humbrol 74 (linen) as basis, but that is IMHO too yellow-ish and lacks red. The most obscure tone is “Silver Grey”, and its depictions range from a pale and dull light olive drab over blue-grey, greenish grey to bright light blue and even turquoise. In fact, this tone must have had a greenish-blue hue, and so I mixed Humbrol 145 (FS 35237) with maybe Humbrol 94 in a 3:1 ratio to achieve an “in between” tone, which is hard to describe - maybe as a greenish sand-grey? A funny effect of the colors in direct contrast is that the XF-65 appeared with an almost bluish hue! Overall, the choice of colors seems to work, though, and the impression is good.
Painting was, as usual, done with brushes and, due to the vehicle’s craggy shape, free-handedly. After basic painting the model received a light washing with a mix of black ink and brown, and some post-shading was done with light grey (Revell 75) and Hemp (Humbrol 168). Decals came from the scrap box, and before an overall protective coat of matt acrylic varnish was applied, the model received an additional treatment with thinned Revell 82 (supposed to be RAF Dark Earth but it is a much paler tone).
A more demanding build than one would expect at first sight. The SdKafz. 232 is unfortunately still visible, but the desert wheels, including the spare wheels, change the look considerably, and the British replacement turret works well, too. Using the tabletop model basis was not a good move, though, because everything is rather solid and somewhat blurry, esp. the many molded surface details, which suffered under the massive body work. On the other side, the Counter Scheme IMHO turned out well, esp. the colors, even though the slender hull made the adaptation of the pattern from a (much shorter) tank not easy. But most of the critical areas were hidden under extra equipment, anyway. 😉
The legendary Porsche 911 is the longest production run sports car of all time. It was conceived as a successor for the highly successful Porsche 356 and from the start had high aspirations for success. Ferry Porsche's son, Ferdinand Alexander Porsche, designed the 911. When it went into production it was labeled the 901 but Peugeot had claims to the name, so to avoid infringing on their naming scheme, it was changed to 911. As a result, only a few Porsches used the 901 name.
901
The Porsche 901, the forerunner for the famous 911, was the first 'new' vehicle Porsche had ever produced.
Prior to the 901, there was the 356. This vehicle had lived a relatively long lifespan and was nearing its end, both in mechanical capabilities and in appeal. Many variations of the 356 had appeared during its production-run, most improvements where mechanical with very few visual improvements. Albeit, the 356 was a very beautiful car and improvements to its design were not necessary.
In the Mid-1950's, the Porsche company began producing prototypes for the successor of the 356. The result was a vehicle built on the same unitary structure used for the 356 but with a new front suspension, front disc brakes, and a six-cylinder engine.
The Porsche 901 was introduced to the public in 1963 at the Frankfurt Motorshow. The silhouette body was available only in fixed-head coupe form. In 1967 a Targa bodystyle became available featuring a removable center roof section. The 1991 cc flat-six engine was air-cooled. It's 2-litre capacity was the same as its predecessor. The six-cylinder engine was chosen over the four to allow more room for growth and improvement in the future. Two Solex carburetors aided in the 130 horsepower output and was capable of a 130 mph top speed.
912
The Porsche 912 was similar in design to the 911 and eased the transition from the 356 to the 911. In comparison with the 911, the 912 had fewer amenities, less power, and weighed about 250 pounds less. A 5-speed gearbox was matted to a detuned 356-based 4-cylinder engine that produced 64 horsepower. The engine was mounted in the rear and powered the rear transaxle. Disc brakes and independent suspension with torsion bars gave the car excellent and impressive handling. The Recaro seats kept the driver planted and the rack-and-pinion steering was very responsive. For an additional cost, the owner could have air-conditioning, rear window wiper, halogen fog lights, electric sunroof, and/or three-point seatbelts.
The 912 came in both the coupe and targa flavors with the coupe being the more popular. About 2562 of the 34,959 912's were targas.
The 912 was offered to the public in 1965 and stayed in production until 1969 when the mid-engined 914 was introduced. Due to its low cost, it easily outsold the more powerful 911's during the first few years. In
1967, the 912 was awarded Car and Driver's 'Readers Choice' for its class. During that same year a 912, driven by Sobieslaw Zasada of Poland, won the European Rally Championship.
At the end of the 914 production in late 1975, a version of the 912, dubbed the 912E, was introduced. Internally, the vehicle was labeled the Type 923. The 'E' stood for 'Einspritzung', in German meaning 'fuel injection'. It was powered by a 2-liter, 914-derived fuel-injected engine and had had Bosch L-jetronic fuel injection and an air pump. It used the 911 body, but has smaller wheels and tires and non-vented brake rotors. The fuel-efficient engine, rising fuel costs, and lower speed limits made the 912E a safe-buy. After 2099 examples were produced, the 924 entered the scene. The 912E was the last air-cooled four-cylinder vehicle produced by Porsche.
During its production run that include the 912 and 912E, nearly 35,000 examples were produced. It had achieved victory in the racing world, served as European police cars, and was featured in the movie 'Spy Games' staring Robert Redford and Brad Pitt.
911 Targa
In 1965 the Targa was introduced. This was an open version of the 911. The Name Targa came from a road race in Sicily named 'Targa Florio'. Targa also meant 'Shield' used to describe the rollbar. The rear window could fold down while the panel between windshield and rollbar could be lifted off creating an open version of the 911.
911 S
In 1966 the 911 S was introduced as a better equipped and more powerful version of the standard 911. It featured engine modifications that resulted in 30 extra horsepower. The chassis was modified and bigger brakes were installed. An extra 5 pounds was saved from each corner of the car by using Fuch alloy wheels.
To increase sales, the 911 T was added to the line-up in 1967. This version had a de-tuned six-cylinder engine and produced 110 horsepower. It appealed to many buyers due to its attractive price, selling at a reduced cost from the base 911. Also in 1967, the 911S received ventilated disc brakes on all four corners.
In 1968, the Porsche 911S was no longer being exported to the United States due to new emissions and government standards and regulations. Porsche introduced a 911 L as a replacement which was basically a 911 S without the engine modifications. In 1969, the 911 S was once again allowed into the United States.
In 1969 the 911 E, the base model, was available with 140 horsepower for the United States and 160 horsepower for the European market. The 911 T had 125 horsepower on tap from the six-cylinder engine while the 911 S was available in the United States with 170 horsepower. The European version featured even more horsepower, rated at 190. A five-speed manual gearbox was introduced.
In 1970 the engine bore was enlarged by 4mm and increased the engine capacity to 2165 cc. This made the six-cylinder engine more powerful. The 911T was rated at 125 horsepower, the 911 E was rated 155 horsepower while the 911S was now producing 180 horsepower.
During the 1970 model year, a performance version of the 911S was created by removing amenities and using light-weight material wherever possible. Aluminum was used on the bumper and engine-lid, the interior received light-weight seats, and the door handles were replaced with cords. The result was a 1840 pounds street legal race car.
In 1972 a spoiler was standard on the 911 S but was optional on the 911 E and 911 T. In 1973, due to popularity, the spoiler became standard on all 911 models. The stroke of the engine was increased giving the engine a 2.4 liter displacement.
Carrera RS
In 1973, Porsche wanted to compete in GT competition. In order to qualify, the manufacturer had to satisfy homologation rules for the Group 4 GT class that stated that 500 examples needed to be produced and sold to the public. Porsche knew that it would be difficult to sell 500 race cars so they built street legal race cars and kept the sticker price low. The RS was an immediate popular and at the end of the production run, 1636 examples were produced. Due to the successful sales, the RS was reclassified as a Group 3 series-production GT which required at least 1000 examples be produced.
The RS was stripped of nonessential amenities to save weight. A thin-gauge body steel and fiberglass was used for most of the vehicles but the supply ran short and at least 300 cars were outfitted with the normal-weight body parts. When compared with the stock 911S, the RS using the thin-gauge steel weighed 330 pounds less.
Wider aluminum wheels, Bilstein shocks, and modified sway bars gave the RS extra handling advantages. A rear spoiler was molded into the engine cover giving the RS the nickname 'ducktail'. This gave the vehicle extra down-force at speed and aided in stability. Other distinguishing features of the RS was its name painted, typically in green, black, red or blue, above the rocker panels. The engine was a modified version of the Porsche 911 2.4 engine. It featured a bigger bore that resulted in greater displacement and horsepower.
Carrera RSR 3.0
The RSR 3.0 had 20 extra horsepower than the 2.7 version. It had a large front spoiler, large rectangular air intake, 9 inch rear wheels, and 8 inch front wheels. Since the thing-gauge body steel supply had been depleted and larger items had been placed on the RSR vehicle, the vehicle weighed 180 kg more than the 2.7. All this meant that the RSR was not much quicker than the 2.7. However, it did have better road-handling due to the wider tires.
During its production lifespan only 109 examples were produced with 60 outfitted as road going machines.
911 Weissach
The 911 SC Weissach, produced only in 1980, was a limited edition design and only 400 units were constructed (Some sources states 406. In either case, a small amount were constructed and even fewer are known to exist today). All were sold to the United States. 200 were painted in Pongee Beige Metallic while the remaining 200 received a metallic charcoal gray color. The interior had red/burgundy carpet and beige leather seats. An RS wing was placed in the rear while the front received a new spoiler. All of the 911 SC Weissach's were coupes, had normally aspirated engines, and were fitted with the 903 body. They were sold at a price of $32,000, a high price at the time.
911
In 1973 the 911E, 911T, and 911S used a 2.4 liter six-cylinder engine. In 1974 the Carrera name was added to the line-up and represented the performance option. The 911S became the middle model with its performance and trim equivalent to the former 911E.
The Carrera was distinguished by its many exterior components colored in black. For example, the door handles, wipers, and window frames were black.
In 1974 the Porsche 911 Turbo was introduced and is credited as being the world's first production turbocharged sports car. Using a 3.0 liter engine and equipped with a turbocharger, it was capable of producing 290 horsepower.
In 1976, the Carrera was outfitted with the 3.0 liter engine and produced 200 horsepower.
In 1978, there were only two options available for the 911, the Turbo and the SC. The 911 SC used the 3.0 liter engine because it was more reliable and offered more opportunity for tuning in the future. the 3.0 liter engine was rated at 180 horsepower. The 2.7 liter engine was no longer used. When compared to the 1977 Carrera 3.0, the SC was more luxurious but had less horsepower. The luxury items added to the overall weight of the vehicle which decreased the performance. Still, the 911 SC was an extremely popular car. The 911 Turbo received a 3.3 liter engine and was able to produce 300 horsepower.
In 1979 the 911 SC's engine received modifications increasing the horsepower rating to 188 while improving fuel economy by 10 percent.
In 1980 the entire 911 model-line receive extra power except those slated for exportation to the United States. The 911 SC was now producing 204 horsepower.
At the 1981 Frankfurt Auto Show Porsche introduced a four-wheel drive cabriolet version of the 911. A year later, the cabriolet went on sale as optional equipment on the 911 SC. It was the first cabriolet for Porsche since the 356.
In 1984 the 911 SC 3.0 engine was replaced by the new Carrera with a 3.2 engine. The 911 Tubro and 911 Carrera were the only bodystyles available however could be ordered in coupe, cabriolet or Targa options. The Carrera was better than its 911 SC predecessor. It offered more luxury and power, and better brakes. The 3.2 Liter engine was used until the 1989 model year. It was replaced by a 3.6 liter version.
The 1988 the turbo became standard with a five-speed manual gearbox.
In 1989 Porsche introduced the Carrera 3.2 Speedster. The top could fold to the back and be placed beneath a fiberglass cover. The Speedster was void of most electrical options including power seats which made it lighter than the standard car. In total, there were 2065 Speedsters production, 1894 with the turbo-look. The Turbo look gave the vehicle an aggressive stance but it also added weight to the vehicle. It was, however, a very popular option.
911 Carrera CS
The limited-edition 911 Carrera CS, meaning Club Sport, was introduced in 1987. This version was meant for the race track. This light-weight version was void of amenities and equipped with only the essential items. The CS is distinguished from other 911's by its red wheels and bright graphics. Most were painted in 'Grand-Prix' white and all were coupes, except for one specially-built Targa. At the end of the Carrera CS production run, 340 examples were produced.
Carrera 2 and 4
In 1989 the 911 was given a 3.6 liter engine, new suspension, new transmission, self-adjusting spoiler, plastic aerodynamic bumpers, and new brakes. It was over 80% different when compared to the previous year. The big news for this year was the introduction of the Carrera 4, a four-wheel drive version of the 911.
The 1989 Porsche 911 received major improvements in the performance and handling department. At speeds greater than 50 mph, the rear spoiler would fold out and improving stability. The bigger brakes gave the 911 better stopping power while the suspension held the car in place as it would go through sharp turns.
In 1990 the Carrera 2 and Carrera 4 could be purchased in Cabriolet, Targa and Coupe body-styles. A Tiptronic transmission was introduced which is a gearbox that does not require a clutch. The Tiptronic allows the driver to shift manually or have the system automatically shift.
Carrera RS
In 1990 Porsche introduced the Carrera RS series. It featured a modified version of the Carrera engine now producing 260 horsepower. It had Recaro seats and light-weight material. The interior was void of non-essential items. An aluminum hood, light-weight doors and windows, and various other methods and materials were used to make the vehicle as light as possible. There was an RS touring option which included a few items to make the vehicle more road worthy. In total 2051 Carrera RS models were created with 76 being equipped with the touring option.
Carrera RS America
In 1993, Porsche created a light-weight, limited edition, performance version of the 911 Carrera. It was dubbed the RS America. The year 1993 was selected because it commemorated the 20th Anniversary of the 911 Carrera RS. 'RS' is German for 'Renn Sport' or 'Race Sport'.
The Carrera RS was conceived in 1973 but only available to the European market. The United States had strict safety, emission, and government regulations that made it impossible for the original RS to be sold in America. The 1993 Carrera RS was built to satisfy European regulation while a limited were built for the American regulations. The ones that made it to America were labeled 'RS America.'
The RS America was lightweight, contained little luxury features, and highly-modified performance options. The M030 sports suspension package, 17 inch wheels, larger diameter front stabilizer bar, and modified shock absorbers were just a few of the modifications to the 911. By using weight reduction, refinements in the steering, suspension, tires and wheels, the 911 RS America was a high performance racing car.
The RS in America was very successful. What was only intended to last for 1993, rolled into the 1994 model year. Vehicles that were sold during 1993 have 'PS' in their VIN numbers, while the 1994 versions have 'RS'. The 1994 models have rear seats while the 1993 versions have dual-storage bins.
The RS is distinguished from other 911's by a 'RS' decal located in front of each rear wheel well and an RS America rear deck lid emblem. A large spoiler, commonly referred to as a 'whaletale', was fixed to the rear of the vehicle. Various versions of the 911 had a spoiler that was motor-driven and deployed and stowed at various vehicle speeds.
993
In 1994 the next generation of the Porsche 911 was introduced and only available in coupe form. Internally it was dubbed the 993. Aesthetically and mechanically, the vehicle was different from its previous versions. The upright headlights were removed; it received a front wing, wider fenders, 16 inch wheels, and new bumpers. Under the hood, the 3.6 liter engine was modified to produce 260 horsepower. A six-speed manual gearbox was all new. The chassis size was increased giving 20% extra interior room. Major improvements were done to the interior giving it new seats, new steering wheel, and making the console, buttons and gauges more driver-friendly.
In 1995 a Targa was introduced. But the big news was in 1996 when a Turbo, Carrera 4S, RS, and RS Club Sport became available.
996/997
In 1998 the next generation of the Porsche 911, the 996 was introduced. A 296 horsepower, water-cooled engine was all new. The new engine was more powerful, fuel efficient, and offered better performance even though it was smaller in size. The length of the car was increased; a new suspension, headlights, and styling modifications have been adapted throughout the vehicle.
Shortly after the introduction of the next generation 911, a cabriolet version became available. Instead of the top being folded on-top of the bodywork, it now folded into it.
991
The best 911 ever? The 2012 model 911, internally called 991, was introduced at the IAA Frankfurt on September 15, 2011. This is 48 years after the first 911 was introduced on September 12, 1963 at IAA Frankfurt.
Dimensions
The 991 is 5.6 cm / 2.2" longer, has 10 cm / 3.9" longer wheelbase, but width is exactly the same as on 997mk2. The windscreen is more back-tilted and body height is slightly reduced. The 991 Carrera S is 30 kg / 66 lbs lighter than the 997 mk2 Carrera S. Although the 911’s high cockpit has been its trademark, the flatter car does look more sporty.
7-speed manual gearbox
The manual gearbox is the world’s first 7-speed manual transmission on a passenger car. It is like the 6-speed gearbox in 997 plus a 7th “economy” long ratio gear. Top speed is reached in 6th gear. Thanks to the elevated centre console, the gear lever is within easy reach – ideal for sporty gear changes. A gear indicator in the rev counter reminds you which gear has been selected.
Cabriolet roof and WindStop
The 911's soft top was completely redesigned for 991, although it looked very good already starting with the 996 Cabriolet. The top is a humpless 3-piece magnesium unit covered with smooth and trim fabric. A water channel on the roof ensures that no rainwater drops into the entry area when the doors are opened. As in previous 911’s, the top is fully electric and can also be opened with the remote control button on the key. The top makes its move in just 13 seconds. And like before, it is operable up to vehicle speeds of 50 km/h / 30 mph.
991 Cabrios have electric wind deflectors as standard equipment. Just press the button and in 2 seconds the wind is stopped.
911 generations
1. MY1965-1973, introduced 9/1963 as 901, production started ~09/1964 as 901, but was changed to 911 by 1965
2. G-model MY1974-1989, pre-production cars from ~07/1973
3. 964 MY1989-1994, pre-production cars from ~03/1989
4. 993 MY1994-1998, pre-production cars from ~10/1993
5. 996 MY1998-2005, pre-production cars from ~07/1997. Mk1 MY1998-2001, Mk2 MY2002-2005.
6. 997 MY2005-2012, pre-production cars from ~05/2004. Mk1 MY2005-2008, Mk2 MY2009-2011.
7. 991 MY2012-2019, pre-production cars from ~08/2011
Since its introduction in 1963 to the present, the 911 has stood the test of time both on the race track and in owner's garages. It is one of the few designs that have had such a long history. It has been offered in over 50 different forms including rear wheel, 4wd, cabriolet, Targa, coupe, Speedsters, light weight, club sport, RS, anniversary editions, limited editions, and multiple other options, designs, and features. The 911 has set and raised the bar in terms of technology, performance, design, and handling.
+++ 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 Char B1 was a French heavy tank manufactured before World War II. It was conceived as a specialized offensive vehicle, armed with a 75 mm howitzer in the hull. Later a 47 mm gun in a turret was added, to allow it to function also as a Char de Bataille, a ‘battle tank’ fighting enemy armour, equipping the armoured divisions of the Infantry Arm. Starting in the early twenties, its development and production were repeatedly delayed, resulting in a vehicle that was both technologically complex and expensive, and already obsolescent when real mass-production of a derived version, the Char B1 "bis", started in the late thirties.
The outer appearance of the Char B1 reflected the fact that development started in the twenties: like the very first tank, the British Mark I tank of World War I, it still had large tracks going around the entire hull and large armour plates protecting the suspension—and like all tanks of that decade it had no welded or cast hull armour. The similarity resulted partly from the fact that the Char B1 was a specialized offensive weapon, a break-through tank optimized for punching a hole into strong defensive entrenchments, so it was designed with good trench-crossing capabilities and therefore the hull and the tracks had considerable length. The French Army thought that dislodging the enemy from a key front sector would decide a campaign, and it prided itself on being the only army in the world having a sufficient number of adequately protected heavy tanks. The exploitation phase of a battle was seen as secondary and best carried out by controlled and methodical movement to ensure superiority in numbers, so that the heavy tank’s mobility was of secondary concern. Although the Char B1 had a reasonably good speed for the time of its conception, no serious efforts were made to improve it when much faster tanks appeared.
More important than the tank's limitations in tactical mobility, however, were its limitations in strategic mobility. The low practical range implied the need to refuel very often, limiting its operational capabilities. This again implied that the armoured divisions of the Infantry, the Divisions Cuirassées, were not very effective as a mobile reserve and thus lacked strategic flexibility. They were not created to fulfill such a role in the first place, which was reflected in the small size of the artillery and infantry components of the divisions.
Another explanation of the similarity to the British Mark I lies in the Char B1's original specification to create a self-propelled gun able to destroy enemy infantry and artillery. The main weapon of the tank was its 75 mm howitzer, and the entire design of the vehicle was directed to making this gun as effective as possible. When in the early 1930s it became obvious that the Char B1 also had to defeat counterattacking enemy armour, it was too late for a complete redesign. The solution was to add the standard cast APX-1 turret which also equipped the Char D2 and the Somua S35. Like most French tanks of the period the Char B thus had a small one-man turret. The commander not only had to command the tank, but also to aim and load the anti-tank gun, and if he was a unit leader, he had to command his other tanks as well. This was in contrast with the contemporary German, British and to a lesser extent Soviet policy to use two or three-man turret crews, in which these duties were divided amongst several men, or to use dedicated command vehicles.
Among the most powerfully armed and armoured tanks of its day, the Char B1 was very effective in direct confrontations with early German armour during the Battle of France. The 60 mm (2.36 in) frontal armor was sloped, giving it an effective strength of near 80 mm (3.15 in), and it proved to be almost invulnerable to the 1940 Panzer II and III as well as the early Panzer IV with its short 75mm close-support gun. There were no real weak spots, and this invulnerability helped the B1 to close on targets, then destroy them with the turret 47 mm (1.85 in) or the brute force of the howitzer HE shells. However, its slow speed and high fuel consumption made it ill-adapted to the war of movement then being fought.
In the meantime, plans had taken shape to improve the Char B1, and this led to two developments that eventually entered the hardware stage: A further up-armoured version, the Char B1 "ter", was designed with sloped and welded 70 mm armour, weighing 36.6 tonnes and powered by a 350 hp (260 kW) engine. It was meant to replace the B1 bis to accelerate mass production, a change first intended for the summer of 1940 but later postponed to March 1941 and finally abandoned.
In the course of the redesign, space was provided for a fifth crew member, a "mechanic". Cost was reduced by omitting the complex Neader transmission for aiming the howitzer and giving the hull gun a traverse of five degrees to each side instead. The first prototype was shown in 1937, but only three prototypes could be partly finished before the defeat of France. Serial production was rejected due to the need to build totally new production lines for the much-modified Char B1 ter, so that this development was a dead end, even more so because it did not really cure the vehicle’s weakness of the overburdened commander and the split armament.
The latter issues were addressed with another development, a modernized variant of the existing Char B1 bis with a new weapon layout, the Char B1 “tetre”. Work on this variant started in 1936, as an alternative concept to the one-man turret and as an experimental carrier for a new high velocity semi-automatic 75 mm multi-purpose gun with a long barrel. Such a weapon was direly needed, because the biggest caliber of an anti-tank gun was a mere 47 mm, the SA 35 gun. The only recent alternative was the infantry’s 47 mm APX anti-tank gun from 1937, which could pierce 60 mm (2.4 in) at 550 meters (600 yd) or 80 mm (3.1 in) at 180 meters (200 yd), but it had not been adapted to vehicle use yet and was not regarded to be powerful enough to cope with tanks like the Char B1 itself.
This new 75 mm tank gun was already under development at the Atelier de Construction de Rueil (ARL) for a new medium 20-ton-tank, the Char G1 from Renault, that was to replace the Char B1. The gun, called “ARL 37”, would be mounted in a new three-man turret, and ARL was developing prototypes of both a turret that could be taken by the Char B1’s and S35’s limited turret ring, as well as the gun itself, which was based on the 75 mm high velocity gun with hydro-pneumatic recoil compensation from the vintage heavy FCM 2C tank
The ARL 37 had a mass of 750 kg (1,653.5 lb) and a barrel length of 3,281 mm (129.2 in) with a bore of 43 calibers. Maximum muzzle velocity was 740 m/s (2,400 ft/s). The gun was fitted with an electric firing mechanism and the breech operated semi-automatically. Only one-piece ammunition was used, and both HE and AP rounds could be fired – even though the latter had to developed, too, because no such round was available in 1937/38 yet. However, with early experimental Armour Piercing Capped Ballistic Cap (APCBC) rounds, the ARL 37 was able to penetrate 133 mm (5.2 in) of vertical steel plate at 100 m range, 107 mm (4.2 in) at 1.000 m and still 85 mm (3.3 in) at 2.000 m, making it a powerful anti-tank weapon of its era.
Since the new weapon was expected to fire both HE and AP rounds, the Char B1’s howitzer in the hull was omitted, its opening faired over and instead a movable 7.5 mm Reibel machine gun was added in a ball mount, operated by a radio operator who sat next to the driver. Another 7.5mm machine gun was mounted co-axially to the main gun in the turret, which had a cupola and offered space for the rest of the crew: a dedicated commander as well as a gunner and loader team.
The hexagonal turret was cast and had a welded roof as well as a gun mantlet. With its 70 mm frontal armor as well as the tank’s new hull front section, the conversions added a total of four net tons of weight, so that the Char B1 tetre weighed 36 tons. To prevent its performance from deteriorating further, it received the Char B1 ter’s uprated 350 hp (260 kW) engine. The running gear remained unchanged, even though the fully rotating turret made the complex and expensive Neader transmission superfluous, so that it was replaced by a standard heavy-duty piece.
Although promising, the Char B1 tetre’s development was slow, delayed by the lack of resources and many teething troubles with the new 75 mm cannon and the turret. When the war broke out in September 1939, production was cleared and began slowly, but focus remained on existing vehicles and weapons. By the time there were perhaps 180 operational B1 and B1 bis in all. They were used for the Sarre offensive, a short-lived burst without serious opposition, with a massive force of 41 divisions and 2.400 tanks. The Char B1 served with the armoured divisions of the infantry, the Divisions Cuirassées (DCr). The First and Second DCR had 69 Char B1s each, the Third 68. These were highly specialized offensive units, to break through fortified positions. The mobile phase of a battle was to be carried out by the Divisions Légères Mécaniques (mechanised light divisions) of the cavalry, equipped with the SOMUA S35.
After the German invasion several ad hoc units were formed: the 4e DCr with 52 Char B1s and five autonomous companies (347e, 348e, 349e, 352e and 353e Compagnie Autonome de Chars) with in total 56 tanks: 12 B1s and 44 B1 bis; 28e BCC was reconstituted with 34 tanks. By that time, a very limited number of Char B1 tetre had been produced and delivered to operational units, but their tactical value was low since sufficient 75 mm AP rounds were not available – the tanks had to use primarily the same HE rounds that were fired with the Char B1’s howitzer, and these posed only a limited threat to German tanks, esp. the upgraded Panzer III and IVs. The Char B1 tertre’s potential was never fully exploited, even though most of the tanks were used as command vehicles.
The regular French divisions destroyed quite a few German tanks but lacked enough organic infantry and artillery to function as an effective mobile reserve. After the defeat of France, captured Char B1 of all variants would be used by Germany, with some rebuilt as flamethrowers, Munitionspanzer, or mechanized artillery.
Specifications:
Crew: Five (driver, radio operator/machine gunner, commander, gunner, loader)
Weight: 36 tonnes (40 short tons, 35 long tons)
Length: 6.98 m (22 ft 10½ in) overall with gun forward
6.37 m (20 ft 11 in) hull only
Width: 2.46 m (8 ft 1 in)
Height: 2.84 m (9 ft 3¾ in)
Ground clearance: 40 cm (1 ft 3¾ in)
Climbing: 93 cm (3 ft ½ in)
Trench crossing: 2,4 m (7 ft 10½ in)
Suspension: Bogies with a mixture of vertical coil and leaf springs
Steering: Double differential
Fuel capacity: 400 liters
Armour:
14 to 70 mm (0.55 to 2.75 in)
Performance:
28 km/h (17 mph) on road
21 km/h (13 mph) off-road
Operational range: 200 km (124 mi) on road
Power/weight: 9.7 hp/ton
Engine:
1× Renault inline 6 cylinder 16.5 litre petrol engine with 350 hp (260 kW)
Transmission:
5 forward and 1 rear gear
Armament:
1x 75 ARL 37 high-velocity cannon with 94 rounds
2x 7.5 mm (0.295 in) Reibel machine guns with a total of 5,250 rounds
The kit and its assembly:.
This fictional Char B1 variant was based on the question what the tank could have looked like if there had been a suitable 75 mm gun available that could replace both its howitzer in the hull and the rather light anti-tank gun in the turret? No such weapon existed in France, but I tried to extrapolate the concept based on the standard Char B1 hull.
Two big changes were made: the first concerned the hull howitzer, which was deleted, and its recessed opening faired over with 1 mm styrene sheet and putty. This sound easier as it turned out to be because the suspension for the front right idler wheel had to be retained, and the complex shape of the glacis plate and the opening called for patchwork. A fairing for the co-driver was added as well as a ball mount for the new hull machine gun. New shackles were added to the lower front and, finally, new rows of bolt heads (created with white glue).
The turret was completely replaced with a cast turret from a 1943 T-34/76 (Zvezda kit). While its shape and gun mantlet are quite characteristic, I still used it mostly OOB because its size and shape turned out to be a very good match to contemporary French tank turrets. However, the gun barrel was moved and a fairing for a hydro-pneumatic recoil damper was added, as well as a French commander cupola. And an adapter had to be scratched to attach the new turret to the hull, together with small fairings for the wider turret ring.
Painting and markings:
I wanted a rather unusual paint scheme for this Char B1 derivative, and found inspiration in an operational museum tank that depicts vehicle “311/Rhin”: it carries a three-tone livery in two greens and brown, instead of the more common sand, dark green and earth brown tones or just two-tone schemes.
The colors were adapted to an irregular pattern, and the paints I used were Humbrol 120 (FS 34227, a rather pale interpretation of the tone), 10 (Gloss Dark Brown) and ModelMaster 1764 (FS 34092). As a personal twist, the colors were edged in black, enhancing the contrast.
The markings were puzzled together from various sources in an attempt to create suitable tactical codes of the early 1940 era. The “Ace of Spades” emblem on the turret is, for example, are a marking of the 1st section. The dot in front of the “K” probably indicated a command vehicle, but I am not certain.
Some post-shading was done as well as dry-brushing with light earth brown to emphasize edges and details. Then the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish and received some dusting with grey-brown artist pigments, simulating dust around the running gear.
Well, not too much was changed, but the new, bigger turret changes the Char B1’s look considerably – it looks somewhat smaller now? Its new silhouette also reminds me of a duck? Weird, but the conversion worked out well – esp. the modified glacis plate without the howitzer’s recessed opening looks very natural.
Designed to modernise and amplify the defensive capabilities of the peaceful Futuron faction, the 6920 is a sleek and powerful patrol craft. It is armed with four light laser cannon, which are enough to deter most small Blacktron units, and thrust is provided by a pair of Galcom Raptor II units.
The twin cockpit offers excellent all-round visibility - unless you want to see straight out the back, in which case you'll be looking at the rear stabiliser.
The T-7A "Red Hawk", manufactured by Boeing, introduces capabilities that prepare pilots for fifth generation fighters, including: high-G environment, information/sensor management, high angle of attack flight characteristics, night operations, and transferable air-to-air and air-to-ground skills.
Along with updated technology and performance capabilities, the T-7A will be accompanied by enhanced simulators and the ability to update system software faster and more seamlessly. The plane was also designed with maintainers in mind by utilizing easy-to-reach and open access panels.
The T-7A features twin tails, slats and big leading-edge root extensions that provide deft handling at low speeds, allowing it to fly in a way that better approximates real world demands and that is specifically designed to prepare pilots for fifth-generation aircraft. The aircraft’s single engine generates nearly three times more thrust than the dual engines of the T-38C Talon which it is replacing.
The first T-7A aircraft and simulators are scheduled to arrive at Joint Base San Antonio-Randolph, Texas, in 2023. All undergraduate pilot training bases will eventually transition from the T-38C to the T-7A. Those bases include: Columbus Air Force Base, Mississippi; Laughlin AFB, Texas; Sheppard AFB, Texas and Vance AFB, Oklahoma.
GULF OF ALASKA (Sept. 16, 2019) Landing Craft, Utility (LCU) 1665, attached to Assault Craft Unit (ACU) 1, approaches the well deck of the amphibious dock landing ship USS Comstock (LSD 45) to conduct operations as part of Arctic Expeditionary Capabilities Exercise (AECE) 2019. Approximately 3,000 U.S. Navy and Marine Corps personnel participate in AECE 2019, a joint training exercise that tests expeditionary logistical capabilities in the Arctic region and prepares joint forces to respond to crises across the Indo-Pacific. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Nicholas Burgains)
Norwegian tanks take part in a live-fire capabilities demonstration during Cold Response 14 in Norway March 14, 2014. Cold Response is a Norwegian-led exercise to rehearse high-intensity operations in winter conditions. Participants are from 15 NATO nations with the largest group of participants coming from the United States, Canada, France, the Netherlands, Great Britain and Sweden. (DoD photo by Tech. Sgt. Burt Traynor, U.S. Air Force/Released)
The unique capabilities of the SPHERE instrument on ESO’s Very Large Telescope have enabled it to obtain the sharpest images of a double asteroid as it flew by Earth on 25 May. While this double asteroid was not itself a threatening object, scientists used the opportunity to rehearse the response to a hazardous Near-Earth Object (NEO), proving that ESO’s front-line technology could be critical in planetary defence.
More information: www.eso.org/public/images/eso1910a/
Credit:
ESO
A charity event displaying the capabilities of police and corrections officer's K-9 partners. See the state's finest K-9 teams in competition, while helping to raise money for local charities.
The K-9 Olympics is entering its 19th year. The event is a day long competition involving K-9 units from local police departments, CT State Police, and Department of Corrections. Teams are evaluated during a ring competition in an arena style setting. Areas of competition include, but are not limited to, obedience, obstacles, evidence recovery, building search, marksmanship, and an apprehension drill. Also on display are the Connecticut State Police Emergency Services Unit, Trooper 1 Helicopter, Department of Corrections CERT team, narcotic and bomb detection dogs, and a variety of other police and animal related services. Money raised through the sales of shirts and food, and from donations, is returned to local charities. This year money raised will go to the "CHIPS" Program and Shriners Children's Burn Centers.
There are many different kinds of dogs used in police work. They may be trained in tactics or detection.
Patrol dogs protect their human police partners and may be trained to track and/or apprehend suspects. They may be trained to search buildings for suspects. They may work in corrections facilities.
Detector dogs may be trained to search for narcotics, bombs, lost people, accellerants, cadavers, or contraband.
The specific type of work the dog does determines how long training takes.
Training a police canine takes years. Most police departments import their dogs from Europe that have been trained in a sport such as Schutzhund, KNPV, or French Ring. They then modify the training that the dog has already received for street work. A police canine is trained in obedience, bite work, tracking, agility, handler protection, detection (Narcotics, or EOD). A lot goes into the training, most police canines are around - at least 2 years old before the canine is trained enough to hit the street.
For some drug sniffing dogs, you put the drug into a towel that has no scent of it's own, then let the dog sniff the towel, then you hide the towel, then tell the dog to find the towel which you have cleverly hidden with other towels that have other things wrapped up in it. Later you move to different towel, then in a long time, soak the towl in perfume and hide it. After a VERY long training period, your dog will be able to sniff out anything you train him or her to find.
WELL ENHANCER LWI / DIVE SUPPORT VESSEL
COILED TUBING CAPABILITIES, MONOHULL PERFORMANCE
The Well Enhancer is designed to minimize production downtime and provides cost effective well maintenance, production enhancement and well abandonment solutions. With 1,100m2 of main deck space and the ability to run rigid riser and coiled tubing, the vessel can also perform a range of well testing and production flowback services.
The vessel features a 150 Te multi-purpose tower (MPT), capable of deploying wireline and coiled-tubing. The vessel also features kill pumps and a 100 Te main crane and is currently capable of conducting LWI operations to a depth of 600m.
The DP3 Well Enhancer features a purpose built derrick over a 7m x 7m moonpool and has a travelling block rated to 150 Te capacity in passive mode.
The Well Enhancer’s 18 man saturation diving spread is rated to 300 m, and combined with the vessel’s work/observation class ROVs, provides for full IRM and light construction services and diving support for any tree systems which require manual intervention to facilitate LWI operations.
Testing the capabilities for the Sony FE 28mm F/2 on the Sony A7s
Coming from prior uses of the Leica Summicron 28mm F/2 ASPH as well as the Leica Elmarit 28mm F/2.8 ASPH the FE28 does in my opinion perform better when compared!, No issue with blur sides or any sort of color shifts.
AF is acceptable however not Olympus OMD + OLY 21mm F/2 blaze for street shooting use.
Though the lens feels light, when held with the Sony A7s without the battery grip, however it still feels a little front heavy.
I am using a third party L Plate purchased from Ebay where I removed the vertical portion. The Base plate extends to the battery compartment as well without obstructing access to the battery and memory card. This add on, extends the grip to allow for a slightly better grip.
However, as Sony progresses with the development of the E-Mount bodies, the A7ii has the best grip feel to date.
The Breadth of EVLA Science
With its new capabilities and specifications the EVLA will complement next-generation instruments at other wavelengths, such as ALMA, the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), and planned 30-meter ground-based, optical-infrared telescopes. The EVLA will be easy to use, providing simplified proposal submission, automated scheduling, and default images. These will allow astronomers to take full advantage of the scientific opportunities available at radio wavelengths.
The Magnetic Universe
Magnetic fields are important in most astrophysical contexts, but are difficult to observe. The sensitivity, frequency agility, and spectral capability of the EVLA will allow astronomers to trace the magnetic fields in X-ray emitting galaxy clusters, image the polarized emission in thousands of spiral galaxies, and map the 3D structure of magnetic fields on the Sun.
The Obscured Universe
Phenomena such as star formation and accretion onto massive black holes occur behind dense screens of dust and gas that render optical and infrared observations impossible. The EVLA will observe through these screens to probe the atmospheres of giant planets, measure thermal jet motions in young stellar objects, and to image the densest regions in nearby starburst galaxies.
The Transient Universe
Astronomical transient sources tend to be compact objects that emit synchrotron radiation from high-energy particles, radiation best observed at radio wavelengths. The EVLA will be ideal for studies of variable sources because of its high sensitivity, its ability to observe day and night under most weather conditions, and the rapid response enabled by dyanmic scheduling. The EVLA sensitivity will allow observations at higher frequencies, providing improved spatial resolution. The EVLA will, e.g., image novae and relativistic jets anywhere in the Milky Way, and measure the sizes of many tens of GRBs each year.
The Evolving Universe
The formation of stars and galacies, and the evolution of the gas content of the Universe, are exciting topics for scientists using the EVLA. Radio data can trace the evolution of neutral hydrogen and molecular gas, and provide extinction-free measurements of synchrotron, thermal free-free, and dust emission. The EVLA will distinguish dust from free-free emission in disks and jets within local star-forming regions, and will measure the star-formation rate, irrespective of dust extinction, in high-z galaxies.
BM-1 Puritan
The Puritan represented the highest development of the monitor type of warship ever constructed. It was heavily protected with steel armor and its low freeboard made it almost an impossible target. As a vessel for coast and harbor defense pure and simple it possessed capabilities of enormous value. The construction of the powerful monitor Puritan was the turning point in the history of the American navy. The best naval authorities were beginning to see the necessity of a warship that would not be compelled to cling close to the coast in time of war. A feeling was gradually growing that the honor and prestige of the United States demanded the construction of a modern type of cruising warship, able to carry the flag to foreign ports where its identity was unknown. The sentiment was of slow growth, but sure.
Puritan, a 4,912-ton seagoing monitor, was under construction at Greenpoint, New York, between 1863 and 1865. Originally intended to have two gun turrets, her designer, John Ericsson, recast her arrangement to feature only one turret. Puritan was launched in July 1864 but remained incomplete when work was stopped in 1865. During the years following the war, Puritan along with several other monitors suffered extensive deterioration with their combat value likewise decreasing.
In 1874-75 Secretary of the Navy George Robeson decided to carry out extensive repairs on Puritan and four monitors of the Miantonomoh class. Funds were not appropriated for new construction, but the condition of the ship's hulls particularly, necessitated building essentially new ships, bearing no real resemblance to the originals. A scandal resulted when the fact came to light that Robeson was paying for new ships with the old ones. The never finished PURITAN of the Civil War underwent the same kind of "rebuilding" as the four MIANTONOMOHs. All five of these ships had the superstructures, military mast, and tall stack which also identified the monitors built between 1881 and 1903. Her hull was apparently broken up in about 1874 when construction began on another monitor Puritan, which was officially listed as the old ship "rebuilt". It is important to realize that all of the "repaired" ships were actually completely modern ships of war bearing only a vague resemblance of the first ships of the name.
Although her original plans called for a single turret carrying 4 XX-inch Dahlgren smoothbores, the revised design of the "repaired" ship called for two turrets.
USS Puritan, a 6060-ton monitor, was built in the Roach ship-yard at Chester, Pennsylvania, and completed by the New York Navy Yard. Here length over all was 295 feet; breadth of beam, 6O feet ; depth, 20 feet 6 inches ; draft of water when launched, 6 feet 11 inches ; draft with guns, armor, coal, and engines on board ready for commission, 18 feet. Displacement when launched, 1,750 tons; displacement when down to her draft and in commission, 6,060 tons. Deducting the present weight of the ship without machinery, &c., 1,750 tons, there was left for armor, turrets, guns, machinery, coal, and other supplies, ready for commission, 4,310 gross tons.
With 500 tons of coal it is estimated that she would steam the following distances at the tabulated rates of speed, viz : With a speed of 14 knots, 1,545 nautical miles; of 12 knots, 2,266 nautical miles; of 10 knots, 3,331 nautical miles ; of 9 knots, 4,316 nautical miles ; of 7 knots, 6,477 nautical miles. On 400 tons of coal it is estimated she can steam from Portland, Me., to New Orleans and return at the rate of 9 knots per hour, and, in case of an emergency, can make a speed of 338 nautical miles in twenty-four hours, or at a rate of 14 knots per hour. That is at a speed which is two knots faster than any other American man-of-war, and equal to the best of her class in the world. During trials in 1884 her machinery proved a great success, and there is no doubt she will make 14 knots. She can carry 15- inch steel armor plate, with her guns, crew, and 400 tons of coal.
When on April 10, 1875, the Puritan was designed and contracted for, the armor then used on all similar vessels was made of iron, and was much lighter than that employed to-day. Roach saw the progress which was being made in Europe, and after the contract was signed he advised a change in the ship that enabled her to carry 40 per cent, more armor, gave her two knots more speed, permitted her to carry heavier guns, and yet increased her cost only about $25,000. Had this change not been made, this ship, in view of the modern improvements in heavy armor and in puns, would to-day have been worthless.
There, is no other armored vessel in the world with the same thickness of armor and weight of guns which has so light a draught of water. European vessels of the same speed, weight of armor and guns draw much more water, and can enter only a few of our harbors at high tide, while the Puritan can enter most of oilr harbors at almost any state of the tide, either to coal or to retreat from a more powerful enemy; and in any emergency she could leave most of our ports at once without waiting for the tide. No foreign vessel of her power has these advantages.
She has a double bottom, which, should the outside plating be broken, would by means of an inner skin and the eighty-four separate water-tight compartments still keep the vessel afloat. The advantages of the double-bottom system are shown in an accident to the Pilgrim, which is built on this plan. In 1884 she ran on the rocks below Hell Gate, and tore ? hole in her outer bottom about 40 feet in length, but the inner skin being intact she was saved, and brought her 400 passengers and a valuable cargo safely to wharf. She was put on the dry dock, repaired, and in two weeks was on her route again.
As the Puritan has a surface above the water line of but 2 feet 6 inches, her turrets alone are targets for an enemy's guns. This gives her a great advantage over other ships.
Commissioned in December 1896, she was actively employed off Cuba during the Spanish-American War. After that conflict, she served as a Naval Academy practice ship, a receiving ship and a naval militia training vessel. Decommissioned for the final time in April 1910, Puritan was subsequently used for target duties. The old monitor was sold in January 1922.
This vessel is considerably larger than those named, being two hundred and eighty-nine feet six inches long, slightly over sixty feet wide, and eighteen feet in mean draught, with a displacement of 6060 tons. She had an indicated horse-power of 3700 and a speed of 12.4 knots per hour. Like the Monadnock, she was fitted with a twin-screw, horizontal, triple-expansion engine, and can carry a coal-supply of four hundred tons. The belt of armor of this ship tapers from fourteen inches amidships to ten inches at the bow and six inches at the stern. Her turrets are barbetted, the barbettes being plated with fourteen inches of steel armor and the turrets with eight inches. Her protective deck is plated with two inches of steel armor.
Her main armament surpassed that of any of her fellow-vessels, being composed of four 12-inch breech-loading rifles, and six 4-inch rapid-fire guns. Her secondary armament includes six 6-pounder and two l-pounder rapid-fire guns and two Hotchkiss revolving cannon.
+++ 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:
Clarence L. "Kelly" Johnson, vice president of engineering and research at Lockheed's Skunk Works, visited USAF air bases across South Korea in November 1951 to speak with fighter pilots about what they wanted and needed in a fighter aircraft. At the time, the American pilots were confronting the MiG-15 with North American F-86 Sabres, and many felt that the MiGs were superior to the larger and more complex American design. The pilots requested a small and simple aircraft with excellent performance, especially high speed and altitude capabilities. Armed with this information, Johnson immediately started the design of such an aircraft on his return to the United States.
Work started in March 1952. In order to achieve the desired performance, Lockheed chose a small and simple aircraft, weighing in at 12,000 lb (5,400 kg) with a single powerful engine. The engine chosen was the new General Electric J79 turbojet, an engine of dramatically improved performance in comparison with contemporary designs. The small L-246 design remained essentially identical to the Model 083 Starfighter as eventually delivered.
Johnson presented the design to the Air Force on 5 November 1952, and work progressed quickly, with a mock-up ready for inspection at the end of April, and work starting on two prototypes that summer. The first prototype was completed by early 1954 and first flew on 4 March at Edwards AFB. The total time from contract to first flight was less than one year.
The first YF-104A flew on 17 February 1956 and, with the other 16 trial aircraft, were soon carrying out equipment evaluation and flight tests. Lockheed made several improvements to the aircraft throughout the testing period, including strengthening the airframe, adding a ventral fin to improve directional stability at supersonic speed, and installing a boundary layer control system (BLCS) to reduce landing speed. Problems were encountered with the J79 afterburner; further delays were caused by the need to add AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles. On 28 January 1958, the first production F-104A to enter service was delivered.
Even though the F-104 saw only limited use by the USAF, later versions, tailored to a fighter bomber role and intended for overseas sales, were more prolific. This was in particular the F-104G, which became the Starfighter's main version, a total of 1,127 F-104Gs were produced under license by Canadair and a consortium of European companies that included Messerschmitt/MBB, Fiat, Fokker, and SABCA.
The F-104G differed considerably from earlier versions. It featured strengthened fuselage, wing, and empennage structures; a larger vertical fin with fully powered rudder as used on the earlier two-seat versions; fully powered brakes, new anti-skid system, and larger tires; revised flaps for improved combat maneuvering; a larger braking chute. Upgraded avionics included an Autonetics NASARR F15A-41B multi-mode radar with air-to-air, ground-mapping, contour-mapping, and terrain-avoidance modes, as well as the Litton LN-3 Inertial Navigation System, the first on a production fighter.
Germany was among the first foreign operators of the F-104G variant. As a side note, a widespread misconception was and still is that the "G" explicitly stood for "Germany". But that was not the case and pure incidence, it was just the next free letter, even though Germany had a major influence on the aircraft's concept and equipment. The German Air Force and Navy used a large number of F-104G aircraft for interception, reconnaissance and fighter bomber roles. In total, Germany operated 916 Starfighters, becoming the type's biggest operator in the world. Beyond the single seat fighter bombers, Germany also bought and initially 30 F-104F two-seat aircraft and then 137 TF-104G trainers. Most went to the Luftwaffe and a total of 151 Starfighters was allocated to the Marineflieger units.
The introduction of this highly technical aircraft type to a newly reformed German air force was fraught with problems. Many were of technical nature, but there were other sources of problems, too. For instance, after WWII, many pilots and ground crews had settled into civilian jobs and had not kept pace with military and technological developments. Newly recruited/re-activated pilots were just being sent on short "refresher" courses in slow and benign-handling first-generation jet aircraft or trained on piston-driven types. Ground crews were similarly employed with minimal training and experience, which was one consequence of a conscripted military with high turnover of service personnel. Operating in poor northwest European weather conditions (vastly unlike the fair-weather training conditions at Luke AFB in Arizona) and flying low at high speed over hilly terrain, a great many Starfighter accidents were attributed to controlled flight into terrain (CFIT). German Air Force and Navy losses with the type totaled 110 pilots, around half of them naval officers.
One general contributing factor to the high attrition rate was the operational assignment of the F-104 in German service: it was mainly used as a (nuclear strike) fighter-bomber, flying at low altitude underneath enemy radar and using landscape clutter as passive radar defense, as opposed to the original design of a high-speed, high-altitude fighter/interceptor. In addition to the different and demanding mission profiles, the installation of additional avionic equipment in the F-104G version, such as the inertial navigation system, added distraction to the pilot and additional weight that further hampered the flying abilities of the plane. In contemporary German magazine articles highlighting the Starfighter safety problems, the aircraft was portrayed as "overburdened" with technology, which was considered a latent overstrain on the aircrews. Furthermore, many losses in naval service were attributed to the Starfighter’s lack of safety margin through a twin-engine design like the contemporary Blackburn Buccaneer, which had been the German navy air arm’s favored type. But due to political reasons (primarily the outlook to produce the Starfighter in Southern Germany in license), the Marine had to accept and make do with the Starfighter, even if it was totally unsuited for the air arm's mission profile.
Erich Hartmann, the world's top-scoring fighter ace from WWII, commanded one of Germany's first (post-war) jet fighter-equipped squadrons and deemed the F-104 to be an unsafe aircraft with poor handling characteristics for aerial combat. To the dismay of his superiors, Hartmann judged the fighter unfit for Luftwaffe use even before its introduction.
In 1966 Johannes Steinhoff took over command of the Luftwaffe and grounded the entire Luftwaffe and Bundesmarine F-104 fleet until he was satisfied that the persistent problems had been resolved or at least reduced to an acceptable level. One measure to improve the situation was that some Starfighters were modified to carry a flight data recorder or "black box" which could give an indication of the probable cause of an accident. In later years, the German Starfighters’ safety record improved, although a new problem of structural failure of the wings emerged: original fatigue calculations had not taken into account the high number of g-force loading cycles that the German F-104 fleet was experiencing through their mission profiles, and many airframes were returned to the depot for wing replacement or outright retirement.
The German F-104Gs served primarily in the strike role as part of the Western nuclear deterrent strategy, some of these dedicated nuclear strike Starfighters even had their M61 gun replaced by an additional fuel tank for deeper penetration missions. However, some units close to the German borders, e.g. Jagdgeschwader (JG) 71 in Wittmundhafen (East Frisia) as well as JG 74 in Neuburg (Bavaria), operated the Starfighter as a true interceptor on QRA duty. From 1980 onwards, these dedicated F-104Gs received a new air superiority camouflage, consisting of three shades of grey in an integral wraparound scheme, together with smaller, subdued national markings. This livery was officially called “Norm 82” and unofficially “Alberich”, after the secretive guardian of the Nibelung's treasure. A similar wraparound paint scheme, tailored to low-level operations and consisting of two greens and black (called Norm 83), was soon applied to the fighter bombers and the RF-104 fleet, too, as well as to the Luftwaffe’s young Tornado IDS fleet.
However, the Luftwaffe’s F-104Gs were at that time already about to be gradually replaced, esp. in the interceptor role, by the more capable and reliable F-4F Phantom II, a process that lasted well into the mid-Eighties due to a lagging modernization program for the Phantoms. The Luftwaffe’s fighter bombers and recce Starfighters were replaced by the MRCA Tornado and RF-4E Phantoms. In naval service the Starfighters soldiered on for a little longer until they were also replaced by the MRCA Tornado – eventually, the Marineflieger units received a two engine aircraft type that was suitable for their kind of missions.
In the course of the ongoing withdrawal, a lot of German aircraft with sufficiently enough flying hours left were transferred to other NATO partners like Norway, Greece, Turkey and Italy, and two were sold to the NASA. One specific Starfighter was furthermore modified into a CCV (Control-Configured Vehicle) experimental aircraft under control of the German Industry, paving the way to aerodynamically unstable aircraft like the Eurofighter/Typhoon. The last operational German F-104 made its farewell flight on 22. Mai 1991, and the type’s final flight worldwide was in Italy in October 2004.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 54 ft 8 in (16.66 m)
Wingspan: 21 ft 9 in (6.63 m)
Height: 13 ft 6 in (4.11 m)
Wing area: 196.1 ft² (18.22 m²)
Airfoil: Biconvex 3.36 % root and tip
Empty weight: 14,000 lb (6,350 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 29,027 lb (13,166 kg)
Powerplant:
1× General Electric J79 afterburning turbojet,
10,000 lbf (44 kN) thrust dry, 15,600 lbf (69 kN) with afterburner
Performance:
Maximum speed: 1,528 mph (2,459 km/h, 1,328 kn)
Maximum speed: Mach 2
Combat range: 420 mi (680 km, 360 nmi)
Ferry range: 1,630 mi (2,620 km, 1,420 nmi)
Service ceiling: 50,000 ft (15,000 m)
Rate of climb: 48,000 ft/min (240 m/s) initially
Lift-to-drag: 9.2
Wing loading: 105 lb/ft² (510 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 0.54 with max. takeoff weight (0.76 loaded)
Armament:
1× 20 mm (0.787 in) M61A1 Vulcan six-barreled Gatling cannon, 725 rounds
7× hardpoints with a capacity of 4,000 lb (1,800 kg), including up to four AIM-9 Sidewinder, (nuclear)
bombs, guided and unguided missiles, or other stores like drop tanks or recce pods
The kit and its assembly:
A relatively simple what-if project – based on the question how a German F-104 interceptor might have looked like, had it been operated for a longer time to see the Luftwaffe’s low-viz era from 1981 onwards. In service, the Luftwaffe F-104Gs started in NMF and then carried the Norm 64 scheme, the well-known splinter scheme in grey and olive drab. Towards the end of their career the fighter bombers and recce planes received the Norm 83 wraparound scheme in green and black, but by that time no dedicated interceptors were operational anymore, so I stretched the background story a little.
The model is the very nice Italeri F-104G/S model, which is based on the ESCI molds from the Eighties, but it comes with recessed engravings and an extra sprue that contains additional drop tanks and an Orpheus camera pod. The kit also includes a pair of Sidewinders with launch rails for the wing tips as well as the ventral “catamaran” twin rail, which was frequently used by German Starfighters because the wing tips were almost constantly occupied with tanks.
Fit and detail is good – the kit is IMHO very good value for the money. There are just some light sinkholes on the fuselage behind the locator pins, the fit of the separate tail section is mediocre and calls for PSR, and the thin and very clear canopy is just a single piece – for open display, you have to cut it by yourself.
Since the model would become a standard Luftwaffe F-104G, just with a fictional livery, the kit was built OOB. The only change I made are drooped flaps, and the air brakes were mounted in open position.
The ordnance (wing tip tanks plus the ventral missiles) was taken from the kit, reflecting the typical German interceptor configuration: the wing tips were frequently occupied with tanks, sometimes even together with another pair of drop tanks under the wings, so that any missile had to go under the fuselage. The instructions for the ventral catamaran launch rails are BTW wrong – they tell the builder to mount the launch rails onto the twin carrier upside down! Correctly, the carrier’s curvature should lie flush on the fuselage, with no distance at all. When mounted as proposed, the Sidewinders come very close to the ground and the whole installation looks pretty goofy! I slightly modified the catamaran launch rail with some thin styrene profile strips as spacers, and the missiles themselves, AIM-9Bs, were replaced with more modern and delicate AIM-9Js from a Hasegawa air-to-air weapons set. Around the hull, some small blade antennae, a dorsal rotating warning light and an angle-of-attack sensor were added.
Painting and markings:
The exotic livery is what defined this what-if build, and the paint scheme was actually inspired by a real world benchmark: some Dornier Do-28D Skyservants of the German Marineflieger received, late in their career, a wraparound scheme in three shades of grey, namely RAL 7030 (Steingrau), 7000 (Fehgrau) and 7012 (Basaltgrau). I thought that this would work pretty well for an F-104G interceptor that operates at medium to high altitudes, certainly better than the relatively dark Norm 64 splinter scheme or the Norm 83 low-altitude pattern.
The camouflage pattern was simply adopted from the Starfighter’s Norm 83 scheme, just the colors were exchanged. The kit was painted with acrylic paints from Revell, since the authentic tones were readily available, namely 75, 57 and 77. As a disrupting detail I gave the wing tip tanks the old Norm 64 colors: uniform Gelboliv from above (RAL 6014, Revell 42), Silbergrau underneath (RAL 7001, Humbrol’s 127 comes pretty close), and bright RAL 2005 dayglo orange markings, the latter created with TL Modellbau decal sheet material for clean edges and an even finish.
The cockpit interior was painted in standard medium grey (Humbrol 140, Dark Gull Grey), the landing gear including the wells became aluminum (Humbrol 56), the interior of the air intakes was painted with bright matt aluminum metallizer (Humbrol 27001) with black anti-icing devices in the edges and the shock cones. The radome was painted with very light grey (Humbrol 196, RAL 7035), the dark green anti-glare panel is a decal from the OOB sheet.
The model received a standard black ink washing and some panel post-shading (with Testors 2133 Russian Fulcrum Grey, Humbrol 128 FS 36320 and Humbrol 156 FS 36173) in an attempt to even out the very different shades of grey. The result does not look bad, pretty worn and weathered (like many German Starfighters), even though the paint scheme reminds a lot of the Hellenic "Ghost" scheme from the late F-4Es and the current F-16s?
The decals for the subdued Luftwaffe markings were puzzled together from various sources. The stencils were mostly taken from the kit’s exhaustive and sharply printed sheet. Tactical codes (“26+40” is in the real Starfighter range, but this specific code was AFAIK never allocated), iron crosses and the small JG 71 emblems come from TL Modellbau aftermarket sheets. Finally, after some light soot stains around the gun port, the afterburner and some air outlets along the fuselage with graphite, the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish.
A simple affair, since the (nice) kit was built OOB and the only really fictional aspect of this model is its livery. But the resulting aircraft looks good, the all-grey wraparound scheme suits the slender F-104 well and makes an interceptor role quite believable. Would probably also look good on a German Eurofighter? Certainly more interesting than the real world all-blue-grey scheme.
In the beauty pics the scheme also appears to be quite effective over open water, too, so that the application to the Marineflieger Do-28Ds made sense. However, for the real-world Starfighter, this idea came a couple of years too late.
+++ 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:
After the Ukrainian independence in 1991, the Ukrainian Air Force (Повітряні Сили України, Povitryani Syly Ukrayiny) was established on March 17, 1992, in accordance with a Directive of the General Staff Chief of the Armed Forces. When the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, many aircraft were left on Ukrainian territory, including a wide range of fighters and attack aircraft, helicopters and even strategic bombers, and these became the initial equipment. Ever since, the Ukrainian air force has been downsizing and upgrading its forces, but for many years the main inventory still consisted of Soviet-made aircraft.
Following the 2014 Ukrainian Revolution and subsequent March 2014 Russian annexation of the Crimea peninsula and the following violence and insurgency in east Ukraine, the Ukrainian government tried to increase its defense spending and capabilities. Returning equipment (of Russian origin, though) to service was a key part of the spending drive, but in parallel attempts were made to procure flying material from Western sources in order to become moer and more independent from the obtrusive neighbor. In April 2014 two MiG-29 aircraft were restored to flight on short notice and in August a decommissioned An-26 transport aircraft was restored to active service by a volunteer group. On 5 January 2015 the air force received another 4 restored airplanes, two MiG-29s and two Su-27s, as well as two Mi-8 and Mi-2 helicopters. However, since these aircraft had already accumulated a considerable number of flying hours, this could only have been an interim solution and the Ukraine turned directly to NATO for material support.
This politically highly delicate help was eventually granted in the form of eight General Dynamics F-16 C (six) and D (two) multi-role fighters of early Block 40 standard, leased from the U.S.A. and diverted from active aircraft which were about to become surplus stock and mothballed, anyway.
The F-16 Fighting Falcon itself was a single-engine supersonic multirole fighter aircraft originally developed by General Dynamics for the United States Air Force (USAF). Designed as a light air superiority day fighter as a complement to the heavier F-15 Eagle interceptor, it evolved into a successful all-weather multirole aircraft. Over 4,600 aircraft were built since production was approved in 1976. In 1993, General Dynamics sold its aircraft manufacturing business to the Lockheed Corporation, which in turn became part of Lockheed Martin after a 1995 merger with Martin Marietta.
Although no longer being purchased by the launch customer, the U.S. Air Force, improved versions are still being built for export customers – the F-16 has been procured to serve in the air forces of 25 other nations all around the world, making it one of the world's most numerous fixed-wing aircraft in military service.
The Fighting Falcon's key features include a frameless bubble canopy for better visibility, side-mounted control stick to ease control while maneuvering, an ejection seat reclined 30 degrees from vertical to reduce the effect of g-forces on the pilot, and the first use of a relaxed static stability/fly-by-wire flight control system which helps to make it an agile aircraft. The F-16 has an internal M61 Vulcan cannon and the advanced C/D version features a total of 11 locations for mounting weapons and other mission equipment.
The eight machines for the Ukraine arrived in June 2016 via direct transfer flights over the Atlantic and Western Europe. The former USAF machines were delivered “as is”, even though they had some state-of-the-art avionics replaced by less sensitive alternatives from older F-16 production blocks. Together with the fighters, an undisclosed number of AIM-9M Sidewinder and AIM-120 AMRAAM air-to-air missiles were delivered, but the leasing agreement did not include LANTIRN pods that would provide the F-16C/D with improved all-day/all-weather strike capability. Other equipment like ECM pods was also not included. Service, maintenance and logistics for the new type in Ukrainian service was, due to the small operational number, secured with the help of the Polish air force, which had been operating 48 F-16C/D+ Block 52 fighters since 2006 and had the required experience and facilities at its 31st Tactical Air Base in Poznań-Krzesiny.
Upon arrival, the aircraft were immediately re-painted in a striking digital camouflage and received non-consecutive tactical codes, apparently based on the airframe’s former U.S. serial numbers, using the last two digits. They were all allocated to the 40th Tactical Aviation Brigade, based at Vasylkiv air base, south of Kiev, where they replaced a number of outdated and partly grounded MiG-29 fighters. They were exclusively tasked with aerial defense of the Ukrainian capital city – also as a political sign that the machines were not intended for attack missions.
Since their introduction, the Ukrainian F-16s have been fulfilling QRA duties and airspace patrol, and the corresponding maintenance infrastructure has been gradually built up, so that F-16 operations became independent from Poland in 2019. With the worsening relationship to Russia, more military hardware of Western origin is expected to enter Ukrainian service. If the tight Ukrainian defense budget allows it, twenty more 2nd hand F-16s are to be delivered in 2021 to replace more Soviet fighter types (primarily the rest of the Ukrainian MiG-29 “Fulcrum” single and two seater fleet), and the procurement of LANTIRN pods to expand the type’s capabilities is under consideration and negotiations, too.
General characteristics:
Length: 49 ft 5 in (15.06 m)
Wingspan: 32 ft 8 in (9.96 m)
Height: 16 ft (4.9 m)
Wing area: 300 sq ft (28 m²)
Airfoil: NACA 64A204
Empty weight: 18,900 lb (8,573 kg)
Gross weight: 26,500 lb (12,020 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 42,300 lb (19,187 kg)
Internal fuel capacity: 7,000 pounds (3,200 kg)
Powerplant:
1× General Electric F110-GE-100 afterburning turbofan
with 17,155 lbf (76.31 kN) dry and 28,600 lbf (127 kN) thrust with afterburner
Performance:
Maximum speed: Mach 2.05 at altitude in clean configuration
Mach 1.2, 800 kn (921 mph; 1,482 km/h) at sea level
Combat range: 295 nmi (339 mi, 546 km) on a hi-lo-hi mission with 4x 1,000 lb (454 kg) bombs
Ferry range: 2,277 nmi (2,620 mi, 4,217 km) with drop tanks
Service ceiling: 50,000 ft (15,000 m) plus
g limits: +9.0 (limited by flight control system)
Rate of climb: +50,000 ft/min (250 m/s)
Wing loading: 88.3 lb/sq ft (431 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 1.095 (1.24 with loaded weight & 50% internal fuel)
Armament:
1× 20 mm (0.787 in) M61A1 Vulcan 6-barrel rotary cannon with 511 rounds
2× wing-tip air-to-air missile launch rails plus 6× under-wing
and 3× under-fuselage pylon (2 of these for sensors) stations
with a capacity of up to 17,000 lb (7,700 kg) of a wide range of stores
The kit and its assembly:
I am not a big F-16 fan, but in some cases it’s an unavoidable canvas – just like in this case here. This fictional aircraft model (or better: this model of a [yet] fictional F-16 operator) was spawned by two ideas. One was the simple question: what if the Ukraine had after the USSR’s dissolution chosen a stronger attachment to (old) Western forces after the dissolution of the USSSR? And/or: what if the Ukraine had started to procure non-Russian equipment, esp. aircraft? So, what would an Ukrainian F-16 might have looked like, in general but esp. after the Crimea annexation in 2014 when such a scenario had become even more possible?
The other source of inspiration was a picture of an Ukrainian Su-24 with grey digital camouflage, a scheme that was/is also worn by some Su-25s. When I stumbled upon an Authentic Decals sheet for this unique paint scheme that allows to apply the complex and delicate pattern through water-slide transfers, I thought that the relatively “flat” F-16 surface would be an ideal basis to try this stunt?
What sounded like a very simple livery whif on an OOB model turned into a construction nightmare. Originally, this project provided me with a purpose for a dubious Trumpeter F-16 kit that I had bought some years ago – dead cheap, but righteously so. This kit is cruel, the model even has no concrete variant specification and is apparently the re-boxing of a kit from an obscure Chinese company called “Income”. Effectively, the Trumpeter F-16 is a rip-off of Italeri’s quite nice F-16C/D kit – but the Income/Trumpeter clone comes with MUCH deeper engravings esp. on the fuselage that remind a lot of the dreaded Matchbox “trenches”. Everything is rather “soft” and toylike, the clear parts are poor and the (few) decals look like toy stickers (!!!). I’d call it crude, even the instructions are apparently poor scans or photocopies from the Italeri kit, including hints for detail painting with no corresponding reference what colors should be used at all… All that could have been overlooked, but after starting with the kit I could not commit myself to use it any further. It’s rare that I give up because of a kit’s basis!
Next idea to “save” the project’s idea of an Ukrainian F-16 was to dig out a surplus Intech F-16 from the pile, also bought long ago because it was cheap, as conversion fodder. This kit has also been re-released in infinite variations under the Mister-/Mastercraft label. Upon closer inspection this kit turned out to have massive flaws, too, but in different areas from the Trumpeter thing. For instance, the Intech kit’s wings are utterly thick, certainly 1mm thicker than the Trumpeter model’s parts. This does not sound much, but on the really thin F-16 wings and stabilizers this looks really awful! Furthermore, the clear parts had not been fully molded, so I’d have needed a replacement canopy, anyway. Again, I gave up on building…
…until I decided to make the best of this mess and combine the “best” parts from both gimp models, trying to mend the worst flaws to an acceptable level. This led to the glorious kitbashing that this model eventually became! From the Intech kit I took the acceptable fuselage, including cockpit interior, air intake and landing gear, as well as the fin and the weapon pylons. The Trumpeter kit donated its thinner wings and the stabilizers, as well as the much better open exhaust nozzle (there’s an optional closed one, too; the Intech kit only offers an open nozzle, without ANY surface detail at all, it’s just a blank pipe!).
Beyond these basic ingredients, some more donors became necessary: All clear parts from both Intech and Trumpeter kit turned out to be rubbish for various reasons. The decision to build an F-16D two-seater was dictated by the fact that I had a leftover canopy from an Italeri F-16 kit in the donor bank – luckily it fitted well to the Intech kit’s body. Two crewmen from the spares box populate the cockpit and hide the rather basic interior, which was not improved at all. Furthermore, the ordnance came from external sources, too. The characteristic drop tanks with their cut-off tails were also leftover parts from the Italeri F-16, all AAMs come from a Hasegawa weapon set.
Some PSR was necessary to blend the parts from different kits together – thankfully, almost all F-16 kits are constructed in a similar fashion, even though there are small detail differences. In this case, the wings had to be slightly modified to fit onto the Intech fuselage. However, even those parts from the original kit(s) that are supposed to fit, e.g. the fin or the alternative cockpit opening frames for the optional single- and two-seater canopies, do hardly match at all. Horrible.
I rather focused on the model’s exterior, and a personal addition to improve the overall look of the otherwise rather basic/poor model, I added some small blade antennae that were totally missing on either model. Another extra detail are the small static dischargers on the trailing edges, created with thin, heated sprue material. Only small details, but they improve IMHO the model’s look considerably.
Painting and markings:
Until today, I never dared to apply decal camouflage to a model, but I expected that the flat/smooth F-16 surface would make this stunt relatively easy. This application method would also make painting the model easy, since only a single, uniform color had to be laid down from above and below.
To my surprise, the painting instructions of the Authentic Decals sheet for a number of Ukrainian Su-25 (which all carry the same standardized pixel camouflage) indicated RAL tones – a little surprising, but: why not? Since no other authentic color references were available, I cross-checked the paint suggestions with real life pictures of Su-24s and -25s in this striking paint scheme, and the indicated tones appear very plausible.
The problem: not every RAL tone is available as a model paint, so I had to make guesstimates. This eventually led to Modelmaster 2133 (Fulcrum Grey) as a light grey overall basis (suggested: RAL 7030 Achatgrau/Agate Grey, a tone with a brownish hue) from above and Humbrol 47 (Sea Blue Gloss) for a pale blue underside. The recommendation for the belly is RAL 7001 (Silbergrau/Silver Grey, very close to FS 36375), and this appears plausible, too, even though real-life pictures suggest a more bluish tone. But for a more dramatic look and some color contrast to the upper side’s all-grey I deliberately settled upon the Humbrol color, and this looks IMHO good.
The other suggested grey tones that make up the pixel patterns are RAL 7040 (Fenstergrau/Window Grey), RAL 7037 (Staubgrau/Dust Grey) and RAL 7043 (Verkehrsgrau B/Traffic Grey).
The cockpit interior was painted in medium grey (FS 36231, Humbrol 140), the air intake and the landing gear in white (Humbrol 22). The exhaust nozzle was painted externally with individual Metallizer mixes (with blue and gold added), while the inside was painted with Burnt Steel Metallizer towards the afterburner section while the ceramic nozzle petals were painted in a pale, almost white grey with darker lines, applied wet-in-wet. This looks pretty good – but does not withstand a closer inspection, just like the rest of this Franken-bashed F-16 thing.
Applying the digital camouflage pattern went better than expected. The decals turned out to be very thin and delicate, though, with almost no excessive clear film outside of the printed areas, so that application had to be executed swiftly and with lots of water to slide them into place. Nothing for modelers who are faint at heart! Because the single pixel clouds partly follow the Su-25 outlines, the decals had partly to be tailored to the rather different F-16 shape, and due to the different proportions I also had to improvise with the material at hand – fortunately the Su-25 sheet offered enough material to cover the F-16! Some small areas lacked decal material and had to be filled through painting, though, with replacement model paints for the aforementioned darker RAL greys, namely Humbrol 246 (RLM 75) and a 2:1 mix of Humbrol 125 and 67. The lightest grey on the prints turned out to be very close to the Fulcrum Grey, so there’s unfortunately very little contrast, and this only became clear after the decals had already dried. However, I left it that way, because lightening the Fulcrum Grey up further would have been a quite messy affair, ending in a rather dirty look that I wanted to avoid, and it had called for an almost white tone.
Another challenge became the weathering process, since I normally apply a black ink wash and some post-panel shading to the finished and painted model before I add the decals to a model. Fearing that the ink might creep under the decals’ clear sections, I left that step out completely. The delicate static dischargers were another complicating factor. So, I decided to finish the upper camouflage with the light grey base and the decals cammo first. This made trimming down excess decal material easier. After that had been roughly finished, the dischargers were added and the underside was painted blue. On top of that came the “normal” decals with national markings, codes and stencils. The latter were mostly taken from a vintage Microscale F-16 sheet, the tactical code came from a Begemot Ka-27 sheet. Since the bort number on the air intake was not well visible frame every angle, I added a white 77 to the fin, too. Thereafter I added some panel lines with the help of thinned black ink and a soft pencil. This way the model appears pretty clean, and I think that’s fine since many recent Ukrainian aircraft I know from pictures look well-tended. Finally, the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish overall.
A simple F-16 in alternative markings – that’s what this model was supposed to be. I did not expect that the building phase would become such a challenge, and I’d sincerely recommend to any modeler who wants to build a “serious” F-16 in 1:72 to stay away from the Trumpeter and the Intech/Mister-/Mastercraft kits. They might be cheap, but that does not outweigh their flaws and building troubles.
Beyond these technical issues, I like the look of this “Ukrainized” Viper, the digital camouflage looks very special and works well on the aircraft. The light grey base could have been lighter, though. In fact, the F-16 now looks like an exaggerated U.S. Aggressor on first sight, but with the Ukrainian markings the whole thing looks pretty different and conclusive - a “what if” in the best sense. 😉