Eurofighter / typhoon / Ef2k
- Thread starter Mr Evil
- Start date
captainsmirk
Mongoose
Such nicknames are unlikely to reach the civilian press...
Nick
Nick
I would doubt very much if Mongoose would do any aircraft other than smallish helicopters. You just do not need enough of them to make it worthwhile.
If you do want one then I think Revell (Germany) (or possibly Italeri) do a very nice kit and not expensive of one in 1/48th scale. However I still think it might be a bit of a red herring.
One interesting suggestion, stolen from WW II wargaminng I think, is to use aircraft of a smaller scale, say 1/72nd or whatever. I know Corgi do a very nice looking diecast Jaguar bit I am not aware of any diecast Eurofighters, then of course I have not been looking and until a recent magazine review it was an aircraft I had pretty much ignored. The review (of the new kit) made me think again, it is not a bad looking bird after all.
A crashed aircraft of any sort would make a nice objective for pilot rescue or the like. I must Google and see if I can find any reference pictures. The problem is that crashed aircraft tend to stop looking like recognisable aircraft.
Revell do several 1/48th scale small jets like the Learjet. Perfect for a drugs bust scenario though that is more for a skirmish system than BfE. You can get a V-22 and several C-130 variants in 1/48th scale but they are big enough to count as terrain themselves and I have heard reports of the C-130 splitting along the spine after a while. Even a Blackhawk is pretty big. Italeri have a new and very nice A-10 but I think it might be gone by the time of BfE – it might be really useful but it not a glamorous mission and the USAF is ruled by the fighter jocks.
I know enough military history to have a very jaundiced view of air support (eg. The Italian BB that carried a catapult launched fighter as they could not rely on the Italian air force, I am not picking on Italians but it is just an example that springs to mind). It is great when it works but that does not seem to be all that often. I think the table for it should also include the chance of blue-on-blue fire. I would suggest the possibility of national modifiers to this. America – lots of aircraft but they have more glamorous things to do than support the PBI. Britain – sorry, not available, no spares or no money for fuel.
If you do want one then I think Revell (Germany) (or possibly Italeri) do a very nice kit and not expensive of one in 1/48th scale. However I still think it might be a bit of a red herring.
One interesting suggestion, stolen from WW II wargaminng I think, is to use aircraft of a smaller scale, say 1/72nd or whatever. I know Corgi do a very nice looking diecast Jaguar bit I am not aware of any diecast Eurofighters, then of course I have not been looking and until a recent magazine review it was an aircraft I had pretty much ignored. The review (of the new kit) made me think again, it is not a bad looking bird after all.
A crashed aircraft of any sort would make a nice objective for pilot rescue or the like. I must Google and see if I can find any reference pictures. The problem is that crashed aircraft tend to stop looking like recognisable aircraft.
Revell do several 1/48th scale small jets like the Learjet. Perfect for a drugs bust scenario though that is more for a skirmish system than BfE. You can get a V-22 and several C-130 variants in 1/48th scale but they are big enough to count as terrain themselves and I have heard reports of the C-130 splitting along the spine after a while. Even a Blackhawk is pretty big. Italeri have a new and very nice A-10 but I think it might be gone by the time of BfE – it might be really useful but it not a glamorous mission and the USAF is ruled by the fighter jocks.
I know enough military history to have a very jaundiced view of air support (eg. The Italian BB that carried a catapult launched fighter as they could not rely on the Italian air force, I am not picking on Italians but it is just an example that springs to mind). It is great when it works but that does not seem to be all that often. I think the table for it should also include the chance of blue-on-blue fire. I would suggest the possibility of national modifiers to this. America – lots of aircraft but they have more glamorous things to do than support the PBI. Britain – sorry, not available, no spares or no money for fuel.
O.K. This is what I have been able to find in the last 20 minutes the F-35 was thought to be 3,300 lbs over weight for the carriers it cost the Pentagon $7bn to shave of some of the weight on the STOVL version this involved 600 changes to the design. Analysts working for the Pentagon still think it is about 800 to 1000 lbs to heavy for the intended weapons load and for the carrier(s) to handle. Original carrier design called for ski ramp launch it is now thought that catapult and arrestor gear may have to be installed at an additional cost of £150 million to the future carrier project. Inital requirement was for RAF and RN to have 120 to 150 F-35C's this may well be shaved down to 48 for the Royal Navy only RAF prefering to go with Typhoon as it is thought to be a better all round aircraft for the RAF UK Gov put up £1 Billion for the F35 project for a share in the build with Lockheed Martin. £1 Billion for 48 Fighter Bombers is a lot of money in my opinion and I doubt that LM will be very interested in sub contracting for such little investment in the long run.
Its true that there wee weight issues, but the SWAT programme and the aplication of some clever materials technology has gone a long way to ensuring that the STOVL variant will work as advertised. One of the "brain-the-size-of-a-plant" chaps with whom I share an office has been quite active in this area for a while.
The ski jump is still in the CVF design and shows no sign of disappearing (its probably the ugliest ski jump incarnatio so far - CVF has certainly been slapped with the ugly stick in a way not seen in the RN since HMS Ocean!) I am aware that there has been a lot of confusion in the Press regading cats and wires because of the CVF's adaptable design. The carrier has weight, space and power margins included to allow it to be converted to a CTOL design in the future (looking past F-35, possibly to some sort of UCAV, remembering that these ships will be in service past 2050), but the working assumption is very firmly STOVL.
The ski jump is still in the CVF design and shows no sign of disappearing (its probably the ugliest ski jump incarnatio so far - CVF has certainly been slapped with the ugly stick in a way not seen in the RN since HMS Ocean!) I am aware that there has been a lot of confusion in the Press regading cats and wires because of the CVF's adaptable design. The carrier has weight, space and power margins included to allow it to be converted to a CTOL design in the future (looking past F-35, possibly to some sort of UCAV, remembering that these ships will be in service past 2050), but the working assumption is very firmly STOVL.
I ought to add though that, from a purely personal perspective, I'd MUCH prefer the RN to get back into CTOL operations. STOVL may be the nice, safe and sedate way to fly on and off a carrier, but nothing beats CTOL for sheer adrenaline pumping flight deck action!!
Its such a pity the F-35 is a crabby single-enginned aircraft. Not good for maritime operations
Its such a pity the F-35 is a crabby single-enginned aircraft. Not good for maritime operations
The CVF would be alot prettier with a CTOL deck. I personally believe that smaller ships like it are a lot more practical then our huge Nimitz carriers. My friend and are planning a 2 engine variant of the 35 for our own purposes, the FN-1 Wildcat. I know it won't look nearly as good as the F35 though.
