Jump to content

Valkyrie Driver

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1920

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Valkyrie Driver

  1. Valkyrie Driver
    So how many episodes are planned?
  2. Valkyrie Driver
    I have to say though, I like the aesthetic choice to provide some visual distinction from humans. I mean, sure in SDFM Zentradi had a wider variety of natural Hair Colors and Skin tones, as well as different eye colors, but that wasn't all that reliable (Max's hair is blue. That's not natural). I feel like they haven't gone as in depth with character backstory, in Frontier and Delta, as they should have. I thought that was just sort of common practice in character design. Or Watch MS Gundam: 08th MS Team. Still, I really like the destroids, and would like to see the Tomahawk get a bit more screen time and a chance to look awesome. Maybe that's just because I came to Macross through BattleTech rather than Robotech like so many others...
  3. Valkyrie Driver
    I've already decided that once I have money, I want to get a VF-31C. Will I be able to?
  4. Valkyrie Driver
    To be fair, I don't know how much of the actual politics is actually described in Macross backstory. I'm guessing Seto probably has more on that (if anyone does). As for Kaifun blaming the military, well, that's pretty much par for the course in free societies (Though how free the world is after the SDF-1's departure is unclear). Soldiers get blamed for the wars the politicians start.
  5. Valkyrie Driver
    He is that. I don't disagree with any of what you said. What was it that Ghandi said... "it is better to be violent, if violence is what is in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence"? I mean, I don't like violence, but I am also not unwilling to use it, or use the threat of it, to deter injustice. Kaifun was a very strangely written character. He was openly antagonistic towards the SDFM crew, was a martial artist (Every system of martial arts I've ever learned has taught me that avoidance of conflict is always the preferable solution, Hell, the military taught me the same thing), but hated violence. His actions even show that he was ready, willing, and able to use force to solve a problem, and his words ensured that such things happened, but then became irrationally angry when he was forced to defend himself. Basara even had some of that, though it seemed that it was out of his control, his abrasive personality just compounded the problem. It almost seems to me that the pacifist characters are caricatures of pacifism. As much as Macross seems to be anti war, it also seems to be anti pacifist, and preferring to espouse a more platonic "golden mean" sort of philosophy. But, that could be me just reading way too much into the shows...
  6. Valkyrie Driver
    So I thought I might go back to the F-35 for a moment. Compared to the 187 operational F-22A's in service as of now (and that's all there are ever going to be), there are currently something like 216 operation F-35's with the planned procurement being 1,763 planned for purchase over the program's lifespan. That's enough aircraft to equip 98 ish squadrons across three branches. The A-10C and the F-15E will likely remain in service until 2040, alongside the F-22A's and F-35's, with the USN probably continuing to operate the F/A-18E/F for quite some time to come as well. Obviously I'm a huge proponent of maintaining a large military (independent of force multipliers like drones), because I feel that it puts us in a strong position for international relations (I belong to the realist school, where the balance of power is a huge concern). So bear in mind I'm looking at how to expand our military for the most efficient price tag. *Edit*: This whole thing was posted as a correction to one of my earlier posts, I was working under some assumptions that proved wrong, so THis is me making a retraction.
  7. Valkyrie Driver
    Well, yes the A-10C and Su-25K do both have that benefit. Any LA/AR aircraft would by necessity be vulnerable to anything more than small arms, it's not as much an issue. Since the LA/AR aircraft would be supplementing the A-10, it would be used to provide support to small unit actions (orbiting a foot patrol mission area), there to spot enemy movements and provide immediate support. The likely result of the OA-X would be a two seat aircraft, with the back seat being for a spotter/sensor operator, basically taking over the mission for which the OA-10B(two seater) was intended to fill. Agreed. The whole intent though was to shift most ANG aircraft back to the regular AF, giving us more aircraft for our pilots to fly (which would mean training more pilots). I'm not doubting the T(FA)-50A's ability with the current engine. I simply think it should be a second line aircraft used by the Guard, and give the more capable aircraft to the Regulars (including Active Guard/Reserve squadrons). Basically if the unit has a full time flying mission, it should have frontline combat aircraft, if not, then secondline (secondline does not mean second rate) equipment will suffice. As for engine upgrades, provided the engine will fit, and it won't overstress the airframe... I think you're right. Though, so few ANG squadrons fly the F-15C/D that it almost doesn't matter. I hardly see the F-22A as being a replacement for the F-15C/D, as we have so few F-22A's.
  8. Valkyrie Driver
    Except that both the A-29 and the Textron Scorpion are in contention for the OA-X program. Now, I've seen some information that this has morphed into the AT-X program, as it's reduced from a 100 aircraft production requirement to a 15 aircraft production requirement with a focus on training. The OA-X program was originally intended to find a Light Attack/Armed Reconnaissance aircraft to supplement the A-10C in COIN operations, where the big gun and massive payload would not be as necessary, but still required the ability to loiter and provide fire support. A Turbo prop aircraft would be perfectly fine in such an application. An effective ground attack aircraft does not need speed. Look at the two most effective Ground attack platforms in current service, the A-10C and the SU-25. Neither are supersonic, both use 30mm cannons, both have 11 hardpoints to maximize payload efficiency. The A-10 can carry 16,000lbs of ordnance to the Su-25K's 9,700lbs, while the Su-25 is faster at 527 knots to the A-10C's 381 (that's max speed not cruise). The A-10C is heavier and carries more gun ammo, and the A-10C's combat radius is around 250nmi to the Su-25's 405nmi. There are several other differences, but the primary gist is that they're both slow (compared to fighters, which typically cruise at 350-500kts), they can spread their payload out (actually carrying more ordnance), and they can accurately deliver their payload. Now the primary difference is that the A-10C was intended to remain in the area to support ground troops while the Su-25 is more along the lines of the A-4, A-6, and A-7 in that they were intended to be part of a strike package, rather than continued support. The T-50 is interesting, but I feel it's a step backwards, since the F-16 has a higher thrust-to-weight ratio and higher payload (so that means more missiles for air combat, and more bombs for air interdiction/CAS). Now, if we were to use the T-50A as a second line fighter/light attack aircraft for the ANG (for reduced operating costs, less combat focused mission) and trainer for AD that would be fine. I would definitely advocate replacing the F-16's in the ANG with FA-50A's, and replacing the ANG's A-10C's with Textron Scorpions, then shifting the F-16C/D's and A-10C's back to the RegAF, allowing us to maintain more pilots. For that matter I'd like to shift F-15C/D's from the ANG back to the RegAF, and Replace those in the ANG with a similarly capable, low cost airframe. Concerning the ANG, it might be smart to keep the squadrons on the coasts equipped with frontline fighters, and equip other units with the second line fighters. Still, I think we should maximize our forces by going "cheap" where we can afford to, and that's the ANG.
  9. Valkyrie Driver
    The OA-X program looks like its got a ton of good contenders, many of which are already in service around the world. Honestly though I think the Best contender is the Textron Scorpion. As for the T-50A, I see a lot of F-16 design influence in it (since Lockheed Martin helped develop the aircraft that's not surprising), and that's not a bad thing. Only issue I see with the T-50A is the lack of payload compared to our current light fighter. The T-50A's performance numbers are similar to the f-16, but it has 2 less weapon stations, roughly 4000lbs less payload and from what I can tell it's only available as a 2 seat fighter. The T-50A is interesting, and would be a great light fighter for the ANG. It would make a heck of a trainer, but then it might be cheaper to just adopt the T-45 Goshawk around all the services.
  10. Valkyrie Driver
    That might be the case, and as I said, I like the jet in spite of my criticism. I think the F-35 is an important step forward, but that step might just not be sure footing. The US needs a more solid foundation for its air forces, and that's going to mean more fighters (and stealth fighters just are not going to cut it price wise). I think a doctrinal shift is also necessary, a straight up replacement for the A-10 and F-16 in the ANG is probably warranted, in order to shift our F-16's and A-10's back to regular and reserve component units. I've always maintained that drones are not a good step forward in the future of combat aviation, and I want to see more pilots, and that means aircraft for them to fly. We need to provide that as inexpensively as we can.
  11. Valkyrie Driver
    Ahead of the curve sure. But you cannot, and should not try to build combat aviation around stealth. Aside from the prohibitive cost to produce, the maintenance costs are huge as well. Also, the trade off for stealth is diminished capability. I'm not saying that we shouldn't have stealth fighters, merely that they shouldn't be the primary focus. I'm also not saying that we recycle 1970's tech. Simply that we build conventional aircraft with low observable construction (limited application of RAM, the use of dogtooth panels, and other techniques designed to deflect radar), we go high tech where we can (avionics) and use tried methods for reducing radar cross section without going whole hog in order to keep costs down. No amount of new technology is going to make soldiers safer in combat. Superior training and skill is what will bring them home. For the record I said nothing about us resting on our laurels, nor about pasting improvements onto old tech. Anything we purchase should be entirely new, but conventional materials can still be used and be relevant. Which is why I advocate a strategy of spending smarter. I'm also not saying that we can't have multi-role fighters. The F-16 is a great example of a successful Multi-role fighter. Thing is, with the F-16, it's a better fighter than it is anything else. It's still a very good platform for air interdiction and CAS, but not as good as say, and F-15E or A-10. The F-15E is an outstanding air interdiction platform, it's better than the F-16 at CAS, and it's ok as a fighter. The A-10 does CAS at the exclusion of all else, and is deadly to anything that makes it's home on the ground. What I'm getting at is not how the end user uses the aircraft (because that's what defines true multi-role) but rather the primary considerations in the aircraft's design. What is the design best suited for? In the case of the F-15E, it was adapted from an excellent fighter, to be a better bomber, and that's what we use it for mostly. Also, if we don't prepare for future conflicts (and I'm just going to say it, history repeats in cycles. If we over specialize in this 4th generation of warfare, we won't be prepared when we see another large conventional war), we will get left behind. Not every future conflict is assured to be a guerrilla war. Except it won't. Unless something has changed, We've purchased all we're going to. Now we are just waiting to take delivery. The cost is the cost. Yes evey fighter has had developmental problems, and I'm not saying the F-35 won't be a very capable platform, I just don't believe that it will be as good a fighter as the F-16 it's supposed to replace, or as good a CAS platform as the A-10 that it was supposed to replace. In fact, the A-10 and F-16 aren't going anywhere for quite some time, because we will end up with more pilots than we have aircraft for them to fly. Then what, we put them in drones? Drones are not a viable long term solution, since Actual eyes on target will see things that cameras will not.
  12. Valkyrie Driver
    I actually like the F-35 and the way it looks. Despite my criticisms of the platform. To this day, I remain unconvinced that the F-35 will be able to replace any of the previous generation aircraft (Especially the A-10, considering it and the B-52 are the only aircraft in the inventory that have an indefinite lifespan). I still say that the bulk of the US Military's air power should not be outright gen 5 stealth fighters (but, rather, gen 4.5 aircraft with low observable design considerations). I also say that the A-10 should remain in service until parts run out. My main criticisms of the F-35 are the fact that it costs way too much to base air forces around it, and that purpose built aircraft (Though versatile) will always outperform a fighter that was designed to meet multiple missions. Design considerations for a CAS platform will be different than those for a fighter, or a bomber, it's just that simple. A dedicated multi-role fighter is a patchwork of compromises that will adversely affect the final performance of the aircraft. Also, there are a few things that bug me about the F-35. The B/C models both have a missionized gun pod, which is supposed to be very accurate and quite good. It also has a larger ammo supply than the internal gun on the A model. If I had been in charge of procuring aircraft, I'd have told the USAF to skip the internal gun, take the gun pod, and write an SOP which outlines that unless the gun is deemed inappropriate for the mission, it shall always be a considered part of the aircraft. That is, unless there's something I'm missing.
  13. Valkyrie Driver
    There was a bit too much silly super robot stuff in M7. Alas...
  14. Valkyrie Driver
    That... Is not something I had noticed, but now I cannot unsee... You dick! That reminds me of how I was just starting to appreciate Messer only for him to... have a taste of Pineapple Salad... Now I feel the feels....
  15. Valkyrie Driver
    I thought so. I mean, it took me 2 or 3 runs through to finally put my finger on it, so I feel that I gave it a pretty fair shake. There are some other minor things, like the quality of the acting that might be a bit off, but I chalked it up to being a 90's anime so I can't judge it by today's standards (considering how much more elevated the art form has become since then). As for being too silly, well, as my dad was fond of reminding me at the time (specifically referring to my love of BattleTech and Gundam), giant robots are silly just in themselves (My father is not open minded about such things, but he was a soldier and a fighter pilot so Warfare and technology was something that needed to be more grounded in reality for him). That's completely fair. I have no arguments with this. I agree completely. I get that. I'll chalk it up to cultural differences. I mean, I enjoy M7 in spite of my issues, though not to the degree that I enjoy other Macross Productions. I'd be really interested to see how a Japanese fan would deconstruct Basara's character. Amazing bit of self critique and deconstruction of the overall genre. I get that completely, And that's my it's probably the least bothersome of my issues with the show despite it being number 2 on my list. That's fair I guess. Though I think my issue is less trying to quantify it. My primary issue is more to do with how Humanity is portrayed in using music. We, a species that can create music, to bridge the emotional rift between species, being so willing to weaponize it. Sure we use music in psyops all the time, and anyone that's seen Apocalypse Now automatically associates Wagner with the image of the Air Cav coming out of the sun to mess up Charlie's day. What also bugged me was that Basara was unwilling to use force to kill people, but was more than willing to use force to make people to listen to his music. It clashed with his pacifist image. I think it was more how the concept was used, more than the concept itself. I mean, that's all fair enough. I mean we have yet to fully explain how empathy works and how the groupthink phenomenon works. Or how humans can "feel" emotions from large crowds. We also can't really explain how some forms of music transcend cultural barriers (Country and Bluegrass being popular in Japan for instance) despite the obvious glaring differences in style and composition. I mean, the only thing satisfying about the VF-11C's time on screen was how much screen time it got, even if it did spend a lot of it getting blown up. I definitely agree with you, the VF-11 is certainly a great looking ship and I wish it had been given a better run. The VF-19, I completely understand. I really liked the YF-19 and the VF-19A. I can't justify an Arcadia YF-19 to myself, but I did get the Bandai VF-19Adv, which makes me just as happy to have in my collection. The VF-19F/S is a bit more simplified, and I don't like it as much as the Y/VF-19/A/Adv. I also didn't like that it was made the Rival's mech, as it is really a standout fan favorite.
  16. Valkyrie Driver
    Um, weren't Mirage and Mikumo assigned to the same fighter? Or am I remembering wrong? Also that's a pretty sweet picture, where'd you get that?
  17. Valkyrie Driver
    Welp, I t looks like I need to rewatch delta, because I' apparently not remembering some things. I'd also like to see a standard of writing that respects the audience at least a little bit more. I'd like to see some nods to earlier mecha, maybe some good ship to ship combat. Say what you will about frontier's story and protagonists, it had some really great visuals and robot fights...
  18. Valkyrie Driver
    Um, to use a real world parallel, The US Coast Guard doesn't have huge ships. Its also a fact that the Macross-verse still uses some form of economy and currency that we recognize. Which means that mobilizing the massive ships would be costly. It's also probable that the NUNS, in its arrogance, didn't consider the conflict a big enough threat to warrant. Also, a real world parallel, when the US started to remove guns from fighter designs because missiles were the future, and the Nuke-centric nature of the cold war made force on force engagements a costly proposition. I'd just consider it a repeat of cold war mindsets (history is cyclical after all...).
  19. Valkyrie Driver
    Kek. It's so hard to choose between them...
  20. Valkyrie Driver
    Despite my skepticism at the initial concept of Delta, I actually like the show and the music. I wouldn't call it my favorite entry in the series, but it's tied with Frontier After DYRL. I have to admit that I actually liked the style of 7's music better (I'm a rock and roll kind of guy), but Delta just had so much energy that it's hard to not like!
  21. Valkyrie Driver
    Macross is one of my favorite anime franchises. I needed to get that out there. To say I hated Macross 7 would be unfair, but it is probably my least favorite entry into the series. It did introduce some of my favorite Macross Mecha however, and gave me more of my favorite Characters, as well as introducing some characters I liked. All of the things that make 7 praise worthy to me though are overshadowed by a few things; 1. Nekki Basara. Bear with me here, he's about as 3 dimensional as a piece of tissue paper, and has the emotional depth of a kiddie pool. He doesn't grow as the series progresses, and is thoroughly unlikeable. Despite this, we are "treated" to him over and over as he jumps in his fire valkyrie and flies out into combat, and ends up doing nothing except getting in the way. He's arrogant and self righteous and egotistical, and the fact that the other characters not only acknowledge this, but openly criticize it, makes his presence as the protagonist a jarring experience. 2. Repetition and Pacing. The series is very repetitive and formulaic. Granted it's difficult not to be in a ~50 episode series, but it gets that way too quickly and it's a grind to get through it and to the real meat of the show. This also has the effect of making the series drag a fair bit, and so the Pacing is just too slow. I'm not demanding more action, but the show seemed a bit lethargic at times. 3. Spiritia/Sound Energy Theory. I get it, Macross likes music. I like Music. I like Music in Macross. I like the Music from Macross. But, I liked it better when music had something in Macross that couldn't be quantified. Granted Macross 7 didn't jump the shark in a lot of the ways that Frontier and Delta did, but it did set the trend. I also dislike how the show handled it, making Fire Bomber the only hope, rather than just making the the strongest option. Now, these are just the things that keep Macross 7 out of my top 3. I chose to do my entry here in this manner because it was simply shorter to list the things I didn't like rather than try to list all of the things I did like. These three things are just so jarring to me as a viewer, especially with how much I get beaten about the head with Basara and Sound Energy. It's not that I don't like the concept, I just think the series could have done better. Maybe if 7 had focused a bit more on Mylene rather than Basara, and maybe shown a bit more of Mylene and Gamlin's relationship with Basara as more of a supporting character it would have been a bit better. Mylene and Gamlin probably had the most growth as characters, which is awkward when Basara is the "main" character. Aside from that, I love the mecha. They remain some of my favorites, and my Yamato VF-19F has a place of honor in my collection, right beside my VF-11C. That's just my 2 cents. Take it for what it's worth.
  22. Valkyrie Driver
    I didn't get the Hayate version, and I've wanted Mirage's VF-31C since I first saw it.
  23. Valkyrie Driver
    So, is the Mirage type actually out or just announced?
  24. Valkyrie Driver
    I mean I'm not arguing for the F-20 specifically, but something in the same vein of concept. I mean, sure, given the choice, enough F-35's to replace the F-16C/D and F/A-18C/D's would be preferable, and enough F-22A's to replace the F-15C/D's would obviously be the best solution. Sure the F-14's retirement has left a gap, one which thee F/A-18E/F should be more than able to fill. I'm not a huge fan of trying to build multirole aircraft, I'd rather have a few aircraft that can do a couple things okay, but one thing really well. Obviously I want our Forces to progress in technology, I just think that we should do so with careful consideration for the budget. Air Forces (that includes the USAF, USN, and USMC) built on stealth aircraft are not sustainable.
  25. Valkyrie Driver
    I mean, you're not wrong. There is precedent though, the AV-8B was a foreign aircraft. I mean a lockheed or boeing made Typhoon wouldn't be bad, nor would it be unwelcome. The Navy and Marines both have it bad with their aging fighter fleets. More F-16's would definitely be the best answer for the USAF, and More F-18C/D's and AV-8B's would be best for the USN and USMC. Actually, what's probably more fiscally feasible that the Air Guard would end up rotating most of their F-15's, F-16's, and A-10's back to the RegAF, and replaced with airframes like the Textron Scorpion and possibly a revamped Northrop F-20.
×
×
  • Create New...