Valkyrie Driver

No problem, and besides, to err is human. I can't say for certain. I know that most helipads and runways at more established FOBs and Camps are usually reinforced with something (updated versions of the stamped steel grate used in WW2), so true dirt patch helipads aren't really a thing. Though extreme, it was meant to show that the Harrier can use most unimproved surfaces as potential T/O and landing pads, negating it's limited payload in comparison to the A-10. Stealth coatings are difficult to maintain in that sort of environment, but maintainers are a crafty bunch and I'm sure they could find a workaround. It's more to do with how the F-35B manages the VTOL capability. Most of the Marine Assets in Afghanistan are probably out of Kandahar which services most of RC-South. You're not wrong. The VS the A-10 thing has been put forth by talking heads, the media and project lobbyists that don't have any real hands on experience with the efficacy of the A-10. They simply see new technology, a sexy plane, and some numbers that they take out of context, declare it more capable and fail to realize what makes the A-10 so useful. They see a shiny new toy and want to relegate the old thing to the goodwill bin. The Army has had a lot of push in keeping the A-10 from being retired, as have Fighter Wings that operate it, and the Air-Ground Operations Wings that point at the the bad guys. I'm not in disagreement with anything you've said thus far. Don't feel bad. Unless you have a background in mission planning, or intel, or in my case weather, those aren't thing you'd think about. You'd look at the doctrine and accept it at face value. I had an opportunity to speak with several A-10 pilots at the Air Shows at Barksdale AFB while I was stationed there, as we had a squadron of them, which is where a lot of my info comes from. As for the Drones, drones are good for the triple D missions. Dangerous, Dull, and Dirty. Recon is perfect for drones, since you can just have the operators sit in a trailer and they can have pee breaks whenever they want them, that's the Dull. Dangerous missions being the ones with high probability of aircrew fatality. Flying recon over Iran for instance, or making precision strikes in Pakistan, or even supporting special operations troops with precision strikes, where a highly visible presence is not a good idea. Dirty missions would be anywhere there is a radiological, biological, or chemical threat. Drones are great in that they can loiter and provide limited support, but at the end of the day, wars must be fought by men, otherwise it's just a game. As for fratricide, well, war is messy and friendly fire happens, confirmation of the target prevents it from happening more frequently. As I stated, all aspect IR required the use of liquid nitrogen cooled seeker head. The F-16 uses an onboard system to circulate the liquid nitrogen until the missile is fired. That would be too bulky for a MANPADS. Also as I stated, the seeker might be sensitive enough to detect a hot airframe, but it's going to follow the source of the most intense heat, which is going to be the exhaust. If it has to go through the front of the aircraft to get there so be it, bu that's not true all aspect capability. Stealth is needed, but as a supplement to no stealth aircraft. Stealth features introduce tendencies that conventional (non stealthy) fighters don't necessarily need to follow. I feel that over reliance on stealth is a trap we should avoid. After the first day or two of hostilities, the enemy knows your there, and there's no use trying to hide. Where stealth would be of continuing use is in the Air superiority role and the SEAD role. Keep enemy fighters from seeing you until it's too late, and keep enemy radar from seeing you until it's too late. Enemy Air Defenses should ideally be crippled, if not destroyed within the first 72 hours of conflict, and within the same time frame Air Superiority should also be established. I think stealth is a capability we should have, but not be reliant upon, as it is very costly to produce and to maintain. I am however of the mind that the US should have a large military, not only to ensure our dominance over foreign battlefields but to ensure dominance over over domestic battlefields (should we ever be invaded). The balance of offensive and defensive systems will always be in a state of flux, as new technologies arise. To reiterate, I just don't believe that stealth is the be all end all answer. Given a hot enough profile yes, they can. However true All Aspect missiles require a liquid nitrogen cooled seeker, and that is far too bulky a proposition for a MANPADS launcher. It's really going to depend on how hot the front of the Aircraft gets. When talking about the A-10, the fact that the engines are mounted high and to the rear of the aircraft, and that the tail is designed to diffuse that heat, the A-10 is really only easily engaged by shooting at it from the top down. There is also the fact that the A-10 uses non afterburning turbofan engines, which don't produce as much heat as a comparable turbojet. I'm not saying that MANPADS aren't a threat because they are, just that it's being blown out of proportion.

QFT

You're right. But then the A-10 was a first. Throughout the Cold War the US had fighters and bombers, with a few outliers like the A-6 and A-4. The USAF did not have a dedicated Attacker Platform, conceived and built specifically for the Air Force, until the A-10. The A-6 and the A-1, were both originally navy designs. The other ground attack aircraft we had were adapted from fighter designs. The A-10 was designed to provide the USAF with a dedicated platform that was best suited for that mission. As for the AV-8B, it has some unique capabilities that the A-10 lacks, notably the ability to take off from any flat spot. That somewhat negates the Harrier's lower ammo capacity. The F-35 doesn't really advertise that capability and I doubt you'd see an F-35B taking off from a dirt patch helipad at a FOB in south frakk afghanistan. The harrier has that capability. I'm not questioning the utility of other Attack aircraft, or even the F-35's ability to perform reasonably well in that role. I am calling into question the notion that the A-10 is obsolete and irrelevant. It offers capabilities that should be supplemented by fighters, and replaced by a new purpose built airframe. I don't want the A-10 replaced by a "this'll do" option, I want it replaced with a, "This does the same stuff, but better" option. Lord only knows what form that will take. Main point is, yes, you're right the A-10 is an odd duck in our aviation history, but it's precisely those reasons it was developed in the first place that make it indispensable to the current state of warfare. That's certainly true. However when you take into account that when you do have to go low, the risk of getting hit increases dramatically. As I stated, many mission factors will limit your ability to use standoff weapons. Urgency, Accuracy, Range from friendly forces, Meteorological conditions, terrain, are all potential limiting factors, that can inhibit the use of standoff weapons. Dust kicked up by wind or explosions, can attenuate lasers, Solar weather can cause unacceptable GPS errors, smoke can obscure targets, making it impossible to fix with a precision munition. Oh, and let's use Schizo's favorite reasoning, SOP's. SOP's dictate that visual confirmation of the target is required for all danger close airstrikes. The Target must be marked with smoke and the pilot must have visual confirmation before engaging the target at danger close. I agree with the intent behind SOP's and in most cases favor following them, except when they'll get me or my buddies killed. That said, with few exceptions, I would never engage a target without visual confirmation. No worries, At least you're not talking out your ass and claiming it as fact. Your response seemed rather well spoken and intelligent, not to mentioned researched. Yes, you are absolutely correct. The UV seems to be more a way to distinguish from decoy flares rather than an actual seeker application, as UV radiation is not emitted in the same way as IR. As FOr Laser systems, they'll go to wherever the dot is placed, and are generally less of a threat to fast movers like the A-10, F-15, F-16, and the F-35. Laser based systems would be very dangerous to Helicopters though as they are generally slow moving enough to keep a bead on. Also laser based systems are not fire and forget like IR systems. Additionally, I have not seen any information that states MANPADS having all aspect capability. Now I could be wrong, but I find it unlikely since that is a rather expensive capability, and it is a rather large and maintenance intensive capability (IIRC missiles like the AIM-9L and onward have their seeker heads liquid nitrogen cooled as part of that capability, something that would be unwieldy in a shoulder fired missile).

SOP= Standard Operating Procedures. I'll emphasize the Standard there for you, because those guidelines exist to produce repeatable results under normal conditions. If you have a nonstandard or otherwise hinky situation, a standard response doesn't work. As for getting in "trouble", it was a training situation, we were learning, and my response served me very well in that very nonstandard situation (I probably should have mentioned the mother frakker I had to "shoot" after entry). "Breaking the rules" is perfectly acceptable when those very same rules will result in unacceptable casualties. As I said, when dealing with SOP's (Not ROE), there is no such thing as wrong in war. I think you may have been getting the Two confused. First I, never said anything about their seekers being limited in tracking ability, they can distinguish between flares and aircraft exhaust, making them more dangerous. However, the All-Aspect seeker, is not something we have miniaturized yet, due to excessive cost. Most MANPADS, if not all, do not have the All Aspect Capability. If you have a source that states otherwise, I'd very much like to see it. I think you're also missing another point about explosives. The gun doesn't shoot explosives. If the pilot has to go danger close and a 500lb bomb isn't an option, the gun is the only option left. Explosives are indiscriminate. The rounds pretty much go where you point them. I want sources for your information. I'm going off of what I have gleaned from books, and various .mil sites that I no longer have access to, as well as having spoken to the pilots, and the guys who have benefited from the A-10. YOu seem to be missing a valuable point about the bombers, that Grigliosi already mentioned. THE BOMBERS ARE NOT IN COUNTRY! Your point about logistic and the A-10 is nonsense. The A-10 is deployed in country. IN COUNTRY, it can get there faster than the big bombers, unless said bombers are already in the area. It's obvious that you haven't been reading my posts. I have been citing facts, and relating observations from my personal experience, and from information I have gathered. Also, go back to one of my earlier posts and actually read the article from the Air Force Times that I linked. As for the Guys in the Top seats of the USAF, they're mostly idiots, too concerned with getting their next promotion, or finding some board of directors to sit on when they retire, and not listening to the guys on the ground that actually have to do the work. The Generals and the SecAF have run the Air Force into the ground, and you defending them shows just how little you actually know, despite your protestations to the contrary. TL;DR, You're not reading my responses, and you're not using sound logic. You also don't seem to understand the nature of warfare and conflict.

How do you think I feel? Between this hobby, Warhammer 40k, and Airsoft, I have no money...

Ok, so it was a combination of factors that made the VF-19 and VF-22 expensive. As for the Linear Actuators, are there any examples shown in any of the master file books how it supposedly "fixes" the previous generation tech?

Is there an MPP version of the Kawamori starscream?

I'm not ready t purchase at this stage so, no need to do that on my account. Good to know that you have that in mind for when you begin production yourself.

Is it ever stated why the VF-19 was so expensive? if so, why? Also, are there any descriptions of how the ISC works? Does it use some form of ramping? The more g's it's subjected to, the more it bleeds off? Is there a point at which it begins working, like say under 6g's it's at "idle" sot to speak?

Thanks Seto. So he's one of the Antagonists, so I bought a Villain Valk. That's what I needed to know. I have plenty of Hero Valks, but only 2 enemy valks.

I hope you realize just how often the gun is used. That gun can get the hurt into places where explosives are a liability. It is a viable concern. I wouldn't be talking it up as much if the F-35 didn't carry only 180-220 rounds. The A-10 Carries over 1100 rounds for the gun. 5mm difference in caliber isn't what I'm on about, it's how much ammo the damn plane can carry. Also, SOP does allow use of the Cannon, it gets used, a lot. The gun is ideal for use against ground targets that do not have the capacity to return fire effectively. Ground troops with small arms, tanks and light vehicles are especially vulnerable to the GAU-8A. As for low threat environments, I wouldn't say that's strictly true. It is an effective weapon, and if it's not the right tool for the job, then the pilot won't try to use it. It never hurts to have more tools in your toolbox. All MANPADS launchers use IR guided missiles. That means they are a threat to any aircraft with a tailpipe (read, all of them). Will those penetrate the tub the pilot sits in, yes. Are most MANPADS all aspect? No. That means they're going to track to the exhaust and then explode. We have seen that the A-10 can and will fly back on a single engine, hell it'll fly back on a single engine and a single wing, and 2 weeks later be flying again. MANPADS are not as prolific a threat as they seem to be, as most of the ones finding their way into the hands of our enemies are older systems, not the latest and greatest developments. And as I stated, they aren't all aspect missiles, a majority of the damage inflicted will be to the rear of the aircraft. As for staying out of their firing envelope, that's a solution certainly, but You can't always use mid altitude bombing to accomplish the mission, meteorological conditions will dictate tactics (trust me, mission planning was part of my job for 5 years). Just because we have the capability to engage at range, doesn't mean we always have the ability to do so. Again, Meteorological conditions will dictate tactics. Also, your logic is the same logic that led to the F-4. "Oh, dogfighting is dead, missiles and guided weaponry is the way of the future, we don't need guns, they're outdated." All modern US fighters are now designed with a gun in mind, and with greater emphasis on maneuverability than speed. Because we learned that we were wrong. Does the A-10 need to rely on it's gun, certainly not, it's perfectly capable without it, but having that capability only helps it. As for the use of bigger bomber in the CAS role, well, they can't loiter. As for the B-52, it cannot loiter. It takes 3 states to turn the damn thing around, and by the time you get a second pass out of it, it's hit bingo (the point at which you have only enough fuel to RTB) and needs to go home. Furthermore, the A-10 can be deployed in country more readily than most of our bombers. Meaning its response time is better. Use the Bombers if they're already inbound, but a smaller airframe is going to be better for immediate response. You're talking out your ass here bud. Show me your sources. In the last 10 years the GAU-8A has been fired, in anger, more times than can be counted, probably on average of 3 or 4 times a day in that time span. Again show me your sources. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If my rotation at JRTC was any indication of a typical month in RC East during the fighting season, the A-10 fires it's gun a lot, that's not even counting RC North, RC West, and RC South. I'm also going to hit this point again, since it seems that you're not getting it: The quantity of stores is what makes the A-10 more effective, even if it's max payload is 2000lbs less than the F-35, the A-10 has more hardpoints, and that give it greater capacity with lighter munitions (32 Mk82's between 11 hardpoints vs 20 Mk82's between 6 external and 2 internal hardpoints, interchange with the GBU-12 or GBU-38, same weight warhead only guided). 500lb bombs and Hydra 70 rockets are the standard CAS munitions, and the F-35 isn't cleared to carry Hydra 70's, which also means no APKWS guided rockets either. The A-10 is simply the most versatile CAS platform we have, and to divest ourselves of that would be folly. Here's a small arms example: Look at the M-14. It was replaced a mere 10 years after it's introduction, in favor of a more technologically advanced weapon with a lighter caliber and more control. Fast Forward to 2002, The M-14 was brought out of the storehouses, because the M-4/M-16 wasn't able to handle the increased range demands in Afghanistan or the fine talcum powder like sand (without frequent and intensive maintenance) of Iraq. Just because it's old, low tech, and not the absolute sexiest thing out there, doesn't mean you get rid of it because it doesn't embody the doctrine you want to follow. Doctrine has to change with the situation. Doctrines and SOP's are great, but if they don't work for the situation you're in, you disregard and get the job done the best you can without violating any laws. That's why the Asymmetrical Warfare Group exists, to read the situations, and make corrections to doctrine when it fails. Quick story about SOP's: I was doing building and room clearing in training at Camp Blanding, FL. The Second I stepped through the Doorway my weapon came off safe. It was conscious, deliberate, and blatantly against SOP. The SFC doing our training started to ream me good for violating SOP, but I explained to him, that 1) the gun don't go bang if I don't pull the trigger, and 2) Flipping the safety is one more thing to think about that will get me killed, I'd rather be wrong and alive than right and dead. He stopped chewing me out when he heard that. When it comes to SOP's there's no such thing as wrong in war. SOP's are guidelines, but in the end, you gotta get the job done. So stop relying on that as your reasoning.

Quick question on the Betas, will they eventually have the holes for the auxiliary stands? I haven't ordered anything from you yet, and I feel bad about commenting without supporting your work. It's just hard to buy the ancillary bits for a hobby you know? I need to buy foam for my miniature cases, stands for my valks, display case for my hobbies...

This is for those that have played Macross 30. I recently purchased a YF-29B Percival Rod custom (because it looked cool, and was the most avilable and most current YF-29 mold). I'm trying to figure out just who Rod is in the game. I know that he's a NUNS pilot, but I don't know any more than that. I'm not too hung up on spoilers, as I don't own the game or a PS3 to play it on.

Yeah, I was planning on getting some DX stand kits and elbows so I could have more dynamic stands, but I also want to get the toys up and off my coffee table. I'd like to get a Detolf so I can display my yamato toys too...

I found this on youtube, dunno if it's already been posted, but it gives a good look at the prototype toy. Also, I'd love to preorder but I don't know if I'll be able to. Just in case I can, I'm down for a VF-31C and a VF-31A...

Nah, more like pre-war Japan. Winderemere actually seems like it can hold the ground it takes,and tenaciously so... NK would just retreat to the 38th parallel when crap looks grim...

And I agree we should press that advantage, however, the A-10's simplicity and ease of maintenance is exactly why it's necessary. It has a very short turn around time on maintenance meaning it can fly more sorties in shorter time than any other aircraft. Add to that the fact that it, along with the B-52, are the only airframes in the inventory than can be overhauled to Zero Time. As long as we can replace the parts we can keep them flying, which makes it a great asset. Even without the fancy stuff it's relevant, and it's a game changer in the Battlespace. The 30mm gun is by far the most effective airborne gun we have. It's precise and deadly, and it is demoralizing to enemy fighters, and it raises the morale of friendly troops that hear it. The F-35 will not be able to do the A-10's job. It's gun doesn't have the ammo capacity, and it can't deliver the sheer volume of lighter ordnance that the A-10 can. It also will likely not have the ability to loiter like the A-10, nor is it rated to carry the variety of ordnance. Will the F-35 be able to perform CAS effectively, sure. Will it be able to replace the A-10's capabilities, most assuredly not. The A-10's simplicity and durability are it's greatest assets. Besides, arguing this is a moot point, since the retirement of the airframe had been indefinitely delayed. We also need to consider that in light of fairly recent events the A-10 might be coming full circle. With Russia's annexation of Crimea last year, the A-10's full capabilities might be needed again, especially if Russia starts going all imperialist on us (There are treaties in place that should have forced us into military action with Russia over the annexation of Crimea, and those treaties still might). We are the only Air Force in the world that is trying to build an air force around stealth, and we shouldn't Stealth is a very narrow use capability, and frankly we ought to be spending our defense dollars on conventional fighters that can replace the F-15/6 airframes that are getting old. We need more manned fighters, fewer drones, and a stronger force (meaning more pilots, more aircraft, more capability). I'd say pull the F-16's from the Guard and revive the F-20 tigershark and give it to the guard. The Guard is supposed to be the second line, but second line doesn't have to mean second rate, so give them a cheaper but capable fighter that's easy and cheap to maintain, and put the 4th gen jet fighters back in regular service, and then start planning on how to replace them with a newer and more capable conventional fighter. We need to focus on being the most effective, not the most advanced. There is a huge difference.

Sick work. I'd like to see what you could do for a weathered one...

Are you planning to do the wall hangers that you had posted a while back?

Can it be next week yet...

Well, If the fleet had been given the plans for the VF-19 before the arms restriction, and was already producing them it might be more cost effective to simply produce a local variant that boosted the VF-19's performance to higher levels, rather than completely retool for a new fighter. Perhaps said fleet might simply not need the VF-25, since it's in a relatively peaceful area of the galaxy. Or perhaps they needed an interim solution for higher performance as they transitioned to the VF-25. Brand new, I can definitely see it getting skipped, but as a service life extension, it makes more sense.

So a properly tuned ISC, installed in a VF-19EF, with a GU-17A gun pod and appropriate reinforcements, as well as VF-25 level active stealth systems could go a long way towards updating the VF-19? Especially if you outfitted the VF-19EF with the VF-19E Kai engines which are putting out 82,500 kg of thrust? If all that were done, how would it stack up to the VF-25? It would probably lose out, in a head to head fight, but would it be able to put up a decent fight?

If you think about the Macross franchise as glimpses into history (like say how we have things like Band of Brothers, The Pacific, and other docudramas about war) being told by a party further into the future, these inconsistencies make more sense. One source has it one way, while another says something different, about details, but the big events are all pretty much consistent, then it's easier to swallow. Then there's the fact that with every new Macross Production, Kawamori is designing more stuff, and he has to find a way to include it, so it will lead to things like that.

Or, since the X-29 was actually built and proved the concept could work, gave Kawamori the justification he needed to go ahead. Both may have played a part in the design, or maybe just the X-29. It might have actually been very hard for Kawamori to get access to the Concept 9 sketches, as those were part of a government project, from a company that ended up not being part of the final trials, and the details of which might have still been classified at the time (early 90's when the ATF competition was still going on, those materials were probably still classified). Might just be a case of Kawamori's ideas and specifications lining up well with a real concept purely by coincidence. Like the Starfighter stuff and A-Bomb stuff mentioned earlier...

With the VF-19EF it's engines seem to be rated around where the original VF-19A's were, which are outclassed by the VF-25's engines by almost 100k kg of thrust. If an ISC were fitted to the VF-19, what benefit would that really have if the pilot can sustain the g-forces from the VF-19? So with the ISC, you'd likely over g the airframe before the pilot started having issues, right?