Valkyrie Driver

Absolutely. Family fun happy time!

Roy Focker reminds me of my dad. In a lot of ways, so I didn't really want to pick him as my favorite because in my mind that's like me saying "My favorite character is the one who's almost identical to my dad..." But you're absolutely right, Macross has some really good casts. Especially M7 and Frontier, I mean Basara acted like a turd a lot, but the rest of the cast was really great because who doesn't love Max and Milia?

I'm really getting at the way he addresses people. Yes he's self confident, but he's also really dismissive of people he disagrees with, and usually in a way that has no bearing on whether they have a point (like calling Mylene a kid whenever she questions him or asks him to explain, I mean yeah she's 14 but she's hardly acting like a child when she's trying to understand something he does). You can't just tell someone they won't understand, I mean you're right they won't unless you explain it, or at least try. I never hated Gamlin, because I understand him.

Maybe, but I think the real great thing is that you both are partaking in a hobby you both can enjoy. Which means that you're involved in your son's life, which should mean he won't resent you later. My dad was always there, and we shared a lot of the same hobbies, so needless to say I don't resent him.

I recognized the Evangelion room, and I noticed the others, but I didn't really get the references, I knew they were important to nerdom, just not how...

Yeah, Hikaru was a player... I knew someone would say it, I just didn't expect it to be the second comment. I'm nearing the end of my re-watch of M7, and Basara didn't annoy me as much this time as he did last time. I mean, he's still selfish, conceited, arrogant, and a dick, but he's rock star and an artist, so I guess it comes with the territory. I actually really like Alto. He's probably my favorite. Self assured, intelligent, confident, compassionate, and dependable, if a bit of an ass sometimes. I really identify with him. I found him to be a fairly different anime hero, because he's not as strong as some, but he's not weak either, he's brash and impulsive, but he's capable of reasoning out his actions and does so on enough occasions. Then there's the hair, and the player status... I mean Minmay and Misa are great, but Sheryl and Ranka are better (because reasons)...

I get what your saying. I know it's well within our capabilities to build a fighter like the F-35 that can outperform the F-16 and F/A-18, while still capitalizing on those fifth generation capabilities. I'm just not sold on the idea that you can replace an airframe with one that lacks the fundamental characteristics of the airframe it's replacing. The F-35 is supposed to be a step up, and a step forward, but it seems like they only wanted to go forward with the technology, thinking that would cover for the deficiencies. It very well might, but we have yet to truly see if that's going to be the case. As missiles get better and targeting gets better, we're going to see the reliance on the tight turning dogfight become less emphasized, as it becomes easier for a stealthy aircraft to take out a target. Just because that's the case, doesn't mean that the F-35 doesn't need to be able to do it. That's because if you look at history, the enemy (whomever it may be) will catch up and create a countermeasure that negates your advantage. So if it was within our ability to make the F-35 outperform the F-16, why didn't we do it? Because the design made too many compromises to compete against the A-10 (for the USAF F-35A). They should have narrowed the focus on replacing one airframe, the F-16, because the A-10 is sustainable, while the F-16 is in need of replacement (with more F-16's if you ask me, to supplement our acquisition of F-35's). The F-35 will be at a disadvantage, when it's advantages get negated. That's the big thing here. Agility in a fighter is like full auto on my M4, I might never use it, but I'd rather have and not need it, than need and not have it.

I am apparently a sadistic jerk, because I like to ask people these questions. But I'm going to do it anyway, because it's fun. I'm not going to start this one off, because I think it'd be more fun for y'all to kick it off rather than hear me prattle on in the first post. With that, Discuss!

I couldn't resist...

I think if they'd put a bit more into the sound design, it would really help out the visuals, so that it feels like a future fighter jet. I liken it to a phrase that Jordi Le Forge said to Scotty in that one TNG episode, "Just because it's old, doesn't mean you throw it away..."

I disagree, but that's going to be based on subjective reading of facts. I just don't see the F-35 as an adequate replacement. That's certainly true, and I'm not saying the F-35 is completely incapable, just that it's capacity is limited. As I've stated before, you can't throw away a method of doing things just because you think it's outdated, or because you think that technology has a better answer (I'm not accusing you of having that viewpoint, but that's been the general argument from most). The F-15E can perform CAS adequately, and in much the same way as I expect the F-35 will be doing the job, just as the F-16 does. The JTAC will rack and stack the F-15E's and F-16's that are already in the vicinity, or can be there quickly, and then insert the A-10's to keep the support coming while the fast movers return to rearm. The A-10 can simply bring more hurt to the party, by carrying a bigger load than other aircraft, and being able to stick around to provide support. It's a joint effort, really between the various platforms. That's not including other platforms we have, like the AH-64, and the AC-130U. I default to the Air Force and Army as it's really what I know. You're right, they do. I realize I hold the A-10 up as a shining example, again because it's familiar. The AV-8B is an outstanding CAS platform, because of how quickly it can respond. It doesn't need an Airbase, and it doesn't need sophisticated weapons. It can't carry as much as the A-10, but it's sortie time turnaround can be very much shorter than the A-10, making it just as effective. As for the F/A-18C/D, it does CAS well, in much the same way the F-16 does, however I'd say since it's load capacity is lower, and having fewer pylons to mount air to ground ordnance, it's not as effective at CAS. However that's from an Air Force perspective, I realize that the F/A-18C/D are as restricted as they are because they have additional design limitations being carrier-borne fighters. Given those design limitations, the F/A-18C/D that the USMC uses is a great platform. In the past however the Marines had a very effective ground attack platform in the A-6 Intruder, which the F/A-18C/D supplemented. Now that capacity is gone and the Marines have to do more with less. Also, the Marines aren't completely reliant on their own aircraft to provide CAS, these days. Again, I disagree. The F-16's greater agility, means that it can make better use of air combat tactics. Stealth and Avionics aren't "I win" buttons. We've seen the F-35 lose to the F-16 in mock dogfights on a couple of occasions, and that's telling as far as I'm concerned. Now, have we seen better pilots win against mor agile opponents, yes, absolutely. If agility were the deciding factor and the be all end all, the F-4's loss rate should have been abysmal, to the technologically inferior but acrobatically superior MiG-15's and 17's the North Vietnamese were flying. The F-4 had an advantage the MiG15's and 17's lacked, and that was the ability to go supersonic. The F-4 could make space much faster by breaking off and reengaging at a safe range. I'm not sure, but I don't believe that the F-35 has that ability to make space. I also believe the F-35 is more statically stable than the F-16, I could be wrong about that, so don't quote me on it. I think that the F-35 and F-16 are too evenly matched for agility to not be the deciding factor. Fact is, the F-16 is one of the best air to air fighters in the world, and that should be the standard to beat. The F-35 might be able to beat aircraft derived from the F-5, or MiG-21 or a lot of older generation fighters, but that's not good enough. The threat is from 4th gen fighter technology and better, so shouldn't our newest fighter be able to outperform? I don't want to hear the dogfighting is dead line either, because we said that after Korea, and look what happened.

Shhhhhh.... Just let it happen... Everything's gonna be ok.

but my english is not good Step 1) WATCH THE ANIME. Thanks guys, now I need to clean my computer, because I just spit coffee all over it. (Yes I'm still drinking coffee at 1300 hours...). In response to the OP, we're a smart bunch (mostly, I'm not included in that), we can figure it out. First step I agree with Azrael, watch the Anime first. Then ask questions about the things you don't understand. Though to be fair, Macross 2 has got to be the most easy to follow and straightforward production in the franchise. It's kind of the stepchild of the franchise, so it's largely ignored, but if Macross 2 is what grabs your attention, fine we'll do everything we can to help you understand it.

What? I'm sorry, I'm going to have to be a dick. I could not understand what you were trying to say. I'm going to guess that English is not your first language, as this was a painful read. Again, what? What was your point here? I'm in agreement. Mostly. I'm going to have to disagree with David though, about the YF-19's stability. The close coupling of the wings to where the engines are does indicate that it would be more stable, however, I don't believe that the wings placement is the sole factor in this case, as the rest of the fighter is shaped to provide lift (or supposed to be). The fuselage has it's own camber, and the aircraft has chines along the forebody before we see them integrate into the root extensions, essentially acting like strakes or LERX, which create vortexes that keep air flow over the wing constant at higher angles of attack (like the F-16 and F-18). We also see a blended body design very similar to many later 4th gen and 5th gen jet fighters. I want to say that the wing placement is deceptive in determining the center of lift, because of the other lifting surfaces the fighter has built into the design. In fact, the wing surface on the YF-19 (and early model VF-19's like the A/B/C/D models) is actually rather small, leading me to believe that much like the F-14, the fuselage is generating a larger percentage of the lift. meaning the center of lift would be further forward than the wings would make it appear. I'm not an aeronautical engineer, so I could be way off, but that's the way it seems to me. And would explain why so many pilots found the 19 hard to control. Now, the later model VF-19's (the E/F/S/P, and the Caliburn Monkey models) have more wing area, due to a reshaped wing and wing root (extending the trailing edge further to the rear, and filling in some of the negative spaces in the wing shape). This would give them superior lift off the wing compared to the earlier models. My guess is that the 19 series used ruddervators and flaperons, assisted by the thrust vectoring for control surfaces, due to the large amount of lift generated by the design, would make for huge ground effect and need flaps to lower the landing speed to shorten the landing distance, by lowering the speed by using flaps you decrease the tendency for the aircraft to float. The YF-21/VF-22 is very apparently unstable, with the wings being far forward on the blended body and very discernible camber across the top it's pretty evident that it's unstable. It's conventional aeronautic design is a plus, as construction techniques are familiar. Some of the Gimmicks the 21 offered were interesting, but I don't believe that those would have made it into a follow on production fighter immediately. The fact that we've not seen any evidence of those systems anywhere else as of 2059-2060 indicates that that was considered, interesting but unnecessary, kind of like the Active Aeroelastic Wing (which hasn't been implemented into a prototype design yet, that we know of). The graphs we saw in plus, I think were telling more about the pilots than the aircraft. The specs were similar, Though looking at Macross Mecha Manual, the 19's performance was overall better, with higher thrust rated engines, and less weight to begin with, as well as higher g-limits it was better, and Isamu was able to make more out of those specs than Guld could out of the 21's. Now, the 19 was notoriously uncontrollable, which means fewer pilots could handle it, which from a military standpoint, is not good. The production fighters evened this out tremendously, so it was less of an issue. I'm a huge fan of the 19. I have more of it in my toy collection than any other (Hi-Metal VF-19S, Yamato YF-19 1/60, Yamato VF-19F, Bandai VF-19Adv) and the first master file book I have bought was the VF-19 book. Just goes to show how much I love the 19. It's look is sleek and sexy and the technical specs are wonderful, If given a choice between the 19 and anything else, I'd take the 19 hands down. That said, I think the 21/22 is a better fighter. The 19's internal bays offered it more versatility compared to the 21's fixed armaments, (rectified in the VF-22 I believe), but the fact that the 21's performance was a bit more rounded, and the fact that the 22 fixed some of the problems with the internal armaments, I give my edge to the VF-22. More pilots would be able to control it, without sacrificing performance, and since the 22 (and one of the 21 prototypes) did away with the BDI/BCS made it more accessible to pilots. All the sexiness in the world isn't worth squat if people can't fly it, and in my mind is doesn't have to be pretty to get the job done. the Look Cool Factor goes to the 19, but the operational usability and function go to the 22. There are 2 very different philosophies at work, the VF-22 is a very American approach to design, while the VF-19 is a very Japanese approach. The 19 requires that samurai concept of Jinba Ittai (something you see a lot in Japanese automotive design, and other Mecha anime, I'm looking at you Muv-Luv...), the union of rider and horse, to be useful, something very few people will be able to achieve (If you think about it, Dyson was only able to do it, because he genuinely loved flying, and loved aircraft. He was the perfect man for the job). Also, from a technical perspective, the VF-22 is bigger than the VF-19, even if only slightly, meaning maintenance should be easier. That's my take, though.

I don't hate the plane, I just hate what they're trying to make it do. There are too many compromises in the F-35's design, and that presents us with mediocre performance, as far as we can tell (The tests aren't completely published, or they aren't completely reported in the media). It just isn't everything it was advertised to be, it's not an adequate replacement for the A-10, and it's not an adequate replacement for the F-16, especially when both of those aircraft outperform the F-35 in their respective roles. I'm intrigued by it too, but I'm just being realistic. I know people are going to bring up using drones to make up for the F-35's inability to loiter, and that's not a viable solution, because drones can't carry enough ordnance for an effective air strike. An MQ-9 reaper can carry 2 GBU-38's or 2 GBU-12's, and can carry up to 4 AGM-114's in addition to that. That's fine for going deep into denied territory and taking out targets designated by special operations forces, without risking a pilot, or great for dropping on a confirmed target that's been under surveillance for 12 hours, and it may be sufficient to provide air support until CAS arrives, but it's not a replacement for CAS, even with the F-35 coming in that bomb load between the MQ-9 and the F-35 is still low compared to the A-10's ability. There's also the fact that CAS is usually built into mission planning. There are usually aircraft flying in patrol routes ready to perform CAS when called. In addition there's going to be some fast movers sitting on the ramp ready to go to keep the support coming while the A-10's on station go back to re-arm. If it's required, sometimes it is, and sometimes CAS just takes care of the problem. All I'm saying is that the F-35, as it stands, is less than ideal for what they want it to do. Good aircraft, great supplement for dedicated platforms, but not a replacement. We tried this purpose built tri-service fighter thing before and it didn't work. We still got a good aircraft out of it (the F-111), but it wasn't what the program was intended to do.

That is amazing, and almost makes me want to work for google...

I know, I just really didn't realize the scale.

I'll add to that, with this. That math that I did regarding the Mk82's was an academic exercise. You are correct that it would be very rare to see a full load of 32 Mk 82's on an A-10. That was done merely to demonstrate that just because you have a higher lift capacity, doesn't mean you have a larger load. Now, if we we're talking about Mk83's or Mk84's yes the F35 will carry 2 more Mk83's and 1 more Mk84, but still, you're left with the fact that the A-10C can carry all of the same air to ground munitions the F-35 will, and some that the F-35 either cannot or has not been tested with. In addition the A-10C's capacity is epandable, whereas the F-35's is fixed. If a new targeting pod comes out, the A-10 can simply swap it, where the F-35 is integrated with the avionics suite. All I was trying to get at is that the A-10 can do much more with it's 16,000lb capacity than the F-35 can do with it's 18,000lbs. There's also this, the A-10 gives up less by taking a drop tank or two than the F-35 does. Again I was also assuming the F-35 would be able to use MERs and TERs, I have no reason to assume that it can't, other than the fact that the DoD has an alarming tendency to do things that don't make sense.

My Master File book finally came!

They're like Rubick's Cubes that you can do other stuff with. It really helps my spatial reasoning skills (as my brain is somewhat dysfunctional due to excessive concussive force to the noodle).

I'm wanting the Destroids because of their connection to my favorite childhood line of Robot mechs. I mean, I also love the destroids themselves and am featuring them in a fanfiction I'm trying to put together. They're so underexplored in Macross, I think there's room to have some destroid love. The Destroids are on my collection bucket list, as is the VF-4. Maybe we could see some M7 enemy valks, a PanzerZorene and ElgerZorene would be great fun...

Yeah, I have to admit, I'm tempted to dis assemble all of my Bandai Valks and hit them with some sealant to protect the beautiful paint. I wish bandai used a more durable paint finish or sealed them from the factory.

Dang-o man, those regults are huge...

I can only state what I know, and or can find out. I'm not privy to that sort of information any more so. Even so, high speed passes at low altitude and high altitude flights are still at less risk from MANPADS than those Aircraft that fly low and slow. anything at low altitude is going to be at greater risk yes, but there is skill involved in using those systems, and tracking a high speed pass is very difficult, at worst an F-15 or F-16 will have to abort the pass and pop flares. Though it didn't kill the plane, it did prevent the pass. I'm just saying that while MANPADS are a threat, it's not anything to get really hung up on. It's one of the reasons CAS operates in 2 ship flights minimum, it's also why You typically never see Blackhawks or Chinooks go in without a gunship escort. Just saying. Lets move on.

Clearly.