Noyhauser

Partly because the U.S.'s PR campaign was effective, and that the government bought hook line and sinker that we would get a "next generation" fighter vs the Super Hornet, which is just an update of the CF-18. The other side from as far as I can see was that there are real domestic offsets available for the JSF, which weren't as apparent with the Shornet. While Boeing might promise to invest an equal cost in Canadian companies as was spent on buying the Hornets, that would be a one time benefit, capped at the 2 billion dollars the government might spend. Given that Canadian firms were already being offered contracts for sub assemblies on the JSF, the potential return has much greater potential than the one time return on the Super Hornet, particularly if the program lives up to the export orders predicted for it. As I said, Canada already is benefitting from greater contracts than what they have actually invested in the project. To understand Canadian defence procurement you actually have to understand a bit about the politics of the country. Because of Quebec and the possibility of its succession from Canada, domestic offsets are actually a huge political instrument that the country uses to keep the province in the Country. Everybody wants to keep Quebec happy and it has the largest aerospace industry concentration, partly as a result of Bombardier. Now lets look at the F/A-18 vs the F-16 in the early 1980s. Your point actually isn't exactly true. While it was stated that the reason why we went with the CF-18 was because of the twin engine vs single engine... that was in part an ex post facto justification hoisted by some in the defence community. One of the main reasons was that McDonnell Douglas won the contract was because their bid had huge domestic offsets for Quebec, while I think General Dynamics had theirs in Winnipeg. Big mistake. the CF-18 went to Quebec, even though there was some controversy that the F-16 bid was cheaper, better, and the single engine argument was considered inconsequential and even a reason why we shouldn't buy it. I'm testing the bounds of my memory but there was some consideration given that two engines actually increased the maintenance cost of the fighter for little apparent benefit. This happened again when we bought the C-17.

Cmon, we all know that the Zents were basically cheap expendable soldiers that the PC didn't give a rats ass about. I saw the lack of shields as #1 a cost saving measure #2 an ability for them to ensure they're weapons were superior to the Zents. If I were to speculate I'd say that Reaction weaponry was another technology that the P.C. were keeping to themselves so that they could use it against the zents if they ever got a bit big for their britches.

No, I can tell you with some authority that the NDHQ planners have one fighter in mind and its not going to be anything other than the JSF. Moreover planners consider it a core capability that cannot be allowed to lapse because it forms an essential part of Canada's participation in NORAD. This isn't like the Sea King; its a vital project that cannot be allowed to lapse. Last week when the F-15s were grounded, the CF-18s took their place in Alaska... I doubt the government would allow such an obvious capability gap to occur... if it did you would hear screams from various defence commentators and even the military itself. The real question is how many fighters Canada will buy and what will the country's involvement in the program be. I haven't kept tabs with this program, but if I remember speaking to some DND officials in and around 2004 about it that there was an argument for upgrading Canada's participation in the project so it could capture greater number of domestic contracts. One of the things up for grabs was a training centre for export versions of the F-35, that could be in based in Winnipeg, but I think we may have lost that one. If I remember correctly we're already getting more contracts for the fighter than what our level of participation should return.

Clearly, this vehicle is "largely intact." Man it almost seems as if you can fly away on it. Given the size of the vehicle and its structure, its actually that not surprising that it is in the state it is in. Yes the ship is not completely in pieces, but we could likely construct a vehicle that could deorbit the earth with our own materials and end up in similar shape to what the ASS-1 looked like. For example take the mir space station, the largest man made object ever de-orbited. While its solar panels and the centre joint tore off while de orbiting, the large habitat modules constructed out of titanium remained intact. Add some "super carbon" structures and thats not surprising. Watch the following link. http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4225/imagery/vi.../mirdeorbit.mpg Build a massive space vehicle that has some aerodynamic properties, its likely to remain in one piece. This is not comparable to a valk careening into a concrete overpass however. In that scenario, the vehicle is much more susceptible to damage on critical systems, than the deorbit example. Its not just you're hitting a solid object, a fighter is made up of alot of smaller exposed subsystems (particularly in gerwalk) that you're putting tremendous stress on. While yes the vehicle itself is likely to survive, its difficult to imagine that something as complex as a wing pivot point or a shoulder joint could handle a direct impact of this type. Its too much anime magic for it to be just be metal. The only way anime magic can work is if there is some sort of energy field keeping it intact.

Said it better than I could, especially the last paragraph. Without swag there was no way in hell the VF-1 would have been able to smash through a concrete overpass like it did in DYRL without snapping like a twig. Moreover my guess is that its not very good against localizing itself against small points, which a very high velocity slug is.

Its a pretty sure bet they will.

You might want to do a search on the forums for a more detailed answer, but they are all canon. DYRL is viewed as a movie serialization of the events of SDF, but that much of its mechanical designs replace those of SDF. So what is "real" is essentially the storyline of SDF using DYRL designs. (for example its likely that all fighters had fast packs, and booby duck was really just a Strike Valkyrie or something). None of this changes FB2012

Thats exactly my point, embedded UCAVs have the potential of opening up this question, particularly if they come down in price. Such assets (commanded at the Battalion or Company level) makes it alot more difficult for the Air Force to argue that such capability should be their domain, when the army can legitimately say that its more efficient if they control things on the ground rather than a command link to Nevada like it is now.

Ah my apologies, I skipped over that one word, but I like the concept nonetheless. A flying wing design makes perfect sense for a CAS aircraft. Also I was kidding about the A-12 revival, I didn't think you were supporting it in the least. Its one of those stories that will go down in procurement history with the label "do not repeat." About the future of CAS, I think a battle is looming, but I don't know if the Air Force can win this time. There was a time in the past when Congress and the OSD wouldn't depreciate the advice of Service arms, but I think with the advent of the Rumsfeld era, the balance has changed significantly. As I noted before, they lost the C-27J fight (though that was more the Air Force fighting to regain lost turf), and now that service arms can lobby congress directly its going to make it a lot different. The big question that will blow this right open is UAVs. When the cost of CAS drops significantly because of cheap platforms, its going to blur this line even further. Thats particularly as you pointed out company and battalion commanders start viewing them as organic assets.

First off I don't think you want a CAS aircraft with underslung engines... for a variety of reasons Second are you trying to single handedly revive the Flying Dorito? All joking aside, while I think the AF Brass doesn't like CAS, they will have to eat it nonetheless. With the massive clout the Army wields now because of Iraq, if the Air Force doesn't want to take such missions the army will do it for them, like they did with the C-27J.

and here is your answer http://www.ft.com/cms/s/1/f0f356c2-9101-11...00779fd2ac.html (crap... just realized its in the pay section of FT.) here is the good bits

More "like uh oh, starting to look alot more like Boeing." Anybody who thinks that Boeing is some model of efficiency that so much better than Airbus or other companies are deluding themselves. Its a good company, does great work, but it is also all too failable. Here is an really interesting article from the NYT from the next generation reconnaissance satelite that Boeing messed up on. Five billion dollars down the drain. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/washingt...agewanted=print

I think viet is not equal to the other two.... Jap is actually pretty offensive to me, I think it would be more akin to saying g**k, and I would suspect that Ch*nk is the same.

Hey Anybody got a decal option for dominos pizza boxes in 1/72? I'm trying to accuratize a F/A-18E, and I want to get it right.

Oh David, any more things you'd like to point out about the F/A-18E and or photos, would be really appreciated... like what are those vents in the rear? What is that bulge right in front of the canopy? Oh Does the red on the landing gear doors just go along the edge, or do they creep in a bit at points where a part isn't as deep (if that make sense... its hard to explain without a picture). I've gained an appreciation for the aircraft while building it, and I'd like to know more. I was actually considering converting it into a UNSPACY bird ala the F-14 Kai with decals, but I think I'll keep it as the a normal fighter.

Wow, thats wicked wicked stuff... and just so much more work for me... the aft cockpit area is so much more complex than I expected... I was going to have the canopy up, but given the detail required in that section, its too much to scratchbuild for my interest. I've got to undo alot of work I did on the wing root of the leading edge... Apparently there is a gap there that I thought was a model error. As for a weapons load, the Hase box has options for VF-14 or VFA-115 So lets go with that.

Hey David (or anyone for that matter) do you have photos of a F/A-18E's area where the second cockpit should be, the main cockpit area, and its landing gear? Didn't you also say that the landing gears are usually clean? Ah one last question... what would the typical warload for a flight over Afghanistan would be? As you guessed it, I'm in the final cleaning of a Hase version of it and I wanted some reference stuff. Thanks.

Well first off I don't think its CNN et al who thought the U.S. military wasn't very good at stability campaigns (garrion duty is an incorrect term.) I think the U.S. military itself understands that it wasn't prepared for it which is why you have General Petraeus. Its not clear if Shinseki's recommendation for 300,000 would have made things that much better because the force was not in the mindset at the time to carry out such a mission. But thats not exactly what we're talking about here. We're talking about budgets, and the civil control of a military as a general issue. Rummy was not brought in to lead the war on terror. He cames to conduct a defence transformation, to successfully implement the Revolution in Military Affairs: lighter, faster more lethal military formations. He wanted to bring the military into the 21st century, and away from Cold War force structures. Unfortunately 9/11 came along and Rumsfeld came in and attempted to enforce his ideas about RMA into operational matters. That was a mistake. See militaries have had this power in the past, and it doesn't work. First, various service arms always want more and are never satisfied. Remember the military is not one service, its 3 and 1/2, each screaming for a larger part of the pie, complaining when one gets more or less than another. They do not, nor ever have been responsible about money. If you want to talk about politics, ask someone who has viewed an intraservice budgetary battle. Its the reason why we have a Secretary of Defence and civillian control over the armed forces. He's supposed to oversee the Administration of the armed forces and help adjudicate what is reasonable. Last Fall the Bush administration broke from this system, at their peril. They allowed Army Chief of Staff Peter Schoomaker to talk to the Office of Management and Budget AND congress to plead for more funding. This wasn't done before because they didn't want to upset intraservice rivalries. So after Schoomaker made his pitch, guess what happened? Thats Right the Airforce and Navy started complaining that they needed representation and that they should not be raided for the Army's capital budget. Second the military is hesitent to invest in capabilities and technologies that they might need, instead they stay with proven and reliable modes of thought, even when that capability type is outmoded. I gave you two examples: the A-12 Avenger II and the Crusader SPA. The military fought hard to retain these capabilities, even when it was clear that they were of limited value. What use was the 55 ton Crusader? It was utterly undeployable and designed for a nuclear conventional battlefield. This is pretty common stuff in militaries. It reminds me of a British officer's desire to retain horse drawn artillery during the interwar period, "because thereby you will keep up the high standard of intelligence in the man from his association with the horse." Moreover its not congress that is to blame for most cost overruns and production delays; its usually the military's fault for gold plating requirements during the procurement process or the manufacturors. In order to understand what the military needs, and how much it costs, you need to have an involved process involving civillian national security officials to accurately judge what is actually in the country's interest, how much will it cost, and what to do. Again, I'm not saying that the civillian side is perfect. Congress frequently makes some bad decisions. But the Military can be said to be far far worse in many regards on budgetary and capital matters.

Ummm the dolts in office? How many do you know personally? Here's an article from the Washington Times by House Representative Jim Saxton on tankers. Yes there are bad decisions made, but the defence reductions in the mid 1990s were required and difficult to carry out. Part of my research was on the defence drawdowns in the western world after 1990. In speaking with an Assistant Secretary level official he confessed that on one side he didn't like implementing budget cutbacks, as whole capabilities would be cut. But he also realized that the deficit would need to be cut or our collective economies would suffer economic stress later. So he went and did it. It wasn't pretty and maybe the cuts went too deep, but there was a clear logic behind it. In the early 1990s there was little clue on what sort of future they would face. We're able to incur the major defence spending increases that we see after 9/11 because of the savings of the early 1990s. And this brings us to why the military should not be directing this progress as Nied mentioned. They start claiming they need every capability and don't cut anything. Militaries are very conservative in their outlook, they don't change their perspectives easily, and tend to retain everything even when its clear that a capability is useless. If we'd blithley listen to the military we'd be saddled with capabilities from the 1980s that focused on heavy conventional warfare. We'd probably have the A-12 (Flying Dorito) which would have been oh so useful against all the high tech threats like the taliban (thats me being sarcastic), or the 60+ ton Crusader SP Artillery... which would have been useless against the insurgents. This is why you DON'T want the military deciding on defence spending decisions, or even general defence decisions. If you're interested, There is a fantastic book about this by Amy Zegart called Flawed by Design: the Evolution of the JCS, CIA and NSC It chonicles how during the 1947 National Security Act, which Truman attempted to create a more efficient effective Department of Defence after the trouble faced during the Second World War, was watered down because of the Navy's Politicing, just so it could ensure it would keep its ability to control its budget. The failure of the Unification effort cost the U.S. government dearly, in terms of massive waste and service men and womens lives because of poor decision making. I don't know why I continue on with this stuff, I mean this is an message board on an site for a 20 year old anime, but its important, I urge you to read my words carefully Kalvasflam. Also don't take this as an anti military comment, it isn't by any strech of the imagination. I'm just trying to give an explaination of why having the military deciding on funding priorities isn't the best system.

Oh so I don't get called for only talking about politics here's an article from the washington post on Congress and KC-135s and C-130Es. (I don't know if subscription is required) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7102801125.html

But thats just not true Kalvasflam. Militaries can be VERY good at "garrison duties" or what we call today Stabilization Campaigns. But it takes a military specially configured to carry out such operations, that understand how to operate in amongst the people and in a fractured political setting. The problem is that the U.S. military went away from that model after WWII. It got very good at fighting what can be termed modern industrial wars against a like minded conventional enemy, fighting division vs divisions. Thats part of the reason why it failed so badly in Vietnam. The reality is that we don't really face those conventional threats anymore, and we're very unlikely to in the future. Nied's right, the reality is that what you think of being the threat, isn't really the threat, and we need to get better at fighting those boring pointless wars that we're engaged in now. Neither of the two main threats you listed are really major threats. Russia is an ageing toothless tiger, with a population declining by 1% every two years due to poor health and a low birth rate. In the next ten years Russia will have a lower population than Pakistan, Brazil, Nigeria and Egypt... none world powers. Russia is currently living off of a oil boom, but exclude that vital commodity and exports more to Argentina than it does to any country in the E.U. What you're seeing is as attempt to recapture a faded glory... long since past. China's economy is impressive, yet environmental damage and the One Child policy will actually have a serious negative effect on its growth in the future. Moreover (as Nied pointed out) its military spending has been focused on defensive capabilities designed to ensure that it can't be bullied by other countries. Its got no expeditionary warfare capability and given its political culture, its unlikely to ever obtain any. It will be one of four main power players in the world, but its not going to match the United States or the NATO alliance. But who would? The integration of the global economy and the prevalence of nuclear weapons makes conventional war between the four great world powers (The United States, The European Union, India, and China) highly unlikely. None of these powers can sustain a modern industrial war without massive dislocation to their economy, something that none of them can afford. So If you think the current employment of the military is sad, well you're in for a very long century. The reality is that these powers will contest their interests in various regions, like Africa and the Middle East, in wars like Iraq and Afghanistan. As a Shell Corporation executive lamented once, the reality is that much of the world's remaining oil sits in politically contentious areas, that are not stable. That means we need stable areas like in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq and Indonesia to ensure our economies survive. Look how badly our economies struggle with gas at nearly $100 a barrel. Lets imagine that Nigeria collapses into civil war as does Iraq (moreso than now) or Indonesia... how do you think we'll do at $200 dollars a barrel? Furthermore the prevalance of humanitarianism as a reasoning for intervention makes it all the more likely. Having seen what happened in Rwanda, I don't think anybody can stand by and watch one people massacre another in such a way. Some people might not care, but others do. For all these tasks Western Militaries are paramount, and their tasks are basically very similar to what we see in Iraq today. Stabilization is a messy job, but its one that needs to happen for our own interests, thus Military force MUST adapt to fighting in an amongst the people. Total victory as the determination of how we win wars like in the Second World War or against the USSR is a thing of the past. Look to situations like Bosnia, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Iraq as what the military (and governments must face.) If it doesn't then we stand to lose out. By the way, this change is already occurring in the United States, Canada and in Europe (to a lesser extent.) after 4 years in Iraq and Afghanistan, the military has started to adopt the lessons of counter insurgency and stabilization campaigns. The US military maybe is the best military to carry out these missions now. And this is not to say that the future will all be army or marine corps dominated. As we saw in Bosnia and Kosovo the Airforce has a key role to play in coercing parties without the need for major deployment of forces. It may have a role to play yet in Iran (though unlikely.) The low number of F-22s is not a deficiency, but maybe a tacit understanding of what the F-22 might be used for. Its not out of the realm of possibility that the 22 might be called upon to fight a massive Chinese invasion, but a far more likely scenario would be like what NATO had to do in 1995 during Operation Deliberate Force to coerce an end to the Balkans Civil War. A few F-22s will be able to beat a handful of exported Russian bleeding edge fighters, without any lossess. Thats the sort of stuff the USAF really needs them for. Any fight against China or Russia (hypothetical as is) would likely be very bloody in any case and based on something of deep national interest, thus massive casualties might be acceptable. Where the USAF really needs to have dominance is during these small encounters where the domestic public opinion might not be completely for an intervention, so the president will need to be careful how many casualties he can take. Kalvasflam (and whomever else is interested) I'd really urge you to read this book by Former British General Rupert Smith: The Utility Of Force. Its currently seen as a defining book in military circles on how it needs to adapt to the 21st century. Its on alot of War Colleges reading lists these days for senior leaders of the military: if you want to read what your Colonel or One Star is reading, this is it. For $10 bucks its quite a steal... if you're interested in understanding how modern airforces might be used in a political context, this book will give you an very good overview of where it might go.

I like guld more, and depending on how much better the 21 was over the 19, I think he's at least a better tactitan, maybe not as good pure skill pilot as Isamu. In the end fight with Isamu, he controls the initiative, Methodically dismantling the 19 weapon system by weapon system. Watch it, gunpod, missles, and head laser. He then culiminates by firing one massive missile barrage that for any normal pilot should have been fatal. Now maybe Isamu was not going 100% against Guld because of his feelings for him, but Guld did put him into a place where his fighter was inferior.

^ Its not perfect, but I think the photo matches this one better. http://www.mahq.net/mecha/macross/advvalk/vf-t-11.htm Moreover it looks to me that the other one seems to be a refined version of this: http://www.mahq.net/mecha/macross/advvalk/v-br-2.htm Both are from advanced valkyrie chronicles, which M+ is based on.

Fokker? who's Fokker? Oh you mean Roy Focker. Yeah all that junk is in Robotech. And its stated in Animego's Linernotes that Kawamori believed that Max and Millia are in a category of their own, beyond the skill of everybody else.

Quick question Did you get the joints to work? Do I need to buy a set of joints too? If you didn't, thats fine, it just will add to the challenge. BTW, I'm going to bump my next projects for this one.