Noyhauser

And here is the answer: http://macross.anime.net/mecha/united_nati...vf15/index.html

The first clue I had to this is that its explicitly said in M+ that the Project supernova fighters were designed NOT to use reaction warheads in order not to cause an incident. That means it was politically damaging to use such a weapon, particularly against renegade colonies. That leads me to believe that the VF-11's main weapon was not the gunpod but some sort of RMS-1 follow-on weapon that they probably spammed in any large scale fleet action. We know that they do carry such weapons as the Stealth Frigates fired off a ton of them late in the M7 Series. VF-11 probably were more than effective against basic Zent units (since the VF-1 was adequate), and basically matched against Meltrandi Quads, which would usually be taken on by VF-17 anyway. In any case as the opening of M+ suggest, the VF-11s were starting to encounter more and more Anti-UN groups with similar levels of technology, probably putting them at a disadvantage. The renegades likely used hit and run tactics, thus ensuring local superiority too. Thus Project supernova and the fold booster are UN-Spacy's response. Also its not just they would be facing "like units" as the renegade power armor (and later the EVA) showed that other factions could be developing their own weapons, thus they needed something that was clearly superior, not just better than regular line units. All this leads me to believe that the VF-11 might not be taken off the front lines as quick as people believe, as its perfectly adequate in its nominal role, just that its outclassed in these very specific situations.

A couple of years on here ago I made the point that the VF-11 really follows the VF-1 in its design philopsophy, because the strategic situation hadn't really changed that much. The main threat still remains a massive Zentredi invasion, and in that case the VF-11 would be equipped probably in the same way as VF-1s were: plenty of thermonuclear weapons (wing mounted), and fast packs with micro-missile launchers. Since the Zentredi were largely static in their technology development there wasn't really much need for a high technology response, so they probably went with what was cheap to produce and proven in combat (the evolutionary step to the VF-1). Compare that to the very expensive VF-4 being replaced by the VF-5000 and you can understand the logic behind the VF-11 And although the VF-11 isn't really optimized for atmospheric combat, realistically its not going to engage in that sort combat too often. If what I suggest is correct, when the VF-11 was designed their main focus was space based threats, so units like the VF-5000 would be more likely to fill the atmospheric role. It just needed to be good enough. Also I'm sure it could carry wing mounted weaponry like the VF-1 did. Only in 2035 with growing dissastisfaction of colonies with the central government is there a real need for a high technology response (since renegades have the same technology as UNSpacy). This fosters project supernova, and the VF-21 and VF-19; true revolutionary steps in VF design.

When I was really into LOGH I debated converting Dream Pod 9's old Lightning strike for use in the setting. It would have required a bit of work converting unit stats, and devising a system to reflect the Energy shield technology, but once you figured that out it would operate quite nicely I think. The system would work perfectly for the type of battles you'd probably want to model, skirminshing actions involving 20~30 units a side, rather than rather than full fleet actions of 5000+ ships each side. Just a thought.

At most they are about the size of your pinky finger, if not smaller. Also no box is going to give you what you want really, (unless you are a fast BB cruiser destroyer buff like myself)

Oh god come off of it. You haven't watched the show and yet you're taking wild stabs at the air against it, just because you have an education in the field. Thats complete and utter hubris. Guess what? I too hold several advanced degrees in strat studies/IR and I've published too. The difference between me and you is that I've seen the show and you haven't. I'm telling you now that show on the whole gives a realistic portrail, one that unique in science fiction. Is it perfectly realistic? no, particularly on the hard science end. But its really really well done, and many of the remarks you've made here on realism are off the mark. You never responded to my point that the empires probably number around 50~100 billion people, to which 1.2 million isn't really that much. the FPA had something like 15 fleets at the start of the show. Losing one or two of them isn't that big a loss in the grand scheme of things, but not all battles are so decisive as jelenien points out. Also the war is shown to be unsustainable, there is a very clear discussion on the economic effects of it, particularly on the Free Planets Alliance, which is a major part of the storyline. I ask you again how many other shows actually discuss any of this? What I find ironic is that if anything this is the show you'd probably enjoy the most given your education, and yet you just want to pontificate here about how it seems wrong. Maybe you should give it a try and then come back and make your points. If you have problems then I might be able to take you a bit more seriously. At the same time, I'd probably agree with your criticism at that point.

funny you should bring this up Jelenien, because this site made me thing. I don't disagree with your point that LOGH is not completely realistic in physics, Its still better than a whole host of other mainstream shows, like SW and ST. Also the world handles the implications of the technology in a way that offers a contending perspective to some of the points made in the site you posted. Take for example planetary bombardment. Now it might be more realistic and easier if both sides just bombared each other with relativistic mass drivers (and they certainly know how to do so in LOGH as you see in one of the episode), but in the universe there is a social taboo that prevents them from doing so, and there is complete revultion at the prospect of using such weapons of mass destruction. Though it portrayal of the physics of war isn't 100% realistic according to what we know, its believable, and its far better able to explain the social implications of the technologies. That in itself is completely unique in science fiction, and is its greatest strength. Yeah, maybe you should then actually watch it before you come here and give us your opinion. First off using army examples makes no sense because these battles take place not on land but in space. In reality the battles that occur in LOGH are in many respects closer to naval warfare, where the nature of the warfare makes the possibility of a decisive result more apparent and as a result casualty rates are often higher. If a ship goes down in space, the chances of the crew living is quite low, probably lower than if a vessel sinks. Remember in army units morale is quite important... people can flee if need be. Its far more difficult to flee in a naval battle, and it would be even more difficult in space. The interesting twist of this is that because of the nature of the weapons, the battles do take on a land warfare type of strategy that is akin to Napoleonic and Age of Enlightenment warfare, but with the different outcomes as I listed above. Secondly in LOGH one million people is a drop in the bucket, particularly if its coming from a population base that probably numbers in the 100 billion range for each empire, and modern space construction techniques that would pump out ships like no tomorrow. And to be perfectly honest, when these losses mount up for one side, the story showed the economic effects of these losses. Lets be honest, when was the last time you actually saw a show that discussed the economic and political effects of a disasterous military strategy? Finally there are plenty of different battles in LOGH, many of which don't have high casualty rates or decisive outcomes. Many of the battles with the highest losses occurred due to complete ineptitude of the commander in question (Amlitzer star zone encounter is the quintessential example.) Actually the premise of the show is that both empires see the rise of new leaders from the old guard who show tactical brilliance that change the outcome of war, somewhat akin to the difference between the First and Second World War. Earlier leaders would just attempt to conduct attrition type tactics, watching both sides batter each other to oblivion. The entrance of the two leaders herald a revolution in warfare, both of them practice a more fluid style of strategy that leads to far more decisive outcomes to conflicts.

Legend of Galactic Heroes, and few others come even close. LOGH actually is probably the best piece of anime and science fiction in general is that it gives a realistic portrail of Strategic and operational thinking. Its something most Science fiction just fails at (even fiction often doesn't do it well), and is actually really important. Most science fiction is written by people who have no knowledge of military thought, at best giving their often shallow perspective. LOGH actually revels in this, and provides a brilliantly nuanced view of a war between two empires in the future. Choke points, lines of supply, complex maneuvers, feints, envelopment movements, terrain advantage, ect. are all critical for how the war is prosecuted. If you've done strategic thought, its all there and understandable, and many people who I'd never think would watch Anime appreciate it. You watch fleet commanders apply different strategies on each other and it has real outcomes. Its not like most science fiction shows that has one side having an advantage over another because they've come up with some super fancy technological breakthrough. In LOGH it all comes down to tactics and strategy. Now on the "tactical level" of war, and spacefighting (which you were asking about), LOGH probably above average. Fleets consisting of thousands of ships engage each other, using X-ray lasers, fusion bombs, and manned fighters. Vectoring is important, as is orientation ect. The ship designs are nice and functional but nothing that spectacular. They fight from million miles apart, slowly closing in, and once they get into close range the blood starts letting. Fleets of nearly 5000 ships and 1.2 million men routinely take 90% casualties, and main characters die off quickly. No other show I have ever watched has done this. It makes B5 and BSG look like it was written by a 5 year old with a crayon on a napkin. Alot of people on here will give the same sort of recommendation.

Personally I don't like the Bandai 1/144s. I find they are very small, malproportioned (the VF-11's nose anybody?) and not very model-y. I'd say the Bandais or Ariis are better practice models overall because they expose you to a full range of model skills at once, but not at a difficult level.

Sigh. first off, the whole China as a Wilhelmine power is a highly contestable argument, and only really holds up if you ignore a whole host of factors. China is far more integrated into the world economy than Germany ever was in the post Franco Prussian war period to the First World War. China's growth is highly dependant on external trade, to the extent that its central bank has been willing to buy US bonds to keep the US economy afloat. If China was really a Wilhelmine power it would have tried to bankrupt the United States, and then moved to take over the vacuum. Your whole point about "Chinese Communists willing to do about anything to advance their cause" is an archaic impression, and belongs more in the 1960s than 2007. Ever since Deng Xiao Ping's economic transformations of the 70s and 80s China has moved away from a command economy, and economic liberalization has continued. To call it an Communist country ignores the reality of the situation. Now if you’re saying that the Communist party was interested in expanding its power, then yes there is an argument to be made there, but that too is questionable. It doesn't seem to be in China's nature to go out and aggressively take over the world. China historically has really never been an expansionist power, its been generally content to stay in its little zone of control and consolidate itself. The great wall is the best example of this. CCP has reacted violently to threats to its security in the past; Korea being the best example. The Formosa issue is a complicated one. China does not see Taiwan as a legitimate country, in their eyes its China, through and through. Its unlikely they’ll move against Japan in the same way because they are not Chinese. China just wants to be left alone and unthreatened. Look at the nature of the buildup, its not really to obtain power projection capabilities, but to defend China against attack. if you can find this article, its probably the best that shows China's strategic choices. Getting Asia Wrong

The significance of the Chinese ASAT test isn't really that China developed the capability: Actually its been suspected for quite some time that they had been working on an effective ASAT system, and it caused senior US security officials concern. Thats a good part of the reason why the Bush Administration has been making stronger statements in the past about maintaining U.S. space dominance. Now with the exceptions of some Darpa stuff, and studies, the U.S. has not really moved to develop anything really concrete with the exception 1980s program. They have also been under pressure from European Allies not to push such a system, because of the 1967 Outer Space treaty. Granted you might not see ASAT as any different, but spy satellites have always been accepted; Corona far predated the 67 treaty, and benign use of space for military purposes were always accepted. Developing the technology to knock satellites out of the sky has been considered somewhat offsides though, particularly in the 1990s when the commercial side of space has really taken off. Space debris has become a serious problem, and there is a very strong economic incentive not to develop weapons of this type. Ballistic Missile Defence is one thing, its tough to argue against that capability because its essentially tied to the defence of a country. But having the ability to knock satellites out of the sky is another, because that can be a very effective offensive weapon, and it can cause damage to the space environment. The test sorta throws the wrench into the whole attempts to keep a lid on the weaponization of space issue. the US can now honestly claim that a threat exists, and the 67 treaty, and this might be another nail in the coffin into that treaty. Now the U.S. has a very clear reason to resume development their own capabilities of this type.

Ryan Chappell was a doozie back in Season 3, and it wasn't a bad guy who did it (technically)

Actually the PAC 3's record against low flying cruise missles during the 2003 War in Iraq was judged to be moderate to poor. It was quite successful at knocking down Frogs and the like though.

There isn't one correct version.In reality while the hasagawa looks the best (and may even have the best shape), its actually the least accurate. Thats partially due to all of the additional panel lining that does not exist on any line art, and the fact that Its also optimized for its the mode it is in. Thats why the fast packs for on the battroid and the fighter versions of the strike are not interchangable. I suspect the UD 1/48 suffers these same flaws. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but the Club M 1/72 resin was praised for its accuracy, and faithfulness to the line art. Moreover if you want to go to transformable, I don't think you can go better than the Yamato stuff, primarily because they made something that is supposed to look good in all three modes.

Excuse me? Actually I agree with JB0 and kanedaestes too. I think the thing looked fine without CG (and in many cases I prefer well done constumes over CG). CG isn't the be all and and all of special effects, its got its place for sure, but not everywhere.

Actually I did, and there are more than one thread in the search, some of which answer your questions. In any case I think alot of your questions are not really fact questions rather continuity ones. "IS the VT-1 a replacement for the VF-1D?" is not the question, instead its probably more appropriate to ask "Did Kawamori intend to replace the VT-1 with the VF-1D?" much like he said with other designs coming from DYRL. Yes that brings up a lot of continuity errors, but as he said, its something around the middle.

Ummm Search function anybody? http://www.macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?...=VT-1,and,VF-1D

No thats all just plain wrong. My comments specifically refer to being IN an urban environment or a built up area. Guided missiles on an M-2/3 are not the be all and end all. They are expensive, have limited in its ammunition, and even not that effective in built up terrain. You get maybe 8 Tow missiles (or whatever number). Do you think you might waste it against 3 guys hiding out behind a second floor window, because your bushmaster ain't going to cut it? Would you use an ATGM to breach a wall you need down now? If you have a tank with dozens of cheap rounds, you don't give any of it a second thought. ATGMs are not that effective against hardened positions either or have the same flexibility as a tank with different ammunition types. For most of our operations in Afghanistam Canada only AFVs, operating almost exclusively urban or semi urban with plenty of walls and buildings and they worked well... just that they lacked the punch needed in all cases. Their 20mms were useless, ATGMs too expensive and not effective, and airstrikes were unreliable and often overkill. the Leopard C-1s gave us that direct fire capability to more effectively conduct urban operations. Without it, Coy commanders were faced with a choice of sending infantry to take a hardend urban position without fire support or be forced to wait for it. The former was quite a scary proposition, especially when they were forced to do it over and over again in the terrain, and the latter would give the enemy a chance to flee. It would be no different in any other Urban/semi-urban combat setting. I'm not saying that Tanks are the be all and end all, or that they replace AFVs. I think combat operation after combat operation has shown that tanks do have a very useful role at very least as a direct fire support vehicle as part of a balanced unit.

But thats changing though. I'll say this now that due to Iraq and Afghanistan, the US probably has some of the best counter-insurgency minds in the world. Reading the new Counterinsurgency field manual and the latest edition of the Military Review you can see how quickly the US has made this transition. Thomas Ricks' book Fiasco details this quite well. The learning curve has been steep but it is happening. As for Tanks, you need them. Canada just sent its Leopard 1s into Afghanistan, for a counter-insurgency campaign. Normally I'd be hesitant to agree with such a move, but here I agree, purely on the military merits of it. Why? Because airpower, ATGMs, and 20mm rounds from the LAV doesn't cut it... you can't do without tanks on the modern battlefield. Direct fire support from a 120 or 105 is a extremely valuable tool, especially when facing an entrenched enemy sitting in a strongpoint. Its a target that is largely invulnerable to 20mm rounds. MBT's cannons are far more accurate, can sustain fire direct for quite some time, does less collateral damage, and it gives a company (COY) commander a direct fire ability he can count on... Airpower even in the US case isn't reliable... a fighter may come in anywhere from 5 to 45 minutes, and it gives you two 2000lbs shots... its not really timely or proportional to what you need, which is to take out the strong point. That would be extremely true for somewhere like Singapore, where the need for such an ability within a built up environment would be useful. ATGMS are just insanely expensive compared to tanks as well. I used to be a huge proponent of Ground Aided Precision Strike (GAPS) as a new doctrine. Now I think its useful to give a Coy commander the ability to do some devastating damage, but its far from being the universal tool that everybody initially made it out to be. Tanks play an extremely useful role on the battlefield, one that I believe has not diminished in the past decade and a half.

ITs not an undemocratic state (though its not exactly a shining tower of democracy either), however it is stable and has a fairly happy populace. It doesn't change the fact that German Export controls are among the most stringent in the world, and the sale of Leopards have engendered controversy before, particularly with the sale to the middle east.

thing is though, it is. google up the Hawk and look at its sales history. Its been marred by repeated problems in the UK where opposition parties and the Labour Back Benchers fight a possible sale. I believe one was successfully scuttled. Its not something you can explain away ... its an important part of its political culture. Look at germany. Its been begging to sell off its Leo-2s but it can't because of its constitution. There would literally be thousands of buyer across the middle east for the tank but they are prohibited from doing so. The only saving grace in the Typhoon's case was that the probe was about a series of deals that started in the late 1980s... far before the typhoon itself, and that KSA was going to place some pretty serious sanctions on Britian if it didn't.

this might explain this to you. Not that the US doesn't have scruples about exporting to authoritarian countries, just that Britain has a very strong tradition of a peace movement and the labour used to practice what was called an "ethical foreign policy" http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,3949940-103516,00.html

Uhhh apparently they did http://observer.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,32...-102285,00.html Thats some pretty harsh sanctions.

Probe? What Probe? AKA How the the Rafale still doesn't have an order yet http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6181949.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6182831.stm

got mine yesterday in Eastern Ontario.