Noyhauser

haha, Nice try CH, if they COULD come up with new stuff, they probably would. Instead they just pawn off endless rehashes of the same product. Even the "new" stuff is just a variation on old stuff: Gamma = VF-X-4 anybody? Someone I know associated with HG called the uniform and technical designs terrible that should have been left behind in the 80s. I'm sorry RT is a poor poor show, and to use an Agent one expression, shadow force's excellent new designs is just a sign of more lameness. At least Kawamori's macross has a logical progression, has at least some grounding in realism (I think M:0 did that extremely well), and is original, instead of hacking up 20 year old designs and calling it there own. Count the number of new designs that RT has developed even in its new comic books or whatever, then look at what Macross has come up with. In M:0, for all its faults as a series, at least Kawamori was able to update the designs, making them look more modern, while at the same time placing them in the time line with believablilty (you want to argue that point CH be my guest, I'll be happy to show you how it is believable, and then I'll put robotech in its place). By your argument we would not have a YF-21, or 19, or 17, 9, 4 ect, because human technology (in your eyes) can't occur that quickly. So instead Macross would just relaunch the same designs over and over again. And if you think that Macross is all about selling goods, I'd say that you're very mistaken, especially if you compare it to Gundam, or even your prized robotech. Kawamori I believe, really loves what he does, designing new fighters and creating new storylines. Read his interview for advanced valkyrie on the main page, and you get a sense of that. If he really wants to sell out, and make more profit, he'd just go make gundams, or sell out macross into a gundam type franchise.

not having seen episode five, I can only surmise that maybe they developed a system on later monsters where it could more securely anchor itself to the ground... by whatever method, magnetics, grav field, ect.

I can see this being the next vs thread. AFOS vs Glavil

Comes back to destroy earth? what earth is there left to destroy? I don't think its possible to do much more damage than 4 million Zentredi did three years later.

Oh god, I forgot Contra, UN squadron/area88, Street Fighter 2 (Who spent a month straight learning Shoryuken and the spinning pile driver and can still do it to this day?) Strikers 1945. It was the best top down shooter ever made, like the pinnacle of a genre. Also Macross VFX2 is up there. five years on and its still a great game to play. Unfortunately I lost my copy. IS anybody willing to sell theirs?

Ahh,this is a thread I am an expert at. I pretty well play only play old games now. Why? Because I think Gameplay has actually regressed since the mid 90s. So many of the games just reuse the third person perspective, same keys same everything. I just get tired of it. #1- Xcom UFO defence. Just stunning. One of the greatest games ever, and I break it out once in awhile on my old 486 just to teach the etherals who is boss. #2- Starcraft. maybe the most balanced game ever made. Excellent gameplay, graphics that don't look dated even today. #3 Most Final Fantasys BEFORE 7 + Final Fantasy Tactics. Every Final Fantasy Since 7 is just a plain copy of its predecessor, with storyline that is basically the same and updated graphics. The best however is FF tactics. By far, it blows all of the FF games on gameplay, story, and feel #4 Goldeneye/Perfect Dark. What is better than breaking out the old N-64 with friends just to relive drunken highschool parties? #5 MarioKart Super or 64. #6 Quake. I've played it recently against some friends with an old lan they have, and its still just as fun as before. #7 The legend of Zelda and Zelda. Another game I play time to time #8 Metal Gear Solid. I don't know what it is about this game, except that it just feels right. IT was one of the first third person shooters to look good, that really has become all the rage. #9 Front Mission 3. god why don't they make more games like this. #10 Grand Theft auto 2. I think it was the last good GTA. It had stylish graphics, and improved gameplay from 1. Notice how I didn't say GTA 3 or any of its derivatives. Thats because they are all the same. there is no difference between them all.

Hahaha, this takes me back... I go for devestator as well... man who could forget the bucket foot?

Probably wouldn't hear about it, because its a sad truth that the west doesn't care too much about these states. Rwanda anyone? ... this is one of those african civil wars that just breaks people's hearts.... during the 1990s these two countries were slaughtering each other and were in the grips of massive famine. And then they spend hundreds of millions on modern fighters instead of their own people... just terrible. Although, I must admit, the attraction of the bush league pilot is there... you as one pilot are an airforce of one. .... still though... with such suffering going on...

It is czech

Its a Iranian modification, likely during the Iran Iraq war, where they were getting no advanced missiles of any kind, except for two, the Hawk and the TOW, that were being funnelled through the Iran CONTRA pipeline. These hawks likely came from israel. The missile shortage was so acute that they were likely forced to undertake this modification. edit... you already knew they were from Iran.... but they are likely Isreali, or American models, and NOT IHawks... the US was too hesitant to ship those over at first. I don't know the ammount of modification they recieved... as my knowledge of this stems only about the whole Iran Contra affair.

Damn graham, I was about to say that about the Monster's arms. The original arms were always missile launchers, so its not suprising that this version has them, actually it follows continuity to some degree. Also I want to point something else out.... Each Macross series has the Monster in it.

9 Though I'm a bit young for most of those games. I got an NES when I was 5... give me games from the early 1990s and I'd do a hell of a lot better.

Not that I am a mod or any sort of arbiter of truth, but I think you should edit your comment dangard... it reminds me of the time someone ruined the Usual suspects for me in the first minute. Well I think after watching it, its a good movie. The best way I can put it is that it is a movie plot and feel from 1930s but with 2004 movie technology. Much of the plot, as chrono pointed out it hokey, but given that the film was taken from 1930s comic books, it really follows that vein closely. I think many people might be turned off by that, (making it a less easy for some viewers to accept, especially if they are looking for a mindless film), but it increases its artisic value immensely. Most of what we would call hokey is was what was called science fiction 70 years ago. Generally I like the movie. Cringed at times but it was pretty good.

Watching the series I always suspected that it had to be a real place. IT was too detailed an animation to be all imagination. That said, I also agree with the post above about it has too high a rating. I used to think it was a very good anime, but soon after I realized that its story isn't all that deep. The whole withdrawl plotline I just find a little too far fetched. I know I know this is an anime where the main character is a alien space woman. But still, I didn't find it fit well into the plot.

The UK has hit a money crunch due to the war in iraq. They are also attempting a complete force restructuring in the army and Navy utilizing the Revolution in Military Affairs, on the scale not seen before. Some of their aims surpass American initiatives. However the costs of this is enormous and the airforce is getting shafted since their role figures somewhat less in their new joint doctrine.

One thing you should know about the F-35. Most US and UK programs now practice what is called Evolutionary Acquisition The aim of EA is not to deploy a platform with all the bells and whistles at the time of service introduction. Rather, the Defence department plan to upgrade the F-35 after the initial introduction with different technology. This prevents the whole fighter from being held back by technology that is not mature enough when other aspects of the fighter can proceed into manufacturing and fielding. This saves the DoD a lot of money, as platforms are not delayed by immature technologies like traditional block programs are suceptable to. There are two kinds of EA, "spiral" and "incremental". Spiral means that new capabilities are designed as requested by Users in the field. Incremental is when the DoD purposely sets out what upgrades they will pursue from the outset of the project. Both require the contractor to build a fighter that is able to absorb major upgrades in the future. The US military now has what it is called "open systems" that prevent a manufacturor from obtaining a propriatory relationship with equipment so that they can prevent other manufacturors from bidding on evolutionary contracts. So while the F-35 has no thrust vectoring now, it is quite likely it has been designed to be upgraded in the future for it. The US first wants to build a fighter and field it. It won't be fully capable until several years into service and ready to go. This however is not like traditional upgrading of fighters because there is understanding within DoD that procurement is an ongoing process, and that Major modifications are a part of the F-35's life cycle in the future.

Actually its the RCAF, Royal Canadian Air force, because we are part of the Queen's dominion. All jokes aside, the maintence costs of the airforce are mostly due to the age of a lot of its equipment and the unbelievable operational tempo these units have been put under. Also the super bug vs the F-35, it still makes more finanical sense given that the F-35 is still in development to go for the F-35 than buy some already done superbugs. Thats how you have to think about the canadian government. Even though the unit might not be the best, if the Canadian Defence industrial base profits, then you get chosen, its as simple as that.

Shin, you read my mind. I've recently got in a nasty argument on another board about the Arrow vs the Phantom. Now to be honest, Im not that great at aerodynamics because, well Im not trained in it at all. Go look up wing loading. I think the Arrow has half the wing loading of the Phantom, but I wonder how effective are the control surfaces on a delta wing vs a conventional fighter like the F-4. This should be interesting. Also note that the Arrow has a combat radius of 480 NM. It was unlikely to get the sparrow II, and its radar was not complete. So we don't have much to go on. All your arguments should realize one thing at the end. The cost of the Avro Arrow, would have been 1.1% of canada's entire GDP (and 10% of canada's government expenditure f) for three consecutive years (1959~62) had it of continued. In the end canada averted one of the greatest financial disasters the world might have ever seen had it not been for the government of that day.

Well Let me clear some stuff up. We do have a navy. Its small, we got some good frigates, some very good SSKs, Old DDHs and a bunch of other stuff. The last Carrier, The Bonaventure, was retired decades ago. We don't really need carriers. As I alluded to before, canada makes its defence procurement decisions based on "domestic offsets" or in laymans terms, how much of the money canada spends on procuring a program is invested by the contractor in Canada. That usually requires the contractor to invest money to build plants or buy parts from canadian distributers. Most smaller countries do this. Only the UK insists on a Laissez faire decision system, but they by 90% british anyways so that is a lie. Why did we get the CF-18? Well Waaaaay back in 1982 canada held the New Fighter Aircraft competition between, guess who? The F-16 and F/A-18. They were neck and neck, and one was not judged to be better than the other. Then politics got into it. Quebec (the french speaking province in canada which is a thorny political problem) said that the General dynamics bid was better for canada because its offsets would give that province a big boost. That prompted the Minister of National Defence at the time to stand up in parliament with figures that refuted that fact and said the F/A-18 overall had better offsets, and quebec would not get screwed (he was right, most of I think a wing assembly for ALL F/A-18 is/was done near Toronto, meaning Canada made a profit on the F/A-18 from the or). The Fighter was not chosen on its merits, it was done on how much money canada would save. The F-35 is going to be another case of this. Why would be buy F-16s if we could make potential millions as a partner to the F-35 production? As I said before canada will be the likely home of the F-35 training program, for all export version pilots. that means every single Export F-35 that is built will have its pilot trained in Canada. Canada already has extensive facilitites for this (as we have several nato training centers) and the proximity to the US, therefore we could make a lot of money. This is not to speak of the money that can be invested into canadian production facilities to build parts for the F-35.

I'm guessing it would take a completely new mold, because the feet are designed to fit in with Hasagawa models, if it could be done at all. Also these need to be painted and assembled as well. It would just be easier if you built a Hasagawa.

My Japanese name, is.... My name! shocking. It means river at the bottom of a mountain. Also it designates me from a family that resides in a certain province in Japan (Wakayama)

Well Canadian fighters have been mostly limited to providing CAP in previous conflicts, due to their inability to drop bombs (Kosovo, up until the end of the conflict) or for political reasons as in the first gulf war. It the First gulf war, the prime minister of the time didn't want casualties with canadian forces, so limited their role to second line CAP. In the end its almost assured that Canada will buy the JSF. There is so little political interest on the nitty gritty issues of defence (such as which plane we should buy, ect) that buying the JSF is almost assured.

hanks Ewilan, I was going to say the same thing about the Export version vs the Gripen. Although I'm somewhat interested in the Canadian case, my question is aimed more at the F-35's position in the International fighter market. My belief is that the F-35's joint development process has not been for any sort of technological or industrial benefit for the US, rather it has suppressed any European rival to the F-35, in order to ensure its export sales. The most successful fighter in modern history has been the F-16, and the F-35 looks to surpass that because there is no equivalent fighter, beyond the Gripen that can fit in its role. For its own measure, the Gripen is doing fairly well. I think the Czechs have renegotiated a deal to buy them, and the South Africans have ordered them as well. The only country I can see building a rival to the JSF is France, but after the Rafale debacle, I'm doubtful that they will be interested in going alone again, and most of their allies are already locked into the JSF program as is. Therefore, I see the F-35 as being the next F-16, unless the Eurofighter consortium builds a stripped down version of the Eurofighter that can maybe steal the upper end of the jsf's market. That might happen if the UK Pulls out, and as we discussed earlier, that is getting more and more likely because of the STOVL variant's weight problems. Where the question lies is how Britain will deal with it. The Purchase of the two new fleet carriers by the royal navy is a HUGE political hot potatoe. The ships are a matter of political pride for the Blair government, and they have staked a lot of political capital on it. If the JSF falls through, they will need a replacement, or they will have to redesign the aircraft carrier for conventional landing and takeoff systems. So that will be an interesting question In Canada, the F-35 will become a replacement for the CF-18s, which by about 2012 will have been in service for over 25 years. Current doctrine for the CF-18 really means it does one of two things. The first sovereignty flights over Canadian territory(and occasionally US territory if need be) as part of NORAD. Since September 11th that mission has taken a new urgency, which means being able to shoot down a terrorist aircraft (read hijacked airliner). The second major mission will be air to ground or air to air missions, usually as part of a coalition as what occurred in Kosovo. Although NORAD and territorial defence will take up 95% of the operations that they operate, the 5% multinational coalition operations will be the most intensive operations that they participate in. Personally, I’m not happy that we are getting the F-35. I'd rather get fewer Eurofighters, which would be more capable and effective for the few multinational missions that we do undertake. However Canadian procurement is not about capabilities, its about domestic offsets, and how much money Canada could make off of the deal. And the F-35 will haul in a LOT of money. There is a lot of talk that the international training center for the F-35 export versions will be located in Canada, and a significant part of the production will take place here. That means Canada might actually make more money than they actually invest in buying the fighter, because X part or all foreign pilots for all the F-35s will be built/trained here in Canada.

Umm the FAS is a huge organization that does a lot of different things other than military analysis, and is completely different from Globalsecurity. What you are suggesting it effectively that Ford and Toyota are the same company because they had the same CEO at one point in time (they never did but that is really the point), which of course isn;t true.

I'm hesitant to include rafales, Eurofighters ect, because they are completely different in concept as fighters. They are not light weight fighters, instead they are heavyweight fighters like the F-22/F-15 ect, therefore any comparison is not fair. This is reflected in the relative cost of each fighter, which is why the F-16/17/18 were developed in the first place, so that the USAF, Navy could have a mix of high technology fighters, with cheaper more manuverable lighter fighters . Thats why im looking for true alternatives to the JSF, because a country like canada, turkey, norway ect, won't purchase a Eurofighter or another heavyweight fighter, preferring to replace their lightweight fighters with more advanced versions. The Gripen however is a Light weight fighter that is in that same market, as is the f-16. FAS is also not a great site at all. They don't update that much anymore, and their documentation is spotty at best. I'll use it to illustrate a point online, but not much else.