Lynx7725

Define similar. While there isn't much precedent for teething trouble from the computer systems of most aircraft there's plenty of examples of big problems cropping up in aircraft after they're already in production. The F-100 Super Sabre had far too small of a vertical stab installed on the first hundred or so examples. They had to halt production and redesign the whole tail after a string of accidents. The F-14 Tomcat needed to have several reinforcements installed on its back because the area around the wing hinge ended up being too weak. The F-16 originally had vertical stabs that were far too small (although this didn't require that big of a re-design). The F/A-18 had a nasty problem where the vortices off of the LERXs could conceivably rip the tail fins off during high Alpha maneuvers, that grounded the entire fleet before it was fixed. And as much as I think it's a good plane you don't want to get me started on all the problems they had with the Super Hornet. I'm sure there's more examples out there. 411599[/snapback] I'm actually ok with those problems (well, sort of). I mean, those are design issue that impacts no matter where you deploy them. It's bad, but once you fix it you can deploy the aircraft anywhere you need to. I meant a design issue that specifically preclude or limit an aircraft from deploying to a specific climate. The F-22 issue would, for safety reasons, limit their deployment to hot climates (which means the Middle East, Central America, and South Asia.. all of which can become hotspots). Granted, with proper care the F-22 can still fly in those climates, but a hanger queen reputation is not something that you want from such an expensive aircraft.

I started writing a fairly ranty post, but decided to throttle back.. so I'll just ask this, just to know: how many aircraft in the last few generations suffered from similar problems?

The hands are the only portion that are rubbery... and they're far more fragile than glass. It's really way too complicated a toy for the scale it's done in and that comes out by way of build issues and easily broken bits. Visibly it's worlds better than the Gakkens though. 409317[/snapback] Hard to explain, but their plastic, feels very rubbery and fragile to me.. just a descriptor, though. The hands are... scary to play with. The arms feel like they would disconnect or snap (around the elbow especially). I like the design, it's a good engineering design, but the material used sucked. The material couldn't support the design. The diecast in the torso doesn't do much, and I'm wondering about the legs. Could've used the 1/48 plastic and it would be better IMO.

"The MPC seems a little fragile"?? Their rubbery stuff makes me think I'm playing with glass sometimes.

Met Tomino, got his autograph for a friend, and thanked him for his work. Years ago. Almost 8 years now, I think.

C'mon. A 1/60 in Fighter or Battroid mode is good. Gerwalk is more awkward. Not to mention, a 1/60 is also small. A big deal when you have limited space. It's big enough to play with, small enough to have more of them. 1/60s are good stuff.

Well, you gotta admit, that's honesty in advertising.

Worse, is COSPLAY allowed on MacrossWorld? I remember Man-Faye with horrifying clarity... ZE GOOGLES! THEY DO NOTHING! AARRRGHH!

Stuck at HLJ.

Makes you wonder exactly how capable those Alicats are, no?

Engines? (Hey, we're bound to get the correct item eventually. )

Appropriate.

Not surprising. CCA MSes are huge -- there had been an escalation of MS size throughout that era. I kinda like the gray Sazabi. Liked the design, hated the New-typeness, felt it would be much better in CF-green or some other colour other than the cherry red it is.

I had a bunch of the Wizkids Clickytech boxes back when I was fooling around with them. They work great, actually, even for the Zeta Plus.

That's an easy one. Military modelling has a big 1/35 presence, so it's easier to find parts for kitbashing.

Actually, that's a fairly nice translation. A more... engrish translation can be: "Be close to the front when you relieve yourself; Be closer to civilization."

I would say so, yes -- but that's one way to fight. You eyeball the enemy manually and then plant a 30mm round between his eyes. There are other ways to fight -- inflitrate infantry to paint enemy units for destruction. UAV to target designate. Real-time satellite targetting. Electronic footprinting. Military GPS. The question is, whether our targetting technologies getting to the point where we can achieve BVR attacks on ground targets? If so, can we build a weapon platform that utilizes these technologies to whack off the target with high precision (better yet, perfect precision) without exposing the troops to return fire? Privately, I think it's a mistake to move the human away from the conflict (by hiding behind technology). But from another point of view, I can see why it is desirable.

Point. But is the A-10 the right solution? There's really 2 parts to this question. The first is whether it is a cost-effective solution, and truth to be told it is; as you said, it's a prove airframe using proven technology, and that tends to drive the cost down. Personally, I feel the F-35 is the wrong solution to this problem. As you said, it's expensive, it's over-cramped with roles, and it seems to be a jack-of-all-trades and not really exceling in any. But, thinking on this, why risk the pilot in a close-in assault? Why not, as Nied states, stand-off and bomb the heck out of the ground armour, then send in the necessary force to mop up? Risking A-10 pilots in that situation may not be ideal, but of course there's no guarantee a high attitude stand off attack would be as precise. At the end of the day, the cost-effectiveness of a weapon systems is really about tradeoffs. Is spending 10 mil on an experimental platform and missile that can stand-off (and thus reduce the risk to the operator) worth the potential risk of sending in a proven airframe with proven technology? This is really a gamble that's not easy to answer. The other part of this question is technology progression. Yes, the A-10 is a proven airframe with proven technology -- which means it's a known threat. Without technological progress, it is just a matter of time before some (imaginary) foe thinks of a better technology, or worse, a new application of existing technology that would consistently deny the A-10 (and in doing, put at risk the pilots on those aircraft). And like it or not, the US aircraft technology seems to have really stagnated over the last 2 decades or so. The F-22 and F-35 is exciting because it's really using a multitude of existing or new technologies to create a new way of fighting a war -- preferably with a corresponding reduction in human losses (on one side at least). Like it or not, the F-22 and F-35 is absolutely necessary. I think the airframe themselves may be overrated and may be poorly suited to the role they are supposed to perform, but they serves as jump-off points to better airframes and technologies. Just cross your fingers and hope they aren't needed in a major conflict in the near future.... Personally, I think the amount of ordnance carried by the F-35 is waaay under what is necessary in a conflict. The less you carry, the more sorties you need, and that puts the pilots would be at risk more. I don't believe the F-35 is an adequate replacement for the A-10, if the A-10 really needs replacing.

Not really trying to defend the funny-cigarette-smoking club of military planners, but... Is there really a need for the A-10 any more? The A-10 is a close-support aircraft that hangs dozens of ordnance under its wings. In a Warsaw Pact era, when it is expected that a massive armour thrust would be the main attacking force -- divisional level armour, perhaps? -- such stopping power is absolutely necessary. You need to break up that armour wedge as early as possible. But nowadays, it's really rare to see armour in that concentration, as far as I am aware of. You still get armour, but perhaps in regimental or lower strength. And given the other multirole aircraft currently available, do we still need something as, well, excessive as an A-10? Can we make do with smaller aircraft carrying less ordnance? After all, it's pointless to go to war if the war would bankrupt you even if you win... Just to note -- I like the uncompromising brutality of the A-10. Nothing like pointing a 30mm gatling at someone to get the point across. But it might be a tad excessive...

Knight would be a better authority on this than I would be, but my understanding is most military airframes (for frontline work at least) work under extremely tight design tolerances; when you optimize for a specific role, you often cut off the necessary leeway for other roles. So when you try to refit something not inherently compatible with the airframe, it gets expensive -- fast. IIRC, a good case is the Shornet vs. the normal Hornets. If I remember the discussion in this thread, the Super Hornet is such a radical "refit" that most of the airframe can already be considered a totally new airframe. Why did they go ahead with it? The answer I tend to get is "politics".. meh. At least that aircraft tends to go in one direction... And another one is the F-14's ability to bomb. Granted, IIRC, such a capability is already built into the plane to begin with, but it's still a big deal that an airframe not optimized for bombing could bomb, and bomb well. It was a big deal because the military can now conceivably get more out of an airframe without spending a single dime (well, at least not more than to get some electronics hung off a rail somewhere..). Seriously, if you really have an interest in this area (as in aviation) take the time to read through this thread (plus the earlier incarnation). A lot of the discussions here are enlightening if a bit spread over the place.

..... Aeronautic engineering isn't exactly anime magic, y'know. You're suggesting to rip apart an F-16's airframe to stuff things that the airframe is not designed to support. Even if someone can be convinced to do this, it's cheaper just to redesign a whole new airframe to do the same job. Even if someone is willing to throw the money to do the job, you'll probably need to redo the entire assembly line to produce the new airframe, so there's no savings there. And what of the existing F-16 inventory? Are you going to suggest to refit them too? The entire plane pretty much has to be gutted for this kind of refit, especially on a jet as small as the F-16. What's the point? You end up throwing more money to fit things into an airframe that would probably degrade its performance -- more cost to do less things.

In terms of story, I think the TV series is actually more coherent, but that's because it actually has time to flesh out the story more. In terms of animation quality, the OVA is much better. Thing is, the TV series suffers from expectations set by the OVA. The OVA introduces some characters which became key movers and shakers, and understandably fans are attached to them. The TV series isn't about these characters though, but fans howl anyway because they want to see more of their favourites.

I didn't want to say anything yet since I'm still watching it, but as one who has just 5 more episodes of Destiny to go.. SEED is ok. Destiny is ok so long you approach it right. I'll post a longer review and nitpick more once I finish Destiny, which should be another week or so.

Put it this way. If it's USD 200, I don't want it. If it's non-transformable, I don't want it. If it doesn't link with the existing MPC Alpha in the same scale, I don't want it. If it looks like a piece of turd, I don't want it. That's about as base-case as I can get about the Beta.

As for the F-22 not having a good week? All aircraft, all aircrew, from any Naval / Air Forces around the world with lots of flight hours will have bad moments or bad time periods. There's tons of military aircraft mishaps that civillians don't know about. 396160[/snapback] Probably. Personally, I see it more as an result of a (probably) good (and expensive) aircraft in a global climate that is making the aircraft's role increasingly irrelevant. Think about it a bit. In terms of air superiority, very few country actually can match the quality, quantity and technical expertise of the USAF/ USN. Of the few that can match it, they often don't have the economic potential to maintain a war footing as long as the US can. Even in terms of potential threat, very few exists currently. The odds of actually needing the F-22's capabilities are actually fairly low IMO.* With that kind of cost sensitivity and general public sentiments, incidents like what happened would draw a larger than warranted flak from the public. Heck, IIRC, A4s from the Top Gun program routinely rubs F-14 and F-18 pilots' noses into the ground, don't they? You don't hear comments on those. Not to mention the F-22 backers would of course be nervous. It's big money in an environment where the budget keeps shrinking. So they would also overreact to small incidents, making them a bigger incident. Classic example: The F-22 pilot's attempt to pull the footage. Heck, just admit the F-22 got dusted and get even next time up. * Note that while I acknowledge the possibilities are low, I still believe development of next-generation technologies is still critical. In terms of aircraft development I feel the F-22 is an important aircraft. I'm just not sure how useful it is, really.