Nied
-
Posts
1346 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by Nied
-
-
Ugh. I really hated that film. Not because of some fanboyish change to how the characters were from the comics (I majored in film, that kind of thing is almost inevitable when adapting from another medium), but because it was badly written, badly directed and acted.
*Minor spoiler if you haven't seen the trailer, commercials, or any other advertisements* The biggest single sticking point in my mind was that after Magneto flies the Golden Gate bridge to Alcatraz in broad daylight, they make a quick cut to the president watching this in his generic movie bunker, he says "God help us" and then the cut back to San Francisco and it's suddenly nighttime! WTF!? You've also got characters bouncing around the country (from upstate New York to Canada to what-looks-like-the-Pacific-Northwest to San Francisco) in a matter of hours, and a major character doesn't even get any lines until the middle of the second act (and has a few seconds of screen-time before this). *end of spoilers sorta*
Considering how well constructed the first two films were it just made the armature hour crap in this film that much more glaring. At least we got to see Rebecah Romijn neckid.
-
And that's why you shouldn't do it.
Buying US equipment is one thing, it's slightly antagonistic, but giving out basing rights is the type of move that might just convince Russia it was wrong to recognize your independence. Given China's attitude towards the US they might just decide to sit on their hands while Russia returns things to the old status-quo (better than letting the US get another strategic foothold in the area). Hell if they moved fast enough the Russians could retake ROS before you could start thinking of any kind of military build up, and well before the US could even break ground on any base in the Kuriles.
No China is a good ally, I just shy away using them to supply my air force. The general low build quality of Chinese fighters means they'd be expensive to operate, meaning less flight time during peacetime, that's exactly what I don't want. Like I said, it's outside the purview of the scenario but a better way to curry favor with China would be to equip my ground forces with their equipment (especially their supersonic anti-ship missiles with mobile launchers).
-
Actually I'd like that better than what we have. Poo and fart just sound so childish.
-
Forget China, India, and Australia make for better allies and have the ability to power project and able to pull your butt of the fire should the need arise.
After looking at the population numbers for the Kuril Islands and Sakhalin, the ROS is going to need protection as roughly 700,000 people will be hard pressed to maintain a military large enough to cover the entire nation.
There's been some significant immigration since the ROS seceded. From the original scenario outline:
With this in mind, your nation is seeking to building a credible defense force, focusing primarily on the air force and navy. Your nation is small (1 million people), and you know you will never beat your two neighbors in a full blown war. As such your nation has strategically allied itself with the US, and seeks to build a force that can reduce the number of incursions, or better, prevent them from happening. Should a war occur, the hope is to have a force that can last long enough until foreign help arrives.That's still not exactly a large population, but the objective is not to engage in a long war, but to hold the line until someone (the US, China, Russia, India Australia or whoever) can show up to pull your but from the fire, or alternatively to hold your assets until one of the major superpowers can defuse the situation.
-
Generally not no. In actuality I don't cuss very often at all unless I feel it's warranted. That's what annoys me, I'm not going to cuss unless I really mean it and it kind of kills the meaning of what I'm trying to say to auto-edit out. Plus as Mr March said it's patronizing. We're all adults here we can handle people flinging poo.
(Besides Max I've been here almost as long as you have)
-
Everything I've read so far said a 4:3 letterbox tranfer (non-anamorphic), instead of an anamorphic 16:9 tranfer. Your post made it sound like it was a 4:3 pan'n'scan, and like I said before: fart that poo!
-
Why do we have the stupid word replacement thing? Are we really worried about little kids interested in a 20-year old anime seeing the word "sh!t"? It's anoying and it screws up the occasional link to F*cked Gaijin. Let us swear again and we can live like kings! Damn hell ass kings!
-
Wait, I had heard rumors it ws going to be a non-animorphic transfer, but are they saying that it's going to be pan'n'scan?! Fart that poo!
-
Even though it's outside the perview of the exercise a good set of shore based ASM batteries (which I would buy from the Chinese) would be a good companion to any airforce the ROS sets up.
-
Yeah but the F-5 can't land on water, the Sea Dart can. Given that this is a VF designed to land on water it would have design features closer to the Sea Dart (a supersonic fighter designed to land on water) than the F-5 (an exclusively land based fighter).
-
China has historically shown little interest in expansion, even so either they or the Russians would be at the end of a long supply train even with a build up. The key would be to inflict massive casualties before your forces are spent, it would result in enough of a lull to either sue for peace or allow reinforcements to arrive. That requires a highly trained pilot corps to do, which in turn requires an air force that does a lot of heavy flying in peacetime. An air force consisting of low maintenance aircraft can be airworthy more often and leave more money to pay for flight time. A good net-centric C3 structure should act as a good force multiplier as well, which is why I made sure to outfit most of my air force with datalinks.
-
Here’s my political take on the game, you guys can fill in the rest.
First off kalvasflam, I think you're mistaken to believe that because a state can crush another conventionally that there is no point to arm.
Wrong assumption, Noyhauser. I like your reasoning on why you need to arm, but then that's why I piped up with my choices, otherwise, I wouldn't bother.
Good analytical points though, it is a bit wasted trying to preach to the choir, but would be useful for others. ROS in this case has to have a military, there is no doubt there. But the military has to be balanced toward the most likely foe. In this scenario, it was Japan and NK initially, I agree with a majority of your assessments. I think alliance with all the major powers doesn't hurt. ROS need to be essentially like Kuwait, yes, their neighbor could and did crush them, but they had so many allies, it didn't matter in the long run.
Having an alliance with the current big boy (US) is a good idea, but with an eye toward the long run, China must also be a big ally.
Frankly based around what's been discussed here (and also a brief PM discussion between Noyhouser and myself that got too deep into politics to post on the thread at large) I think the ROS defences should be built around short term defence. It's got a ton of oil and is under the watchful eye of three major super-powers and a major regional power. The way I see it any conflict the ROS gets involved with will be short because either a) all three major superpowers will work to defuse the situation to avoid sparking WWIII, or b) the conflict escalates into WWIII. The first scenario requires a military strong enough to still be holding onto strategically significant sites (Oil fields and the Kuriles) when the dust settles, while the second scenario can only be dealt with by instituting a national Yoga training programme (so ROS citizens have the flexibility to bend over and kiss their butts goodbye).
-
-
Well thats the point, unless the US has a clear defence agreement, like the North Atlantic Treaty, the US has been in the past a very mediocre ally, acting on its interest. And I sincerely doubt that the US would do such a thing. It would be tantamount (and portrayed as) giving a defence treaty to Chechnya. While NATO expansion was a foregone conclusion in most Western European States, it brought up alot of hackles in the US, especially the Senate, precisely because it would force the US to honour a mutual defence treaty. I doubt that the US would immediately rush to the ROS's aid, and its also unlikely they would provide it with high grade military equipment, especially if it were to be used against russia (since there are obvious territorial disputes occurring). They may well deny critical military supplies to the ROS, as they did to Israel at certain junctures.
There's two key differences to your Chechnya comparison.
1). According to the scenario outlined Russia has (reluctantly) recognized your independance, and are on freindly enough terms to sell you arms. The main conflict with Russia are airspace sovereignty issues.
2). Oil. Chechnya doesn't have any the ROS does, possibly a lot. That alone would give the US an incentive to buddy up with the ROS (incedentally I unintentinally made the ROS a democratic nation when I mentioned a parliment). The prospect of cutting off a new source of oil for a burgeoning China helps matters.
-
*snip*
The great thing about china is that they are literally a flight away. You lose a couple of planes? Big deal, purchase 5 more and get a 6th one free, delivered all in the next day. Given the losses that they may suffer (looking at the 1973 war as an example), its likely that cheap and flimsy is a better option than few and expensive, especially if you have a good fighter corps of well trained pilots. Morover if a few Chinese Pilots ferrying fighters were to accidently be shot down... well that plays right into the hands of the ROS.
True but from an uptime/cost of ownership perspective Chinese equipment is a nightmare. I could field a larger Chinese-built force but end up with the same number of airframes flying at any one time (and less effective ones at that), what's more I'll still have to pay for the maintenance on the planes that aren't flying. That means less money to spend on all sorts of better things like training and a larger pilot corps. That'll cripple me in peacetime and kill me in a conflict.
I think where Israel offers the best options is for AEW stuff, maybe someone like Dave could cover this more, but they would fit neatly in a mid range supplier if they have the equipment to sell in this area (I'm not sure). However they are too far away to be a critical parts supplier.Israel has the Phalcon AEW system that they have mounted on old 707 airframes (there's that maintainability problem again). They also offered an A310 based version for the RAAF's Wedgetail competition, reportedly it was more expensive and less effective than Boeing's winning 737/MESA combo. The Erieye, being from Brazil and Sweden, seemed a good compromise.
::edit:: Israel is replacing their E-2Cs with the 707/Phalcon combo, reportedly they're selling off the Hawkeyes for cheap.
-
Those three countries are former states in their own right, Russia had little sway over them in any case (especially CZ and Poland which were fundamentally western countries prior to 1939, as was romania to a slightly lesser extent) although even in the early in the 1990s the USSR had serious problems with them joining NATO due to Russian intransigence. The ROS buying weapons from the US would likely be similar to one of the CIS states trying to cozy up to the United States, and that being in its sphere of influence would likely provoke a negative reaction. There's actually been a bit of a backlash lately in Russia to NATO's encroachment. I don't think the US would like to involve itself into that sort of disupte.
The best case for them is to go for China. I think that new Cheap F-16 type fighter that was just unveiled would look good. I'd also look to Israel, and India for other defence purchases, ones that are non essential. I think you can separate logistical items into three areas.
Critical Supplies (parts that wear out or are used quickly, like certain parts, bombs ect.)/ Semi-critical (parts and equipment that wear out or may need replacement every couple of months, like certain avionics) /non critical supplies (Stuff that does not need constant replacement, ie airframes).
How you purchase you fighters should be based on this critera. You want to make sure that you have assured, quick access to critical supplies, or have large stores of it. Think Israel during the 1967 and 73 wars. So China would be a good bet. For Semi Critical parts, you probably can get away without replacement for a conflict if its short, but you'll probably need replacements if the conflict becomes protracted, or if you don't have deep stores. Think Iran's american Fighters during the Iran/Iraq war. Finally for non critical supplies, you can purchase anywhere, because you don't have to worry so much about resupply during the war.
I worry about buying Chinese weapons mainly from a reliability and maintainability standpoint. Historically their aircraft are a bit crappy and I'd worry about my FC-1s of J-10s constantly breaking down on me. American aircraft on the other hand generally have a reputation for reliability. That might piss off the Russians but it appears that in the scenario I outlined the ROS has made the conscious decision to flip them the bird anyway (I made my purchases accordingly).
Interestingly enough you've done a pretty good job of explaining why I decided to arm my air force with mostly Israeli ordinance. In a shooting war I figured I would be expending missiles the fastest, I figured the US might shy away from sending me more AMRAAMs or Sidewinders to use against the Japanese or the Russians, but the Israelis will sell to anyone.
-
I mean you no disrespect Noyhauser and to all you guys, but this political piece of yours may cause this thread to be locked since we're swaying a little too far off topic. So if it's not too much trouble, is it OK if all of you guy's go back to the discussion of aircraft please?
Thanx! 
Phalanx
I wouldn't worry about it Phalanx we tend to get into broad geopolitics from time to time and haven't had a problem, we went some 100 pages in the original Aircraft Vs Super thread and would regularly get into subjects that make this topic look tame. The Mods know that we try to behave ourselves in this thread and give us a fairly wide latitude. As long as you do the same you'll be fine.
-
The ARC Forums are back online! That explains why we haven't seen David or Skull Leader here lately.
Incedently I think I'm going to edit my choices slightly, I realized last night that I purchased too many C-130s and not enough Erieyes. I'm going to trade one C-130J-30 and one Rhino (one of the dual control versions) for another Erieye, fit them with in flight refueling probes and I should be able to keep at least one AWACS in the air 24 hours a day. I've also found an intersting choice for basic trainer: the Pilatus PC-21 has a fly-by-wire control system so that it can act as a basic trainer, or with a flick of a switch mimic more advanced types, at roughly $7 million a copy you can buy a squadron for under $100 million.
-
Buying western and American weapons might inflame Russia slightlty but given the recent history (Poland buying F-16s, Czech Republic buying Grippens and Romania buying Lancers) I doubt it would be too big of a deal.
-
It looks more like the S-99 was recycled into the Sv-51. I'd imagine that the VF-5 looks more like a Sea Dart.
-
All right I was going to post my plan after I got home from work tonight, but a crashed hard drive has left me twiddling my thumbs here so I might as well post my plan. Here goes:
Air Defense/attack: I've got 18 perfectly good Mig-21s (and two UM trainers) here, and it would be a shame to just throw them away, so lets upgrade 'em. The Russian Bison programme is attractive in that it gives me excellent BVR capabilities in the form of the R-77, however I'm then stuck using weapons that are incompatible with the western designs I'm going to buy. In the end I decided on sending my Migs to Israel to be upgraded to Mig-21 Lancer standards. At $5 million a copy they are extremely cheap and allow me to use familiar Russian equipment while at the same time maintaining interoperability with western designs. They're so cheap that I can afford to buy an additional 6 Mig-21s to be upgraded to the same standards, bringing me up to a full two squadrons in strength (figure $5 million for the initial purchase, plus the extra $5 mil for the upgrade, $10 mil total per plane). The only modification to the baseline Lancer design I would request are In Flight Digital Data Links (IFDDL) and refueling probes. These planes would be armed with Python V SRAMs and Derby MRAAMs for air superiority work, LITENING targeting pods and Paveway LGBs in a strike configuration, and Harpoon (or other suitable ASM) for a secondary maritime strike role. price: $160 million
Air Superiority/Maritime Strike/Tanker: F/A-18F Super Hornet I need an aircraft that can sit CAP for a few hours over my oil fields or the Kuriles, or alternatively can haul huge amounts of ordinance against maritime threats. A squadron of 14 Rhinos (2 dual control trainers and 12 ACS versions) equipped with an IFDDL compatible with my Lancers and buddy refueling tanks should fill the bill perfectly. Typical air superiority load would consist of 6 Meteor BVRAAMs two Derbys and two Python Vs. Alternatively they can load up on Harpoons for maritime strike, or sling a LITENING pod and LGBs for ground attacks. Ease of maintenance would mean low support costs and high flight times, and the buddy tanks will mean more hours aloft for all of my pilots. In a true emergency we could even use their powerful APG-79 radars as make shift AEW assets. price: $840 million
Maritime Patrol: S-3 Viking The P-3 is a ubiquitous and attractive option, but the US Navy is literally giving S-3s away! A squadron of these can patrol the sea lanes with torpedoes or Harpoons, or be fitted with tanking pods to further extend the range of my fighter assets. Hell I can even hang a LITENING pod under a wing for limited bomb work or reconnaissance. Along with my fighters, these would be fitted with datalinks to help integrate my C3 picture. price free!
AEW&C: RB-99 Erieye The Boeing Wedgetail's ability to simultaneously track air and surface targets was extremely attractive, however buying reasonable numbers would have used my entire ten-year procurement budget. So I've opted instead for Embraer and Ericson's Erieye system. It should outperform JASDF Hawkeyes, and four of these with data links should give me good control over my airspace and waterways. Also I can train crews easily on a standard ERJ-145 that will double as a VIP transport. price: $800 million
Cargo: C-130J-30 I originally thought about buying some second hand An-12s and calling it a day, but I realized that I'd pay for that down the road in sustainment costs. The J model Hercules should give me years of reliable service, and three stretch versions should be more than enough to move tons of men and material out to the Kuriles in an emergency. A tanker version seems redundant considering that I have two platforms for that already, but that might be an option down the road. price $210 million
And that's it. I see no reason not to keep my Helicopter assets as they are, both the Hip and the Hind are sturdy reliable helicopters. Total price comes out to $2.01 billion, most likely some of the remaining $290 million would go towards ordinance procurement, the rest I would put towards training (maybe another two Mig-21UMs and more L-39s, or Pilatus PC-9s). The vast majority of the airframes I've purchased are rugged and reliable, and both of my combat aircraft can be flown from minimally prepared fields. Long term I can replace my Lancers with F414 powered Grippens to improve the reliability of my air force even more, and the Lancers allow me to do that without a painful transition to a completely western force.
-
A bit of googling will give you some decent ball park figures on the price of most military equipment. That Globalsecurity the various fact sheets on the airforce and navy webistes and a sparing amount of Wikipedia (not always acurate but good enough for a thought exercise like this) have given me most of what I needed.
-
I honestly hadn't thought of Harriers. I'm assuming you're talking about purchasing second hand FA.2s from the UK? Remember you do need something with legs to get out to the Kuriles for CAP and there's a fair amount of (assumedly territorial) water in between. Here's a map of the area for reference. I believe that the original author is referring to the long island in the center of the map, the Kuriles are the chain of islands to the east.
-
As Dave mentioned the Forums at Acig.org are atrocious but in amongst the threads about UFOs and making fun of women pilots I found this thought provoking thread that I thought I'd share here since this one has died down a little. I'm going to quote it here so that I can fix some grammar errors and add a few comments of my own (in bold):
Your nation is Sakhalin, which has recently separated from the Russian Federation. This includes Sakhalin Island itself, and the Kurile Islands to the east. Your country is an amalgamation of various ethnicity's, Russians, Tatars, Japanese, Ainu, Ukrainians, Koreans, etc but the lingua de franca is still Russian.Relations with your neighbors:
USA: First to recognize your country's independence, many American companies are investing heavily in your rich oil fields in the north. Because of fears of Russian reprisals, your leader was quick to establish relations with the US.
Russia: Eventually acknowledged your nation being politically independent..but have a keen habit of breaching your maritime territories, particularly from Kamchatka and the Sea of Okhotsk. They're still willing to sell you weapons, but consider you as part of their sphere of influence. A good percentage of your population is of Russian ethnicity, but prefer being politically independent due to higher living standards.
Japan: Similar to Russia. Since the Kuriles are now your possession, the Japanese are asserting their claim on the four southernmost islands. There is some maritime incursion (primarily civilian) in the southern Sea of Okhotsk. Many Japanese of Ainu and part Ainu ancestry have emigrated to your country. To make this even more interesting lets say that members of the Japanese opposition party have claimed that using military force would not violate article nine (self defense) of the Japanese constitution, claiming the islands are Japanese territory occupied by a foreign power
N.Korea: While it is some distance away, your government does not view them too favorably, especially after a stray "missile" from a test, came near your waters.
The Author of the original thread left China out completely, which is strange considering it's proximity to our theoretical nation.
China: While separated from your nation by Russia to the north and the two Koreas to the south, China has taken an intense interest in your nation. They are quite happy to have another source of oil so near by, and are willing to sell you arms in exchange (that this helps check Japanese and Russian influence in the area makes them even happier)
--
objective:
With this in mind, your nation is seeking to building a credible defense force, focusing primarily on the air force and navy. Your nation is small (1 million people), and you know you will never beat your two neighbors in a full blown war. As such your nation has strategically allied itself with the US, and seeks to build a force that can reduce the number of incursions, or better, prevent them from happening. Should a war occur, the hope is to have a force that can last long enough until foreign help arrives.
Since independence, your country has inherited a number of L-39 trainers lets say six, and bought 20 MiG-21's from Eastern Europe including two Mig-21UB trainers, as well as several Mi-8 and 24 helicopters. It is considered to be woefully under-equipped.
requirements:
Your country is seeking to acquire TWO types of fixed wing combat aircraft as well as patrol aircraft to monitor maritime activities. In addition to this you require transport aircraft and helicopters to maintain steady supplies between Sakhalin and the Kuriles.
The two combat aircraft MUST come from separate sources, one of which, MUST be American, and the other MUST NOT be American. The reasoning is that Sakhalin intends to exploit its relations with the US, while at the same time maintaining a cautious stance towards a close American ally, Japan. It is considered wise to buy from another vendor should the Americans object to your actions against Japan. While Sakhalin Island is only 600 miles long, the distance between Sakhalin and the Kuriles, is as far as the two ends of Texas. Thus one aircraft should at least be able to have the endurance to cover the area.
Others in your government have considered the F-15, Mirage 2000, Su-30MK and F-16, but are open to many options.
To try and cut down on people becoming armchair aircraft engineers (Knight26 excepted of course) lets also say that your parliament has mandated that all aircraft purchased should have as little modification as possible, and whenever possible be purchased "off the shelf"
You have ten years to enact your plan.
And before anyone starts trying to pack their air force with Typhoons and Raptors, someone down thread already came up with realistic numbers you have to stay within:
Figure GDP per capita at around $10k, which gives a GDP of $10billion.What percentage of GDP goes towards the military? How 'bout 7%?
That would give us an annual military budget of $700 million.
Figure a third of this is devoted to procurement.
So that's about $233 million per year.
Thus a 10-year plan gives you $2.3 billion to work with for the entire military.
I've got my own idea which I will post tomorrow, but I'm curious to hear what other people come up with.
X-men 3 Pics: Beast And Angel Revealed
in Anime or Science Fiction
Posted · Edited by Nied
Extremely rookie mistake. Basic continuity like that is stuff you learn in Film 1. Stuff like this is why I decided to not pursue a career in film, the quality of your previous work (or even the box office return of said work) has next to nothing to do with whether or not you're successful. Just this year you have two excellent examples: the screenwriter for the Davinci Code (which is supposed to be Sony's big moneymaker this summer) also wrote blockbusters like Batman & Robin, Lost in Space, and I Robot, and the X-men 3 script got handed to a guy who's total output at the time consisted of xXx: State of the Union (which barely made back a quarter of it's budget). Everyone has their own little pet reasons why Hollywood is doing so badly (libruls, DVDs, piracy) but the truth is very simple: No one is buying tickets because the movies are horrible, and the movies are horrible because studio execs are basing their talent decisions on who's the most connected rather than who can do the best job.