Nied

But....the editing is the same in both versions. It probably just feels different because of Ford's narration in the theatrical cut. 357087[/snapback] My understanding is that the "Directors Cut" was a rush job to re-cut the film for the '93 release, the running time is the same but the edit points are different.

While there are some really interesting and cool schemes on there, what is the purpose of the swastika on that one VF-1? 356935[/snapback] I think it's just supposed to be a Valkyrie in Messerschmit colors, similar to the above it painted up like a IJN Zero, I don't think it's meant to have anymore signifigance than that.

Blade Runner But that comes with a caveat (one that will probably get my film degree revoked). For the longest time I had only ever seen the directors cut and just hated it (I felt the pacing was just awful), but a couple years ago I caught the theatrical cut on the Sci-Fi channel and really liked it, the editing was a lot tighter. I was more agnostic about the big things people had problems with (Harrison Ford's purposefully botched narration) or just downright mad (the happily ever after ending). ::edit:: Wow looks like Sundown and I had the same idea at the same time.

Not yet.

A serial killer is a human being too. A terrorist is a serial killer hiding behind a bullsh*t cause to justify their bloodlust. We all have grievanaces, we don't all kill randomly and gleefully to redress them. I find it amazing anyone would give a damn about such people's wants,needs or grievances. Comparing Christian fundamentalists with Muslim fundamentalists is pretty ridiculous, if we're talking present day. Look out for the Billy Graham Martyr's Brigade! Put up a score board for the just the past 20 years and compare the number of buses, malls, cafes, schools, airliners, embassys, skyscapers, polling stations, hospitals, churchs,synagogues, Mosques (yes Mosques too) and otherwise innocent pedestrians just walking by that have been blown up, attacked, hijacked kidnapped and or murdered. I think Muslims win that by a land slide. But that's ignorant of me to say. True, but ignorant. 356426[/snapback] You know I was going to respond to this, but I'm done. This isn't the place for it.

I'm going to join Noyhauser in apologising. I generally refrain from posting this stuff here unless someone else starts, but I'm not one to tolerate ignorance.

The size of the UMM-7 pods (or the other stores for that matter) as portrayed in Hasegawa kits (or the 1/48s) isn't all that big compared to most modern weaponry. Hell according the the 1/48s a Mk. 82 bomb (one of the smallest bombs in the US inventory) is as big as RMS-1!

Looks like a compressor stall... 355694[/snapback] Agreed. The Tomcat in that video was from VF-213 which only recently traded it's F-14As in for Ds. Looks like the TF-30 struck again.

Might as well get this in before the thread is locked. God I am so sick of ignorant SOBs who get their panties in a twist because someone dares to try to make a realistic assessment or portrayal of a terrorist. Guess what? A terrorist is a human being, they've got needs and wants and grievances just like anyone else. They may go about addressing those grievances in a despicable manner, but to act like their some kind of non-people who can think of nothing but how much they hate freedom is a childish fantasy. What's worse is that taking that kind of attitude makes impossible to actually defeat the type of poisonous ideology that causes terrorism in the first place (weather it's being done by Islamic fundamentalists, Christian Fundamentalists or some kind of radical nationalist group).

Gunships were created to attack everything land based the enemy have from infantry to MBTs to bunkers and etc. 353777[/snapback] I still remember attending the Andrews Air Force Base Open house one year, and taking a look inside the Spectre they had set up there. There was a guy near me who took up a conversation with one of the crewmembers that was simply priceless. My favorite was when they got to the 105mm cannon: Guy: "Now what's this?" Crewmember: "That's a 105mm Howitzer." Guy: "what kind of holes?" Crewmember: "BIG holes." Guy: "Like into buildings and stuff?" Crewmember: "I'll tell you the answer but then I'm going to have to kill you."

That's a huge assumption assumption to be making. It's just as possible that the F120 could have been picked for the F-22 and it would have all that extra thrust to play with (probably would have made it more maneuverable too since teh F-22 has thrust vectoring). But it doesn't matter, the F120 isn't dead, it lives on as the 45,000 lb thrust F136 for the JSF.

Just to add to what everyone else is saying. F-22: probably the greatest fighter ever built, which honestly has become a target because of its cost (though programs like NMD are sacrosanct for some reason). The current processors may have gone out of production but processor fabrication (unlike other aircraft parts) is a relatively easy process. That and the planned avionics bus for the JSF is being designed with installation into the F-22 in mind. Hell I don't understand why they don't try putting the bulged doors they talk about installing on the F/B-22 so the standard F-22 could carry larger 2,000 lbs bombs. F-35: I'm one of the few F-35 defenders around here. I think the mistake that most people make is they think of all the really flashy capabilities that the F-16 or the F/A-18 have in the A-A arena (where the F-35 isn't really an improvement), but don't think of the work they spend most of their time doing (boring mud moving). That's why I keep making all those A-7 jokes, because the JSF is more of a really good A-7 replacement, it's just we've been using hot-rod light weight fighters for that purpose for the last 20 years. Hell with it's fat fuselage and stubby wings it even looks a good deal like the good ol SLUF (the A-7's nickname Short Little Ugly F*cker). That's why I'm trying to think of good F-35 nicknames that reference the good ol' SLUF, so far I've got SLUF: TNG (The Next Generation) SLUF II, and JSLUF (that one's the hardest).

Check this thread for info on the F-15E+Boeing tries to peddle more F-15E's JSF news TROUBLE FOR JOINT FIGHTER Following White House Meeting, Pentagon Eyes Major Weapons Cuts and Kills Pentagon said bent on killing F-35 fighter model 352517[/snapback] Old news, super-ceded by this: DOD Rejects Canceling Air Force Variant Of JSF, Expert Says As I said a couple pages back canceling the F-35A makes a lot of sense, given that the F-35 program in general is essentially SLUFF: The Next Generation, why not have the Carrier and land variants be essentially the same. It worked fine for the A-7, and I bet it'd work fine for the F-35. That and it ought to discourage the idea of using a super SLUFF for air superiority work. This is new though: Britain in battle with US over fighter plane Apparently some of the more xenophobic elements of our govt have problems sharing technology with one of (if not the) closest allies of the US. While I think the VSTOL version of the SLUFF II (this is fun ) would be great replacement for the SHAR, a Sea Typhoon would give the RN the type of punch not seen since the days of the Phantom.

This is fun: What military aircraft are you? My Results: F/A-22 Raptor You are an F/A-22. You are technologically inclined, and though you've never been tested in combat, your very name is feared. You like noise, but prefer not to pollute any more than you have to. And you can move with the best.

F/A-22A to become just plain old F-22A again. While I'm glad for the time saved by not having to type the/A in the name of my favorite fighter they could have at least been a little less blatant about this being a sales pitch.

Well that's my point, it's a strike plane not an air superiority fighter. An A-7 instead of an F-16, but considering how little the F-16 (or F/A-18 for that matter) has done air superiority work, that's not such a big deal. Conversely that's also why I think trading orders of F/A-22s for F-35s is such a horrible idea. It would be like MacNamara saying that since the A-7 was such a great strike plane we should buy more of them and cut orders of the more expensive F-15. They're two different planes optimised for two different roles, just because they have an overlap in capabilities doesn't make them able to do each others job.

IIRC they eventually did do some fine tuning on the E model and re-released it, and then rolled that fine tuning into the F model (which in the end needed some further fine tuning and another re-release). Designated but not really purposefully designed. I think it's a testament to the guys at GD and MacDac that the Hornet and Viper have been as successful as they are at ground pounding. The F-35 seems to have been built from the ground up as an attack plane with secondary A-A ability, the F/A-18 and F-16 were the other way around.

One of these days I'm going to have to download the excellent F/A-18F that a group made for MS flight simulator and re-paint it in some proper VFA-103 colors. Hell if someone could find me a good sized side view of an F model SH I could do it right now (those are a little easier). Re: marine F-35s. I recently had an epiphany about the F-35: it's not an F-16/F/A-18/AV-8 replacement it's an A-7 replacement. It's just been delayed by 30 years after the services got suckered into making lightweight fighters their prime strike platforms.

It'll be interesting to see what the Tomcaters (will they even still be called that in the SH) will do with their planes. I'm trying to imagine what a SH would look with Felix the Cat on the tails and an all black nose.

Does anyone know if there's a technical reason why they don't extend the black paint around the canopy all the way to the tip of the nose on the Rhino? Is it similar to why they leave the IFF horn unpainted? It looks so good on the Tomcat and I bet it would look just as good on the Super Hornet.

Oh is that all. An extra 50 billlion funds the full 300 F-22s the air force wants built, 100 new KC-whatever tankers, and a couple new aircraft carriers. That's not small change.

Crusader?? Surely you aren't referring to the swept-wing Supersonic fighter (the F-8 Crusader) that we used back in the 50s and 60s... what other Crusader project was there? 350094[/snapback] The new and now dead super acurate mobile artillery system for the US Army. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/sys...nd/crusader.htm

Bush brought the miltary budget back up to Reagan's Cold War level which is a stark contrast to gutting the military's budget. 349979[/snapback] The Pentagon's Budget isn't anywhere near it's cold war highs, and I don't remember nearly as many prominent programs being cut during the '90s (at least after '92). Crusader, Comanche, and possibly the F-22 these things looked to have bright futures back in '99.

IIRC Lockheed tried to sell almost the same thing using a C-5.

Possibly a huge mistake especially if one of the choice decides a "peace dividend' is better than mantaining status quo or increasing the fleet. 349638[/snapback] Well peace dividends seems to be what the current regime has in mind so I don't blame them for hoping someone different might think differently.