Valkyrie Driver

Noyhauser, I will concede that you have some valid points, however, your entire argument is pushing the use of more advanced technology to win wars. Better technology is important to aid in minimizing friendly casualties and collateral damage, but it's not the ultimate solution. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan, we've been throwing technology at the problem since we started, and it's still not solved. My comment about the F-35 being designed by committee, was not meant as literal as you seemed to take it. I'm well aware of how the procurement process works, but that's not design. Was it a dig at the design, yes. It's not what was advertised, it's horribly over cost, and we're still discovering problems. It's suffering a very similar situation as the F-111. By the time all is said and done, no one will want it, because it no longer suits anyone's purposes. You pointed out that 2000lbs is about half of the internal capacity of the F-35's bays, which I believe. You also pointed out that a majority of A-10 sorties are carrying ~2000lbs or less of ordnance, which I also believe. This begs the question, can the F-35 carry the quantity of ordnance in it's internal bay, as the A-10 can carry on it's wings, at 2000lbs? Let's also talk about some of the characteristics that make the A-10 better at CAS. It's tough, It's combat survivability has been proven. They have returned to base missing wings, and looking like swiss cheese. Are low level SAMs and MANPADS a threat, you bet, but no aircraft is going to be entirely safe from a missile. You take evasive action, pop countermeasures, and hope for the best. It's simple, which means maintenance is easy and less manpower intensive (theoretically). Because of the simplicity there is less to go wrong, and it has a lot of redundancy built in, meaning it has good reliability. The gun, that 30mm cannon is the most powerful airborne gun system we have (outside the AC-130U's 105mm). True, the A-10 was designed to counter a threat that no longer exists (Russian Tanks pouring through the Fulda Gap), but it has proven itself a versatile and capable aircraft. There are more than political pressures keeping the A-10 in service, the Army want's that capability to stay around. Could the F-35 be a valuable addition to the inventory, yes. Will it replace the F-16, A-10, F/A-18, and AV-8B? The AV-8B, sure because the F-35B is the only thing in development that even attempts to replicate it's capabilities. The rest? No. It can't, nor should it. Stealth fighters completely replacing our current fleet of conventional aircraft, is not adding value to our forces. You cannot win a war with a handful stealth fighters and a bunch of drones. Airpower is a component to victory, a force multiplier. Wars are won by crushing your enemy's will and ability to fight. And sometimes that means inflicting lots of collateral damage. You have to make war too costly for your enemy to resist. We have all of this great technology, but do you know how many times I touched a GPS unit on a land navigation course? Once. I spent all of my time doing it the old fashioned way with a map and compass. Why? Because technology can, and will at the most inopportune time, fail. I'm not going to say that the F-35 is a bad aircraft, I'm sure it's a very good aircraft. I just don't believe that it's going to be all it was advertised. As such, replacing a very capable aircraft with something inferior at that task is not sound military thinking. Quote all the numbers you'd like, you can't apply economics and accounting to something that isn't economical. War is wasteful, and expensive, and horrifying. As for you comments about shows of force, that's as stupid as firing warning shots. I don't want to show the enemy how strong we are, I want the enemy to experience how strong we are. Speak softly and carry a big stick, the louder you proclaim your strength, the weaker you appear. A show of force is an empty gesture. I'm not going to lie, I'm not an expert on aircraft, or their capabilities. I'm not an expert on business, or on politics. I've never been to war, but I know how to fight, I know the theory behind it. I've read a lot on the subject, and I know human nature. I also know that certain techniques have changed, but that doesn't mean they need to stay that way. In regards to airborne FAC and the Textron Scorpion, the idea is, you have a manned aircraft, with fully aware pilots in the mix, doing the exact same thing a reaper is doing, only pilots can look in directions other than where the camera is pointed. They can make the JTACs and ROMADs aware of incoming threats that they can't see on their video uplink. It also gives another set of eyes, to assist in avoiding friendly fire, and making sure that ordnance goes where it's supposed to. The whole thing can go just as smoothly, and as fast, as a drone assisted strike, but the extra situational awareness in the mix can keep good guys from getting killed.

Yep. Because not all prostitutes wanted to be prostitutes. I still really can't understand your hate for BattleTech, sure there are some of the fans that can be obnoxious, but like I said, every fanbase, for anything is going to have those people. What it has become is much more than what it started as.

Very nice! This toy has got to be the most dynamic Y/V-19 toy I've ever seen. I don't even think arcadia's offering is anywhere close (I don't have one to compare, since it would cost me almost three times what this one did).

I've had my VF-1S Roy Focker version with strike parts for several years now, and hasn't given me any inklings of problems. The rainbow tinted canopy is still intact, a bit hazy where it rubs against the canopy cover in battroid mode, and the shoulders haven't exploded, still function as advertised and the joints are all stiff as they were the day I got it. I'd guess I've had it since late '09 or early '10. It's held up remarkably well, no sign of the issues everyone complains about. (watch the shoulders explode, and the tint spontaneously peel).

The Yamato VF-19 really made Gerwalk better, and then Arcadia applied those lessons to the YF-19, and made some other improvements. Then this toy came along, and made some more little changes, and in some regards made it better. I like the way the spine works on this toy much better than the Yamato/Arcadia toys triple hinge. I love the amount of die cast this toy has, and the fact that Bandai went above and beyond with their design and engineering. Despite some of the Issues that have been talked about here, this really is a fantastic toy. It is easily may favorite. It's less than half what an arcadia goes for, you get more with this toy, and though the transformation is complex, I actually love the level of detail that this toy has. I paid 266 shipped through amazon, and I'm quite happy with it.

Ok, here's the same pose but from a different angle. The nose is still off the ground and it's supporting it's own weight. Same pose next to the gold standard in awesome Gerwalk Toys. The VF-1 can get the same kind of pose. I was going for a dynamic walking pose.

Those are the Wonderfest exclusive parts from T Rex. The Bandai toy has no such gimmick that opens up. For the record these parts were the ones that gave me the impression that they were supposed to be missile launchers. I just had a glance at the YF-19 FAST pack line art, and there is nothing in the location where that picture has those missile launchers, unless there's some line art somewhere I don't know about (maybe in the master file book?). Like I said the Bandai toy is different, and those were the Wonderfest exclusive parts for the Arcadia YF-19.

And Now for something different...

Not exactly what I was going for, but hilarious none the less...

My math was a bit off, 204 in the Advance pack, and then 24 total in the leg bays, for a total of 228 missiles for the full internal payload. That's where I had gotten my number. It was for a full payload including the base fighter. If the VF-19Advance toy is anything to go by (and I have no reason to believe it is not), two hardpoints are left unobstructed on each wing, for a total of 4 hardpoints that are useable. Clearly the Advance pack and external stores would exceed max takeoff weight, but I suppose that really doesn't matter in space.

I suppose you have a point. I thought the VF-19Advance was more limited in it's production run. I'll probably get another one if they do a repaint.

Glad I picked up my VF-11C when I did. I have a feeling that the VF-19Advance might pull the same thing, so glad I got one of those too.

So the VF-19 Advance with the full advance packs carries 224 missiles as full internal payload. Now those are micro-missiles, how do they stack up in terms of destructive capability? On par with an AIM-9 or AIM-120?

The YF-19/VF-19 1st type.

Here's something you don't get with many (if any) of the other Y/VF-19 toys, super poseable gerwalk mode! Check it out!