Noyhauser

but if you watch most of the battles, this is impossible... Just watch how easily in every battle of DYRL Zentredi and Meltrandi fighters blow through fighter cordons to attack the SDF. So I don't think it would be possible for UN spacyto set up a impermiable fighter cordon (or even the semblence of one in space), especially when UN spacy almost by default is expecting to fight numerically superior foes. Moreover the VAB carries 100s of short range missiles... by default it MUST get close to the forward edge of battle to deploy its weapons, into ranges where it is likely to expect in close in battle. It is not bomber as you are thinking of it, but a short range first strike craft. A few extra missiles would outweigh the costs of the platform's weaknesses in combat.

I agree with Eugimon's contention that adding a transformation sequence would put serious limits on the amount of armament that the VAB 2, but I disagree with him about his contention about such a system's relative uselessness for all the reason's I outlined above.

Oh I just had another idea for why they included variability. Look at the main line VAB mission role pre 2040... its the Full armor VF-11... which is limited in atmosphere...and the starwing, which is limited in space. Making it variable is more efficient and effective across a full range of mission roles rather than having two separate platforms to do the same mission.

maybe, maybe not. I assume that the VAB-2's number one enemy would be hordes of Zentredi units with minor missile capability. There are so many of them that would be physically impossible for a regular fighter to take them all out. Remember the First battle of DYRL with the nuke attack? The VAB 2 probably carries as much firepower as a wing of vf-1s. Look at what the Zauber did to VF-11s in macross 7... decimation...thats what the VAB-2 was designed to do. However it is likely that the VAB would need to deal with the remainder (look what happened in the same DYRL scene) so it would have variable component when it was unable to control the range of the battle. Also I see the VAB to be used in conjunction with the VF-19 and 11s as a force multiplier

perhaps for a fighter... but a bombers main function is to deliver the greatest amount of munitions with speed and accuracy and I guess safely as well. So much of the interior space of the VAB-2 is going to be taken up with the machinery needed for transformation, space that could be used to hold more bombs. Yeah that might be true for a normal bomber but I would assume space warfare would make it difficult for them to keep a safe distance... Units can achieve very high speeds and easy break through lines, making them sitting targets for attack. Variability just adds survivablility and flexibility to a platform.

Well Bomber I think you can see quite plainly... the need for delivering massive amounts of hardware always is a plus in a combat situation. Variable I can also understand... Variability in space allows a craft to have far more manuverability than a craft stuck in fighter mode. you can kick your thrusters around using physical kinetics rather than thrusters (which costs weight in propellant) and they can moved with far more independence than thrust vectoring would ever allow. Variability also has a element of adapatbility and modularity. You can swap handheld weapons for new ones, or if a section is damaged, you can easily swap that too. And of course it looks cool.

I know the feeling HWK... I try to buy the big bottles of Dark yellow from tamiya, but they are getting hard to find.

uhhh... I've been talking about this topic since I got here. So its not exactly brought up by newbies. Feel free to contribute.

I think the comparason between M-1s and strykers completely different from the F-18 vs F-14. #1 The stryker is intended for a completely different role than the M-1. It was NEVER envisaged as a replacement of the M-1, but rather it was to take over certain roles that the M-1 was unsuited for. The M-1 is realistically undeployable by airlift, While the Stryker can be carried by all transport aircraft. The Stryker is intended to be a high speed long range vehicle designed to break through gaps in an enemy line and enter into the back areas of an enemy line. The M-1 is a fuel guzzling monster that has limited range and deployability. Often the choice is not a Stryker vs an M-1, but between a Stryker and nothing at all, especially on long range patrol missions. Moreover troops asked for the strykers, M-1s are quite immobile in City streets, have a limited turrent traverse... and is downright hazardous to its crew's health. The Depleted Uranium plates ARE poisonous (not radioactive) for its own crew's health. Moreover the M-1 are extremely difficult maintain in the desert. More often than not whole sections of them are sitting in maintenance sheds. The M-1 is good at what it is designed for... and nobody in their right minds would replace one with a stryker. But deploying a M-1 everywhere is ridiculous, a horrendous waste of cash, and it is unsuitable for several mission roles. The stryker was designed as a supplament to it, not a replacement. So any more assertions you would like to make? And as Ewilen said... the differences between the F-14 and Shornet are not very big, and the Super hornet beating it out in a lot of places.

I find this really ironic coming from a group of people who spend their time watching cartoons and put effort into discussion boards about them. I'm not knocking watching cartoons or discussion boards, but people in glass houses.... There are a few people above who got it right by acknowledging how lame it is to knock a guy who got a job somewhere he loves. His gloating is fair game, for sure. But I think any fan would agree that the best people to work at any company, at any level, should be fans of the company and its product. And BoK has been a diehard fan of Robotech much longer than he even got his degree in lighting design with a minor in basket weaving. Oh this isn't just any company. HG is a company that has engaged in some very dubious practices that have adversely affected the pleasure of individuals on this board. Because of HG all of us have had to pay major mark ups and shipping costs to get the products we want. Then BoK comes on this site and in effect rubs our noses in it. I wonder what sort of reaction he's going to get?

your argument is one that has been thrown up time and again, and really its a non starter. Sure countries can get their hands on Su-27, Rafale ect... but do they have the money to buy a E-2 behind it? the money to match the intensive air superiority training pilots recieve in the US? Do they have the experience and the traditions of the USN or USAF? Will they even have a sufficient number of planes? Its unlikely on all these counts. US air superiority is pretty much implied today. I'd be worried more about new generations of russian SAMs. Holy have you seen the defence budget today? 450 Billion dollars. And the military is stretched thin as it is, and is really not designed for the mission it needs to do, and people want to saddle it with more missions that really are obsolete and just waste more cash. Its time to look at priorities, and what you are proposing isn't one.

The legacy hornet was designed to be maintenance free... its as a light fighter. This was a major design aim of the original lightweight fighter program. The legacy hornet's maintenance time was 22h/hf... still quite exceptional compared to the 33 of the F-14 (although the 14 was probably lower at one time). The 14 was initially designed at a time when maintenance was not a key concern. This became a concern after Vietnam. Ensuring ease of maintenance starts from initial design. Panel placement, avionics design, ect. These changes are truly built into the airframe. Even if the design was upgraded, its difficult to see it reach the levels of the 18E

One point that hasn't been made that is most of your metrics for "performance" skews very heavily towards the tomcat, and in reality the F/A-18e/f is far superior to the F-14.Most of you look at pure performance, like speed, payload weight... thats all good... The tomcat may have a slight edge in these areas... but thats really debateable. It seems the F/A-18E/F is probably more maneuverable, but lets for arguments sake I'll say the F-14 is slightly better. Where the F-14 loses any respect is in more important areas, maintenance Currently for every hour of flightime the F-14 requires 33 hours of maintenance. not good. The new F/A-18 requires 17 hours... effectively half the time in the shop... that may not seem very important but it is. Less labour intensive airframes, allows you to keep your forces more active. In the case of the 18E vs the 14, you can fly double the ammount of sorties. That means you can have double the number of planes flying at one time. 2 more planes in a dogfight will mean far far more than some small performance advantage. It means you can drop double the amount of bombs on target, because you get that bonus sortie you never had with the F-14 while its sitting in the shop. Also with 1/2 the maintenance costs, you can afford to buy twice the number of planes... meaning more units in the air. Also the F/A18E is almost a brand new aircraft in everywhere it counts... especially upgradeble avionics. This allows for quicker replacement of obsolete technology, and keeping in pace with new technological advancements... like new weapons. The Tomcat would require difficult and expensive modifications to keep pace. Remember what I said, if we didn'trepace te 14, half of us would by crying about why the USN's mainline fighter is 35+ years off, So really the F/A 18 is a far better than the F-14... just have to take it all into perspective.

Hey he's the one who posted on his blog about us... that and he was the one boasting about his position. Who put's his job title IN his title anyways? And how can he say that this is a MW flame fest without Agent one? Seriously.

not when you're out of cash and the need for air superiority fighters is not very pressing.

You know what I find most ironic... He's probably going to post all this stuff we have said about him on his blog yet again. (failing to understand how un funny he is) his unaware RT sheep will click on the link and come to this site, and explore. They will see Yamato... They will see Hasegawa.... hear about Mac+ and DYRL.... And in the end he'll have less customers.

I love some of these quotes from his blog. Some of these will go down in geek history No doubt Macrossworlders can not wait for me to finish washing Carl Macek's balls. *snort* Nerdlaff*snort* Reading his blog just screams self absorbed geek to me.... I mean your a " Operations Coordinator for Harmony Gold USA." Wow... be proud. You've really hit the big times. You really had to bold it and put it right at the top of your page so everybody could see. Also, you work for a company which hasn't produced a real piece of original content... well since.... ever. Your company rips off character and mechanical designs from Japanese animations from the 1980s. It also uses underhanded techniques to keep your customers from buying (or even knowing about) a far superior product from Japan. Thumbs up to that. I wish it was a porn site... at least I'd be getting some gratification watching big breasted hotties instead of clawing my ears out to reba west's voice. Oh and last year called, they want their howard dean jokes back.

Actually, I think he's pulling duty these days as Macek's personal ball washer. Wow you're famouse Mech! he quoted you. Funniest post EVER As much as I love Macrossworld... its not life engrossing. I'd say devoting blog space towards ranting about the people on here is the epitomy of hurting. I mean seriously, are you that childish about getting ripped apart on here that you have to self justify yourself on your own blog?

... sigh, do we have to have this argument YET again? Round and round the mullberry... The Tomcat is an obsolete fighter that was intended for a mission that doesn't exist anymore. Only Russia posseses Long range air launhed SSMs that you speak of MJ, and its not selling them due to the MTCR. Moreover if the navy would have wanted something to cover this role they would have asked for it to be in its first spiral development. They asked for the growler instead. Keeping tomcats going was fast becoming a money pit for the USN. Its extremely difficult to upgrade a 30 year old fighter to modern standards. They can do that with the F/A-18E/F

...the 21 might not be a good choice for you then.

it makes me wonder...who would pay $5000+ dollars for a glorified retirement scooter, when you could get a good bike for $200 dollars, stay fit and pocket the rest of it? That goes for the segway as well... just a complete waste of cash.

yes, but most of those (like the SA-9) are used because they need ruggedness, ease of maintenence and mobility. Also the Gaskin is more of a short range close in defence missile, vehicle mounted (like the Avenger) than a medium range one. One thing you have to realize about soviet equipment in the 1980s, it was designed to be as untechnical as possible. Soviets were going to EMP everything with nukes, and watch NATO's technical advantage fry out. Radar systems would be the first to go. (i'd type more, but I've dislocated my shoulder yesterday playing Rugby, and I've only got one hand to type... sorry)

I thought the big ones were generally radar-guided, while the little ones (like Stinger) were heat-seekers. Don't have time to look up the details right now, so someone else will probably set me straight if necessary. It has more to do with weight. IR seekers are self contained guidance units, that can be man portable. Radar guided needs a radar dish, computer, and maybe a comunication link to operate... which is impossible to make manportable. And its impossible to make a radar guided self contained SAM... the seeker is too big, and too delicate to be used on the ground.

Actually I think its a fine thing to do. with regional tensions the way they are MORE offensive weapons is not a good thing. What would the Japanese use a carrier for when the have article 19? And your point about germany is a lot different. The german government has forces for self defence and a constitutional clause preventing out of country depoyments (but due to a 1994 constitutional court ruling the Federal republic has been ammended saying deployments as part of a multinational coalition is ok). GSG 9 is a self defence measure. Also germany has the EU to use as a framework for action and a moral check on its behavoir... Japan has no close allies. Germany for the longest time supported "civillian power"" models of foreign affaris, which eschewed miliatary force ans stressed the application of diplomacy and economic trade to act internationally. It still believes in those tenets deeply. So things haven't changed that much.

yup I would love to see a old school adaptation. I think Sky Captain and the world of tommorrow showed that setting people in a previous time period can put people in the seats. As it stands, from the short trailer that showed me nothing at all except some explosions far far away, and from the voice over it does sound like a Independence day knock off. I actually liked the old WoW...