Noyhauser

... yawn

Macross really represents the edge of my Mecha believability.... This just jumps way over it. I'm WAAAAAAY more excited for the next adaptation of a Yoshiki Tanaka novel (the guy wrote Legend of the Galactic Heroes) Titania. Mikimoto is reportedly doing the character drawings for it.

Ah, not from wales it isn't

Happy new year to all, and my your new year bring you and your families all the best.

See this is what I love about japan. Mechanics and the sort watched anime too, they will build stuff like this for fun... I wish I could build a scopedog.

I just want you guys to see how deep the pentagon cost cutting is

One less carrier

http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=...80&section=news

and a whole lot less of other stuff.

http://www.nytimes.com/learning/students/p...30military.html

I think if anything should be canned it should be the walmart fighter F-35. If they didn't pour so much money into it, they would have purchased more Raptors at lower unit cost.

What is the most lucrative fighter program for the US defence industry? Its certainly not the f-22, it was the F-16 because of its massive foreign sales. When you have foreign sales your return is far more than if you build a fighter for yourself because you don't pay O&M costs. The F-35 will become the next F-16... everybody is buying into it. Moreover over 20% of its development costs have been paid for by other countries, so its not that large a drain on the Military budget.

If you kill the F-35 the development of the US military aircraft industry will be dead. You think that there are problems now with not enough f-22s, there will not be compeditive companies available 10 years down the line to design a new fighter when the real threat appears.

If the Raptor does get canned I think there will likely be some sort of standby program that keeps essential elements of the program together in reserve until a next generation fighter program is launched.

The problem with the War in Iraq is that you will be seeing its effects for quite some time. Even if the deployments ended right now, you'd be paying for replenishing stocks of weapons, veterans pay outs, ect for at least the next 3 to 5 years.

again Shin you can't can the JSF project or you will demolish the US aircraft industry in one blow. Not just in military aircraft but in Civillian production. Confidence in US defence manufacturers would plummet and then when newer russian and Chinese fighters come on line (because I've said this before, the current batch is not a threat to the US) the US won't have a compeditive fighter industry to rely on. the F-22 is Not that needed. There isn't a major threat that requires a plane of such sophistication for the next 20 years.

I've said this before the only reason why a FB program is on the books is to keep US industry compeditive.... thats it... there is not enough research dollars available to keep the industry afloat as is.

Given the war on iraq the massive US deficit, military spending will be the first to go. There is no options. Here is an excellent article detailing why

http://www.economist.com/agenda/displaySto...tory_id=3524771

Thats the thing about rummy, say what you want on his strategic analysis, his view on programs is very spot on. In some way he would have been a better Sec Defence during the Clinton years. He sees threat perceptions and he goes with it. He rightly nixed the crusader and the Commanche... the F-22 is likely next.

Also remember the the 22 is going to require a costly avionics upgrade for its next batch, because they ran out of 286 chips to equip the original avionics suite. They were going to adapt the JSF's avionics for the 22 but then you are going to have to test it and redesign the hardware/software. So if there was any time to cut the program, it is now.

Yeah but Israel is a special case. Its kills there are almost always against lesser number of opponents (they have numbers in the air), with the aid of E-2s control, perfect maintenence, and most importantly excellent training and constant flight experience. I can see the IAF achieving those numbers quite easily. Iran may have some of these things, but really not all of them. Iraq wasn't a pushover like Syria would be. It had training from soviet advisors and their planes were fairly good. 150-3 till ratio just doesn't seem to fit the nature of the battle in the Iran/Iraq war (Iraq almost always having the Technical and planning edge in any battle)

Here's some "stuff" I'll retype from the book.

"It is primarily based on a series of exhaustive interviews with retired and active Iranian F-14 pilots and RIO's, and with several ex-Iraqi Air Force Officers. In addition, the authors have also drawn from official US, Iranian, Saudi, and Soviet documents released to them".

As for "morale boosting". From what I've seen, particularly this book, yes they greatly inflated claims. AGAINST THE TOMCAT. F-14 shoots down a MiG-23? Credit is given to troops on the ground with rocket launchers. A MiG-25 is finally brought down at altitude? The amazing crews launching SAM's did it, of course. There's several pages given to exactly how the government tallied everything, and then discredited the F-14, giving credit to ground troops and SAM's, rather than F-14 CAS, strafing, and air-to-air.

Finally, much like the other books in the series, dozens of kills are reported turn-for-turn, 1st-hand, by the pilots themselves. Yes, there could be legions of lying Iranian F-14 pilots, but I doubt it.

PS--Chunx rocks, listen to him. He IS a pilot, not just "purportedly" (That, or he's got a lot of really good faked pics) This page shows him in a Super Hornet: http://www.simhq.com/_aboutus/chunx.html

No I don't doubt that they did shoot down a lot... but 153-3 is REALLY out there. I don't think the IAF has that sort of numbers... I think the need for independent confirmation is there... and it doesn't exist. They may have inflated their numbers back then and now take it as fact. I'm not doubting the Cat's effectiveness, just that a 50 to 1 kill ratio is stastically, very very very very improbable.

Also shooting down a Mig25 at speed isn't that impressive. Remember the Pheonix is intended to shoot down high speed anti ship missiles that don't really make much turns just run in a straight line. A Mig-25 at speed is effectively the same thing, just alot bigger (and not at sea level). It can't really dodge or do much except release Chaff... if it sees it.. Its really a matter of physics for the Pheonix.

Love that quote. I should go on that board to talk about life cycle costs, and spiral acquisition schemes and the sort. They may get a kick out of listening to the Bureacratic side of the topic.

I'd also be VERY wary of iranian claims, Airforce or not. Iran used propaganda to increase the morale of their soldiers which they used human wave attacks against Iraq (to great effect mind you) and they heavily regulated the press. For example at the battle of Susangird the Iranians suffered a terrible defeat, losing 100 tanks (Cheftains and M-60s) several thousand men, and most ominously 150 captured (these were ideologically motivated troops.... capturing Iranian soldiers was rare). The Revolutionary council said instead that they destroyed two Iraqi Brigades and captured 1500 troops... which was utter nonsense. This was a common thread among all battles regardless of service or outcome. Even the army was played up, when they trusted the Revolutionary guard (the army was the most distrusted service in Iran, far more than the Airforce)

so I'd be extremely wary about those claims. I'll see what I can dig up on the topic in the next few days.

David, regards the mystery "CR-601" missile - I believe this may be a Chinese-built copy of either a Silkworm or Exocet anti-shipping missile.

As for no replies yet - I guess everyone is still going "wow".

Its an indigenously developed Chinese Anti ship cruise missile- 100KM range, can be launched from medium to heavy bombers or from ground emplacements. Its pretty big... not so good

The way I figure it, if you're a bomber, and you're busy fighting in dog fights, you're doing something wrong. As a bomber, you just need to get into range, fire/drop your payload and then get back to secure air space. The front line variables should be making sure things don't get past them and escorts should be taking care of any interceptors that do make it through.

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.

Phew, thankfully you're back

I was so craving my Macross fix that I almost signed up for a rt.com membership....

but then I came to my senses.

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

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.

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.

each of these beasts runs and each required 3 bottles of XF60 dark yellow to give the base coat.

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.

For the record, this is not Bank of Kev, although I do personally know him.

Please notice the lack of typos, if you need evidence that I'm just a crate-o-porn, and not an entire bank.

Anyway...

he doesn't matter and I'm shocked to see he's a sad OLD MAN who believes he matters. By that age people are supposed to be "mature". I never dreamed he was a "grown up".

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?

I NEVER said that we don't need attackers. We definately need aircraft that can make precision strikes at ground targets. The need for attackers doesn't negate the need for interceptors or air superiority fighters. It is the job of the air superiority fighters to secure the skies and allow attackers to hit ground targets without worrying about being shot down by enemy interceptors. I do not believe such thinking is "Cold War mentality" either. The companies like Dassault and Mikoyan have a track record of being less than discerning about their customers. (A considerable portion of Iraq's air force was Mirages). It's not a stretch to imagine Rafales or Flankers in unfriendly forces.

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.

Personally, I'd rather my friends in the service had the best equipment possible. If government spending needs to be cut back, instead of taking it from defense, why not force polititcians to pay for limos themselves? They can certainly afford it with their ridiculous salaries.

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