Noyhauser

Not that I am a mod or any sort of arbiter of truth, but I think you should edit your comment dangard... it reminds me of the time someone ruined the Usual suspects for me in the first minute.

Well I think after watching it, its a good movie. The best way I can put it is that it is a movie plot and feel from 1930s but with 2004 movie technology. Much of the plot, as chrono pointed out it hokey, but given that the film was taken from 1930s comic books, it really follows that vein closely. I think many people might be turned off by that, (making it a less easy for some viewers to accept, especially if they are looking for a mindless film), but it increases its artisic value immensely. Most of what we would call hokey is was what was called science fiction 70 years ago.

Generally I like the movie. Cringed at times but it was pretty good.

Watching the series I always suspected that it had to be a real place. IT was too detailed an animation to be all imagination.

That said, I also agree with the post above about it has too high a rating. I used to think it was a very good anime, but soon after I realized that its story isn't all that deep. The whole withdrawl plotline I just find a little too far fetched. I know I know this is an anime where the main character is a alien space woman. But still, I didn't find it fit well into the plot.

The UK has hit a money crunch due to the war in iraq. They are also attempting a complete force restructuring in the army and Navy utilizing the Revolution in Military Affairs, on the scale not seen before. Some of their aims surpass American initiatives. However the costs of this is enormous and the airforce is getting shafted since their role figures somewhat less in their new joint doctrine.

One thing you should know about the F-35.

Most US and UK programs now practice what is called Evolutionary Acquisition

The aim of EA is not to deploy a platform with all the bells and whistles at the time of service introduction. Rather, the Defence department plan to upgrade the F-35 after the initial introduction with different technology. This prevents the whole fighter from being held back by technology that is not mature enough when other aspects of the fighter can proceed into manufacturing and fielding. This saves the DoD a lot of money, as platforms are not delayed by immature technologies like traditional block programs are suceptable to. There are two kinds of EA, "spiral" and "incremental". Spiral means that new capabilities are designed as requested by Users in the field. Incremental is when the DoD purposely sets out what upgrades they will pursue from the outset of the project. Both require the contractor to build a fighter that is able to absorb major upgrades in the future. The US military now has what it is called "open systems" that prevent a manufacturor from obtaining a propriatory relationship with equipment so that they can prevent other manufacturors from bidding on evolutionary contracts.

So while the F-35 has no thrust vectoring now, it is quite likely it has been designed to be upgraded in the future for it. The US first wants to build a fighter and field it. It won't be fully capable until several years into service and ready to go. This however is not like traditional upgrading of fighters because there is understanding within DoD that procurement is an ongoing process, and that Major modifications are a part of the F-35's life cycle in the future.

Actually its the RCAF, Royal Canadian Air force, because we are part of the Queen's dominion.

All jokes aside, the maintence costs of the airforce are mostly due to the age of a lot of its equipment and the unbelievable operational tempo these units have been put under.

Also the super bug vs the F-35, it still makes more finanical sense given that the F-35 is still in development to go for the F-35 than buy some already done superbugs. Thats how you have to think about the canadian government. Even though the unit might not be the best, if the Canadian Defence industrial base profits, then you get chosen, its as simple as that.

Shin, you read my mind. I've recently got in a nasty argument on another board about the Arrow vs the Phantom. Now to be honest, Im not that great at aerodynamics because, well Im not trained in it at all. Go look up wing loading. I think the Arrow has half the wing loading of the Phantom, but I wonder how effective are the control surfaces on a delta wing vs a conventional fighter like the F-4. This should be interesting. Also note that the Arrow has a combat radius of 480 NM. It was unlikely to get the sparrow II, and its radar was not complete. So we don't have much to go on.

All your arguments should realize one thing at the end. The cost of the Avro Arrow, would have been 1.1% of canada's entire GDP (and 10% of canada's government expenditure f) for three consecutive years (1959~62) had it of continued. In the end canada averted one of the greatest financial disasters the world might have ever seen had it not been for the government of that day.

Well Let me clear some stuff up.

We do have a navy. Its small, we got some good frigates, some very good SSKs, Old DDHs and a bunch of other stuff. The last Carrier, The Bonaventure, was retired decades ago. We don't really need carriers.

As I alluded to before, canada makes its defence procurement decisions based on "domestic offsets" or in laymans terms, how much of the money canada spends on procuring a program is invested by the contractor in Canada. That usually requires the contractor to invest money to build plants or buy parts from canadian distributers. Most smaller countries do this. Only the UK insists on a Laissez faire decision system, but they by 90% british anyways so that is a lie.

Why did we get the CF-18? Well Waaaaay back in 1982 canada held the New Fighter Aircraft competition between, guess who? The F-16 and F/A-18. They were neck and neck, and one was not judged to be better than the other. Then politics got into it. Quebec (the french speaking province in canada which is a thorny political problem) said that the General dynamics bid was better for canada because its offsets would give that province a big boost. That prompted the Minister of National Defence at the time to stand up in parliament with figures that refuted that fact and said the F/A-18 overall had better offsets, and quebec would not get screwed (he was right, most of I think a wing assembly for ALL F/A-18 is/was done near Toronto, meaning Canada made a profit on the F/A-18 from the or). The Fighter was not chosen on its merits, it was done on how much money canada would save.

The F-35 is going to be another case of this. Why would be buy F-16s if we could make potential millions as a partner to the F-35 production? As I said before canada will be the likely home of the F-35 training program, for all export version pilots. that means every single Export F-35 that is built will have its pilot trained in Canada. Canada already has extensive facilitites for this (as we have several nato training centers) and the proximity to the US, therefore we could make a lot of money. This is not to speak of the money that can be invested into canadian production facilities to build parts for the F-35.

I'm guessing it would take a completely new mold, because the feet are designed to fit in with Hasagawa models, if it could be done at all. Also these need to be painted and assembled as well. It would just be easier if you built a Hasagawa.

My Japanese name, is.... My name!

shocking.

It means river at the bottom of a mountain. Also it designates me from a family that resides in a certain province in Japan (Wakayama)

Well Canadian fighters have been mostly limited to providing CAP in previous conflicts, due to their inability to drop bombs (Kosovo, up until the end of the conflict) or for political reasons as in the first gulf war. It the First gulf war, the prime minister of the time didn't want casualties with canadian forces, so limited their role to second line CAP.

In the end its almost assured that Canada will buy the JSF. There is so little political interest on the nitty gritty issues of defence (such as which plane we should buy, ect) that buying the JSF is almost assured.

hanks Ewilan, I was going to say the same thing about the Export version vs the Gripen. Although I'm somewhat interested in the Canadian case, my question is aimed more at the F-35's position in the International fighter market. My belief is that the F-35's joint development process has not been for any sort of technological or industrial benefit for the US, rather it has suppressed any European rival to the F-35, in order to ensure its export sales. The most successful fighter in modern history has been the F-16, and the F-35 looks to surpass that because there is no equivalent fighter, beyond the Gripen that can fit in its role. For its own measure, the Gripen is doing fairly well. I think the Czechs have renegotiated a deal to buy them, and the South Africans have ordered them as well. The only country I can see building a rival to the JSF is France, but after the Rafale debacle, I'm doubtful that they will be interested in going alone again, and most of their allies are already locked into the JSF program as is.

Therefore, I see the F-35 as being the next F-16, unless the Eurofighter consortium builds a stripped down version of the Eurofighter that can maybe steal the upper end of the jsf's market. That might happen if the UK Pulls out, and as we discussed earlier, that is getting more and more likely because of the STOVL variant's weight problems. Where the question lies is how Britain will deal with it. The Purchase of the two new fleet carriers by the royal navy is a HUGE political hot potatoe. The ships are a matter of political pride for the Blair government, and they have staked a lot of political capital on it. If the JSF falls through, they will need a replacement, or they will have to redesign the aircraft carrier for conventional landing and takeoff systems. So that will be an interesting question

In Canada, the F-35 will become a replacement for the CF-18s, which by about 2012 will have been in service for over 25 years. Current doctrine for the CF-18 really means it does one of two things. The first sovereignty flights over Canadian territory(and occasionally US territory if need be) as part of NORAD. Since September 11th that mission has taken a new urgency, which means being able to shoot down a terrorist aircraft (read hijacked airliner). The second major mission will be air to ground or air to air missions, usually as part of a coalition as what occurred in Kosovo. Although NORAD and territorial defence will take up 95% of the operations that they operate, the 5% multinational coalition operations will be the most intensive operations that they participate in.

Personally, I’m not happy that we are getting the F-35. I'd rather get fewer Eurofighters, which would be more capable and effective for the few multinational missions that we do undertake. However Canadian procurement is not about capabilities, its about domestic offsets, and how much money Canada could make off of the deal. And the F-35 will haul in a LOT of money. There is a lot of talk that the international training center for the F-35 export versions will be located in Canada, and a significant part of the production will take place here. That means Canada might actually make more money than they actually invest in buying the fighter, because X part or all foreign pilots for all the F-35s will be built/trained here in Canada.

Umm the FAS is a huge organization that does a lot of different things other than military analysis, and is completely different from Globalsecurity. What you are suggesting it effectively that Ford and Toyota are the same company because they had the same CEO at one point in time (they never did but that is really the point), which of course isn;t true.

I'm hesitant to include rafales, Eurofighters ect, because they are completely different in concept as fighters. They are not light weight fighters, instead they are heavyweight fighters like the F-22/F-15 ect, therefore any comparison is not fair. This is reflected in the relative cost of each fighter, which is why the F-16/17/18 were developed in the first place, so that the USAF, Navy could have a mix of high technology fighters, with cheaper more manuverable lighter fighters . Thats why im looking for true alternatives to the JSF, because a country like canada, turkey, norway ect, won't purchase a Eurofighter or another heavyweight fighter, preferring to replace their lightweight fighters with more advanced versions. The Gripen however is a Light weight fighter that is in that same market, as is the f-16.

FAS is also not a great site at all. They don't update that much anymore, and their documentation is spotty at best. I'll use it to illustrate a point online, but not much else.

Okay here is a little challenge for you guys. I'd like you to do a Vs comparison between the F-35 and any contemporary light weight aircraft, preferably a Gripen, or in a pinch, the Eurofighter. As you guys know, Canada is a lvl 2 partner nation in the project. I think its a waste of our money so I'd like a bit of feedback from you guys on it.

Also If you could do it, I'd like citing from sources. It may come in handy.

In the same vein as the question above, will a Super Ostrich be able to fill in? I've never been a fan of the variant and I'd like to use the model for it.

meh, I think the franchise needs some new thinking.

I think Goldeneye was Brosnan's best film, with the world is not enough a passable second (remove the flying hedgeclipper and Christmas Jones and it would have been good). Personally i'd rate Goldeneye one of the best bond films. It wasn't hokey over the top (surfing a tsunami anybody?) with gimmicky sequences and had a believable storyline.

Every time, Bambi's mom gets shot... I just get, so.... emotional

^^^ uhh take heart, thats not the end of Kenshin. Nobuhiro never sanctioned that ending. The Last two reflections OAVs never had anything to do with the story that Nobuhiro laid out. At least with the four prequel OAVs they stuck to the story that was outlined in the Revenge arc of the manga. The last two had no basis in any of Watasuki's manga's and was not sanctioned by him. Think of it as a Macross II of kenshin. If you have seen the last four pages of the manga Kenshin is destined to live a happy life, not one where he goes and dies from leprocy or cholera or whatever fighting for Japan.

the ONLY way that Kenshin would have ended up the way he did was if he didn't learn his succession technique and learned to value his life, and the ones of others. After that point you see Kenshin completely change, he understands that he himself is important. The Reflections didn't understand that.

Kircheis was just such a good man, he was loyal to a fault, intensely intelligent, but naive at the same time. You couldn't help but to like him. His death actually put me off the series a bit afterward because he was such a great character.

Reuenthal was another character I deeply emphasized with. His life was one of tragedy and triumph.

I have yet to see a more heroic death than Guld's. except for Helgensagen Vom Kosmoneif's *spoilerwarning*

Sigfrieg Kircheis's death is particulary tragic and terrible. You don't see it coming at all (although the episode before is about how kircheis moderated Reignhart Von Musel's tyrannic tendencies), but the way it was portrayed you thought it was going to end up as a political duel between him and Oberstein for Reighnhart's ear, not his sudden death in stopping an assassination attempt.

not awesome.

I want to see a VF-1, not some Minstrel operation with a VF-0 and a Ghost do the fighting.

At the time the F-14 was seen as sluggish and compltely not Don't quote me on this because Im not at the office, but in tiral mock dogfights f-86s beat it ( think, or some other similarly very early jet fighter). To many it was seen as more of the same hubris that had brought interceptors instead of fighters into the Navy's home.

Also , The Navy was on a tight string at that time, and Manufacturors aren't some entity that just magically creates planes without support. They only build when a statement of requirements is issued by the government, which contain Milspecs or tightly definded needs that manufacturer must follow. The Light weight fighter mafia was insensed when the Navy made completely different specifications for the F-18 , from the original Light weight fighter project. What would MDC do? They can't break milspecs otherwise they would lose the contract, and building a F-18 L would just burn a larger hole in their pocket. . I know you have some deep distate for MDC because of the Tomcat but its not their fault. Milspecs have been largely abandoned after I think it was William PErry made special justification needed for using Milspecs, a reversal from when when previously not to use milspecs needed special aproval.

Also., THe reason the YF-17 was ruined was because of MCDONNAL DOUGLASS. As far as I know on the YF-23 they just did the avionics. So yea airframe is northrop grumman...northrop kicking ass with airframes, and grumman OWNING with the MOST naval air experience.

NO it wasn't. Again It was the navy tacking on usless stuff like the Sparrow, and an Air To ground role to its statement of requirements that was never originally envisioned in the Light weight fighter project. These things were actually purposely avoided because they would increase the weight and detract on the capability. In Procurement management lingo we call that "Gold plating". The original YF-17 was designed to be a pure dogfighter incorporating the lessons of Vietnam.

Also, there was some question about the ability for the navy to purchase complete wings of F-14As which were deemed to be less than satisfactory overall at the time. Also the F-14 was not designed as a dogfighter, it was designed purposely as a Fleet Defender, a role that had developed from the 1940s and defence against Kamikazes. It was expected to use its heavy radar and Pheonix missiles to take down a soviet cruise missile/bomber threat. The Lightweight fighter mafia pointed out that the Fleet Defender role did not make for a good fighter aircraft as what occurred over Vietnam, where IFFs often failed and Blue on Blue situations occurred. The Original YF-17 was designed to be a purpose built dogfighter that would not have the sparrows and the larger radar that had to be encorporated. The addition of the crud that the Navy wanted ruined the design. Macdonald douglas is a contractor, they had to comply.

Morever, the YF-17 lost for a reason. It was judged to be the loser against the YF-16 in a competition that was fairly impartial. What the Navy did was then reject the YF-16 on trumped up technical grounds (they claimed it didn't have enough landing clearance, even though the F-14 had even poorer specs and that two engines was needed, when they had the A-4 and the A-7 kicking around).

But the lightweigh fighter mafia disowned the F/A-18, because it did the things they never wanted. The LFMs never wanted the sparrow on the F-18, which necessitated a larger radar dish which slowed down the fighter. They also never inteneded it to be a multi role fighter, because it was designed to be a pure dogfighter. That was a navy change.

The navy was worried in the early 1990s that with the end of the cold war, they would not get a replacement for the F-14, or the A-6. The Cancellation of the A-12 and Navy ATF, it did not believe it would get a new fighter for quite some time, so it pushed hard for the super hornet. IT was the Navy's initiative to build the F/A18E not the Office of Secretary of Defence. The Navy insisted on the F/A-18E by purposely subverting the procurement process, by classifying it as a modification of a new fighter, not by redesignating it the F/A-19 since in reality the 18E is a very different fighter than its predeccesor. The Navy snubbed Congress when it demanded a Cost and Operational Effectiveness Analysis, on the new fighter pointing out that it was only a modification.

If the Navy was really interested in Getting the super tomcat over the super hornet they would have immediately complied with a COEA request, and offered the tomcat as a choice . Rather the Navy chose to lie and say that there was no real alternatives out there for the F/A-18E so we don't need a COEA at all. really if the Navy really wanted to get the Super Tomcat they could have done so. They excel at geting what they want. They got the F-18 over the F-16, they even got the F-14 over the F-111 in the first place.

I'm not letting the Office of Secretary of Defence off the hook either. It was negligent because it did not provide proper oversight and it did support the Super hornet, but it was not the prime drivers of the series of events that did occur, that was all the navy's doing.

The only reason why the F-18 exists today is because the Navy didn't want to share a fighter with the Airforce and killed the navaltilzed version of the F-16.

I could go on about the procurement history of the F/A-18, but maybe another time. A lot of assumptions being thrown around here (like it was Cheney who pushed the hornet for everything, when it was really the Navy who pushed the idea). BUt I don't have time now.