mikeszekely

How 'bout those big Sith ships in Knights of the Old Republic? I think, aside from that, the Sith starfighter, and the TIE's, the Star Destroyers were the only ships I liked from Star Wars... I do like the Archangel from Gundam SEED. Kinda like the White Base, but all slick and curvy...

Okay, new engines, thrust vectoring, new avionics... then to improve RCS, change the intakes, replace the wings with clipped deltas, change the shape of the tail, cant the tail, and carry the weapons internally... ...what d'ya know? It's the F/A-22!

No, I really don't agree. I am perfectly willing to admit that I could be wrong, and that I haven't seen let alone digested all the facts. On the other hand, I really don't think the case has been made that we need the F/A-22 now, or that if we build it, it will actually be useful "eventually". Much of the professional pro-F-22 argument comes from vested interests like Lockheed or people in the Air Force whose careers are tied to the program, so it is worthwhile, in my opinion, to regard their claims of emerging vulnerabilities with a healthy dose of skepticism. I think Bush was on the right track during the Presidential campaign when he called for the US military to "skip a generation" of weapons systems that weren't currently needed so we could better focus on stuff that would help us in 10-20 years. The F-22 was clearly one of the targets of that bremark. It's also well-known that Andrew Marshall, whom Rumsfeld entrusted with an overview of the military in 2001, was quite skeptical about the F-22, as is Pentagon insider Chuck Spinney. (For a collection of various articles at his web site, look here.) Now, I realize that is dangerious to engage in argumentum ab auctoritate, but if you are making an executive decision, it strikes one as interesting where the arguments for and against the F-22 are coming from. (Many of the critics are concerned not only about a vague issue of "is the F-22 worth it" but also whether the costs of the F-22 are going to have a severe negative effect on readiness in other areas of the military.) Gotta run. This has been interesting. So, you're not actually arguing that the F-15 is good enough, you're actually arguing that the F/A-22 isn't good enough either, and that we should eliminate the Raptor program and begin development of a new, even more advanced fighter? I think that'd be fine, except that the F/A-22 is already almost 20 years in the works. If we drop the F/A-22 and spend another 20 years developing something else, are you expecting upgraded F-15s to last that long? That'd be 50 years for the Eagle... that'd almost be like if we were still flying upgraded P-51s now.

That's an interesting question. My first reaction was, "That's like asking, with modern technology, could we build another one of those giant room-filling mainframe computers from the 70's!" But then I got to thinking about the Crays and whatnot... and I think that there are room-filling modern super-computers... So now, I'm willing to bet that we could in fact build a much better prop plane that what they used during WWII...

(Just chewing the fat.) Personally, I think if it comes to the US, it will likely have a dub. After all, a lot of good dubs are being done these days (much of the stuff that makes it onto the late hours Cartoon Network slots for example). Not that I will watch the dub, except out of curiosity. Rumor is the VF-0 is called the Phoenix but I don't know how that got started. Yes, Edgar does simply call it a "Zero" at one point. Well, sure, if it comes out in the US, it'll have a dub. I think the question, though, is will it ever come out in the US? "Phoenix" was the nickname given to it during the early development. In fact, I think it was spelled out on some of Kawamori's original sketches, but I might have been mistaken. For whatever reason, the name "Phoenix" was declared unofficial.

It's very likely that the VT-1 was used as a basic trainer, while the VF-1D could have been used for more advanced training. I think we can all agree that VF-1Ds were used for training. The debate seems to be if training was the VF-1Ds main role. Personally, I don't think so. I think that the VF-1D was intended for combat. I mean, for one thing, episodes where the VF-1D have been used in combat have already been pointed out. Second, remember that Misa was ordering Hikaru into battle. She didn't know who was piloting, but she obviously expected that particular VF-1D to participate in the battle. But finally, remember that in Macross we only got to see Spacy forces, but we know that the UN maitains other branches. In the real world, the USAF tends to fly single-seaters, while the Navy prefers dual-seaters. It's a possibility that the Spacy prefers single seaters (maybe so they don't lose two pilots if something goes wrong with the fighter), while another group prefers dual-seaters. In fact, I'd say it's likely... Shin and Edgar look like they were Navy, and they fly a dual-seat VF-0D.

You like to argue against China as being a reason for the US needing the F/A-22, because you don't see them as "immenent" enough, yet you're arguing we dump the program in favor of upgrading a fighter pushing 30 years. If the F/A-22 lasts as long as the F-15, I think it's extremely short-sighted to assume the only enemies the US will face during the Raptor's life will be Arab air forces comprised of planes even older than the Eagle. Eliminating the Raptor program will not recoup the development costs sunk into the fighter. And as David and others have pointed out, upgrading our F-15s doesn't cost much less and doesn't give us anything close to the F/A-22's performance. I really don't get why people pick on the F/A-22 so much in the first place. Unlike the F-35, the F/A-22 really does appear to be the most capable fighter on the block, and the government wastes a lot more money than what's been spent or will be spent on the Raptor. I mean, cut your local senator's salary in half, and chances are he's still making more than you. Instead of cutting the Raptor, how about not voting themselves another pay raise?

The conclusion I draw is that a war isn't over simply because one side declares victory. Or if you prefer to see the present unpleasantness as a new war entirely as compared to Gulf Wars I & II, then I would say this war's outcome is very much in doubt, the F-22 wouldn't make a bit of difference, and in an age of limited budgets McCain is quite correct to present this as a question of paying for Iraq or buying military systems which definitely will not be needed for at least a decade. Furthermore, as I wrote in the other thread, by the time China, Russia, or whoever may achieve not only technological parity with our present frontline fighters but the numbers, training, and infrastructure to challenge our command of the sky in a conventional war, there may well be entirely new and better technologies which we will want to apply to the tactical problems of achieving and using air supremacy. The more debt we build up now--by whatever policies, but let's focus on currently unneeded weapons systems--the less able we will be to develop and exploit those future technologies. It wasn't simply one side declaring a victory. The victory was pretty obvious. Sticking around long enough to make sure another despot doesn't step into the power vacuum left by the old regime and having soldiers killed by civillians who don't want us there isn't the same as fighting a war with that country's military, and in fact, I don't see it at a war at all. Russia may not have achieved technological parity with the F/A-22, but with fighters like the Su-37 they've clearly surpassed our current crop of active fighters. Russia also happens to need money badly, and are likely to be less discerning about who they sell military equipment too. As for China, we've already seen that they've bought Flankers, and it's not a good idea to take China lightly. With the economic reforms they've set up over the last 15-20 years, they've gotten to a point where they have one of the highest percent increases of GDP from year to year. If that growth keeps up, they will eventually become a superpower. The Rafale too, is a concern. Not because I'm particularly worried about an air war with France, but because (like Russia), France has a history of selling fighters to whoever has the money. And like the Flanker, the Rafale is more than a match for the F-15. Saying that it's unlikely that the US would fight a conflict where the Raptor would really be necessary is like an ostrich sticking its head in the sand. World War I began because of a single assasination. No matter how stable the political climate seems, anything could happen. Weapon systems like the Raptor are planning for the future, and the notion that a fleet of upgraded F-15 can do the Raptor's job is just wishful thinking. I think you're correct in saying that air superiority alone can't win a war. You need a dedicated effort on the ground. But a dedicated ground effort can't win either. Air superiority is necessary to make sure the guys on the ground are free to do their job. You're also correct in saying that the war in Iraq must be paid for. I simply disagree that the Raptor is uncessary and that funding for the war should come from the Raptor program. There are plenty of other places where the government is pissing away money that could help pay for the war. I believe I've already mentioned the ridiculous salaries being paid to the people in Washington. Need more money? Back out of the ISS... hell, almost everyone else has. Eliminate NASA altogether and privatize our space industry. If the government had a monopoly on computers the way it does on space, we'd still be using mainframes that filled an entire room. Private industry will find ways to do it faster, cheaper, and more efficiently. If that's still not enough, do a little research on your local senator, and seen how many stupid pet projects he's wasting federal money on. You'll find a lot more there that's uncessary than the Raptor.

But as David pointed out, the cost per plane includes the original development costs, so the fewer F/A-22s we buy, the more each one costs. Today, we're only supposed to buy just under 300, but the original order was for nearly 800.

"One of those time-tested lessons is the concept of “air superiority.” To the uninitiated, it is the concept of controlling the airspace over the battlefield so that air, land and sea forces can conduct operations without interference from enemy forces." We had a stalemate in Korea and a loss in Vietnam due ineptitude with which we fought on the ground in both conflicts. As for the Iraq war, neither were "dicey." Both wars were decisive victories, militarily. The second war in Iraq really has been over since the president declared major combat to be over. Now, it is true that more US troops have been killed since the end of the war than during the war, and you can draw whatever conclusions you wish about that. In any case, the simple fact is that just because the F-15 has had a spotless record for the last 30 years does not mean that its record can hold up for another 30 years. Besides, cutting the Raptor program doesn't recover the money that's already been spent on it, which is part of the cost per plane. As you cut the number of Raptors to be built, you might save some money, but the cost per plane goes up. So I say build more Raptors, and if the government needs extra money to pay for the war in Iraq, cut the ridiculous salaries of the Washington fat cats.

You guys know you can get season 1 on DVD, right? I like the one where the guy gets on the back of the warthog and starts making sounds like he's riding it.

Hey, I actually like McDonald's. Sometimes I get a craving for Wendy's or Burger King, but I'll go for McDonald's nine times out of ten.

Yeah, I'm gonna wait for the inevitable official DVD release.

I've always been kind of a "more the merrier" person, and I've owned a PS2, Gamecube, and an Xbox more or less since each console launched. And I have to say that, whatever your personal biases are against Microsoft in general, you have to give the Xbox team their dues. I mean, from the get go, they had the hard drive with the features that go along with it, and they set out to make their console the best console hardware on the block. Even though they took a loss on each one, they matched prices with Sony, marketed the Box fairly well, and stayed competetive. Almost every third-party game developed by a non-Japanese developer usually winds up with an Xbox version, and they've had some decent exclusive games, too. True, you do have to pay for Xbox Live... a whopping $50 a YEAR (no monthly cost)... but with the ability to download new content to the hard drive instead of merely playing with/against other players, plus a much more organized set up, I think $50 a year is a fair price. And, the Xbox is the only console that really supports Dolby Digital and progressive scan in-game. I think the only snags Xbox has really hit so far are the original controller (but the Controller S is very sweet), and lack of support in Japan. But lack of Japanese support has always been a problem for American consoles, so for a first-time entry, I think Microsoft did pretty good in getting Tecmo and Sega on board. And in America, where almost half the world's gamers reside, the Xbox is safely number two. From working in retail, Xbox has built up a pretty good reputation with the average consumer (by average, I mean the Madden crowd) and the Sega fans. If Xbox can get more Japanese support (especially in the form of RPGs) and hopefully get EA sports titles on Xbox live, future Microsoft consoles have the potential to stand up to Sony, which is something Nintendo will continue to fail at until they rework their business model. So no, any rumors about the Xbox being done and no new Microsoft console is definately false. While I'll be the first to admit that I have probably more PS2 games than Xbox games and Cube games combined, Xbox is definately my second console of choice. I haven't cared much for Nintendo's first and second party, so I can see how a Nintendo fan may still go with Cube for second, though. Anyway, I tend to buy games that come out on multiple platforms on the Xbox, for the Dolby Digital and the hard drive, mostly. Also, I think Halo and Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic have both been better than anything on the PS2 so far.

I've never been to a Quizno's... I don't even know where one is in my area. But between the fact that I actually prefer my subs untoasted, and the fact that those spokes-rat thingies are just disturbing, I don't imagine I'd go even if there was one in my back yard. Subway's not great or anything, but my local Subway has a special where you can get any two foot-long subs for $7.99 on Sundays, plus you still get the stamps. But if you REALLY want a good sub (well, meatball anyway... they're so good I've never tried any of their other subs...) see if you have a Blimpie in your area.

According to what I read, the USAF brass in charge didn't believe that stealth would really work, so they insisted that the Nighthawk be painted black so as to force it to be used only for night ops.

It takes more than a few polygons to make a 3D game. R-Type Final and Gradius V are still 2D games. Has it ever occured to anyone that the new Metal Slug might just suck? Personally, I never cared for the series. To use your argument, the Dreamcast should have been on top, because it beat the PS2 out of the box by over a year... and the DC had a kick-ass launch to boot. And yet, the DC burned out rather quickly. No, trust me on this one... the PS2 won this round of the console wars due to the tremendous success of the PSX, and the PS3 is likely to stay on top for the same reason. As long as Sony's console carries Madden and Grand Theft Auto, expect everyone and their mother to end up with a PS3. I wouldn't worry too much about the Blu-Ray thing. When the PS2 was being developed, DVDs were a new technology, and the games are still $50. If at some point Sony decides to use Blu-Ray in addition to DVD as a format for the PS3 (just as they used both CD and DVD for PS2), expect the games to still be around $50. Nintendo certainly won't beat Sony. Although Nintendo still carries a lot of respect with the hardcore gamers and the Japanese, the Madden crowd still has the notion that Nintendo is for kids. Combine that with the way they've alienated third party developers, and you can start to understand why there are rumors of Nintendo pulling a Sega (It won't happen, though, as long as Nintendo is raking in the green with the Gameboy). Microsoft, I feel, would be Sony's closest competition. In America, the third party lineup for the PS2 and the Xbox is becoming awfully similar, right down the the Madden and (eventually) the Grand Theft Auto. Microsoft just needs to get more bigger exclusive games than just Halo, and they need to work harder to break into the Japanese market. A few RPGs wouldn't hurt either (although I do think that Knights of the Old Republic was probably the best RPG of the current console generation). And as for the PSP, I feel it will probably fail too. Remember, I said they're aiming at a different market than Nintendo is with the GBA... the same market that Nokia was shooting for with the N-Gage. And yes, that does involve marketing it as more than a game player, just as Nokia did (and just as they successfully did with the PS2... it was due to the PS2 that DVDs caught on in Japan). But it's my thought that this market really isn't interested in a high-tech portable game player/multimedia device. They've already got their mp3 players, their portable DVD players, their cell phones, their digital cameras, their PDAs, etc. If they need a portable game to play on the crapper, they're more likely to play a GBA, in my opinion. And no, the design everyone's seen on the net and in the magazines is NOT the final design for the PSP. They haven't even settled on the specs, yet.

Why is it that every time a game may not come out for the PS2 in America, everyone blames it on SCEA's "policy" against 2D games? As far as I know, SFIII, Gradius V, and Megaman Anniversary Collection are all go for a North American release, not to mention that we just had R-Type Final and a King of Fighters... and they're all 2D. As for the next round of console wars, the reality is that the PS3 will probably remain on top. It's not so much about launch or who comes out first/last (PS2 actually came out second, after Dreamcast, and the PS2 probably had the worst launch ever until the N-Gage came along)... it's simply marketing + installed base. Consumers have the perception that Nintendo is for kiddies. Meanwhile, PSX had a large installed base, PS2 has a huge installed base, and as long as there'll be Madden and GTA on PS3, a lot of people are going to buy the PS3 even if it's absolute crap. As for the PSP, I'd almost go so far as to say they have a different market than the GBA. The GBA SP is a mere $99, and is solid as a rock. I'll be the first to admit that I love mine, but I'll also testify that younger children play with Gameboys more than any other system, including the home consoles. With at least a $250 price tag, the PSP isn't going to get into that market anytime soon. They hope to get the same audience that the N-Gage failed to grab... and unless they price the PSP carefully, are more selective with the design and features, and have the right balance between processor and battery life, the PSP will probably fail at it too, at least in North America. The situation in Japan, were almost everyone is spending ridiculous ammounts of time riding public transportation, is somewhat different, but in America I think we prefer high-end games on PCs or home consoles, and just need a handheld on the crapper... and the GBA fits that role nicely. The only things I can think of that the PSP will have going for it are the fact that the PS3 will supposedly play PSP games out of the box, and a rumored remake of Symphony of the Night.

To go along with what Aegis first said, I've noticed that there are a lot of people on these boards who like Macross but not it sequels, like the Matrix but not its sequels, like the original Star Wars trilogy but not the Special Editions or Episode I or II, etc. It's like once upon a time, they saw something that they thought was incredible, and now they love their originals and wish for more of the exact same, but any attempts to expand upon the originals are rejected. It's almost as if, as fans, we at some point have to make a decision to go all out with the original product that so captivated us and reject the sequels, or embrace the creator's overall vision and possibly be forced to rethink our ideas about the original. I'm not saying that either way is right, because everyone is indeed entitled to their own opinions, but they definately seem to be born out of different mentalities. Now for me, I've basically liked all of the Kawamori's Macross series, and Zero is no exception. But what I liked in each series isn't always the same. I liked the characters and story from the original Macross, I liked the action and mecha in Plus, and I liked the mecha and story in 7. For Zero, I think the complaints against the characters are valid, but you could complain about the characters in Plus almost as much, and people here still seem to like Plus. I also kind of dislike the mecha. I think the SV-51 is kind of interesting, but the VF-0, far from looking "more advanced" than the VF-1, looks like a VF-1 that was thrown together from spare parts. What keeps me interested in Zero is the story. The "magic" doesn't bother me, but nor does it concern me. I am interested in the mysteries of Aiphos and the Protoculture, though. Each episode drops a few more hints... first there was something in the water, then they pulled it up, now there's another part in the water, and it's still active somehow. I admit, it's hard to watch a series when you only get to see thirty minutes every six months, and when I watch all five parts back to back, I may not like it as much. Everything could fall apart at the end. But for now, Zero has been one of those series that has me going, "and then what happens?"

Oh, I'm with you. Sure, there were some really weird designs (Delphinius), but a lot of the planes were heavily based on existing aircraft. The control isn't exactly light years behind AC4... I think they have very similar control. And besides, AC3 had some really interesting missions, like the one where you're chasing the train or the one where you're bombing the virus. AC4 ends up being better overall, sure, but AC3 was definately the best on the PSone.

Keep in mind, you're addressing the same group that loves the OT, but hates the SE's and Episodes I and II, loves the original Matrix but hates Reloaded and Revolutions, then loves SDF Macross and DYRL but hates 7 and will claim to hate Zero later.

Well, let's see... of all the combat aircraft fans on these boards, I'd say David is the one I respect the most (for the ridiculous ammounts of knowledge on the subject he's got plus the modest way he applies said knowledge). And he's obviously played at least Ace Combat 2 and Ace Combat 4. And he seems to looking forward to Ace Combat 5, doesn't he? And this PC-elitest attitude has got to stop. Personally, I play games on all the systems... PC, PS2, Xbox, Gamecube, and GBA. There are different games I like for each, and different genres I prefer on different platforms. Your comments aren't going to keep me or others from picking up Ace Combat 5. I'm not going to say "Gee, you're right!" and run out to my local Gamestop so I can trade in all my consoles and buy more PC games that I have to patch for an hour before I can even play. You're not hurting me any. In fact, the only one who suffers from your narrow-minding attitude is yourself, for all the great games you're missing out on. But I digress. This topic is for discussing Ace Combat 5. This topic isn't for debating PC vs. consoles, or realistic flight sims vs. arcade flight sims. Should you like discuss the PC vs. console or realistic vs. arcade debates, feel free to click on that button marked "New Topic."

I don't think that it's been confirmed one way or the other yet, but considering the licensing from Lockheed, I would be willing to bet on the F-117, the F/A-22, and the F-35 all being included, plus the F-16 having that funny looking stick-figurish Lockheed symbol.

While most of the links on the page are set up to go to the corresponding mahq.com pages, do click on the MRI link.

I couldn't have said it better myself, David. Besides, at least Ace Combat usually has a nice selection of planes... the PC sims seem to fall into two groups- the WWII sims and the more modern ones that have something like three planes to choose from. As far as I'm concerned, I think some vairants of the F/A-22, F-16, F/A-18, F-15, F-14, F-117, F-35, Su-37, Eurofighter, Mirage, Rafale, and the Su-43 (or whatever they're calling the plane formerly known as S-37) are basically givens. I hope they don't do too many variants of the same fighters... I'd rather see more fighters.