ewilen

I don't know but the Luftwaffe is giving up its Mig-29's and handing them over to Poland. Some info about them (including exercises in which they participated) is here: http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRheft/FRH...404/FR0404c.htm (So, Mislovrit, the Army needs bullets, which proves we didn't buy enough airplanes in the 90's?)

Mislovrit, the A-12 referenced here is the Avenger II flying dorito carrier-based stealth attack plane that the Navy wanted to build. Why have F-22's? Good question. But didn't we hash that out before?

Here ya go: http://www.macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?showtopic=8413 But I didn't look at it till I saw A1's thread. That thing is awesome. I wonder what the range is on the radio control.

Oh, I thought the reason our military was so woeful after the 90's was its lack of tanks and bombers. At least, that's what Major Jonathan was telling us.

Shin, I think if you look more closely, you'll find that the Navy fooled around with a NATF, but purely in the context of an add-on to the ATF program. It wasn't entirely realistic since the resulting jet would have had to be substantially redesigned. In any case, whatever the Navy or DoD wanted to do, all the decisions (no NATF, no A-12, yes Super Hornet) were made prior to 1993. The Super Hornet had to be reaffirmed during the Clinton administration, but at that point there weren't many alternatives.

So, our existing military is so weak that it can't take out those backers, is that the problem?

If you count arcade games, I wasted a lot of quarters on the old Atari Star Wars game. http://www.klov.com/S/Star_Wars.html But I can't say I'd have much of a desire to play it these days. Gravitar, Marble Madness, and Spy Hunter, though....Mmmmmm.

HMS Simon Cowell and HMS Anne Robinson--no need for jets, you can just use verbal abuse to make the enemy feel so bad about himself that he slinks home with his tail beteen his legs.

A buttload of fighters, bombers, tanks, soldiers and everything else to keep everyone friend and foe alike from even thinking of crossing swords with the U.S.A. Quite. Of course, since the fall of the USSR, regardless of who occupied the Oval Office, no one with a conventional military has entertained such suicidal thoughts. (The suicidals, unfortunately, are harder to counter with tanks and fighter-bombers.)

I'm with most everyone else--it seems like an awful idea to me. Not sure what the goal is, either. The movie companies should simply restructure their royalty contracts so that the game makers pay more for the first X units (since those are sold largely on the publicity and goodwill generated by the movie) and gradually less per unit after that (since those sales are more influenced by the quality of the game itself). The movie maker would thus get insurance against the game maker producing a lemon that "free rides" off the movie, and the game maker would be encouraged to make a truly great game whose popularity would feed synergistically back into the franchise.

thats totally laughable. we both know it would have happened regardless of cory posting (and since it was the second or third post in the thread you can't very well claim things were going along fine until he came along). my advice - if you want a more sensible discussion without the meaningless bashing stick to the AOD forums. Check out the $&@# on this kid! Hey Spider, this is for you! [tosses money on the table] That's the way! You don't take no &*@# from nobody!

Hm, I thought it had more to do with simply wanting to have a clear-cut "vengeance" for the loss of the Hood. But either way I'm reminded of the fact that the Germans did manage not have any of their dreadnought-type battleships blow up, and the few that were sunk in the open seas only succumbed after sustaining a terrible beating. Perhaps my favorite battleship, the Seydlitz (it was battlecruiser, really), managed to get home from battle in 1916 with parts of the deck underwater. (Click here for an image.)

Apropos of the topic (as opposed to broadbrush political rants), I snagged the following link from a Usenet discussion: http://www.pratt-whitney.com/pr_052404.asp Admittedly, it's a press release from one of the main contractors, but it suggests that things are going a little better than indicated in that news report. Dated 5/24/04, so very current. Skepticism on the F-35 is warranted for many reasons but I'd say we're quite far from the gloom 'n doom stage.

It would be nice if you could document this claim, since all indications are that the Navy had lost interest in the ATF (if they ever really had any to begin with) by 1991 at the latest. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/lib...crs/IB87111.htm Major Jonathan, I see you are falling into a familiar trap--I wonder how many air superiority fighters the US needs to combat third world guerillas, terrorists, and impoverished communist client states.

Basically, you're right, but some authors have criticized the Bismarck's design for the ease with which the ship's guns were put out of action. The Germans made a nearly unsinkable ship, due not only to armor but watertight subdivision--but what good is a big metal raft that can't fight? Might have a look at this: http://www.warships1.com/index_tech/tech-070.htm Also, to get very nitpicky, the Bismarck wasn't pumped full of 15" shells--she was hit by several of Prince of Wales' 14" shells during the initial fight that saw the sinking of the Hood, and was finished off in the final battle by a combination of 14" shells (King George V), 16" shells (Rodney), smaller caliber guns, torpedos, and ultimately the ship's own crew, who scuttled her as they abandoned ship.

HK bootlegs are already up on eBay. (Or are they Taiwanese?) http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...4192130812&rd=1

That last one looks to me like it's in battroid mode, with the head pointed toward the viewer, and wings swept out to accommodate missiles. But it's really hard to tell with a lot of these pictures.

Huh, and I just bought the Wings of Honneamise DVD. Oh well, it was only $10, and by putting my player in "flicker free" mode I think I got an okay picture. When the new one comes out, I'll probably get it eventually. Ditto on hopes for a new M+ movie transfer.

I wasn't aware of the multiple layers vs. single formulas; however, I can say that the science of armoring ships is extremely complex. Or at least the history of it is, due to evolving metallurgical technology and the evolving ballistics technology. At first they used iron and it was preferred to steel because the latter, though "stronger", is more brittle. Later, iron with a steel face was used, and eventually a form of homogenous nickel steel. The people designing armor piercing shells then discovered that it was easier to punch through steel if you used a steel shell capped with iron, as opposed to a homogenous steel sheel. The reason this worked isn't entirely clear to me but this page claims to have the answer. In general, the armor piercing cap helps keep the steel shell from shattering on impact. In response to this, at least some battleships used a "cap stripping" armor which would remove the armor piercing cap from an incoming shell before it would strike the main armor. Other factors in armoring a ship, as David notes, are the expected engagement ranges and enemy. Engagement range is especially tricky since depending on the range you not only have a different velocity of impact, but also a different angle of impact and perhaps most important, different impact zones. At close ranges, hits are going to be on the side of the ship, so belt armor is important. At long ranges, hits are going to be coming down from the top, so deck armor is important. Although there is controversy over exactly why the Hood blew up in her duel with the Bismarck (was it a penetrating shot through the deck, or a fire which spread from one area to the main magazine?), it appears that her commander may have been concerned about her weak deck armor and so deliberately tried to close the range quickly, even though that meant giving up nearly half his firepower (in the rear turrets of Hood and Prince of Wales) as he charged the Germans. Due to the weight of armor, it wasn't possible to protect an entire ship. The Americans led the way with the "all or nothing" approach of only armoring the most crucial areas. Finally, nearly as important as armor was the watertight compartmentalization of ships. Better compartmentalization meant that the flooding from a hit could be contained better. This page looks to be of interest: http://www.combinedfleet.com/b_armor.htm

No prob, Mr. March, I enjoyed your post. I suspect you're slightly off in saying that there are some naval vessels which can't fire a broadside with all guns for fear of capsizing. I know that the Agincourt, which had largest number of big guns on a broadside of all modern battleships--fourteen 12" guns--was able to fire a broadside with all guns in spite of rumors that shewould break her back doing so. Other battleships undoubtedly had a greater weight of broadside yet I can't recall hearing of one that was in danger of capsizing when firing a full broadside. It is sometimes claimed that battleships are displaced sideways when firing their guns but this page argues convincingly that such is not the case, due not only to the inertia of the battleship but also to the recoil systems of the big guns. Nevertheless, I have read that a broadside has a noticeable effect on a battleship's roll. In 1913, the British navy performed a test of "director firing", which was a method of centrally controlling the moment of firing for all the ship's big guns. (Possibly one gun per turret.) During the competitive test, with one ship using director firing and the other using independent gun firing, it was noted that the ship fitted with the director system experienced less roll because all the guns consistently fired on the down roll. Regarding lasers and recoil--after some doubts, I did more searching and I'm pretty sure that the photon beam from a laser will produce recoil (though fairly small). Suggested keywords for a google search: photon emission recoil

Bulbous bows on battleships is also somewhat of a vexed issue. Some of them (e.g., H.M.S. Dreadnought) had a "ram bow" which implied that they were designed for ramming other ships (a tactic which had been militarily significant for part of the 19th century). Look here for an illustration: http://steelnavy.com/SNDreadnought.htm But I've read in another forum that the "ram bow" of the Dreadnought and her immediate successors didn't have the structural support to actually function as a weapon, and was essentially "ornamental". The design was dropped around 1915. However, this page says that the bulbous bow was developed partly from the ram bow, and another page says that some US battleships were designed with a bulbous bow (not ram bow) for hydrodynamic reasons before the end of WW I. From looking at interwar battleship designs, it seems to me that many of them had non-bulbous bows, while some did. Often the bulbosity (to coin a term) was fairly subtle.

Missiles should have virtually no inertial effect on the launch platform. A small charge may be used to separate them, or they can be popped out using springs, etc., before the engine kicks in. Guns are another matter. They would have an effect, though I'm guessing it wouldn't be so great that it couldn't be compensated for automatically by the steering mechanisms. It is true that battleships are significantly affected by the force of a full broadside. Even particle beams and lasers (according to a quick web search) would produce some recoil, but not much (apparently).

http://www.doom9.org/ and http://www.videohelp.com/ might be good places to find info and ask questions.

About the topic of this thread, I'm with Nied. The contractors have their work cut out for them, but it's too early to tell if they can successfully adjusgt the thrust:weight ratio. I believe the press is doing its job, though, in keeping their feet to the fire (along with the people responsible for managing the contract). Meantime, returning to a theme from earlier threads, while unmanned craft may be a ways off in the air superiority role, they are definitely shaping up in the bombing role--which is the F-35's main job. I've read that the US Navy is looking at developing new smaller aircraft carriers designed to carry UCAV's. And the Air Force has a project called the Common Aero Vehicle (CAV, sometimes given the designation X-41) which seems to be (essentially) an effort to create a technology which would allow tactical bombing missions to be based in the US yet hit targets worldwide. The whole thing sounds kind of far out but it points in the general direction of reduced reliance on forward bases and reduced use of pilots. Both of which could theoretically lower recurring costs (maintenance and training), among other things.

Are any of those Game Boy Advance ones any good?