ewilen

Okay, last comment before I go home for the evening... It occurs to me (and I'm surely not the first, in fact I'm probably repeating something I read) that the actual US strategy against the "Grey Threat" is wherever possible (i.e., known friendlies considering purchase of Rafale/Typhoon/Su) to crowd out the competition with sweet deals on current American fighter models and promises of future F-35's. Thus driving up the unit cost of the alternatives and if possible, killing the Western European fighter industry.

If you are referring to the April, 1994 incident, the F-15's did a visual ID of the helicopters before shooting, as well as an IFF interrogation. http://www.mit.edu/afs/athena/org/s/ssp/fall00/snook.htm http://www.schwabhall.com/opc_report.htm http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/intl/iraq/perr0415.txt IFF failed, and visual ID was incorrect--the Blackhawks were mistaken for Hinds. Now, it is conceivable that NCTR was employed and there was a coverup; however, the incident as described in the public record has no bearing on the reliability of NCTR. Nevertheless, as this incident tragically illustrates, all systems are subject to failure.

Apparently some late-model Phantoms got something called TISEO (Target Identification System Electro-Optical, alternatively telescopic imaging sight electro-optical--don't ask me which is right) which was similar. My guess--IRST and NCTR make the electro-optical system redundant.

legios: If we're not going to fight BVR, then why bother with the F-22? Point is, yes, being ready for WVR makes sense in low-intensity conflicts and less-than-all-out-war crises. That's why I think the F-22 is a slightly better choice for today's world than the (notional) F-23, because the YF-22's close-in maneuverability was apparently slightly superior to the YF-23's. But we don't need an F-22 to fight third world nations. So people point to China. (I'm going to ignore India until someone presents evidence that India is considered a likely adversary.) If the US ever did fight China, it wouldn't be a small affair, it would be a major conflict with ROE similar to the old NATO-Warsaw pact scenarios, and a long-range BVR sniper like the F-22/F-23 would make sense. But war with China isn't happening soon, if ever, and even if it did happen soon, China's air force can't come close to us yet. We have a decade or more (probably two decades) to prepare for when it can. In the meantime the F-22 is soaking up funds that could be applied to doing a better job of handling today's threats and preparing for tomorrow's. Also, I brought up NCTR because it has reduced the necessity to visually identify targets before pushing the button. I have read that F-15's operating in Desert Storm did not need to visually ID Iraqi aircraft before firing--all they needed was AWACS and ID via NCTR. As for the difficulties of BVR combat--I am sure it is technically complex. But does the operator need to be in the weapons platform? Beyond visual range by definition means that the enemy is visible on data screens and projected on the HUD, but not seen by the eyeball.

Nanashi, you are correct and Zentrandude is misreading the definition. "Back" is itself ambiguous, sometimes being synonomous with "dorsal" and sometimes referring to the rear. From Dictionary.com To avoid confusion one could use anterior/posterior instead of forward/back. For an example of the use of "forward dorsal" in a zoological context, see http://www.rook.org/earl/bwca/nature/fish/...stedioncan.html Note the use of the term and the fact that the fish has a forward dorsal fin and a rearward dorsal fin. Put another way the dorsal fin(s) of a fish is/are on top of its back. Since people walk upright, if we had dorsal fins, they'd be behind our backs.

That X-47 photochop doesn't even look like the pics elsewhere in the article it comes from. Anyway, about UCAV's in the Air to Air role. In BVR, pilots are already engaging in pushbutton combat, so putting the operators on the ground or in an AWACS well behind the forward edge of battle isn't much of a stretch. Time lag shouldn't be much of a factor in such engagements, and in any case is going to be minuscule--remember, we're talking about speed of light transmissions--unless via satellite. For BVR engagments, SA means looking at a radar or IRST screen. With AWACS and "layered" sensor-carrying UCAVs all networked together, the operators would have a huge edge in SA. (Assuming the other side isn't similarly equipped.) I am also concerned about jamming, but I also wonder how effective it can be against digital spread spectrum transmissions. Perhaps the UCAV swarms need to have a human-controlled command craft nearby. In any case, it is certainly possible that some enemy aircraft will break through either to bomb or to attack the AWACS/command planes. In which case a number of human-operated dogfighters may be advisable. Perhaps F-22's, but conceivably F-16's or F-35's. But I'd reiterate that enemy attacks are more likely to be delivered by missile than by bomber. About the B-1B. Definitely did not operate in Desert Storm. First use in combat was Desert Fox, the bombing raid on Iraq in 1998. http://www.cdi.org/iraq/gulf-war-I-pr.cfm http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/lib...7134/letter.htm From the latter, And from the Air Force at http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=81

1. Cope India 2004 For which a great number of other articles and discussions can be found online. Now, the wrong conclusion is that India's aircraft are superior to American F-15C's, since whatever leaks out is likely to be heavily colored by public relations considerations. The right conclusion is that you don't engage in this sort of exercise with a potential adversary. I also wonder how worried we could have been about India during Enduring Freedom, when according to the State Department, India "offered the United States the use of its territory for staging any military operations in Afghanistan." (Source: http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/6207.pdf ) 2. On the question of how long it will take to develop a system to fill the role of the F/A-22... Robot plane drops bomb in successful test At $10-$15 million each, these things are looking like a bargain compared to escorting high explosive into enemy territory with human-piloted aircraft. More on the X-45 here (look at the X-47, too) and here. How long before these things get AMRAAMs, incorporate full-on stealth, IRST and/or radar, and are all networked with AWACS and JSTARS? 3. Can anyone comment on the effect of advances in noncooperative target recognition (NCTR) and LPI radar on the future of within visual range combat--and therefore the relative importance of avionics vs. flight performance?

It's diecast. http://www.flyingmule.com/range/model/diec...evell/aircraft/

F-14s are supposed to chase down cruise missiles for example like the Exocet, Silkworm, Tomahawk, NOT ballistic missiles like ICBMs. Correct. That's what I meant by "I don't think fighter jets would be a component of an anti-ballistic missile system."

India is an U.S. ally especially in regards to containing China ambitions in the region. Yes, that's what I was getting at. India is an ally, so pointing to them as a potential threat to justify the F-22 doesn't make sense.

The pic of Nora is in the thread Graham referenced above. And if you have a Mac with OS X, you need to use an old browser under Classic to view the site.

I got the SC set for about $35 shipped, essentially by watching eBay like a hawk and then sniping. I got somewhat lucky but you might be able to save a few dollars over the price you quoted by looking on eBay. As soon as I won the set, I wrote to ADV to request a replacement for Disk 4, because there were reports of a glitch in one episode. I forget the email address to use, but you can locate it here, or at RT.com, or at animeondvd. They were very good and got the replacement to me in less than a week, without my having to mail a receipt or barcode or any of that nonsense.

BTW, It's not a purse. It's European! (Like everyone in SC. )

I don't know, I don't remember hating any of the VA's for SC, but maybe if I watched it again, I would. I remember Dana had sort of an "older" voice, but to me it was more of an "old fashioned" voice--like a woman from an early 60's TV show. Since I thought of her as a Janet Leigh type, it didn't bother me. Looks like a good deal to me. That reminds me--the original SC has at least a few gratuitous shots of Jeanne/Dana in the shower which were edited to remove frontal/backal nudity in RT.

Yep, maybe. Is the 747 the air superiority fighter of the future? Somebody needs to do a Big Daddy Roth version to paint on the nose... Not sure how well it would do against shorter range ballistic missiles, though.

I was thinking of ballistic missiles--I realize (having learned here some time ago) that the F-14 is supposed to be able to down cruise missiles, but I don't think fighter jets would be a likely component of an anti-ballistic missile system.

Recently got the ADV version off eBay...result of much patience. I always liked the original RT-ized version, even better than Mospeada, so it's hard for me to compare. And also, it's been a long time since I saw that version. Both my wife and I are enjoying the originals. Of the stuff that's different, I think the music is interesting even in areas where it's kinda clunky...can't remember enough of the RT version's plot to see where they've sliced and diced the footage. There are some fundamental differences...like the fact that the action takes place on a colony planet, not Earth, the aliens have somewhat different motivations, and the nature of "Zor" ("Siefriet" in the original) is much different. There's really only one episode that strongly annoyed me, which is an early one where Jeanne (Dana) freaks out in combat...not to mention the silliness of assigning her and Marie to the mission in question. (It's the one where they go up in a shuttle craft.) Anyway, I just remembered one of the places I saw Lana's boobs--it was in a file that's available on our very own MW! Shawn uploaded a bunch of Japanese commercials from the 80's, including one that appeared during SC. It shows the model feature in question and has a bunch of other built-up models. Not to be missed! 11 megs, zipped. Here's the link.

Quick note, Legios, if India is a possible threat, why has the U.S. brought it in as a partner in missile defense? Mike yes you're basically understanding me. The F-15 is good enough in the current environment, and in the time before it actually needs to be replaced, there are better things we can do with the money that the AF is proposing to spend on the F-22. Also, it won't necessarily take 20 years to develop a new fighter. First of all, it may not even be a fighter. As some of the articles people have linked note, air superiority is not an end in itself. Its purpose is to allow other tasks to be carried out without interference by enemy aerial assets. If we can deliver bombs to targets without using an air superiority fighter to escort the bomb-carrier, then air superiority isn't needed for that task. If we can intercept enemy bombers with SAMs, or prevent them from even taking off by destroying them on the ground, then air superiority isn't needed for that task. Or--more likely--if the enemy is using surface to surface missiles instead of bombers, an F-22 isn't going to stop those missiles. So a new set of technologies and systems may make "air superiority" irrelevant. Second, just because the F-22 has taken 20 years to develop doesn't mean a new system will take that long. The articles I've read basically say the F-22 program wasn't managed well. (Look over some of the Spinney stuff to see what I'm talking about.) I will admit, though, that our ability to learn from our mistakes is a shaky proposition...nevertheless I would point to the history of MBT-70/XM-803 as an example of a failed project which led to regrouping and a very successful M-1 program.

Just noticed, from the site with all the model box pictures...for some reason these three have Big West stickers on them! http://www.artemisgames.com/robotech/Resea..._Jeanne_Box.gif http://www.artemisgames.com/robotech/Resea...Nordoff_Box.jpg http://www.artemisgames.com/robotech/Resea...T_Marie_Box.jpg Was BW involved in licensing SC merchandise? Of course, back in those times, TP and BW were probably friends, but I still didn't think BW was involved in SC at all. Also, I like how the Navy Division guys have the "NAD" logo right on their crotches! (You can just make it out here; it's clearer in the SC TIA art book.)

Exo, the pics come from mospeada.free.fr which I think is one of the best references for obscure Macross/SC/Mospeada toys.

Okay, here's the best place to see the boxes of all the models, and even a bunch of models that never made it into production due to the series being cut short. http://www.artemisgames.com/robotech/Resea...oss/Models.html Somewhere out there, probably on a Japanese page, I know I've seen a picture of a built model, possibly of Lana (the GMP girl), which shows how the top of the armor can come off, revealing her naked upper body.

Second toy pic. According to mospeada.free.fr, these are extremely rare.

I can probably come up with some pics in a second but first, here's something I didn't even know existed: Southern Cross figure toys! Pictures reposted from mospeada.free.fr...

Briefly, the relationship between M0 and Macross is essentially analogous to the relationship between M+ and Macross TV. We know that HG blocked US release of the M+ toys, and the claims they made in the process of blocking the release--and attempting to block the importation--of the toys strongly imply that HG would also try to block an M0 release. However, the situation is evolving (with clues of a deal between HG and BW), and there are many details to consider. For more in-depth discussion, you should see the HG licensing thread in the Other Anime forum, and also locate the threads on the DYRL superposables.

Were they even clear that the future Macross products will be from Toynami?