ewilen

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.

(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.

It's okay, everyone was a newb at one time. BTW, welcome to Macross World. Anyway, yes Matchbox did make a nontransformable VF-1S capable of holding a 3-3/4" figure. (That's the size of the 80's GI Joes, not the old and new 12" guys which are the good ones in IMO.) The original issue seems to have included part of the transforming construction in its build, while a later one (issued under the Harmony Gold name?) took all of that out. I think there's an article about it at Masterforce.com. Also, somebody out there has or had pics on his website of a project to turn the MB/HG Valk into a variable toy. Okay, here's the project: http://www.pimbrecords.com/mfo/3.0/customvalk.html And here's the Masterforce article: http://www.pimbrecords.com/mfo/mf4.0/rot31.html

The Roy 1S would at least have the Strike Cannon. Otherwise, I agree with everyone else: probably lack of interest. Although, if there's so little interest as to warrant cutting back on the set, then I suspect the only people who are going to be buy these are the obsessive collector types who feel compelled to get every variation of every Macross toy made. I mean, aside from the Strike Cannon, there really is very little to make these designs unique.

Lot here to comment on, I'll probably miss a couple things since I have a meeting in a few minutes. (Edit: back from the meeting, hope I'm not rehashing points that have been made in the interim.) • If you have to bring up Syria, Libya, and N. Korea as places where the F/A-22 will be needed, I think you've already lost the argument. Especially if you're talking air-to-air. The F/A-22 might help in its new, undeveloped, untested Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses role, though. However, I am having trouble understanding why that task can't be handled by B-2/JDAM, F-117, and cruise missiles in the near term, with F-35 and eventually UCAV's in the mid-long term. I do realize that the F-35 doesn't have the legs of the F/A-22 but surely the other tools can handle the 1st day (night) deep penetration mission to take apart the enemy's air defense system. • China is a slightly different argument but China also isn't an imminent threat. I think a lot of people are forgetting (or weren't around) that during the Cold War we really thought a major war with the USSR could happen with relatively little strategic warning. We weren't building stuff to face vague contingencies. • India is an even more remote possibility. In fact, India is moving closer to the US diplomatically, albeit like the rest of the world they have been somewhat alienated and alarmed by the Iraq War. • Addition to Noyhauser's comments: page 9 of the GAO report indicates that the AF bought enough processors to support production of 155 aircraft. The number of processors bought was greater than the number of aircraft--I think 2 are needed per aircraft and presumably the extra are for maintenance/repairs. Not only is 155 less than the planned build, but the processors in question aren't sufficient to handle the final planned capabilities--meaning new processors will be needed not only for the extra planes (if any) but also to upgrade the initial build--at substantial cost--assuming that funds can be found and the upgrade can be justified. • Reliability of avionics: the mean time between failures (Mean Time Between Instability Events) reached 13.4 hours (goal was 20 hours) before the metric was changed in 9/2003. That meant at the time that the plane on avg. would go 13.4 hours before experiencing the equivalent of either a "blue screen of death" (needing total reboot) or "GPF" (failure of a subsystem, possibly one that is mission-critical). A new metric was then instituted, called Mean Time Between Avionics Anomoly, which broadened the number of systems whose reliability is measured but also changed the required failure rate to an average of 1 per 5 hours. From July, 2003, to the end of January, 2004, this metric had improved unsteadily from 2 hours to 2.7 hours. • I think the B-2 for all its cost at least functions as advertised and manages to be useful in the current context. The B-1, OTOH, has a terrible safety and readiness record, missed Gulf War I, and probably wasn't really needed in Afghanistan and GW II, even theough it served alongside the reliable B-52 and the B-2. In support of my point, I offer the following article from a source which is hardly unfriendly to the military: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2...17/125835.shtml

That would be a VF-1J Hikaru with GBP armor. Takatoku released GBP armor for the 1/55 years ago, but it can be expensive to get. Or you can get Yamato's upcoming 1/60 VF-1J w/ GBP armor that's due out in May. Welcome to the boards! Doesn't quite jibe with the actual sequence of events in the series. Hikaru/Rick uses the GPB-1S in Miss Macross, which is BEFORE First Contact, thus before the escape from the Zentradi fortress (Bodolza's base). You're probably right, though, and Hector is forgetting the sequence. (Or the eps are aired out of sequence in his area or something.)

Last post before I go home and figure out how much I owe to pay for whatever Uncle Sam decides to buy... Just want to provide a few relevant links, not all of which I've read thoroughly... rec.aviation.military discussion (What to do if the F-22 is cancelled?) R.A.M. (Report asks AF to justify F-22) R.A.M. (More about the report) GAO Report:TACTICAL AIRCRAFT: Changing Conditions Drive Need for New F/A-22 Business Case (PDF Format) News Article on the Report

Previous generation Ghost compared to the M+ one. And a later generation compared to what's seen briefly in M0 episode 3. It's really too bad how little attention the Ghosts get in the original TV series. I'd like to see them more, to understand how they were used, or else not have them at all.

maybe if we ran it like a corporation we wouldnt be in debt..... Nonsequitur. See: Enron. Noyhauser, where can I find the best info on how well Dassault did in the Korean F-X competition? In my brief tour of the web earlier, I did see a mention that they did something like "1.3% better", but elsewhere it was said that no inside information was available (and presumably Dassault was voicing sour grapes). TWDC: I'm not even sure Mislovrit would argue with you. It's hard to figure out what he's saying other than calling one-klump a troll. And on that--I certainly disagree; OTOH, this topic isn't really about Iraq except as it relates to the F-22. Edit: Oops. I see that Mislovrit does disagree. In which case I disagree with his disagreement. Graham: Ideally, we could get everyone to agree to arm fighters with paintball guns!

Any hope of getting this thing onto bittorrent? Sharing would go much faster and there'd be a lot less of a load on the imacross servers. FAQ:How do I create a new torrent (share a file I have with others)? (Not that I've ever done it, but it doesn't look too hard.)

Egad, what a terrible example. Even the present administration, for all its admiration and emulation of all things Reagan, wanted to finally kill the B-1 until 911 gave a new boost to spending on all things military. Mike, we didn't miss the F/A-22 when we were fighting Saddam, we didn't miss it when we were fighting the Taliban, it couldn't possibly help us in the present non-war in Iraq--and there is no conflict looming in which it would make a significant difference. The Cold War is over. Also, I didn't say that Russia has surpassed the F/A-22--I was implying that they may have achieved a rough technology parity with the F-15C in certain areas, but only before you consider numbers, training, doctrine, and infrastructure. At which point, the US overwhelms the Russians. Outside of China, the countries that are buying Flankers aren't in much better financial condition than Russia, either. In fact, I believe that South Korea considered and discarded the idea of buying Sukhois--they chose the F-15K instead. Undoubtedly there were significant economic and political considerations, but that's how it shook out. Singapore has also decided against Sukhois, though they haven't yet decided whether they will buy Eagles, Rafales, or Typhoons. Regarding China, yes, it will in all likelihood eventually become a superpower economically, and possibly militarily. But that's still a long way off. Saying that "anything can happen" isn't a serious threat analysis. Comparison with World War I is particularly inapt, since the war had been preceded by years of international tensions, huge arms buildups, and rival alliances among peer military powers. ("The powderkeg of Europe", it is called historically.)

Source: http://www.mahq.net/mecha/macross/sdfmacross/qf-3000e.htm

Source: http://www.artemisgames.com/robotech/Aircraft/Ghost.html

Might be a good idea to include SOURCES with any pictures. I seem to recall pictures of the Ghost in the Macross Hobby Handbook, but since that has definitively been relegated to unofficial status, it should be disregarded anyplace where it conflicts with the animation or official Studio Nue lineart. The images at Nanashi's are at least partly from M.A.T., so they too would have to be regarded as unofficial. But you could ask Nanashi for the source on each pic. I'm not copying the pics because of Nanashi's request at the bottom of the page.

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.

100% Correct. To quote Sgt. Barnes, washington kept trying to fight the war with one hand tied around their balls (a.k.a. they kept trying to force the enemy to fight "our war on our terms" rather than meet them head on on their level. See above, subsitute 1964 for 2004. That's my point. Air superiority means something in a conventional war. It doesn't help nearly so much when you're fighting an insurgency. In fact, airpower applied inappropriately, as a substitute for proper counterinsurgency methods, is absolutely counterproductive. Furthermore (addressing Uxi's point) "battles" are a conventional war concept. I know it's terribly unfair, but guerillas win by avoiding battles and playing rope-a-dope.

Hoo boy. To think I was worried about introducing politics... That article is interesting David, but... We had air superiority over Korea and all we could manage was a draw. We had air superiority over Vietnam and we lost. We have air supremacy over Iraq and things are looking pretty dicey. For all its marvelous technology, the F-22 isn't necessarily a forward-looking weapon. It is very much made to fight the last war, not the next.

There was some good related discussion over in this topic: http://www.macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?showtopic=5753 We began by talking about plans to use the F-35 in the close support role, but drifted over into talking about the viability of both the JSF and F-22. Someone explained convincingly why the JSF can't be stopped; the Super Hornet is already on-line, so that leaves the Raptor looking increasingly like an endangered species. I agree that missile defense should go on the chopping block even before the F-22; however, I think there are political reasons to doubt that it will be cut any time soon. Certainly not before January, 2005. I'd go into greater detail but I'd probably start a political flame war if I did.

I would like to reiterate a point that was made here but which I don't think was very well understood. If this is redundant, please accept my apologies. Also, I don't mean to cast aspersions on anyone at all--my goal is to clarify something which is relevant to deciding in your own mind how you feel about recasts. Let's say company X did a kit, but company X is now defunct. There's no prospect of someone reissuing the kit. Then yes, it's true that a recast isn't directly going to cost anyone any profits. So let's say that under those circumstances it's okay to do a recast. Now put yourself in the position of a model collector/builder. Some small company, Y, has just issued a one-time run of a certain kit. The price is reasonable, but you've only got so much money/space/time for enjoying your model kits. Maybe you'll want the kit someday, but right now, you'd like to put it off. Here's the point: you know you don't have to worry about Y going out of business, because if it does, someone is likely to make a recast. So you don't buy the kit. That reduces the marginal demand. Consequently, Y (and/or the licensor) can't make as much profit off the sales of the kit. This prospect makes Y (and/or the licensor) less likely to produce kits. (At least if they care about money.) If it's generally accepted that recasts are okay under even looser criteria--because of rarity or whatever--then that is likely to reduce the marginal demand for new kits even more. Which further reduces the financial incentive for licensors and artisans. Note that this only pertains to financial incentives. I'm sure people make kits for reasons besides the money (though even a labor of love is hard to pursue if you're losing money). Also, it's far from clear how strongly the expectation of recasts affects the marketability of original kits. But I'm sure the effect exists to some degree.

Somebody should use "Magic Chang" as their member name. Edit: fifbeat--you're welcome!

The Convertors were apparently legal (or semi-legal) versions of the Macross designs. A company called "Mark" apparently partnered with Takatoku in making the cheapo Macross toys (as well as other cheapo versions of Takatoku's toys like Orguss and Beetras). Mark later sold them to a company named "Select" which marketed them as Convertors in the US. As if the name "Convertors" wasn't enough of a ripoff of "Transformers", the stickers are reminiscent of the Decepticon logo--at least to my untrained eye, since I'm not into TF. These links are the best info I could find--most of it comes from Ginrai of Masterforce, who is also a member here if I'm not mistaken. http://pub32.ezboard.com/fmasterforce94688...opicID=22.topic http://www.pimbrecords.com/mfo/3.0/robotlife1987.html http://www.toyboxdx.com/data/takatoku2/beetras.html The Macres stuff though is pretty clearly an effort at bootlegging Macross.

Importing for personal use is probably okay, as MrDisco says, but importing an R2 disc for resale might technically be an infringement of copyright licenses. Not because it's an R2 disc per se but because it has probably been licensed for sale only in certain regions. I wouldn't worry about it, but if you have serious concerns I suggest you ask a lawyer. Edit: BTW, the importation of R1 DVD's for resale has apparently been a serious issue in the UK and elsewhere in Europe. Here's a case from Sweden: http://www.eurorights.org/pipermail/eurori...uly/000207.html

Regarding the lighting, it might be worth noting that Max's VF-1A is only seen in outer space; the VF-1S is inside the atmosphere. Differences in light diffusion and contrast. Differences in refraction, too. Haze could also lessen the apparent intensity of colors.

That sounds like one of the convertors. Was it this one? http://www.toyarchive.com/Convertors/ZardakMOSC1a.jpg

A1, it doesn't matter if you call it a mistake or a variation--whatever treatment is seeing has to be due to a variation on the DVD. It may be accentuated by his monitor, though. That said, I'm afraid the pic of Max's helmet isn't a good choice because cartoons sometimes use color variation in lieue of shading. (For example, the use of blue to represent shiny black in hair highlights or on Batman's costume.) Anyway, here's a pic of Max's 1S, snagged from another thread. Now we need a 1A shot if we want to even start making a comparison.