Nied

Scuttlebutt coming out of the DoD is that Gates will relent and go along with at least 60 more F-22s (for a total of 240 or so). I have to agree with Noyhauser here on exporting the Raptor to other countries. Exporting the F-22 strengthens some long standing allies (which in turns strengthens us), makes the planes cheaper to buy for everyone, and produces a good deal of US jobs to boot (not an insignificant consideration right now).

The VF-19F & S fighters were "optimized" for space flight, hence the fixed wings. The VF-19A & P fighters were "optimized" for atmospheric flight.

Both could fly in either environment, but performed better in the one they were optimized for.

This is just a Dave Deitrich brainbug. If you do some digging for translations of official sources you'd find that the F & S versions were more optimized for cost than anything else. Hell when you look at the F & S and the A they have roughly the same amount of lifting surfaces (the wings on an F model 19 are much broader than the 19A even if they don't have the wingspan, and the lack of canards are made up for by the extended LERXs). Hell if you look at the line art for the VF-19A you'll see that same three vernier thrusters that supposedly replaced the canards on the VF-19F/S.

Try this:

-Disable system restore and reboot into safe mode.

-Delete the cookie file in safe-mode.

I have an Ubuntu Live CD I've been using to dig around on my HD without the virus screwing with things so I may delete the infected files through that. I'm still confused how a virus could kill a process running on a completely different OS though.

Anybody encounter something like this? AVG caught a virus buried in my cookies yesterday and promptly crashed trying to repair it. Does the same thing in safe mode. I've heard of that happening before (I assumed explorer.exe got infected). But here's where it gets weird: I grabbed a copy of Kapersky rescue disk with my wife's computer (which fortunately appears clean) and it's bombing out on the same file. The Kapersky rescue disk runs on a Linux kernel so it shouldn't be affected by an infected explorer.exe file, and a scan of the boot sector shows nothing. Right now I'm seriously thinking of a nuke and repave (I've been meaning to go to Vista x64 anyway) but even then I'm a little concerned about the integrity of any backups I make.

Today's the 40th anniversary of the 747's first flight.

And the 787 still hasn't flown (I couldn't let David keep a near monopoly on this page).

I also think Phil Collins works best within the confines of the group, than as a solo artist, and I stress the word artist. This is Sussudio, a great, great song, a personal favorite.

How many of them are mounted on the centerline and towards the rear of the fighter, though? And how fast do those fighters pitch in an atmosphere, as opposed to a spacecraft that doesn't have to worry about air resistance?

Here's a picture of an F-4 Phantom carrying an SUU-23 gunpod, if anything it's mounted further back that what we see on any variable fighter.

Granted an F-4 is not as maneuverable as a VF-25 or even a VF-1 but as has been pointed out, even at the stately (by Macross standards) muzzle velocity of a modern Vulcan cannon your Valkyrie would have to be pitching down impossibly fast. Without an EX-gear system a maneuver like that would make what Guld went through in M+ look like a gentle massage, and the centripetal forces would tear a VF apart before it would even be able to hit itself with its own shells.

For reference sake the muzzle velocity of a 20mm round fired by an M61A1 Vulcan cannon used in most modern American fighters is 1040 m/s. Given that the gunpods in most variable fighters are designed to defeat armor a lot tougher than modern standards I would imagine their muzzle velocity would be much higher. A VF would have to be spinning like a top to even come close to hitting it's own bullets.

the first number, (1.1 milion people/km2) is based on one layer in one leg.

the second (the 276,000 people/km2) is based on 2 layers in both legs.

well, that episode that was pointed out indicates more like 3 layers. now just for the benefit of the doubt, they built up city space everywhere they could and they got another leg (with 3 layers of city) worth of space out of that. now you're closer to 127,000 people/km2 which is getting a lot more reasonable, but still sounds a little too cramped compared to how things are depicted.

of course, there's a lot of other questions to look at like where rest of the crew is living, and where they're keeping all the mechs and stuff, and what was all that empty space that got turned into city originally used for?

I could understand there being so much open space if the ship needed a similar complement before and after rebuild but with the crew being 5 times bigger. I'd wonder why so much of it is unused, though it could be that before the civilians showed up, the military crew had a LOT of space to live/work/store everything (i.e. it was more like being on an airbase rather than a ship), and after the fold they had all the military stuff cramed down to submarine level, and all mecha related material moved to the Daedalus and Prometheus in order to make things comfortable for the civilians.

I wonder how that went over with the military personnel when they found out they were going to have to hot bunk so the civilians could build a stadium?

Well remember we're not just talking about 10 meter tall people but the consumables needed to support them. Otech seems to allow for considerable recycling but you still need space to feed and clothe a crew, space that would be exponentially smaller for microns. That doesn't even get to the storage requirements to maintain the Supervision Army equivalent of a Reguld or Queadeluun-Rau. Maybe Macross City was built inside the walk in refrigerator.

here's another thought: this is the city within the leg of the SDF-1 (DYRL? version)

http://www.new-un-spacy.com/macrossdyrl/ma...nternalcity.jpg

so the city itself is only 350 meters or so long, and (generously) 150 meters wide so that's 52,500 square meters. if that's all there is to the city and there really is 58,000 people on the ship you've got a population density of about 1.1 million people per square kilometer (that's a little less than 1 meter per person)

I figure that the city is built in layers and there may even bee another section in the other leg (I totally don't remember if that's a possibility or not).

The drawing makes it look like the city has maybe 2 layers, but even with that and a city section in each leg that's still around 276,000 people per square kilometer at the start of the war, (the largest population density I can find is Dhaka, Bangladesh at around 43,000 people/km2)

that sounds way more cramped than it ever was in the show.

Are you accounting for both leg's in your calculations? Because that and some sections in the torso would increase the amount of living space available considerably. That plus as Mr March pointed out you'd gain a good deal of space from stacking levels of the city on top of each other (It's possible that Macross City was built in the Zentradi sized sections of the ship, your average sized brownstone would fit easily in a deck designed for a 11m tall person).

I don't have it out right now to check, but weren't there some shots in DYRL that showed sections of the city built on the ceiling?

Most Flankers keep their drag chute in the tailboom ("stinger"). I'm not even sure any are certain to have a rear radar--even the rearwards-firing missile is still speculation I think, much less a separate radar for it.

As for the F-22: Its shiny silvery paint is IR-absorbent. It's not just radar stealthy, it's heat stealthy. (as much as can be done) It is designed for total air dominance in all categories---long range, medium range, and knife-fight.

Not absorbent so much as it re-radiates IR at a wavelength that will dissipate in the atmosphere by the time it gets to anything like a tactically useful range.

Since M0 I've always assumed that SK had retconed things so that all variable fighters use some form of active stealth system, only differing in how capable the system is on each VF. It would explain why the VF-0 looks to incorporate passive stealth features (edge alignment, chine along the nose, few 90 degree angles) but later designs like the VF-1, VF-4 and VA-3 don't appear to incorporate much (it may have been found during testing of the VF-0 that the active stealth system alone was enough without any passive features). You could also explain later designs with passive stealth features (practically every VF since the VF-5000 to varying degrees) as better threat sensors being partially able to overcome an active stealth system, necessitating a return of passive stealth features to compensate.

M7 is certainly not without it's flaws, but it's definitely thoroughly entertaining, and as you've found out, one of the funniest Macross series.

I wouldn't say that the technology used on the VF-0 was 'completely obsolete' by the time the VF-1 was delivered. It's been pretty clear that the VF-0 was nearly a match for the VF-1 except for being HUGE (and therefore less maneuverable and more fragile) and having underpowered engines and slightly less advanced equipment (weapons are slightly smaller and slightly weaker, avionics are slightly weaker, etc.). But that doesn't mean that the airframe wouldn't have been upgradeable. Comparing again to RW, you see aging airframes constantly updated with the latest and greatest. Most fighters in the US inventory for example are designs that are going on 30+ years old, but they have been constantly upgraded to stay up with current technology.

Vostok 7

It doesn't have to be completely obsolete It just has to be obsolete enough, that the price of upgrading it and the price of keeping it running are more than the price of buying a new VF-1 and maintaining that. Given what a maintenance hog the VF-0 was shown to be it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the UN Spacy just decided they cost too much to fly. There's plenty of real world examples of aircraft that weren't completely obsolete but were nonetheless retired because the price of keeping them flying was more than buying a new aircraft outright (The F-117 and F-14 come immediately to mind).

Ah, yes. Destroids. This brings me back to a bit of... Erm... Robotech art... It's Robotech, no doubt... It's my Dad's, ok? The book was made in 1986... There was a Tomahawk with the entire left arm assembly (And its mounting point) blown off. Said US Army on the foot... Friggin' Robotech... Oh well, it got my family into Macross...

IIRC that picture (including the US Army on the leg) is actually taken from one of the reconstruction episodes of Macross (obviously it went into Robotech too).

Remember that the 0s in the show were shown to be real hangar queens, probably due to the fact that, as test beds, no two planes were exactly alike. It only would have gotten worse as keeping the supply of specialized spares for such a small number of fighters (if they even shared many standardized parts between any two mecha) would have become a bigger and bigger pain in the ass. I wouldn't be surprised if it was cheaper to buy a brand new VF-1 and get the huge supply and maintenance chain behind it than pay for even a year of lifecycle costs on a VF-0 even with upgrades.

I would assume it's Sukhoi Variable (though, depending on context, Variable in Russian may not start with a 'V'). Otherwise, it would be Su-51, or even more accurately, it would be SuIAIDo-51 or SuDoIAI-51 (see: LaGG), though most properly, assuming each company involved had their own variations, it would be prefixed by whatever company sold it to the military, I.E. Soviet Bloc countries would use an Su-51, Middle Eastern countries would use an IAI (insert Israeli name here) and Germany and other European countries would use a Do xxx (see: Sukhoi/HAL FGFA).

And actually, following standard definition, couldn't the VF-1 actually be classified A/FV-1? I think it would fill both the attacker and fighter roles.

Vostok 7

I always wondered how Dornier or IAI would be spelled in Cyrillic and if they're the source of the V.

Yup it is!! ^_^

While doing some reading about military aircraft and looking at various Macross designs, this just occurs to me.

The Macross saga uses the American style nomenclature for aircraft denomination. For example, the Cat's Eye has the type number ES-11D. Meaning Electronic (warfare) Space / number 11 / block D. The VF-1A Valkyrie has the denomination Variable Fighter / number 1 / Block A (D/S/J etc). This means the VF-1 is the only variable fighter to be called Valkyrie. All others are Variable Fighters, but don't carry the name "Valkyrie", just as there's only one Tomcat. In this style, SV-51 most likely means Submarine (launched) Variable (fighter) / type 51 / Alpha or Gamma. The prefix Sukhoi Variable is also possible, but unlikely.

The only exception in this, is the VF-171 from Macross Frontier.

While the UN Spacy uses a variation on the US tri-service designation system (or the system currently used by the JASDF which itself is a variation on the US system) there's no reason to believe the Anti-UN uses the same system. Given the heavy former Warsaw Pact influences on the AUN it's more likely the the SV is a manufacturer designation (like MiG for Mikoyan-Gurevich or Tu for Tupolev) than any type of tri-service designation.

Hi Guys

Firstly i live in Australia and we use the PAL network now my problem is that i want to order in some DVD that haven't been release here like macroos zero, frontier and the DYRL movie perfect edition but most of them say they are in NTSC widescreen format or just NTSC format. Will these DVD's work in australia using PAL TV's? All the DVD's are multi region format so there's no problem with the DVD player but i don't want to buy them and find out i can't actually watch them.

Any help here would be great guys

Cheers

Short answer: No. PAL and NTSC are actually at different resolutions and different frame rates (25 fps for PAL 30 for NTSC). Your only bet is if you have a HDTV and a good upconverting player you might be able to get away with it, AFAIK the ATSC standard (what HDTVs use) has been adopted worldwide so an upconverting player would convert an NTSC signal to that the same as a PAL one. Your mileage may vary though.

Been thinking about this and... the sub isn't meant to recover aircraft.

We know that the Anti-UN Alliance doesn't have a base on Mayan Island and that they fielded vehicles other than the Sv-51 in the battle (Octos, Su-27, helicopter), therefore an Anti-UN fleet present nearby is evident (the closest being just over the "horizon", outside of the long range defenses of the UN fleet).

The sub is also designed for stealth operations. During retrevial operations it would attract a lot of attention to itself - not only must it surface and engage in a bunch of noisy activities, the deaccelerating and hovering Sv-51 would be spotted (by at least the VF-0, if not other UN equipment). Such an action goes directly against the stealth needed to keep the sub in theatre.

Therefore, the Sv-51 would land normally on Anti-UN support ships in the fleet, and be transferred to the sub after the sub had retreated back to the fleet; maximum stealth and minimal additional equipment needed.

Well the Octos is a submersible mecha so I wouldn't be surprised if the Auerstädt launched them as well, and there's no reason it couldn't have surfaced and launched the Mi-8s. However both the Mig-29As in the first episode and the weird canard equipped Mig-29s from the last episode are land based fighters with pretty short legs and no in flight refueling capability (Mig-29A has none, and I couldn't see a re-fueling probe on the canard variant), so they would have had to launch from a nearby base. The question then becomes how the heck the Anti-UN hid an airbase and attached submarine pen so effectively that they were able to launch a surprise attack on two CVBGs.

It doesn't even have a conjectural fan-made nickname AFAIK. I've never heard anything about a name for the -51. I do like Comorant a lot though. (goes with the Su-27 Crane)

Since it's an Anti-UN mech with a strong Russian heritage we could always give it a NATO like reporting name ala Flanker or Fishbed. Since it's a jet powered variable fighter it would need a name that starts with V containing two syllables. Victor? To the dictionary!

The most widely held theory is that VFs use a deck and catapult system to save reaction mass when launching in space. the fighters get a bit of "free" acceleration from the deck catapults. Of course the actual reason is that it looks cool.

Considering I work on flight testing UAVs and UCAVs for the USAF I have an inside line on the 'cuda because of work we've done with EADS. However due to OPSEC I will keep my mouth shut, though I might be able to confirm anything that DH says if it is publicly known.

And I agree that the Cuda is the most Ghost looking UAV out there right now.

Oh Knight26 you're such a tease when it comes to OPSEC. Come on make with the juicy stuff! What are it's front and side aspect RCS in square meters? If possible please provide detailed info on chemical composition of and the construction techniques for, any RAM used in it's structure.

My "freind" Yuri want's to know, yeah that's it!

Full scratch build of a variable VF-4! Not only is there some new lineart (engine nacelle w/o missiles and landing gear extended (shame that it's a picture of the lineart lying on a table... >.< )), we get a nice rear view, as well as a wicked looking loadout: 2 UUM-7 missile pods mounted between the center fuselage and the engine nacelles, along with 4 RMS-1 missiles on the wings!

I like what I've seen of the model but I'd love a scan of that lineart if someone has it.

Is it just me, or does anyone else feel momentary confusion when they see VF-2SS, VF-22S, and VF-25S? I wish the powers that be had picked some numbers that didn't look so similar...

Are we filling time before the thread is locked?

And yes that happens to me all the time.