Nied

Another thought on using air as reaction mass in an atmosphere. Yeah gas isn't quite as efficient as a liquid, but so what? That's exactly how modern jet engines do it and they don't seem to have much trouble.

Something else to think about. Most of the materials suggested emit radio waves while cooling from a plasma state, not something you want in any military spacecraft. I've always liked the MAT theory of using kerosene for fuel. SInce it's two main components are hydrogen and carbon it could easily be used as a simple fuel/reaction mass combo. Just seperate the Hydrogen from the carbon for the reactors (a simple catylist could do that), and use to carbon as reaction mass (carbon doesn't emit radio waves while cooling).

The only differences between all the models are internal. I think the A, B and C Models have different avionics while the G is practically the VF-1X of VF-4s (rebuilt with better engines and equipment). However like the VF-1X it still looks identical to it's predecessors.

Didn't someone in the old thread say something to the extent that the term UN Spacy encompassed all branches?

Indeed the S in UNS Air Force and UNS Marine Corps stands for Spacy.

We've all been asuming Nora was either lying or wrong. But what if the Anti-UN really did develop Variable fighters? Think about it, why develop giant humanoid mecha that can transform into a plane to fight giant humanoid infantry, which assumedly can not fly? My theory is that the UN only developed Destroids as part of ther original plan to combat giants. The Anti-UN seeing the UN developing these giant walking tanks developed variable fighters as a way to combat them. The UN not wanting to be upstaged started a crash program to do the same, so as to combat this new anti-UN mecha and thus their variable fighter program came into being. It was only later that the UN decided that Variable fighters might be an effective way to fight giant aliens.

I see the point for the "first day" thing, but I mean--F-117, plus B-2, plus the almost-sorta-stealthy B-1B should be more than enough.  We've got a lot more stealthy stuff now than for '91.  (When B-1B's were still pretty much nuke-only, and B-2's not in service). 

And, with plenty of F-15C's, that opens up the F/A (blech) -22 to stuff JDAMS in its belly for the first day and act like an F-117 (though less stealthy).

F-117 is old and getting unsuportable (though I suppose they could build more), the B-2 is mighty expensive to operate and more of a strategic solution, ditto with the B-1, with the added disavantage of not being a very stealthy design (redesigned intakes or not). The F-15C is more than good at what it does, but it's also getting old and it will eventually be unsuportable, and I doubt the Air Force would want to replace them with more F-15s. While the F-22 could be very easily be turned into an extremely effective strike platform, with only 339 of them to go around (or is it 200 now, I can't remember) they can't be everywhere, besides which they wouldn't be perfect for everything (CAS and FAC come readily to mind).

edited for grammar and punctuation

Radar range is said to be 90 miles---2/3 that of the F-22. It's the same radar basically as the 22, just a lower-power version.

Missile stand-off range should be about the same as the F-22, whatever that is. (AMRAAM's range is still classified. 30 miles is a good guess, but 10-20 is optimum. However, when launched in supercruise, range goes up. How much, still classified).

F-35 is like a slower, less stealthy F-22. Overall the same idea, just cheaper and not quite as good. And WAY less payload. That's the F-35's main suckiness (I'm not an F-35 fan, BTW---it's the F-16 replacement, even though it's worse than the F-16 in many ways). It carries *two* weapons. Either 2 JDAM's, 2 AMRAAM's, or one of each. That's it.

And, since the AMRAAM is a medium-range missile, the F-35 is so totally screwed in a dogfight. And it's not manueverable enough to to use its gun well. (Though the gun should be superior to most any other gun).

Now, the F-35 should be decently manueverable, it just won't have any weapons. The F-22 is designed to be quite fast, quite stealthy (but still less than a F-23), and carry 6-8 missiles, both short and medium range, and take out a lot of bad guys quickly. As it gets close, it still has great manueverability, short-range missiles, and a gun, so it can still dogfight if things come to that.

But the F-35--I don't know WHAT it's supposed to do. (Neither do a lot of people). F-16 replacement is often cited, but it's so not. F-16 is originally an AWESOME close-range dogfighter. Unbeatable at "knife-range", can turn on a dime. Designed to use short-range missiles. So how can a plane without short-range missiles be a replacement? Also, F-16C's and such have a very good bombing ability. Because they can carry lots of weapons. No point in a bomber with only 1 or 2 bombs. (Except the F-117, because it's ULTRA stealthy, and is used to deliver a few big bombs to very well-defended, high-value targets)---F-35 can't do that, it's not stealthy enough, and doesn't carry as big bombs. F-35 is designed to be "as good as the F-16/18" in the strike role, and have a secondary air defense capability. Well, if you add the extra pylons on to it the F-35 can carry as much stuff as an F-16/18, but then it's lost its stealth. So you have a new, expensive F-35 that's only as good as the 16/18. And it's certainly 2nd-rate as a fighter. What's the point?

It does have good range though. Lots of fuel. More than an F-15. (Not a lot more, but more---but since it only feeds one engine, instead of two like the F-15, it can go quite far) However, F-15's usually load up on 3 huge drop tanks--another 50%. And then add FAST packs to an F-15 for even more. Can't do that on a F-35 without totally losing its stealthiness. (There is NO POINT in a stealth plane that can lose its stealthiness, IMHO )

AFAIK the F-35A is supposed to be an F-16 that can be stripped of all it's external weapons to become a fairly stealthy (IIRC it's purported to be almost as stealthy as the Nighthawk) first day of war weapon. Otherwise it's comperable in performance to the F-16. I think the USAF took a hit for the other services, who got a fairly stealthy plane with the performance of an F-16 that could either a. Land on a carrier(USN/RN), or b. Land anywhere it wants (USMC/RAF/RN).

Still waiting to get my copy of Photoshop back from my mom (and to see Vinnie's 3-D model).

Being one of the other Aviation nuts around here I thought I'd take a stab at this.

Judging from my Yamato, a VF-1 wouldn't have much wing area available at it's maximum sweep (that is with the back pack in the unfolded postion) I'm guessing that's the oversweep position that the compendium is talking about. From the looks of it there wouldn't be any real advantage to folding up the backpack and folding the wings all the way back. Just point every other plane in the oposite direction (like they do with Tomcats now) and you'd get them to take up the just about same amount of space (give or take a few feet).