Jump to content

Valkyrie Driver

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1920

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Valkyrie Driver

  1. Valkyrie Driver
    I guess that's fair. Still, I actually prefer the way Macross does it. It's familiar, and it's descriptive. The Designation tells you everything you need to know about what it is and what it does, as long as you know how to decode the designation. Further indicators like block numbers which we discussed earlier in relation to the VF-171 give even more information.
  2. Valkyrie Driver
    So, the E in VF-31E doesn't denote that it's an electronic warfare variant. Macross more or less Uses a US post-1962 triservice aircraft designation based system. With the YF series of fighters (19, 21, 24, 29, 30) we see the use of status prefixes: G: Permanently grounded J: Special test, temporary N: Special test, permanent X: Experimental Y: Prototype Z: Planning Then there are Modified mission prefixes, which we see with the RVF-25, RVF-171EX, EVA-3: A: Attack (i.e., air-to-surface) C: Transport (i.e., cargo) D: Drone director E: Special electronic mission F: Fighter H: Search and rescue, MEDEVAC K: Tanker L: Equipped for cold weather operations M: Missile carrier (1962 – c.1972), Mine countermeasures (c.1973–1976), Multi-mission (1977 onwards) O: Observation P: Maritime patrol Q: Unmanned drone R: Reconnaissance S: Antisubmarine warfare T: Trainer U: Utility V: Staff transport W: Weather reconnaissance And finally the Basic Mission Codes: A: Attack aircraft (for tactical air-to-surface mission) B: Bomber (for strategic air-to-surface mission) C: Transport (Cargo) E: Special electronic installation F: Fighter K: Tanker (dropped between 1977 and 1985) L: Laser-equipped O: Observation (Forward Air Control) P: Maritime patrol R: Reconnaissance S: Anti-submarine warfare T: Trainer U: Utility X: Special research Further in the Tri-Service designation system, you have vehicle type designators. Aircraft that don't fall under one of these categories don't require a type (e.g. fixed wing heavier-than-air craft): D: Unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) control segment G: Glider H: Helicopter Q: Unmanned aerial vehicle S: Spaceplane V: Vertical take-off/short take-off and landing (VTOL/STOL) Z: Lighter-than-air Now there are plenty of Aberrant designations; F/A-18, which derives from a shorthand referring to two variants of the same basic design, SR-71, in which the S stands for strategic, and a few others. So if we take the VF-19C for an example, V would be either aberrant meaning Variable, or out of sequence denoting a V/STOL Aircraft. F denotes a primary mission as a Fighter, 19 is the design number, and C indicates the major modification. In this case a C model is a single seat, the D would be the two set variant of the C. Looking at the EVA-3A, that's an Electronic Warfare modification on a VA-3A. Again V indicates variable or V/STOL, A meaning attack, 3 is the design number, and A indicates the first model of the series. With the VF-31 Siegfrieds, you have 5 distinct modifications on the original VF-31A/B (I have to assume there's a B model 2 seater). You have the Mirage C model, Chuck's E model, Messer's F model, Hayate's J model, and Arad's S model. For Some reason the D model gets skipped. "I" and "O" would be skipped in order to avoid confusion with "1" and "0", as it is in the real world. In this case, it may not be coincidental that Chuck's VF-31 is the E model, but that's not implicitly what the E stands for. In fact, R doesn't seem to be the right modifier for the RVF-25 or RVF-171 either. Since those are both technically Airborne Early Warning, and would thus have an E prefix designation (e.g. EVF-25, EVF-171). Furthermore those two fighters should have a Series letter attached to them. Again though they would fall under aberrant designations. I hope that does some explaining of how things are designated in Macross.
  3. Valkyrie Driver
    I mean it's not that I mind the push for automation. I'm all for making things easier and more efficient. I think that the headlong rush is bad. In a military context though, networks are one of the most vulnerable systems, and as we saw with Bradley/Chelsea Manning, all it takes is one knucklehead with a removable storage device to compromise the system. There is also the fact that writing the programming for such a system is hugely complex, and the ways the various programs will interact with one another is unpredictable as well. Which means there must be a lengthy debug phase. Furthermore, I tend to oppose the use of drones, except in the cases of the three D's; Dull, Dangerous, and Dirty. I'm all for replacing the U2 with a drone aircraft. High altitude ISR, is also dangerous and dirty, due to the fact that the pilot could be exposed to intense solar radiation. Dangerous missions mostly would include things like operating inside denied airspace. Heck even using them to augment SEAD missions is fine. Use the drones to light up the radars so that manned aircraft can target the air defenses. Dirty missions would include missions into areas that have been contaminated by Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear materials. Essentially, I believe that drones should stay restricted to their current roles, and that manned aircraft should make up the bulk of US airpower. Increasing the integration of systems is fine, but we shouldn't rush into it, because when we do, we often haven't given the technology a chance to mature. I've seen integrated systems get launched before they were ready, and they make work harder.
  4. Valkyrie Driver
    I was mostly talking about the microscopic stuff. the dust, the elemental hydrogen just floating about.
  5. Valkyrie Driver
    Call me old fashioned, but, I'm skeptical. I see the potential benefits, but I also see the glaring weaknesses. When I was in the USAF, they tried to automate my job, and tried to make me a glorified button pusher. Sad reality was, I could do the job better than the computer, and I prayed for the system to go down, so I could go back to doing it the old way. I feel that some of the skill gets lost when you add too much technology. Also, I feel that we are way too reliant on technology, I personally know too many people that would be lost without it.
  6. Valkyrie Driver
    Let's not perfume the pig here. They're toys, and there's nothing wrong with that... I have the wall mount, and I love it. I will caution you though, don't overtighten the bolts, or you will crack the acrylic. Trust me, I know, it happened to me. Mine currently displays my bandai valks, and it does fine. Should work exceptionally well for arcadias, considering that bandai valks are generally heavier (if my Yamato Valks are anything to go by).
  7. Valkyrie Driver
    Space isn't just an empty void. It's full of stuff. I mean, It's plausible, especially considering that a single particular Vajra can be born and die in space, without ever landing on a planet, so they obviously don't require an atmosphere. I'm curious to know how they respirate, I'm assuming that they use hydrogen for respiration, considering how abundant it is, and how it's just there in space.
  8. Valkyrie Driver
    Awesome Pics @Saburo. I can't wait to see how you get on with Mirage's Super parts!
  9. Valkyrie Driver
    Why would anyone buy a fighter from a company called Boeing? Oh, that's right, the US. Because Boeing purchased McDonell-Douglas. Maybe Airbus hired on some folks with experience in fighters. That, I believe is a more legitimate concern over Airbus producing a fighter. Especially given how networked the thing will supposedly be. I'm really skeptical of this. There are too many points of failure built in to this. Not to mention, the workload on the pilot. It had better be a 2 seater.
  10. Valkyrie Driver
    You mentioned that the pilot of the VF-27 would be a cyborg. Are the Cyborgs in Macross Frontier basically cut and paste full prosthetics ala Ghost in the Shell? Or are they the full range of cybernetically enhanced humans? Does the VF-27 absolutely require a cyborg pilot, or is that just the norm?
  11. Valkyrie Driver
    None of my figures were harmed, I managed to move quickly enough to keep that from happening.
  12. Valkyrie Driver
    Well, a thing happened. I was trying to adjust my display, and a trio of the joints just cracked. I don't know that the contributing factor was, maybe to much tension on the bolts, maybe too much lateral motion at the joint. Bad batch of acrylic. I just heard the joints start slipping as I was sitting at watching tv about 5 minutes after I finished putting up my VF-171EX super in fighter mode. edit: I'm still very satisfied with the product, overall, I just don't know what to make of this...
  13. Valkyrie Driver
    I wanted the complete set, because the Sv-262 never shows up on screen without that stuff. Honestly I think that Bandai should just bundle the Super parts with the Valks when said Valks never appear on screen without. Like The VF-25F/G should have come with their supers and the VF-25S should have come with armor. Just like they did with the VF-19Adv. Here here!
  14. Valkyrie Driver
    Nice haul. That's a ton of good stuff.
  15. Valkyrie Driver
    Aside from the cost and instability of the BDI system, what exactly caused the YF-19 to be chosen over the YF-21? Watching the expanded dogfight between Guld and Isamu in the Plus Movie, the two fighters seemed pretty evenly matched.
  16. Valkyrie Driver
    Regardless of Reaction Missiles, I will be getting a set of supers for my VF-31C. I like to have the super parts for my toys. If I want missiles I'll just go order from @Xigfrid's shapeways store. I like the selection he has.
  17. Valkyrie Driver
    Yes, the 18 Mecha Toys, VF-19 Master File book, and Mirage Figurine I have all count...
  18. Valkyrie Driver
    Fair enough. I don't doubt any of that. First, I do not have that kind of money. Second, if I did, I would have to consider very hard what I spent it on. Third, if I could afford it and all of my other needs, I'd do it in a heartbeat. I know. I have 7 DX Chogokin valks, 6 Yamato Valks, and 1 Yamato Destroid. I'm well familiar with the investment. But I tend to control my spending pretty well, Averaging 1-2 Valks per year, That's mostly because I don't make a ton of money. That's certainly true. I'm not meaning to disparage anyone. I'm just saying that, it's hard for me to justify because I'm living on a fixed income. I get paid once a month, and so I have to budget very closely to survive. So, you can see my dilemma. When I can afford things like this, that'll be another story...
  19. Valkyrie Driver
    As much as I would love to have the UCS millenium falcon, I can't see myself ever shelling out close to 1k for a toy.
  20. Valkyrie Driver
    Ok. That makes sense, similar to sailing a ship through swells or a storm. So, basically nothing alike? I didn't mean that time during the fold was altered, just that how people perceived time, was altered. Being that they experience a shorter duration during the fold than is experience by those in realspace. I guess I should have referred to it as the time differential. So basically as they evolved from the metaphorical reciprocating engine to the turbojet, and eventually to the turbofan? Relativity is a headache... But the impact in realspace is minimal, albeit distinct. The fusion rocket though is still very much a thing in Macross though, since that's essentially what the TN Reaction turbine engines are in space correct? So using the gravity control systems, would that essentially allow them to achieve a similar effect to the impulse drives you mentioned earlier? That's a good explanation. That would make the Zero-time Fold Systems more energy intensive wouldn't it? Or does the Fold quartz negate that? I don't know who came up with it first (not that it matters), but it sounds similar to the way BattleTech handles its Hyperspace jumps (Possible evidence of further Macross rip-offery). You need a lot of energy to move a ship across space, and longer jumps are theoretically possible, just practically impossible due to the inability to meet the power requirements. At least Fold travel isn't the same as warp drive, being a magic button for ST.
  21. Valkyrie Driver

    Hi-Metal R

    Valkyrie Driver replied to joppewo's topic in Toys

    So, is it hard to get a VF-1J GBP HMR toy? Is it still in production?
  22. Valkyrie Driver
    Ok, so it's really just fold faults that account for the creation of the time differential? Similar to the way WH40k has Warp Currents which can alter when and how a ship returns to realspace? Only, less scary? So, basically the ship and passengers are not insulated from the altered passage of time? It does seem though, that while the passage of time is still a factor, it's much less drastic than the Relativistic effects of FTL speeds. Am I correct? So in comparison, a fold drive manipulates the geometry of super-dimensional space, which I assume must be more malleable, in order to overlap the ship's entry into SD space with the ship's exit from SD space, and subsequent entry into realspace, without distorting realspace in any way? That clears up how starships in ST can move through a solar system so quickly, and how vast distnaces like nebulae can be crossed in a matter of weeks. So how do ships in Macross deal with those effects, because it took the SDF-1 like a month and a half or so to reach earth from mars. The whole trip from Pluto took only about a year, so there must be some insane speeds going on. Unless Macross is also generating some sort of relativity cancelling shenanigans... So, once more, it's the fold faults and geometry that create the time differential? Does the Zero-time fold system essentially even out the time differential? Since ships using such a system can move through faults without difficulty, that means a seemingly instant translation across distances? So given all of that, What accounts for the given maximum ranges on space folds? Is it purely a matter of energy? I do recall it being stated that a Long Range Fold takes a ton of power, such that rationing became a thing on the Frontier. Or, is it the presence of fold faults? Or is it a combination of both?
  23. Valkyrie Driver
    Quoted For Truth...
  24. Valkyrie Driver
    So does fold travel mitigate relativistic effects in any way? In Star Trek and, presumably, Star Wars their methods of FTL travel mitigate the theory of relativity by equalizing time in the ship and outside the ship. Star Trek's warp drive is explained in more detail, but the Alcubierre Drive explains it in a functional way (contracting space time ahead of the craft, while expanding space time behind the craft, that's overly simplistic, but I'm not a physicist). I know there are time adjustments made when a ship defolds. I also know that Alto and Sheryl's journey from the Frontier to Gallia 4 is stated to be a full Day of travel time from their point of view, but to actually take over a week in normal space. Is that mainly due to fold faults, and would the Zero-time engines fully negate the relativistic effects of FTL travel?
  25. Valkyrie Driver
    What is going on in these pictures? When did this become transformers? How does this even work?
×
×
  • Create New...