Seto Kaiba

Okay, this is starting to get a little on the annoying side... if you're going to debate, at least have the common courtesy to get the names of the mecha right. It's the AGA-1JF, not AJA, and the VF-2SS not VF-2S. To refresh your memories the names of the fighters are: VF-2SS Valkyrie II VF-2JA Icarus VF-?(1)MS Metal Siren VF-XX Zentradi Valkyrie Zinjo, almost all variable fighters are multipurpose, but that never stopped them from being classified as VF instead of VF/A. And to me there really isn't much wrong with having the two different applications of a common design like the VF-2SS and 2JA. They're the same basic airframe, but they're used for two different applications, with mildly different equipment. Naming the AGA-1JF a 1JF was deliberate, since it's not a valkyrie. It does not transform, and for all intents and purposes, it's basically a permanent gerwalk, and by the way it's designed and shown in Macross II seems to indicate that it's something like an attack helecopter destroid. It's not carrying enough guns to be a full-on destroid, and it's primary strength seems to be light guns and missiles, not too dissimilar from a support helecopter. It's the first of it's kind, so hence the number 1. As for the VF-XX, I can say that it's fatally flawed to call it a flying wing, since the fighter mode has almost NO wing whatsoever. If I had to put a school of design to the VF-XX I'd say it was more of a lifting body than a flying wing. Flying wings, like the B-2 spirit, are ALL wing, they've just a big wing with the cockpit jammed front and center. A lifting body is more like the space shuttle, which for it's size has very little in the way of wing surface and relies on the underside of the body to provide additional lift. As for the actual naming system, maybe they decided to number them based on their airframe similarity to the VF-1, or they decided to disavow the unified numbering system. For the most part, there isn't really anything wrong with the numbering system in Macross II or Macross 7, but for little wrinkles like the VF-XX, and the semi-unnamed Metal Siren, which aren't conventional designs, so it seems that they might've just taken the easy way out and decided to develop a separate, letter-based numbering system for the more Zentradi-like designs. I suppose that more than one fighter might fit into that too, with the variable glaug from earlier games, and the VF-XX from Macross II.

Quick interruption, Penguin... You do know that in real militaries, they do not always follow a numerical sequence for designating new technologies introduced. Sure, lately we've been working on a numerical scale, going F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, F/A-22... but there have been others taken out of sequence, including the F-111. Or should the B-2 Spirit have been made BEFORE the B-52? Numerical designation is not an effective yardstick to measure what was introduced into service and when. If you want to get strictly down to it, the term VF-1MS cropped up mostly in the Palladium books and other references, discounting Animation Special #5. They started calling it the VF-1MS and it just sort of stuck. The name is semi-official, thanks in part to Palladium, and in part to some sections of the DVD. However, like I said, an official designation for the Metal Siren was never really mentioned. There are also, like I said, other mentions which put the Metal Siren at other numbers. There are enough design commonalities in the appearance of the VF-2SS and the VF-4 to include the VF-4 Lightning III in the timeline, since there is nothing there to exclude it explicitly or implicitly from the timeline. VF-1MS/YF-1MS following a head lettering scheme doesn't quite fit, since it's definately got a unique head, maybe the M is standing for that and the S for space, but more likely it's just short for Metal Siren. Good analogy on the "VF-XX" it's another mystery fighter whose fighter mode actually only exists in art, and was never shown front and center in the animation. Palladium's excuse was that it was a limited-production model designed for Zentradi pilots. Still, since it rather defies conventional valkyrie designs in not having a GERWALK mode, and looking to be rather the long-lost cousin of the variable glaug, it's true name should probably remain up in the air. The Variable Glaug looks rather like a Nosjadeul Ger when in battroid, and the VF-XX looks rather like a Queadluun Rau power armor in battroid mode. I'd say that if I had to assemble an approximate development timeline, I'd probably end up repeating myself somewhat from earlier posts with this little theorized timeline. The larger gaps are filled with mecha that bear strong design similarities to the VF-2SS and VF-2JA (namely the VF-1SR from Macross 2036 and the "VF-2A" which Nanashi calls the VF-XS). The reason I've numbered them in the order I have would reflect the same shift Kawamori made away from the design of the VF-4 and to a more traditional battroid design (VF-11) in another form, with the VF-1SR. HYPOTHESIZED TIMELINE - NOT CANON VF-0 Phoenix (~2008) VF-1 Valkyrie (2009) VF-4 Lightning (2020) VF-1SR Valkyrie (2036) VF-2A Valkyrie II (2060) VF-XX Zentradi Valkyrie (2070) VF-2SS Valkyrie II (2075) VF-2JA Icarus (2075) VF-3MS Metal Siren (2089) HYPOTHESIZED TIMELINE - NOT CANON

If you look carefully, there are actually three of those shields. One on each of the SAP pack's wings, and one on the top of the backpack, along the centerline, just above the secondary engines. Like every other part of the Superiority Armor Packs, the shields conceal missile launchers, though in this case they're significantly larger missiles with a larger range. Each of the triangular panels on the arms (5 per arm) and each on the legs (4 per leg) conceal 3 mini-missiles. The two trapezoidal panels at the leading edge of each of the shields hides the missile launcher, they open by sliding horizontally outwards and splitting along the leading edge of the shield to allow the missile to clear the launcher. Judging by the size of the missile fired in the animation, I find the RPG book's claims that each only holds a single missile per tube a little off. My best guess is 2-3 per tube, with six tubes (2 per shield). And so long as people are talking about the good ol' Metal Siren, I thought it might be time to bring up an interesting little chat that some of the members on my website have been having about the Metal Siren. What we've been talking about is exactly HOW to classify the Metal Siren. The general working name for it has been the VF-1MS Metal Siren, but looking at other VF-1-based fighters doesn't really support that. Look at other fighters that share a similar name/number relationship, the VF-1 and VF-1SR. They are visibly related through common airframe design. The airframe looks nearly identical, but for a few refinements in the head, hands and FAST pack system. Or you could take the Sound Force custom jobs, which were given their own codes, like VF-11 MAXL. They still bear a visible relationship with their original model. I think you'll all agree with me that the Metal Siren really has very very little in common with the other VF-1 family like the VF-1 Valkyrie or the VF-1SR. In various sources, it's called the VF-1MS. What is suspected as a slipup in the printing of the RPG sourcebook one has it listed in one entry as the VF-MS Metal Siren, following the no-number pattern that the VF-XX used. But since the Metal Siren will likely either be a special operations valkyrie like the VF-17, or a new main variable fighter, it would definately have to have a number. So we've been postulating on exactly where it fits. Since VF-1MS and VF-MS don't quite seem to suit, for reasons of design lineage and probable end use, there are a few other numbers that have cropped up in discussion that seem a little more or less suitable. The most common one that seems to fit is VF-3MS. The general logic there is that since the Metal Siren has no visible relationship to any other existing model, it should get it's own number. Convienantly enough, VF-1, 2 and 4 happen to be taken, but not 3, which equally convienantly follows 2. (Technically VF-3 is taken, but only in the non-canon Macross: Remember Me, a 1993 PC game). Two websites that I'm aware of are calling it the VF-4MS. I'm not entirely sure why, since it has nothing visually in common with the VF-4 Lightning III, but for a non-canon VF-4 Siren that appeared in a video game. There are a few others, but those two make the most sense. I would be most grateful to hear your thoughts on the matter, and with your permission, I might add a little bit of any good posted arguments to an article on naming the Metal Siren that'll be appearing on my website.

Actually Skull Leader, you WERE wrong in the names. There is no VF-2S or VF-2J. The fighters in Macross II are rather odd in that they all have a number and TWO letters, with one exception, which discounts the number. If you don't believe me, check Mahq, or use google to search for "VF-2S Valkyrie" (which will ask you if you mean "VF-2SS Valkyrie"), or google for VF-2SS Valkyrie and VF-2JA Icarus. ;-) Also try "This is Animation Special #5" which also calls them the VF-2SS and VF-2JA. The Valkyrie II without it's armor is the VF-2SS Valkyrie II. The Valkyrie II with it's armor is the VF-2SS SAP Valkyrie II, or VF-2SS Valkyrie II w/ SAP system (SAP = Super Armor Pack / Superiority Armor Pack) The Icarus is the VF-2JA Icarus. The generally used name for the Metal Siren is the VF-1MS Metal Siren. (Though VF-3MS and VF-4MS have also been seen in various sources) The only general exception in Macross II is the so-called Zentradi Valkyrie, which was given the name VF-XX. Even one of the destroids, the AGA-1JF, follows the two-letter and one-number pattern.

Demand? Nah, it was more of a polite request. I just feel sorry I ever brought it up in the first place. *shaking head slowly* Looks like they latched onto it and are unwilling to let it go. Needless to say I have no great love of Gundam series after Gundam Wing. Kinda like Star Trek, they just won't take a bloody hiatus for a few years and get some fresh material. ComicKaze, didn't you do a CGI of a VF-2SS in battroid mode orbiting Earth? If that was you, great work, superb stuff. I'm with you on your view of the Valkyrie II. My main reason for liking it so much isn't the big guns, or the huge number of missiles, but rather the fact that it's smooth, sleek and streamlined design reminds me so much of a high-performance sportscar. The look of it just screams how fast it is, and gives it a much more dynamic feel.

There is one factor you forgot to take into account about every generation producing a leap in technology. In developing the F-16, the F-117A and other fighters, humanity was working largely with technology it had developed and implemented itself. In Macross, they're applying an alien technology that is demonstratably not entirely understood to human designs. They're trying to boil thousands of years of development down using reverse engineering. I'd say just getting a functional Valkyrie prototype off the ground in ten years is a monumental achievement. After that it only makes sense that valktyrie technology would improve as humanity gained a complete understanding of each new technology.

Well, this timeline and it's mecha are based largely upon the reasonable assumption that unlike the cold war era, the Zentradi are not developing new fighter or mecha designs, so the need for radical innovation was not as desperate. It's pretty much stated outright that the Zentradi's weapons and mecha are built by automated factories, and they have very limited capabilites to repair or design new mecha. As to getting sick of recycling old designs, there are two fighters in the Macross II timeline that could account for that willingness to experiment with new designs. The first would be the VF-4 Lightning III, which can hardly be called a conventional design when compared against it's predecessor, the VF-1 Valkyrie. The other would have been introduced near the end of Macross II, that being the prototype for the VF-1MS Metal Siren, which is definately a radical design innovation of similar significance to the Project Super Nova valkyries. Still, the development of radical new designs in fighters is something that comes along only once in a great while, nowadays. Speaking from an engineering standpoint, I can say that if a design happens to work and work well, then there isn't really a reason to radically reinvent it until you've run it to the absolute limit of what it can handle. For the UN, making the leap from ordinary jet fighters to variable fighters was one such major change made by sheer necessity. The VF-1 Valkyrie worked extremely well all told, and so there wouldn't really be a need to do something radical right off the bat. Enhancement to the existing, proven design would've been the prudent maneuver for them to make, and definately the most cost effective too. You can bet that once the war was over, the bloated, runaway military budget the Spacy had was cut after the threat was no longer in their faces.

One thing I should add to my prior statement... The mecha development timeline I conjectured in my previous post is just that, conjecture. The VF-4 Lightning III and it's close cousin the VF-9 Cutlass were included because they were both in service before the timeline split between Macross II and Macross Plus at 2040. This neatly accounts for the introduction of the VF-1SR Valkyrie in the mid-to-late 2030's, and the design similarties between that design and the VF-2SS. However, there is still a small gap that can be accounted for in one of two ways. First, the VF-1SR could have been pressed into a service life comparable to the F-14 Tomcat. A long and venerable service life with several technological freshenings along the way to ensure that the fighter remains up to pace with current weapons technology. This could also have included newer gunpods, improvements to the FAST packs and other, less visible changes which could account for the unique shape and configuration of the Valkyrie II's portable firearms and FAST packs. The other possibility is that a mecha similar to the "VF-XS" posted on Nanashi's was introduced somewheres around the 2060-2070 period. If you look at that design, it could also be called the VF-2SA, because on the surface it greatly resembles a VF-2SS, with a different gunpod, and a rather odd looking head with the laser mounting being rather large, and the cannon being in a turret on the right side of the head, instead of the traditional top of the head placement for the A models. This could have been later developed into the VF-2SS which according to statements made in Macross II and elsewhere, was introduced just in time for the Zentradi invasion of 2079. A rough timeline I've sketched out several times before follows: VF-0 Phoenix (2008): Prototype, retired with release of VF-1. There is no reason not to place this in the timeline, as the events of Macross Zero in no way are directly tied to the split in the timeline, as those of Macross Plus and 7 are. VF-1 Valkyrie (2009-2020): First full production model, canon dates for activation and replacement. This mecha forms the basis of the entire Macross II development timeline, and therefore it's appearance is both of canon import (DYRL) and of developmental necessity. The DYRL variant would seem to be more appropriate than the ones used in the TV series, because of design elements incorporated into the hands of the mecha. VF-4 Lightning III (2020-2047): Canon dates, stopped counting after 2047 freshening to VF-4G variant. This fighter forms the basis for several major design elements of the VF-2JA, and quite possibly several from the VF-2SS as well. VF-9 Cutlass (2023-2029-2049): Canon dates, but there is no canon date for it's retirment from service. It could conceivably go as far as 20 years. Included because of it's close relation to the VF-4 Lightning VF-1SR Valkyrie (2035-2065): Estimated lifespan, based upon available data. No official date for the activation or retirement of the VF-1SR is known. Relation to other mecha, including the VF-4 Lightning, VF-1 Valkyrie and VF-2SS Valkyrie II is based upon similarities in design of the mecha and it's armaments, as well as it's known placement in the timeline (2036). VF-XS/2SA Valkyrie II (2065-2077): Estimated lifespan, based upon the minor mecha development gap and my best estimations from the Macross II timeline. No real evidence of this mecha exists, aside from sketches. VF-2SS Valkyrie II (2077-Still in service): No signs of the VF-2SS being retired appear in Macross II. Based on statements made by Silvie Gena and other characters, the activation date of 2077, just before the Zentradi invasion of 2079 is an educated guess. The window of activation dates for replacing the existing main variable fighter could range as far as 2075-2079. VF-1MS Metal Siren (In development ~ 2089): Still in the prototype testing phase, only two known to exist, one mockup flown by Lt. Silvie Gena during the Moon Festival and severely damaged by a Marduk raiding party. The other was flown by Nexx during the last battle of the Marduk war, and presumably is still intact at the Macross Cannon orbital base.

Well, depending on how you shake it, the VF-2SS is either a third or fourth generation Valkyire, when you account for some wonderfully similar designs in chronologically preceding videogames. The one I'm looking at it is one that our dear colleague the white drew carey should be intimately familiar with as he just completed a wallpaper of it not too long ago... the VF-1(A/J/S)R Valkyrie. I'm not gonna steal any more of Mahq's bandwidth, but you can go here (http://www.mahq.net/mecha/macross/macross2036/vf-1sr.htm) if you want to see it. I defy you to tell me that doesn't look like the father of the VF-2SS. From what little we have on the VF-1SR Valkyrie from Macross 2036 it definately looks and flys like the VF-2SS. There's the head on the SR variant, which looks distinctly like the VF-2SS's head, but with the VF-1S's four head lasers, and instead of the "dome" above the eyes, it has that blister with the smaller sensor cluster. Then the body, which is more or less VF-1, with a few refinements. The more angular torso, the front end looks more streamlined, the hands have been changed from that puffy-looking TV-series hand to a slimmer and more mechanical looking version of the DYRL hand used on later models including the VF-2SS. Then there's also the semi-permament FAST pack system. Just like it's theoretical descendant, the Valkyrie II, the VF-1SR is almost never seen without it's enhanced FAST pack system, which incorporates missile launchers and beam cannons. Then it's gunpod has also been altered to something that definately looks more robust. Counting that, when you get up close to it's head, as in my attachment, and you'll see a definate similarity between the heads of the VF-1SR and the VF-2SS, and between the VF-1JR and VF-2JA. (From left to right the heads are the VF-1JR, VF-1SR, then VF-1AR). The projected history including those would put the VF-1 Valkyrie first, then the VF-4 Lightning, then the VF-9 Cutlass, followed by the VF-1SR Valkyrie, and eventually on to the VF-2SS Valkyrie II, VF-2JA Icarus, and the VF-XX Zentradi Valkyrie (with several alternate names including "Wicked Angel"), and then their eventual replacement rolled out in prototype form only, the VF-1MS Metal Siren (conjectured to also use the title VF-3MS). Despite Skull Leader's mistakes in fighter name for the VF-2SS and VF-2JA, I definately agree with his view of them. Sure, those designs may not be entirely original, but they're definately inspired and good looking designs. Like I said at the beginning, it's sort of like the difference between a old-model military Jeep, and an assault-equipped Humvee. P.S.: I'm SO regretting opening that Valkyrie-Gundam comparison can of worms. Just let it go, people.

Granted, I'm reaching a little with that gundam-valkyrie comparison. It's a little opinon I've been harboring since I last watched Macross 7. It sort of struck me after I switched from the DVD player to cable, and Gundam happened to be running. Something about the way the battroid's torso and limbs are aligned and shaped struck me as being a lot like certain mobile suits. That and the way the later model Kawamori valkyries seem to have developed a love for hand to hand fighting and disproportionately large guns and strange head fins that have always been the trademark of mobile suits. Seemed a bit relevant (at the time) to the discussion of precisely where the Valkyrie II split from the canon Kawamori designs. That and I was wondering if that thought had occurred to anyone else. Some of Kawamori's other works also seem to me to be following that general progression towards Gundam styling. Okay, I wish people would sit down and realize how crazy that sounds. For starters, that'd be painfully expensive. A standard F/A-22 will set you back about $338 million, not counting any modifications, and those are much much less complex than a Valkyrie. Still, with all the heavy modifications on the Sound Force valkyries, including the power-rangers lips, the breasts and wide hips, and the funky controls, that's one hell of a bill to be sending to the government. That and putting something that mind-numbingly expensive in the hands of a civilian rock band full of oddballs isn't exactly a wise decision either. Y'know, I'd never thought of that parallel before, but that's definately relevant as a comparsion. True, the Valkyrie II isn't much original on it's own, unless you count the special fast packs. Still, it's a nice looking design and it works well throughout the series. It's not quite like the "All Good Things" Enterprise D, where all they did was try to make it look different by making it a kitbashing project. They didn't really add much to the design of the VF-2SS, but they refined what traits it already had. Yeah, essentially they took the VF-1S and said "Okay guys, how can we make this thing look newer and fresher" and worked from that. Gotta admit though, it does flow pretty well as a design.

Actually, that's the most common beef that the people who come to my site to bash Macross II voice. Like I mentioned (and apologized for) earlier, the line I'm used to hearing is "ZOMG! Kawamori didn't do it so it SUXX0R!" Thank you, LowViz Lurker, for bringing up those wonderfully warped pictures of the XS-06 gunpod and the full armor VF-11 Thunderbolt. There's the first domino in the long line to complete unbelievability in Macross mecha. Ironic how the gunpod's name is "excess," and with a barrel like that, it's not hard to see why. A rifle-sized gunpod is believable, and you're going to get fairly good accuracy with it, but that big honkin gunpod is useless, it's so big it'll spin you around when you fire it, and it's going to be almost impossible to aim properly with two hands while wearing that armor. This is a symptom of what I like to call "gundam-itis." We all know full well that Kawamori was a fan of Gundam, and that he even named the bridge of the SDF-1 Macross after the fanzine his Gundam fanclub made while attending Keio University. Over time, the canon Macross mecha have started to look more and more like Gundams. Let's look at the similarities here on these two notable mecha, the ZGMF-X20A Strike Freedom from Gundam Seed Destiny, and the YF-19 Excalibur prototype from Macross Plus. Let's start from the top down, shall we? Both have the cockpit seated in precisely the same place, inside the "super boob" on the chest. That's been a staple feature of almost every Gundam since the original RX-78. Note ye also the widely protruding hip joints, shoulders, and the ridge up the center of the head. Then when it comes down to it, you've got enormous rifles for the VF-11 that look suspiciously like the enormous cannons made famous during Gundam Wing. The similarities go on and on and on. The cockpits have even started to look alike. The original VF-1 was unique, memorable, and stood out among the crowd of giant robots with a design all it's own. There's something to be said for the Valkyries of Macross II in keeping that design tradition alive, and innovating on it. Sure, the VF-2SS and VF-2JA look lots like the VF-1, but they innovate on that with smoother flowing designs, and kind of a sportscar feel. You won't find anything quite like it, and they sort of stick in your mind. Heck, I knew the VF-2SS right away and it stuck in my head since I saw the movie, and later stumbled across some art of it on the UN Spacy Database. I can't imagine something as Gundam-like as Basara's VF-19 Excalibur or Mylene's VF-11 Thunderbolt (which I still contend looks like Arcee from Transformers) being quite as memorable. Good for toy sales maybe, but they don't feel like a robust, military plane. More like something you might see at an air show being conducted by Rutan Aircraft.

Interesting outlook. But in Kawamori's universe, the UN Spacy hardly acts like a military organization. They seem to be more interested in sending out colony ships and investigating the magical healing powers of music than they do about actually defending anything. Nobody in their right mind would've made a civilian band into a fighter squadron, and especially wouldn't have built them custom fighters for the job. These radical leaps in performance and design represent an unrealistic degree of advancement. They went from the first variable fighter prototypes stumping around just barely in the Mach speeds, to planes controlled by human brainwaves that fly so fast they can kill their pilots, all in forty years. Your tank analogy is a little flawed, when you get into the history of it. While tanks were enhanced from WWI to WWII, not much in the way of major, revolutionary change was made until the cold war era, a good 20 years later. And since then, tanks have advanced relatively little. The same can be said for fighter aircraft, basic designs haven't changed that allfired much since the F-4 Phantom. Even when you're at war every couple years, like the United States is, you still don't see these huge dramatic leaps in combat technology like Kawamori's "canon" UN Spacy does. It's UNREALISTIC to say the least. Refinement and redesign are the best methods for improving technology. If it isn't broken, you don't need to fix it. I ought to know, I'm an engineer. Also, there's little-to-no evidence that the UN is in "constant conflict" either. Sure, there's that one battle scene in Macross Plus, but the Zentradi in that battle were dispatched relatively swiftly. But aside from that, all the fighting seems to be being done by the colony fleets, far far away from home. Something that's not to dissimilar from the situation we're in now with wars overseas. If you go pay closer attention to the discussion Silvie Gena has with Exxegran, you'll notice that they mention that the UN Spacy's last war with the Zentradi in the Macross II universe was only ten years previous to the Marduk invasion. Ten years, that's less time than from the Vietnam War to now. Mecha evolution stunted? Maybe. But if you consider historical context for when combat equipment evolution was at it's fastest. The Cold War prompted a supreme game of oneupsmanship between the USA and Soviet Union, with new weapons, aircraft and tanks being in constant development. This was because of antagonism and the ability of both sides to easily develop new technologies. The Zentradi have all their weapons built for them by automated factories, so mecha advancement is slow, or perhaps even nonexistant. So therefore, the need for mecha advancementw on the UN Spacy's part is not quite so desperate as the situation during the Cold War. The enemy isn't coming up with radical new weapons, so fighter development can maintain the tried and true science of refining existing designs instead of creating radical new problematic ones. (Yes, I'm looking at you, YF-21, you and your freaky brainwave control system) Besides, the VF-2SS might be not much more heavily armed than the VF-1 without it's armor, but when it's deployed almost constantly with it's armor, that's a non-issue. It's toting more firepower than the VF-22 Sturmvogel or VF-19 Excalibur are. There's that big particle beam cannon, the choice of several gunpods, fifteen mini-missiles per arm, twelve per leg, and the longer-ranged launchers on the backpack. It's also got gun drones, which combined with the armor are more than enough to bring the hurt. The VF-2JA Icarus is meant to be fast, light and agile, and it does a fine job of it too. Carries a modest armament that can hit hard, and move fast. The VF-1MS Metal Siren carries so much firepower as to be nothing more than a very large, agile weapons platform. These aren't stunted designs, these are examples of specialization in design. Instead of making a fighter that does all environments so-so, you make two or three variants on a single design that do one or two environments, but do them EXTREMELY well. They do this with existing fighters too, like the night warfare variant of the Harrier II, single and dual seaters for various fighters mission profiles, special variants designed for certain combat environments, etc. This is nothing new, this is how military designers work. By the way, thank you very much for correcting my timeline error betwixt the B-2 Spirit and the F-117A Nighthawk. Much appreciated, friend.

Graham, your point on different manufacturers aside, real military equipment rarely changes so drastically in such a short period of time. Look at the F-14, F-15, F-16 and F/A-18. The F-14 is by Grumman, the F-15 and F/A-18 by McDonnell-Douglas, the F-16 by Lockheed/General Dynamics, yet all share the vast majority of design attributed in common, with similar airframe design, similar avionics, similar weapons, in short, not a lot has actually changed over the last thirty years. The Lockheed/Boeing F/A-22 is the most dynamic design leap in the last thirty years, and that's not much of a leap, since most of the stealth methodology is borrowed from other aircraft, like the F-117A Nighthawk, which in turn borrowed from the B-2 Spirit. In short, when it comes to military equipment, militaries like to stick with what's proven, and what they know will work. Military technology changes slowly over time as new designs are proven, they don't make vast, sweeping leaps forward with a totally new design every time, like the UN Spacy does. For every revolutionary airframe design, you need to do literally thousands of hours of flight testing and lab testing, plus you generate the potential for all sorts of additional problems you couldn't forsee to emerge. When you're evolving a known design, you already know where most of the flaws already are, and can work them out and anticipate new ones. Good example, the flying wing bombers like the B-2 I mentioned earlier. The original flying wing planes were judged to be more than a little unstable by their test pilots (including the YB-35 and YB-49). The design wasn't brought out of mothballs for decades, until the B-2 Spirit was developed, and only then because that's how long it took for engineers to rectify the huge number of complications inherent in the design. Whereas there has been no such delay in design from the F-4 Phantom all the way through the F-14 Tomcat, F-15 Eagle, F-16 Falcon, F/A-18 Hornet, and barely one on the F/A-22 Raptor. Another good example is the McDonnell-Douglas AV-8B Harrier II. Revolutionary design incorporating VTOL technology. The Harrier is lauded by those who have flown one as one of the biggest pieces of junk ever to be fielded. The Marines became genuinely concerned that their pilots weren't getting enough flight time, because the Harriers were in for repairs so frequently. The Harrier is also notable for being the fighter that has caused the most accidental fatalities among pilots, the most smashups, and according to the Navy, is in for repairs three times as much as the F/A-18. Not to mention the design's flaws include a problem with the VTOL jets that makes it a veritable magnet for infra-red missiles, and the annoying tendency for the engines to ingest anything left loose around them while idling. That's what you get for revolutionary design leaps... a whole lot of headaches. The moral of this story? You get less trouble when you stick with what works. That's why it's more realistic for Valkyries to stick a little closer to the designs of the VF-1 or VF-4.

Thank you for making a statement that has no supporting facts included whatsoever. If you're going to say something like that, bring evidence to back it up please. Moving on... Okay, all I got from this is that you have a differing opinion, no supporting basis for why you disagree whatsoever. Do you disagree because you don't like him, because you feel differently, or because you have evidence to the contrary? Moving on... Consistant aesthetic in all canon Macross valkyries eh? Let's see about that shall we? VF-0 Phoenix, smoother than the VF-1 by quite a measure, this was quite literally a refurbished Tomcat. Looked more vintage robotic, the width of the torso and the placement of the shoulders is farther apart than anything else. The design of the nosecone and front of the fighter in fighter mode is more towards the F-14 than the smaller, more aerodynamic VF-1 Valkyrie. VF-1 Valkyrie, a boxy design based largely off the F-14 Tomcat when it was still in service with the US Navy. The fighter's surfaces all had squared off edges, including all major members of the head, legs, arms and torso. The fighter's body was squared to deliberately make transformation more feasable. This will act as a baseline for more detailed studies. The fighter has an overall proportionality that is relatively close to human. VF-4 Lightning III, about as far a leap away from the VF-1 as is humanly possible. This fighter's overall design is a whole other school of thought. Almost a flying wing, really, the shoulders and and upper torso are all integral parts of the back half of the fighter, and there doesn't seem to be a squared off corner on any part of the fighter mode, and very very few on the battroid mode. That hardly presents an consistant aesthetic. VF-9 Cutlass, this one's more along the lines of the VF-4, but the battroid is much boxier, with a bizarre new "conehead" style head unit. The fighter's got those forward swept wings, and is significantly smaller than it's predecessors. This fighter's fighter mode is smooth all around, but the body in battroid is considerably boxy and looks rather heavyset, not following the usual humanoid proportion in the VF-1 or VF-4. VF-11 Thunderbolt. This is another, slightly less radical leap. This is closer to the VF-1 Valkyrie in aesthetics, but the battroid looks suspiciously like the VF-2SS, and the head looks stolen from a VF-1A. The battroid's chest is out of proportion slightly to the rest of the body, and almost every surface is rounded and much smoother than the VF-1 Valkyrie's boxed corners. VF-17 Nightmare. Boxy, heavyset torso with lots of squared off edges and no head lasers to speak of. The "super boob" in the center of the torso makes it's first major re-appearance since the YF-19 and VF-4. The fighter's legs taper outwards to lend additional stability. Also, this fighter is borrowed from the F-117A Nighthawk stealth fighter, which is essentially a flying wing design, with lots of diagonal angles to minimize radar profile. VF-19 Excalibur. Smooth lines are the order of the day. The wings hang from the hips instead of folding into the back. The head unit's head laser is stored topside rather than on the underside of the fighter, extra guns are hidden near the intakes, and there are very few sharp corners. The head unit, torso, arms and legs are all rounded off in battroid mode, and the superboob is back in the center over the cockpit. VF-22 Sturmvogel. Smooth lines all around, except for the wing edge, which is almost square, as opposed to a more traditional wing. The fighter's engines sit on the back in battroid mode, and the arms and legs are not a integral part of fighter mode structure. The head has almost no visible neck, and the laser appears mostly superficial, up on the back of fighter mode instead of underside as traditional designs do. Includes internal mini-missile launchers and guns in the forearms. That represents a consistant design aesthetic? Not likely, goodsir. The designs there oscilate between smooth and chunky, and don't really follow any other recognizable pattern other than growing progressively more rounded off over time (notable exception is VF-17) in battroid mode. Wing placement and design in fighter mode is inconsistant from model to model, head design varies wildly, Transformation modes start moving the wings around to the hips, and the engines onto the back of the mecha completely away from the legs. There isn't much of a consistant design aesthetic present in canon Macross mecha, it's sort of whatever fighter design Kawamori happened to be infatuated with that day. Macross II mecha represents a much more consistant design aesthetic between models than the so-called canon series. Since we've already covered up to the VF-4, let's cover one that's sort of a halfway point between the Macross II timeline and the normal timeline, the VF-1SR. VF-1SR Valkyrie, known by other names including "Raider." Squared, boxy design, drawn directly from the VF-1 series. Refined hands with more articulation points, visible refinements to the head designs but overall common family similarity between the AR and A heads, JR and J heads, and SR and S heads, minor refinements all around, additions of more angles, and occasionally extensions. The FAST packs are semi-fixed, more streamlined than the VF-1's, with large boosters, missile launchers and a visible beam cannon in the center of each one. Other than that this is essentially the VF-1's ultimate makeover. VF-2SS Valkyrie II. Angular, somewhat boxy battroid design, with a more angular and streamlined, but still recognizable airframe. Head bears STRONG resemblence to the VF-1S, as does the torso. Engines are farther towards the outside of the airframe, and the hands display more articulation and less puffyness, the head and neck are more angular, the legs and arms and more streamlined but still boxy, the "feet" are more rounded and angular. FAST packs are completely new. VF-2JA Icarus. Angular, boxy design reminiscent of the VF-1J Valkyrie, head unit is almost identical to the VF-1JR, but with a more pronounced "eye" socket and shield. The airframe is more streamlined, but is essentially extremely close. The shoulders are a little more pronounced and the cockpit is more narrow. The wings are slightly more swept back, and the pelvis is more narrow. VF-1MS Metal Siren. Radical departure from the conventional design, legs taper more narrow towards the foot, thin feet, extra engines along the outside of the legs, rounded front-cockpit without a visible heat shield, extra armor for the faceplate, cockpit sits highter in battroid mode, in front of and between the shoulders, right arm forms underside the nosecone, wings stay out during battroid mode, gunpods are wing mounted, head has no head lasers whatsoever and recessed paired optics instead of a single lens. Need I go on? From this brief analysis alone, it's pretty clear that the Macross II valkyries are much more consistant in their design lineage than the "canon" mecha. There's always a visible link to the last generation, the overall body design doesn't change radically until the Metal Siren, and the head unit just is refined, not completely reinvented. FAST pack systems show a visible evolution in becoming more steamlined, and the overall angles of the body become more dynamic, but remain in relatively the same proportions and styles. The fighter bodies remain boxy as one might expect a mechanical structure with that much articulation to.

Sumdumgai, the scene in question is during the last major battle scene, in "Marduk Disorder" I believe, right after the emulators begin singing the Song of Death. EDIT: For some reason I originally said "Marduk Syndrome." That's what I get for typing that during a lecture.

Your statement lacks something... context. True, the VF-2SS is the first valkyrie to ever be shown getting stuck in mid-transformation. But you left out WHY it got stuck halfway between fighter and battroid mode. The Valkyrie II in question was hit through the upper left side of the torso, a few feet in from the shoulder joint, right where the fighter mode fuselage folds in half to form the front and back of the battroid. Obviously it damaged or froze some of the mechanical components in the transformation process, and thus locked the Valkyrie in a very undignified and vulnerable position. This isn't a problem specific to the VF-2SS, this is a potential problem in ANY variable mecha. Damage to the integral mechanisms of the transformation would be problematic for anything that transforms like a valkyrie or similar mecha. It would be like blowing a few gears out of your car's transmission, or one of a harrier's VTOL jets getting damaged in combat. Just because the Valkyrie II is the only one SEEN having that problem doesn't mean that it isn't likely to happen to other valkyries. It's a little more realistic to have that possibility on the table, since in a real war, you don't have the convienant plot device of enemies being so amazed or mystified by the transformation that they forget to shoot at you, or are too stunned to score a hit.

Well, finding time to do it at work is the sort of thing that comes during any little lull. You just leave the PC running in the background with your site software open, and you can set your FTP program to keep the connection alive for a few hours before disconnecting. I remember a friend of mine who owned a comic shop used to update her store's website during every sunday card tournament, while everyone else was occupied. Not quite finished with the banners yet, since Photoshop likes to have 512MB or more of memory all to itself, and my temporary computer only has 512MB total, shared with the OS and video card. Of course that changes Friday.

Well if you've already uploaded most of your images then there's really not a lot in the way of transfer to actually do over FTP. Your average HTML page only runs about 20-30kb. So dialup and AOL shouldn't really be that big of a problem, unless you're usnig the AOL browser as your FTP client. (If you are, try SmartFTP instead, it connects faster). My own site goes back on regular updates on Saturday, when the upgraded towers get out here.

Okay, for the Robotech people, here's a quick run-through of those four and their proper Japanese names, because they're right it does rub some members of this site the wrong way when you use Robotech character names. Rick Hunter = Hikaru Ichiyo Ben Dixon = Hayao Kakizaki Max Sterling = Max Jenius Roy Fokker = Roy Focker Miriya = Milia And now on with the show... Roy Focker was, in short, Hikaru's main role model as a soldier, and someone who generally helped insulate him from the bulk of the stress caused by the war. Whenever Hikaru had problems, it was always Roy he ran to for help. They couldn't very well develop Hikaru's character much more with Roy perpetually there to lend his advice and cheer him up. Once Roy was out of the way, Hikaru had nobody to confide in, and therefore had to establish relationships with other characters (Kakizaki and Max, Misa, etc) and start dealing with life as an adult. In war, people get killed. Friends, sometimes family, sometimes someone you don't even know. Hikaru was forced to cope with that and it made him a much more believable character overall. Killing someone else wasn't really in the cards. Hayao Kakizaki was slated to die anyways. He was a first class idiot, and killing him was part of the double-whammy that was reality intruding into Hikaru's childhood (like a camel into a tent, and just as welcome). Hayao wasn't a particularly deep character, so killing him off was always in the cards. He's invariably seen in two moods, cheerful or humbled. Killing Max really wasn't ever in the cards, because he became Hikaru's only real remaining friend after Roy and Kakizaki were killed. Hikaru was like a big brother to Max, in the same way that Roy was to Hikaru, so it was sort of a reversal of roles for Hikaru, again making him a more believable character. Killing Milia kinda ruins it for Max, so they couldn't do that either. Summarizing, Roy was the logical choice to kill off, for inducing maximum sympathy between the viewers and Hikaru. The effect simply isn't as great for any other character.

Well, it's coming, albeit slowly. We're still waiting for some equipment to arrive, and still in the process of designing some of the graphics that'll be used in the final versions of the site. That and we're mapping out a plan to eventually convert the entire site to PHP instead of HTML. Graphics is a slow department because we tried to let one of our better artists integrate him PowerMac G5 into the network, and it encountered all manner of unpleasant difficulties.

This we can help you with. I can walk you through framesets, iframes, CSS and a few other useful gimmicks.

Got number three from you, many thanks for that. I think what's best would be to do a complete redesign of your navigational structure, rather than futzing with the same rather awkward button design.

Well, my spanish is not so good, but your site's got a pretty good look going there. The purples really don't strike my fancy much, but to each his/her own. The CSS usage was pretty good too. There's one little bug that might bear fixing. Running on a 1600x1200 resolution, the banner and other stuff at the top make leaps to the left for some reason, by a good 500px. You might also want to consider tweaking your CSS to put a border around that black transparency for those using monitors with low contrast. You could try also, on your chronology page, using an image map on that gradient image at the top to allow people to browse by chunk of time up there. Just a thought. Excellent navigation scheme, good graphics, good work with CSS, easy to get around, easy on the eyes. All around a great site. Now I just need to work on my spanish to read the content.

All that aside, I'd like to say you have a very visually appealing website. Congratulations and keep up the good work.

You'd be correct. Internet Explorer can't currently properly render PNG-format transparencies. That'll be fixed in IE 7.0. Unfortunately, IE is still used by a lot of people, so as a web designer I normally recommend shying away from transparent PNG files in favor of some hand-blended JPGs until there's full cross-browser support for PNG format.