Skull-1

Negative. The T-38 and F-5 were developed in parallel (N-156 Project - Northrop). The F-5 was built for the MAP. The F-5 was a purpose-built fighter. The T-38 was a purpose-built lead-in fighter trainer. The VT-1 if it followed that same path would be one thing. But I have not seen that dilineated in TMS or in the Compendium. If it is I would be happy to see the info for sure. (Good discussion people. I enjoy your inputs.)

There is no need to. The production total of the VF series was not that high at SDF-1's launch. 212 and a handful of VT-1s. Not an entire training fleet of VT-1s. VF compliments were very low at least initially. So what do we figure? 500? 1000? That's not much. VT-1s made up 20 of those at most, no? LOL.

Stealth is not an issue for a CVN. Anyone close enough to paint you with radar is dead any way. At least with current technology.

As an operational trainer or at the RAG, sure. Are they the same? Does the VE-1 have the stepped up rear seat? That in and of itself is not justifiable. A dedicated trainer that is cheaper would make the most sense. Failing that, as someone again pointed out, the gap would be made up for with lots of simulators. Reactors small enough to fit in the legs of an F-16-sized fighter are hardly economical in any sense. "In a pinch" is the part that has me scratching my head. If they are used in space...and if the primary enemy is spaceborne...does it make any sense to roam around in "hostile space" without defensive weaponry? I hope the latter is true. Obviously the former is. Global governments are even more inefficient than their national counterparts and they still have budgets. Apparently it is quite limited. The total number of VFs actually produced in the Macross Universe doesn't appear to be that high. SDF-1 carried very few as the "global flagship" so to speak... No, the Ghost drones and the like probably were...

The F-22s they train on are combat capable.

After what fact? Just like the VT-1 was created after the fact? *sigh* The initial query on this entire mess was whether or not the VT-1 was combat capable. It clearly is. To make it otherwise is a waste of highly limited resources. Someone pointed me to a translation that said the VT-1 is "not usually armed." That means that it can be and thus proves my premise--namely that to convert a VF-1 into an unarmed, non-combat-capable trainer is pretty silly.

Being "already available" is irrelevant. Again, beside the point, and yes, there is an equivalent in existence if we count the VF-0. The AT-6 was procured to train people to fight in high performance fighters. A fighter wasn't converted into a trainer for the role. The T-38 was procured to train people to fight in high performance fighters. A fighter wasn't converted into a trainer for that role either. The Valk should be no different in that regard. The only one available until Kawamori invents another one out of thin air. The VF-0 is "available" and we don't see it as a trainer. Thus your argument doesn't really wash. Again, *DEDICATED* trainers are procured because they are more cost effective than using frontline aircraft for the same role. Equipping a training fleet with VT-1s is certain to cost more than a dedicted, purpose-built Variable Trainer. The AV-8A Harrier program is a fine example of this. I think the Marines lost about 60% of the first batch and killed a lot of pilots. There were a HANDFUL of operational two seat trainers, but they retained their combat capability. The VT-1 being stripped of any use as a fighter makes absolutely no sense. The Compendium entry states they "usually" do not carry weapons. This does not mean they are incapable of it. Thus, IMHO, the VT-1 is in fact combat capable just like the VF-1D. It would make ZERO sense to do otherwise.

Considering satellites track battle groups with regularity--not to mention long-range acoustic sensors--I'm not sure stealth from radar is much or an issue. The island and the hull sides of the ship themselves will give quite a radar paint. As for parking space... This is fairly doctrinal within the Japanese Navy from the days of World War II. They did not utilize deck parks like the US Navy did/does. Hence their cyclic ops rate was far slower than their American counterparts. As Tulley and Pearsall noted in "Shattered Sword," the slower cyclic ops rate dictated by the Japanese doctrine of hangar parks instead of deck parks was a primary contributor to their failure to launch a strike before the American raids destroyed three of their carriers at Midway. VTOLs can help speed up the cycle to some degree, but you still need a place to arm and refuel. The flightdeck is perhaps the best place to do it for numerous reasons. Decreasing your flight deck's size comes at a cost.

Like this one..... Imagine these in dark gray. Mean looking boy... [attachmentid=39250] This poor Valk is a Frankenstein. I grabbed a Jetfire off EBAY and when it arrived it was crushed into hundreds of pieces. I took the wings off a recast Ostrich kit......... Along with the armor. The right arm, back plate, dorsal hatch, tail pack, and vertical fins are from a boot. I actually rebuilt the left arm out of spare Bandai parts and added a ratchet mechanism to it. Poor thing. Any way.... I don't know what I am going to do with it just yet...... I'll take suggestions on a paint job as I am out of ideas.

I'm halfway leaning toward using the standard SUPER Armor and Boosters and use the VT-1 Leg package. That would be a mean looking Super Valk.

My boys just wanted to say Merry Christmas. They hope to be finished in the New Year so they can go kill Zentraedi. LOL!!!!!

SMOOOOOOOOOOOTH!

A Lockheed-Built VF-1A of Block 1 configuration: VF-1A-1-LO (P-38J-5-LO) Stonewell-Bellcom VF-1A: VF-1A-01-SB VF-1A-2-SB VF-1A-5-SB etc. I think he knows what I meant at any rate... Where the VF-1 is concerned, the SB and LO are pure conjecture for the sake of explanation.

Well if we are to presume a very limited number of Variable Trainers then it might make more economic sense to spread the economy of scale across the A/D/J/S production line. Then the problem becomes one of utility and expedience. It's going to be hard to train an air arm with a small trainer fleet to be sure. It probably boils down to how many of them are out there and what (full motion simulators, thrust vectoring trainers, etc.) are used to fill the gaps.

Exactly *MY* point. It is NOT cheaper to field your frontline fighter as a trainer. Would the military use the F-22 as a TF-22 instead of a T-38? No way. If you were taking a VF-1 destined for the boneyard and turning it into a VT-1 then you *MIGHT* have a point. But a VT-1 built exclusively and soley for training? Not gonna' happen. A purpose-built trainer will be cheaper than an adaptive version of the most expensive fighter ever built in the history of humankind.

A "Block Number" is a segment of the production line often with minor changes. For example... P-38J-5-LO The "J" is the model and the "5" is the "Block Number." The P-38L would be a different model number with various block numbers produced within it. In the Valkyrie's case you might see something like... VF-1J-10-SB VF-1J-20-SB VF-1J-30-SB Etc. The -20 may or may not differ from the -10 in some significant way but not enough to justify a completely different model. Procurement vagaries affect model letters (A, B, C, D, E, etc.) and such as well.

It depends on the purpose. If the goal is to come up with a car for granny to drive to the supermarket or one to carry seven football-playing highschool kids in then a Mustang platform would not suit the bill.

With nothing on which to train first? At all? The Wrights were dealing with a far different paradigm. And there was no mass produced aircraft to train the thousands of pilots who would man it? That seems dubious. I can think of no modern parallel to a fighter turned trainer without a dedicated trainer being in the pipeline either before or after (if not both).

Theu are not specific. The VF is a transformable, trans-atmospheric, aerospace superiority fighter and "giant alien infantry interdictor." A dedicated air superiority fighter will be lighter and better suited to that role than the VF-1. A dedicated space superiority fighter will be lighter and able to carry more reaction mass and weapons making it superior to the VF-1 in *that* role. An all-up infantry battroid....and will be...in that role. The VF-1 is a series of compromises. It has to be for what it does. Different engines and avionics do not make an aircraft purpose-built. The "S" is merely a derivative of an existing type. It is not a type unto itself and is thus saddled with the same or similar deficiencies inherent in its core design. The VF-1S is still a VF-1. It is not a "VT" anything. It is based on the airframe and used in the role for which the former is designed. A VT-1 fulfills an entirely different mission that would in all liklihood be more effectively accomplished with a purpose built "Variable Trainer."

Which are you going to build first the trainer or the fighter? Clearly the trainer. You crawl before walking... A lightweight trainer is not going to cost the same as a Valkyrie in any instance. Trust me, if trainers were not cheaper than fighters they wouldn't exist, in ANY era. A Southern Cross "Logan-like" Variable Fighter is probably a fraction as much to build and operate as a VF-1. You're talking about the most highly technological airplane ever envisioned, built, and operated by mankind. (They're probably $1B each in 2006 dollars.) A dedicated trainer can be acquired for far less. As it stands, we don't know *what* trainers actually exist in Macross--at least not a full accounting. A fair amount of training will be done in a simulator any way, that much is fairly certain. Sims cost nearly as much as the airplane they simulate to build, but only a fraction to operate and they aren't destroyed when you "crash" them. We are talking about the VT-1 being weapon-less. We know the VF-1D is combat capable. That's not the issue.

And as with just about any such attempt, trying to shoehorn an existing type into many different roles makes it less suitable for the job than a purpose-built aircraft for the same missions. The JSF is a collection of compromises. A purpose-built aircraft would probably do the jobs better than the JSF is going to, but since we're at the end of the line for manned strike aircraft this is probably a moot point. Fulfilling the same roles with the exception of the "D" being an "combat-worthy trainer" at the very least.

Awesome info. Many thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (I thought the Variable Fighter Report had some color plates of a VT-1. Am I wrong?)

There's no cost reduction that would by itself justify such a move. A $100M fighter turned $90M trainer still costs a lot more than a $50M dedicated-trainer would, even accounting for parts and maintenance.

Flying a T-38 is fundamentally SIMILAR to flying an F-16 but you are missing the point. Nobody has taken the F-16 and turned it into a trainer that is not combat capable. In essence, what has been done with the VT-1 is to take an equally expensive but more capable VF-1, spend the same money and effort to build it, but limit its role to that of a non-combatant. Thus instead of two birds with one stone you only have one bird with one stone. You wouldn't do it that way. (And the "usually unarmed" entry in the Compendium seems to bear out my position on this one.) If you're going to turn a VF into a trainer you're still going to leave its fundamental capabilities intact IMHO.