Nied

If there is any routine maintenence I'd imagine it would be done with LRUs and a really good diagnostic computer, something similar to how the Saab Grippen handles things. The computer tells some Zentradi grunt, "box X needs to be replaced" and he goes down to the sotrage deck and gets the required box and puts it where the computer tells him to. He'd never need to know how the system worked or why it worked just that the computer told him to put a new box in the hole.

The whole not being able to maintain their gear thing is just stupid. Even if the their ships are in some way biological you still need at least technicians to do the day to day maintenance. Now maybe the frontline Zent grunt was not built to be too technically compitent, but then there are mutliple zent classes so their had to be technicians and engineers just to keep the ships and equipment running.

I'm willing to bet that as originally designed the Zentradi would return to a Protoculture base for regular maintenance. After the Protoculture went extinct I could see the Zentradi simply ditching old ships after they'd need too much maintenance and replacing it with a brand new one from a factory satellite. That would mean most of the Zentradi ships that we see aren't operating at full capacity, but then we see Britai's impeccably maintained starship totally pwn the flotilla guarding the factory satellite so that seems to jibe.

To answer some of your questions:

All of the Zentradi equipment (the plural for Zentradi is Zentradi) was originally designed and built by the Protoculture. The Protoculture never taught the Zentradi how to repair their equipment as a fail safe against rebellion (they also apparently kept strict control on the supply of reaction weapons for the same reason).

I never really got the impression that the Zentradi were able to repair their ships until after the conclusion of SW1. Britai's bridge stayed wrecked until after the end of SW1. I always thought that most of the forces fighting in Kamjin's insurgency defected back to him after living amongst humans. It's not hard to imagine that quite a few of them received technical training that allowed them to get that Gunboat running again. The battle suits in M+ are of unknown providence (my theory is that they're Supervision Army), but there are several new Zentradi designs that show up in the VF-X games. The compendium lists several incidents where Zentradi living on Earth defect or go rouge, it's not hard to imagine some of them making it to one of the 1,000s of fleets out in space and teaching their compatriots technical skills.

Latest news out of the Navy is that the Sundowenrs, David and my favorite squadron, are coming back to the Navy as an aggressor squadron. It's going to be wierd seeing the famous setting sun and shark teeth on a camoflauged F-5 but it's better than nothing. Still I do wonder what they'd look like painted on an F model Super Hornet.

Most people don't understand the context of it. If we look at it as the film-within-a-film perspective, yes, they are VF-1Xs. If we view it as it's own continuity or as a retelling of the original series, then they are their respective models (VF-1S, VF-1A, VF-1J, etc). Since we jump around the 2 POVs without thinking about it, the confusion pops up. For the sake of ending this, let's just consider them as their respective models and leave the VF-1X for any mention of M7/VF-X/VF-X 2 era VF-1s.

I'm looking at this purely in the "Film-within-a-Film" perspective. The only evidence I can find for the producers of DYRL using VF-1Xs in the film is a service entry date made up by Dave Deitrich for his RPG specs. More official sources make it sound like they are bog standard Block 6 VF-1s.

Where do people keep getting the idea that the VFs in DYRL were VF-1Xs? I honestly can't find an evidence for it at all other than the fact Dave Deitrich made up a service entry date that's a year or two before the in-universe release of DYRL. Everything else I've seen says that they are just late block VF-1A/J/Ss (the cockpit and hand changes are all emblematic of Block 6 and later models of VF-1 according to the Compendium).

Surprisingly, I had a chance to talk to the XO of VX-9 during the Black Lions Bash/Key West night at the O-club on that thursday. I asked him the very same question. He mentioned that a few of the higher ups would like to see another all-black jet, but evidently those with the power of "yes/no" were not in favor of it. They were also very upset to see that the Vandy-one F-14D (now a gate guard there at Oceana) was repainted from it's all black paintscheme. (When it was first set on display, it wore VF-143 Pukin dogs markings, now it bears VF-31 markings on one side and VFA-211 markings on the other)

VFA-31 Superhornets already exist in the form of VFA-22's F/A-18Es. They're getting 22s E models while VFA-22 is transitioning to F/A-18F models. Myself and two friends are going out to Nellis AFB for the airshow next week, and one of those friends is taking a side-flight to NAS Lemoore to see if any of 22's F models have been delivered yet or if any of 22's E models have already been repainted in VFA-31 colors. (I don't believe the squadron has been officially re-designated yet though)

Geez. I can't help but think that someone in the DoD just has it out for naval aviation, or at least it's traditions. Either that or someone really hates the Super Hornet and wants to make sure it's always going to look worse than the Tomcat.

Hey speaking of VX-9, does anyone know if/when we'll be seeing an all black Vandy 1? Seems strange one hasn't appeared yet. Strange that we haven't yet to see any signs of a VFA-31 Super Hornet too.

From their possition in the formation those have to be the the same ships that float on chapter 5, I think this way because in every other scene they can be clearly distinguished as Burkes. Even in the mystery pic they have the same mast, phased array and chimmey configuration than a burke, the only difference is the swept back superstructure and the lack of a forward mounted phalanx, wich can be explained by a low detail draw.

About the numbers, they are a bit difficult to see, specially the second, but from the shape it could be a 74 too, the 79 is out of the question because DDG 79 is a Flight IIA, the USS Oscar Austin.

You know it's all together possible that the UNG changed the hull numbers when they inducted the Burkes into thier navy. I'm sure there's plenty of destroyers with the hull number of 77 in the world.

At least Nousjadel-Ger kai is better than the "Renegade Power Armour" brainbug that had been poluting the internets for years. Honestly given some of the styling cues I always imagined that the mecha from M+ were Supervision Army versions of the Nousjadel-Ger, some of the details do bear a resemblance to the pre-crash Macross and the Varauta mecha.

All right this should finish this. Zinjo you seem to be stuck on the fact that the fighter in M0 doesn't have the louvered intakes on the LERXs like early Mig-29s. However this ignores the fact that later variants like the Mig-29M, the carrier based Mig-29K, and the brand new Mig-29OVT, all delete those intakes to make room for more fuel. Su-35 like canards were also planned for the Mig-29M and K early on but were deleted before the prototypes flew.

Finally; take a look at this, both the Fulcrum and the Flanker have Sv-51 canards painted on to them so you can compare them to the screencap from M0. Note how the fighter from M0 has almost pure delta wings wings with rounded wingtips, while the Flanker has highly swept wings with squared of wingtips and wingtip mounted missile rails. Note also the heavily swept tailplanes of the M0 fighter in contrast to the cropped deltas of the Flanker. Note the wide LERXs in comparison to the flankers relatively narrow ones. The canopy is much larger in comparison to the rest of the body than on the Su and the engines are much further apart. I could go on but if you look at the three side-by-side you can clearly see it's a Mig-29 with canards.

No it isn't an SU-27!

It was developed from the existing SU-27 airframe. It was once designated the SU-27M when it was still in development, but became known as the SU-35 during testing and then the SU-37 with the thrust vectoring system.

The SU-37s were put into production but were shortly thereafter converted back to the SU-35 version and they are now in production for the Russian airforce. Then main differences between the SU-35 & 37 is the thrust vectoring system of the SU-37.

The Naval variant is the SU-33 which doesn't sport the canards, but has all the other features of the SU-35.

The picture is indeed a two seater, but of an SU-35 fighter/bomber variant, like the one that crashed at the Paris air show.

Other than the canards and some avionics the Su-35 is an Su-27, it was called the Su-35 when Sukhoi was trying to sell it on the foreign market as a way to make it sound like an all new product. The handful in RuAF service are still called Su-27Ms though. There is no two seat variant of the Su-35, the various versions of the Su-30 integrate technologies and lessons from the Su-35 and -37 but they are seperate aircraft (and are known as Su-27Ps when in RuAF service).

Well I am talking about an SU-35 "Super" Flanker, not the SU-27 Flanker.

I agree that the cropped wing tips are absent, however the animated fighter shows distinctive differences from the Mig 29 including the canards, which lends itself closer to the SU-35 rather than the Mig.

No doubt Kawamori was looking to create some sort of hybrid between the two as the AUN fighter's canards are placed differently as well.

The Su-35 is an Su-27, it's actual designation is Su-27M, it only gets called an Su-35 as a marketing ploy, since it's just an Su-27 with canards (BTW the plan view you posted is of an Su-30M aka Su-27P). The only similarities the plane in M0 has to the Flanker family is it's canards, the problem is they are mounted in the wrong place, and every single other part of the plane looks identical to a Mig-29.

It's a dead givaway if you look at the shot a second later. You can clearly see the swept back tailplanes of a Fulcrum rather than the cropped deltas of a Flanker.

Yes, one's a Mig and the other an SU.

The fighter pictured is not a Mig. It is one of the fighters from DD Ivanov's squadron, a support fighter for the SV-51's based on the stealth sub.

This pic is from the all out battle at the climax of the story in episode 5 and isn't listed on the official Mac Zero website. Just like the Monster isn't listed, but it does appear in the show.

This is not a Mig and if you look closely at the animation, you will see the distinctive mig engine vents on top of the fuselage are missing as well as the fact that no Mig has canards, only the SU's use them.

Not all Mig-29s have the auxiliary intakes (notably the carrier based Mig-29K doesn't). Even with the canards there's still plenty that makes it an obvious Mig-29 variant. The LERXs are the wrong shape and meet the nose in the wrong place, the nose has the wrong contour with way too small a radome, You can barely make it out but the IRST is offset to the right like on a Mig -29 (the Sukhoi's is center mounted), the intakes have the wrong contour, and the wingtips are all wrong.

Imdb is your freind. Specifically this entry which I think is the movie you're talking about. Might make a good jumping off point for a look through netflix.

Where is there a reference to OT in the F-14's? If they had OT, it sure wasn't in the cockpit...

In the Compendium. Part of what makes the F-14A+ Kai special is "upgrades implementing Overtechnology in avionics and other areas." My guess is it has OT derived ECM systems (explaining why it's ECM antenna aren't like any other F-14's) and some of the more fatigued areas in the airframe replaced with OT materials.

Could the UNSAF just be a sub-division of the UNS?

That was always my suspicion, as Sketchley said the M+ color schemes have several UNSAF squads in them, but there are also several schemes that use USAF style designations (Tactical Fighter Wing or Tactical Fighter Squadron) but have UN Spacy painted on the side. My guess is that all of the mentioned branches are under the UN Spacy umbrella. That would help explain why Shin's decidedly terrestrial naval fighter had UN Spacy on the side and why some UNSAF fighters say UN Spacy on them.

I've upgraded my opinion of 12oz. Mouse. after having watched some old episodes back to back on my DVR I'm starting to notice an the almost comprehensible outlines of a storyline in there. It's sort of like watching a poorly drawn 15 minute long version of Twin Peaks on Mushrooms (and that's saying something considering Twin Peaks). I don't know if this storyline will ever move into comprehensibility or just end up as a giant mess like Big O season 2 (I'm guessing the latter), but it is interesting to watch.

Just timed it myself. From the time the Macross completely dematerialized to when it completely re-materialized was aproximately 30 seconds. Exedol and Vrlitwhai had are able to have a whole conversation before it defolded.

I'm to lazy to re-write the post I wrote in that thread so I'm just going to quote it here:

Dang Radd I was going to post something on the SW-XA1 when I got home from work, but you beat me to it.

All right Phalanx you've got at least four re-designs of the VF-1 (five if you count the VF-2).

I think part of the problem you are having here is that you are only comparing the VF-1 to one style of modern fighter design The VF-1's design may be anachronistic compared to American designs like the F-22 (or F-35 for that matter) but compared to most other country's new fighters it fits right in (the VF-4 with it's canards and delta wing even more so). Take a look at the pictures in the links below, all of these planes are as new or newer than the F-22.

Eurofighter Typhoon (UK, Italy, Spain, and Germany)

Dassault Rafale (France)

Saab JAS 39 Gripen (Sweden)

Mig-35 (Russia)

Chengdu J-10 (China)

Mitusbishi F-2 (Japan)

IAI Lavi (Israel)

ADA Tejas (India)

The RRG conjectured it as a badly drawn T-45. For lack of a better idea it certainly seems reasonable to me.

To whit:

Sorry you're right it was Roman Dirge, my mistake.

happy noodle boy rocks hahahaha

Happy Noodle boy does indeed rock. My wife and I will regularly exclaim "I have been pantsed! I kill like the damned now!" when something minor goes wrong.

It is a shame that zim steals his name from the great Jhonen Vasquez, but he is a script kiddie. Mooching off the talent of others while having none of his own is his thing.

How a jet engine sounds is very dependant on the local weather conditions as well. My dad went to college in Vermont and said that the sound of VTANG F-106s taking off was completely different depending on the temperature, in hot and muggy September they'd sound full and deep, but in th edead of winter he said they sounded almost like sheet metal tearing. I didn't have much in the way of afterburnig fighter jets to compare them to this year but in somwhat moist 60 degree air an F-22 sounds very similar to a B-1 only somwhat quieter and much deeper, it had a real throaty quality to it that I really liked.