VAB-2

[hellohikaru]

The VAB-2 Series is the predecessor to the VF-17 armed with all missile armament.

[MAXXxxx]

no it's not official, but made up for RPGs

still a nice looking fan design, and I think it is not the predecessor of the VF17

but the FBz-99 ZAUBERGERAN (again I don't know how it is written correctly )

hmm, not really predecessor , but the UNSpacy design that the varauta used for the fbz-99.

Edited December 23, 2004 by MAXXxxx

[azrael]

The VAB-2 is official. However, there is no design for it. That pic, unfortunately, is a fan-art as is another pic on the net used by the RPG community.

And the VAB-2 is not a predecessor to the VF-17. I don't know where you got that idea considering the VAB-2 was made developed nearly 10 years after the VF-17. In fact, they were made by 2 different companies.

http://www.anime.net/macross/story/chronol...2013/index.html

http://www.anime.net/macross/story/chronol...2040/index.html

http://www.anime.net/macross/mecha/united_...vf17/index.html

http://www.anime.net/macross/mecha/varauta...able/FBz99.html

http://www.anime.net/macross/mecha/index.html

[hellohikaru]

You are right the VAB-2 is not related to the Nightmare. Looks like the RPG sites got me confuse for a bit there.

The RPG site has a VAB-2 battroid illustration that seems a bit gundamy.

http://unsd.macrossroleplay.org/vab-2.html

emmm..Kawamori does really like the ray sharp flying wing designs. SB-10 Star Wing comes to mind.

[eugimon]

As stated previously, those pics of the VAB-2 are fan pics, not kawamori designs.

Kind of funny, in the notes on this thing, it states that the vab-2 doesn't use a gun or a shield, and yet the fan pic of it has it carrying something that looks either a gun or a shield.

meh.

[hellohikaru]

This illustration shows a completely different looking battroid without the shield. Head appears to be borrowed from another mecha.

[Zero Enna]

there's something about VAB-2 on Desing works?

[mikeszekely]

As stated previously, those pics of the VAB-2 are fan pics, not kawamori designs.

Kind of funny, in the notes on this thing, it states that the vab-2 doesn't use a gun or a shield, and yet the fan pic of it has it carrying something that looks either a gun or a shield.

meh.

*Buzzer* Wrong!

The first pics in this thread are a very well-done fan design. The sketchier, color drawings in the one link ARE Kawamori. You can find those pictures in the Macross Design Works book, in the FBz-99 entry.

The only fan thing about it is the assumption that it is, in fact, the VAB-2. While those sketches may have been earlier designs for the VAB-2 and inspiration for the FBz-99, there is nothing to indicate that they are, in fact, the finalized design of the VAB-2.

[ewilen]

And the VAB-2 is not a predecessor to the VF-17. I don't know where you got that idea considering the VAB-2 was made developed nearly 10 years after the VF-17. In fact, they were made by 2 different companies.

I defer to everyone else's comments about the VAB-2 and the various sketches, I'd like to point out that in the real world, the YF-17 Cobra LWF prototype was made by Northrop, but the F/A-18, which was based on the YF-17, was made by McDonnell-Douglas (now Boeing).

[eugimon]

As stated previously, those pics of the VAB-2 are fan pics, not kawamori designs.

Kind of funny, in the notes on this thing, it states that the vab-2 doesn't use a gun or a shield, and yet the fan pic of it has it carrying something that looks either a gun or a shield.

meh.

*Buzzer* Wrong!

The first pics in this thread are a very well-done fan design. The sketchier, color drawings in the one link ARE Kawamori. You can find those pictures in the Macross Design Works book, in the FBz-99 entry.

The only fan thing about it is the assumption that it is, in fact, the VAB-2. While those sketches may have been earlier designs for the VAB-2 and inspiration for the FBz-99, there is nothing to indicate that they are, in fact, the finalized design of the VAB-2.

then kawamori's lawyers should be told about this greg lane fellow who takes credit for those drawings, and to whome, credit is given on that website in question (http://unsd.macrossroleplay.org/vab-2.html)

[azrael]

the YF-17 Cobra LWF prototype was made by Northrop, but the F/A-18, which was based on the YF-17, was made by McDonnell-Douglas (now Boeing).

Who sub-contracted Northrop for the airframe.

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfi...t/air-fa18.html

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/milita.../fa18_4back.htm

[1st Border Red Devil]

Why the hell would someone invest in a variable bomber? That makes absolutely no fragging sense.

[Noyhauser]

Well Bomber I think you can see quite plainly... the need for delivering massive amounts of hardware always is a plus in a combat situation.

Variable I can also understand... Variability in space allows a craft to have far more manuverability than a craft stuck in fighter mode. you can kick your thrusters around using physical kinetics rather than thrusters (which costs weight in propellant) and they can moved with far more independence than thrust vectoring would ever allow. Variability also has a element of adapatbility and modularity. You can swap handheld weapons for new ones, or if a section is damaged, you can easily swap that too.

And of course it looks cool.

[eugimon]

Well Bomber I think you can see quite plainly... the need for delivering massive amounts of hardware always is a plus in a combat situation.

Variable I can also understand... Variability in space allows a craft to have far more manuverability than a craft stuck in fighter mode. you can kick your thrusters around using physical kinetics rather than thrusters (which costs weight in propellant) and they can moved with far more independence than thrust vectoring would ever allow. Variability also has a element of adapatbility and modularity. You can swap handheld weapons for new ones, or if a section is damaged, you can easily swap that too.

And of course it looks cool.

perhaps for a fighter... but a bombers main function is to deliver the greatest amount of munitions with speed and accuracy and I guess safely as well.

So much of the interior space of the VAB-2 is going to be taken up with the machinery needed for transformation, space that could be used to hold more bombs.

[Graham]

Very nice fan drawings.

Graham

[hellohikaru]

Notice the prefix VAB.

That means it is a Variable Attack Bomber....not just a pure bomber like the VB-6 Koenig Monster or a multirole attacker like the VA-3. Perhaps it can even carry a heavier freefall bombload than VA-3/VF-17.

I guess it would have perform the same role as the Strike Valkyrie but relying more on long range missile barrages than guns.

[Noyhauser]

Well Bomber I think you can see quite plainly... the need for delivering massive amounts of hardware always is a plus in a combat situation.

Variable I can also understand... Variability in space allows a craft to have far more manuverability than a craft stuck in fighter mode. you can kick your thrusters around using physical kinetics rather than thrusters (which costs weight in propellant) and they can moved with far more independence than thrust vectoring would ever allow. Variability also has a element of adapatbility and modularity. You can swap handheld weapons for new ones, or if a section is damaged, you can easily swap that too.

And of course it looks cool.

perhaps for a fighter... but a bombers main function is to deliver the greatest amount of munitions with speed and accuracy and I guess safely as well.

So much of the interior space of the VAB-2 is going to be taken up with the machinery needed for transformation, space that could be used to hold more bombs.

Yeah that might be true for a normal bomber but I would assume space warfare would make it difficult for them to keep a safe distance... Units can achieve very high speeds and easy break through lines, making them sitting targets for attack. Variability just adds survivablility and flexibility to a platform.

[eugimon]

Well Bomber I think you can see quite plainly... the need for delivering massive amounts of hardware always is a plus in a combat situation.

Variable I can also understand... Variability in space allows a craft to have far more manuverability than a craft stuck in fighter mode. you can kick your thrusters around using physical kinetics rather than thrusters (which costs weight in propellant) and they can moved with far more independence than thrust vectoring would ever allow. Variability also has a element of adapatbility and modularity. You can swap handheld weapons for new ones, or if a section is damaged, you can easily swap that too.

And of course it looks cool.

perhaps for a fighter... but a bombers main function is to deliver the greatest amount of munitions with speed and accuracy and I guess safely as well.

So much of the interior space of the VAB-2 is going to be taken up with the machinery needed for transformation, space that could be used to hold more bombs.

Yeah that might be true for a normal bomber but I would assume space warfare would make it difficult for them to keep a safe distance... Units can achieve very high speeds and easy break through lines, making them sitting targets for attack. Variability just adds survivablility and flexibility to a platform.

true... good point, but vab doesn't carry either a gun or a shield, it's pretty limited defensively and offensively (bombs/missiles aside)

It just seems like an odd choice, especially with active stealth, one could easily load up a VF-22 or 19 with bombs and missiles, fold them in close and have them deliver their payload and be able to do additional damage and/or open up an area for attacks by VF-11 or traditional bombers.

besides, I'm sure dedicated fighters like the 19's could easily fly escort for bombers and do more damage than a variable bomber could do.

[Noyhauser]

maybe, maybe not.

I assume that the VAB-2's number one enemy would be hordes of Zentredi units with minor missile capability. There are so many of them that would be physically impossible for a regular fighter to take them all out. Remember the First battle of DYRL with the nuke attack? The VAB 2 probably carries as much firepower as a wing of vf-1s. Look at what the Zauber did to VF-11s in macross 7... decimation...thats what the VAB-2 was designed to do. However it is likely that the VAB would need to deal with the remainder (look what happened in the same DYRL scene) so it would have variable component when it was unable to control the range of the battle.

Also I see the VAB to be used in conjunction with the VF-19 and 11s as a force multiplier

Edited December 24, 2004 by Noyhauser

[Noyhauser]

Oh I just had another idea for why they included variability.

Look at the main line VAB mission role pre 2040... its the Full armor VF-11... which is limited in atmosphere...and the starwing, which is limited in space. Making it variable is more efficient and effective across a full range of mission roles rather than having two separate platforms to do the same mission.

[eugimon]

Well, I'm not doubting the need of having a bomber or a missile boat, I just think making it variable only limits its payload capability.

The way I figure it, if you're a bomber, and you're busy fighting in dog fights, you're doing something wrong. As a bomber, you just need to get into range, fire/drop your payload and then get back to secure air space. The front line variables should be making sure things don't get past them and escorts should be taking care of any interceptors that do make it through.

Any additional mobility issues could be addressed with gerwalk mode, which could be usefull for emergency situations.

[twich]

Who is to say that it doesnt carry internal weapons on par with the arm lasers equivalent to the VF-22S or the VF-19(Which I know are in the wing root). Also take into account that the VAB-2 has 4 engines, not 2 as do all other valks, take into account that it is rather large, I dont know how many are needed to fly it, but you have to imagine at least 2 if not more, so more people, more weapons can be individually controlled. Also, it has to be pretty heavily armored being as big as it is, not as much as the Monster or Koenig Monster, but still more than the average valk would carry.

We see something similar to it in Macross 7, and look how strong that craft was, and all the weapons systems that it carried, granted the Varuta tended to put a heck of a lot of weapons on their valks, but still, if it is based on the design, there is no reason to assume that the UN Spacy could not make it just as heavily armed.

Twich

[Noyhauser]

I agree with Eugimon's contention that adding a transformation sequence would put serious limits on the amount of armament that the VAB 2, but I disagree with him about his contention about such a system's relative uselessness for all the reason's I outlined above.

[Noyhauser]

The way I figure it, if you're a bomber, and you're busy fighting in dog fights, you're doing something wrong. As a bomber, you just need to get into range, fire/drop your payload and then get back to secure air space. The front line variables should be making sure things don't get past them and escorts should be taking care of any interceptors that do make it through.

but if you watch most of the battles, this is impossible... Just watch how easily in every battle of DYRL Zentredi and Meltrandi fighters blow through fighter cordons to attack the SDF. So I don't think it would be possible for UN spacyto set up a impermiable fighter cordon (or even the semblence of one in space), especially when UN spacy almost by default is expecting to fight numerically superior foes.

Moreover the VAB carries 100s of short range missiles... by default it MUST get close to the forward edge of battle to deploy its weapons, into ranges where it is likely to expect in close in battle. It is not bomber as you are thinking of it, but a short range first strike craft. A few extra missiles would outweigh the costs of the platform's weaknesses in combat.

[mikeszekely]

As stated previously, those pics of the VAB-2 are fan pics, not kawamori designs.

Kind of funny, in the notes on this thing, it states that the vab-2 doesn't use a gun or a shield, and yet the fan pic of it has it carrying something that looks either a gun or a shield.

meh.

*Buzzer* Wrong!

The first pics in this thread are a very well-done fan design. The sketchier, color drawings in the one link ARE Kawamori. You can find those pictures in the Macross Design Works book, in the FBz-99 entry.

The only fan thing about it is the assumption that it is, in fact, the VAB-2. While those sketches may have been earlier designs for the VAB-2 and inspiration for the FBz-99, there is nothing to indicate that they are, in fact, the finalized design of the VAB-2.

then kawamori's lawyers should be told about this greg lane fellow who takes credit for those drawings, and to whome, credit is given on that website in question (http://unsd.macrossroleplay.org/vab-2.html)

"Images provided by Greg Lane"

"Provided by" could simply mean that Mr. Lane scanned the images from the Design Works book, then gave the scans to Mr. Henwood.

[nathan]

then kawamori's lawyers should be told about this greg lane fellow who takes credit for those drawings, and to whome, credit is given on that website in question (http://unsd.macrossroleplay.org/vab-2.html)

What's wrong with him taking credit for his own art work? He's not claiming the works in Macross Design Works. Just his own drawings, which were on the net before Design Works went to the printers. The only reason for getting lawyers involved would be for Kawamori, SN, and BW to by the designs for a later production as they're very good.

[Roy Focker]

I believe both people are members of Macross World.

[eugimon]

then kawamori's lawyers should be told about this greg lane fellow who takes credit for those drawings, and to whome, credit is given on that website in question (http://unsd.macrossroleplay.org/vab-2.html)

What's wrong with him taking credit for his own art work? He's not claiming the works in Macross Design Works. Just his own drawings, which were on the net before Design Works went to the printers. The only reason for getting lawyers involved would be for Kawamori, SN, and BW to by the designs for a later production as they're very good.

That comment was in reference to mikeszekely saying that the images by greg lane were done by kawamori.

it was sarcasm.

[eugimon]

I agree with Eugimon's contention that adding a transformation sequence would put serious limits on the amount of armament that the VAB 2, but I disagree with him about his contention about such a system's relative uselessness for all the reason's I outlined above.

fair enough, I guess I just like the idea of a dedicated missile boat, even in the macross universe.

[Aurel Tristen]

I doubt that a 'transformation sequence' would have been "added" to the VAB-2. Like other Valkyries, the VAB-2 would have been developed originally as Variable Attack Bomber with that concept already taken into account

An attack bomber that could transform in midair, land, take cover, engage in a fire fight on the ground after firing missiles/dropping bombs on an attack run--just like any other variable craft yet with a larger payload, having similar abilities would be quite beneficial to the Spacy.

[eugimon]

I doubt that a 'transformation sequence' would have been "added" to the VAB-2. Like other Valkyries, the VAB-2 would have been developed originally as Variable Attack Bomber with that concept already taken into account

An attack bomber that could transform in midair, land, take cover, engage in a fire fight on the ground after firing missiles/dropping bombs on an attack run--just like any other variable craft yet with a larger payload, having similar abilities would be quite beneficial to the Spacy.

Just because it was designed as a varaible A/B doesn't mean that the mechanisms used for and during transformation wouldn't take up room that could be otherwise used for missiles/bombs.

If you're going to argue that they simply made the VAB-2 larger to accomodate the same number of munitions, my counter arguement would simply be, why not make a larger bomber period? Or, produce more of the smaller bomber?

The fact that the VAB-2 has limited ground capabilities also limits it's practicallity in battorid mode. Granted, a GERWALK mode could be conveivably useful, but if you look at modern A/B solutions, faster and maneuverable is more useful than slow. With the avionics that UN SPACY has at it's disposal, making a stable platform for dropping munitions would be easy, regardless of variable ability.

Also, consider that modern A/B planes, hit their targets, expend their munitions, return for refuel and re-arm and then return to do more damage, they don't stay in the air and attempt air superiority missions, which is analagous to the arguement of having a VAB-2, transform and carry on the sort of missions a standard VF would be more suited for? Why waste a craft that can support fighters/bomb targets with a mission that it is ill suited for?

Conceivably GERWALk mode, with internal weapon bays still ready for deployment could be useful for doing low altitude runs against ground based mecha and/or installations, but I have already concede that GERWALK would be useful.

[Aurel Tristen]

I doubt that a 'transformation sequence' would have been "added" to the VAB-2. Like other Valkyries, the VAB-2 would have been developed originally as Variable Attack Bomber with that concept already taken into account

An attack bomber that could transform in midair, land, take cover, engage in a fire fight on the ground after firing missiles/dropping bombs on an attack run--just like any other variable craft yet with a larger payload, having similar abilities would be quite beneficial to the Spacy.

Just because it was designed as a varaible A/B doesn't mean that the mechanisms used for and during transformation wouldn't take up room that could be otherwise used for missiles/bombs.

If you're going to argue that they simply made the VAB-2 larger to accomodate the same number of munitions, my counter arguement would simply be, why not make a larger bomber period? Or, produce more of the smaller bomber?

The fact that the VAB-2 has limited ground capabilities also limits it's practicallity in battorid mode. Granted, a GERWALK mode could be conveivably useful, but if you look at modern A/B solutions, faster and maneuverable is more useful than slow. With the avionics that UN SPACY has at it's disposal, making a stable platform for dropping munitions would be easy, regardless of variable ability.

Also, consider that modern A/B planes, hit their targets, expend their munitions, return for refuel and re-arm and then return to do more damage, they don't stay in the air and attempt air superiority missions, which is analagous to the arguement of having a VAB-2, transform and carry on the sort of missions a standard VF would be more suited for? Why waste a craft that can support fighters/bomb targets with a mission that it is ill suited for?

Conceivably GERWALk mode, with internal weapon bays still ready for deployment could be useful for doing low altitude runs against ground based mecha and/or installations, but I have already concede that GERWALK would be useful.

Nothing states that the VAB-2 has or would have limited ground abilities.

A regular attack bomber it is not.

OT enables the military to manufacture these variable combat systems.

Suggesting that a variable attack bomber wouldn't be as effective or lethal as conventional (non-variable) attack bomber would be like saying there is no need a Valkyrie because a conventional fighters could do a better job than a VF. Comparing the F-14 to the VF-1 or the SV-51. There is no comparison. Without a doubt, the Macross creators would make the variable version of an attack bomber as vastly more compliable than a non-variable one in a multitude of ways as they have with the VF.

[twich]

It seems that we may have to define our terms here.....if I am not mistaken, The VAB-2 is really not a "bomber" per se, it is a missle platform. Having 100's of short range missles that can fire....I dont know if perhaps it would have bomb bays, like the Tread fighter from Mospeada....in fact it might be better to equate the VAB-2 with the Tread.....a heavy variable fighter, with large size for larger missle capacity.

Correct me if I am wrong here.

Twich

PS-Nanashi, when is the site going to be accessable? I am looking forward to your site going up.

[Aurel Tristen]

It seems that we may have to define our terms here.....if I am not mistaken, The VAB-2 is really not a "bomber" per se, it is a missle platform. Having 100's of short range missles that can fire....I dont know if perhaps it would have bomb bays, like the Tread fighter from Mospeada....in fact it might be better to equate the VAB-2 with the Tread.....a heavy variable fighter, with large size for larger missle capacity.

Correct me if I am wrong here.

Twich

PS-Nanashi, when is the site going to be accessable? I am looking forward to your site going up.

There is no official information on the VAB-2 available except specifically for when the development began, the engine and vernier models and performance, and that the Saubergeran, was based upon it/converted from it.

Specifics are only known for sure for the FBz-99.

My site..... its almost up.

See: http://www.macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?...=0entry237234

for a list of some of the available entries.

[eugimon]

True true, my bad, the stuff I said about the vab-2's supposed ground capabilities were based off that macross rpg stuff.

given my giant blunder, It's jsut my personal take that battroid is a non necessary feature on the VAB-2 as with the VB-6. or the claws on the first monster... it's cool I guess, but seems to have little value and is an example of over engineering a solution to a problem when somthing simple will do.