Are all VF-1 variants having the same performance

[hellohikaru]

I have no reference that indicate any significant differences between VF-1A, J and S types other than a different head. I know J and S types may have better avionics and targeting computers but it does not make them more agile or less well armoured ?

Anyway Robotech seems to interpret this different...at least in the game Battlecry:

VF-1A

Statistics

Armor: 5

Speed: 4

Maneuverability: 4

Missiles: 4

Targeting: 4

VF-1J

Statistics

Armor: 4

Speed: 4

Maneuverability: 6

Missiles: 5

Targeting: 4

VF-1S

Statistics

Armor: 3

Speed: 5

Maneuverability: 7

Missiles: 5

Targeting: 5

[Abombz!!]

I would guess so... otherwise what would be the point in giving a 1s to a squad leader? <_<

But my other guess would be.... those stats are wrong. I would think the 1S would be better in every category when compared to a 1A... even if just slightly better.

[joseph]

The difference between the VF-1/A/D/J/S at a level of performance is minim. The version X is the which has better propulsion and armor.

[Anubis]

You have to take anything Robotech, or video game based, with a grain of salt. There might be some tuning difference between the S and lower models, but I'd say at least for the VF-1 the different models are just for the identifying feature. Regular - Flight Leader - Squadron Leader - two-seater. The VF-1X's had new engines and equipment inside, some years down the line, to give the ones out on the frontier and such some extra longievety. I forgot what the B model or "Half-S" did for the design. I think it was a general uprade for the A model. Anyone remember the details for that, or am I remembering wierd things again?

[JB0]

You have to take anything Robotech, or video game based, with a grain of salt.

Yah.

Games regularly tweak things into illogic for their own purposes.

Battlecry essentially used it as a difficulty setting. If you're taking way too many hits, you can downgrade your jet and trade some upgrades for increased armor.

...

Though there is a kind of logic behind tying the manuverability and armor together.

More armor means more momentum. More momentum means more energy's required to change course. More energy requird to change course means you change course slower than you would if you had less armor. Hence, more armor = less maneuverability.

[motley]

as i recall, the A, J, and D varients are roughly the same performance-wise. the S features an improved communications suite and more powerful engines. i've heard of a B varient that came out after the war, and basically upgraded all A types with the S type's improvements. the X version, i've gathered, is a further upgrade in performance for both communications and engines, and was blanket applied to all VF-1's available. i suspect the VT-1, VE-1, and VEFR-1 all have performance specs similar to the A types.

[Hurin]

Yeah, have to agree that going by what Robotech: Battlecry says is a bad, bad, idea.

According to the Robotech RPG, there was no difference other than the head lasers, and I'd trust that over a bunch of programmers who just want to figure out a way to make reaching the various VF-1 variants actually mean something to their game.

That being said, I don't trust Robotech either.

H

[JB0]

Yeah, have to agree that going by what Robotech: Battlecry says is a bad, bad, idea.

According to the Robotech RPG, there was no difference other than the head lasers, and I'd trust that over a bunch of programmers who just want to figure out a way to make reaching the various VF-1 variants actually mean something to their game.

That being said, I don't trust Robotech either.

H

If I recall, the RPG's quite out there in some places too.

And I did have the chance to speak with one of the programmers before. He takes his Macross rather seriously.

But in the end, it's a game, not a collector's piece. Accuracy is less important than it being playable.

Hence the VF-1 lugs unlimited missiles and bullets, the missiles fired change by configuration, the battroid has a sniper rifle that can be charged up for a super shot, and diffrent VF-1s have diffrent stats.

BTW, according to Macross Compendium, the 1S DOES have "enhanced avionics identical to VF-1A's Block 12 design" and " improved FF-2001D engine with greater engine thrust".

So officially the VF-1S IS better than the other versions.

[Radd]

You know what? Let's take a little ride over to the Macross Compendium to see what Egan Loo has to say...

*Cue the Mr. Rogers music*

VF-1A: Standard UN Spacy version manufactured by licensee Northrom. One head-turret-mounted RÖV-20 laser gun.

VF-1B: VF-1A version upgraded by the "Half-S" retrofit (overhauled avionics and S-type head unit).

VF-1D: Two-seater version. Two RÖV-20 laser guns and two TV camera eye systems.

VF-1J: Version manufactured by licensee Shinnakasu Heavy Industry and assigned to air team and squadron leaders. Two RÖV-20 laser guns on improved Kyuusei-Industry-designed head unit. The out-of-sequence "J" designation is believed to represent the abbreviation of the region of its origin.

VF-1S: Version manufactured in limited numbers by

licensee Northrom and assigned to squadron leaders and CAGs. Four RÖV-20 laser guns, enhanced avionics identical to VF-1A's Block 12 design, newly-redesigned Kyuusei Industry head turret, improved FF-2001D engine with greater engine thrust.

[Anubis]

Yep, all else fails, check the compendium.

[maxjenius81]

I actually posted about a VF-1A vs a VF-1S a while back on RT.com for some 'best veritech' thread...

The VF-1S wasnt THAT much better than the basic VF-1A. The basic -1A featured a pair of FF-2001 rated to 11,500 kg dry thrust, while the -1S had a pair of FF-2001D rated to 13,050 kg dry thrust. Only a 13% thrust increase while retaining the same # of vernier thrusters (18 low thrust and 4 high thrust. The weapons systems differ only in the addition of three anti-air lasers.

Probably the single most advantageous difference between the -1S and the -1A is the electronic suite. Additional multi-phase arrays in the head of the -1S complement the main array expanding coverage to approx. 270 degrees, however, this is the same as seen on the -1J. THe -1A has a smaller field of only 180 degrees.

Actually the limited supply as seen on the macross would indicate that one about 23 are VF-1S (actual VF-1 complement on SDF-01 on launch days was 144 -1A, 36 -1J, and 9 -1S as well as 23 -1Ds), not 1 in every 500-1000 (there were only 2500 VF-1s of all types built).

As for performance data for the two types:

Thrust to weight ratio:

VF-1A: 1.24

VF-1S: 1.41

Atmospheric Speeds

VF-1A@10,000m: Mach 5.4

VF-1S@10,000m: Mach 5.5

VF-1A@30,000m: Mach 7.74

VF-1S@30,000m: Mach 7.88

Overall the -1S isnt THAT much better than standard -1A aside from as someone pointed earlier, its Main Character Sheilds. Those help a lot.

[Lightning]

The VF-1S wasnt THAT much better than the basic VF-1A. The basic -1A featured a pair of FF-2001 rated to 11,500 kg dry thrust, while the -1S had a pair of FF-2001D rated to 13,050 kg dry thrust.

also, the -1J had slightly better avionics than the -1A, but the -1S was of a different Block altogether, and had much better avionics than the -1A. but with the advent of the -0, it seems so far that the Zero has better avionics than the -1A, but it kinda seems that the -0S's avionics were made 'standard' in the -1J. (AFAIK)

[Nied]

The VF-1S has uprated engines so it would follow that it would have somewhat better acceleration, though it's probably not much faster flat out. Most aircraft are limited more by their drag coeficient than their engine thrust. The 1S is also supposed to have vastly superior avionics. I'm not sure if the 1J has any advantage other than another head laser (though I always thought that point on it's chin was some kind of powerfull IFF antenea).

[David Hingtgen]

To add to Nied:

Max thrust is only one aspect of an engine's performance. Also, there's a LOT of different types of "max".

Examples: The last couple (3 mods or so) F-15 and F-16 engines have had little improvement in maximum thrust (with afterburner) compared to previous ones. But they're WAY, WAY better and are being retrofitted whenever possible. Why? Because their non-afterburning thrust is way higher. For VF-1's, this would be "non-overboosted" thrust. Also, engines don't make max power in all conditions. Full throttle at 35,000ft might give you only *25%* of the power you'd get at sea level. Well, what if a new version, which had the same power at sea level as the old one, gave you another 20% at high altitude? That'd be really useful, since that's where you spend most of your time.

More stuff: high subsonic and transonic acceleration. Very important, this is the zone where combat takes place. 30% improvement for late model F-16's. Same max thrust (or SLIGHTLY higher), but the intermediate settings at higher altitude are much better.

Super Tomcats have a 60%+ improvement in both acceleration and climb rate compared to regular Tomcats, despite only a 40% increase in thrust.

Quick summary: jet engines (like all engines) have a power CURVE. You don't get full power whenever you want--only sitting still, at sea level, in cold air. An engine at Denver in the summer will be making 20% less power than the same engine in Juneau in the winter. Everything affects a jet engine. Most people would gladly trade a bit of max power, for overall performance. (This is in fact what F-15C's do--they actually have less power than the F-15A, but the engine is so much better overall in all conditions).

Finally, there's time restrictions (also related to temp restrictions). Most planes have a 10/5 minute limit for takeoff/climbout thrust--any more and it'll overheat. Then there's "max continuous"--just like it sounds, the max power available without limits. There's also emergency settings, available for 20-30 secs depending on the engine. (A Harrier actually has like 5 settings--like a 10-sec rating, a 30-sec, 60-sec, 2 minute, etc) This is why I like GE engines as a rule. Most of the time, a GE engine will have a lower take-off thrust, but a much higher max continuous thrust, and a much, much higher emergency thrust setting. And max continuous and emergency are both used in emergency settings of course--when you REALLY want that extra power. Who cares about max power on a normal, everyday takeoff? But when you've lost an engine and are 2 hours from an airfield, you really want the engine with the best "max continuous" performance. Or if there's a mountain right ahead, you want the best "30 secs emergency" setting.

[Lightning]

here's a good anecdote to add to that: Remember the MiG-25? well, the russkies built that thing to counter the B-1B (back when it was supposed to be supersonic/ high altitude bomber) and also to counter the XB-70 (yea, the original Valkyrie! kinda weird hunh?). well the problem they had with it was, they could do Mach 3.2, but only for a little bit, and, here's the kicker: they melted the engines doing so! so therefore, they could only do Mach 2.5 for a high continuous afterburner on that plane, another problem they had with those engines was, they were hugely fuel hungry, like the VF-0.

[JB0]

here's a good anecdote to add to that: Remember the MiG-25? well, the russkies built that thing to counter the B-1B (back when it was supposed to be supersonic/ high altitude bomber) and also to counter the XB-70 (yea, the original Valkyrie! kinda weird hunh?). well the problem they had with it was, they could do Mach 3.2, but only for a little bit, and, here's the kicker: they melted the engines doing so! so therefore, they could only do Mach 2.5 for a high continuous afterburner on that plane, another problem they had with those engines was, they were hugely fuel hungry, like the VF-0.

The properties of the Foxbat that you mention are precisely why it was considered the only credible threat to the SR-71 Blackbird, as well.

They could match performance briefly, even if it totaled the plane.

That made them the only vehicle that could get high enough to attack a Blackbird and fast enough to bring it down before it was out of range.

...

Of course, no Foxbat ever took down a Blackbird, but it was considered a danger.

[ewilen]

I think the B1-B postdates the MiG-25 by a little too much for the MiG-25 to have been a response to its development, but the XB-70 is right. I think it was also a response to some of the combat-equipped SR-71 variants (A-12, YF-12). (David?)

[JB0]

I think the B1-B postdates the MiG-25 by a little too much for the MiG-25 to have been a response to its development, but the XB-70 is right. I think it was also a response to some of the combat-equipped SR-71 variants (A-12, YF-12). (David?)

The A-12 was designed as a replacement U-2. It carried no armament. It also predates the SR-71, which was developed due to the U-2 that was shot down, and the subsequent treaty between the USA and USSR banning manned overflights.

By the time the A-12 was ready, it had no purpose(since it's cameras could only look straight down). So they made the SR-71, which had side-view capabilities.

The YF-12 was the only Blackbird capable of shooting anything.

It was intended for bomber and interceptor tasks.

Only the interceptor was ever built, and only 3 prototypes.

Seems no one wanted to foot the bill for the 93 F-12s that were needed to protect North America from enemy bombers, and the bomber variant was competing with the Valkyrie(which no one wanted to admit was obsolete before it ever left the ground) so the project was killed.

Looking at dates, the Foxbat COULD have been birthed as a counter to the A-12, but it's doubtful.

I think countering the Valkyrie was more likely.

[David Hingtgen]

MiG-25 is rated for 2.8 normally, not 2.5. Even in "normal" operations it's faster than any other fighter by far. Of course, it totally sucks in all other categories. (Man, if you want to dogfight and win, go after a MiG-25)

Also, MiG-25 is such a horrific gas-guzzler, it literally has to INTERCEPT an SR-71 from head-on or thereabouts. It's one of the few planes whose top speed is actually fuel-limited in some situations. As in, it guzzles fuel so fast, if you simply taxi out at max weight, takeoff, and give it full afterburner, it'll run out of fuel while still accelerating. The only way you'll get 3.2 (and not run out of gas) is to be lightly loaded with only 2 missiles. Even the gigantic F-108 was only designed to be able to go Mach 3 for 5 minutes, 10 minutes in an ideal situation. Mig-25's a lot smaller. Probably has about a 30-sec Mach3+ ability.

(I am not a MiG-25 fan, BTW)

[Lightning]

well, i was close....

[JB0]

MiG-25 is rated for 2.8 normally, not 2.5. Even in "normal" operations it's faster than any other fighter by far. Of course, it totally sucks in all other categories. (Man, if you want to dogfight and win, go after a MiG-25)

Also, MiG-25 is such a horrific gas-guzzler, it literally has to INTERCEPT an SR-71 from head-on or thereabouts. It's one of the few planes whose top speed is actually fuel-limited in some situations. As in, it guzzles fuel so fast, if you simply taxi out at max weight, takeoff, and give it full afterburner, it'll run out of fuel while still accelerating. The only way you'll get 3.2 (and not run out of gas) is to be lightly loaded with only 2 missiles. Even the gigantic F-108 was only designed to be able to go Mach 3 for 5 minutes, 10 minutes in an ideal situation. Mig-25's a lot smaller. Probably has about a 30-sec Mach3+ ability.

(I am not a MiG-25 fan, BTW)

Man, now I REALLY wish the YF-12 had made it to production.

Granted it could only haul 3 missiles, but ...

[ewilen]

The A-12 was designed as a replacement U-2. It carried no armament. It also predates the SR-71, which was developed due to the U-2 that was shot down, and the subsequent treaty between the USA and USSR banning manned overflights.

By the time the A-12 was ready, it had no purpose(since it's cameras could only look straight down). So they made the SR-71, which had side-view capabilities.

Looking at dates, the Foxbat COULD have been birthed as a counter to the A-12, but it's doubtful.

I think countering the Valkyrie was more likely.

I stand corrected--I was fooled by the "A" into thinking the A-12 was a light bomber (like the A-20 Havoc or A-26 Invader).

Nevertheless I seem to remember reading that the MiG 25 was developed in response to the "A"-something-or-other.

[JB0]

The A-12 was designed as a replacement U-2. It carried no armament. It also predates the SR-71, which was developed due to the U-2 that was shot down, and the subsequent treaty between the USA and USSR banning manned overflights.

By the time the A-12 was ready, it had no purpose(since it's cameras could only look straight down). So they made the SR-71, which had side-view capabilities.

Looking at dates, the Foxbat COULD have been birthed as a counter to the A-12, but it's doubtful.

I think countering the Valkyrie was more likely.

I stand corrected--I was fooled by the "A" into thinking the A-12 was a light bomber (like the A-20 Havoc or A-26 Invader).

Nevertheless I seem to remember reading that the MiG 25 was developed in response to the "A"-something-or-other.

Maybe it WAS the A-12. Anti-surveilance.

...

In which case they were born purposeless too.

Anyways, teh A-12's designation is because it was a CIA plane, not an Air Force one.

Edited September 21, 2003 by JB0

[ewilen]

Cool. Can you (or anyone) help with "SR" and "M" (as in M-21?) And "U"? What do they all stand for/designate?

Edited September 21, 2003 by ewilen

[JB0]

Cool. Can you (or anyone) help with "SR" and "M" (as in M-21?) And "U"? What do they all stand for/designate?

SR was surveillance/reconnaissance, if I recall.

If I had to guess, the M in M-21 stood for mothership, or something similar. The M-21 was another Blackbird variant, this one built to launch an unmanned drone designated the D-21(I'd bet money that D stood for drone).

Only 2 M-21s were built(And under 40 D-21s), and one was destroyed when the D-21 failed to launch correctly and crashed into the fuselage of the M-21 under it(if I recall, the accident killed both the pilot and the launch control officer*). The remaining M-21 was retired immediatly after the accident.

Dunno what the A in A-12 stood for. I meant perhaps the Mig-25 was built as an anti-surveillance plane(countering the threat of the A-12).

Ditto for U(from the U-2?)

* On looking the data up, both ejected safely and landed in the ocean, but the launch officer accidentally opened his helmet visor in and drowned.

Edited September 21, 2003 by JB0

[David Hingtgen]

A is attack. Go figure for the A-12. (Hey, *F*-117.).

Anyways, SR-71 is one of those "doesn't fit the rules". It SHOULD be the R-1A.

U is for utility--nice way of "hiding" CIA/spy functions. "It's just a generic utility plane, not painted black with no markings for any particular reason flown by non-USAF pilots for covert black ops"

M in M-21 (actually the M-12, but since it carried the D-21 it is AKA the M-21) is for "Multimission".

Here's the best site, explains it all:

http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/

[F-ZeroOne]

IIRC, the SR-71 was originally "RS-71", presumably "Recon-Survelliance". Then at some press conference or another, a Presidential candidate - it might have been the President - got his letters the wrong way round, and SR-71 it was for all time to come...

[JB0]

IIRC, the SR-71 was originally "RS-71", presumably "Recon-Survelliance". Then at some press conference or another, a Presidential candidate - it might have been the President - got his letters the wrong way round, and SR-71 it was for all time to come...

President Johnson DID mangle the YF-12 when he announced it to the public.

He called it the A-11. It's believed he misread AMI, which stood for advanced manned interceptor.

[David Hingtgen]

Nope nope nope. Go to the site I listed above. Explains the whole SR-71 name. Nobody screwed up, some people just switched some things around on the final version of the speech...

[JB0]

Nope nope nope. Go to the site I listed above. Explains the whole SR-71 name. Nobody screwed up, some people just switched some things around on the final version of the speech...

Can you find a link explaining the YF-12, which is by far a more common story?

[David Hingtgen]

No, I'd have to go get my Blackbird book. Give me a few hours to find it and read up on the "pre" Blackbirds.

[hellohikaru]

About the SR-71 name thing....

You know its said that it could be a press problem rather than the President miscalling the RS-71. He may have pronouced it correctly as the SR-71 but the press somehow misquoted the president and called it the RS-71 and that's how the confusion came about.

[Draykov]

A is attack.  Go figure for the A-12.  (Hey, *F*-117.). 

Anyways, SR-71 is one of those "doesn't fit the rules".  It SHOULD be the R-1A.

U is for utility--nice way of "hiding" CIA/spy functions.  "It's just a generic utility plane, not painted black with no markings for any particular reason flown by non-USAF pilots for covert black ops"   

M in M-21 (actually the M-12, but since it carried the D-21 it is AKA the M-21)  is for "Multimission".

Here's the best site, explains it all:

http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/

Awesome link, Dave. I was under the impression that the 'SR' in the Blackbird's designation stood for Strategic Reconnaissance.

Edited November 10, 2003 by Draykov

[Knight26]

Ok, I used to give a weekly instructional briefing on the SR-71/A-12/YF-12/M-21+D-21, etc... I will quickly explain the A-12 designation. The "A" Stands for Archangel, which was the code name Lockheed used for the top secret CIA project. Archangel 12, A-12, was the twelfth and final design considered for the series and is the one that was built. The YF-12 was designed as an anti-nuclear bomber interceptor, it carried 3 tactical nuclear missiles in internal bays that it would launch at formations of Russian bombers. The missile is the direct precursour to the AIM-54 Phoenix and much of its technology went into that weapon. THe YF-12 concept was scrapped becuase launch at high speed caused seperation damage to the aircraft, the aircraft could not turn on a dime at high speed, and the resulting EMP would have klnocked out all of its avionics, mind you all the Black Bird Varients were pretty much flown strictly on instruments. The M-21/D-21 was developed about the same time, and so was the SR-71, the A-12 was the daddy to all of them. The M-21 was intended to be able to carry the D-21 drone to the border of russian airspace, release the drone, let it over fly and then ditch itself someplace safe for pick up. However, several disasterous test launchs ended that program, leaving only the SR-71 and the handful of A-12s left.

[Draykov]

The M-21 was intended to be able to carry the D-21 drone to the border of russian airspace, release the drone, let it over fly and then ditch itself someplace safe for pick up.

Are you suggesting a drone was carrying another drone, or did you get your designations mixed up?