VT-102

[jenius]

Hik's first valk is the VT-102 but we know it as the VF-1D. Was the VF-1D originally intended as a trainer but became a fighter due to the needs of the fierce combat with the Zents?

[wolfx]

Uhh....there's no VT-102 and its not the same as a VF-1D?

http://www.anime.net/macross/mecha/united_.../vf1/index.html

The VT-1 came out in DYRL and is a trainer mecha with no weapons. The VF-1D which came out in SDF Macross is a double seat variant...but never mentioned that it was a trainer despite same colors. Its a normal valk for 2 people, just like the VF-0D in Macross Zero that Shinn and Edgar uses.

[jenius]

If you watch the first Macross episode, Hikaru's valk is labeled VT-102.

[Opus]

Actually, Hikaru's 1D was actually VT-1023. It's just the number of the plane not a new model. while that particular 1D was a trainer other 1D's are shown through out the series in standard paint schemes in combat.

[hellohikaru]

Maybe there are VF-1Ds used by training/operational conversion units and VF-1Ds used by frontline units for familiarisation, missions that require wizzos(WSO), rescue, weddings or just the occasional sight seeing trip.

[Coota0]

Hik's first valk is the VT-102 but we know it as the VF-1D. Was the VF-1D originally intended as a trainer but became a fighter due to the needs of the fierce combat with the Zents?

Didn't we go through this about six months ago?

[Opus]

Hik's first valk is the VT-102 but we know it as the VF-1D.  Was the VF-1D originally intended as a trainer but became a fighter due to the needs of the fierce combat with the Zents?

Didn't we go through this about six months ago?

We go through this every six months but that's okay.

[jenius]

it's cool, I figured as much but didn't exactly know how to search for the answer. I got it now so if someone wants to delete the thread i'm cool by that.

[azrael]

but didn't exactly know how to search for the answer.

Search for "VF-1D" next time. There are more than 30 topics in which we have mentioned the VF-1D. We have even had a thread on the VF-1D.

http://www.macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?showtopic=7263

[Godzilla]

*Hands everyone a shovel to rebury the dead horse.*

[That NOS Guy]

*Hands everyone a shovel to rebury the dead horse.*

I want to beat it some more. God dammit.

[Agent ONE]

Hik's first valk is the VT-102 but we know it as the VF-1D. Was the VF-1D originally intended as a trainer but became a fighter due to the needs of the fierce combat with the Zents?

Everywhere that refers to the 1D calls it a trainer... How could you miss this?

[ewilen]

This doesn't: http://macross.anime.net/mecha/united_nati.../vf1/index.html

[EXO]

102 was a specific trainer. But there are 1Ds that were for combat... hence VF- "variable fighter".

[nanashino]

Hik's first valk is the VT-102 but we know it as the VF-1D. Was the VF-1D originally intended as a trainer but became a fighter due to the needs of the fierce combat with the Zents?

The VF-1D is a dual-seat variable fighter. The VF-1D version is not specifically designated as a a trainer model. The VF-1D that Hikaru was driving was assigned to training duties and was designated VT-102.

- Nanashi's Information Group

[yellowlightman]

The notion of the VF-1D being only a trainer can be traced back to Robotech, where the VF-1D was ALWAYS referred to as a trainer.

[Radd]

I believe there are two or more instances in SDF Macross where you see a VF-1D in roles other than training. I'm pretty certain one of those is the episode where the Macross lands on Mars.

[Skull-1]

So am I to presume a VT-1 cannot carry a gunpod and use it?

Seems pretty stupid to have a completely unarmed Valk unless the lack of weaponry allows some other advantage--like additional fuel for example.

[jenius]

So am I to presume a VT-1 cannot carry a gunpod and use it?

Seems pretty stupid to have a completely unarmed Valk unless the lack of weaponry allows some other advantage--like additional fuel for example.

So are you saying trainers in general seem stupid? Theoretically it could carry a gun pod, instead it carries a dummy gunpod for training purposes. A VT-1 will never see combat (unless some idiot on a date steals one) so it'd seem stupid to give it live ammo, no?

[Skull-1]

So are you saying trainers in general seem stupid? Theoretically it could carry a gun pod, instead it carries a dummy gunpod for training purposes. A VT-1 will never see combat (unless some idiot on a date steals one) so it'd seem stupid to give it live ammo, no?

The answer to your queries would depend upon where the VT-1 actually operates. If we presume a hostile environment (space) where Zentraedi may be roaming I would think it should carry some weaponry.

A dummy gunpod? That I can buy for training purposes.

But if and when the defication hits the ventilation one would think having a combat capable trainer would be worth its weight in gold.

It would be like assigning F-16s to take the place of T-38s only to say they can't be armed at all. Now you're stuck with the cost of and maintenance of an airplane that is not a purpose-designed dedicated trainer and can't be used as a fighter. EEEK.

You know?

[Skull-1]

I just saw an entry that states it "normally does not carry weapons."

So "normally" doesn't preclude their use.

[EXO]

I just saw an entry that states it "normally does not carry weapons."

So "normally" doesn't preclude their use.

Wow, did you just win you're own argument?

Does Macrossworld hand out internets?

I'm sure that in the event that the real Zentradis attack Earth, we'll figure out how to jimmy gunpods unto those silly real life VT trainers that's costing us taxpayer money to maintain.

[eugimon]

The answer to your queries would depend upon where the VT-1 actually operates. If we presume a hostile environment (space) where Zentraedi may be roaming I would think it should carry some weaponry.

A dummy gunpod? That I can buy for training purposes.

But if and when the defication hits the ventilation one would think having a combat capable trainer would be worth its weight in gold.

It would be like assigning F-16s to take the place of T-38s only to say they can't be armed at all. Now you're stuck with the cost of and maintenance of an airplane that is not a purpose-designed dedicated trainer and can't be used as a fighter. EEEK.

You know?

not really analogous... the t-38 essential has all the basic functions of an f-16, the majority of the difference being performance... but flying a t-38 is not going to be fundamentally different than flying an f-16.

But a VF is different.. because it transforms. So what's more cost effective, having a few Vf's turned into trainers or making an entirely new VF just to train?

Hmmm... hmmm... hmmm...

you know?

[sketchley]

But a VF is different.. because it transforms. So what's more cost effective, having a few Vf's turned into trainers or making an entirely new VF just to train?

Hmmm... hmmm... hmmm...

you know?

Not to mention the cost reductions due to parts commonality, and not having to retrain mechanics for work on a new machine.

[Skull-1]

Wow, did you just win you're own argument?

Does Macrossworld hand out internets?

I'm sure that in the event that the real Zentradis attack Earth, we'll figure out how to jimmy gunpods unto those silly real life VT trainers that's costing us taxpayer money to maintain.

Someone pointed me to entry in the Compendium.

You see, there's the process by which people ask questions when they can't find the answers. Usually, though not always, someone with the answer provides it in response to said question.

I was merely pointing out what was shared with me.

Edited December 25, 2006 by Skull-1

[Skull-1]

not really analogous... the t-38 essential has all the basic functions of an f-16, the majority of the difference being performance... but flying a t-38 is not going to be fundamentally different than flying an f-16.

But a VF is different.. because it transforms. So what's more cost effective, having a few Vf's turned into trainers or making an entirely new VF just to train?

Hmmm... hmmm... hmmm...

you know?

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.

Edited December 25, 2006 by Skull-1

[Skull-1]

Not to mention the cost reductions due to parts commonality, and not having to retrain mechanics for work on a new machine.

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.

[jenius]

A $100M fighter turned $90M trainer still costs a lot more than a $50M dedicated-trainer would, even accounting for parts and maintenance.

I think no one would disagree with the following assertion: You COULD make a VT-1 combat worthy.

The question is, did they? There doesn't seem to be any evidence of that. Obviously, before adapting trainers into fighters you'd send your fighters out first and there doesn't seem to be evidence from Macross that they had to resort to arming VTs.

Now, onto the price thing. Let's say upon building the VE-1 they found the frame perfect for a trainer do to the seating arrangement and slightly greater space for sensory equipment or something like that. Now, having additional VT-1s may also mean they can be converted at a later date to VE-1s as well. Now say they only planned to make 100 VE-1s at a cost of $10. They now choose to make 200 at a cost of $17. The average cost of a VF-1D may be $16 but the VT-1 is better-suited and has upgradeable features the VF-1D does not.

Eh, basically, who knows on the price issue, we could make a billion hypotheses there (unless the compendium actually covers that). The other consideration is that humans are so proficient at producing valks by the point the VT-1 comes around price isn't even an issue and the common thought is that students should have the best available equipment to train in.

Edited December 25, 2006 by jenius

[sketchley]

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.

I'm not following that logic.

The way I see it is, aside from some lengthing in the nose, a different head (a less expensive one it should be added,) and a changed tail/rear thruster assembly/backpack, ALL of the parts are the same as the VF-1. Again, the costs involved (production, repair, retraining, replacement parts, and storage of replacement parts) is substantially reduced, simply because the two (or 4) 'different' fighters are really the same fighter, only with slightly different dohickys that give them different roles on the battlefield.

I'd actually compare it to the three different models of the Joint Strike Fighter. Why did they decide to make one fighter capable of being produced in three different models? The answer to that question works for the justifications for the VF-1, VT-1, VE-1, and the short-lived VEFR-1 Funny Chinese.

In addition, I don't think we can nit-pick about this too much more, as sooner or later we have to start talking about the differences between the VF-1A, VF-1D, VF-1J, and VF-1S - as they could be both described as identical, AND entirely different, and unique VFs.

Edited December 25, 2006 by sketchley

[eugimon]

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.

And you're missing my point entirely, to build a trainer for a valkyrie, you would have to build a whole new bird that transforms. So this new dedicated trainer would be just as expensive as building a valkyrie. Only now, you have to dedicate new factories, train your mechanics to work on two birds, have duplicate but unique support equipment, etc.

what's more expensive?

And also, who said that the 1d didn't have it's fundamental capabilities intact?

does it fly? yes.

does it transform? yes.

Does it have hands to pick things up with? yes

Does a gunpod have a hand grip to be picked up with? yes.

So what's your issue?

[Skull-1]

I'd actually compare it to the three different models of the Joint Strike Fighter. Why did they decide to make one fighter capable of being produced in three different models? The answer to that question works for the

justifications for the VF-1, VT-1, VE-1, and the short-lived VEFR-1 Funny Chinese.

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.

In addition, I don't think we can nit-pick about this too much more, as sooner or later we have to start talking about the differences between the VF-1A, VF-1D, VF-1J, and VF-1S - as they could be both described as identical, AND entirely different, and unique VFs.

Fulfilling the same roles with the exception of the "D" being an "combat-worthy trainer" at the very least.

[Skull-1]

And you're missing my point entirely, to build a trainer for a valkyrie, you would have to build a whole new bird that transforms. So this new dedicated trainer would be just as expensive as building a valkyrie. Only now, you have to dedicate new factories, train your mechanics to work on two birds, have duplicate but unique support equipment, etc.

what's more expensive?

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.

And also, who said that the 1d didn't have it's fundamental capabilities intact?

does it fly? yes.

does it transform? yes.

Does it have hands to pick things up with? yes

Does a gunpod have a hand grip to be picked up with? yes.

So what's your issue?

We are talking about the VT-1 being weapon-less. We know the VF-1D is combat capable. That's not the issue.

Edited December 25, 2006 by Skull-1

[sketchley]

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.

Ah. Now we get to the essence of the VF-1, and why more role specific VFs are built later in the timeline.

Please reread: http://macross.anime.net//mecha/united_nat.../vf1/index.html The VF-1S is actually the most unique, and furthest removed from the other VFs in the VF/T/E-1 line. Until the X upgrade, it alone had different engines. (The VT-1C doesn't appear until Macross 7 Dynamite, and shouldn't be considered as part of this discussion, IMHO, as this discussion has been centered on the SWI era.)

Therefore, IMHO, the VF-1S is as expensive, if not more expensive to maintain as the VT-1 - it's even got it's own unique FAST pack attachment, too.

[sketchley]

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.

No. The fighter comes first. Did the Wright brothers build a trainer aircraft to learn to fly the Flyer I?

I disagree that a "Logan-like" VF would be cheaper. For one thing, the VF-1 took 7 years from tentative plan to operational deployment (6 years, 10 months from tentative plan to start of mass production.) The next operational VF, the VF-4, didn't see mass production start until 2012.2. Going by the DYRL? timeline, the VT-1 was deployed after the VF-1, but before the VF-4 was completed. If they attempted to design a new fighter, it would've started production around the same time as the VF-4, or after (and why waste manpower developing a dedicated trainer, when Earth's survival comes first, and a trainer jet is needed now?) In addition, there was at least two known wars occuring, not to mention the rebuilding of Earth after the end of SWI.

In other words, we mustn't look at this in terms of what is available in reality, but what is available in the Macross reality. Slightly modifying a proven design is not only cheaper and faster when it comes to R&D, but it is cheaper and faster when it comes to actual production, and deployment (maintenance, etc.).

I do agree that a trainer fighter can be acquired for much, much less. But a dedicated transforming VF trainer? No.

[Skull-1]

Ah. Now we get to the essence of the VF-1, and why more role specific VFs are built later in the timeline.

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.

Please reread: http://macross.anime.net//mecha/united_nat.../vf1/index.html The VF-1S is actually the most unique, and furthest removed from the other VFs in the VF/T/E-1 line. Until the X upgrade, it alone had different engines. (The VT-1C doesn't appear until Macross 7 Dynamite, and shouldn't be considered as part of this discussion, IMHO, as this discussion has been centered on the SWI era.)

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.

Therefore, IMHO, the VF-1S is as expensive, if not more expensive to maintain as the VT-1 - it's even got it's own unique FAST pack attachment, too.

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."