VT-102

[Skull-1]

No. The fighter comes first.

With nothing on which to train first? At all?

Did the Wright brothers build a trainer aircraft to learn to fly the Flyer I?

The Wrights were dealing with a far different paradigm.

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.

And there was no mass produced aircraft to train the thousands of pilots who would man it?

That seems dubious.

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.

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).

Edited December 25, 2006 by Skull-1

[The6ftTallAZN]

Comparing the VF-1A,D,S,VT-1/VE-1 is pretty much like comparing the Ford Mustang 6 cylinder, GT, Saleen, and the Shelby GT-500. They're all pretty much the same except with slight or major differences.

But all in all this thing comes down to interchangable parts. I'm sure that it would've cost Ford (or any another car company) a hell of a lot more money to design a brand new model than to slightly change an already existing model for a less or more powerful engine.

[Skull-1]

Comparing the VF-1A,D,S,VT-1/VE-1 is pretty much like comparing the Ford Mustang 6 cylinder, GT, Saleen, and the Shelby GT-500. They're all pretty much the same except with slight or major differences.

But all in all this thing comes down to interchangable parts. I'm sure that it would've cost Ford (or any another car company) a hell of a lot more money to design a brand new model than to slightly change an already existing model for a less or more powerful engine.

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.

[sketchley]

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."

Thanks. You are confirming my points. What's the difference between the VF-1 and the VT-1? Natta. Thus it's cheaper, and a better VF to train on to boot, as it's the exact same plane.

If you feel inclined to disagree, then I ask: what is the difference between a VT-1 and a VF-1 stripped of all weapons, colored orange and dedicated exclusively to training?

[Skull-1]

Thanks. You are confirming my points. What's the difference between the VF-1 and the VT-1? Natta. Thus it's cheaper, and a better VF to train on to boot, as it's the exact same plane.

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 feel inclined to disagree, then I ask: what is the difference between a VT-1 and a VF-1 stripped of all weapons, colored orange and dedicated exclusively to training?

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.

[sketchley]

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.

Ah, ok. I see where things are stemming from. I agree that fielding one's frontline fighter as a trainer is expensive. However, please contemplate my point a little bit deeper about fielding an entirely new fighter being more expensive (or adding more expenses) than the (adapted) frontline fighter.

I disagree that a purpose-built VF is cheaper than an adaptive version for the very reasons of the limited number produced and utilized by the UNS (the price per unit would be exorbitant), and that's not even mentioning the insane R&D costs involved!

Also, every time an F-16 or F-22 takes to the air in non-combat situations, it is a kind of training. It has also been agreed upon that the VT-1 is capable of mounting weapons, even if it 'normally' doesn't, thus implying that it is similar to an F-22 used for both training missions, and combat missions. Therefore, I'm not sure what we are debating exactly...

[Skull-1]

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.

Edited December 25, 2006 by Skull-1

[anime52k8]

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.

The military wouldn't use a TF-22 trainer because a cheaper alternative is already available in the T-38. But the T-38 is cheaper because it is a smaller, older aircraft built using Vietnam War era technology. the T-38 is still an effective trainer however because if you look past all the stealth and fancy computer systems on an F-22 its still just move a stick and the plane pitches, yaws, rolls and accelerates; just like the T-38.

On a VF-1 however there is no equivalent already in existence. There are no pre existing production aircraft that can turn into a Giant fighting robot which you can use as a trainer. You’re going to need something to train people on how to operate those alternate modes, and the cheapest way to do that is to modify the VF-1 (the only variable plane available.)

Once they went on to newer VF's like the VF-4 or the VF-11 they were probably still using VT-1's for training purposes as those are fine for teaching the basics of Gerwalk and Batroid piloting.

[Skull-1]

The military wouldn't use a TF-22 trainer because a cheaper alternative is already available...

Being "already available" is irrelevant.

On a VF-1 however there is no equivalent already in existence.

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.

There are no pre existing production aircraft that can turn into a Giant fighting robot which you can use as a trainer. You’re going to need something to train people on how to operate those alternate modes, and the cheapest way to do that is to modify the VF-1 (the only variable plane available.)

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.

Edited December 26, 2006 by Skull-1

[sketchley]

Uhm, excuse me, but the VF-0 design was created after the fact. Not to mention that it was part of a top secret program that wasn't made public in the Macross universe for some 30 years after the evens of Macross Zero occured.

Does the Macross universe have non-transforming fighters that can be used for training? Yes.

Do non-transforming space fighters exist for training? Yes.

Do humanoid robots/destroids exist for training? Yes.

Are VF pilots trained in flight simulators and non-VFs before being dumped into a VF cockpit? Yes.

Does a transforming VF exist for training? Beyond the VF-1D and VT-1, no.*

I'm really not sure what you are arguing, Skull-1, as you're stance has become muddled with all the tangental arguements. Can you summarize your stance in a concise statement please and thank you.

*Of course it could be argued that the two-seater VF-3000B, VF-5000, VF-11, and VF-17 can be used for training purposes. Which falls in line with Shoji Kawamori's philosophy for VFs in Macross - whatever countering logic may be applied. (And let's not debate this, as it's entirely tangental, and has nothing to do with this topic: the VT-102. )

Edited December 26, 2006 by sketchley

[eugimon]

Can you summarize your stance in a concise statement please and thank you.

*Of course it could be argued that the two-seater VF-3000B, VF-5000, VF-11, and VF-17 can be used for training purposes. Which falls in line with Shoji Kawamori's philosophy for VFs in Macross - whatever countering logic may be applied. (And let's not debate this, as it's entirely tangental, and has nothing to do with this topic: the VT-102. )

yes, please skull-1, I have no idea what point you're trying to prove at this point.

[Skull-1]

Uhm, excuse me, but the VF-0 design was created after the fact.

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.

Edited December 26, 2006 by Skull-1

[kensei]

yes, please skull-1, I have no idea what point you're trying to prove at this point.

He's trying to prove that he is not wrong. The fact that we are talking about Macross means nothing at this point. That's all I can see with his arguments.

[eugimon]

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.

so, pilots who are supposed to fly f-22's don't train on F-22's?

A VT-1 is a 2 seater without a live weapons and special head and fast packs that carry more fuel instead of missiles. I don't see how this is such a very bad thing.

[anime52k8]

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.

skull-1, you make about as much sense as those homeless guys who sit outside of department stores and yell at people.

[sketchley]

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.

VF-1 http://macross.anime.net//mecha/united_nat.../vf1/index.html

VF-0 http://macross.anime.net//mecha/united_nat.../vf0/index.html

Not including the real life 18 to 20* years that passed before the VF-0 was designed, it did not have, nor was it designed to ever have thermonuclear engines. Yes, the VF-0 can operate for extremely limited amounts of time in space. However, it was through-and-through an atmospheric fighter. Where do we see the VT-1 being used? In space. Not to mention that the statements 'secret program' and 'trial production model' are associated with the VF-0.

As for the initial query - wasn't that answered (and thus solved) at the top of page 2? We're at the bottom of page 3 now, giving credence to Kensei's statement.

Lastly, no one has disputed your premise. In fact, everyone has been posting statements in agreement to it. If anyone has been the proponent of an unarmed and non-combat capable VT-1, it has been you, Skull-1. IMHO, you've been arguing with yourself, at the expense of the efforts of others to save you from... yourself.

*Depends on if we compare it to the VF-1, or the VT-1.

[Scream Man]

Do they have flight sims in the original Macross series? i mean i assume they do, but are they shown?

[Zinjo]

Well the VF-1D was a ECM equipped aircraft and I suspect may have been used as a bomber (though no record of such activity has ever been published). Being a 2 seater would make it a natural choice for training deployments and it was used in such a capacity as shown in SDFM.

The VT-1 is obviously a derivative of the VE-1 airframe which was a purpose built aircraft being a variable equivalent to the "Cats Eye" recon aircraft.

Having a variable aircrafts that utilizes the same parts as front line fighters makes the most economical sense to Spacy.

Since both the VT and VE used the same parts in the majority of their systems as the VF series of aircraft they are economical to fly and maintain, eventhough their building costs may be close to the fighters.

Now we know the VT's are armable in a pinch it is supported in documentation and in DYRL by Hikaru's comment.

So therefore with the evidence we are supplied with, we can reasonably conclude that the VF-1D and the VT-1 were both used in both training and potential combat roles in the Macross universe.

I do find it amusing that so many like to consider the "costs" in terms of US examples when the Macross universe is dealing with Global governments and global economies.

If a fighter costs $1 Billion to build or even 1/4 of a billion to build, in a global economy for planetary defence I suspect ther budget would not be all that limited.

To put things into proper perspective, in a mere ten years the global UN government managed to build and man a Mars base and a moon base, build a fleet of space warships, build countless squads of destroids and at least 10 air wings of Variable fighters and reconstruct the A.S.S. into the SDF-1! That's a lot to accomplish in 10 short years, but when mobilized on a global scale, one could argue that 10 years was a bit long for all that.

As well, they simultaneously constructed of the SDF-2 at the Apollo base ship yards where they must have been constructing more ARMD carriers and other capital ships.

So in terms of "cost" the VF fighter was probably one of the cheaper items on the military procurement agenda...

[sketchley]

To put things into proper perspective, in a mere ten years the global UN government managed to build and man a Mars base and a moon base, build a fleet of space warships, build countless squads of destroids and at least 10 air wings of Variable fighters and reconstruct the A.S.S. into the SDF-1! That's a lot to accomplish in 10 short years, but when mobilized on a global scale, one could argue that 10 years was a bit long for all that.

As well, they simultaneously constructed of the SDF-2 at the Apollo base ship yards where they must have been constructing more ARMD carriers and other capital ships.

Don't forget the orbital shipyards, and the space colonies (potentially both at legrange point 4.) I don't know if Apollo base made any ships other than the SDF-2, but it has been stated that the orbital shipyards produced 8 ARMD, and 125 Oberth.

Don't forget the countless vehicles (space fighters, drone fighters, etc.,) a handful of Prometheus & Daedulus surface going ships, and at least 5 Grand Cannons (only 1 completed) produced in the same time period.

So yeah, cost wasn't exactly an issue before SWI. In fact, the only real issue would be man power, and that was only a problem immediately post SWI, until mass cloning got underway.

[kensei]

To put things into proper perspective, in a mere ten years the global UN government managed to build and man a Mars base and a moon base, build a fleet of space warships, build countless squads of destroids and at least 10 air wings of Variable fighters and reconstruct the A.S.S. into the SDF-1! That's a lot to accomplish in 10 short years, but when mobilized on a global scale, one could argue that 10 years was a bit long for all that.

As well, they simultaneously constructed of the SDF-2 at the Apollo base ship yards where they must have been constructing more ARMD carriers and other capital ships.

So in terms of "cost" the VF fighter was probably one of the cheaper items on the military procurement agenda...

I'll bet unemployment was at an all time low. What a time to live!

[Skull-1]

so, pilots who are supposed to fly f-22's don't train on F-22's?

A VT-1 is a 2 seater without a live weapons and special head and fast packs that carry more fuel instead of missiles. I don't see how this is such a very bad thing.

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

[Skull-1]

Well the VF-1D was a ECM equipped aircraft and I suspect may have been used as a bomber (though no record of such activity has ever been published). Being a 2 seater would make it a natural choice for training deployments and it was used in such a capacity as shown in SDFM.

As an operational trainer or at the RAG, sure.

The VT-1 is obviously a derivative of the VE-1 airframe which was a purpose built aircraft being a variable equivalent to the "Cats Eye" recon aircraft.

Are they the same? Does the VE-1 have the stepped up rear seat?

Having a variable aircrafts that utilizes the same parts as front line fighters makes the most economical sense to Spacy.

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.

Since both the VT and VE used the same parts in the majority of their systems as the VF series of aircraft they are economical to fly and maintain, eventhough their building costs may be close to the fighters.

Reactors small enough to fit in the legs of an F-16-sized fighter are hardly economical in any sense.

Now we know the VT's are armable in a pinch it is supported in documentation and in DYRL by Hikaru's comment.

"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?

So therefore with the evidence we are supplied with, we can reasonably conclude that the VF-1D and the VT-1 were both used in both training and potential combat roles in the Macross universe.

I hope the latter is true. Obviously the former is.

I do find it amusing that so many like to consider the "costs" in terms of US examples when the Macross universe is dealing with Global governments and global economies.

Global governments are even more inefficient than their national counterparts and they still have budgets.

If a fighter costs $1 Billion to build or even 1/4 of a billion to build, in a global economy for planetary defence I suspect ther budget would not be all that limited.

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...

So in terms of "cost" the VF fighter was probably one of the cheaper items on the military procurement agenda...

No, the Ghost drones and the like probably were...

Edited December 26, 2006 by Skull-1

[Coota0]

T-38s are redesigned F-5s so the T-38 is a fighter that was cinverted to a trainer.

[sketchley]

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...

Wow... too much quotage!

Please check your facts first.

1) Development and mass production of VF-1A starts November and December of 2008. Total initial strength on SDF-1 Macross at space launch ceremony 2009 February 7: 212 VF-1 Valkyries.

That's the amount of VFs produced within a max of three months, that are transferred to the SDF-1. Vfs were deployed elsewhere on Earth, and in orbit, as there is at least one seen parked inside of one of the two ARMD that orbit Earth. Not to mention those that would be deployed to UN facilities, such as the Grand Cannon.

2) the complement on the SDF-1 was not the full complement. The SDF-1 was slated to dock with two ARMDs in orbit, with their complement of VFs, not to mention additional fighters after the SDF-1 was completed; the Zentraedi attack got in the way . The complement of VFs may actually have been those from the Prometheus, as the opening animation of the PS1 DYRL? game hints.

3) despite combat losses, the SDF-1 still had a complement of more than 300 Super VFs when it attacked Bodolza's flagship. Assuming that they salvaged and rebuilt all VFs that were damaged until then (highly unlikely,) at least 88 new VFs were built on the SDF-1. These leads to the impression that building VFs isn't that difficult, nor expensive (in terms of both money, and manpower.) Remember, until the SDF-1 landed on Earth, it was on it's own, and recycling whatever materials it had on board, and was able to salvage from the chunk of South Ataria Island that it took with it to Pluto's orbit. At the same time they not only manufactured new units of existing Destroid models, but they designed and built an entirely new destroid! (The Phalanx.) Not to mention all the ammo, and constant repairs to the ship, mecha, and city inside the ship...

If anything, SDF:M is unrealistic when it comes to what the people inside of the ship are able to do with the resources that they have. But then again, that fits with the creator's vision of a 'not serious' robot show.

Edited December 26, 2006 by sketchley

[azrael]

Well the VF-1D was a ECM equipped aircraft and ...

This is never stated. However, the VF-0D is stated as being an electronic warfare-based aircraft.

[Skull-1]

Wow... too much quotage!

Please check your facts first.

There is no need to. The production total of the VF series was not that high at SDF-1's launch.

1) Development and mass production of VF-1A starts November and December of 2008. Total initial strength on SDF-1 Macross at space launch ceremony 2009 February 7: 212 VF-1 Valkyries.

212 and a handful of VT-1s. Not an entire training fleet of VT-1s. VF compliments were very low at least initially.

2) the complement on the SDF-1 was not the full complement. The SDF-1 was slated to dock with two ARMDs in orbit, with their complement of VFs, not to mention additional fighters after the SDF-1 was completed; the Zentraedi attack got in the way . The complement of VFs may actually have been those from the Prometheus, as the opening animation of the PS1 DYRL? game hints.

So what do we figure? 500? 1000?

That's not much. VT-1s made up 20 of those at most, no?

If anything, SDF:M is unrealistic when it comes to what the people inside of the ship are able to do with the resources that they have. But then again, that fits with the creator's vision of a 'not serious' robot show.

LOL.

[Skull-1]

T-38s are redesigned F-5s so the T-38 is a fighter that was cinverted to a trainer.

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.)

[Lightning]

-snip-

Are they the same? Does the VE-1 have the stepped up rear seat?

-snip-

YES! well.....at least the airframe anyway...

VT-1:

VE-1:

[sketchley]

There is no need to. The production total of the VF series was not that high at SDF-1's launch.

Do you just pick and choose what to reply to, and ignore everything else that you don't like or wrecks whatever point you are attempting to make? Let me repost, but in bold terms:

VF-1: (212+[# of VFs sent elsewhere])/90 days = more than 2.35 VFs per day.

For comparison purposes, the F-22: 36 to 48 aircraft per year; or 0.098 to 0.132 F-22 per day.*

Is that a 'limited' rate of production? And I did find an aircraft with a comparible rate of manufacture: 1 to 2 per day. The Hawker F.36/34 "Interceptor Monoplane" Hurricane.** High tech it ain't.

Now, it must be stressed that we only have the number of VFs on the SDF-1, not the total number of VFs produced during that tme period. My hunch is on a much, much higher rate of production.

And now that you've gone and said that you aren't bothering to check facts, I'm going to put you into the 'ignore' column of posters. One of the reasons some of us are here, is to learn more about Macross via debate. But when one side of the debate ignores facts, and relies on imaginary numbers, then it is no longer an intelligent debate and merely an exercise in correcting fallicies.

* http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-22.htm

** http://www.k5083.mistral.co.uk/APS.HTM

Edited December 27, 2006 by sketchley

[SpacyAce2012]

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.

Pretty much on the money regarding the F-35. The last part is debatable, however. And merely the opinion of so-called "experts". The same ilk that was responsible for such gems as the Defense White Paper and "guns are no longer needed on fighters since dogfighting is dead". Those kind of "experts".

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.

A dedicated trainer would only be cheaper if designed with that in mind.

And while a dedicated conventional trainer would be cheaper in terms of up front/production costs, I doubt in the case of VFs it would be that simple. Variable Fighters were a new technology altogether, during this stage in the saga. Maintinence costs would probably be high. Therefore, long term costs would be lower due to parts commonality with existing transforming craft. And parts have a better chance of being readily available in certain circumstances (such as the deep s**t the Macross found itself in after the flubbed space fold).

The military establishment in Macross was still highstrung, considering The Fall, the U.N. Wars, the social upheaval, and the very real possiblity of extraterrestial invasion. The Brass and the U.N. Bigwigs wanted things that could shoot,first and foremost, considering the rapid arms build-up between 2000 and 2010. Developing a dedicated VF trainer wouldn't be high on the list of priorities, considering such a mindset. So, you take the quickie route. You modify an existing fighter design to meet the need. Not a lot of time/money spent on R and D, component commonality with operational fighters in case of production disruption, and (even better in the minds of the "more weapons!" xenophobes) it can be deployed in combat roles if needed.

Not to say that it would be best used in that way. Judging by it's head unit, it probably lacks the full suite of sensors, etc. to be as effective as units slated for regular combat duties. But it's there if needed (such as for weapons training or in emergencies).

Please note that I'm looking at it from a "in-universe" point of view. From a real life POV, I would agree (somewhat) with Skull-1 (in regards to conventional military training aircraft). But ultra-tech transforming sci-fi military fighters are a different ballgame. And I also take the politics, xenophobia, and military situation that existed at that point in the story into account as well.

As far as building the fighter before the trainer making no sense, the Soviets had a habit of it. Combat types were generally deployed before the operational trainers (of the type) were. While seemingly silly, it didn't affect the Soviet Air Force too much, considering the Czech built basic trainers they used.

Just my two cents worth.

[Skull-1]

Do you just pick and choose what to reply to, and ignore everything else that you don't like or wrecks whatever point you are attempting to make? Let me repost, but in bold terms:

No, I simply quote the debatable points.

If I don't quote you it probably means we agree or that you have a valid point.

Now, it must be stressed that we only have the number of VFs on the SDF-1, not the total number of VFs produced during that tme period. My hunch is on a much, much higher rate of production.

But that's the problem. Yours is a hunch and so is mine. My understanding of the numbers is that the VF total production is just not that high. It certainly isn't like the number of Corsairs or Hellcats built in WWII for example.

[Skull-1]

And while a dedicated conventional trainer would be cheaper in terms of up front/production costs, I doubt in the case of VFs it would be that simple. Variable Fighters were a new technology altogether, during this stage in the saga. Maintinence costs would probably be high.

Which would be a parallel to the T-33/F-80 I suppose and I could very well concede that point.

Please note that I'm looking at it from a "in-universe" point of view. From a real life POV, I would agree (somewhat) with Skull-1 (in regards to conventional military training aircraft). But ultra-tech transforming sci-fi military fighters are a different ballgame. And I also take the politics, xenophobia, and military situation that existed at that point in the story into account as well.

Hey thanks for that at least! LOL

As far as building the fighter before the trainer making no sense, the Soviets had a habit of it. Combat types were generally deployed before the operational trainers (of the type) were. While seemingly silly, it didn't affect the Soviet Air Force too much, considering the Czech built basic trainers they used.

Just my two cents worth.

A good two cents at that!!!!!!!

<S>

[Skull-1]

And now that you've gone and said that you aren't bothering to check facts, I'm going to put you into the 'ignore' column of posters.

I think that is a little over the top.

I don't need to check "the facts" on this one because the numbers are borderline irrelvant to the core argument.

Relax man.

I'm not attacking you personally.

Enjoy the discussion.

I am.

[Skull-1]

YES! well.....at least the airframe anyway...

VT-1:

VE-1:

AWESOME POST.

Thanks.

That is revealing.

[Beltane70]

That's a lot to accomplish in 10 short years, but when mobilized on a global scale, one could argue that 10 years was a bit long for all that.

Of course you also have to factor in the fact that they were also fighting a war for about 1/2 of that 10 years.