VT-102

[jenius]

I am absolutely lost as to the point of this discussion anymore... The VT-1 is a trainer, we all agree right? Maybe it doesn't make the most sense that it is a dedicated trainer but that doesn't stop it from being what it is. I mean seriously, if you want to pick a bird that makes the least amount of sense then you should really stab at the VE-1. Why make that thing transformable at all?

[Lightning]

I am absolutely lost as to the point of this discussion anymore... The VT-1 is a trainer, we all agree right? Maybe it doesn't make the most sense that it is a dedicated trainer but that doesn't stop it from being what it is. I mean seriously, if you want to pick a bird that makes the least amount of sense then you should really stab at the VE-1. Why make that thing transformable at all?

the coolness factor?

[VF5SS]

In the PS2 game, you have to fly the VE-1 around a couple of way points while you are intermittently attacked by Zentradi. The VE-1 in the game is armed with a sawed off Gunpod (that's basically what it looks like) and the best way to defend yourself is in Battroid mode. Even though a VE-1 is not normally armed I imagine it would be better to caught with a Battroid form for close combat than to just be an airplane. Also, the VE-1 could be used to gather data from within derelict spaceships (you get to explore a Zentradi ship in the PS2 game). The VE-1 appears to be a superior choice over the VEFR-1 which has sensor in place of hands and could no conceivably defend itself if forced to do so. Oddly enough the VEFR-1 is based on the VF-1D, much like the VE-1 and VT-1 share the same body type.

[anime52k8]

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".

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

I don't get why everyone rags on the F-35 it’s not like there trying to replace EVERY plane with it. There replacing things like F-16's, F-18's and AV-8B's (harriers). those plans already do the Swiss army knife, do every job you throw at them thing, the F-35 can just do it better with newer tech. were still going to have specialty planes to handle the air superiority role (F-22's) things are going to be exactly the same as they are now except with stealth.

--edited for can't spell.

Edited December 27, 2006 by anime52k8

[Nied]

I don't get why everyone rags on the F-35 it’s not like there trying to replace EVERY plane with it. There replacing things like F-16's, F-18's and AV-8B's (harriers). those plans already do the Swiss army knife, do every job you throw at them thing, the F-35 can just do it better with newer tech. were still going to have specialty planes to handle the air superiority role (F-22's) things are going to be exactly the same as they are now except with stealth.

--edited for can't spell.

Because the F-35 is only as good as the F-16 or F/A-18 in a dogfight. Never mind that both planes rarely if ever perform air to air missions. Also its only stealthy if it carries a warload similar to an F-16, if it carries more it's not stealthy anymore. Those are the big arguments I hear against it. I think people hear "multi-service" and just check their logic at the door.

[KingNor]

i dont' think there is enough info on the VF-1D to make arguing about it productive.

In the end all we see is that it's a 2 seater, CAN participate in combat, and MAY be used for training dispite any direct indication that it actually IS used for any kind of training. oh and that at least one of them was painted orange and brown.

Given that stageringly small amount of info, you can pretty much think what ever you want about it with no evidence to prove you wrong.

Personally i think it was probably a live fire testing machine, maybe even an early run to test fesability of having a back seater. It's obviously fully combat ready, but maybe there are only a hand full of them since we only see what.. two?? in the whole serise?

The fact that it's bright orange makes me think it's a test/protoype/experimental plane. orange doesn't usually mean "trainer" in the military, it usually means "test"

It may even be a prerunner to the elint and ostrich (sp?) variants that came out later.

but like i said, there is next to no evidence as to what it's for and my speculation tells us more about what i want it to be than what it is.

Edited December 27, 2006 by KingNor

[BEAST]

IIRC, in the real world, originally student pilots trained in the same kinds of aircraft that they would go to war in. This was to make sure that they didn't waste time getting familiar with a plane that they wouldn't be fighting in, as well as to speed familiarization with the plane that they would be fighting in.

The notion of trainer aircraft, I believe, came along later. Perhaps during the inter-war period between WWI & WWII. With the booming economy of the '20s and the reduced stress of peacetime, ideal, phased training systems could be devised and utilized. Pilots could begin with a bipe as a primary trainer, and then move on to the AT-6 as an "advanced trainer".

Some combat aircraft were so tricky to operate, that new combat pilots still couldn't fly them well without additional training. Thus, some combat aircraft were designed with "T" variants just for super-advanced training, beyond the AT-6.

Today, the US military still uses a system of primary and advanced trainers, though most super-advanced training that is specific to a particular combat model is done via simulator and familiarization flights with the actual combat aircraft. F-117 Nighthawk stealth attack pilots, for example, train in the same planes that they go to war in.

In the Macross world, I imagine that "super-advanced" training would go on with a 2-seat Valk trainer like the VF-1D, as implied in SDFM, Ep.1.

The VT-1, OTOH, could have been a SDF-1-specific variant dreamt up by the ship's engineers during the mission, post-spacefold. Perhaps they modified existing VF-1s to make VT-1s, since space flight and combat was clearly still very new and strange for most pilots.

That Hikaru has a trigger to push, and that that trigger gives him an audible buzzer to indicate that firing is not possible, could be a sign that VT-1s may indeed be loadable with ordinance, even though that particular one clearly was not for that particular mission. (Kinda like going on a booty call without protection, if you ask me: he coulda, he just didn't wanta!)

From a worldwide, national, or forcewide economical perspective, it would make sense to have dedicated trainers for primary and advanced flight training. But for super-advanced flight training, nothing would beat an actual Valk.

And more importantly, it would definitely make more sense that the Macross crew would rig a trainer from existing airframes and spare parts, rather than have a completely separate dedicated trainer. Might as well skip the primary and advanced trainer stages, and just have one trainer that could do it all.

The VT-1 would have to be a pretty forgiving, stable, etc., plane to work for brand-spanking new pilots, though. Even with the benefit of simulators.

[Skull-1]

I am absolutely lost as to the point of this discussion anymore... The VT-1 is a trainer, we all agree right? Maybe it doesn't make the most sense that it is a dedicated trainer but that doesn't stop it from being what it is. I mean seriously, if you want to pick a bird that makes the least amount of sense then you should really stab at the VE-1. Why make that thing transformable at all?

Maybe the VE-1 is actually a VT-1 conversion.

Edited December 27, 2006 by Skull-1

[SpacyAce2012]

I don't get why everyone rags on the F-35 it’s not like there trying to replace EVERY plane with it. There replacing things like F-16's, F-18's and AV-8B's (harriers). those plans already do the Swiss army knife, do every job you throw at them thing, the F-35 can just do it better with newer tech. were still going to have specialty planes to handle the air superiority role (F-22's) things are going to be exactly the same as they are now except with stealth.

Actually, I wasn't ragging on the F-35 Lightning. In fact, it promises to be a decent warplane.

I was agreeing on the fact that it is the product of compromises. It's going to be considering that it's being developed with all of the Services in mind (well, excluding the Army and Coast Guard), as well as a foreign service (Royal Navy). Then, there is the politics to take into account as well.

Because the F-35 is only as good as the F-16 or F/A-18 in a dogfight. Never mind that both planes rarely if ever perform air to air missions. Also its only stealthy if it carries a warload similar to an F-16, if it carries more it's not stealthy anymore. Those are the big arguments I hear against it. I think people hear "multi-service" and just check their logic at the door.

Then the F-35 should do well in air-to-air combat, since the F-16 has long been regarded as a good "knife fighter". And the Hornet doesn't do too bad in excercises. In fact, it's been alledged that the older F/A-18C is superior to the F/A-18E Super Hornet in a "knife fight". (in addition to having better range, much to the Navy's embarrassment).

It should be noted that the majority of entities that deploy the F-16 (including the Air National Guard), utilize the type for air defense.

Edited December 27, 2006 by SpacyAce2012

[VF5SS]

The VT-1 would have to be a pretty forgiving, stable, etc., plane to work for brand-spanking new pilots, though. Even with the benefit of simulators.

Well, the VT-1 airframe and FAST packs do have additional fuel and verniers. The VT-1 could an advanced space training vehicle designed to give the instructor more control over the craft in case of emergencies.

[Skull-1]

A good instructor doesn't let his student get him into an emergency.

The Hornet, especially the Super Hornet, is a nose pointer / angles fighter more so than the F-16. The flight control system on the F-16 is AOA limited vs. the F-18's G-limited system.

Many times a Viper driver will run out of AOA in a turn and the computer will just stop the turn for a bit. When you see one wobbling around like that you can go in and kill him.

The Hornet can't sustain G for as long as a light F-16 can, but it can point its nose much more aggressively. This makes the F-18 a VERY dangerous opponent especially when it is slow.

[Coota0]

The fact that it's bright orange makes me think it's a test/protoype/experimental plane. orange doesn't usually mean "trainer" in the military, it usually means "test"

Maybe not in the Air Force, but orange means trainer in the Army and Navy as well as experimental.

Edit to remove a pic generating an error for some folks. Sorry for the inconvenience ~JsARCLIGHT

My apologies to those using dial-up.

[Skull-1]

Orange usually means test. Red usually means trainer.

Drones (experimental and target) have orange paint in both the Navy and the Air Force, for example.

[jenius]

So they stuck Miria in the ultimate trainer VF-1J

[eugimon]

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

really? while they fly around with their trainers and each other"? live weapons? that's so funny, since I thought they used sensor pods for mock combat...

[eugimon]

Maybe the VE-1 is actually a VT-1 conversion.

or maybe the VT-1 is a VE-1 trainer and not a VF trainer at all.

[Skull-1]

really? while they fly around with their trainers and each other"? live weapons? that's so funny, since I thought they used sensor pods for mock combat...

Don't be a smart alec, man.

The F-22 is fully combat capable. That means they have guns that can fire and weapons systems that can shoot missiles, drop bombs, etc.. Do they carry weapons when they go practice air-to-air? No. But they are *capable* of it (unlike, at least some feel, the VT-1, which is a stupid thing to do to a fighter).

During live fire exercises (which does happen) they (F-15, F-18, F-22, ad nauseum) drop real bombs, shoot real guns, fire real missiles. The airplanes are 100% combat capable even when they are not armed. They are not "TF-22s" or "TF-15s" that are incapable of carrying weapons.

[Skull-1]

or maybe the VT-1 is a VE-1 trainer and not a VF trainer at all.

That *WOULD* make a lot of sense. Especially for the GIB.

[eugimon]

Don't be a smart alec, man.

The F-22 is fully combat capable. That means they have guns that can fire and weapons systems that can shoot missiles, drop bombs, etc.. Do they carry weapons when they go practice air-to-air? No. But they are *capable* of it (unlike, at least some feel, the VT-1, which is a stupid thing to do to a fighter).

During live fire exercises (which does happen) they (F-15, F-18, F-22, ad nauseum) drop real bombs, shoot real guns, fire real missiles. The airplanes are 100% combat capable even when they are not armed. They are not "TF-22s" or "TF-15s" that are incapable of carrying weapons.

other than a head swap and loading standard fastpacks and a gun, how is a VT-1 incapable of fighting?

maybe in the macross world it makes more sense to have fighters do nothing but train?

Later on, pilots train in single seat VFs, but early on, they go tandem. I don't see why this is so hostile to your perceptions.

[KingNor]

other than a head swap and loading standard fastpacks and a gun, how is a VT-1 incapable of fighting?

maybe in the macross world it makes more sense to have fighters do nothing but train?

Later on, pilots train in single seat VFs, but early on, they go tandem. I don't see why this is so hostile to your perceptions.

because he said "combat capable" and you took that to mean that trainees are shooting at each other with live ammo and missles.

his point is EXACTLY that the plane trains dry, but CAN be loaded with live ammo.

This is true of most military traininy machines, in the Marines they have "training" M1 Abrams. the trainee's drive them through the mud and learn on them. when it comes time to do live fire training, they use the exact same training machiens to fire the main gun and machine guns.

It doesn't make much sence to waste time and money building special training vehicles if you can help it. you can always just make dummy weapons for the standard combat vehicle to make training less dangerous.

To be honest i think the VT trainer from DYRL IS a purpose built training vehicle. I think that is where reality stops and anime takes over. The VT is a plot device more than anything. Same as the VF-1D. But I still maintain that there is really NOTHING in SDFM that implicates VF-1D's are strictly trainers.

It doesn't make much sence to build a purpose built trainer when you could just give a standard VF a flashlight gunpod and remove the lenses or what ever from its lasers. It would certainly make more sence than stocking a squadron of training planes on an already stuffed combat ready SDF-1.

But like i said, its anime. who needs reality amirite??

[eugimon]

because he said "combat capable" and you took that to mean that trainees are shooting at each other with live ammo and missles.

his point is EXACTLY that the plane trains dry, but CAN be loaded with live ammo.

This is true of most military traininy machines, in the Marines they have "training" M1 Abrams. the trainee's drive them through the mud and learn on them. when it comes time to do live fire training, they use the exact same training machiens to fire the main gun and machine guns.

It doesn't make much sence to waste time and money building special training vehicles if you can help it. you can always just make dummy weapons for the standard combat vehicle to make training less dangerous.

To be honest i think the VT trainer from DYRL IS a purpose built training vehicle. I think that is where reality stops and anime takes over. The VT is a plot device more than anything. Same as the VF-1D. But I still maintain that there is really NOTHING in SDFM that implicates VF-1D's are strictly trainers.

It doesn't make much sence to build a purpose built trainer when you could just give a standard VF a flashlight gunpod and remove the lenses or what ever from its lasers. It would certainly make more sence than stocking a squadron of training planes on an already stuffed combat ready SDF-1.

But like i said, its anime. who needs reality amirite??

in RL, there are plenty of non combat training specific vehicles

so again, the VT, has hands and a targeting computer. All it needs is a gunpod, which is an easy swap and can even be field loaded. Which is no different than a RL frontline unit having it's regular payload swapped out for a sensor pack and targeting laser. why is this so hard to imagine?

[Scream Man]

So they stuck Miria in the ultimate trainer VF-1J

dude, shes an alien! i wouldnt trust her either

[KingNor]

in RL, there are plenty of non combat training specific vehicles

That is neither here nor there. Yes there are dedicated training vehicles, but as far as i know, there are no purpose built training f-14's or f-18's that i know of. and even if there are that doesn't mean the vf-1d is a purpose built trainer.

the me-262 was a first generation jet fighter and there was no training variant of it. maybe vf line up suffered the same oversight, i mean this is the same manufacturing that failed to incorporate the SDF's anti gravity drive, a stystem already incorporated in the ship

my point is that there is specificaly no mention, one way or the other, that the vf-1d class valkyrie is a primary trainer or simply a 2 seat variant for what ever reason. in fact there is no mention what the vf-1d was for AT ALL. literally all we know is: the vf-1d is a two seater valkyrie, and one of them was painted orange and brown.

my thoughts are that they needed a two seater for the plot so hikaru could rescue minmay, so they made the 1d with out putting much thought or care as to why its a 2 seater and most of the others arnt.

if there WAS a clear answer anywhere in the cannon i'm sure someone in the last 25 years would have refrenced it by now.

[Crazy Canuck II]

Seems to me that the existence of the VE-1 pretty much proves for what ever reason U.N. Spacy saw some benefit to converting the VF-1 for specific roles beyond combat, so the idea of a dedicated trainer seems well within the realm of possibilities. In fact IMHO a trainer makes more sense than a variable early warning and electronic warfare aircraft. It may not makes sense using current day economics and military planning to convert a top of the line fighter to such roles, but obviously U.N. Spacy had a good reason to do so. What that reason might be, is obviously up for debate.

[Skull-1]

I don't think Spacy actually did so.

IMHO, since DYRL is basically pure fiction... I'll toss that completely out the window.

As far as SW1 is concerned the VT-1 did not exist but was just a convenient plot point some director in the TMS universe threw in to entertain people.

But Nor has it nailed. COMBAT CAPABLE. There isn't much reason to gut a monumentally expensive fighter and let it fly around in hostile airspace unarmed.

[VF5SS]

The VT-1 does exist. There's a VT-1C in Macross Dynamite 7. Whatever relation DYRL has with the main series, they didn't just make up stuff that doesn't exist in the canon.

[Skull-1]

The VT-1 does exist. There's a VT-1C in Macross Dynamite 7. Whatever relation DYRL has with the main series, they didn't just make up stuff that doesn't exist in the canon.

If it is in M7 then it doesn't enter the timeline until well after SDFM.

Thus it is probably not a dedicated trainer but a refit old fighter plugged into the training command. That would make more sense than what is seen in DYRL.

[azrael]

If it is in M7 then it doesn't enter the timeline until well after SDFM.

Thus it is probably not a dedicated trainer but a refit old fighter plugged into the training command. That would make more sense than what is seen in DYRL.

Not necessarily. We just may not have seen in SDFM. The instance we saw Hikaru in training, he was training in a VF-1J. We never saw his initial training. Just because the focus is not on that, doesn't mean it wasn't there.

my thoughts are that they needed a two seater for the plot so hikaru could rescue minmay, so they made the 1d with out putting much thought or care as to why its a 2 seater and most of the others arnt.

Actually...that was the reason.

[SpacyAce2012]

If it is in M7 then it doesn't enter the timeline until well after SDFM.

I'm guessing sometime in the 2020's was when the VT-1 was first introduced.

In the canon timeline, the movie DYRL was "made and released" in the 2030's. In all likelyhood, such a project would have been done with the military's cooperation (just as in RL movie productions). So, I can see a studio getting a military trainer to shoot those scenes. This indicated that the VT-1 existed in the '30s at least, and may be fairly common in U.N. training squadrons.

If the VT-1 was introduced in the '20s, then it wouldn't be such a big deal to convert some VF-1 airframes to a training variant. The Valkyrie was being rotated out of front-line service, and replaced by the Lightning III. It would be similar to the U.S. Armed Forces using dated combat aircraft converted for other roles. Such examples in history would include the RF-101,RA-5,KA-6,RB-47,EB-66, etc.

Edited January 3, 2007 by SpacyAce2012

[Skull-1]

I'm guessing sometime in the 2020's was when the VT-1 was first introduced.

In the canon timeline, the movie DYRL was "made and released" in the 3030's. In all likelyhood, such a project would have been done with the military's cooperation (just as in RL movie productions). So, I can see a studio getting a military trainer to shoot those scenes. This indicated that the VT-1 existed in the '30s at least, and may be fairly common in U.N. training squadrons.

If the VT-1 was introduced in the '20s, then it wouldn't be such a big deal to convert some VF-1 airframes to a training variant. The Valkyrie was being rotated out of front-line service, and replaced by the Lightning III. It would be similar to the U.S. Armed Forces using dated combat aircraft converted for other roles. Such examples in history would include the RF-101,RA-5,KA-6,RB-47,EB-66, etc.

Exactly.

Though I think you meant that DYRL was made in the 2030s....

[SpacyAce2012]

Exactly.

Though I think you meant that DYRL was made in the 2030s....

DYRL was written into the official continuity as a motion picture drama set in the Space War One era. In the timeline, it was responsible for the newfound explosion in popularity of Lynn Minmay's music (in the 2030s/40s). Some major characters in Macross were moved by the "movie" and inspired to acheive what Minmay did. Basara Nekki and Emilia Jenius would be two examples.

I know that in Real Life, the movie was released in 1984.

[Skull-1]

Yes but in your original post you said 3030s.

That would be roughly 100 years off.

Typos..... Grrr.

[SpacyAce2012]

Yes but in your original post you said 3030s.

That would be roughly 100 years off.

Typos..... Grrr.

Make that a thousand.

Thanks for the heads-up. I went back and edited it.

[Skull-1]

Make that a thousand.

Thanks for the heads-up. I went back and edited it.

ROTLFMAO!!!!!

See what happens after the New Year??

1000 indeed.

<S> ! LOL!

[SpacyAce2012]

ROTLFMAO!!!!!

See what happens after the New Year??

1000 indeed.

<S> ! LOL!

Yeah. Hangovers are a b*tch.

Edited January 4, 2007 by SpacyAce2012