Anybody Like The Vf-2ss Space Valkyrie 2?

[Zinjo]

From what I've read it appears we are saying similar things regarding design, only differently, so I don't see any need for a comment on my statement above.

385069[/snapback]

My statements have been that there is a consistent aesthetic to every canon Macross Valkyrie design, from the VF-1, to the VF-4, to the YF-19 and the VF-22, that is lacking in the Macross II mecha designs.

I disagree.

It seemed to me that you were suggesting it could be argued that because the VF-4 has such a different physical design from the VF-1, that it would be further seperated in lineage and therefore it is only personal preference that suggests the VF-4 is more consistant to the Macross universe than the VF-2SS.

385107[/snapback]

No, I am suggesting those who are fans of the design are simply that. I respect their appreciation of the fighter.

What I am proposing is that many SK fans "choose" to see the VF-4 as being more consistent when IMO it is a fairly dramatic departure from previous and post VF designs.

Whereas the VF-2 is more consistent to the VF-1 design and within the influence of the VF-3000 and VF-5000 designs.

It was after the VF5000 that the divergence of appearance appears to have become apparent. Particularly with the VF-11.

Edited March 29, 2006 by Zinjo

[Seto Kaiba]

My statements have been that there is a consistent aesthetic to every canon Macross Valkyrie design, from the VF-1, to the VF-4, to the YF-19 and the VF-22, that is lacking in the Macross II mecha designs.

It seemed to me that you were suggesting it could be argued that because the VF-4 has such a different physical design from the VF-1, that it would be further seperated in lineage and therefore it is only personal preference that suggests the VF-4 is more consistant to the Macross universe than the VF-2SS.

Thank you for making a statement that has no supporting facts included whatsoever. If you're going to say something like that, bring evidence to back it up please. Moving on...

I disagree.

Okay, all I got from this is that you have a differing opinion, no supporting basis for why you disagree whatsoever. Do you disagree because you don't like him, because you feel differently, or because you have evidence to the contrary?

Moving on...

Consistant aesthetic in all canon Macross valkyries eh? Let's see about that shall we?

VF-0 Phoenix, smoother than the VF-1 by quite a measure, this was quite literally a refurbished Tomcat. Looked more vintage robotic, the width of the torso and the placement of the shoulders is farther apart than anything else. The design of the nosecone and front of the fighter in fighter mode is more towards the F-14 than the smaller, more aerodynamic VF-1 Valkyrie.

VF-1 Valkyrie, a boxy design based largely off the F-14 Tomcat when it was still in service with the US Navy. The fighter's surfaces all had squared off edges, including all major members of the head, legs, arms and torso. The fighter's body was squared to deliberately make transformation more feasable. This will act as a baseline for more detailed studies. The fighter has an overall proportionality that is relatively close to human.

VF-4 Lightning III, about as far a leap away from the VF-1 as is humanly possible. This fighter's overall design is a whole other school of thought. Almost a flying wing, really, the shoulders and and upper torso are all integral parts of the back half of the fighter, and there doesn't seem to be a squared off corner on any part of the fighter mode, and very very few on the battroid mode. That hardly presents an consistant aesthetic.

VF-9 Cutlass, this one's more along the lines of the VF-4, but the battroid is much boxier, with a bizarre new "conehead" style head unit. The fighter's got those forward swept wings, and is significantly smaller than it's predecessors. This fighter's fighter mode is smooth all around, but the body in battroid is considerably boxy and looks rather heavyset, not following the usual humanoid proportion in the VF-1 or VF-4.

VF-11 Thunderbolt. This is another, slightly less radical leap. This is closer to the VF-1 Valkyrie in aesthetics, but the battroid looks suspiciously like the VF-2SS, and the head looks stolen from a VF-1A. The battroid's chest is out of proportion slightly to the rest of the body, and almost every surface is rounded and much smoother than the VF-1 Valkyrie's boxed corners.

VF-17 Nightmare. Boxy, heavyset torso with lots of squared off edges and no head lasers to speak of. The "super boob" in the center of the torso makes it's first major re-appearance since the YF-19 and VF-4. The fighter's legs taper outwards to lend additional stability. Also, this fighter is borrowed from the F-117A Nighthawk stealth fighter, which is essentially a flying wing design, with lots of diagonal angles to minimize radar profile.

VF-19 Excalibur. Smooth lines are the order of the day. The wings hang from the hips instead of folding into the back. The head unit's head laser is stored topside rather than on the underside of the fighter, extra guns are hidden near the intakes, and there are very few sharp corners. The head unit, torso, arms and legs are all rounded off in battroid mode, and the superboob is back in the center over the cockpit.

VF-22 Sturmvogel. Smooth lines all around, except for the wing edge, which is almost square, as opposed to a more traditional wing. The fighter's engines sit on the back in battroid mode, and the arms and legs are not a integral part of fighter mode structure. The head has almost no visible neck, and the laser appears mostly superficial, up on the back of fighter mode instead of underside as traditional designs do. Includes internal mini-missile launchers and guns in the forearms.

That represents a consistant design aesthetic? Not likely, goodsir. The designs there oscilate between smooth and chunky, and don't really follow any other recognizable pattern other than growing progressively more rounded off over time (notable exception is VF-17) in battroid mode. Wing placement and design in fighter mode is inconsistant from model to model, head design varies wildly, Transformation modes start moving the wings around to the hips, and the engines onto the back of the mecha completely away from the legs. There isn't much of a consistant design aesthetic present in canon Macross mecha, it's sort of whatever fighter design Kawamori happened to be infatuated with that day.

Macross II mecha represents a much more consistant design aesthetic between models than the so-called canon series.

Since we've already covered up to the VF-4, let's cover one that's sort of a halfway point between the Macross II timeline and the normal timeline, the VF-1SR.

VF-1SR Valkyrie, known by other names including "Raider." Squared, boxy design, drawn directly from the VF-1 series. Refined hands with more articulation points, visible refinements to the head designs but overall common family similarity between the AR and A heads, JR and J heads, and SR and S heads, minor refinements all around, additions of more angles, and occasionally extensions. The FAST packs are semi-fixed, more streamlined than the VF-1's, with large boosters, missile launchers and a visible beam cannon in the center of each one. Other than that this is essentially the VF-1's ultimate makeover.

VF-2SS Valkyrie II. Angular, somewhat boxy battroid design, with a more angular and streamlined, but still recognizable airframe. Head bears STRONG resemblence to the VF-1S, as does the torso. Engines are farther towards the outside of the airframe, and the hands display more articulation and less puffyness, the head and neck are more angular, the legs and arms and more streamlined but still boxy, the "feet" are more rounded and angular. FAST packs are completely new.

VF-2JA Icarus. Angular, boxy design reminiscent of the VF-1J Valkyrie, head unit is almost identical to the VF-1JR, but with a more pronounced "eye" socket and shield. The airframe is more streamlined, but is essentially extremely close. The shoulders are a little more pronounced and the cockpit is more narrow. The wings are slightly more swept back, and the pelvis is more narrow.

VF-1MS Metal Siren. Radical departure from the conventional design, legs taper more narrow towards the foot, thin feet, extra engines along the outside of the legs, rounded front-cockpit without a visible heat shield, extra armor for the faceplate, cockpit sits highter in battroid mode, in front of and between the shoulders, right arm forms underside the nosecone, wings stay out during battroid mode, gunpods are wing mounted, head has no head lasers whatsoever and recessed paired optics instead of a single lens. Need I go on?

From this brief analysis alone, it's pretty clear that the Macross II valkyries are much more consistant in their design lineage than the "canon" mecha. There's always a visible link to the last generation, the overall body design doesn't change radically until the Metal Siren, and the head unit just is refined, not completely reinvented. FAST pack systems show a visible evolution in becoming more steamlined, and the overall angles of the body become more dynamic, but remain in relatively the same proportions and styles. The fighter bodies remain boxy as one might expect a mechanical structure with that much articulation to.

[Graham]

IMO, it's rather silly trying to trace a constant design aesthetic to every canon Macross Valkyrie. they are not supposed to all look the same or have the same visual design cues.

Although all the canon valks were designed by one person, i.e. Kawamori-san, they are designed and built in the Macross universe by different companies and IMO tracing design aesthetic by manufacturer is perhaps a more realistic and sensible approach.

Valks By Manufacturer

• Northrop Grumman/Stonewell/Shinsei: VF-0
  
• Sukhoi/Israel Aircraft Industries/Dornier: SV-51
  
• Stonewell Bellcom: VF-1, VF-4
  
• Stonewell Bellcom/Shinnakasu: VF-3000.
  
• Shinnakasu/Northrom Grumman VB-6 König Monster.
  
• Northrom Grumman: VA-3.
  
• Northrom & Grumman/Mikoyan: VAB-2.
  
• Shinsei Industries: VF-5000, VF-11, YF-19, VF-19.
  
• General Galaxy/Messer: VF-14.
  
• General Galaxy/Mikoyan: VA-14.
  
• General Galaxy: VF-9, VF-17, YF-21, VF-22.
  

We can see for example that for Shinsei industries there are obvious shared design aesthetics between the VF-5000, VF-11 and YF/VF-19, such as use of an arm shield (11 & 19), similar canopy and nose shapes etc.

For General Galaxy even though the the VF-17 and YF-21/VF-22 look wildly different, they do share many of the same design features, such as forearm mounted beam weapons, stealth, internal micro-misile carriage.

Even the Stonewell Bellcom VF-1 and VF-4 share a very similar nose and cockpit section, although everything behind the cockpit represents a step in a different direction.

If I want an anime, where all the mecha rarely change and have the same basic designs from series to series, with only minimal cosmetic changes (yawn), then I'd watch Gundam.

Graham

[Zinjo]

IMO, it's rather silly trying to trace a constant design aesthetic to every canon Macross Valkyrie.  they are not supposed to all look the same or have the same visual design cues.

Although all the canon valks were designed by one person, i.e. Kawamori-san, they are designed and built in the Macross universe by different companies and IMO tracing design aesthetic by manufacturer is perhaps a more realistic and sensible approach.

Valks By Manufacturer

• Northrop Grumman/Stonewell/Shinsei: VF-0
  
• Sukhoi/Israel Aircraft Industries/Dornier: SV-51
  
• Stonewell Bellcom: VF-1, VF-4
  
• Stonewell Bellcom/Shinnakasu: VF-3000.
  
• Shinnakasu/Northrom Grumman VB-6 König Monster.
  
• Northrom Grumman: VA-3.
  
• Northrom & Grumman/Mikoyan: VAB-2.
  
• Shinsei Industries: VF-5000, VF-11, YF-19, VF-19.
  
• General Galaxy/Messer: VF-14.
  
• General Galaxy/Mikoyan: VA-14.
  
• General Galaxy: VF-9, VF-17, YF-21, VF-22.
  

We can see for example that for Shinsei industries there are obvious shared design aesthetics between the VF-5000, VF-11 and YF/VF-19, such as use of an arm shield (11 & 19), similar canopy and nose shapes etc.

For General Galaxy even though the the VF-17 and YF-21/VF-22 look wildly different, they do share many of the same design features, such as forearm mounted beam weapons, stealth, internal micro-misile carriage.

Even the Stonewell Bellcom VF-1 and VF-4 share a very similar nose and cockpit section, although everything behind the cockpit represents a step in a different direction.

If I want an anime, where all the mecha rarely change and have the same basic designs from series to series, with only minimal cosmetic changes (yawn), then I'd watch Gundam.

Graham

385200[/snapback]

If one were to "fit" the VF-2 series & possibly even the Metal Siren into the manufacturing design groups, it would most likely fall within the "Stonewell Bellcom/Shinnakasu" group as the designs share many common features to the VF-3000 Crusader.

The placement of the engines, wings, the flatter wider main fuselage, etc...

Well Seto Kaiba, what "I disagree" with will remain my business, if only to annoy a smug individual...

If Radd really needs to know he can PM me, but I'm sure he figured it out without a long winded comprehensive explanation...

[Radd]

Here's an analogy. Line up an M1 Abrams, an F-16, a military humvee, and an H2, then ask which does not belong. Sure, the basic physical design of the Hummer and the H2 are similar, but the visual asthetic of the H2 is radically different from that shared between the military humvee and the other two vehicles.

Edited March 29, 2006 by Radd

[Zinjo]

Here's an analogy. Line up an M1 Abrams, an F-16, a military humvee, and an H2, then ask which does not belong. Sure, the basic physical design of the Hummer and the H2 are similar, but the visual asthetic of the H2 is radically different from that shared between the military humvee and the other two vehicles.

385268[/snapback]

Is there an implication by your analogy that the Valk II is not an military vehicle?

I think a fair analogy would be the differences between the M998 Hummer and the M1114 Hummer or the IDF's M1113 ECV. They look similar, but the M1114 & IDF M1113 has upgraded armor and in the case of the IDF version the vehicle went through several structural modifications to perform the tasks required by the IDF.

Your analogy would lend itself better to a comparison between the VF-1A to a VT-1C Valkyrie, not between the Kawamori Valks and the Macross II Valk 2s.

Edited March 29, 2006 by Zinjo

[Radd]

No, I'm saying in no uncertain terms that there is a vast difference between basic physical shape, and design asthetic. The two seem to be confused frequently in this thread.

[strikevalk]

add me to the list of VF-2SS fans. i absolutely love this valk! proud owner of 2 variable VF-2SS model kits as well.

[Phalanx]

As far as I'm concerned about Seto Kaiba's detailed comparison and description of

SK's valks and the Macross 2 ones, it was sort of on par with my topic explanation about SK redesigning the VF-1 to make it look more contemporary. IMO design aesthetic-wise about the VF-2 (both variants), these aircraft seem to bear more resemblance to the original VF-0 and VF-1 (aside from the fact that they retain their F-14 Tomcat like appearance) than the VF-11. For example, take their transformation sequence and the way how the battloid components are still in the exact position where the arms are tucked in between the engine nacelles and the battroid head is below the cockpit in fighter mode just like the original VF-1. Although the VF-11 consists of an F-14 like design just like the M2 valks, it's not perfeclty 100% consistent with the VF-1 and VF-2. It's more like 95% consistent with the VF-0, VF-1, AND VF-2. The 5% of the VF-11 that doesn't show consistency with these valk's would be the battroid head postition in the VF-11's fighter mode. The head is behind the fuselage of the fighter. If the head was below the cockpit like the VF-0 and VF-1 was, then it would be 100% consistent with these fighters. Sure the VF-4 also shows some form of deterioration from the VF-1 but that's because of it's new airframe design where Seto says that it's somewhat of a flying wing design and also the nose front section was taken from the VF-1. So therefore, I agree with Seto Kaiba that the M2 valk designs maintain there resemblance to the original VF-1. To back this up as well, that would be like taking Mikoyan-Gurevichs MIG-25 AND MIG-31 and saying that the F-18 is consistent with it's design. How can the F-18 be related to MIG-25 and MIG-31 if they don't maintain key design aesthetics like the boxy air intakes boxy fuselage area and large engines that both of the MIG-25 and MIG-31 have.

Also Radd, when you say that the VF-4 is more consistent with the Macross timeline continuity, that's because the VF-4 is officialy part of SK's timeline and the VF-2SS is not.

Edited March 29, 2006 by Phalanx

[Radd]

No, I am speaking of the stylistic design aesthetic Kawamori has. A basis in real world aviation that isn't as big a part of the MII designs, which seem more stylized and sci-fi-ish.

I see what you're saying, the VF-2SS does share the same basic shape as the VF-1, and a nearly identical transformation sequence. I don't disagree with that. I also agree that the VF-5000, the VF-0, and one or two other Valkyries also share this same basic physical design.

[Phalanx]

Yeah Radd I see and you're right that the M2 valks are too sci-fi 'ish and stylized but thats because M2 takes place farther in the future than Macross (80 years after the first space war) so you would pretty much expect them to look more sci-fi'ish. But in terms of SK's valks, they were inspired by modern day fighter planes so they look rationally like them. Their design aesthetics of SK's valks transition back and forward also sometimes containing a combonation of both boxy and pointy to smooth and streamlined bodies with some of the valks Seto mentioned in his detailed comparison. But then again when I think about, if SK's VF's had the same transformation sequence and battloid componet layout like the VF-1, it would be pretty lame as I would want a new transformation sequence for all fighters. Each VF's different transformation layout is what what makes them uinque.

[Seto Kaiba]

Graham, your point on different manufacturers aside, real military equipment rarely changes so drastically in such a short period of time. Look at the F-14, F-15, F-16 and F/A-18. The F-14 is by Grumman, the F-15 and F/A-18 by McDonnell-Douglas, the F-16 by Lockheed/General Dynamics, yet all share the vast majority of design attributed in common, with similar airframe design, similar avionics, similar weapons, in short, not a lot has actually changed over the last thirty years. The Lockheed/Boeing F/A-22 is the most dynamic design leap in the last thirty years, and that's not much of a leap, since most of the stealth methodology is borrowed from other aircraft, like the F-117A Nighthawk, which in turn borrowed from the B-2 Spirit.

In short, when it comes to military equipment, militaries like to stick with what's proven, and what they know will work. Military technology changes slowly over time as new designs are proven, they don't make vast, sweeping leaps forward with a totally new design every time, like the UN Spacy does. For every revolutionary airframe design, you need to do literally thousands of hours of flight testing and lab testing, plus you generate the potential for all sorts of additional problems you couldn't forsee to emerge. When you're evolving a known design, you already know where most of the flaws already are, and can work them out and anticipate new ones.

Good example, the flying wing bombers like the B-2 I mentioned earlier. The original flying wing planes were judged to be more than a little unstable by their test pilots (including the YB-35 and YB-49). The design wasn't brought out of mothballs for decades, until the B-2 Spirit was developed, and only then because that's how long it took for engineers to rectify the huge number of complications inherent in the design. Whereas there has been no such delay in design from the F-4 Phantom all the way through the F-14 Tomcat, F-15 Eagle, F-16 Falcon, F/A-18 Hornet, and barely one on the F/A-22 Raptor.

Another good example is the McDonnell-Douglas AV-8B Harrier II. Revolutionary design incorporating VTOL technology. The Harrier is lauded by those who have flown one as one of the biggest pieces of junk ever to be fielded. The Marines became genuinely concerned that their pilots weren't getting enough flight time, because the Harriers were in for repairs so frequently. The Harrier is also notable for being the fighter that has caused the most accidental fatalities among pilots, the most smashups, and according to the Navy, is in for repairs three times as much as the F/A-18. Not to mention the design's flaws include a problem with the VTOL jets that makes it a veritable magnet for infra-red missiles, and the annoying tendency for the engines to ingest anything left loose around them while idling. That's what you get for revolutionary design leaps... a whole lot of headaches.

The moral of this story? You get less trouble when you stick with what works. That's why it's more realistic for Valkyries to stick a little closer to the designs of the VF-1 or VF-4.

[mechaninac]

@Radd. Again, it is all a matter of personal preferences, purist biases, and nitpicking of a level beyond anal. The VF-2SS is, arguably, an extremely stylized design with very sci-fi-ish lines, to borrow your words (funny that term being used to exclude one sci-fi design from another one); however it deviated from the established VF design lineage far less than the VF-4, and others... if anything, the VF-4 (leaving the VF-14 out on purpose since it harkens to the VF-4) is the biggest paradigm shift in VF design of any other variable fighter within the Macross franchises. In my opinion, all the VF designs that have appeared in Big West licensed OVAs, TV serials, movies, games, etc. are equally valid.

@Phalanx. That is the bone of contention of many purists and/or M2 detractors. M2 was a sequel to DYRL? alone, that takes place 80 years after the events chronicled in the movie. Everything after M+ is a sequel to the Macross TV series, but with DYRL? design lineage. M2 is not canon in the accepted continuity but is perfectly valid as an alternate future.

In Kawamori's Macross there is a rapid progression of technology brought about by the necessities of supplying all the colonization fleets, which leads to such radical designs as the VF-19 and VF-22; whereas in the Macross II time line, Earth seems to have mostly withdrawn from the cosmos and the technology progression appears to be geared towards refinements of existing designs rather than revolutionary ones, thus we see the Icarus and Valkyrie II as ultimate evolutions of the VF-1's tried and true design characteristics

@Seto Kaiba. There is one overriding truth to military development... conflict against a foe of comparable capabilities will spur progress (the military advancement of WWII and the early cold war are prime examples). The "accepted" canon shows a UN SPACEY in almost constant conflict and this, above all, would explain the rapidly expanding capabilities of the VFs and the extreme experimentation with novel designs... always looking for an edge on your opponents -- and it makes for many interesting and unique designs to make into toys and models.

With Macross II we have a world that has become complacent in it's approach to self defense against rogue Zentradi... the Minmay attack had always worked in creating enough confusion in the enemy that they became easy prey, until the Marduk incursion with their emulators to counteract the initial shock of human culture/music. It is entirely possible that in this reality, fighter craft evolution was stunted and the Mecha thereof less capable than their canon counterparts.

Of course, none of this detracts from the validity of any of the M2 designs; they are as grounded in the design criteria as all the other variable fighters and bombers that grace the Macross franchise.

My 2 1/2 cents.

PS.: the F-117A predated the B2 by quite a few years. The Stealth Fighter's faceted design is a testament to the computational limitations at work during the design of the "Have Blue (aka. hopeless diamond)" technology demonstrator. The B2 owes its blended shape to work done on a demonstrator called "Tacit Blue (aka. the flying bread box)" and the advancements in computer power that allowed the engineers to calculate radar reflection/refraction on non-angular shapes.

Edited March 30, 2006 by mechaninac

[Zinjo]

Damn nice post mechaninac!!

The primary question the colonization program raises in my mind is "Where the hell do all these people come from to populate all these emigration fleets?"

Particularly at the beginning of the program....

Eventhough I see your points I really don't see any real "apparent" advantages the newer designs had over the older ones.

With the exception of the VF-19's pinpoint barrier and integrated mini-missile launchers along with the VF-22's atmospheric avionics, the only advantages the newer designs "seemed" to possess were their larger size.

Granted this is an SF program, but there is a conserted effort to remain consistent within the established limitations of Overtechnology, by the producers.

Edited March 30, 2006 by Zinjo

[Seto Kaiba]

In Kawamori's Macross there is a rapid progression of technology brought about by the necessities of supplying all the colonization fleets, which leads to such radical designs as the VF-19 and VF-22; whereas in the Macross II time line, Earth seems to have mostly withdrawn from the cosmos and the technology progression appears to be geared towards refinements of existing designs rather than revolutionary ones, thus we see the Icarus and Valkyrie II as ultimate evolutions of the VF-1's tried and true design characteristics

@Seto Kaiba.  There is one overriding truth to military development... conflict against a foe of comparable capabilities will spur progress (the military advancement of WWII and the early cold war are prime examples).  The "accepted" canon shows a UN SPACEY in almost constant conflict and this, above all, would explain the rapidly expanding capabilities of the VFs and the extreme experimentation with novel designs... always looking for an edge on your opponents -- and it makes for many interesting and unique designs to make into toys and models.

With Macross II we have a world that has become complacent in it's approach to self defense against rogue Zentradi... the Minmay attach had always worked in creating enough confusion in the enemy that they became easy prey, until the Marduk incursion with their emulators to counteract the initial shock of human culture/music.  It is entirely possible that in this reality, fighter craft evolution was stunted and the Mecha thereof less capable than their canon counterparts.

385442[/snapback]

Interesting outlook. But in Kawamori's universe, the UN Spacy hardly acts like a military organization. They seem to be more interested in sending out colony ships and investigating the magical healing powers of music than they do about actually defending anything. Nobody in their right mind would've made a civilian band into a fighter squadron, and especially wouldn't have built them custom fighters for the job. These radical leaps in performance and design represent an unrealistic degree of advancement. They went from the first variable fighter prototypes stumping around just barely in the Mach speeds, to planes controlled by human brainwaves that fly so fast they can kill their pilots, all in forty years.

Your tank analogy is a little flawed, when you get into the history of it. While tanks were enhanced from WWI to WWII, not much in the way of major, revolutionary change was made until the cold war era, a good 20 years later. And since then, tanks have advanced relatively little. The same can be said for fighter aircraft, basic designs haven't changed that allfired much since the F-4 Phantom. Even when you're at war every couple years, like the United States is, you still don't see these huge dramatic leaps in combat technology like Kawamori's "canon" UN Spacy does. It's UNREALISTIC to say the least. Refinement and redesign are the best methods for improving technology. If it isn't broken, you don't need to fix it. I ought to know, I'm an engineer.

Also, there's little-to-no evidence that the UN is in "constant conflict" either. Sure, there's that one battle scene in Macross Plus, but the Zentradi in that battle were dispatched relatively swiftly. But aside from that, all the fighting seems to be being done by the colony fleets, far far away from home. Something that's not to dissimilar from the situation we're in now with wars overseas.

If you go pay closer attention to the discussion Silvie Gena has with Exxegran, you'll notice that they mention that the UN Spacy's last war with the Zentradi in the Macross II universe was only ten years previous to the Marduk invasion. Ten years, that's less time than from the Vietnam War to now.

Mecha evolution stunted? Maybe. But if you consider historical context for when combat equipment evolution was at it's fastest. The Cold War prompted a supreme game of oneupsmanship between the USA and Soviet Union, with new weapons, aircraft and tanks being in constant development. This was because of antagonism and the ability of both sides to easily develop new technologies. The Zentradi have all their weapons built for them by automated factories, so mecha advancement is slow, or perhaps even nonexistant. So therefore, the need for mecha advancementw on the UN Spacy's part is not quite so desperate as the situation during the Cold War. The enemy isn't coming up with radical new weapons, so fighter development can maintain the tried and true science of refining existing designs instead of creating radical new problematic ones. (Yes, I'm looking at you, YF-21, you and your freaky brainwave control system)

Besides, the VF-2SS might be not much more heavily armed than the VF-1 without it's armor, but when it's deployed almost constantly with it's armor, that's a non-issue. It's toting more firepower than the VF-22 Sturmvogel or VF-19 Excalibur are. There's that big particle beam cannon, the choice of several gunpods, fifteen mini-missiles per arm, twelve per leg, and the longer-ranged launchers on the backpack. It's also got gun drones, which combined with the armor are more than enough to bring the hurt.

The VF-2JA Icarus is meant to be fast, light and agile, and it does a fine job of it too. Carries a modest armament that can hit hard, and move fast. The VF-1MS Metal Siren carries so much firepower as to be nothing more than a very large, agile weapons platform. These aren't stunted designs, these are examples of specialization in design. Instead of making a fighter that does all environments so-so, you make two or three variants on a single design that do one or two environments, but do them EXTREMELY well. They do this with existing fighters too, like the night warfare variant of the Harrier II, single and dual seaters for various fighters mission profiles, special variants designed for certain combat environments, etc. This is nothing new, this is how military designers work.

By the way, thank you very much for correcting my timeline error betwixt the B-2 Spirit and the F-117A Nighthawk. Much appreciated, friend.

Edited March 30, 2006 by Seto Kaiba

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

The main advantage of the newer valks is they are more advanced.

But seriously I don't see why everyone hates the VF2SS and am not convinced by any of the arguments against it. Like I have said before space combat != atmoshperic combat.

They have variants for both space and atmophere (like the vf19 "short stubby wings" version vs the "longer wings" version) even though a valk should be good enough to fly in either atmopshere or space. (it doesn't have to be the best but be good enough so as not to limit where the pilot can go)

The same thing applies to gundam where the MS 8th team have specialised gundam designs primarily to fight on the ground in earth atmosphere (so they have a boxy armored look to them) while the ones that fight in space are designed specifically for that. (more emphasis on manueverability in that environment - despite what haters of gundam think, there is at least a little realism in the UC universe)

I think people just have an axe to grind with the makers of macross II because it went unaproved by the original creators of the show more than because the valk is unsuitable for the macross universe due to not fitting in.

I've already pointed out how the space mecha can carry oversized weapon like the massive gunpod that the VF11 with GBP armor uses in space. (watch macross 7 or get out the macross design works to see it) So all this talk about how "the massive gun looks ridiculous or is not fitting for macross universe" shouldn't apply. There is also lots of unrealistic things that the valks do in the original tv series like how the vf1 flies out of the earth gravity by itself when it isn't supposed to unless it has the special booster equiped.

Humans - starts out fighting in earth atmoshpere

zentradi and other alien races - use to fighting in different environment ie space. Therefore they don't give a poo about aerodynamics and focus on heavy weapons and bulky armor - eg the Qrau)

When the humans go out into space to fight as they explore: the prioirty should be space combat so you have designs that might look "sci-fi" more than realworld. And didn't kawamori himself say that the vf1 is not based on f14 but moreso that his idea went down a path similar to the shape of an f14 only because the f14 was logically the poo at the time so it makes sense to make an advanced "futuristic" plane take on some of its characteristics? (that is to say the vf1 would have looked much different if another design had been the high performance fighter in the real world of the time, so don't think of the vf1 as a rip off of the f14 specifically, but rather that as a sci-fi mech designer, you had to make a futuristic vehicle take on the properties of whatever kicked ass at the time - but still have the aim of being typically 'sci-fi/futuristic' and not 'modern day' or 'real world')

If you look in macross zero there are still real world planes shown in episode 1. You still see tanks and conventional weapons being used. So the valks must always represent "alien" technology that is somehow better than the real world. If it has a strange quality to it that is because the humans found this wonderful, magical, mysterious alien technology and it was good enough to perform much better than our own conventional stuff, so much that we could improve the existing design "of the day" to boost the performance beyond what is modern.

The problem is when "of the day" keeps changing as the old design gets superceded in the real world. So I am quite happy to see valks keep thier "sci-fi" aproach to things, because who knows? In future, maybe real world designs will start to look more science fiction in the future? (cars for example with lighter bodies and more rounded edges, and running quieter, running more fuel efficient, and with technology that wasn't possible in the past)

There are many cool things that are impossible to pull off in the tv series (that makes a VF1 different to anything human use) in the real world. So it's a question of to what degree do you base "real world" as meaning it "must stick to designs that are modern to us" in the real world. Why can't a sci-fi mecha be as much a part of macross as a non-sci-fi one? (when clearly the vehicles in sdf:macross pull off typically sci-fi manuevers anyway)

Edited March 30, 2006 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[Zinjo]

A production side note is that having the valk look similar to the F-14 also allowed them to hide it's transformation capapabilities at the start of the show in SDF Macross.

The opening credits never show the Valk transforming. it was meant to be a surprise to the viewers.

Edited March 30, 2006 by Zinjo

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

I guess that is one of the reasons I fell in love with it asa kid. One of those "Holy poo" moments, that made you feel like there was a lot of a cool stuff like that to surprise.

The way the fighter transforms mid-air in ep1 was also cool too. "Don't eject just change to battroid!" "WTF is a battroid?!" Makes you wonder "how the hell did all the parts meet up in this shape to create a robot? I want to rewind that!"

Edited March 30, 2006 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[baronv]

I dig the VF-2SS, I have the model and unfortunately because of my poor modeling skills it looks like crap, by the design of the ship is sleek and I think holds up well over age. Gotta love the MEGA huge FAST pack on it.

[Seto Kaiba]

I think people just have an axe to grind with the makers of macross II because it went unaproved by the original creators of the show more than because the valk is unsuitable for the macross universe due to not fitting in.

Actually, that's the most common beef that the people who come to my site to bash Macross II voice. Like I mentioned (and apologized for) earlier, the line I'm used to hearing is "ZOMG! Kawamori didn't do it so it SUXX0R!"

Thank you, LowViz Lurker, for bringing up those wonderfully warped pictures of the XS-06 gunpod and the full armor VF-11 Thunderbolt. There's the first domino in the long line to complete unbelievability in Macross mecha. Ironic how the gunpod's name is "excess," and with a barrel like that, it's not hard to see why. A rifle-sized gunpod is believable, and you're going to get fairly good accuracy with it, but that big honkin gunpod is useless, it's so big it'll spin you around when you fire it, and it's going to be almost impossible to aim properly with two hands while wearing that armor. This is a symptom of what I like to call "gundam-itis."

We all know full well that Kawamori was a fan of Gundam, and that he even named the bridge of the SDF-1 Macross after the fanzine his Gundam fanclub made while attending Keio University. Over time, the canon Macross mecha have started to look more and more like Gundams.

Let's look at the similarities here on these two notable mecha, the ZGMF-X20A Strike Freedom from Gundam Seed Destiny, and the YF-19 Excalibur prototype from Macross Plus. Let's start from the top down, shall we? Both have the cockpit seated in precisely the same place, inside the "super boob" on the chest. That's been a staple feature of almost every Gundam since the original RX-78. Note ye also the widely protruding hip joints, shoulders, and the ridge up the center of the head. Then when it comes down to it, you've got enormous rifles for the VF-11 that look suspiciously like the enormous cannons made famous during Gundam Wing. The similarities go on and on and on. The cockpits have even started to look alike.

The original VF-1 was unique, memorable, and stood out among the crowd of giant robots with a design all it's own. There's something to be said for the Valkyries of Macross II in keeping that design tradition alive, and innovating on it. Sure, the VF-2SS and VF-2JA look lots like the VF-1, but they innovate on that with smoother flowing designs, and kind of a sportscar feel. You won't find anything quite like it, and they sort of stick in your mind. Heck, I knew the VF-2SS right away and it stuck in my head since I saw the movie, and later stumbled across some art of it on the UN Spacy Database.

I can't imagine something as Gundam-like as Basara's VF-19 Excalibur or Mylene's VF-11 Thunderbolt (which I still contend looks like Arcee from Transformers) being quite as memorable. Good for toy sales maybe, but they don't feel like a robust, military plane. More like something you might see at an air show being conducted by Rutan Aircraft.

Edited March 30, 2006 by Seto Kaiba

[emajnthis]

i like the VF-2SS also, i have a couple of them i haven't built yet along with a Metal Siren, i really like the design aesthetics; more streamlined.

[Graham]

Let's look at the similarities here on these two notable mecha, the ZGMF-X20A Strike Freedom from Gundam Seed Destiny, and the YF-19 Excalibur prototype from Macross Plus. Let's start from the top down, shall we? Both have the cockpit seated in precisely the same place, inside the "super boob" on the chest. That's been a staple feature of almost every Gundam since the original RX-78. Note ye also the widely protruding hip joints, shoulders, and the ridge up the center of the head. Then when it comes down to it, you've got enormous rifles for the VF-11 that look suspiciously like the enormous cannons made famous during Gundam Wing. The similarities go on and on and on. The cockpits have even started to look alike.

385526[/snapback]

I don't see any similarities at all between the Strike Gundam and the YF-19, beyond the fact that they both have two arms, two legs and a head and are both robots

And the YF-19's cockpit is not in the nose cone or "Super Boob" on the chest as you call it. In battroid mode, the cockpit moves to a position inside of the backpack section.

Graham

[Graham]

I think people just have an axe to grind with the makers of macross II because it went unaproved by the original creators of the show more than because the valk is unsuitable for the macross universe due to not fitting in.

Actually, that's the most common beef that the people who come to my site to bash Macross II voice. Like I mentioned (and apologized for) earlier, the line I'm used to hearing is "ZOMG! Kawamori didn't do it so it SUXX0R!"

385526[/snapback]

I think you'll find most members on this site love the Macross II mecha designs, although many people do have issues with the story and animation quality of parts of Macross II.

Personally, I love it.

Graham

[Radd]

@Radd.  Again, it is all a matter of personal preferences, purist biases, and nitpicking of a level beyond anal.  The VF-2SS is, arguably, an extremely stylized design with very sci-fi-ish lines, to borrow your words (funny that term being used to exclude one sci-fi design from another one); however it deviated from the established VF design lineage far less than the VF-4, and others... if anything, the VF-4 (leaving the VF-14 out on purpose since it harkens to the VF-4) is the biggest paradigm shift in VF design of any other variable fighter within the Macross franchises.  In my opinion, all the VF designs that have appeared in Big West licensed OVAs, TV serials, movies, games, etc. are equally valid.

I am not arguing for or against the VF-2SS. I am not arguing which evolution is better, the MII lineage or the canon lineage. I am merely pointing out that in one single artist's work, there is a common aesthetic thread that is deviated from in the designs presented by a different artist. My personal preference or "purist bias" has nothing to do with this particular argument. This is a sub topic that has appeared in this thread, not to be confused with the original topic.

As for the idea as describing one sci-fi design as looking "more sci-fi-ish" over another is silly, that is only if you have an either/or outlook on the matter. It's either sci-fi or it's not. I contend that in design it is a matter of degree, you can have a sci-fi design that is based on real world designs, or you can have a sci-fi design that is absolute fantasy, with no basis in reality whatsoever.

I still believe my artist analogy put it best. The VF-1 was based on the F-14, and all subsequent Kawamori Valkyrie designs are based on real world aircraft and avionics. The VF-2SS and VF-2JA on the other hand are based on the VF-1.

Let's look at the similarities here on these two notable mecha, the ZGMF-X20A Strike Freedom from Gundam Seed Destiny, and the YF-19 Excalibur prototype from Macross Plus.

While I personally think you're stretching it with this comparison, what dulls the point even more is that Gundam Seed came out years after Macross Plus.

On top of that, the cockpit is not located where you state it is in the YF-19. It is more towards the back and lower. The front fuselage of the plain bends at about a 90 degree angle, the so-called "super boob" would be the very front of that, but the hinge is just before the cockpit. The cockpit is still in the torso of the mech, but if you're going to be that picky, you should realize that most, if not all Macross Valkyries, including the VF-1, have the cockpit in the torso. This is, in fact, common to most mecha designs.

I'd also say the hips on the 19 bare a stronger resemblance to the VF-1 than any Gundam.

I do see the similarities in the upper torso, the lower legs, and the shoulders, but let's face it, if you took a line-up of Gundams and a YF-19, the 19 immeadiately stands out as very different looking from the crowd.

[Mr March]

I have to say, I certainly don't see universal hate for the VF-2SS. Seems the majority of fans (at least in this thread) enjoy the VF-2SS, even some that don't like the Macross II anime itself.

Regardless, not every fan's dislike of the VF-2SS can be conveniently marginalized into a throwaway reason so easily dismissed. I do see in the VF-2SS a definite design departure that I don't like, one that varies from the established esthetics of the Kawamori fighters. It has nothing to do with "realism", didactic analyzing of Macross fiction, Macross II bashing, Kawamori's personal politics, space-specific designs (all of the Kawamori designs retain the key atmospheric requirements beyond "wings"), or any other excuse posted so far. Granted, this matter is ultimately a simple difference of opinion, but it's no reason to stereotype those fans who dislike the VF-2SS using some silly syllogism.

Gotta admit though, this thread sure has examined just about everything people like or don't like about the Valkyries of Macross. Can't recall a more involving discussion of the variable fighter designs for some time

[Phalanx]

I can't imagine something as Gundam-like as Basara's VF-19 Excalibur or Mylene's VF-11 Thunderbolt (which I still contend looks like Arcee from Transformers)  being quite as memorable. Good for toy sales maybe, but they don't feel like a robust, military plane. More like something you might see at an air show being conducted by Rutan Aircraft.

385526[/snapback]

Seto, I agree with you about not liking the Kai versions of the Basara and Mylene's Valks because they look more Gundamish adn Transformer like but I think it was because he did this to make them stand out from the other variants. But I still see no clear evidence that SK' valk battroid designs are starting to resemble Gundam's despite the fact that he was and still is a fan of Gundam. His VF's pretty much still stay true to its Macrossy look and I doubt that he would suspiciously make them resemble Gundams

[Graham]

I've also seen no indication that Kawamori is trying to make his VF designs resemble Gundams. They day that happens, is they day I quit Macross for good (not a Gundam fan).

As for the Sound Force Valks, what a lot of people forget is that they are not military Valks, they are custom civilian valks belonging to a pop/rock band and designed to look visually different and be instantly recogniseable in their function to boost the morale of the civilaian population of City 7 in times of war. In this regard, the faces and breasts do a good job of making the Valks stand out more.

Graham

[Sundown]

In this regard, the faces and breasts do a good job of making the Valks stand out more.

You'd think the guady red and pink paintjobs and lightning bolts would be somewhat adequate.

[eugimon]

I can't say I'm a fan of the MacII valks, or any of the designs for that matter. This isn't out of some blind allegiance to the big floating head or becuase I'm some sort of "continuity" nut... heck, people can't agree on actual history, I see no reason why fiction should make sense.

For me, it all boils down to this... pretty much everything in mac II smacks of that school yard game of "Oh yeah?" The VF-2ss doesn't do anything particularly interesting with the VF-1 design other than to try and make it more "cool." Which is fine, it's great even. Like at the end of Star Trek:Next Generation when you see the Enterprise D with the third nacell and the big ol gun on the bow, gee, that's COOL!

But really... it's like they were looking at a drawing of the VF-1 and then they put up a big piece of paper and asked everyone to name cool things they liked. Oooh Oooh, nacells, let's add nacells! Bigger guns! More pointy bits! Which, again, is fine... it looks cool. It's just not my cup of tea, it just makes me miss the ol' Vf-1.

[eugimon]

As an aside...

The bit about gundams and the new valks being similar is really hilarious. that's just stretching.

If you're arguing the merits of your design/theory/whatever, simply saying the other guy sucks more does not mean you win. In the real world, if A=crap then B is not the winner be default. Both A and B can be crap at the same time, in fact, A might be even more crap than B but that does not mean B is still not crap.

An example. Let's say you are being mugged, the mugger kindly asks you if you would like to have all your credit cards stolen, or all of your cash. You say credit cards because those you can cancel. Now, since you chose to have your credit cards stolen, does this make it a "good" alternative to having your cash stolen? No, it may make it a "better" alternative but it is not a good alternative. They both still suck.

So yes, mac 7 valks with faces and boobs are the suck, the Vf-2ss is not cool by proxy, it needs to be cool all on its own.

[eugimon]

darn, double post.

Edited March 30, 2006 by eugimon

[Seto Kaiba]

Granted, I'm reaching a little with that gundam-valkyrie comparison. It's a little opinon I've been harboring since I last watched Macross 7. It sort of struck me after I switched from the DVD player to cable, and Gundam happened to be running. Something about the way the battroid's torso and limbs are aligned and shaped struck me as being a lot like certain mobile suits. That and the way the later model Kawamori valkyries seem to have developed a love for hand to hand fighting and disproportionately large guns and strange head fins that have always been the trademark of mobile suits. Seemed a bit relevant (at the time) to the discussion of precisely where the Valkyrie II split from the canon Kawamori designs. That and I was wondering if that thought had occurred to anyone else. Some of Kawamori's other works also seem to me to be following that general progression towards Gundam styling.

As for the Sound Force Valks, what a lot of people forget is that they are not military Valks, they are custom civilian valks belonging to a pop/rock band and designed to look visually different and be instantly recogniseable in their function to boost the morale of the civilaian population of City 7 in times of war. In this regard, the faces and breasts do a good job of making the Valks stand out more.

Okay, I wish people would sit down and realize how crazy that sounds. For starters, that'd be painfully expensive. A standard F/A-22 will set you back about $338 million, not counting any modifications, and those are much much less complex than a Valkyrie. Still, with all the heavy modifications on the Sound Force valkyries, including the power-rangers lips, the breasts and wide hips, and the funky controls, that's one hell of a bill to be sending to the government. That and putting something that mind-numbingly expensive in the hands of a civilian rock band full of oddballs isn't exactly a wise decision either.

For me, it all boils down to this... pretty much everything in mac II smacks of that school yard game of "Oh yeah?" The VF-2ss doesn't do anything particularly interesting with the VF-1 design other than to try and make it more "cool." Which is fine, it's great even. Like at the end of Star Trek:Next Generation when you see the Enterprise D with the third nacelle and the big ol gun on the bow, gee, that's COOL!

Y'know, I'd never thought of that parallel before, but that's definately relevant as a comparsion. True, the Valkyrie II isn't much original on it's own, unless you count the special fast packs. Still, it's a nice looking design and it works well throughout the series. It's not quite like the "All Good Things" Enterprise D, where all they did was try to make it look different by making it a kitbashing project. They didn't really add much to the design of the VF-2SS, but they refined what traits it already had. Yeah, essentially they took the VF-1S and said "Okay guys, how can we make this thing look newer and fresher" and worked from that. Gotta admit though, it does flow pretty well as a design.

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

I do see in the VF-2SS a definite design departure that I don't like, one that varies from the established esthetics of the Kawamori fighters. It has nothing to do with "realism", didactic analyzing of Macross fiction, Macross II bashing, Kawamori's personal politics, space-specific designs (all of the Kawamori designs retain the key atmospheric requirements beyond "wings"), or any other excuse posted so far. Granted, this matter is ultimately a simple difference of opinion, but it's no reason to stereotype those fans who dislike the VF-2SS using some silly syllogism.

Ok, but for those fans who have an issue with the vf2ss where it is about the things you listed, (this wouldn't be directed at you then) it may be important to list reasons for why certain mecha look the way they do or why they are equiped with so much crap on thier body. (like the drones for eg which remind people of gundam bits)

Like the stuff about the huge gunpod (vf11 full armor) was my way of illustrating that a big backpack weapon for the VF2ss although ugly, may have a practical reason within the sci-fi world of macross, so the stuff "sticking out" may not just be for looks or to be flashy. (Although it might look flashy too)

There may be a "realistic" excuse (within the sci fi world) for why such a weapon that has a super sized look to it must be used. In the case of macross 7 maybe as a heavy "anti GBP" gun against anti-un pilots using armored valks for eg, where speed isn't important but heavy firepower is? (remember the reactive armor in macross zero? Perhaps this defense rendered normal gunpods less effective so bigger ones needed to be used?) But in the case of macross II: maybe they just want thier ace to have acess to weapons that might be unwieldy for normal pilots, but with training, can still be aimed? When you look back at mobile phones it amazes me how impractical they are compared to today's phones. The oversized brick just looks ridiculous.

Same logic might apply in the scifi world before they can make the technology more efficient and shrink it down. Oversized guns and valks with too many guns sticking out of them might look ugly (see the stampede valkyrie) but within the sci fi world or timeline when humans had to "patch things together" rather than design them from the ground up to look sleek and sexy, the ugliness makes perfect sense to me and makes the world even more believable, because there is a history to its appearance you know what I mean?

stuff sticking out (possibly plays a role similar to Gundam Heavy Arms in gundam wing ):

^because it floats in space and has an arm to grapple it like in the movie, who cares about aerodynamics, whether it has bits sticking out that make it look ugly, or that it can't fly in an atmosphere or land like a real plane? It's a specialised mecha right? What I would be considering is how powerful and effective the weapon is.

And for those who mention gundam: I would have to agree. I think macross is superior for its mecha, even if we are talking about the macross 7 customs made by firebomber. One of my pet hates is seeing mecha using giant ball and chain weapons and axes and stuff as if they were fighting in the middle ages or something. (beam sabers I don't mind though)

Edited March 30, 2006 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[Graham]

Granted, I'm reaching a little with that gundam-valkyrie comparison.

Reaching a lot IMO.

Something about the way the battroid's torso and limbs are aligned and shaped struck me as being a lot like certain mobile suits.

Still not seeing it at all, not even a little. I've always found Gundam styling, whether it's Mobile Suit designs by Okawara, Katoki, Izabuchi or any other MS designer to be completely different from any Macross Variable Fighter. Even the variable Mobile Suits like Zeta, Wing, Savior don't share any common design cues with Valks IMO.

That and the way the later model Kawamori valkyries seem to have developed a love for hand to hand fighting and disproportionately large guns and strange head fins that have always been the trademark of mobile suits.

There's always been some hand-to-hand fighting in Macross, even in the original SDF-Macross TV series. However, there is comparatively little compared to Gundam, where most fights end up at close range. In Macross, most kills are still with gunpod or missile. Yes, M+, M7 & M0 all have some hand-to-hand, but it's not much really. I'd hardly say it's fair to say that the later model valks have developed a love for hand to hand fighting.

As for disproportionately large guns, the only one I can think of off the top of my head is the XS-06 carried by the Full Armored VF-11. Thats only one mecha out of all of kawamori's Valk designs. Every other Variable Fighter carries a normal size gunpod.

Same with head fins. One does not make a trend. The VF-19K Fire Valk has a head fin, but what other VFs do?

Okay, I wish people would sit down and realize how crazy that sounds. For starters, that'd be painfully expensive. A standard F/A-22 will set you back about $338 million, not counting any modifications, and those are much much less complex than a Valkyrie. Still, with all the heavy modifications on the Sound Force valkyries, including the power-rangers lips, the breasts and wide hips, and the funky controls, that's one hell of a bill to be sending to the government. That and putting something that mind-numbingly expensive in the hands of a civilian rock band full of oddballs isn't exactly a wise decision either.

You have to take it in the context of the Macross universe. Max, who was in overall command of the Macross 7 fleet (and a Space War 1 veteran) had realised that they may come a time when the military forces of the fleet may encounter an enemy they could not defeat with conventional weaponary and so put together a plan so that the fleet would have a cultur war defence in the form of Basara and the VF-19.

Graham

[mechaninac]

Interesting outlook. But in Kawamori's universe, the UN Spacy hardly acts like a military organization.

385484[/snapback]

Regardless of how they act, UNS is still Macross' version of a military.

They seem to be more interested in sending out colony ships and investigating the magical healing powers of music than they do about actually defending anything.

385484[/snapback]

That's mostly true, the UNS in canon Macross seem to spend most of their time as babysitters to colonizers, nutty scientists/spiritualists, and playing second banana to peacenik, environ-nut, rock star prima donnas.

... These radical leaps in performance and design represent an unrealistic degree of advancement. They went from the first variable fighter prototypes stumping around just barely in the Mach speeds, to planes controlled by human brainwaves that fly so fast they can kill their pilots, all in forty years.

385484[/snapback]

Technology can make extreme leaps in very short periods of time... in the span of little more than half a decade, air power went from the use of bi-planes flying at around 120-150 mph to jets flying in excess of 550 mph and rocket planes just shy of Mach 1. So, the degree of improvements in Macross do not strike me as unrealistic within the context of a transforming mecha cartoon.

Your tank analogy is a little flawed, when you get into the history of it. While tanks were enhanced from WWI to WWII, not much in the way of major, revolutionary change was made until the cold war era, a good 20 years later. And since then, tanks have advanced relatively little. The same can be said for fighter aircraft, basic designs haven't changed that allfired much since the F-4 Phantom. Even when you're at war every couple years, like the United States is, you still don't see these huge dramatic leaps in combat technology like Kawamori's "canon" UN Spacy does. It's UNREALISTIC to say the least. Refinement and redesign are the best methods for improving technology. If it isn't broken, you don't need to fix it. I ought to know, I'm an engineer.

385484[/snapback]

I did not make any tank analogies... you must be referring to someone else's comments. And you're basically restating what I said about the M2 mecha: they are evolutionary, not revolutionary. And I'm an engineer too.

Also, there's little-to-no evidence that the UN is in "constant conflict" either. Sure, there's that one battle scene in Macross Plus, but the Zentradi in that battle were dispatched relatively swiftly. But aside from that, all the fighting seems to be being done by the colony fleets, far far away from home. Something that's not to dissimilar from the situation we're in now with wars overseas.

385484[/snapback]

The "constant conflict" is implied, and the ability to dispatch some Zentradi in short order does not negate that UNS may be constantly running into them. True, it would mostly be occurring in the outward colonies and against the exploration fleets.

If you go pay closer attention to the discussion Silvie Gena has with Exxegran, you'll notice that they mention that the UN Spacy's last war with the Zentradi in the Macross II universe was only ten years previous to the Marduk invasion. Ten years, that's less time than from the Vietnam War to now.

385484[/snapback]

Exactly. Every decade or so there is a Zentradi incursion that they have to beat back. You can see in the opening of M2, in the faces of the military leadership (Exxegran excluded), just how little concern they have for this latest crisis. They've beaten back the Zentradi before using the same ruse successfully every time.

And the Vietnam war ended about 30 years ago, not less than 10. Even the first Gulf war, Desert Storm, clocks in at 12 years from the start of Iraqi Freedom.

Mecha evolution stunted? Maybe....

385484[/snapback]

Like I said originally, the Icarus and Valkyrie II are the zenith of the evolution of the VF-1 design. That's why I like both so much.

By the way, thank you very much for correcting my timeline error betwixt the B-2 Spirit and the F-117A Nighthawk. Much appreciated, friend.

385484[/snapback]

No sweat.