Anybody Like The Vf-2ss Space Valkyrie 2?

[Phalanx]

No offense and disrespect Zinjo but Seto Kaiba politely asked that this mini VF/Gundam comparison discussion end right away since he regrets bringing it up and doesn't want Gundam fans talking about how better Gundams are against VF's. So let's show some respect for Seto's demand OK?

[ComicKaze]

Kawamori has a distinct style you can see in so many works outside of Macross that is different from the current direction Gundams (especially those by Kunio Okawara) are going.

That said, the Macross II designs by Koichi Ohata and Kazumi Fujita will always be amongst my favorists.

Edited April 2, 2006 by ComicKaze

[ComicKaze]

The VF-2SS looks very much like what late 80s/earlt 90s futurists would have in their conceptions. It's very contemporary to that era and you know what? I love that era of design and I'll stick with it.

Smook and sleek was all the rage at the time and that Valkyrie certainly is. This is the best analogy I can think of:

Think of it as the 300ZX (early 90s attempt at making a classic design futuristic) and the VF-0S as the 350Z (21st century attempt at a revisionist version of the classic). The VF-1 of course, is the original Fairlady Z.

I'm of the camp that loves the original Fairlady Z and the 300ZX but generally detest the 350z's design. That's the best way I can explain my love for the VF-2SS. I'm a fan of that era's aesthetics.

Edited April 2, 2006 by ComicKaze

[Seto Kaiba]

No offense and disrespect Zinjo but Seto Kaiba politely asked that this mini VF/Gundam comparison discussion end right away since he regrets bringing it up and doesn't want Gundam fans talking about how better Gundams are against VF's. So let's show some respect for Seto's demand OK?     

386734[/snapback]

Demand? Nah, it was more of a polite request. I just feel sorry I ever brought it up in the first place. *shaking head slowly* Looks like they latched onto it and are unwilling to let it go. Needless to say I have no great love of Gundam series after Gundam Wing. Kinda like Star Trek, they just won't take a bloody hiatus for a few years and get some fresh material.

ComicKaze, didn't you do a CGI of a VF-2SS in battroid mode orbiting Earth? If that was you, great work, superb stuff. I'm with you on your view of the Valkyrie II. My main reason for liking it so much isn't the big guns, or the huge number of missiles, but rather the fact that it's smooth, sleek and streamlined design reminds me so much of a high-performance sportscar. The look of it just screams how fast it is, and gives it a much more dynamic feel.

[Phalanx]

My main reason for liking it so much isn't the big guns, or the huge number of missiles, but rather the fact that it's smooth, sleek and streamlined design reminds me so much of a high-performance sportscar. The look of it just screams how fast it is, and gives it a much more dynamic feel.

386755[/snapback]

I agree Seto for the same reasons but my reasons for liking it is because it reminds me of my favorite modern day fighter of all time the F-14 and it's airframe design has a radical, sci-fiish. innovative look to it that pretty much paints a vivid portrait and gives us all a good idea of how fighter planes in the late 21st century should look. In addition to that, what makes this fighter so unique is the fact that this is the only Macross VF redesigned based off an original variant to have a highly futuristic aiframe to it and the fact that it has it's own distinct FAST pack known as the SAP system.

Needless to say I have no great love of Gundam series after Gundam Wing. Kinda like Star Trek, they just won't take a bloody hiatus for a few years and get some fresh material.

386755[/snapback]

I also agree Seto, I'm not all that fond of Gundam either after Gundam W. The whole gundam series went down hill after that. The only Gundam series I liked was G Gundam because it wasn't like the rest of the Gundam series that were about colony wars and it was more action packed than all the others and the action was guaranteed to every episode. Unlike some of those series where some of the episodes are all talk and no action, that's why I feel that G Gundam was unique from the other Gundam series

Edited April 2, 2006 by Phalanx

[Skull Leader]

Despite Skull Leader's mistakes in fighter name for the VF-2SS and VF-2JA, I definately agree with his view of them.

386297[/snapback]

What did I mess up? The 2S is the Valkyrie II (I was having a "palladium moment" when I typed out "space valkyrie") and the 2J is the Icarus....

There is a difference between the 2S and the 2SS in that the VF-2S is just the standard valkyrie with no FAST packs. the VF-2SS is the "packed up" version

[Seto Kaiba]

What did I mess up? The 2S is the Valkyrie II (I was having a "palladium moment" when I typed out "space valkyrie") and the 2J is the Icarus....

There is a difference between the 2S and the 2SS in that the VF-2S is just the standard valkyrie with no FAST packs. the VF-2SS is the "packed up" version

387046[/snapback]

Actually Skull Leader, you WERE wrong in the names. There is no VF-2S or VF-2J. The fighters in Macross II are rather odd in that they all have a number and TWO letters, with one exception, which discounts the number. If you don't believe me, check Mahq, or use google to search for "VF-2S Valkyrie" (which will ask you if you mean "VF-2SS Valkyrie"), or google for VF-2SS Valkyrie and VF-2JA Icarus. ;-) Also try "This is Animation Special #5" which also calls them the VF-2SS and VF-2JA.

The Valkyrie II without it's armor is the VF-2SS Valkyrie II.

The Valkyrie II with it's armor is the VF-2SS SAP Valkyrie II, or VF-2SS Valkyrie II w/ SAP system (SAP = Super Armor Pack / Superiority Armor Pack)

The Icarus is the VF-2JA Icarus.

The generally used name for the Metal Siren is the VF-1MS Metal Siren. (Though VF-3MS and VF-4MS have also been seen in various sources)

The only general exception in Macross II is the so-called Zentradi Valkyrie, which was given the name VF-XX. Even one of the destroids, the AGA-1JF, follows the two-letter and one-number pattern.

Edited April 3, 2006 by Seto Kaiba

[Fortress_Maximus]

For myself I don't dislike the design but like others I prefer it w/o the fp and in plane mode. Pity we probably will never hold these in a 1/60 scale yammies goodness.

[mechaninac]

For myself I don't dislike the design but like others I prefer it w/o the fp and in plane mode. Pity we probably will never hold these in a 1/60 scale yammies goodness.

387522[/snapback]

I agree, the Valkyrie II without the SAP looks better than with it, and I also like it's look in battroid mode too...sleek, powerful, and elegant, but like most of the other Macross VFs it's GERWALK mode is, at best, a compromise. Although the SAP is clearly meant to be the ultimate FAST Pack, it does tend to clutter the beautiful rakishness of the VF-2SS.

It is a crying shame that the chances of us ever getting any toys, in any scale, from Yamato, Bandai, or whomever, of any Macross II mecha, are less than getting struck by lightning twice on the same day.

Edited April 4, 2006 by mechaninac

[kensei]

I already don't really like the design so much, and I got to disagree, it looks way better with the SAP Packs than without it. otherwise, it just looks so plain! And it looks way better than the Metal Siren if I had ot make a choice.

[Phalanx]

Well, I believe that the Valkyrie 2 would look better with the SAP on if the wings were swept out since they are retracted so inward that they overlap the fuselage when the SAP is on.Other than that, I like it either with or with out the SAP.

[Radd]

You know, though I'm not a big fan of the design, I prefere it in fighter mode to battroid. At least there it's its own beast, whereas the battroid really does look like a knock-off VF-1. The SAP packs mess up the lines of the fighter mode, and yet don't really add the menace or the utilitarian look of the original FAST packs.

I do agree that the VF-2SS looks much better than the Metal Siren, though.

[Phalanx]

the battroid really does look like a knock-off VF-1. The SAP packs mess up the lines of the fighter mode, and yet don't really add the menace or the utilitarian look of the original FAST packs.

I do agree that the VF-2SS looks much better than the Metal Siren, though.

387596[/snapback]

No offense Radd, But what do you expect? After all the VF-2SS is based directly off the VF-1. Also, what's up with those shields on the side of the SAP? This also makes the Valk 2's SAP ugly.

[mechaninac]

Well, I believe that the Valkyrie 2 would look better with the SAP on if the wings were swept out since they are retracted so inward that they overlap the fuselage when the SAP is on.Other than that, I like it either with or with out the SAP.

387587[/snapback]

Given the SAP's booster/cannon design, I think that un-swept wings would actually interfere with the SAP's wings (the booms that support the large left and right missile/drone pods). Therefore, in the case of the VF-2SS, having the wings fully swept to battroid/deck storage mode makes sense. Besides, since the SAP is intended for space operations only, AFAIK, the wings are useless and are best kept out of the way; if, like the VF-1, the VF-2SS carried a wing mounted weapons load and had a more modestly sized, maybe without the booms, SAP, then having the wings out would definitely add to the look.

And it's not as if I don't like the craft with the SAP, I just like the Valkyrie II without it a bit more.

Edited April 4, 2006 by mechaninac

[Seto Kaiba]

No offense Radd, But what do you expect? After all the VF-2SS is based directly off the VF-1. Also, what's up with those shields on the side of the SAP? This also makes the Valk 2's SAP ugly.

387605[/snapback]

If you look carefully, there are actually three of those shields. One on each of the SAP pack's wings, and one on the top of the backpack, along the centerline, just above the secondary engines. Like every other part of the Superiority Armor Packs, the shields conceal missile launchers, though in this case they're significantly larger missiles with a larger range. Each of the triangular panels on the arms (5 per arm) and each on the legs (4 per leg) conceal 3 mini-missiles. The two trapezoidal panels at the leading edge of each of the shields hides the missile launcher, they open by sliding horizontally outwards and splitting along the leading edge of the shield to allow the missile to clear the launcher. Judging by the size of the missile fired in the animation, I find the RPG book's claims that each only holds a single missile per tube a little off. My best guess is 2-3 per tube, with six tubes (2 per shield).

And so long as people are talking about the good ol' Metal Siren, I thought it might be time to bring up an interesting little chat that some of the members on my website have been having about the Metal Siren.

What we've been talking about is exactly HOW to classify the Metal Siren. The general working name for it has been the VF-1MS Metal Siren, but looking at other VF-1-based fighters doesn't really support that. Look at other fighters that share a similar name/number relationship, the VF-1 and VF-1SR. They are visibly related through common airframe design. The airframe looks nearly identical, but for a few refinements in the head, hands and FAST pack system. Or you could take the Sound Force custom jobs, which were given their own codes, like VF-11 MAXL. They still bear a visible relationship with their original model.

I think you'll all agree with me that the Metal Siren really has very very little in common with the other VF-1 family like the VF-1 Valkyrie or the VF-1SR. In various sources, it's called the VF-1MS. What is suspected as a slipup in the printing of the RPG sourcebook one has it listed in one entry as the VF-MS Metal Siren, following the no-number pattern that the VF-XX used. But since the Metal Siren will likely either be a special operations valkyrie like the VF-17, or a new main variable fighter, it would definately have to have a number. So we've been postulating on exactly where it fits.

Since VF-1MS and VF-MS don't quite seem to suit, for reasons of design lineage and probable end use, there are a few other numbers that have cropped up in discussion that seem a little more or less suitable.

The most common one that seems to fit is VF-3MS. The general logic there is that since the Metal Siren has no visible relationship to any other existing model, it should get it's own number. Convienantly enough, VF-1, 2 and 4 happen to be taken, but not 3, which equally convienantly follows 2. (Technically VF-3 is taken, but only in the non-canon Macross: Remember Me, a 1993 PC game).

Two websites that I'm aware of are calling it the VF-4MS. I'm not entirely sure why, since it has nothing visually in common with the VF-4 Lightning III, but for a non-canon VF-4 Siren that appeared in a video game.

There are a few others, but those two make the most sense. I would be most grateful to hear your thoughts on the matter, and with your permission, I might add a little bit of any good posted arguments to an article on naming the Metal Siren that'll be appearing on my website.

[Penguin]

As far as I've seen, the VF-1MS is purely a creation of ye olde Palladium RPG, and the VF-4 numbering tends to come from people's misinterpretation of the VF-X-4 Siren reference in the Macross Compendium, which is a reference to an old video game (2036 or Eternal Love Story... I don't remember) that featured the VF-4 Siren with a different, much more VF-1ish, battroid mode than Kawamori's eventual VF-4 Lightning battroid.

The "This Is Animation" volume you referenced earlier doesn't give the Metal Siren a designation, so I'd say that, according to the "canon" sources for Macross II, it doesn't have one.

The designers of Macross II didn't seem to have a lot of consistency behind their numbering. I believe they picked VF-2 'cause Macross had VF-1, forgetting about the VF-4 entirely. The dual lettering used in Macross II has the first letter for head style and the second for "air"/"atmosphere" or "space" (e.g. the VF-2JA has a head reminscent of the VF-1J, and it's atmosphere only). Lettering by head style, again, seems just to link it back to Macross rather than any attempt at a consistent approach. Then there's the VF-XX, which seems pulled out of thin air. (What... they'll never have another experimental VF? Will the next one be VF-XXX? Have to ship that one in a plain brown crate...)

If we were to speculate, though...

- Since the Metal Siren is supposed to be brand new, in theory it would have had a new number taken out for it. Thus, it would be a "5". Of course, by that rationale, they should have used "5" for the VF-XX. But anyway...

- The plane is more or less operational but not in production, so I'd say that makes it a prototype. Macross more or less follows American military naming conventions, so it would be a "YF".

- The Metal Siren has a unique head design, and we only see it in space, but that doesn't mean it isn't meant for dual-role. So, it's a toss-up. Maybe "MS" is as good as anything since it's a new head style ("M"?) and "S" for space.

So, maybe YF-5MS? Or YF-MS, if we assume no numbering like the VF-XX?

Of course, if you wanted to apply Macross numbering to the whole thing, it would actually look like this...

VF-1 Valkyire

VF-X-2 (never manufactured)

VF-X-3 (never manufactured)

VF-4 Lightning/Siren

VF-X-5 (instead of VF-XX)

VF-6A Valkyrie II

VF-7A Icarus

YF-8A Metal Siren

Edit: Spelling

Edited April 4, 2006 by Penguin

[Seto Kaiba]

Quick interruption, Penguin...

You do know that in real militaries, they do not always follow a numerical sequence for designating new technologies introduced. Sure, lately we've been working on a numerical scale, going F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, F/A-22... but there have been others taken out of sequence, including the F-111. Or should the B-2 Spirit have been made BEFORE the B-52? Numerical designation is not an effective yardstick to measure what was introduced into service and when.

If you want to get strictly down to it, the term VF-1MS cropped up mostly in the Palladium books and other references, discounting Animation Special #5. They started calling it the VF-1MS and it just sort of stuck. The name is semi-official, thanks in part to Palladium, and in part to some sections of the DVD. However, like I said, an official designation for the Metal Siren was never really mentioned. There are also, like I said, other mentions which put the Metal Siren at other numbers. There are enough design commonalities in the appearance of the VF-2SS and the VF-4 to include the VF-4 Lightning III in the timeline, since there is nothing there to exclude it explicitly or implicitly from the timeline. VF-1MS/YF-1MS following a head lettering scheme doesn't quite fit, since it's definately got a unique head, maybe the M is standing for that and the S for space, but more likely it's just short for Metal Siren.

Good analogy on the "VF-XX" it's another mystery fighter whose fighter mode actually only exists in art, and was never shown front and center in the animation. Palladium's excuse was that it was a limited-production model designed for Zentradi pilots. Still, since it rather defies conventional valkyrie designs in not having a GERWALK mode, and looking to be rather the long-lost cousin of the variable glaug, it's true name should probably remain up in the air. The Variable Glaug looks rather like a Nosjadeul Ger when in battroid, and the VF-XX looks rather like a Queadluun Rau power armor in battroid mode.

I'd say that if I had to assemble an approximate development timeline, I'd probably end up repeating myself somewhat from earlier posts with this little theorized timeline. The larger gaps are filled with mecha that bear strong design similarities to the VF-2SS and VF-2JA (namely the VF-1SR from Macross 2036 and the "VF-2A" which Nanashi calls the VF-XS). The reason I've numbered them in the order I have would reflect the same shift Kawamori made away from the design of the VF-4 and to a more traditional battroid design (VF-11) in another form, with the VF-1SR.

HYPOTHESIZED TIMELINE - NOT CANON

VF-0 Phoenix (~2008)

VF-1 Valkyrie (2009)

VF-4 Lightning (2020)

VF-1SR Valkyrie (2036)

VF-2A Valkyrie II (2060)

VF-XX Zentradi Valkyrie (2070)

VF-2SS Valkyrie II (2075)

VF-2JA Icarus (2075)

VF-3MS Metal Siren (2089)

HYPOTHESIZED TIMELINE - NOT CANON

[Zinjo]

If you want to get strictly down to it, the term VF-1MS cropped up mostly in the Palladium books and other references, discounting Animation Special #5. They started calling it the VF-1MS and it just sort of stuck. The name is semi-official, thanks in part to Palladium, and in part to some sections of the DVD. However, like I said, an official designation for the Metal Siren was never really mentioned.

True; in neither "This is Animation Special 5" or the "Entertainment Bible 51" is an actuall Alpha Numeric designation given to the Metal Siren. It is always referred to by name.

I'd say that if I had to assemble an approximate development timeline, I'd probably end up repeating myself somewhat from earlier posts with this little theorized timeline. The larger gaps are filled with mecha that bear strong design similarities to the VF-2SS and VF-2JA (namely the VF-1SR from Macross 2036 and the "VF-2A" which Nanashi calls the VF-XS). The reason I've numbered them in the order I have would reflect the same shift Kawamori made away from the design of the VF-4 and to a more traditional battroid design (VF-11) in another form, with the VF-1SR.

HYPOTHESIZED TIMELINE - NOT CANON

VF-0 Phoenix (~2008)

VF-1 Valkyrie (2009)

VF-4 Lightning (2020)

VF-1SR Valkyrie (2036)

VF-2A Valkyrie II (2060)

VF-XX Zentradi Valkyrie (2070)

VF-2SS Valkyrie II (2075)

VF-2JA Icarus (2075)

VF-3MS Metal Siren (2089)

HYPOTHESIZED TIMELINE - NOT CANON

387732[/snapback]

Not a bad listing, however the VF-0 never had an actual name AFAIK.

Though it is also concievable that these fighters could have a VF/A designation as opposed to the regular VF designation.

The VF Series were multi-purpose and multi-role fighters, whereas the VF-2s (or VF/A-2s) are more specialized and seemed designed as interceptor and attack fighters. The most specialized would be the MS that is clearly designed to attack capital ships as well as enemy fighter craft.

I would propose that the crafts could be designated:

VF/A-2JA ICARUS

VF/A-2SS VALKYRIE II

VF/A-3MS METAL SIREN

The designation would also identify them as a newer generation of Specialized Variable fighters not directly associated with the original VF series. IMO

[mechaninac]

Even Kawamori's Macross does not always follow the incremental numbering formula; the VF-3000 and VF-5000 both predate the VF-11... if a logical numbering progression were the absolute rule, than it would follow that the VF-5000 would come into service some 200+ years in the future of chronicled events.

There is absolutely nothing wrong or illogical with the VF numbering system applied to the Icarus and Valkyrie II; unorthodox maybe, but not a reason to dismiss them; after all, the VF-2 nomenclature was not taken by any previous VF placed in service. As mentioned, the second letter in the designation denotes primary operational environment... it would have made a bit more sense if the Icarus were the VF-2** and the VII a VF-3SS (the Icarus looks a bit more primitive), but since they are exclusive of each other in their intended roles, an exception could be made.

The VF-XX and Metal Siren, however, are much harder to explain and correlate with any numbering system.

One thing to remember is that Macross II takes place in what is an alternate future where anything after the VF-4, in SK's canon, never existed; as such, the numbering system is rather moot when applied to M2. Besides, it can be argued that M2's UN-SPACY revamped their numbering system altogether, for whatever reason, leading to the odd, confusing, state of affairs in their designations.

EDIT: Damn, I love this thread... one can get so verbose and opinionated about something so incredibly trivial.

Edited April 5, 2006 by mechaninac

[kensei]

Well, I believe that the Valkyrie 2 would look better with the SAP on if the wings were swept out since they are retracted so inward that they overlap the fuselage when the SAP is on.Other than that, I like it either with or with out the SAP.

387587[/snapback]

Given the SAP's booster/cannon design, I think that un-swept wings would actually interfere with the SAP's wings (the booms that support the large left and right missile/drone pods). Therefore, in the case of the VF-2SS, having the wings fully swept to battroid/deck storage mode makes sense. Besides, since the SAP is intended for space operations only, AFAIK, the wings are useless and are best kept out of the way; if, like the VF-1, the VF-2SS carried a wing mounted weapons load and had a more modestly sized, maybe without the booms, SAP, then having the wings out would definitely add to the look.

And it's not as if I don't like the craft with the SAP, I just like the Valkyrie II without it a bit more.

387606[/snapback]

I just think that for a Space Fighter, it is seriously undergunned without an SAP.

Anyway, those things are not only missile launchers, which is the only thing I like about the design, but they are also blast shields. I think they are designed to be a bit mobile and learn at angles in a limited fashion.

[Penguin]

You do know that in real militaries, they do not always follow a numerical sequence for designating new technologies introduced. Sure, lately we've been working on a numerical scale, going F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, F/A-22... but there have been others taken out of sequence, including the F-111. Or should the B-2 Spirit have been made BEFORE the B-52? Numerical designation is not an effective yardstick to measure what was introduced into service and when.

387732[/snapback]

Actually, the numerical sequence is followed... they just don't always make it into production. There was a YF-17, XF-20, XF-21, etc. for all the missing numbers (F-19 being a mysterious one, since what it was applied to has never been released publicly). Numbers are taken out for experimental and prototype designs too.

As for the F-111, F-117, etc., they were continuations of the Air Force numbering that goes back to before World War II. The "unified" numbering scheme (that crosses all armed forces) that was put in place in the 1960s which "rebooted" the numbering at 1. Some designs, however, had already been in design or production under the old numbering system, and so retained those numbers.

As far as the B-52 and B-2, again it goes back to the unified numbering scheme. When they introduced it, they started all the numbers over again at 1 for bombers too.

There are enough design commonalities in the appearance of the VF-2SS and the VF-4 to include the VF-4 Lightning III in the timeline, since there is nothing there to exclude it explicitly or implicitly from the timeline.

387732[/snapback]

I wasn't meaning to exclude the VF-4... I just meant the writers of Macross II probably ignored it and went to VF-2 to follow VF-1. In canon (such as that is for Macross II) it is a part of the timeline, as you mention.

VF-1MS/YF-1MS following a head lettering scheme doesn't quite fit, since it's definately got a unique head, maybe the M is standing for that and the S for space, but more likely it's just short for Metal Siren.

387732[/snapback]

I know... I was just trying to apply some kind of consistency to match the VF-2SS and VF-2JA. Most militaries don't add lettering that's an abbreviation of the plane name.

Good analogy on the "VF-XX" it's another mystery fighter whose fighter mode actually only exists in art, and was never shown front and center in the animation. Palladium's excuse was that it was a limited-production model designed for Zentradi pilots. Still, since it rather defies conventional valkyrie designs in not having a GERWALK mode, and looking to be rather the long-lost cousin of the variable glaug, it's true name should probably remain up in the air. The Variable Glaug looks rather like a Nosjadeul Ger when in battroid, and the VF-XX looks rather like a Queadluun Rau power armor in battroid mode.

387732[/snapback]

From what I understand, the VF-XX was supposed to be an advanced technology demonstrator. After the Neld fleet invasion, the UN Spacy used the VF-XX to examine new technology prior to creating the VF-2SS.

I'd say that if I had to assemble an approximate development timeline, I'd probably end up repeating myself somewhat from earlier posts with this little theorized timeline. The larger gaps are filled with mecha that bear strong design similarities to the VF-2SS and VF-2JA (namely the VF-1SR from Macross 2036 and the "VF-2A" which Nanashi calls the VF-XS). The reason I've numbered them in the order I have would reflect the same shift Kawamori made away from the design of the VF-4 and to a more traditional battroid design (VF-11) in another form, with the VF-1SR.

HYPOTHESIZED TIMELINE - NOT CANON

VF-0 Phoenix (~2008)

VF-1 Valkyrie (2009)

VF-4 Lightning (2020)

VF-1SR Valkyrie (2036)

VF-2A Valkyrie II (2060)

VF-XX Zentradi Valkyrie (2070)

VF-2SS Valkyrie II (2075)

VF-2JA Icarus (2075)

VF-3MS Metal Siren (2089)

HYPOTHESIZED TIMELINE - NOT CANON

387732[/snapback]

Since we're just hypothesizing, I guess any timeline's as good as another. You could apply a similar notion as the US restarting of the numbering. Maybe, after so long without any VF development, the UN Spacy decided to ignore all the model numbers that had come before, except the VF-1 (out of respect for the venerable fighter's long history) and start over at VF-2. That would fit with using VF-3 for the Metal Siren, and makes as much sense as anything. Makes more sense, to me, than going "backwards" to VF-1MS.

[Phalanx]

There is absolutely nothing wrong or illogical with the VF numbering system applied to the Icarus and Valkyrie II; unorthodox maybe, but not a reason to dismiss them; after all, the VF-2 nomenclature was not taken by any previous VF placed in service.  As mentioned, the second letter in the designation denotes primary operational environment... it would have made a bit more sense if the Icarus were the VF-2** and the VII a VF-3SS (the Icarus looks a bit more primitive), but since they are exclusive of each other in their intended roles, an exception could be made.

The VF-XX and Metal Siren, however, are much harder to explain and correlate with any numbering system.

One thing to remember is that Macross II takes place in what is an alternate future where anything after the VF-4, in SK's canon, never existed; as such, the numbering system is rather moot when applied to M2.  Besides, it can be argued that M2's UN-SPACY revamped their numbering system altogether, for whatever reason, leading to the odd, confusing, state of affairs in their designations.

EDIT: Damn, I love this thread... one can get so verbose and opinionated about something so incredibly trivial.  

387942[/snapback]

When you think about it, you have to understand that the number designation sequence was obviously based on the title of the M2 logo and SK did this with the VF-0 for Macross Zero and we have the VF-2JA and the VF-2SS for Macross 2. If SK were to hypothetically make a new Macross series called Macross V, chances are that the mainstay fighter for the series would probably be called the VF-5 or something. Catch my drift?

[mechaninac]

When you think about it, you have to understand that the number designation sequence was obviously based on the title of the M2 logo and SK did this with the VF-0 for Macross Zero and we have the VF-2JA and the VF-2SS for Macross 2. If SK were to hypothetically make a new Macross series called Macross V, chances are that the mainstay fighter for the series would probably be called the VF-5 or something. Catch my drift?

388347[/snapback]

Mmmm, maybe the OVA name Macross II had something to do with it in this case, but that does not explain the VF-XX (double experimental, VF-20 in Roman numerals?) or the Metal Siren (VF-1, 3, or 4 MS... take your pick). Besides, there is no evidence, other than the aforementioned M0, that the VF numbers have anything whatsoever to do with the program's name: SDF: Macross had the VF-1 (okay, first Macross series, first VF... but I doubt that there is any intentional correlation); the VF-4 appears in Flashback 2012, so the show should've been called Macross 4; Macross Plus should've been Macross 11, 19 or 21 since those planes appeared prominently in the OVA; Macross 7's hero plane should have been a VF-7, but it isn't... instead we get a bright red, VF-19 with a face, and the VF-11, VF-17, VF-22, etc. In the world of "official" Macross that theory does not hold water.

Edited April 6, 2006 by mechaninac

[Phalanx]

Mmmm, maybe the OVA name Macross II had something to do with it in this case, but that does not explain the VF-XX (double experimental, VF-20 in Roman numerals?) or the Metal Siren (VF-1, 3, or 4 MS... take your pick).  Besides, there is no evidence, other than the aforementioned M0, that the VF numbers have anything whatsoever to do with the program's name:  SDF: Macross had the VF-1 (okay, first Macross series, first VF... but I doubt that there is any intentional correlation); the VF-4 appears in Flashback 2012, so the show should've been called Macross 4; Macross Plus should've been Macross 11, 19 or 21 since those planes appeared prominently in the OVA; Macross 7's hero plane should have been a VF-7, but it isn't... instead we get a bright red, VF-19 with a face, and the VF-11, VF-17, VF-22, etc. In the world of "official" Macross that theory does not hold water.

388367[/snapback]

Mechaninac, you may be right about the VF-XX not showing any relation ship to the VF-2 valks(both variants) in terms of number designation but I think it has something to do with it's design aesthetic that S. Kaiba talked about earlier. Since the VF-XX is it's own individual design like a flying wing and not a variable geometry swing wing fighter like the VF-2s, chances are that it was named XX just to distinguish it from them unless hypothetically if the VF-XX had swing wings like the VF-2, it would probably be called the VF-2XX.

[mechaninac]

Mechaninac, you may be right about the VF-XX not showing any relation ship to the VF-2 valks(both variants) in terms of number designation but I think it has something to do with it's design aesthetic that S. Kaiba talked about earlier. Since the VF-XX is it's own individual design like a flying wing and not a variable geometry swing wing fighter like the VF-2s, chances are that it was named XX just to distinguish it from them unless hypothetically if the VF-XX had swing wings like the VF-2, it would probably be called the VF-2XX.

388376[/snapback]

Okay.... but where does that leave the Metal Siren (VF-2MS?) or the AJA-1JF, for that matter?

[Phalanx]

To be honest with you, I don't know but as for the Gerwalkroid, I can give you my honest assumption behind the 1 designation in it's model number. Since M2 is outside the official Macross cannon, I believe that the 1 in the JAJ-1JF represents the fact that the Gerwalkroid was the first UN Spacy mecha to be a hybrid of a destroid and a gerwalk opposed to the VB-6 Koenig Monster Being seen Macross VF-X. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

[Seto Kaiba]

Okay, this is starting to get a little on the annoying side... if you're going to debate, at least have the common courtesy to get the names of the mecha right. It's the AGA-1JF, not AJA, and the VF-2SS not VF-2S. To refresh your memories the names of the fighters are:

VF-2SS Valkyrie II

VF-2JA Icarus

VF-?(1)MS Metal Siren

VF-XX Zentradi Valkyrie

Zinjo, almost all variable fighters are multipurpose, but that never stopped them from being classified as VF instead of VF/A. And to me there really isn't much wrong with having the two different applications of a common design like the VF-2SS and 2JA. They're the same basic airframe, but they're used for two different applications, with mildly different equipment.

Naming the AGA-1JF a 1JF was deliberate, since it's not a valkyrie. It does not transform, and for all intents and purposes, it's basically a permanent gerwalk, and by the way it's designed and shown in Macross II seems to indicate that it's something like an attack helecopter destroid. It's not carrying enough guns to be a full-on destroid, and it's primary strength seems to be light guns and missiles, not too dissimilar from a support helecopter. It's the first of it's kind, so hence the number 1.

As for the VF-XX, I can say that it's fatally flawed to call it a flying wing, since the fighter mode has almost NO wing whatsoever. If I had to put a school of design to the VF-XX I'd say it was more of a lifting body than a flying wing. Flying wings, like the B-2 spirit, are ALL wing, they've just a big wing with the cockpit jammed front and center. A lifting body is more like the space shuttle, which for it's size has very little in the way of wing surface and relies on the underside of the body to provide additional lift.

As for the actual naming system, maybe they decided to number them based on their airframe similarity to the VF-1, or they decided to disavow the unified numbering system. For the most part, there isn't really anything wrong with the numbering system in Macross II or Macross 7, but for little wrinkles like the VF-XX, and the semi-unnamed Metal Siren, which aren't conventional designs, so it seems that they might've just taken the easy way out and decided to develop a separate, letter-based numbering system for the more Zentradi-like designs. I suppose that more than one fighter might fit into that too, with the variable glaug from earlier games, and the VF-XX from Macross II.

[Ginrai]

And to me there really isn't much wrong with having the two different applications of a common design like the VF-2SS and 2JA. They're the same basic airframe, but they're used for two different applications, with mildly different equipment.

388493[/snapback]

I don't understand how the VF-2SS and 2JA can be the same airframe when they're not the same shape and the battroid 2JA is WAY taller than the 2SS.

[Zinjo]

Zinjo, almost all variable fighters are multipurpose, but that never stopped them from being classified as VF instead of VF/A. And to me there really isn't much wrong with having the two different applications of a common design like the VF-2SS and 2JA. They're the same basic airframe, but they're used for two different applications, with mildly different equipment.

Yeah I saw the flaw in my post after realizing that the uniqueness of the numbering system in Mac 2 is the additional letter denoting the crafts primary combat role from your previous post.

Naming the AGA-1JF a 1JF was deliberate, since it's not a valkyrie. It does not transform, and for all intents and purposes, it's basically a permanent gerwalk, and by the way it's designed and shown in Macross II seems to indicate that it's something like an attack helecopter destroid. It's not carrying enough guns to be a full-on destroid, and it's primary strength seems to be light guns and missiles, not too dissimilar from a support helecopter. It's the first of it's kind, so hence the number 1.

I always liked the idea of the "AGA" Gerwalk, as I thought it was taking the idea of the SK's Armored Gerwalk design and making it a weapon system in itself.

However it's lack of any gun pod(s) or any real gun systems aboard seemed to make it far less effective than it could have been as a type of gunship design.

[Ginrai]

The most common one that seems to fit is VF-3MS. The general logic there is that since the Metal Siren has no visible relationship to any other existing model, it should get it's own number. Convienantly enough, VF-1, 2 and 4 happen to be taken, but not 3, which equally convienantly follows 2. (Technically VF-3 is taken, but only in the non-canon Macross: Remember Me, a 1993 PC game).

387666[/snapback]

Can't believe I missed this before. Macross II seems to be set in the same universe as those games. DYRL to Scrambled Valkyrie to the three PC98 games, to 2036, to Eternal Love Song, to Macross II. There's an old thread where I think Yoshi was going on an on about this, including translations of stuff from the old games.

I agree that VF-1MS is silly since it has nothing in common with the VF-1.

[Seto Kaiba]

Can't believe I missed this before. Macross II seems to be set in the same universe as those games. DYRL to Scrambled Valkyrie to the three PC98 games, to 2036, to Eternal Love Song, to Macross II. There's an old thread where I think Yoshi was going on an on about this, including translations of stuff from the old games.

I agree that VF-1MS is silly since it has nothing in common with the VF-1.

Well, I don't think it's that related to Scrambled Valkyrie, since the VF-1SOL-S looks nothing like any other fighter in the Macross II timeline, but it does eerily resemble the VF-0. The only game that comfortably fits into the Macross II style is Macross 2036, and only then because of the VF-1SR's alarming similarity to the VF-2SS's stylings. (Look around the head of it, you'll see what I mean).

I don't understand how the VF-2SS and 2JA can be the same airframe when they're not the same shape and the battroid 2JA is WAY taller than the 2SS.

Note that I said the same BASIC design, not the same design. Just like how there are multiple versions of most models of car, some with more seats, some with more features, etc. etc. that might not be the same length. Take the Ford F-150 for example (since I used to do PR for Ford, I know this particular vehicle intimately). The super cab and crew cab are different lengths, giving the back row either just as space or as an actual row of seats, yet they're still the same overall design. Just like how cockpits of certain models of fighters are adjusted or lengthened to fit two crew members instead of one, etc.

Sufficed to say they share enough characteristics in common, design wise, to be called a single family or a single generation of fighters, variants of the overall VF-2 design family. Kind of like how the VF-1SR and VF-1 look somewhat, but not entirely similar.

[mechaninac]

Okay, this is starting to get a little on the annoying side... if you're going to debate, at least have the common courtesy to get the names of the mecha right. It's the AGA-1JF, not AJA...

388493[/snapback]

So shoot me; and for your information, I got the designation from this site HERE. I was relying on a source of information that purports itself as being accurate; therefore, your nitpicking of a single letter (is it J of G?) is rather arrogant. Also, although I haven't done it myself, a lot of people just write VF-2 or VF-2S or VF-2J as shorthand... everybody knows perfectly well which VFs they are referring to.

Edited April 7, 2006 by mechaninac

[Seto Kaiba]

Okay, this is starting to get a little on the annoying side... if you're going to debate, at least have the common courtesy to get the names of the mecha right. It's the AGA-1JF, not AJA...

388493[/snapback]

So shoot me; and for your information, I got the designation from this site HERE. I was relying on a source of information that purports itself as being accurate; therefore, your nitpicking of a single letter (is it J of G?) is rather arrogant. Also, although I haven't done it myself, a lot of people just write VF-2 or VF-2S or VF-2J as shorthand... everybody knows perfectly well which VFs they are referring to.

388684[/snapback]

Naturally, I make a comment about multiple people not getting the names of the mecha right, and one person decides to take it as a personal slight. I assure you I'm not singling anyone out. To clarify, there were all sorts of interesting naming mistakes being made on all sides, and I even caught myself in one, so please don't assume I'm pointing fingers at you.

The actual name of the "Gerwalkroid" as cited by somewhat better known and more authoritative sites (including MAHQ), and also in the RPG books and a few other places, is AGA-1JF, which has been hypothesized by several to stand for Assault Ground and Air Jet Fighter type 1. The only places I've seen the AJA name used are M2M and a single geocities site run by the Antikevs. In the interest of fairness, we'll call that one as up in the air, since it's the mechanical equivalent of a chimera, a destroid and a valkyrie sort of melded into a single unit. An interesting design nonetheless.

But calling a VF-2SS or a VF-2JA a VF-2S or VF-2J would be about the same as me calling a VF-19 a VF-1 as shorthand, it makes it easy for anyone reading it to get confused about what the actual subject is, especially if they haven't seen Macross II in a while, or have been reading some of those wacked out Robotech sites that call some thing pirated from Orguss as the VF-2.

But I digress...

I've been looking at a fighter on Nanashi's called the VF-XS Valkyrie II prototype, and noting some interesting similarities in it's design not only to the somewhat more modern VF-2SS Valkyrie II, but also to the Metal Siren's design. Not entirely sure where Nanashi's got this thing, but it seems to me to be either a rejected VF-2SS design, or a possible A-type head for the Valkyrie II. As to comparing it to the Valkyrie II itself, the armor guards for the elbows and wrists are more pronounced, the feet are somewhat more narrow, and the top of the chest lacks the large projections on the Valkyrie II. Also, the "backpack" type engine in battroid mode is much less pronounced. There's one thing that doesn't look quite like it belongs, a rather odd airbrake system made up of the panels of the chest and legs. Looking at the head, I can't help but see a little bit of similarity between the VF-XS and the Metal Siren in terms of the head's elongated back and the arrangement of the face and forehead.

Edited April 7, 2006 by Seto Kaiba

[macrossvf-1msx]

I love them

[Seto Kaiba]

I love them

389876[/snapback]

Any particular reason why?