Valkyrie Development History from Hobby Handbook

[Radd]

In fact, didn't Graham or someone mentioned that the SWAG technology was present in the VF-1?

[Zentrandude]

cool translation. i always wondered about those pics when i saw them long ago. i always thought the -1 J was picking up some alien artifact or radioactive nugget, and the one with the arm ripping the tail off the other was some kind of battle move by a un pilot turn anti-un.

[Aegis!]

You keep repeating that to yourself , you might even believe it someday

explain this to me , how the heck are they supposed to integrate this overtechnology the VF-0 is testing into the VF-1 if the VF-1 has already been been tested and fully developed and is one step away from being released from the factories ?

yeah , keep ignoring all I've said but that still doesn't explain the fact that the VF-0 follows no logical criteria to be concidered a prototype of the VF-1.

[ewilen]

I think we've reached the stage where we're best off converting the discussion into a friendly wager.

However, the answer to your point is that the VF-0 was used to test overtechnology that is currently in the VF-1. Its usefulness as a technology test craft is virtually over. But since it does have the technology in it, in a form that's usable now, it's being produced in a limited run to meet the current exigency.

I don't think anyone is ignoring what you've said; we simply find it more likely that the Chronology is going to be revised. If you forget about the Chronology, the VF-0 doesn't have to be a "prototype" per se; it can just be a test aircraft or a side development. Back in the 40's & 50's, the US was developing all kinds of new fighters and producing them in small runs before we settled on a few major frontline types.

[Oihan]

I believe some of the US prototype aircrafts had technology not seen in the final product, all due to a budget. You can't exceed the budget the Gov. gives ya, so naturally you take out what isn't really necessary. Hence why we may not see the SWAG technology in the VF-1.

[Myersjessee]

THANKS!! Great read.

[Aegis!]

I think we've reached the stage where we're best off converting the discussion into a friendly wager.

However, the answer to your point is that the VF-0 was used to test overtechnology that is currently in the VF-1. Its usefulness as a technology test craft is virtually over. But since it does have the technology in it, in a form that's usable now, it's being produced in a limited run to meet the current exigency.

I don't think anyone is ignoring what you've said; we simply find it more likely that the Chronology is going to be revised. If you forget about the Chronology, the VF-0 doesn't have to be a "prototype" per se; it can just be a test aircraft or a side development. Back in the 40's & 50's, the US was developing all kinds of new fighters and producing them in small runs before we settled on a few major frontline types.

Now where are you getting that info from ? I haven't seen that info in either the OVAs nor the Compendium ...It's OK to speculate , which is mostly what everyone is doing , but to invent such nonsense is just ridiculous.

My argument is drawn directly from all the material available whereas your :-''VF-0 was used to test overtechnology that is currently in the VF-1.''- argument can in no way be backed up by anything in the OVAs or the Chronology.

The VF-1 is 20 years old and the design specifications have been available for quite a long time , so I really doubt Kawamori will suddenly say that the VF-1 has an energy converting armour such as the SW-AG armour the VF-0 features solely so that the VF-1 can be reffered as one of the ''future variable fighters'' the compendium is talking about (i.e. YF-19 & 21 pin-point barrier system , which is the only energy protective system present in a valkyrie apart from the VF-0 <_< )

It's fairly possible that Kawamori will take advantage of void that there's within the continuity before SW1 and even modify some details from it but I highly doubt he'll waste his time trying to fully esxplain the origins of the VF-0.

If the Anti-UN had a new variable fighter then why would the UN deploy an old rusty VF-1 prototype that was supposedly used more than 6 years ago (based on your argument ) ?

What role did the VF-0 play in the VF-1 development if they used the VF-X and VF-X-1 for tesing the VF-1's airframe (which is quite smaller than the VF-0 so it would be stupid to test the VF-0's airframe instead of the VF-1's particular airframe) and transformation mechanism ? What about all the other VF-1A prototypes which were already testing the thermonuclear engines before the VF-0 was ever deployed ? in other words , what's the point of producing 24+ VF-1 prototypes with conventional engines if the VF-1 was always designed for thermonuclear engines and all acknowledged VF-1 prototypes used thermonuclear engines ?

Ok , let's assume the VF-1 is one of these ''future variable fighters'' that feature energy converting armour, where are all the other systems that the VF-0 was testing at the same time the VF-1 was being finished in the factories ?

See my point ? where's the logic in bulding 24+ aircraft solely for testing overtechnology for another aircraft that is about to be released from the factories ? specially when none of these systems were ever integrated into the VF-1 design ...

Would the fact that the Anti-UN was also developing VFs not be enough to motivate the UN to start developing new fighters apart from the VF-1 which, if we remember well , was unavailable for deployment ?

And let me point out another thing everyone seems to have ignored up until now:

Gerwalk mode was supposed to have been discovered by accident during a VTOL test using the second VF-1A model , so how come the VF-0 pilots be so familiar with Gerwalk mode ? more over , how do you explain the VF-0 to have Gerwalk mode incorporated into the transformation modes ?

If it indeed was a pre-VF-1 protoype then it would only have Battroid and Fighter modes. Furthermore , the VF-0 features Omnidirectional HUD display which is only seen in future variable fighters like the YF-19 ; now , isn't this good enough proof that the reffered future variable fighters in the Compendium are indeed the SuperNova prototypes instead of the VF-1 ?

Face the facts , the VF-0 is not a VF-1 prototype.

Edited October 6, 2003 by Aegis!

[mikeszekely]

The VF-1 is 20 years old and the design specifications have been available for quite a long time , so I really doubt Kawamori will suddenly say that the VF-1 has an energy converting armour such as the SW-AG armour the VF-0 features solely so that the VF-1 can be reffered as one of the ''future variable fighters'' the compendium is talking about (i.e. YF-19 & 21 pin-point barrier system , which is the only energy protective system present in a valkyrie apart from the VF-0

Yes, but like I said, I think SW-AG is a new idea Kawamori had to explain things like why Battroids don't break when the crash into buildings. You know, the stuff we previously had to explain by saying "anime magic" or "well, that's hypercarbons for you." Then, most likely, SW-AG will become a retroactive addition to all the other variable fighters. And it's a simple fact that the SW-AG cannot be a reference to the pinpoint barrier used in the VF-19, VF-22, and YF-21, because the pinpoint barrier system was developed on board the SDF-1 in 2009. We see that clearly in Macross TV. The ones used on the AVFs are just scaled down versions of that.

If the Anti-UN had a new variable fighter then why would the UN deploy an old rusty VF-1 prototype that was supposedly used more than 6 years ago (based on your argument ) ?

They'd go with whatever worked. If the problems with the VF-1's engines left it unsuitable, they would go back to what did work, and refit it for combat.

what's the point of producing 24+ VF-1 prototypes with conventional engines if the VF-1 was always designed for thermonuclear engines and all acknowledged VF-1 prototypes used thermonuclear engines ?

Like I said, probably to test the transformation system. You'd still need a variable fighter that can fly and manouever properly to test that, and if the fusion engines aren't reliable, causing loss of control, crashing, and the like, that'd make the VF-1 more or less unsuitable. Build a few specials that are basically VF-1s designed for conventional engines, and you're back on track for testing.

Ok , let's assume the VF-1 is one of these ''future variable fighters'' that feature energy converting armour, where are all the other systems that the VF-0 was testing at the same time the VF-1 was being finished in the factories ?

Cut for budgetary reasons. The technology was too expensive to use at the time. The technology for it becomes cheaper, it shows up again in the VF-19, which was developed by Shinsei. Shinsei, as we know, is the result of mergers between the companies that originally developed the VF-0 and VF-1. Also, you're assuming that the VF-0 was built to test them just before the show. In fact, it seems more likely that their was a YF-0 earlier than that for testing the technologies, and the VF-0 is a limited production version of it for actual combat.

See my point ? where's the logic in bulding 24+ aircraft solely for testing overtechnology for another aircraft that is about to be released from the factories ? specially when none of these systems were ever integrated into the VF-1 design ...

I see your point... there was no reason to build so many. In fact, probably just 1-3 YF-0's. The design probably went into limited production, as I said, because it used conventional engines, and the reaction engines in the VF-1 weren't reliable enough for combat yet.

Gerwalk mode was supposed to have been discovered by accident during a VTOL test using the second VF-1A model , so how come the VF-0 pilots be so familiar with Gerwalk mode ? more over , how do you explain the VF-0 to have Gerwalk mode incorporated into the transformation modes ?

Easy. The YF-0 probably didn't. But to get it ready for combat, the controls in the VF-0 would be updated to allow for it. Remember, it's really about control. The transformation system itself allowed for it.

now , isn't this good enough proof that the reffered future variable fighters in the Compendium are indeed the SuperNova prototypes instead of the VF-1 ?

No.

Face the facts , the VF-0 is not a VF-1 prototype.

Sure looks like it to me. As a matter of fact, if it wasn't, and it was, engines aside, technologically superior to the VF-1, why bother fielding the VF-1 at all? Why not refit it for reaction engines and adopt it as the main variable fighter for the UN forces instead?

Edited October 6, 2003 by mikeszekely

[ewilen]

However, the answer to your point is that the VF-0 was used to test overtechnology that is currently in the VF-1. Its usefulness as a technology test craft is virtually over. But since it does have the technology in it, in a form that's usable now, it's being produced in a limited run to meet the current exigency.

I don't think anyone is ignoring what you've said; we simply find it more likely that the Chronology is going to be revised. If you forget about the Chronology, the VF-0 doesn't have to be a "prototype" per se; it can just be a test aircraft or a side development. Back in the 40's & 50's, the US was developing all kinds of new fighters and producing them in small runs before we settled on a few major frontline types.

Now where are you getting that info from ? I haven't seen that info in either the OVAs nor the Compendium ...It's OK to speculate , which is mostly what everyone is doing , but to invent such nonsense is just ridiculous.

Aegis, let me preface this by asking that you treat my comments with the same respect that I treat yours. I take offense at being accused of "inventing nonsense".

Now it is true that I am speculating, which I thought should be clear from the context. I'm only trying to fill in the gaps, ambiguities, and contradictions in the existing facts. If you would care to lay out your version of the facts, and then show how you draw inferences and conclusions from them, I'm all ears. But I think everything is already out there. We have:

1) The Chronology, which you take very seriously. Others do not, because it's not part of the animation and because Kawamori has said he won't worry if some of the continuity is upset by his new story (or something to that effect).

2) The description of the VF-0 as being a "trial production model and testbed for advanced jet engines and Overtechnology designed for future variable fighters." By itself this is ambiguous. Only if you take the Chronology as set in stone does it become significant.

3) The description of the VF-0 by Kawamori as being a predecessor or prototype. Unfortunately, the exact quote is inaccessible because the old forums are down. Interestingly, the Compendium does have this from Egan Loo (bold added by me):

Macross co-creator and mecha designer Shoji Kawamori said that variable fighters in general employ surplus energy to strengthen armor in Battroid mode. The designation SW-AG was specified for Macross Zero's VF-0, although Mr. Kawamori publicly described the general technology of energy converting armor before Macross Zero and actually conceived it longer before.

The VF-0 pre-dates the VF-1 Valkyrie in both development and deployment. At the time of the first Macross series, Shoji Kawamori did write in the first version of the Macross Chronology that the VF-1 Valkyrie was to have started production in November of 2007, However, at the time of Macross Plus and Macross 7, the creators wrote in version 2 of the chronology that the VF-1 Valkyrie did not actually start production and fly until late 2008 -- despite being scheduled to mass-produce in 2007. Later, Macross Zero gives the explanation that the thermonuclear reaction engines were not ready in time. Therefore, the earlier VF-0 (which could accomodate the large conventional engines that the VF-1 Valkyrie was too small for) was deployed first into actual combat on a provisional basis.

Some of this may be inference by Egan but the indirect quote of Kawamori is fairly definitive.

4) The general fact that M0 is a prequel, from which we can make general inferences based on theories about prequels and audience expectations and understanding. I don't consider such inferences compelling, but I do believe they weigh on the side of the VF-0 being a predecessor or prototype, not a parallel development which is more advanced.

My argument is drawn directly from all the material available whereas your :-''VF-0 was used to test overtechnology that is currently in the VF-1.''- argument can in no way be backed up by anything in the OVAs or the Chronology.

Your argument comes from points (1) and (2) above, and depends on the immutability of the Chronology and a particular interpretation of point (2). My argument considers the possibility that the Chronology can be revised, that the description in point (2) is subject to multiple interpretations--depending on how rigidly we apply the Chronology, and that the creator of the series has himself commented that the VF-0 is a predecessor or prototype of the VF-1.

The VF-1 is 20 years old and the design specifications have been available for quite a long time , so I really doubt Kawamori will suddenly say that the VF-1 has an energy converting armour such as the SW-AG armour the VF-0 features solely so that the VF-1 can be reffered as one of the ''future variable fighters'' the compendium is talking about (i.e. YF-19 & 21 pin-point barrier system , which is the only energy protective system present in a valkyrie apart from the VF-0 <_< )

Well, he has. Mike has addressed your point about the pinpoint barrier system. Mike has also done a good job of answering your other points, so I won't repeat them here.

[Aurel Tristen]

I think we've reached the stage where we're best off converting the discussion into a friendly wager.

However, the answer to your point is that the VF-0 was used to test overtechnology that is currently in the VF-1. Its usefulness as a technology test craft is virtually over. But since it does have the technology in it, in a form that's usable now, it's being produced in a limited run to meet the current exigency.

I don't think anyone is ignoring what you've said; we simply find it more likely that the Chronology is going to be revised. If you forget about the Chronology, the VF-0 doesn't have to be a "prototype" per se; it can just be a test aircraft or a side development. Back in the 40's & 50's, the US was developing all kinds of new fighters and producing them in small runs before we settled on a few major frontline types.

Now where are you getting that info from ? I haven't seen that info in either the OVAs nor the Compendium ...It's OK to speculate , which is mostly what everyone is doing , but to invent such nonsense is just ridiculous.

My argument is drawn directly from all the material available whereas your :-''VF-0 was used to test overtechnology that is currently in the VF-1.''- argument can in no way be backed up by anything in the OVAs or the Chronology.

The VF-1 is 20 years old and the design specifications have been available for quite a long time , so I really doubt Kawamori will suddenly say that the VF-1 has an energy converting armour such as the SW-AG armour the VF-0 features solely so that the VF-1 can be reffered as one of the ''future variable fighters'' the compendium is talking about (i.e. YF-19 & 21 pin-point barrier system , which is the only energy protective system present in a valkyrie apart from the VF-0 )

It's fairly possible that Kawamori will take advantage of void that there's within the continuity before SW1 and even modify some details from it but I highly doubt he'll waste his time trying to fully esxplain the origins of the VF-0.

If the Anti-UN had a new variable fighter then why would the UN deploy an old rusty VF-1 prototype that was supposedly used more than 6 years ago (based on your argument ) ?

What role did the VF-0 play in the VF-1 development if they used the VF-X and VF-X-1 for tesing the VF-1's airframe (which is quite smaller than the VF-0 so it would be stupid to test the VF-0's airframe instead of the VF-1's particular airframe) and transformation mechanism ? What about all the other VF-1A prototypes which were already testing the thermonuclear engines before the VF-0 was ever deployed ? in other words , what's the point of producing 24+ VF-1 prototypes with conventional engines if the VF-1 was always designed for thermonuclear engines and all acknowledged VF-1 prototypes used thermonuclear engines ?

Ok , let's assume the VF-1 is one of these ''future variable fighters'' that feature energy converting armour, where are all the other systems that the VF-0 was testing at the same time the VF-1 was being finished in the factories ?

See my point ? where's the logic in bulding 24+ aircraft solely for testing overtechnology for another aircraft that is about to be released from the factories ? specially when none of these systems were ever integrated into the VF-1 design ...

Would the fact that the Anti-UN was also developing VFs not be enough to motivate the UN to start developing new fighters apart from the VF-1 which, if we remember well , was unavailable for deployment ?

And let me point out another thing everyone seems to have ignored up until now:

Gerwalk mode was supposed to have been discovered by accident during a VTOL test using the second VF-1A model , so how come the VF-0 pilots be so familiar with Gerwalk mode ? more over , how do you explain the VF-0 to have Gerwalk mode incorporated into the transformation modes ?

If it indeed was a pre-VF-1 protoype then it would only have Battroid and Fighter modes. Furthermore , the VF-0 features Omnidirectional HUD display which is only seen in future variable fighters like the YF-19 ; now , isn't this good enough proof that the reffered future variable fighters in the Compendium are indeed the SuperNova prototypes instead of the VF-1 ?

Face the facts , the VF-0 is not a VF-1 prototype.

Actually, in a 1999 interview with Shoji Kawamori, it was stated that the VF-1 did possess energy converting armor. This was included in a movie file format on the B.G.I. Series Macross 15th Anniversary CD-ROM from U-Print.

[Mr March]

Thanks WJ. This topic needed that.

[Mechwolf]

I think that the VF-0 is a predecessor, but not a prototype of the VF-1. Despite their similarities, The VF-0 is too different from the VF-1 to be a true prototype of the VF-1. Prototypes are usually about 99% the same as their 1st run mass-production siblings. The VF-0 is more like an older cousin to the VF-1, rather than a sibling.

[Aurel Tristen]

While the first VF-1A flew in 2006 (although the Compendium has it listed as the VF-X-1's first flight as 2007, with the first VF-1A's not actually going into production until December of 2008) it seems they had problems with the engines right up until 2009.

It's possible that the VF-0 was originally built, perhaps in smaller numbers, as a sort of re-designed VF-1 to use conventional engines BUT to test other areas of the VF-X development. Like say, transformation. I'd assume that they'd want more reliable engines for testing something like that. Then, when they got word that the Anti-UN had a working variable fighter, they retooled the design to get it combat ready, maybe built a few more, then sent it off to war. During it's role in the VF-X program, it might have been considered a YF or VF-X plane. But, having fulfilled whatever test duties it had, and now being used for actual combat, it might then be reclassified as VF-0.

The Compendium doesn't say anything about the VF-0 being a test bed for technology beyond the VF-1. It says that it's a testbed and trial production model for advanced jet engines and Overtechnology designed for future variable fighters. If the VF-0 is a page from the same VF-X program that gave us the VF-1, then any technology tested could indeed apply to the VF-1. Overtechnology is a broad term... it could refer to the SW-AG, the cyclops radar, or even the transformation system itself. Simple fact is, we don't know enough about the VF-0. We don't know if it was built from scratch long into VF-1 development, or if it was part of the VF-X program, or what. We know that when the VF-0 is deployed, the VF-1 is just about finished, but we don't know how old the VF-0 is by that time, either. If it was built to be a testbed, then adopted for combat later, it could still be older than the VF-1. I'm still inclined to believe that the VF-0 and the VF-1 have common roots, and that the VF-0 is either older than the VF-1, or a production model of something older than the VF-1. Although the Compendium doesn't explicity say that other VFs incorporate SW-AG technology, I don't think that Egan cares to go back and add it to to all the variable fighter entries, and I think that Kawamori implied it. It explains things like why all Hikaru's crashing into buildings at the beginning of Macross TV didn't do any damage to his Battroid. I don't think it's a reference to the pin-point barriers used on the AVFs, because they're clearly scaled-down versions of the pin-point barrier they accidentally discovered on the Macross much later.

I must correct you here.

This Valkyrie Development History states that the VF-1A Valkyie first flew on November 29th. This was in the year 2008.

Nanashi's Information Group

http://manuals.macrossmecha.info/vf1/fact/...tory/index.html

"...development team completed basic design 2005; one non-transformable VF-X flight test machine and one transformable VF-X-1 produced; first flight February 2007; space-worthiness tests begin in June 2007. Decision made to formally introduce the VF-X1 November 2007.

and

"Development and mass production of VF-1A starts November and December of 2008...."

http://macross.anime.net/mecha/united_nati.../vf1/index.html

Also see: http://www.anime.net/macross/story/chronol...1999/index.html

"November 29

Maiden flight of the first trial production VF-1A variable fighter."

-Macross Compendium

[mikeszekely]

While the first VF-1A flew in 2006 (although the Compendium has it listed as the VF-X-1's first flight as 2007, with the first VF-1A's not actually going into production until December of 2008) it seems they had problems with the engines right up until 2009.

It's possible that the VF-0 was originally built, perhaps in smaller numbers, as a sort of re-designed VF-1 to use conventional engines BUT to test other areas of the VF-X development.  Like say, transformation.  I'd assume that they'd want more reliable engines for testing something like that.  Then, when they got word that the Anti-UN had a working variable fighter, they retooled the design to get it combat ready, maybe built a few more, then sent it off to war.  During it's role in the VF-X program, it might have been considered a YF or VF-X plane.  But, having fulfilled whatever test duties it had, and now being used for actual combat, it might then be reclassified as VF-0.

The Compendium doesn't say anything about the VF-0 being a test bed for technology beyond the VF-1.  It says that it's a testbed and trial production model for advanced jet engines and Overtechnology designed for future variable fighters.  If the VF-0 is a page from the same VF-X program that gave us the VF-1, then any technology tested could indeed apply to the VF-1.  Overtechnology is a broad term... it could refer to the SW-AG, the cyclops radar, or even the transformation system itself.  Simple fact is, we don't know enough about the VF-0.  We don't know if it was built from scratch long into VF-1 development, or if it was part of the VF-X program, or what.  We know that when the VF-0 is deployed, the VF-1 is just about finished, but we don't know how old the VF-0 is by that time, either.  If it was built to be a testbed, then adopted for combat later, it could still be older than the VF-1.  I'm still inclined to believe that the VF-0 and the VF-1 have common roots, and that the VF-0 is either older than the VF-1, or a production model of something older than the VF-1.  Although the Compendium doesn't explicity say that other VFs incorporate SW-AG technology, I don't think that Egan cares to go back and add it to to all the variable fighter entries, and I think that Kawamori implied it.  It explains things like why all Hikaru's crashing into buildings at the beginning of Macross TV didn't do any damage to his Battroid.  I don't think it's a reference to the pin-point barriers used on the AVFs, because they're clearly scaled-down versions of the pin-point barrier they accidentally discovered on the Macross much later.

I must correct you here.

This Valkyrie Development History states that the VF-1A Valkyie first flew on November 29th. This was in the year 2008.

Nanashi's Information Group

http://manuals.macrossmecha.info/vf1/fact/...tory/index.html

"...development team completed basic design 2005; one non-transformable VF-X flight test machine and one transformable VF-X-1 produced; first flight February 2007; space-worthiness tests begin in June 2007. Decision made to formally introduce the VF-X1 November 2007.

and

"Development and mass production of VF-1A starts November and December of 2008...."

http://macross.anime.net/mecha/united_nati.../vf1/index.html

Also see: http://www.anime.net/macross/story/chronol...1999/index.html

"November 29

Maiden flight of the first trial production VF-1A variable fighter."

-Macross Compendium

Thanks, WJ, but you'll notice that I have the correct dates in parentheses. The date of 2006 I took from one of Aegis' earlier posts. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt of having got that date from a legit source.

[Aegis!]

I must correct you here.

This Valkyrie Development History states that the VF-1A Valkyie first flew on November 29th. This was in the year 2008.

Nanashi's Information Group

http://manuals.macrossmecha.info/vf1/fact/...tory/index.html

"...development team completed basic design 2005; one non-transformable VF-X flight test machine and one transformable VF-X-1 produced; first flight February 2007; space-worthiness tests begin in June 2007. Decision made to formally introduce the VF-X1 November 2007.

and

"Development and mass production of VF-1A starts November and December of 2008...."

http://macross.anime.net/mecha/united_nati.../vf1/index.html

Also see: http://www.anime.net/macross/story/chronol...1999/index.html

"November 29

Maiden flight of the first trial production VF-1A variable fighter."

-Macross Compendium

And yet with all these evidence at hand people still argue that the VF-0 is an old VF-1 prototype used for transformation tests ( )...

[Lightning]

btw, dont forget that the avionics in the -0 are more advanced than those in the -1A, so my guess is that the avionics from the zero went into the -1J/S

[ewilen]

Aegis, I still don't see how the evidence from the Chronology tells us that the VF-0 is a parallel program and not a predecessor, even if we set aside for the moment the fact that Egan Loo has reported that "the VF-0 pre-dates the VF-1 Valkyrie in both development and deployment."

We know when the VF-1 was developed, and we know from the Chronology that the prototypes began flight tests in February, 2007. Both the Chronology and the VF-1 entry at the Compendium also say that VF-1A production started in November, 2008, with the maiden flight of a production model on November 29.

We don't know when the VF-0 was originally designed. It incorporates Overtechnology, so it postdates July 17, 1999, when the ASS-1 fell to earth. It predates the Mayan incident in September, 2008. Can you explain to me what prevents the VF-0 from having been designed and produced in small numbers prior to February, 2007, to test technology which would be in the VF-1? It could later have been made in a small production run as a stopgap when the VF-1 wasn't ready for combat and the UN got wind of the SV-51 program. Either initially or later it could also have served as a stopgap training vehicle so that a cadre of pilots could develop variable fighter tactics while they waited for the VF-1 to go into production.

The dates given in the piece which WJ posted at Nanashi's don't even agree with the current Chronology, so I don't see how they can be advanced as evidence. Furthermore, the piece dates the accidental discovery of Gerwalk mode to February, 2009, after the Mayan incident. Yet we see Gerwalks being used throughout M0. So while WJ and his colleagues have done a wonderful job and made a great contribution to Macross lore, I'm afraid the "Valkyrie Development History" is old material that has been superseded by new decisions on the part of Kawamori.

At this point, I think the main thing you have going for your theory is the advanced displays in the VF-0. Even that may be explained as a feature that was left out of the VF-1--or it may be an oversight or minor continuity glitch. Which again, Kawamori has said would not trouble him greatly. Another thing that might lend support to your theory is the fact that the Compendium's listing for the VF-0 calls it a "Northrop Grumman/Stonewell/Shinsei VF-0" while the VF-1 was made by Stonewell/Bellcom. But Shinsei wasn't formed by the merger of Shinnakasu Heavy Industry and Stonewell Bellcom until 2012. (As noted in the VF-5000 listing.) So we might suppose that the VF-0 was maintained by Stonewell and Shinsei as a testbed for future technology past the VF-1 even after SW1. (The design could have survived even if none of the aircraft did.)

However, on the whole, I don't see any evidence which would outweigh the comments of Kawamori himself and other indications that the VF-0 is a predecessor to the VF-1 and generally not more advanced technologically.

Edited October 8, 2003 by ewilen

[NoSuchFile]

I think it's quite simple to guess the reason of the VF-0 being built in the first place, like it's mentionned, the thermo nuclear engine wasen't combat ready by that time, the anti-UN had a brand new variable fighter that they where putting on the front lines and the UNS didn't have anything to go up against it.

They simply made the VF-0 in a hurry to go against the SV-51, the VF-1 more than possibly has all the technologocal gimics the VF-0 had + the new engines, the reason why the VF-0 can't be a simple VF-1 with standart engines was because it needs a bigger frame to hold enough fuel.

The reason why we don't see any of those cool gimics was because the VF-1 was designed by Kawamori-San in the 80's, he had no way to predict what the technologies our actual modern fighters would have, now that he knows, he simply made the VF-0 up to date with our current technological knowledge, the VF-1 if designed today would be more futuristic than the VF-0, it simply reflects the technologies seen in airplanes during the 80's, that is reflected in the Valkyrie Development History written by Studio Nue B)

[Nied]

A few thoughts. SW-AG armour would explain why Misa ordered Hikaru to change to batroid mode in the first episode. I'm not sure how it got in every-ones heads that the VF-0 has a virtualy reality cockpit. The only shot that suggests that is from when Roy first converts to Batroid, and that whole sequence is rather stylized anyway, every other shot shows standard flat panel monitors.

[Aurel Tristen]

The dates given in the piece which WJ posted at Nanashi's don't even agree with the current Chronology, so I don't see how they can be advanced as evidence. Furthermore, the piece dates the accidental discovery of Gerwalk mode to February, 2009, after the Mayan incident. Yet we see Gerwalks being used throughout M0. So while WJ and his colleagues have done a wonderful job and made a great contribution to Macross lore, I'm afraid the "Valkyrie Development History" is old material that has been superseded by new decisions on the part of Kawamori.

At this point, I think the main thing you have going for your theory is the advanced displays in the VF-0. Even that may be explained as a feature that was left out of the VF-1--or it may be an oversight or minor continuity glitch. Which again, Kawamori has said would not trouble him greatly. Another thing that might lend support to your theory is the fact that the Compendium's listing for the VF-0 calls it a "Northrop Grumman/Stonewell/Shinsei VF-0" while the VF-1 was made by Stonewell/Bellcom. But Shinsei wasn't formed by the merger of Shinnakasu Heavy Industry and Stonewell Bellcom until 2012. (As noted in the VF-5000 listing.) So we might suppose that the VF-0 was maintained by Stonewell and Shinsei as a testbed for future technology past the VF-1 even after SW1. (The design could have survived even if none of the aircraft did.)

However, on the whole, I don't see any evidence which would outweigh the comments of Kawamori himself and other indications that the VF-0 is a predecessor to the VF-1 and generally not more advanced technologically.

I don't think the continuity has been totally thrown out of the window... maybe it hasn't been thrown out of the window at all....

There is always the possibility that the GERWALK discovery could just a a misreported accident (military lie : ) to cover the top secret VF-0 Program.

And yes, the company "Shinsei Industry" was not officially formed until 2012, however the "Shinsei" design team which consisted of members from both Stonewell[/bellcom] and Shinnakasu had been working together.

"So we might suppose that the VF-0 was maintained by Stonewell and Shinsei as a testbed for future technology past the VF-1 even after SW1. (The design could have survived even if none of the aircraft did.)"

Yes, I agree with that.

[EganLoo]

Please ignore the title of this thread. Studio Nue did not write the Development History of Battroid (Valkyrie Development History) in this book. It was written by Tatsuto Nagayama of General Products (a popular 1980s garage-kit company) using revised notes. Those are the reasons why it contradicts Studio Nue's own description of the Valkyrie's development, such as its assertion that the Valkyrie's mass production began in March 2009, after the Studio Nue's Macross launch date.

http://www.anime.net/macross/production/print/general/

http://www.anime.net/macross/story/chronology/

[Duke Togo]

Man, its good to have you back, Egan.

[Knight26]

Man I missed this thread entriely when it came out, and now the link is dead. Was it a translation of the MAT book? Even if it isn't completely accurate I would have loved to have checked that out, especially if it had the illustrations as well. Hey Nanshi, do you have it in PDF format? Welcome back Egan, the walking Macross database has returned.

[Capt Hungry]

I too would like to read this.

[pfunk]

me 3

[ewilen]

It's not from MAT, it's from the Macross Hobby Handbook. http://www.macrossworld.com/macross/books/...s_hobbyhand.htm

I also would like to see that information online again. Even if it's not canonical, it's a valuable part of Macross lore.

[Aurel Tristen]

Please ignore the title of this thread. Studio Nue did not write the Development History of Battroid (Valkyrie Development History) in this book. It was written by Tatsuto Nagayama of General Products (a popular 1980s garage-kit company) using revised notes. Those are the reasons why it contradicts Studio Nue's own description of the Valkyrie's development, such as its assertion that the Valkyrie's mass production began in March 2009, after the Studio Nue's Macross launch date.

http://www.anime.net/macross/production/print/general/

http://www.anime.net/macross/story/chronology/

Whoa.... this is interesting. I was mistaken about Tatsuto Nagayama

I apologize. My misunderstanding.

I would like to know which people, exactly make up Studio Nue besides Shoji Kawamori, Kazutaka Miyatake, Haruhiko Mikimoto, Kiyomi Tanaka and Masahiro Chiba....

[Radd]

It seems to me that Nanashi does have real sources for all his material, it's simply a matter of discerning what's cannon and what's not, and a little polishing of the translations. I think we should be encouraging Nanashi and Egan to work together, since even the non-cannon material is often very interesting, and Nanashi has shown he does like to translate those and mark them as non-cannon references. Such as some of the videogame mecha.

Edited March 4, 2004 by Radd

[Marso]

I haven't been able to get that link to work.

What's the homepage?

[Aurel Tristen]

I haven't been able to get that link to work.

What's the homepage?

Nanashi's Information Group

http://www.macrossmecha.info/

Zjentohlauedy Variable Machine

(from Macross Digital Mission VF-X/ Macross VF-X 2)

http://nanashi.macrossmecha.info/resrc/cat...le_machine.html

[ewilen]

I don't think Mikimoto is/was a member of Studio Nue. His studio is/was Artland. But I think that the character designs that he did for Macross were "work for hire"--at least, that would explain why the SDF Macross character design copyright belongs to Studio Nue/Big West.

[maxjenius81]

It seems to me that Nanashi does have real sources for all his material, it's simply a matter of discerning what's cannon and what's not, and a little polishing of the translations. I think we should be encouraging Nanashi and Egan to work together, since even the non-cannon material is often very interesting, and Nanashi has shown he does like to translate those and mark them as non-cannon references. Such as some of the videogame mecha.

I agree, non-cannon material fleshes out a universe immensely. Look at Gundam, the fans are responsible for filling in a lot of gaps. While not exactly cannon, these fill ins make things a lot more interesting. I;d rather have a great deal of non-cannon material explaining various things about the background of the VF-1 (such as Skull One's old super in depth VF-1 history) than just what the compendium says.

[Angel's Fury]

I haven't been able to get that link to work.

What's the homepage?

Nanashi's Information Group

http://www.macrossmecha.info/

Zjentohlauedy Variable Machine

(from Macross Digital Mission VF-X/ Macross VF-X 2)

http://nanashi.macrossmecha.info/resrc/cat...le_machine.html

Thank you very much! I too wasn't able to get that link to work.

[azrael]

I don't think Mikimoto is/was a member of Studio Nue. His studio is/was Artland. But I think that the character designs that he did for Macross were "work for hire"--at least, that would explain why the SDF Macross character design copyright belongs to Studio Nue/Big West.

I forgot which studio Mikimoto worked for but he was definitely not part of Studio Nue. That part I do remember. I don't believe he was part of Artland but I'll have to check.

[ewilen]

http://www.ex.org/2.2/04-artland1.html

http://www.anime.net/macross/fallacies/

From the second link, "Haruhiko Mikimoto was in Studio Nue for a brief period until 1980, but had changed studios to Artland before the first Macross series started."